Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L92-0080 - CROONQUIST ALFRED - WAREHOUSE DESIGN REVIEW
l92-0080 6540 south glacier street expired alfred croonquist office warehouse City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor July 25, 1995 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Al Croonquist Alfred Croonquist Architects 112 Fifth Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Re: L92 -0080 & L92 -0081 Dear Mr. Croonquist: I regret to inform you that we cannot approve the time extension for your Board of Architectural approval and Shoreline Permit for the Lot 4 Southcenter South Industrial Park project. The Conditions of Approval for this project, as established by the Board of Architectural Review on July 22, 1993, stated: Condition 6: A two year limit will be applied to BAR approval of this proposal, consistent with the time limit applied to the accompanying Substantial Development Permit per the Shoreline Master Plan. At the end of two years, BAR approval will be rescinded if a building permit has not been secured for the proposal. State law dictates the conditions of your shoreline permit. On the information cover sheet on your application, it stated: "Construction or substantial progress towards construction must begin within two (2) years after approval of the permit." This is a requirement based on WAC 173 -14 -060, which states: (1) Substantial progress toward completion of a permitted activity shall be undertaken within two years after the approval of the permit by local government. Substantial progress shall include all of the following where applicable: The making of contracts; signing of notice to proceed; completion of grading and excavation; and the laying of major utilities; or, where no construction is involved, commencement of the activity: Provided, that local government may authorize a single extension before the end of the time limit, with prior notice to parties of record and the department, for up to one year based on reasonable factors. As I mentioned to you, submittal of a complete building permit application might have been considered a 'reasonable factor.' However, your building permit application is not complete. It needs to reflect the Uniform Building Code currently in use, it must reflect all conditions agreed to in the BAR hearing, and it must include structural drawings. We would also have 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670 • Fax (206) 431.3665 had to receive a complete application in time to notify the appropriate parties of record, as stated above. If you would like to re- submit your project to the BAR and re -apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, we will make every effort to expedite the project. Please note that public notice requirements for Shoreline Permits are established by the state, and these time frames cannot be altered. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS division of MULVANNY PARTNERSHIP P.S. July 20, 1995 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director, Department of Community Development City of Tukwila, WA RE: LOT 4 SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK Dear Steve, Q OEV(LOPt This letter is submitted on behalf of the ESTATE OF JAMES E. CAMPBELL and will request a two year extension of the BAR Approval and the SHORELINE Approval, both of which were approved on July 22, 1993. As you will recall, the BAR Approval was subject to considerable review and comment and is a process which is time consuming and costly for all parties. Due to the cost (approximately $100,000) to meet all requirements for a building permit the Estate, owner of the property, has elected not to risk this amount of money until they have a definite tenant for the building. At the time the Estate purchased the property from Corporate Property Investors it was their intention to have our firm proceed with permit drawings (there were two prospective tenants interested in the project at that time). At the owners direction we completed the required architectural drawings and specifications and developed a proposed construction completion schedule (see attached drawings specifications and correspondence) I mention this because significant efforts have been made to develop this project from August 1993 until now. The real estate market in the area has been sluggish for the past 2 years, but has not diminished the Estate's interest in this project. The Estate's choice is a difficult one. If they elect to let the approvals lapse and a prospective tenant shows up next week the delay to re- instate the BAR and Shoreline Approvals plus construction will put the occupancy date 1 -1/2 to 2 years away, too long for any tenant to wait for occupancy. If an extension (maximum 2 years) is approved the owner can move quickly to complete the drawings and assure the tenant that they can move in within 10 months. 112 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH • SEATTLE, WA 98109 • (206) 441 -2207 • FAX (206) 441 -8372 ....... .................. ... Page 2 Our review of the shoreline 5 year limit and the local jurisdictions ability to extend the BAR Approval for 2 years (with the condition that a real effort to obtain permits is under way) will form the basis for this request. The Colliers Real Estate Group who represents the Estate is putting forth their maximum effort and discussions are currently under way with prospective tenants. This letter will respectfully request a 2 year extension on the approvals for this project. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, Alfrid H. Croonquist, A.I.A. Principal Alfred Croonquist Architects AHC /rd Encl. 8 Sheets of Architectural Drawings 2 Letters of Projected Completion Schedules Dated September 25, 1994 and April 17, 1995 R it JUL 2 r 1995 17EVELOPT L1, 1 ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3100 SEATTLE WA 98101 • 682 -2690 • FAX 682 -3016 April 17, 1995 Ms. Wilma M. Warshak Colliers Macaulay Nicolls International 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98104 SUBJECT: Estate of James Campbell Property Lot 4 and Frontage Property Southcenter South Industrial Park Wilma: At your request, I am submitting estimated schedules for completing the above projects (including an option for one distribution building instead of two on the Frontage property). There is still one significant unknown which will affect the timing. As you know, a new Uniform Building Code is going into effect on July 1, 1995. No one is sure what this will do to the building permit process with regard to delays, but the expectation is that it will be significant. Obviously, the following timetable will have to adjust to any delays caused by the above code change. There is an opening on the June 22 Tukwila Board of Architectural Review, but it is unlikely we will be able to produce the required information in time to submit for the June 22nd opening. (The required submittal must be turned in before another applicant does so in order to be considered.) Ignoring the above unknowns, we would expect the following completion times: LOT 4 1. COMPLETING DRAWINGS FOR PERMIT 1 Month 2. PERMIT PROCESS 3 Months 3. BIDDING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT 1 Month 4. CONSTRUCTION 5 Months 5. RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCY TIME(HOLIDAYS,ETC) 1 Month TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME 11 Months NOTE: The above could be reduced by one month depending on the timing of the permit process or could be extended 3 -6 months if the Building Department becomes jammed due to the Building Code change. FRONTAGE PROPERTY (ONE BUILDING OR TWO) NOTE: A single building would provide approximately 125,000 S.F. and would be more expensive to build. 1. COMPLETING SUBMITTAL DRAWINGS FOR BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 2 Weeks 2. COMPLETING DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 2 Months 3. PERMIT PROCESS s'j MDvr05 3. BIDDING AND AWARD OF CONTRACT 1 Month 4. CONSTRUCTION 6 Months 5. RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCY TIME(HOLIDAYS,ETC) 1 Month TOTAL ESTIMATED TIME 13.5 Months NOTE: The same delay considerations apply to this project except that the design submittal to the Board of Architectural Review must be submitted at this time in order to take advantage of the June 22nd Board of Architectural review opening. Based on the above, we would expect that occupancy of either project would be between 12 and 16 months after we have been authorized to proceed.. I hope this will help in your planning. Please let me know if we can be of further help. Sincerely, Al red H. Croonquist To: File From: Diana Painter Subject: Croonquist warehouse project Date: November 1, 1993 In a conversation with Jack Bennett, former owner of this property, I mentioned that we (the city) were having internal discussions about specific standards for planting within the shoreline area, and that this was pertinent to this project. I asked him whether they were going to go ahead immediately with construction documents for the project, now that the shoreline permit was virtually in hand. He said that the property had sold about 30 days ago, and that he couldn't speak for the new owners. I told him that the reason I was asking is because we wanted to get together with the landscape architect as soon as possible to discuss the plantings, preferably before construction documents were started. He said that, in any case, he would sent the landscape architect to talk to us before any construction drawings were started for the landscaping. cc Ann Siegenthaler MEETING NOTES Date: October 27, 1993 Attendees: Purpose of meeting: Ann Andy Ann Siegenthaller, City of Tukwila DCD Diana Painter, City of Tukwila DCD Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Dept. Public Works Andy Levesque, King County Surface Water Management To discuss planting on the Green River levee; King County, City of Tukwila, and Army Corps of Engineers' responsibilities for maintenance; and specifically, what to require of the applicant for the Croonquist . warehouse project (L92 -0080) planting plan. * * * Briefed the group as to the process and status of Tukwila's Shoreline Master Plan revisions and accompanying Shoreline Access Plan. A consultant was hired to develop a planning scheme as part of the 205 levee raising project in 1988 -89. Tukwila and another jurisdiction were "local sponsors" for this project. The project involved raising the levee for flood control purposes. The upper surface of the levee was to be raised, and the face of the levee prism was not to be involved. This was so the Corps could avoid having to prepare an EIS for the project. The local sponsor was to be responsible for maintenance of the faces of the levee, the top and the prism. The local sponsor was also responsible for maintaining the drainage system into the river; in other words, the whole system. This was documented in an interlocal agreement with the City of Tukwila as a local sponsor. The Green River Flood Control District, a body made up of King County officials, is currently negotiating an agreement, which will be reflected in the Corp's maintenance requirements, whereby they will maintain the levee prism and the pump station. The standards they will be maintained to, however, are still the Corp's standards. Historically, the Corp's standards stated that (for the areas of the levee that the Corps built) a tree (or planting) on the levee could stay, if the Corp had left them there. If it fell down, it had to be removed. In the latest standards, everything that is there can stay. If a tree falls down and it is not of an approved ... species, it should be replaced with one from the approved planting list. In addition, new vegetation can be added if it is managed and maintained. Trees can be planted if they are maintained to be less than 25' in height and 4' caliper. It is also preferable if they have a high canopy. The approved list includes big leaf maple, oregon ash, willow, dogwood, among other species. Meeting was continued, but I wasn't present. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor October 19, 1993 Alfred Croonquist Architects One Union Square, Suite 3404 Seattle, Washington 98101 Re: Office /warehouse structure, permit L92 -0080 Dear Mr. Croonquist: Enclosed please find a .copy of your notice from the state Department of Ecology regarding your shoreline permit. As you can see, your permit is granted as of October 23, 1993 unless an appeal is filed before that date. Sincerely, 9?* / iii K Diana Painter Associate Planner Phone: (206) 433.1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 : ....�....�. »....» The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit has been filed with this office by the City of Tukwila on September 22, 1993. If this permit is not appealed to the Shorelines Hearings Board on or before October 22, 1993, authorized construction may begin. Other federal, state, and local laws regulating such construction shall be complied with. Unless an appeal is filed, this letter constitutes final notification of action on this permit. K -Y Su Permit Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program KYS:pz BECSDP.WP cc: Ann Siegenthaler, City of Tukwila RFC V El OCT 1 5 1993 CO MmUNF Y DEVELOPMENT 0 September 23, 1994 Mr. Douglas C. Morris Senior Asset Manager The Estate of James Campbell 425 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94104 11 I r- .?•"; p F.,. Lai U y r: ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3100 SEATTLE WA 98101 • 682 -2690 • FAX 682 -3016 1995 GL, 0EVELCDc-; SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 4 AND FRONTAGE PROPERTY AT SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Doug, It was a pleasure meeting you on Wednesday concerning the above properties. As you requested, I am sending separate proposals, including Owner /Architect Agreements, for "LOT 4" and the "SSIP FRONTAGE PROPERTY ", (LOTS 1, 2, AND 3). Your decision to complete these projects for permit at this time is most appropriate due to rising construction costs, the market demand, the complete revision of the Uniform Building Code effective as of June 30, 1995, and the expiration of your 2 -year Shoreline Permit for LOT 4 on July 22, 1995. We will proceed immediately with the completion of the LOT 4 requirements for a Building Permit. With regard to the FRONTAGE PROPERTY, we are quoting a "Not to Exceed Amount of $15,000" for services required for schematic site and building design. (See attached proposal). We will provide these services on an hourly basis and any costs will become a part of the estimated A & E fee. Mr. Doug Morris September 23, 1994 Page 2 You will notice that I have added Soils engineering to the previous budget estimate. Thank you for the opportunity to "complete" Southcenter South. We are pleased to be involved and will assure you of our best service on these projects. Sincerely, ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS //e Al ed H. Croonquist AIA Attachments •� ../•' JUL `E; 0 199 n ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3100 SEATTLE WA 98101 • 682 -2690 • FAX 682 -3016 PROPOSAL FOR A & E SERVICES, FRONTAGE PROPERTY PROJECT: FRONTAGE PROPERTY, Southcenter South Industrial Park; Tukwila, Washington REVISED TIMING: START DATE November 4, 1994 FILE APPLICATION AND DRAWINGS FOR BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW December 4, 1994 DRAWINGS COMPLETE FOR PERMIT February 1, 1995 PERMIT FILED ON APPROVAL OF BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PRE -LOAD INSTALLED CONSTRUCTION START (POSSIBLE) April 20, 1995 May 1, 1995 May 15, 1995 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE October 1, 1995 ATTACHMENT A Conditions of Approval 1. Poplar trees and shrubbery will be provided between the toe and top of the levee along the west boundary of the site, as described in the BAR application and shown on dike section BB on the landscape plan. Existing blackberry brambles are to be removed and replaced with native vegetation. Actual placement and specifications for this planting will be as per specification provided by the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. All plantings on the dike will be maintained for the life of the project by the owner. A landscape plan, including an irrigation system, must be submitted to the staff for administrative approval. The system does not need to be placed in the dike, but must adequately supply water to vegetation on the dike to ensure their survival. 2. The structure shall be set back 28' from the toe of the slope of the levy on the northwest side. 3. It is understood that the office for the warehouse will be located at the southwest corner of the site, and that rooftop mechanical equipment will be adequately screened. 4. The following modifications shall be provided to articulate the facade of the building: a. space the wall lighting fixtures regularly and in relationship to the spacing of the doors and precast panels; b. provide coping along the parapet line in the accent color and of an adequate width to visually "cap" the building. 5. A pedestrian connection to the sidewalk on the north side of South Glacier Street must be provided. 6. A two year limit will be applied to BAR approval of this proposal, consistent with the time limit applied to the accompanying Substantial Development Permit per the Shoreline Master Plan. At the end of two years, BAR approval will be rescinded if a building permit has not been secured for the proposal. 7. The new truck dock shown on the sketch attached to the applicant's letter dated July 20, 1993 will be fiilly enclosed. Landscaping shown on this sketch next to the dock is not required. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 22, 1993 Mr. Meryhew called the work session to order at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Williams reviewed from the last meeting that the Commission agreed to add a clarifying sentence to the bottom of page VI -8 regarding the indexing of the maps. Mr. Knudson said that on page V -19, it says that there were 170 players in the Tukwila Soccer League, when in fact there were approximately 210. Mr. Williams and the Commissioners agreed to change the number of players from 170 to 210. Mr. Knudson asked if there was a proposed bicycle or trail system along the golf course. Mr. Williams said that the Green River Trail goes along the Interurban Ave. Mr. Knudson said that the City asks industries to provide trails, however, the City won't put in a trail near the golf course, one of the most scenic places in. the City. Mr. Pace said that in working with Boeing, they have agreed to provide public access off site and employee access on site. Mr. Williams said that a Council member has raised the same issue. However, due to how the golf course is laid out, there is a real safety issue. The City is looking to loop a trail back out to Interurban at the Volvo White property. Mr. Knudson said that he felt the City has not been setting a good example. Mr. Meryhew said that there is a small trail on 46th, between 148th and 150th and asked where it fits in this plan because it's not shown. Mr. Williams acknowledged that it should be included and that they would add it to the list on page VI -20. Mr. Meryhew said that two widows are doing the maintenance for the trail and they are having a hard time keeping up with the blackberries. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1993 Mr. Meryhew asked Mr. Merkle if his recommendation would be to not include this proposal in the Parks and Open Space Plan at this time. Mr. Merkle said, yes, that would be his recommendation and he would be speaking for himself, not the Commission. Page 4 Mr. Knudson said that he did not have any objection to including it in the Plan, however, . he didn't feel it would be a top priority given the other projects. Mrs. Craft said that if this Plan is a planning tool for the future, then they are not excluding the parcel, just not including it at this time. The Commission agreed by consensus to leave the Beaver Bend Park out of the Plan and forward it on to the Parks Commission. Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed bicycle trail. The Commission agreed by consensus to leave the bicycle trail out of the Plan. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN AS AMENDED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Williams reviewed the plan for trails. Mr. Meryhew called for a ten minute break. Mr. Meryhew called the Board of Architectural Review Public hearing to order. Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Malina, Knudson, Flesher and Mrs. Craft. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter and Sylvia Schnug. The Planning Commission agreed to review and re- submit the minutes of June 24, 1993. L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 - Croonquist: Diana Painter presented the staff report. She handed out an additional letter that came in after the packets were mailed out. She stated that this was a office/warehouse building that is being proposed on one of the last vacant parcels in the Southcenter South Industrial Park. It's located in the shoreline zone, therefore, a SEPA was required. The proposal is for an 80,000 sq. ft. warehouse building and of that, 5,500 sq. ft. will be office space in the southwest corner of the site. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1993 The project is for a concrete tilt -up building. On the back side of the building are 16 truck loading bays, and 8 doors. The applicant is proposing an additional two bays on the south side. They have the required amount of landscaping on the rear yard. Some allowances have been made on the front yard because of existing landscaping. The access to the project is from South Glacier Place which now ends in a cul -de -sac. From this cul -de -sac, there will be a t- intersection. As part of this project, staff has asked that poplars and landscaping be added to the toe of the levee. Page 5 The project first appeared in the Planning Department about a year ago. Staff has requested a setback of 25 feet from the toe of the levee and the applicant is proposing 28 feet. This is because the applicant is proposing to add two additional bays and parking has to be replaced. The two bays are mitigated by the addition of a strip of planted area to screen it. The applicant has also indicated that they would be willing to extend a short wall that is proposed to screen the additional bays. .Staff feels. that the impacts of those additional bays would be fairly minimal. Mr. Meryhew asked if the additional dock would be covered or open. Staff said that is proposed to be open, but it could be covered. Ms. Painter said that there are conditions that will be addressed at the time of permitting, and the applicant has already agreed to them. The applicant is contributing $29,000 towards traffic mitigation. The applicant is aware that the easement on east boundary of the site needs to be re- written to allow for truck traffic. There are no tenants secured at this point for this building. The existing landscaping will be preserved and maintained as part of the project. A trash collection area will include a recycling facility. With regard to the last sentence in recommendation #1, on page 8 of the staff report; Mr. Knudson asked if the City has asked this of anyone in the past. Jack Pace clarified that this is what has been required of all applicants in the City for the . maintenance of landscaping. Mr. Malina asked if an irrigation plan goes along with that. Mr. Pace said that was correct. He continued that this was nothing new, they are trying to make the conditions more precise. Mr. Knudson asked if this was on the property they have given up. Mr. Pace said no, it's on their property. Mr. Meryhew asked if the top of the levee bank, on the river side is the property line. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1993 Staff indicated that it was. Page 6 Mr. Knudson asked what the applicant was giving to the City. Ms. Painter said that the easement was existing and came in as part of the original subdivision. Mr. Croonquist said that the owner did not want to be responsible for putting in an irrigation system on the tow of the dike. Ms. Painter then reviewed the recommendations on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. She stated that she would have to do some research on clarification for the wording of recommendation #6. Mr. Pace said that if no action occurs within two years, the shoreline permit becomes null and void. The intent is to have the shoreline permit and the design review follow together so they expire together. The applicant is aware that they can apply for an extension within those two years. Mr. Malina asked if staff was requesting that the applicant put down a rubber mat or concrete slab across the railroad tracks. Ms. Painter said that she had not discussed the particulars of that. Mr. Malina said that the City has done extensive work in replacing old crossings with the rubber mat. He said that he would like to add that the applicant continue the rubber matting. Ms. Painter said that the warehouse is proposed to be painted a light gray. The office part of the building features horizontal strip windows in aluminum framing. The doors on the backside have 3' reveals to be painted a darker green, while the doors are proposed to be painted a softer green. Mr. Flesher asked if the coping along the top would be green as well. Ms. Painter said that she suggested that they use the accent color. Mr. Flesher asked if that would be one of the two greens. Ms. Painter said yes, and left the decision up to the applicant as to which one. Mr. Meryhew clarified that condition #2 should be changed to 28' instead of 25' if the commission decides to make that a condition. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1993 Mr. Malina asked if the change in setback, change the mitigation costs. Ms. Painter said no because they are tied to traffic generation. Mr. Malina said since there is the addition of two loading docks, then there is more traffic Ms. Painter said that the fee is based on the square footage of the building and the use of the building. The number of bays does not effect the mitigation. Mr. Meryhew asked if the Commission requested that the new loading dock be covered and a wall screen be put on, would that change the square footage of the building. Mr. Pace said that the increase would be off -set by reducing the square footage on another end of the building. Page 7 Al Croonquist, Alfred Croonquist Architects: Mr. Croonquist said that the owner felt it would be a big help if there could be truck loading capability on the north side of the building. Therefore, by moving the building back 8 feet, that would further move the building from the dike, and trading the parking spaces in front of the blank wall for parking along the angle, would satisfy staff's recommendation. He stated that the dock can be enclosed. Aesthetically, it would be just as nice looking if the clock were kept out in the open with landscaping screening it. He stated that they would like to have the option to do it either way. Mr. Meryhew asked if they would be leaving items out on the dock over night or for periods of time. Mr. Croonquist said that these are spec. buildings which are built without a tenant in mind. He said that the screening would hide the dock so items wouldn't be seen if they were left out. Mr. Meryhew asked what the landscaping is that has been proposed to be added. Mr. Croonquist said that they haven't had the landscape architect address that yet, but it would be done in a way that would be acceptable to staff. He added that the owner would be willing to do the irrigation at the bottom of the dike but he doesn't want the irrigation system there and he would prefer not to irrigate at all. He would prefer to place natural vegetation in that area that would require little irrigation. Mr. Pace clarified that in the past staff has not specified that the irrigation be in the dike. Mr. Meryhew asked if they planned on putting an irrigation system at the base of the dike Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1993 which would spray upward. Page 8 Mr. Croonquist said they would prefer to irrigate all the plantings, with the exception of the dike, where they would prefer to have natural vegetation. Mr. Meryhew asked if they planned on taking out the blackberry bushes. Mr. Croonquist said that the owner would probably want to take the blackberry bushes out. He added that he wasn't sure what the landscape architect had planned to put in for natural vegetation. Mr. Malina asked how they felt about putting in a rubber mat at the railroad crossing. Mr. Croonquist said that personally, he has a problem having a rubber mat required. If it is required, then they would be willing to do that. Mr. Malina asked what they were proposing. Mr. Croonquist said paving between the tracks which would be asphalt. Mr. Pace clarified that the other projects in the City with rubber matting are in the public right -of -way, and this project is at the end of a public right -of -way. Mr. Croonquist said that they would like to extend the wall to the edge of the dock. Jack Bennett, Representative for Property Owner: Mr. Bennett stated that the park has CCR's in place which give them absolute control over how tenants store and use the premises, both the parking lots and the docks. They do not allow storing items outside of the building and they use CCR's to enforce that. Mr. Meryhew asked if that was a lifetime agreement. Mr. Bennett said that it runs with the land. All the property owners in Southcenter South are bound by the CCR's. Ms. Painter stated that staff would ask for an all- weather surface across the railroad tracks because it's private property and not a right -of -way. The intent of requesting native vegetation is for the ease of maintenance and minimal water use. She added that they would like the blackberry bushes removed. Mr. Croonquist's proposal for landscaping is fine. Staff would also like to see a wall which is an extension of the building face, and a wall of landscaping on that side. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 22, 1993 Mr. Croonquist said that he would prefer to extend the wall, enclose the building and add landscaping. The owner has the final say on what they do. Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Flesher said that with regard to the recommendations, they need to make sure they change item 2 to 28' instead of 25'. On item 3, delete the last three words, "from the trail." He added that he would like to see a specific commitment in time and manner of the landscaping and the irrigation plan. There are blueprints that say there will be a sprinkler plan and there really isn't one. And there are blueprints that say that the vegetation is going to stay, when in fact the blackberry bushes are going to be taken out. They need to firm up what the landscaping and irrigation plans are. If the poplars are going to be there, they need to specified as poplars. It can be handled administratively, just as long as it's firmed up. Mr. Meryhew said that item 1 should be changed to read, "...(existing blackberry brambles are to be removed and replaced with native vegetation)." He added that also on item 1, a sentence should be included which says, An irrigation system shall be submitted to staff for administrative approval." The Commissioners agreed to add an item 7, which refers to the sketch on the exhibit with full enclosure of the new truck dock and no landscaping is required adjacent to that. Mr. Malina said that there should be a note indicating that the wall will go all the way up to the height of the building. He asked if there has been any indication as to where they are going to put the dumpsters. Mr. Pace said it was not indicated on these plans. Ms. Painter said that the dumpster is shown on the first site plan, next to the stairwell on the west side of the building. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO. APPROVE L92 -0080 BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: CONDITION #1 - REVISED TO READ, "EXISTING BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES ARE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACES WITH NATIVE VEGETATION." ANOTHER SENTENCE WILL BE ADDED AT THE END THAT READS, "A LANDSCAPE PLAN INCLUDING AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT NEED TO BE PLACED IN THE DIKE, BUT MUST ADEQUATELY SUPPLY WATER TO VEGETATION ON THE DIKE TO ENSURE THEIR SURVIVAL." Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 22, 1993 CONDITION #2 - CHANGE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 25' TO 28' PER THE APPLICANT'S REVISED DRAWINGS. CONDITION #3 - DELETE THE LAST THREE WORDS, "FROM THE TRAIL" CONDITION #4 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED. CONDITION #5 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED. CONDITION #6 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED. ADDITION OF CONDITION #7 - "THE NEW TRUCK DOCK SHOWN ON SKETCH, ATTACHED TO THE APPLICANT'S LHITER DATED JULY 20, 1993, WILL BE FULLY ENCLOSED. LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THIS SKETCH NEXT TO THE DOCK IS NOT REQUIRED." MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L93 -0051: Home Depot Diana Painter presented the staff report. She stated that this is an application for a special permission sign for the Home Depot project. This proposal is for two wall signs. One at the main entrance and one on the east facade of the building, facing the river. Special permission is required because they are requesting larger signs than is allowed in the Code. Although the sign at the main facade of the building is over the permitted size, staff felt it was a well integrated architecturally with the facade of the building and is appropriate to the building type and setback. On the east side of the building, the proposal is also larger than what would be permitted outright in the Sign Code. Staff felt this was a sensitive area because of its location along the river. The sign was scaled such that it could be seen from the West Valley Highway. It does not fall within the shoreline environment. Technically it's 30' outside the shoreline zone, but staff felt that it would be highly visible from the trail and from the shoreline, therefore, used another provision under the Code to require a 90% reduction in size because of the high visibility of the sign. The applicant has agreed with the conditions of the permit as recommended by staff. Mr. Meryhew asked if they've agreed with the 90% reduction to 135 sq. ft. Ms. Painter indicated they had agreed. Mr. Knudson said that before there was a trail the sign size was based on the setback from City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared July 12, 1993 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATIONS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: July 22, 1993 L92 -0080 Alfred A. Croonquist, Alfred Croonquist Architects Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 80,000 square foot warehouse with approximately 5,500 square feet of ancillary office space South Glacier Place at Olympic Avenue South, abutting the Green River; Lot 4 of the Southcenter South Industrial Park (S35 R23 T4) Approximately 4.65 acres Light Industrial C -M District - Industrial Park Determination of Nonsignificance issued July 9, 1993 Approval with conditions Diana Painter, 431 -3661 xp�mdpP:1> Parcel map Vicinity map Site plan Elevations Shoreline cross sections Landscape plan Rendering (shown at hearing) Letter from Al Croonquist 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Project description: The applicant proposes constructing a 80,000 square foot warehouse, including approximately 5,500 square feet of office space. The proposed structure is to be concrete, constructed with tilt -up panels. The office is to be articulated with a horizontal band of windows. Landscaping is to be provided on the north, west and south boundaries of the site, and within the sidewalk area at the entrance to the building. A vegetated bioswale is to be located on the southeast corner of the site. Site description: The site is currently vacant. It is roughly rectangular in shape, with the long side of the rectangle following the curve of the river bank. It is essentially flat, except along the western boundary, which includes the levy prism of the Green River levy. Surrounding land use: The proposed project is the last structure to be built within the Southcenter South Industrial Park. Existing warehouse structures are located south and east of the site. The Green River and Green River levy runs along the west boundary of the site and the north boundary as the river curves west. An active railroad spur runs along the east side of the site. Access and circulation: Access to the site is from South Glacier Street. This street forms a cul -de -sac at the southeast corner of the site. A private extension of this right -of -way serves as vehicle access to Lot 3 to the south of the proposal, and will also serve this project. Interior circulation is proposed around the perimeter of the site, providing for fire access, access to parking areas, and to loading docks. Asphalt will be built up to the level of the tracks on the existing railroad spur to facilitate circulation on the east side of the site. Pedestrian circulation within the site is provided for by a five foot sidewalk along the front of the building only. A ten foot wide paved path from the picnic area at the southwest corner of the site to the existing trail along the top of the levy is provided. Parking and loading: Parking meets minimum requirements for a project of this type and size. Parking is provided around the perimeter of the site along the north, west and southern edges. Handicap parking occurs in the area closest to the main entrance of the building. Sixteen truck loading bays (eight double bays) are located on the west side of the structure. Nine large openings are provided on the east facade, accessible by rail. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 3 Vegetation and landscaping: The site as it currently exists is covered with grass, with the exception of the levy, which is covered with blackberry brambles. A five foot landscaped strip with deciduous trees planted approximately 30' o.c. exists within the site along the southern boundary.' This was apparently established in conjunction with the construction of the warehouse to the south. Signs and lighting: There are no signs proposed as part of this project. This is a speculative building and tenants have not been secured. Lighting fixtures are shown mounted on the exterior of the building below the cornice line at approximately 125' intervals. BACKGROUND A site plan for this project was first reviewed by the City in a pre - application meeting in June 1992. At that time it was agreed that the building could not be located where proposed because of fire access requirements. A memo from Don Williams of the Tukwila Parks & Recreation Department also stated that the proposed structure was too close to the Green River Trail, and would create a "wall effect" for users of this public facility. A picnic area in the southwest corner of the site and trail access from this point was also requested. An application was submitted by the applicant for review by the Board of Architectural Review in October 1992. A subsequent meeting between City staff and the applicant was held in December 1992. At that time staff again stipulated that the structure be set back 25' from the toe of the levy in order to minimize the "canyon effect" that placement of the structure up against the bank would convey to users of the Trail, documented in a letter to Al Croonquist from Carol Proud of the City of Tukwila, December 21, 1992. In March the applicant requested that review of the project go forward. City staff again met with the applicant in June 1993, discussing a number of points of concern on the project. This discussion was documented in a letter to Al Croonquist from Diana Painter, with an attached memo from the Department of Public Works. The • current site plan reflects the outcome of this last meeting with the applicant. SEPA Determination: A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued July 9, 1993. The applicant has agreed to contribute $29,886.00 toward the cost of improvements to the intersection of the West Valley Highway and South 180th Street, in the vicinity of the project, to mitigate the impact of additional traffic generated by this project. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 4 DECISION CRITERIA Review Guidelines 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site Applicant's Response: 'The design maximizes placement of landscaped areas in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the site (other than the river levee buffer landscaping), near the South Glacier Place frontage and site access point. The height and scale of the structure will be similar to and consistent with other adjacent structures in the industrial park. Staff's Response: Landscaping on the south side of the structure and along the southern boundary of the site helps to screen the parking area and soften the appearance of the building as viewed from the public street. A landscaped strip along the north boundary of the site will screen the north facade of the building and the parking in this area from view from the Green River Trail. The row of poplars along the levy, when mature, will help screen the loading areas and west facade of the building from the public trail. The structure itself is surrounded on two sides by buildings of a similar height and scale, and will not be visible in relationship to the site from a distance. The east and north facades will be visible from the Green River Trail on the top of the levy along the river. From this vantage point, the facade will extend approximately 25' above the height of the trail, or 20' above eye level for a person standing on the top of the levy. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Page 5 Board of Architectural Review E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Applicant's Response: "The proposed building is to be located in Southcenter South Industrial Park. The structure's mass, scale, texture, color and exterior surface articulation will be similar to and consistent with adjacent structures in the park. Pedestrian circulation, other than along the river levee, will be minimal. Vehicular circulation, both on -site and at street access have been designed to facilitate truck access to loading/unloading points in the structure, and passenger vehicle access has been placed adjacent to primary and secondary building entrances. Staff's Response: The structure is consistent in texture, lines and masses with other structures in the area. Landscape transition to adjoining properties has been provided where it would be most effective; that is, the north, south and west boundaries. Sidewalks are provided only on the south side of the structure, near the proposed office, although parking is provided around much of the perimeter of the site. A pedestrian connection to the nearby public street is not provided. Vehicular entrances and exists for the site are compatible with those of the neighboring structure (to the south). 3. Landscape and Site Treatment A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 6 Applicant's Response: "Proposed landscaping, site treatment and site lighting is consistent with and an extension of the precedence set by other sites within the industrial park. Landscape treatment at the west (river) side of the site will provide a native shrubbery screen of approximately six-foot height at maturity, interspersed with more vertical landscape elements (trees) to articulate and break up the large expanses of adjacent structure wall. Visual access from the street (South Glacier Place) is minimal due to existing adjacent development and the cul -de -sac configuration of the street. Staff's Response: The site is virtually flat, with the exception of the levy banks. The curve of the river will be emphasized with a row of poplars, accentuating the primary "special" feature of the site. Most of the proposed landscaping is protected from vehicle circulation areas with curbs, sidewalks or a grade change. Trees and shrubs have been planted within the paved area near the south facade of the structure to compensate for limited opportunities for landscaping within the site, including the southern boundary of the site. The row of poplars proposed for the zone between the top and the toe of the levy will also compensate for lack of opportunity for landscaping within the site. Exterior lighting fixtures are shown which will wash the face of the building, minimizing glare for pedestrians passing on the trail. The loading area will be screened from the trail with the row of poplars. The referenced six -foot screen of native shrubbery on the west side of the site is not shown on the landscape plan. Screening is shown at the proposed dumpster location. 4. Building Design A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary par:s shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used on/y for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 7 G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Applicant's Response: "Building design, using painted, precast concrete panels and aluminum storefront glazing, will be very similar to and consistent with the exterior design of other adjacent existing structures in the park. Truck openings, although placed primarily in response to functional needs, provide color variation and articulation of the wall surfaces and establish a rhythm of punched openings in the long wall surfaces. Staff's Response: Architectural treatment is consistent with other structures in the vicinity. The office located at the southwest corner of the building is articulated with respect to the main structure with a change of materials, roof height, and the addition of horizontal windows and slightly recessed entrance. Four foot high screening around the rooftop mechanical equipment of the office structure is shown. Articulation on the west side of the structure is provided primarily by the truck loading bays. The doors at the loading docks are recessed approximately three feet from the plane of the facade. The doors are painted a soft green, and the "reveal" areas are painted a darker green for contrast with the painted, pale gray facade. Nine openings which will be served by the railroad spur are located along the east elevation of the structure. These are slightly recessed from. the facade of the building. Fine scale detailing is limited for both the office and warehouse structures. Other features, such as additional entrances, are utilitarian. CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: The site is flat, with the exception of the levy. The structure is long and low with • respect to the site, and sits about in the middle of it, occupying approximately 40% of the site. The only significant relationship of the structure to the site in terms of public view is the relationship between the building and the levy and Green River Trail. This was addressed by setting the building back 25' from the toe of the slope and planting a row of poplars for screening, in alignment with structures and landscaping to the north and south of the site. Staff Report to the L92 -0081: Croonquist Board of Architectural Review Page 8 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: The structure and its relationship to the site is consistent with other projects in the area. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: Landscaping, where possible, has been used to soften the appearance of the structure and screen the loading and parking areas. Additional landscaping has been provided along the south facade and western site boundary to compensate for those areas where it is not possible to provide landscaping or amenities due to site conditions and parking and circulation requirements. The area where it has not been possible to provide landscaping (ie the east side of the site) is actually not visible from any distance or from a public right -of- way.There is some discrepancy in the application as to the landscaping to be provided along the western boundary of the site; the application states that six foot high native vegetation will be provided, but this does not appear on the landscape plan. The landscape detail for the levy shows existing vegetation to remain. 4. Building Design: The building is utilitarian, with minimal detailing. Expression is provided by the extended office portion of the building. The east and west facades are articulated by the doors of the truck/rail loading bays, and the use of accent colors. Lighting fixtures which will provide downlighting on the facade are also located on the east and west facades. BAR Conditions: RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that this project be approved by the BAR, and that administrative approval be allowed for the following items prior to issuing permits: 1. Poplar trees and shrubbery will be provided between the toe and top of the levee along the western boundary of the site, as described in the BAR application and shown on dike section BB on the landscape plan (asingbiaekberry-b . Actual placement and specifications for this planting will be a5'per specifications provided by the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. All plantings on the dike will be maintained for the life of the project by the owner.. 5 plictut In GCcikk• ) 4' A P _ l?l I 1A4 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L92 -0081: Croonquist JaPtb,/,&ei ?VG-a( 2. The structure shall be set bac from the toe of the slope of the levy on the northwest side. side. 54079/ 3. It is understood that the office for the warehouse will be located at the southwest corner of the site, and that rooftop mechanical equipment will be adequately screened • 4. The following modifications shall be provided to articulate the facade of the building: a. space the wall lighting fixtures regularly and in relationship to the spacing of the doors and precast panels; b. provide coping along the parapet line in the accent color and of an adequate width to visually "cap" the building (see attached exhibit 2). 5. A pedestrian connection to the sidewalk on the north side of South Glacier Street must be provided (see attached exhibit 1) .�y� 0. 41, A two year limit will be applied to BAR approval of this proposal, consistent with the ' T' ,� time limit applied to the accompanying Substantial Development Permit per the C, 1 Shoreline Master Plan. At the end of two years, BAR approval will be rescinded if ��,� c�►� building permits have not been secured for the proposal. % ei(Tti ton t4vta(r7 14 Ad /ti (1 2 Yti. UY..t. -i4-c4 La-r. i� 62'L /Conditions or requirements to be addressed at the time of permitting: 1. Traffic mitigation costs will be contributed in the amount of $29,886.00, as outlined in the attached letter from Alfred Croonquist to Mr. Ron Cameron of the City of Tukwila. v12. The agreement for the easement along the east boundary of the site shall be rewritten to allow for vehicular traffic. 3. Existing formal landscaping on the site will be preserved during site ite c on st construction, and maintained in conjunction with maintenance of all other landscaping. 4. The trash collection area must include a facility for recycling, also appropriately screened. SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK ALFRED CROONOUIST ARCHITECTS ALFRED CRDONOUIST ARCHITECTS exterior elevations `V^ LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS SHEET dRAWING INDEX DESCRIPTION AREA PLAN CAL. SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES VICINITYS ALFRED CRODNOUIST ARCHITECTS ATTACHMeNT B SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ATTACHMENT C site plan ALFRED CROONQUIBT ARCHITECTS ATTACHMENT D exterior elevations GREEN RIVER X -SECTIONS ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEA•T'I'LE, WASHINGTON 90101 • (200) 002.2600 June 22, 1993 Mr. Ron Cameron City of•Tukwila Public Works Department. Tukwila, WA SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis & Easements per Review Comments The following items have been discussed concerning the submittals for approval by the Board of Architectural Review. It is our understanding that these items are now acceptable. 1. Traffic Mitigation Costs Per our discussion of the traffic mitigation costs on 6- 21 -92, you advised that the trip per hour calculation for a 79,000 S.F. building would be 79,000 S.F. x 1.3 = 102.7 trips per hour, with 60% heading north for a total of 62 trips at $485 /trip, totalling a mitigation cost of $29,886. The Owner will verify the north -south distribution of trips projected. The Owner is in agreement with the mitigation concept. -2. Rail Reservation A question has been raised concerning .a 20' railroad reservation running through this property. This reservation does not show on the Alta survey and is not recorded. The rail has been installed at a location east of the noted reservation and an existing building will prevent the rail from being installed in the future. ATTACHMENT H Mr. Ron Cameron June 22, 1993 Page 2 3. Easement for Trail to Dike Path There is an existing access to the Southcenter Industrial Park property including parking at the northeast corner of the park. The Ownership of Southcenter includes the 30 foot trail easement, therefore, it would seem another easement for access would not be required. If any of the above items are not acceptable, please let us know as soon as possible. Sincerely, ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS A red H. Croonquist, •IA c: Diana Painter, Planning Department Jack Pace, Planning Department Jack Bennett, CPI STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 - 6000,, July 23, 1993 Mr. L. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: 5 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance to construct an 80,000 square foot warehouse proposed by Alfred Croonquist Architects (File No. L -92- 0079). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The facility should be designed to accommodate recycling. Opportunities for recycling aluminum, other metals, glass, newspaper, corrugated containers, plastics, office paper and other materials should be as convenient as throwing them out. Space should be provided to accommodate the storage of these materials both inside the building and at a centralized location outside the building. During the construction phase of the project, we encourage the applicant to use products made from recycled materials wherever possible. Products containing recycled materials include parking lot bumper stops, park and picnic benches, landscape timbers and sign posts made from recycled plastic, rubberized asphalt made with recycled tires, glassphalt made with ground glass, insulation and other building materials. An inquiry to a building material supplier will provide information on available products. The applicant, when considering space in the design of the building, may also want to consider processing equipment, such as a baler; to compact recyclables. For information on recycled materials contact the Clean Washington Center in Seattle at (206) 464 -6892. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Nate BeMiller with the Waste Reduction and Recycling Center at (206) 649 -7187. Sincerely, Barbara J. Ritchie Environmental Review Section BJR:tky 93 -5040 cc: Nate BeMiller, NWRO Janet Thompson, NWRO 4 3 0 . Shcr PERMIT FOR SHORE ENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT File Number: L92-0031 Status: APPROVED Applied: ]0/07/]992 Approved:, 07/22/1993 ----Expiration: 09/14/1996 Pursuant to RCW 90.53, a permit is hereby granted to: CROONOUIST ALFRED to undertake the fo\lowin d Vel p�ne U ' -~-- ` CONSTRUCT A 79`00O � T AR�HDUS�/OFFICE` `P LOCATED AT S. GLACIER.�P[�-AT 0LYMPIC AVE. S. '� ABUTS THE EAST S�IDE�0F GREEN 'RIVER • . - . .' upon the r0|� rop t :` Address: ., Parcel No: ,743f3390.-01,20 Ser/Twn/Rnge: 'SE 35/23/04 THROPOSED PR0JECT ILL.BE WITHIN THE AREA OF THE-GREEN, RIVER TS; S0CIATED WETLANnS`'_WHICH IS A SH0RELD1E O ,STA7ENIDE mIFICANCE ANU lSjiESlGNATED`AS-AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. �-� '' _ The fo l Jqwi ng master pr ugramH Prnv i s i nno . �are applicable to thI s development: • Deve>opent 'pursuanC to this permit shall'be _undertaken pursVant to the attaChed`t_ ermS-and conditions. This perwj.t`^iS Brnted pursuant to the Shore\ineMonagomant Act of 1971 an nothing i,x,this pe/'mit'shall excuse the appli.oant.frum comp\ianCe with any other FederD|. Sta�� or local sratutes, orO\�nances or regulations applicable hle to � ��his ' ` 7oj*oc but not inconsistent with .the Shoreline Management ActSChapter 90.53 RCW). ` This permit muyAire,�/.escinded pursuant t0 RCW 90.58.140(8):jn the event the • permittee fails tn�cunply with the.terNs Vr conditions hereof. `' `` '`. CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT H LL EGIN'OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL THIRTY (30) DAY��`FROM WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINED IN RCW 9[y::-58._]'4 _ANDrNAC 173-14-090. OR UNTIL ALL • REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITlAT[D WITHIN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH ' FILING ��VE lERMINATED; EXCEPT AS RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(o). Car*: _ IC7172-1 =~- .�� r'.~-.�w��w~~-`-~.�_� �.~`.~~._~ Cite e ��°.�` /o`/,/� Department L. Rick Beeler Construction or substantial progress toward construction must begin within two years from date of issuance, per WAC 173-14-060. 1. UL 20 '93 10:4'= P.2/3 July 20, 1993 1 1593 ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITSCI'S ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING SUPf'E 3404 SEATTLE;, WASHINGTON 98101 • (2o0) 082.2690 Ms. Diana Painter, City of Tukwila Planning Department 6300 SouthCenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 re: Case # 92 -0079, 80, 81 SouthCenter South, CPI, Lot 4 Board of Architectural Review Staff Recommendations for Hearing July 22, 1993 Dear Ms. Painter, We received your staff recommendations on the above referenced project on July 15, 1993. There are two items which the owner would like to clarify and to have subject to approval on July 22, 1993. ITEM 4: The owner would like the option of providing a truck loading dock and landscaping per the attached sketch dated July 19, 1993. ITEM 6: To tie the B.A.R. Approval to the Shoreline Master Plan will require that the permit application be placed at least six months prior to the two year shoreline limit. This will request that the permit issuance and B.A.R. approval be extended to two year and six months to allow for the building permit• process. Sincerely, Al ed H. Croonquist, A. .A. A FRED CROONQUIST ARCHI' CTS encl: 7 -16 -93 NOTE TO FILE AL CROONQUIST Al Croonquist called with a few questions on the staff report. He had concerns about the specifications to plant on the dike. Said that in the past Phil Fraser of the city wouldn't let people do anything within the levy prism. Said that I had consulted the record on the file, and found in meeting notes from a year ago that planting on the prism was ok'd in a meeting between the applicant, a representative from the Corps, Vernon, and Phil. Said that the reason that I stipulated that the applicant was required to plant per specifications by the Dept. of Public Works was that I wanted to make sure that Public Works approved the method and location of planting. When I asked Phil about planting specs on the dike this week, when writing the staff report, he referred me to the draft King County Bank Stabilization Guidelines. These are not specs, but criteria that we are following. Second item was the setbacks from the River. Al said that he would like the leeway in the future to set the building farther back from the river so that they could get in some more truck bays. The requirements for a truck bay is 100', and they currently have 90' clearance from the bank where the river curves around. He suggested that that could be a third item under building design. I suggested that he write a letter that requests that as another condition. He was concerned that he would have to come back to the board in the future if he would wanted to move the building back. He said that if they moved the building back, it would result in a notch to the building that would add to the "modulation ". I said that what the issue would be was an increased number of truck bays, not an improvement in the building because of a notch. I said that we could mail the letter out to the Planning Commission before the meeting, or pass it out in the meeting, so that they could consider that as another condition. Third item was the expiration of the permit. Al would like the wording to say something to the effect that, if they applied for permits within the two year period, that would be good enough, not that they would have to secure the permits before two years was up. I said that whatever "matched" the substantial development permit stipulations was what we were after. I said that I'd look up the wording on the substantial development permit. In the meantime, he said he would draft up a letter to the Planning Commission and fax it Monday morning. January 12, 1993 Mr. Alfred Croonquist 3404 One Union Square Seattle, Wa 98101 RE: Croonquist Warehouse Project ( #L92 -079, #L92 -080, #L92 -081) Dear Mr. Croonquist: We are unable to place your proposal on the calendar fo the January 28, 1993, Board of Architectural Review, public hearing. It appears from your December 31, 1992 letter that the pro•erty owner has directed you not to submit the revisions I need-d to continue staff review of your proposal. In your letter you expressed concerned about the number of me ings with City staff to clarify project issues and you questions the City's discretionary authority to require your proposed build•ng to be set back further than the minimum standards stated i the shoreline regulations. In response, please refer to the pure se of Board of Architectural Review in TMC section 18.60.010 which states in part ..the Board of Architectural Review shall encourag well designed developments that are creative and harmonious (em hasis added) with the natural and manmade environment." Given the sensitivity of the adjacent shoreline environment a d the related complex issues, three meetings with staff prior to a ublic hearing is not uncommon. Staff makes every reasonable eff t to identify up front elements of a proposal that are inconsisten with code standards or previous directives and interpretations ba =ed on similar projects approved by the Board. Our intent is to r =solve any differences prior to our making a recommendation to the Board at the public hearing. For your information, our records indicate that you have me with DCD staff on three separate occasions: 1. A pre- application meeting on June 11, 1993 with other members of the City's permitting staff. 2. A meeting with Public Works Department staff on Ju e 30, 1992 where a planner was asked to attend and answer g =neral questions. 3. A meeting with myself on December 9, 1992. If you have any specific questions regarding information dis•ussed at the meetings, the first meeting was tape recorded and typed ...,.._..�.... minutes are available for the other two meetings. In order to placed on the BAR agenda for the February 25, 1992 public hearing, the previously requested material must be submitted by January 28, 1993. If you and /or Mr. Bennett would like to discuss this matter further or would like to schedule a meeting, please let me know and I'll gladly do so. Sincerely, Carol.Proud Planner ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 ,-June:- 22`` 1993• Mr. Ron Cameron City of Tukwila Public Works Department• Tukwila, WA SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis & Easements per Review Comments The following items have been discussed, concerning the submittals for approval by the Board of Architectural Review. It is our understanding that these items are now acceptable. 1. Traffic Mitigation Costs Per our discussion of the traffic mitigation costs on 6- 21 -92, you advised that the trip per hour calculation for a 79,000 S.F. building would be 79,000 S.F. x 1.3 = 102.7 trips per hour, with 60% heading north for a total of 62 trips at $485 /trip, totalling a mitigation cost of $29,886. The Owner will verify the north -south distribution of trips projected. The Owner is in agreement with the mitigation concept. 2. Rail Reservation A question has been raised concerning a 20' railroad reservation running through this property. This reservation does not show on the Alta survey and is not recorded. The rail has been installed at a location east of the noted reservation and an existing building will prevent the rail from being installed in the future. RECEIVED JUN 2 51993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . +�........, Mr. Ron Cameron June 22, 1993 Page 2 3. Easement for Trail to Dike Path There is an existing access to the Southcenter Industrial Park property including parking at the northeast corner of the park. The Ownership of Southcenter includes the 30 foot trail easement, therefore, it would seem another easement for access would not be required. If any of the above items are not acceptable, please let us know as soon as possible. Sincerely, ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS red H. Croonquist, IA c: Diana Painter, Planning Department ' Jack Pace, Planning Department Jack Bennett, CPI • - ,* erne e tialorf w A+AMr ? . _..... LOWER GREEN RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Paste 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Purpose 1-1 1.02 Authorization 1 -1 1.03 Location 1 -1 1.04 Protection Provided 1 -1 1.05 Project Description 1 -1 1.06 Project Details 1 -2 a. Levee 1 -2 b. Drains 1 -2 c. Landscaping 1 -2 1.07 Construction History 1 -2 2. LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS 2.01 Responsibilities of Local Interests 2 -1 2.02 Failure of Non - Federal Interests to Operate and Maintain 2 -1 3. GENERAL PROCEDURES 3.01 Approved Regulations 3.02 General Rules and Procedures 3.03 Duties of the Superintendent 3.04 Trespass on Rights -of -Way 3.05 Improvements or Alterations 3.06 Annual Report 3.07 Periodic Inspections 3.08 Surveys 3.09 Checklists 3.10 Sequence of Operations 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -1 3 -2 3 -2 3 -2 3 -3 3-3 3 -3 '. TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) 4. PROJECT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION 4.01 Project Plans 4.02 General Notes on Maintenance a. Inspections b. Utilities c. Improvements d. Repairs 4.03 Levee a. Maintenance b. Operation 4.04 Drains a. Maintenance b. Operation 4.05 Existing Facilities 4.06 Landscaping and Vegetation 5. SPECIAL PROCEDURES DURING HIGH WATER PERIODS 5.01 General 5.02 Procedures to be Followed at Flood Stage 5.03 Emergency Repairs a. Degradation b. Seepage APPENDICES A Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as Amended B Applicable Portions of Public Law 738 C Local Cooperation Agreement D Regulations for Maintenance and Operation of Local Flood Protection Works E Outline of Semiannual Report F Project Operations Summary ii 4 -1 4-1 4 -1 4 -1 4 -1 4 -1 4 -2 4 -2 4 -3 4 -3 4 -3 4 -4 4 -4 4 -4 ? »..�......._.._.._._.... TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) DRAWINGS (Bound in Back of Manual) Number Title Christensen Road Improvements 1 Vicinity Map- Legend -Sheet Index 2 Roadway & Trail Sections 3 Plan & Profile - Christensen Road 4 Drainage Plan & Profile - Christensen Road 5 Striping, Illumination, Sign Plan & Details Lower Green River Flood Damage Reduction (E -12 -7 -217 Series) 1 Cover Sheet 2 General Plan and Survey Control Data 3 Plan and Profile Station 0 +00 to 28 +50 4 Plan and Profile Station 28 +50 to 60 +00 5 Plan and Profile Station 60 +00 to 90 +00 6 Plan and Profile Station 90 +00 to 120 +00 7 Plan and Profile Station 120 +00 to 145 +00 8 ..Plan and Profile Station 145 +00 to 165 +00 9 Plan and Profile Station 165 +00 to 200:+00 10 Plan from Station 200 +00 to End 11 Levee Cross Sections 12 Details 1 2 M. A. Segale, Inc. Drawings Temporary SPF -Dike Grading Plan (King County Dept. of Public Works Exhibit D -6) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Purpose. The purpose of this manual is to present information on project operation and maintenance (O &M) for compliance with Federal regulations. 1.02 Authorization. The Lower Green River Flood Damage Reduction Project was constructed under authority of Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended, (appendix A), and subject to local cooperation as set forth in Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1936, Public Law 738 as modified by Section 103 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Public Law 99 -662 (appendix B). 1.03 Location. The project is within the Green River basin, and is located within the City of Tukwila and King County, Washington, approximately 11 miles south of Elliot Bay in Puget Sound at Seattle. The project extends along the left (west) bank of the Green River from about River Mile (RM) 12.61 at the upstream side of the I -405 bridge crossing of the Green River to about RM 16.9 where Frager Road parallels the Green River south of the M.A. Segale, Inc. property. 1.04 Protection Provided. The project is designed to provide protection from the an dard ro f;oocl SP and to protect approximately 570 acres of commercial and industrial area (including retail, wholesale, and manufacturing concerns and containing about 123 structures housing 365 commercial enterprises, 11 industrial firms, and 3 public offices) all of which is located south of Interstate 405, from Interstate 5 on the west to the Green River on the east. 1.05 Project Description. The project consists of modifications and improvements to an existing levee system, to portions of Christensen Road (in the City of Tukwila), and to portions of Frager Road (in King County). The project also includes erosion control (such as slope protection in the form of gabion walls or vegetative ground covers), provision for interior drainage (which predates the project), and landscape restoration. The existing levee sections were not substantially modified by this project. However, all portions of the project, including the existing levee sections, comprise the flood protection provided by this project and therefore are included in the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the local sponsor. This manual shall be applicable to the entire project system. 1 River Miles from 1989 FEMA study are approximate and have no exact correlation to stationing as shown on drawings. 1 -1 1.06 Proiect Details. The drawings which describe all portions of this project are included at the back of this manual. a. Levee. As shown on the drawings, the levee and levee improvements are comprised of many different sections. Generally, however, the levee improvement sections consist of semp.- impervious to impervious embankment materials placed and compacted such thattd,° 71ue°' xa; er 'rir;'`s;0epez"M'a'°"hoMzOTIAl woggiffairaM. For dimensions, surfacing and surface treatments, reference should be made to the drawings. b. Drains. Wi .tAlVemtsTpenetrate the existing river bank and levee to connect the interior storm drainage systems to the Green River . One of these is the `0: ditch IA. tetse;�r.� �os gli from the lagoon and rp;'iT'p, §z;M,a,,•rptitWadj acent to the city maintenance yard (P -17). Two 24- inch - diameter culverts adjacent to the Christensen Road improvements are provided with concrete headwalls, flap gates, and riprap outfall protection. One 12- inch- diameter culvert just south of Strander Boulevard is equipped with a flap gate. The other four culverts do not have gates riverward of the levee. c. Landscaping #40APT4 . • de sAotu w+t.,.� e i : i a vgggraratVike01=33 .t... -. ; tTWWI i` t f:cto : ;t GI h g . � Q1) s�)E,'�% '� +i'i>.�t�^� _.,,.n >r ,��;a��z +tiSrM���r�, �, ru s`� Y�.;�.�€.�� ? '..::�?�:..,_� ` rglemA'?� a t?r , exl i:tih Iftlear40074 it '. 'eve *,A#4g40 ., r d x't kantl gi aWCI ' ' .' T tihI of; ,s'esma d s bs €" ; �iexaaXdna dz Aawi rt o ; the ,1'w o ' }t e`�pro�xi.st ni °omtm)mmu , , +. .� ...... a .��,nK�r....'"�°f......:....`� 911gc omaeas� atuxbedv du ng ohstruct oo;; A 1.07 Construction History. Construction of the most of the project was by equipment rental contract with construction supervision and inspection by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers. The project was turned over to the City of Tukwila on May 15, 1992 following a joint final inspection. 1 -2 2. LOCAL COOPERATION REQUIREMENTS 2.01 WRebrionSiblIItidof Local Interests. The responsibility of local interests isq4eAngdOnSectionlof the Flood Control Act approved 22 JuneVI9A64 Public Law 738 as modified by Section 103 of theNWOes,94,4*TooPMPWAPPPro,Y01UNOVeitlbefV108.6 (appendix B). Tfie'sdiceIndoperdiipwAgrepmewt, signed by the City of Tukwila and executed ofeY,31January*I9 (appendix C), in accordance with Public Law 738, lists the following responsibilities of the City of Tukwila: a. normal items of cooperation listed in Article II, paragraphs a through i of the Local Cooperation Agreement, including all items set forth in theclioyember:a:989,qrepidx.t entitledlibWerGreenRiverSectIOn205'F16604::-ComErolP;PiebtfPrri Ihanal*, Washington; b. full responsibility for all project costs in excess of the Federal cost'limitation of $5 million as provided in Section 915(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662, approved 17 November 1986); c. compliance with Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition regulations as described in Article III, paragraph d of the Local Cooperation Agreement; d. t4PPrOionliallitehanoeP4,1413.1PPRIPPtiand TieliabilitatiohdiftheprOj&z0 (where repair, replacement, and rehabilitation are defined as alternatives that may be required to remedy adverse conditions disclosed by the periodic inspections required for maintenance of the project); and e. a guarantee to the Government of reasonable access to the project for the purposes of inspection, and, if necessary, operation", repair, and maintenance of the project. 2.02 Failure of Non-Federal Interests to Operate and Maintain. In accordance with paragraph d, Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-611, "The Chief of Engineers may undertake performance of those items of cooperation necessary to the functioning of the project for its purposes, if he has first notified the non-Federal interest [the City of Tukwila] of its failure to perform the terms of its agreement and has given such interest a reasonable time after such notification to so perform." All costs incurred by the Federal Government in performing operation and maintenance of the project that is the responsibility of the non-Federal interest will be reimbursed by the non-Federal interest. Provisions for this are included in Article VIII of the Local Cooperation Agreement. 2-1 4. PROJECT MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION 4.01 Pro'iect Plans. Location, sections, and details of the project are shown on the drawings. 4.02 General Notes on Maintenance. a. Inspections. Thorough inspection of project facilities before each flood season and after each flood is vital. Repairs, if needed, shall be made as soon as possible to prevent accelerated damage during the next high river stage. The top of the levee shall be inspected to determine if settlement has occurred. Settlement shall be corrected by restoring the levee to the pertinent section as shown on the drawings. All fill required to re- establish elevation at subgrade shall be made with suitable semi - impervious to impervious material similar to that in the existing levee. All elevations are based on National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and can be established from the survey control data as shown on plate C -1 of the plans. (NGVD equals sea level (SL) datum 1929.) b. Utilities. The location of water, sewer, electrical, storm, and gas lines within the project limits shall be determined before any maintenance measures are taken or repairs are made c. Improvements. Improvements shall be inspected to see that all construction is in accordance with standard engineering practice. Fences constructed across the levee must have a 14- foot wide vehicle gate to allow authorized vehicles to travel along the top of the levee as necessary. Access ramps and gates are located on the drawings. The city of Tukwila shall have their own locks on all gates and cables located on the levee ramps or the levee itself. All locks shall be keyed alike. A master key shall be made available to the Superintendent, another master key shall be deposited where it is available at any time to emergency or maintenance personnel, and a master key shall be provided to Seattle District, Corps of Engineers, Emergency Management Branch. d. Repairs. (1) Levee. Immediate steps will be taken to correct dangerous conditions disclosed by inspections. Regular maintenance repair measures shall be accomplished during the appropriate season as scheduled by the Superintendent. (2) Drainage Structures. Immediate steps will be taken to repair damage, to replace missing or broken parts, or to remedy adverse conditions disclosed by inspections. 4 -1 4.03 Levee. (Reference paragraphs 208.10(b)(1) and (2) of the regulations. See appendix D.) a. Maintenance. (1) The Superintendent shall provide at all times such maintenance as may be required to ensure serviceability of the structure in time of flood. Measures shall be taken to ensure, among other things, that: (a) a good growth of sod, substantially free of noxious weeds, is maintained where turf is indicated on the drawings; (b) all brush, trees and other growth which violates the criteria set forth in Section 4.06 are removed from the levee embankment (vegetation specifically planted or preserved shall remain); (c) all animal burrows, when found, are backfilled with compacted material; (d) the levee is maintained free of debris and drift, and other encroachments such as buildings, structures, and refuse dumps; and (e) roads and ramps are maintained free of ruts, pockets and washes, and in good serviceable condition. (2) Periodic inspections of the-levee prism shall be made under the supervision of the Superintendent to ensure that the above maintenance measures are being effectively carried out and further to be certain that: (a) no unusual settlement, sloughing, or material loss of grade or levee cross section has taken place; (b) no revetment work or riprap has been displaced, washed out, or removed; (c) no action is taken which will retard or destroy the growth of sod, such as burning grass and weeds during inappropriate seasons and /or applying herbicides; and (d) no encroachments are being made on the levee rights -of -way which might endanger the structure or hinder its proper and efficient functioning during times of emergency. Immediate steps shall be taken to correct dangerous conditions disclosed by such inspections. Regular maintenance repair measures shall be accomplished during the appropriate season as scheduled by the Superintendent. 4 -2 b. Operation. Prior to the flood season, advance measures will be taken to ensure the availability of adequate labor and materials to meet all contingencies. During flood periods, the levee shall be patrolled on an ongoing basis to locate possible sand boils, animal holes, or unusual wetness of the landward slope and to be certain that: •,(1) no indications of slides or sloughs are developing; (2) no wave wash or scouring actions are occurring; (3) no low reaches of levees exist which may be overtopped; and (4) no other conditions exist which might endanger the structure. Immediate steps will be taken to control any condition which endangers the levee and to repair the damaged section. 4.04 Drains. (Reference paragraphs 208.10(d)(1) and (2) of the regulations. See appendix D.) Culvert sizes, locations, and other pertinent data are listed below: Station Culvert Size Pertinent Data - 1 +50 24 inches Christensen Rd - 5 +20 24 inches Christensen Rd - 19 +90 24 inches 28 +70 24 inches 31 +00 12 inches 41 +00 15 inches - 68 +20 60 inches flap gate and concrete headwall flap gate and concrete headwall flap gate lagoon and pump station outfall 127 +00 60 inches low head pressure system outfall with trashrack a. Maintenance. (1) Periodic inspections shall be made under the supervision of the Superintendent to be certain that: 4 -3 (a) pipes, flap gates, and flap gate operating mechanisms are in good operating condition; (b) inlet drainage systems and outlet channels are open, and trash, drift, and debris are not accumulating near drainage structures; and (c) riprap is in good condition and erosion is not occurring adjacent to any structure which might endanger its water tightness or stability. (2) Immediate steps shall be taken to repair damage, to replace missing or broken parts, or to remedy adverse conditions. b. Operation. Flap gates shall be inspected during high water conditions, and any object or condition which might prevent closure of the gates shall be immediately removed or corrected. 4.05 Existing Facilities. Other structures and facilities not constructed as a portion of this project, but which function as a part of the protective works, such as pumping plants, interior drainage storage ponds, ditches, manholes, catch basins, and storm drains, shall be periodically inspected by the Superintendent. Damaged or unserviceable items shall be repaired or replaced. Ditches, ponding areas, and enclosed portions of the storm drainage system shall be kept clear of silt, debris, and growths which may inhibit the function or design capacity of such facilities. 4.06 Landscaping and Vegetation. Vegetation shall be maintained as follows: a. Grass or sod, where turf is indicated on the drawings, shall be maintained in good condition free of noxious weeds. Turf shall be mowed to maintain a length between 2 and 12 inches. b. All existing trees or shrubs specifically preserved or planted within the rights -of -way for this project shall be inspected to ensure that fallen limbs or trunks are removed, that the top of the levee is unimpeded to vehicle passage, and that erosion of the riverward embankment in the root zones has not occurred. Dead vegetation shall be removed and replaced with suitable species when and where feasible. b. Vegetation on the riverward side of the levee system not specifically preserved for this project shall be managed by mowing or by selective cutting or pruning to maintain a maximum height of growth of less than 25 feet and a maximum individual stem diameter at 4 feet above the ground of approximately 4 inches. As an alternative to mowing, cutting, or pruning, existing or volunteer vegetation (including black cotton wood, 4 -4 fib'. tY�'$ �J7:l ki ::4ai.:iG<Svi:ua�,r...d.,w.,..� ._ �.. .._........_.. «,...�.....,a„� �ays+ rrmiw.. r�u9r: �,. uswr' P•' sJA„ tiiN..? t�' dC+ CYY:' �G7":; h45 ''..'n!ti."J'T,.'!iti "6�'J,tS.1ti %��WD'�' red alder, and blackberries) may be replaced by more desirable species. Such species may include trees,'such as Salix hookeriana, the Hooker willow, and S. rigida, the erect. willow; and shrubs, such as red'osier dogwood, bitter cherry, snowberry, and spirea, when such species are maintained to allow adequate access and visibility. Sec 205 For LCA 23 Apr 90 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS For purposes of this Agreement: a. The term "Project "'shall mean the flood control project for the Green River in King Counter Washington, as described in a report dated November 1989, and consisting of the modification: of approximately 14,740 feet of levee, the construction of a 535 foot long cut -off levee and the relocation of 780 feet of Christensen Road. (DESCRIBE THE WORK TO BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AS IS NECESSARY TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION OVER WHAT WORK IS OR IS NOT INCLUDED. REFERENCE THE PROJECT REPORT, IF APPROPRIATE. IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, REFERENCE AND SECURELY ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET AND HAVE ALL SIGNATORIES INITIAL IT WHEN THEY SIGN.) b. The term "total project costs" shall Dean all costs incurred by the Local Sponsor and the Government directly related to construction of the Project. Such costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, costs of applicable engineering and design; costs of preparation of contract plans and specifications; actual construction costs; supervision and administration costs; costs of contract dispute settlements or awards; and the value of lands, easements, rights -of -way, utility and facility alterations or relocations, and dredged material disposal areas provided for the Project by the Local Sponsor, but shall not include any costs for betterments, operation, repair, maintenance, replacement, or rehabilitation. c. The term "period of construction" shall mean the time from the advertisement of the first construction contract to the time of acceptance of the Project by the Contracting Officer. d. The term "Contracting Officer" shall mean the U.S. Army Engineer for the Seattle District , or his or her designee. (LOCATION) (DISTRICT /DIVISION) 4 Sec 205 For LCA 23 Apr 90 e. In the event the Local Sponsor has made cash contributions in excess of 5 percent of total project costs which result in the Local Sponsor's having provided more than its required share of total project costs, the Government shall, no later than 90 calendar days after the final accounting is complete, subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose, and subject to the Federal cost limitation set out in Article II.f., return said excess to the Local Sponsor; however, the Local Sponsor shall not be entitled to any refund of the five percent cash contribution required pursuant to Article II.c. of this Agreement. f. If the Local Sponsor's total contribution under this Agreement (including lands, easements, rights -of -way, and relocations, and suitable borrow and dredged material disposal areas provided by the Local Sponsor) exceeds [EITHER 50% OR THE APPROPRIATE ABILITY TO PAY PERCENTAGE) 50 percent of total project costs, the Government shall, subject to the availability of appropriations for that purpose, and subject to the Federal limitation set out in Article II.f., refund the excess to the Local Sponsor no later than 90 calendar days after the final accounting is complete. ARTICLE VII - DISPUTES Before any party to this Agreement may bring suit in any court concerning an issue relating to this Agreement, such party must first seek in good faith to resolve the issue through negotiation or other forms of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution mutually acceptable to the parties. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND RERABILITATION a. After the Government has turned the completed Project, or functional portion of-the Project, over to the Local Sponsor, the Local Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the completed Project, or functional portion of the Project, in accordance with regulations or directions prescribed by the Government. 15 Sec 205 Form LCA 23 Apr 90 b. The Local Sponsor hereby gives the Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon land which it owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. If an inspection shows that the Local Sponsor for any reason is failing to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement without receiving prior written approval from the Government, the Government will send a written notice to the Local Sponsor. If the Local Sponsor persists in such failure for 30 calendar days after receipt of the notice, then the Government shall have a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon lands the Local Sponsor owns or controls for access to the Project for the purpose of completing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the Project. No completion, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation by the Government shall operate to relieve the Local Sponsor of responsibility to meet its obligations as set forth in this Agreement, or to preclude the Government from pursuing any other remedy at law or equity to assure faithful performance pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICLE IX - RELEASE OF CLAIMS The Local Sponsor shall hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its contractors. ARTICLE X - MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS The Government and the Local Sponsor shall keep books, records, documents, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to this Agreement to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs. The Government and the Local Sponsor shall maintain such books, records, documents, and other evidence for a minimum of three years after completion of construction of the Project and 16 . § 208.10 Title 33— Navigation and Navigable Waters and maintenance of all of the struc- tures and facilities during flood peri- ods and for continuous inspection and maintenance of the project works during periods of low water. all with- out cost to the United States. (3) A reserve supply of materials needed during a flood emergency shall be kept on hand at all times. (4) No encroachment or trespass which will adversely affect the effi- eient operation or maintenance of the project works shall be permitted upon the rights -of -way for • the protective facilities. (5) No improvement shall be passed over, under. or through the walls. levees, .improved channels or flood - ways, nor shall any excavation or con- struction be permitted within the Whits of the project right -of -way, nor shall any change be made in any fea- ture of the works without prior deter- mination by the District Engineer of the Department of the Army or his authorized representative that such improvement. excavation. construc- tion. or alteration will not adversely affect the functioning of the protec- tive facilities. Such improvements or alterations as may be found to be de- sirable and permissible under the above determination shall be con- structed in accordance with standard engineering practice. Advice regarding the effect of proposed improvements or alterations on the functioning of the project and information concern- ing methods of construction accept- able under standard engineering prac- tice shall be obtained from the Dis- trict Engineer or, if otherwise ob- tained, shall be submitted for his ap- proval. Drawings or prints showing such improvements or alterations as finally constructed .shall be furnished the District Engineer after completion of the work. (6) It shall be the duty of the super- intendent to submit a semiannual report to the District Engineer cover- ing inspection. maintenance, and oper- ation of the protective works. (7) The District Engineer or his au- thorized representatives shall have access at all times to all portions of the protective works. (8) Maintenance measures or repairs which the District Engineer deems necessary shall be promptly taken or made. (9) Appropriate measures shall be taken by local authorities to insure that the activities of all local organiza- tions operating public or private facili- ties connected with the protective works are coordinated with those of the Superintendent's organization • during flood periods. (10) The Department of the Army will furnish local interests with an Op- eration and Maintenance Manual for each completed project, or separate useful part thereof. to assist them in carrying out their obligations under this part. (b) levees —(1) Maintenance. The Superintendent shall provide at all times such maintenance as may be re- quired to insure serviceability of the structures in time of flood. Measures !hall be taken to promote the growth of sod, exterminate burrowing ani- mals. • and to provide for routine mowing of the grass and weeds, remov- al of wild growth and drift deposits. and repair of damage caused by ero- sion or other forces. WWtiere,Apracticar ‘ble.' measures; shalkili.e:: taken,-to;: retard bank:erosion by Vplsntin llowss or., otheesuitable ,grodi't2ion'-ar'easriver= •Ward 'of they - levees. " Periodic inspec- tions shall be made by the Superin- tendent to insure that the above main- tenance measures are being effectively carried out and. further. to be certain that (1) No unusual settlement, sloughing. or material loss of grade or levee cross section has taken place: (Ii) No caving has occurred on either the land side or the river side of the levee which might affect the stability of the levee section: (iii) No seepage. saturated areas. or sand boils are occurring: (iv) Toe drainage systems and pres- sure relief wells are in good working condition. and that such facilities are not becoming clogged: (v) Drains through the levees and gates on said drains are in good work- ing condition: 0.3 Chapter H —Corps of Engineers (vi) No revetment work or riprap has been displaced, washed out. or re- moved: (vii) No action is being taken. such as burning grass and weeds during in- appropriate seasons. which will retard or destroy the growth of sod: (viii) Access roads to. and on the levee are being properly maintained: (ix) Cattle guards and gates are in good condition: (x) Crown of levee is shaped so as to drain readily, and roadway thereon, if any. is well shaped and maintained; (xi) There is no unauthorized graz- ing or vehicular traffic on the.levees; (xii) Encroachments are not being made on the levee right -of -way which might endanger the structure or hinder its proper and efficient func- tioning during times of emergency. Such inspections shall be made im- mediately prior to the beginning of the flood season: immediately follow - Ing each major high water period. and otherwise at intervals not exceeding 90 days, and such intermediate times as may be necessary to insure the best possible care of the levee. Immediate steps will be taken to correct danger- ous conditions disclosed by such in- spections. Regular maintenance repair measures shall be accomplished during the appropriate season as scheduled by the Superintendent. (2)' Operation. During flood periods the levee shall be patrolled continu- ously to locate possible sand boils or unusual wetness of the landward slope and to be certain that: (1) There are no indications of slides or sloughs developing: (II) Wave wash or scouring action is not occurring; (iii) No low reaches of leave exist which may be overtopped: (iv) No other conditions exist which right endanger the 'structure. Appropriate advance measures will be taken to insure • the availability of adequate labor and materials to meet all contingencies. immediate steps will be taken to control any condition which endangers the levee . and to repair the damaged section. wall3—(1) M• • e made by endent to be c §.208.10 (I) No seepage. saturated areas. nd boils are occurring; ii) No undue settlement has c red which affects the stability •f th wall or its water tightness; ( ) No trees exist. the roo of whi might extend under the • all and fer accelerated seepage pa s; (iv) ' he concrete has not and gone cracks g. chipping, or breakin • to an extent • hich might affect th stabil- ity of t wall or its water ness: (v)• ere are no ens hments upon th = ight -of -way w ight' en- danger t e structure gr inder its functioni in time of flog (oi) Car is being exec . ed to pre- vent accum aation of and debris adjacent to •alts.• an/2:1 • insure that no fires are • ing bui)gn : r them: (vii) No ba caving c ditions exist riverward of t e wall ich might en- danger its stab 'ty; (viii) Toe dra age s terns and pres- sure relief well are good working condition. and t : t ch facilities are not becoming clo Such inspectio . hall be made im- mediately prior t• the beginning of the flood season. mediately follow- ing each major h' . h 'ater period. and otherwise at ante al of exceeding 90 days. Measures • eli inate encroach- ments and effe rep • s found neces- sary by such • pectio s shall be un- dertaken im ediately All repairs shall be c.o plashed b methods ac- ceptable . dard eng ' eering prac- tice. (2) Op on. Continuo s patrol of the wall all be mainta ed during flood peri . to locate possi e leakage at monol h joints or seep - e under- neath th wall. Floating plan or boats will not e allowed to lie agai t or tie up to. t wall. Should it bet • e nec- essary . uring a flood emerg . cy to pass a hor cables over the wa . ade- quate ensures shall be taken • pro- tect e concrete and constr tion join . Immediate steps shall be ken to c rect any condition which en • n- ge the stability of the wall. (d) Drainage structures —(1) Mainte- nance. Adequate measures shall be taken to insure that inlet and outlet channels are kept open and that trash. drift, or debris is not allowed to accu- D- 4 CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS VICINITY MAP' E1'. •SNOINC[RINO• •WAT[R•OcW[R•PARKS••LOLDINO• MAYOR • ' GARY L VAN DUSEN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BYRON G. SNEVA, P.E. CITY CLERK MAXINE ANDERSON CITY COUNCIL DORIS PHELPS - COUNCIL PRESIDENT ED BAUCH WENDY MORGAN LIONEL C. BOMBER MABEL J. HARMS JOE DUFFY CHARLES SIMPSON CITY ENGINEER' ROSS EARNST, P.E. CITY ATTORNEY OGDEN, OGDEN & MURPHY • FINANCE DIRECTOR ALAN DOERSCHEL LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED O STOVE DRAIN YA.IOLE STONE DRAIN PIPE -- E STREET D• CONCRETE CHRR —� SIGN a PUGET POWER VAULT fLMG LGEw*UH. owe 6 G.1TER CATCH !WSW STORY 511015 PIPE. 511E AS SNOWM E STREET 4.Y)Np1ETE CURD IS GUTTER TROPIC SIGN PL/GET POWER VAULT CPC SIOEWALN.CURS e 0RTERIWIGTM VA44E5l EDGE N OSPIALT ASPHALT PAVING •TOP d SAME msparmpesas GAe40N 65166165 EXISTING 604570 LIMES w — IAARRWRE RIGHT 0 WAY IR 0.0) WDERGROWIO 014456 • TEL 40411 LE 10 JIPKTI05 SOX TYPE I consu ants c ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. , 0 0.. A 0*01 l I rrl�CWSalwn • SHEET INDEX SHEET 'NO. TITLE 1 VICINITY MAP -LEGEND -SHEET INDEX 2 ROADWAY & TRAIL SECTIONS • 3 PLAN & PROFILE-CHRISTENSEN 'ROAD DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILE,- CHRISTENSEN ROFILE-CHRISTENSEN ROAD S STRIPING, ILLUMINATION; SIGN PLAN & DETAILS 1591.1I1IYE w®IMMM CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS VICINITY MAP -LEGEND -SHEET INDEX 4Y -o �!•C IINE �• 1. .!'D 16' StoC for (VARIES/ (VARIES) rPRDFILE 8 PIVOT WINT FXV/ Roadway Section A ✓-C a.o0 /o J -C 0.50 J -C 8.50 to J -C 8.70 IVIS { YC UNE 29' III 16• 2% Atari (VARIES) li-PFEFILE 8 PIVOT POINT 2x_ 2% zx ' 2x oto2' (VARIES) 0 0 00-00"0 Roadway Section 8 J -C 0.50 to J -C 2.20 NTS td -C UNE 28 I 6' 2x 2% PROFILE 8 PIVOT POINT 2x I 2% Roadway Section C ✓-C 2.20 I0 J -C 5.10 NT.S •IWOINRCRINO• •WAT•R•$&W&R•PARKR•SUILOINO• 2% -0 2' S,Y GA810N CRIBBING ISEE NOTE LI y uN Nsignl Ar Inn at OIKM Ai A 0. A i MAN_ consu J -C LINE 2d Le told (VARIESi PROFILE 8 P1VOT PONT 2% / 2X i — zx -0 1-0 Roodwoy Section 0 ,r-05./0 to J -C 6.50 NIS Typical Moll Section 7-8 15.67 /o 7-820.42 NES tent^s o ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. C••4 ♦.u.. ww ✓n w.. v.w..wn 6' 2' 2% Genera/ Notes L REFER TO WASHINGTON STANDARD PLAN D-6 FOR GAEION DETAIL AND CONSTRUCTION. 2. FOR FURTHER DETAILS ON ROADWAY SECTIONS SEE PAVING - PLAN 5NEET 3 OF 5 e end ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CLASS 'B' 2' MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH O ASPHALT TREATED EASE 4 - MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE 2' MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH qO BALLAST 4' MINIMUM COMPACTED DEPTH O6' CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK © CEMENT CONCRETE CURE & GUTTER CITY OF TUKWILA STADARD TYPE CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS• ROADWAY & TRAIL SECTIONS 1W 1 .Ttei{• • Arad. am C I. 4.4 C.z.`.00 ;70� rfen,. Jr, r Rol t/l•I/ Lr. 12411.1 S/i J -t 0.00 PAl. ASPIC a.yir J•t L.s. 2 R..J..y 2 3. 6..14 JA. J•CO•S021PC s' R,w.. C.A• * A 115!45 J,, RM'//'tU't ne.Jy 07CA/`f..r AJ .r.A A5,7.4 fual4wt Tr.4/ ,•_t. d Ary 7N4, ,KO. ROW De/ai/o./Sky. /t00 s 0 /' •2a' ..5 � ✓ A.+wr./ C.90/e .I 3 J•C1• s.�r •rr7la�q-✓ J11•6511610 -f- C•t 24nr• t..wrry.l r r• Co...l. C:.66/!v or•iv' rjr. 11 2�..../Lyestrny 3,yr✓ N 141.- ♦64.7Zo.4P AJ.JoverPcrk Ave E. s. J•00•/0 .0C 4.' ✓Mj.rl W A Purolwy 2 3✓...rt 6y dAw2 1r. J -t 6 N/ SSRR C. 51..1.0 7.2.70 0,7 r••t:,F -1.- t� Lr_I.cr. R•6 /1,•,7 b5..7;.• r oG6' 6465 r. 6..4y /! w/..'•r l-C2.nlz6.soell •�' ' •'`•"�• Gd 6.bi, 0/44...♦ Q 1f,./ 5.1..1•C 5•1013000,41) G...6.y 43,••h lr/ S5. .I -t 5"•2/00/J2tRr1 .11. 7-R 15.67.00 214S., r -flow 0•.w/ 6227.2 to Notch axy 4 o c.t Green Rive JN 7-R //•MAYA! 7-0 r6'6t61PRC James Chris/eosen Rd 30 -O 3O A20 150 Srd.• 1'. So' yFF Jbwrrn,. r T Arad/ 0.0/{pl,+•, .• „ea i lit 23030 Sri. T -P 20 .4200 POT. 5w, 7R10-2. r../ r -R z, Oddly nArmy AGJd led/ 2, ,Mes r- .16 TrPT. fid✓P.....wl Rw ./ rr...... r..ry Err i/... P.s....,21 Curve Do/a PL Statiaa 4 R 7 L J•C5... I'0000 /0'20'00' 550. o0• 29.72' 99.20' J•C 1.:.• 5 •/7.76 17' 30' 00' 000.00' /25. /1' 244.35' J -C L,,. 6.97.92 07' 4.1. 01' 000.00' JJ.91. /07.73' 7•0 tw17.90.17 47'JO' JO' 250.60' /10.57' 207.67' 7-Rl.+r/9•/5.40 II' ,2' 2S' 250.09' 24.53' 40.60' Sts :AC 0,A.7.05:: E/IL O I...........G)2: aZrojel ,00'Y.6, ........ .....• a 1 egg riff 1 w • ..:::� ... . N . . . 1 / kh 1 ACf P15.:11.<1.4 ...:::::.:: .........35 ............ '• h a • h• 'v ;\ti::-.> R t.. A 5 . s. J -C 5.67os C42.5*1= (((`�I S4.TM !s . 67.00, 21.25.70; J _ _ (. Bron r -R 1/no .5 LAC So i20, .f/52.-1 :End or2/ Mahh fa9d.voy i • ._..... zl7 -•ds"' • 1. 1 ..: ..: • fi/:t1,iy 5 0dwo/ ,Srnfatt J • 10"OrldrY94, Ape. S/. rl 20.4209 f•v'505t 3S/R I .. I ................................ .... .........::. .fl./nory .. i:. I" 1. ::.. -oosz : ... ... . .... ..Pooelxro ' Prolei/cT ::..1:..:1•L°Lim •SNOINZSPINO•STPCSTO• WATIR•ii W ER•OARKQ•OUILOINO• 40312•'/AIT.r :sY ...... .. 16,1. e•s• cotivsu_{t ntRs ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. : d.:6m.awal...Iw Ccsna, s • I Troi/ Profi/e 7R 1/n6t� CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PLAN & PROFILE Adjust 2,eistiny !Moho/as 0.:. I 1.--- 0,0 e .; 1,.....,•.7:•.... .., .. . . R./.1 frist..5,zec...•rp • • ..:1410. emoteci C./57.tio. Z To 6.601IS-- Ancintr Rath Ave. E 4,6 ear I hmet Ne1W0rl .100.....; 0. d• Met,re., h.. A* 1 of lfer00. .1 A:, Cower, -L. • Si3.St Omo,...oyo Pro/Pt:A' aeon CoissM9 . Vrodnosto Rips '.10. e— foist, 5/ BM 23 .16 hor. /526 nes,' 51corn MA Rim 2.1$1 Mg! /5.76 .• • 510 J -C 6.70 POC. rah Coo*.•• /m,,, of Project 1-;Fr45) --------------- --- -- - -- <on ....t/09 Om/hope P,Po Green Myer vivnes Chrisiensen Rd 50 MO So r•so• 150 Alotas Plloshihylon..51ofc .5homiard Plan B-// for Po: Compoction Cash z3.e.r.fm. z 21.fer to Iftmhinyton .5o/o JhondotrI a -t ea -m A.• Catch Boum Typo e Type 2 Dolo,/s. .50 .: ........:: ri .. .... ii;4---• 2*,.• -- --- '... • • 0/21 , . _ aoas oc__,__.1,s_.. 1 -1-----e9C-----*" - ......- ---r•-"--\ 720* -4----: • T • " /2Tc.: -41::—: • ,>.0 /01.201112. • • . . _.2.4:21.-.... ---------------- _.....:•:::: ii'f.....-'''-'----.-..71-.---.o::.• 1 . :i .-. . 71;27. .c. ,,,,,,,./15,.24-/"; • : I: ::: . Iz'Curc. alit .::, /Z-Catc CLat • .::0 ,0:: 61-f i '. ' . . .1 . .. - . : ..... -77-11.1.3 ....ki . • • 1,,..x....... 1 .: .., /2 .f.'oC1.1:B;;.•:: . ! . .„! : : : 1 t • . • • - ;*. . . -.,. - ..r.' ....... ; . •:: ........ .:?: : :::'. ........ ::::: • .C - - . .. .3 ; : • • 3.3,...4 '. . 12 rf.' !. . .... . 1 . . . . 1 . 1- . : . • 1 . . .. : : :::::::: tt.......1.,,,..... ... :::::,"11„5k.ki_._ ..... t•• :.::. i'. .... :.'N',1'.••••:. i""...": IH`,kZ:1.:•.:1-.: 1. ". ' • : : I : : s.... • NN • t,,,, I• ...,-..4.• . .:::".I.I..',:jk•:.:•:*: :: .... : :....Zi;s1Z-: • - :.... ....... .... .• ..•.1 .• • 1 • ". Il• Zit I I'c'-• ''Z... : • zz;•-•:•. : Dreit;Nite:lipti./e :4- • • • i Homo:, 1%50... :: : • : ":1 .: . ,. .: . . . .. . :1.:;.'...: ' "::: 1. . • :. : ..1. ... VT.r:r"!7:•1...!:::.; • [ 11._1•....t. L.. Li- .•. I. - N L ;Z3 ‘11 - - 50 1 " • i • • .4 r --- --------- . • - - 3 1 • •a - CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS •ENDINKSPING.STRCIITS•WATIEGIVICWER•PACIKIIIVIUILOINCP ALPHAENGINEERSINO. cm- a sa.......x.r.tto.co.awas ',tame ...a. • DRAINAGE PLAN & PROFILE 5/ ✓-CO'OOPOT As.n ✓c(e e defrwiyeleHzjer/ Sires/ Liort .ah erekul Aim re7Ofl5Lb7/1 Ana. t So, Ape/14p/ r 6r5.0."'" 51,e/ .Nh 6:442311.nm 415aSara/ broodDiiet. 5/a if .7o Pot End ofelect Odra n9 iC•z'4/'ra Growl M..e • S,,. r/e•/Ir/•7 Jaa'.5o./h (Ste NdeJ) aero 15• Sae Lore Marker., 5,/ lens Sleet No/6: Evse/vLamGare lobe Ow/ Ek err" 510•✓ el/e./7PpesCaledol25OYo% .0055/.14/1-4 7CR YxfMf/ ZOO insgs .Solan Woo.- Lu/tbumo-A 3o.odfew' Snell oaPra.d d r/1Amp funs • .1 ca n m Pae w/Topariry 510f/ Perri �IM67ai,"p•c ellpn7/ to' lo 00" 7.5",-.) liyh/ S/ondord N.T.S olt tete itese3ety frees 41canoi31 J2O'I 1 4.47/ 51,0e .5treat LON ..th /Sest Arm 6•/0(16:00Re1 Sir/piny. I//un ino/ion aTd Sion eon SO 0 So /aa /50 6iax.,d,Pcd queroiln.d • Scale r 50' •rL•6•d„r-S/(ind ?/leo -4e.e.1 45 (1 P..m) CbY. O'Catrete 6. Hook Lioht Standard foundo/ion Detail N.T.S. M2. ea. / washer f2 par Ston 5/nr/Liyf,' .nn IS' Oast Arm 707S//64r.G ) PG/edOar //// no/ICe .i Equir.J asd '4/9P0O. A/5/y/a•, Woaleeffad:b: P/oelic orE�airJ far of5drnolk Concrete Goss C `i><ondard Sign Gas/o/%/ion 1V.T.5. /2' 00000 Na/es 1 Canoe, Puget Soule/ lbw d L,p•.a .:. '!+./i Ad/uslmenr / dread Wee Co-nae/lon (5.e spatia/Prargianl. 2. A// J. 1I0., Boas Are reps 1. Rd, ro washi Vaca State 5/ordo-d Roe J•//o /or L4/o,L3. 5 Ine Agora -genes Loco o, d /h< 50 /3 shorn. the f eineer Shell doh ve fool A cio.o fr fiat/ Cocom, o/ /he Ste, in the f.Nd. 2e' I11 AY'./2' po 000 Lone Yorker Type/ ' Lona Yorker axe ele Lona Markers Potain De/o,/ N. T.S. Isz w�. r•o� d id, y A��V�� weQ�� -MMI •lealNaafllNe•atAaaTa•WATaR•aaWlR•PARKa•aU1LatN0• • - Gro C01�1SUItc% rS CHRISTENSEN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS es 5 n• oa .... W6N OM q a .. n ALPHA ENGINEERS INC. �c G Aa sy:.,ww�c..lw,iu ,..nm..x .,s STRIPING, ILLUMINATION, SIGN PLAN &DETAILS �z:utw' M AO omt" en[ uo uuc ROIpO, 2P 11.1,1101)1 3 S 1 xr' SOD 0.54 r 4001501* � 1.t sncm +r K0104L C..0Ktt1.wx[uµ LEVEE TYPE t 1. 10 011..11x0 LEVEE TYPE V KC WARS _rO01014x 1 113044.1441.; 1 4 , .., .14 E"uoii u�oxrE�� Ixl l;r +w 010(01 uu.R i 70 uisii s.•µt� �" x0 Ic 5150.0 LEVEE TYPE IV 15.111 00141 LEVEE TYPE VIII 11 . T E 11 I I L 5 0 0 1 0 T I T I E S S000CE 1•al1'1. 0400.c1.0 011 cx 001101• •ec.Jre. 11.0.110 Gave, OIxns. 1.9.5 10.. 0001 G. A. -cc 0,00.00 1'/.• 1040• 5101 +0n 5.0.1.. [111.1 44-•••••• 1103 7040 5.001.. 110110 ICS 111 5.001. GW.0O •.0 04.141• .00 +w 001..1 c0.4 0 Goal,1m04 0(000 0 Cn0000 red .401• 111 1110 .000• co.. 1 1001.11x. Wow. W01.•00 00, 4500 cT 11.01.. alr+ 010 ry L 10.011470 401.. 1.0 R.n11n 014.1 t0aw.•, 04n.0n 100,1 144.0 150 es Corp041.0 0440 .01.410• 0.4117.10.100 5504101 13450 •0 11. J 1 G Land D..IR 101.110 00110114 15 0.40 •.. 104.0. •.0.0,00 43-x00 110'1•..7 10.44.0001.0. 0 +./•ry. 4.0 1•1004.1140...01 4e•1L 4• . 4 • 0.1' 30 •11EI?T 4.00. 500141. .all 1001.; 510 11 05 r . Y Gun1.00.0, 54011. 00,01.4 40010 31041 01x.1.10 5411 511-1• 00.104 1100.• w. 4...••1ma x00 00441.0010 111011,1 UCS 1x0 5• YF -•- 0141 11011. 1 511 '(0105 1 140(1 3 00 RIUE 1-2. 0043111. 3•101,140 1421 111 I1440 D0Cl.111 0x071.1. NAM* CORS 0111.1410111 11,1111.14004. *0.11 0.04 0,000 µ00 00000. 010100 LEVEE CROSS SEC1(005 11.011 .1515,4304 _ r' 1 1-PT.313 1'7..1,7, w •� 4.404140 II- .n o 0 5 1 3 011E 001 114 5L01110. 31.0'1-195510134 005(00111. /00700•0140n•10/01./7•I0000000 1..e (pct /1 =June 1993, Mr. Alfred Croonquist One Union Square Building, Suite 3404 Seattle, Washington 98101 Subject: Croonquist Warehouse Development Project Nos. L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 Dear Mr. Croonquist: This is to confirm the status of your application for the above project, and possible timing for review by the City of Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review. We have tentatively scheduled review of your project for the July 22nd meeting of the Board, depending on timely completion of the following. \ SEPA d4 A State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) Determination must be ade -and -g bl' notice given fifteen (15) days prior to the Board's meeting (Jul 8 1993). In order to make a SEPA Determination, the Department o blic Works must be in receipt of a traffic study as outlined in the attached memo. If you need more information on this item, please contact John Pierog at 431 -0179. SHORELINE PERMIT The public notice and comment period for your Shoreline Substantial Development Permit has been fulfilled. If your project is approved by the Board of Architectural Review, the permit can be issued administratively by the Planning Division and forwarded to the State Department of Ecology for the required thirty day appeal period. At the time the permit is approved by the State, the Planning Division can move forward on building permits for the project, provided project approval was recommended by the Board of Architectural Review. DESIGN REVIEW The following exhibits must be submitted by Friday, June 25, 1993 in order to prepare the presentation to the Board of Architectural Review: o 10 copies of your building plans and elevations, and any additional drawings that may help the Board of Architectural Review understand your proposal. o 10 copies of a landscape plan which indicates the size, species, type and location of existing and proposed trees and plant materials. A sectional drawing showing plantings on the levee, related to proposed landscaping along the west property line, should be included. o 10 copies of the updated shoreline profiles which show the west building facade in relationship to the mean high water mark and shoreline profiles. o Any additional exhibits such as a materials board which would help the Board of Architectural Review understand your proposal. o A Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each drawing reduced to 8 1/2" x 11 ". The drawing set will need to address issues brought up previously in the design review process (see letter dated December 21, 1993 from Carol Proud). Additional minor items which must be included in your revised plans are: o The site plan must indicate the location of AutiYities, and provide assurance that no portion of the buil ing is further than 300' from a fire hydrant. o Handicap parking spaces must be shown as required in the Washington State Building Code. o Mechanical equipment screening must be indicated. o Location and screening of trash collection, recyling and outdoor storage areas must be shown. o A minimum of three foot wide sidewalks are required from parking areas to building entrances (TMC 18.56.040(4)(D)). o The vicinity map for the site needs to accurately show property boundaries. o Impervious surface calculations must be included. o A public easement to the trail must be provided, per shoreline access requirements. o All other easements must be indicated, as detailed on the attached memo from the Public Works Department dated June 4, 1993. With regard to your landscape plan, the following items must be addressed: o Guidelines for planting in shoreline areas are contained in sections 18.44.130(C) and 18.44.140(C) of the zoning code (attached), and will be among the criteria used to review the landscape plan. o The site plan shows a four foot (4') landscaped strip along the front of the building (the side facing the public street) ; 15' is required. o Landscaping should be provided in the sidewalk areas in front of the office portion of your building. o I understand that landscaping on the east boundary of the site is problematic due to the railroad spur. Landscaping must be provided to the width required in the code (five feet); the landscape treatment, however, may be minimal. o The landscaped areas on the west boundaries of the site must screen the building, particularly the truck loading areas, from the public trail. o The picnic area should have public access from the trail. If you are unable to achieve an adequate grade for the trail connection from the picnic area by placing it perpendicular to the trail, landscaping requirements will be relaxed so that the connection can be maintained. .' • o An irrigation plan must be included. o Please note that existing trees within the shoreline are protected by ordinance; tree protection areas (10' outside driplines) must be shown on the plan. o Plans for the bioswale need to be elaborated on the site plan. The west elevation of your building will be of particular concern to the Board of Architecture Review because of its location in view of the public trail. The visual impact of the scale of this facade and the activities at the loading docks needs to be addressed through use of color, texture, detailing, or other means. All items in the attached memo from John Pierog of the Public Works Department, dated June 4, 1993, must be addressed. A geotechnical report is required but can be prepared and submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Please let me know when you would like to get together to review these remaining issues, and I will set up a meeting with the appropriate parties. Sincerely, jZ. a‘/C7,7--- Diana Painter Associate Planner To: From: Date: Diana Painter, Planning Division John A. Pierog, Department of Public Works June 4, 1993 Subject: CPI Lot 4 Warehouse Project (Alfred Croonquist Architects) (PRE92 -019) Activity Nos. L92 -0079, 0080 & 0081 t; :..J i- 1S93 C' • The following outstanding Public Works issues are being identified in response to your memo, dated May 27, 1993, concerning the sub- ject project. The resolution of Item Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 would be critical to preparation for BAR Review. 1. There is a discrepancy between top of levee and top of bank locations. Shouldn't these two be the same? 2. King County Assessor's Maps indicate a 20' railroad reservation easement across this property. This was brought to the appli- cant's attention at the 6/11/92 DRC Meeting, has not been ad- dressed since and needs to be. 3. The existing 30' easement for river bank protection and the trail needs to be changed to cover the levee to the toe of existing slope. 4. What happened to the 13' utility and RR spur easement along the east side of the property that was shown on previous plans? 5. Respond to 6/11/92 question as to whether common ingress /egress easement includes utilities. 6. All utilities (water, sewer & storm) and easements, existing and proposed will need to be shown. 7. Need traffic study to include trip generation /distribution and LOS for the West Valley Highway & South 180th Street intersec- tion. 8. Building setback from the toe of the levee at the NW corner appears to be less than 25'. If you have any questions, please let me know. CF: Development File JAP /jap 1 WINVY M IvIurmairML taJUC ,. (2) Low impact environ- ant. The area between the river environment ai:, one hundred feet from the mean high water mark; (3) High Impact environment. The area • ,.tween one hundred feet and two hundred feet from .e mean high water mark having the least environmentally protective land use regulations. It is intended that this area be aesthetically and architecturally oriented to the low impact environment. (Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) 18.44.130 Specific shoreline regulations — river environment (1) The river environment shall consist of a forty-foot wide management zone as measured on a horizontal plane from the mean high water mark, and shall contain no uses or structures other than the following: (A) Public and /or private footpaths or trails; (B) Recreation facilities such as benches, tables, viewpoints, and picnic shelters, provided no such facility shall exceed fifteen feet in height; (C) Support facilities for pollution control such as runoff ponds and filter systems, provided they are at or below grade; (D) Information and direction signs conforming to the underlying zoning district; (E) Diking for bank stabilization, erosion ,ntrol, and flood control purposes; (F) Bridges; (G) Fire lanes and dike maintenance (H) Plaza connectors between buildings and dikes, not exceeding the height of the dike, are permitted for the purpose of providing and enhancing pedestrian access along the river and for landscaping purposes. (2) River environment uses shall conform to the following standards: (A) Access roads, parking or storage areas, the closest edge of which shall be a minimum of forty feet from the mean high water mark; (B) The centerline of railroad lead tracks shall be located no closer than forty feet from the mean high water mark, except where the railroad lead track is bridging the river; (C) Where the riverbank has been reconstructed, it shall be landscaped with suitable plant material consistent with flood control measures to include large hardy shade or fruit trees, at maximum of thirty feet on center, such as maple, alder, poplar, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, oak, beech, walnut, ash and birch, or other species approved by the anning Director. In addition, at least one of the following landscape materials shall be used: roads; i (1' Live groundcover at a maximum of eighteen inches- ,,n center, (ii) Natural grass, (iii) Addition to the existing natural vegetation where appropriate; (D) Facilities such as pumps, pipes, etc., shall be suitably screened with hardy plant material; • (E) Utility easements where necessary shall be landscaped with live groundcover or natural grass cover. • . (Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) 18.44.140 Specific use regulations — low impact environment (1) The low impact environment shall contain no uses other than those allowed in the river environment and the following: (A) Structures not to exceed thirty-five feet in height, excluding utility towers; (B) Parking/loading and storage facilities adequately screened or landscaped; (C) Railroad lead and spur trackage or public or private roads; (D) Utilities, including towers; (E) Signs not to exceed regulations of the underlying zoning district sign code. (2) Low impact environment uses shall conform to the following standards: (A) Structures shall be sited and appropriately landscaped in accordance with underlying zoning regulations; (B) Access roads shall be located no closer than ten feet to buildings, spur tracks or parking/loading and storage facilities, and the effective setback area shall be suitably landscaped. This shall not prohibit ingress and egress points between an access road and the described facilities; (C) Parking, loading, and storage facilities shall be appropriately screened from the river with: (i) A solid evergreen screen of a minimum six -foot height, or (ii) Decorative fence six feet high. (Note: Chain link fence shall be slatted and planted with ivy or other trailing vine except where a safety hazard may exist.), or (iii) Large hardy shade or fruit trees such as maple, alder, poplar, cottonwood, sycamore, willow, oak, beech, walnut, ash, birch or other species approved by the Planning Director at a maximum of thirty feet on center, or (iv) Earth berms at a minimum of four feet high, suitably planted with live groundcover or natural grass; (D) Railroad lead trackage shall be no closer than fifteen feet to parking/loading and storage facilities, and shall be suitably landscaped. (Ord 1247 §!(part), 1982) Page 18-34 fl Diana Painter, Planning Division John A. Pierog, Department of Public 'June '4; 1993 Subject: CPI Lot 4 Warehouse Project (Alfred Croonquist Architects) (PRE92 -019) Activity Nos. L92 -0079, 0080 & 0081 Works RECEIVED JUN 2 21993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The following outstanding Public Works issues are being identified in response to your memo, dated May 27, 1993, concerning the sub- ject project. The resolution of Item Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 would be critical to preparation for BAR Review. 1. There is a discrepancy between top of levee and top of bank locations. Shouldn't these two be the same? 2. King County Assessor's Maps indicate a 20' railroad reservation easement across this property. This was brought to the appli- cant's attention at the 6/11/92 DRC Meeting, has not been ad- dressed since and needs to be. 3. The existing 30' easement for river bank protection and the trail needs to be changed to cover the levee to the toe of existing slope. 4. What happened to the 13' utility and RR spur easement along the east side of the property that was shown on previous plans? 5. Respond to 6/11/92 question as to whether common ingress /egress easement includes utilities. 6. All utilities' (water, sewer & storm) and easements, existing and proposed will need to be shown. 7. Need traffic study to include trip generation /distribution and LOS for the West Valley Highway & South 180th Street intersec- tion. 8. Building setback from the toe of the levee at the NW corner appears to be less than 25'. If you have any questions, please let me know. CF: Development File JAP /jap .Oi giYA. L✓.�`vim DrU,DED 7 s eAr h' /?W z'.:�- 7»'/e7y / 7 4/.a/ :% ..�. .. • To: MEMO John Pierog, Department of Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Do Williams, Recreation Department LD ane Griffin, Building Division Jack Pace, Planning Division From: Diana Painter, Planning Division Date: 14ay 2t7y;:; >19:9 3 Subject: Alfred Croonquist Warehouse Project Project Nos. L92 -0078, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 A draft letter to Mr. Alfred Croonquist, architect and developer for the above project, is attached here, as is the most recent site plan for his proposal. Mr. Croonquist would like conceptual approval for his project by the City before he proceeds with the additional drawings, etc., needed to take the proposal to the Board of Architectural Review. Please review the letter to Mr. Croonquist and the site plan and let me know if you have any additional comments to make at this time. I would like to send out the letter by ,Friday, June 4, 1993, so if you could respond by the end of next week I would appreciate it. Thank you. II ��e �ami i ccx� �.r is' � s�glls la 1 5t,( q e ST u-ie- 4e 11 t �erii 'K� �es ��'►'1 Q(e�p7ni� eet 8u;/' 4ode vse�uiren9elrAr (Laic 5%- a6-3I47), and IS '6ie1n e1/ r 1- a'i C �IQN 2 0/2 [� �� c5-P� acid 1 ddoh Thiroi- cJe Anici e41914/± a+ 4kts TITAEL 4 /i /9s ....�_... C in ALFRED CROONQU[ST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 March 17, 1993 Ms. Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA 98188 SUBJECT: Project File Nos. L92 -0078, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 Ms. Shefrin, I am in receipt of your letter dated March 8, 1993. I would have expected some notice of your intent to close this file, even a phone call would have been a courtesy. Your review required taking 25 feet off the western side of the building, thus, making the project aesthetically, economically, and functionally unfeasible. The Owner has asked us to restudy the site and to provide rail service to the building. We have done this and have developed a solution keeping the building as far away from the dike area as possible. The enclosed plan provides for the front of the building to face west, in order for the office area to take full advantage of the river view, while not creating the canyon feeling of the previous submittal. The back of the building will be rail served as are all other rail served buildings in the park. We have provided a perimeter access for the fire department and truck use. Ms. Denni Shefrin March 17, 1993 Page 2 This letter will request re- instatement of the original application as well as a request to schedule a review meeting as soon as possible. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS Alfred H. Croonqui Enclosures c: Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer Jack Bennett, Corporate Property Investors City of Tukwila March 8, 1993 • John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director Mr. Alfred Croonquist One Union Square Building, Suite 3404 Seattle, WA 98101 Subject:' Project Numbers L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 for Croonquist Warehouse Development. Dear Mr. Croonquist: As you are aware, several discussions have occurred concerning the design modifications necessary prior to Design Review. These issues were identified and discussed in a letter to you from Carol Proud dated December 21, 1992 with an expressed desire to continue to work towards a successful resolution to these issues. Based on your letter dated December 31, 1992, it is staff's understanding that your client, Mr. Bennett, has requested that no further work be done on this project. To date, no additional materials have been submitted to the City. Because there has been no further effort or progress made to resolve the design and shorelines- related issues, the City can no longer maintain your files as active. You may reapply and pay additional fees at any time. You may contact me at 431 -3663 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, 0,„\D Denni Shefrin Associate Planner c: Project File No's: L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 Jack Pace, Senior Planner Ron Cameron, City Engineer • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4131:3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 December 31, 1992 RECEIV /E D ji� ::4 0 4 co ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 re: Projects #L92 -079, #L92 -080 and L92 -081 attn: Carol Proud, Planner Dear Carol, After our conversation of last Thursday concerning the above project, I called Jack Bennett and told him of the City's new requirement that we must now reduce the building size by an additional 25 feet (the total setback is now 72 feet from the property line) to minimize the "canyon effect". Mr. Bennett and I question how the City can permit us to build to the toe of the dike and then, after the fact, by discretionary authority, suddenly tell us that this can't be done. If we must maintain the modulation and reduce the building by 25 feet, the loss of rentable area is over 11,000 sq. ft. representing income loss of over $425,000 over ten years (a pretty expensive one -sided canyon). If we delete the modulation (a visual loss) and maintain the 25 ft set back, the usable area loss exceeds 8000 sq. ft. and over $315,000 ten year loss of income. After three meetings and several thousand dollars spent on uncertainties, I am at a loss to know what to suggest to the owner. Mr. Bennett's schedule is very busy and he has instructed me to do nothing until he can find time to study the situation. He is aware that our position on the January schedule will be jeopardized, but he has no alternative at this time. * CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 December 28, 1992 Page Two It is interesting to note that thousands of people travel to the Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone, the Columbia River Gorge and the Grand Canyon of the Colorado to see real two - sided canyons, perhaps, we are depriving the local citizens of a free and attractive half canyon. My regards and a happy new year canyon effect to you all. Croonquist CROONQUIST ARCHI ECTS City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director December 21, 1992 Mr. Alfred Croonquist 3404 One Union Square Seattle, Wa 98101 RE: Summary of Meeting Notes for Croonquist Warehouse Project. ( #L92 -079, #L92 -080, #L92 -081) Dear Mr. Croonquist: It was a pleasure to meet with you Wednesday, December 9,1992 to review issues raised by City staff regarding your proposed warehouse /office project. At the meeting we discussed several items that needed further clarification and /or modifications with regard to your proposal. The following is summary of those issues. SEPA ISSUES: In order to meet SEPA publishing deadlines etc., a traffic study or other documentation that meets approval of the Public Works Department must be submitted to me by 1 -3 -93. SHORELINE REGULATIONS ISSUES: You agreed to the following modifications that relate specifically to issues identified in light of Shoreline regulations and guidelines: a. • Providing sculptured landscape berming equal to floor level on that portion of the west face of the building that does not encroach on the levy bank subject to approval from the Public Works Department.. Plant material must be native vegetation and viable for wildlife habitat. b. Providing a pedestrian trail to the top of the levy and providing one or two picnic tables for employee use at the SW corner of the property. Further you stated that additional topographical information depicting the shoreline area is not necessary since the submitted plans meet the specifications stated by Phil Fraser of the Public Works Department. I agreed that the submitted topographical information was adequate. Also, I talked with Ron Cameron, City Engineer and Phil Fraser regarding planting trees and shrubs on the landward side of the dike. They agreed that moderate vegetation could be planted as long as the material did not disrupt the integrity of the levy prism. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Croonquist Page 2 Please note, additional shoreline concerns are noted in the Design Review narrative below. DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES: The following items relate specifically to Design Review /zoning issues: (a) You agreed that no storage yard will be located on the property that conflicts with required parking areas and maneuvering areas. (b) You are unable to submit a luminaire plan at this time. Lighting needs of future tenants are not known. You will accept a reasonable standard set by the City. A luminaire plan must be included with building permit submittals. (c) The precise location of HVAC units are unknown at this time. The location of HVAC units will be set back from the shoreline area as much as practical and necessary screening will be provided. (d) You will provide a revised landscape plan that includes a minimum five foot side yard landscaping at north, south and east property lines as required by TMC section 18.52.020. Further, a minimum 15 foot wide strip of front yard landscaping will be required that generally should be located adjacent to the proposed bioswale and the south side of the entry driveway. (e) The proposed gravel surface for fire vehicle access is not allowed. An alternative material such as "grasscrete" that blends in with the adjacent levy bank would be preferred by staff. You indicated that asphalt paving was your preferred choice. (f) You felt that a material board for the proposal was not necessary as textured concrete is a prevalent and familiar construction material. (g) You felt the design of the building is straight forward and easily understood and therefore, a perspective drawing that shows the western elevation and the entrance to the development site is unnecessary and further, a costly burden to the property owner. Please note, that typically such drawings are not only useful to staff, but also to the Board of Architectural Review. The Board may postpone a decision on your proposal if they determine that more information including a perspective drawing is necessary to fully asses the impacts of the project especially to the adjacent shoreline area. (h) We discussed at some length the relationship of the western face of the proposed building to the adjoining shoreline area and the need to break up the solid wall effect of over 300 linear feet of building facade adjacent to a heavily used public amenity. You felt that you had all ready significantly redesigned the original concept of the building Croonquist Page 3 by providing recessed office space, enhanced color scheme, contextual variation of building material and with the above mentioned additional landscaping meet the intent of Design Review criteria. Since our last meeting, staff again visited the project site and other surrounding properties to clarify items (g) and (h) above. Staff is concerned with the negative impact the height and scale of the proposed building will have on the adjacent shoreline environment. As you noted in your application, the height and scale of the proposal is similar to surrounding development. However, adjacent buildings are set back at a minimum of twenty -five feet from the toe of the levy slope with the average, because of the curve of the river, considerably more than that. Portions of the proposed building are located directly at the toe of the levy slope. The addition of the above mentioned modifications to landscaping and the modulated design of the building, will not adequately mitigate the closed in canyon effect the building as designed will create. Therefore, staff will recommend to the Board of Architectural Review that the proposed building must be set back a minimum of twenty -five feet from the toe of the levy slope and also that the proposed modulation, landscaping and other architectural features be retained. Please submit four copies each of the revised site and landscape plans that reflect the above described modifications by December 28, 1992. I•appreciate your straight forward manner towards resolving these issues. If I can be of further assistance or provide additional information, please call. Yours truly, 0".efith"O, Carol Proud, Planner cc: Rick Beeler, Director DCD Ron Cameron, City Engineer -'P'J4kILT 64.4.$,F ; A t) S • ?go p +t, 140 10-K Lo( z 6- be—e-k IL go ha ca CVl • Letz-oost Is- /Re J) ScLR cio u vt.eGu 0-F . el- 14-1z)- P'"IfeN //- - co t?...0 flz4 LAz.-clgc• c_o a.) t 2-- 0081 Ps s ) eecoNguisT (c)/1 II' 161- 1Z' N • to Cor-P fz- F 61,4.15 • • 9Z -6-0e/ O2dj. p p , OCAUP oiT t'k5 6- 5 1 1- /o -4z 9Z -oio81 >NOOIST wNSF; SIT : 6/28/92 Meeting Minutes for CPI #136 Bldg. Summarized by Vernon Umetsu (6/30/92) Persons attending are listed on the attached sheet. Andy Lavec from the County missed the meeting. AC presented a site plan which was surveyors have confirmed as accurate for dike, shoreline, and other existing and proposed improvements. Croonquist (AC) wanted to conclude the meeting with an approved site plan and bldg. foot print, or very specific standards to which he would design. AC stated that this project has already been held up for 1.5 wks because the City couldn't make a decision. (No response agreeing or disagreeing with this point from City staff). Umetsu (VU) stated that no such design review for bldg footprint would be given since there has only been five minutes to review his drawings, no elevations or materials have been specified, and approval of the site plan has great impacts on later BAR review. AC noted that he's been doing this for over 20 years, would not tell planners how to plan, and wouldn't expect to planners to design a building. VU stated that the BAR determines what design is approved and that the staff is required to make a best possible recommendation whether it is informed, based on no experience, or based on excellent training and experience. Staff doesn't expect AC to agree with our proposals and would expect AC to give us the same respect. 1:\:1 Olivas (NO) will accept partial fire truck access around the building as long as all portions are within 150 ft, will not accept dike access due to having to go down hill and not having level deployment area, will consider counting rail siding area as fire access, but not very hopeful (AC doesn't think it a good idea). NO will get back to AC this week. Fraser (PF) says County does not allow over burdening (ie. filling in sloped areas to level out with retaining wall or building wall) without extensive dike studies and engineering running to several months and 10's of $1,000's. Only landscaping ....----.) will be allowed without rebuilding dike. The above means that the fire access road must be moved. AC thinks that this eliminates the rail spur and may mean moving the building. Soule from Corps (LS) doesn't have any problem with cutting into the dike, but it is King County's and Tukwila's decision (see Fraser).. LS will get plant list for dike to Cross, although they don't see a problem with any species including poplars, cottonwood, etc. VU and AC discussed options of notching building with insets, moving portion of building to toe of dike and filling in with landscaping /planters for seating, and need for architectural improvements or some improvements and heavy landscaping next to building wall. AC will review options with owners and come back with revisions. cey /2c-, /V14�J�v�s Vde-t,vc),,/ For_ Mik C2.oSS ,7s -4141o7 Les - ,t S O 0-1 4e. Cops '76 ‘{ 49 AC s7-- I age' el P IL FIVIStk C c I% 43s -(-DM %iiWL i2 01/141 C€-t.'cd 0.1-P Attendees: PP - tYl 7 QrL j ( EXCERPTS FROM 6 -11 -92 MEETING Croonquist Warehouse DRC (Pre 92 -019) (CPI Project, Lot 4) Rick Beeler, DCD Phil Fraser, Public Works Duane Griffin, DCD Jack Pace, DCD Mark Cross, DCD Rep. from Fire Department Rep. from Police Department Al Croonquist, Croonquist Architects * * * Need to account for flood protection. Precedent - Northwest Hospital Supply. Flood application as part of shoreline ordinance. Identify 100 year flood elevation, top of bank, 2' of freeboard. Corps 205 program requires that we meet Standard Project Flood, which is slightly higher than 100 year flood. Both conditions determine structure requirements for flood protection for the existing dike system. Information is required up front before decision can be made. Problem with other project (Northwest Hospital Supply) is that parking lot and part of road cut into dike prism. First objective here is to make sure that anything you're doing here does not cut into dike prism. County then can review it through several test borings through the dike. Then we worked around and got the project outside the dike prism, and that relieved us of this requirement. AC - What is dike prism? PF - Dike prism is basically the toe of the 2:1 slope projected up, then 16' across, then back down at 2:1 until you hit the actual ground. Make sure existing and /or future dike, 100 year flood, .. ? .. , is also shown, and that prism, projected prism, existing prism are not cut into by whatever you're doing here. You've got about three functions here, a fire lane, a building, a parking lot, and railroad spurs, and future railroad spurs, and all this is part of your plan. You may get to a point where you may move the fire lane, or get rid of the fire lane, or move it to the top of the dike and use the trail for this purpose. Or you may find that you may move the railroad spur, or you may have to shift everything so the railroad spur is not going now or in the future to cut into the dike prism. We're looking at all those elements to make sure that your use does not interfere physically out there now or in the future with the dike prism. 1 AC - PF - PF - Is there information that you have that you can give us about the prism? Yes, we have that, can develop that. We can also give you our flood insurance study. Your building is protected by two different basins; one is the T -5 channel to the south and obviously by the immediate dike system that goes into the Green River, T -1. The third easement (I've talked about this projected railroad easement) is an existing dike easement. I think its called 30' riverbank protection easement /pedestrian trail. Right now the Corps, the Green River Flood District, the City of Tukwila and our recreation director have new, different requirements and are trying to, as developments come in, get those easements upgraded. It's just a change in the wording, but it's basically trying to provide the necessary words to assure that we meet Corps requirements, Corps of Engineers, King County Flood District, recreation trail requirements so we would provide you with language to provide an upgrade to their existing easement, have converted to a language that we need. AC - What is the size of that easement? PF - AC - PF - MC - 30' is the right easement, so I'm hoping that when there's a more specific showing of the toe, of the easement and such that it does fall, because the way you've shown it schematically here is exactly where we want it. Dick Reeves of Wilsey & Ham gave us all this information. We've simply taken it as the basis for our drawing . . . It should be relatively accurate. This looks exactly where I would have placed this, that's not a problem. I just don't know physically if this is that; the property line. It says the property line top, and you go over to where it says toe of levee, and it's right on the property line that you have on the plan, and at least I think that property line is the top, not the toe, so I scratched that out. The property line is the top and then you go another 16' and hit the other top. * * * We are concerned about activities in the shoreline zone. Primarily you've got the two areas shown, you've got a river easement shown, the 30' wide area, and then you've 2 got the 60' low impact zone. The low impact zone does allow a couple things [Reads . . .]. It does allow structures not over 35' tall, parking, loading and storage facilities adequately screened or landscaped, the railroad spurs and roads are allowed in that area. Low impact environment uses shall conform [Reads]. 5' of landscaping along both sides, and 0' on at the back. I assume the river is at the back. That was 0' under the zoning. Access roads shall be located no closer than 10' the building. Spur tracks, parking, loading, storage facilities and effective landscape areas shall be suitably landscaped . . . [CONTINUED]. AC - We had seen this area for landscaping. MC - It talks about a solid evergreen screen of a minimum 6' in height, decorative fence 6' in height, large partly shade or fruit trees. You already have a string of trees going along the river there, at both ends of the property, so that's a clue as to what the major tree along the river would start to be. And the earth berms are a minimum of 4' high. They really are trying to screen these parking areas from the river walk. AC - I have the parking area below the walk. MC - Correct. The intent here of these requirements is to get screening of the parking areas. We don't think the chain link fence across here that you're screening this area adequately from the river. It's really a concern. * * * RB - What are the requirements of the dike prism as far as plant material goes? PF - If the Department of Fisheries gets involved, then they would like something that provides an equivalent fish environment, but if you're talking about land side, then basically we don't want anything that would interfere with the functions of the dike prism itself. RB - What does that mean? FP - It means that if you put in large trees that would break up or cause erosion or the prism to be dependent on something like the life of the tree. I don't think you can really provide any significant plantings within the prism except for river side, and that's for fisheries. It's a function of the * ** of the dike, and basically it's fairly autonomous. 3 MC - PF - MC - 4•• Not to have big root systems . . Right, anything that's going to change or erode or cause the dike system to become non - functional. You have this series of large trees, I'm not sure what species they are, running along the edge of the river. Is that something that was done at the time when that wasn't taken into consideration? We're doing it differently now? PF - They're not willows? Are those cottonwoods? [they're poplars] AC - RB - PF - If I remember, the entire area was under a blanket permit to build * ** this was 14 -15 years ago, before the requirements for landscaping and so on * ** And at that time, it said you had to have a large tree every so many feet along the side . . . I think that's where these came from . . . The problem you're talking about, Phil, is that over time that you've found, at least in the last couple years, is that the problem with some of the dike failures has been due to large tree that are placed right next to • • • Yes, the Steak & Ale is a good example. The river bank and dike system was collapsed. We're hard pressed to find * ** we have to go back to the contractor to take care of it. The whole dike system is collapsed as the result of a tree. AC - We should cut all those trees down, Phil? PF - I'm probably not giving the right impression as far as the direction I'm going. Before the State Department of Fisheries stepped in and said we had to have a more amenable riverbank environment for, that's compatible with fisheries. We were just handling about anything that was being planted within the dike membrane, and the Corps was of that mind. We've mellowed since because of fisheries insistence, and I think that if there's something that's compatible with the dike membrane, that the Corps going to buy off on we would probably find that acceptable. RB - It sounds like this needs to be worked too, because you've got landscaping requirements and dike prism requirements, and I don't think we're going to settle this here. But at least you need to know that those are there. 4 i-. AC - PF - Might a compromise solution be to require that use the distance, that we have to put the landscaping at the lower level? [unintelligible] You might remember the history-of this at the other site, it was at the point where DOE finally decided the County, who was administering the flood laws, provided too much interference. I think it was partly as a result of that project, that the City of Tukwila (I was saying to the Public Works Director) that providing a modification to the dike /prism membrane, and putting a road up there, and providing some minor modifications without going through a complete dike stabilization study with deep core drilling was appropriate. It was shortly thereafter that DOE decided to get out of the flood business altogether. I still am working with King County, the same people, and I don't know what they're going to say. It think it's a very neat idea to stick fire access on trails, as one and the same thing . . . redo the trail to provide for the fire truck, but I think that's a very good idea . . . get as much usage . . . I think we should propose it and see where it goes. RB - That's what's shaping up in my mind too, getting another meeting with the Corps and people in here to take a look at the dike prism and take a look at what can happen between the building and the dike and that sort of thing. It looks like that is what is going to happen. RB - Issues: Problem with prism. We need to get people in outside of City that are going to help make the decision on this, the Corps people, fisheries. PF - The main element here has to be the Planning Department, because they are looking at providing some criteria here. MC - There's something we need to know before we know if we can put the fire lane on the dike. If there are restrictions on the kinds of plantings that can occur within that prism, we ought to know about that so that ourselves and the BAR doesn't start looking at plantings that are incompatible. JP - We already know some of those already. Fire - Fire access on the dike is a problem because of the danger of falling in the river. * * * 5 BOARD OF ARCI:"— ECTURAL REVIEW a DESIGN - REVIEW REGEivAPpLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 0 7 1992 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY Telephone: (R06) 431 -3680 DEVELOPMENT RSTAFFUSE >O n. 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Construct a 79,009 sc[! \ft nr'arehouse 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacanyipplicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest interstion) Prop. tax No. 788890 - 0120 -08, South Glacier P,4t Olympic Ave. So. Quarter: Section: To,.7 h1p: Range: (This information may be foundioft 5ur tax statement) i 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Alfred Croonquist Architects r' Address. 3404 One Union Square, Seattle, WA 98101 Signature: * The app ant is the person whom t to whom all notices and reports s AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: /Corporate property Investors y 0 Date: 8/28/92 staff will contact regarding the application, and 1 be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. OWNER Address: 20206 72nd Ave. So., Kent, WA 98032 Phone: (206 75-8787 ct I /WE,[signatur r� swear that I /re,are a owner(s) or c ontr purchas in this applicatib d that the foregoing statements application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: er(s) of the property involved and answers contained in this -z-7L • BOARD OF ARCHITECTUR 4L REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC& DN_ CRITERIA Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: The design maximizes placement of landscaped areas in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the site (other than the river levee huffer landscaping), structures in the industrial park. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: The proposed building is to be located in Southcenter South Industrial Park. The structure's mass, scale, texture, color and exterior surface articulation will be similar to and consistent with adjacent structures in the park. Pedestrian circulation, other than along the river levee, will be minimal. Vehicular circulation, both on -site and at the street access have been designed to facilitate truck access to loading /unloading points in the struc ure and 'asse •e vehi e a ces as be-n sla -d ad•a en to •rimar and secondary building entrances. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICk ON Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPCNSE: The proposed landscaping, site treatment and site lighting is consistent with and an extension of the tone and precedent set by other developments within Southcenter South Industrial Park. Landscape treatment at the west (river) side of the site will provide a native shrubbery screen of approximately six -foot height at maturity, interspersed with more vertical landscape elements (trees) to articulate and break up into smaller areas the large expanses of adjacent structure wall. Visual access from the street (So. Glacier Place) is minimal due to existing adjacent development and the cul -de -sac configuration of the street. 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC(, 3N Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: The building design, utilizing painted precast concrete panels and aluminum storefront glazing, will he very similar to adjacent existing structures in the park ThP wall surface on the long sides of the Strurture have heen offset and change of materials provided to minimize long uninterrupted _EXpanses of unarticulated wall surface_ Truck openings _although placed - 1 . • - . 1 . • . II . . . - 11 . 1 . . 1 .11 - .• 1 • • 111 • • • 1 -• •• -1 1. otherwise hlank wall surfaces 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: Not applicable. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICL ON Page 5 INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. Not applicable. 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. Not applicable. 3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- lation. Not applicable. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Not applicable. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im- pacts. Not applicable. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. Not applicable. CITY OF TUKWILA Atr,4r TMCNT or COMMUNITY OCYCLQrMCNT OESIgM REVIEW APPLICATION 6300 Sou:hconfer Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98166 Toloph€ pro, (: 6) d`? ".94121 :P6a :C7 i ; enx er: Fil c Number: : L: : :y,:,.` "t�✓ . D :07. 2. . Cji-il : )tarPt »f :.N>>rrihPr: • /m// `: ,t� R- /fiPP SZ /- -i 77 lv • 93 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Construct an 80 _000 square foot warehouse /office project. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Prop. Tax No. 788890 -0120, South_0lacjer P1. at Olvmpi v So. Quarter: Section: Township; Range: (This information may be found on your taw statement) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Alfred Croonqui st Architects Address:3404 One Union Square, Seattle WA 98101 !6..s:i'690 Si gnatur " The ap icant is the person whom to whom all notices and reports Date: 8/27/92 btaff will contact resarding the application, and gall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFF I AV1 T OF OWNEHSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Corporate Property Investor OWNER Address:20206 72nd Avenue So., Kent WA 98032 Phone: 206/575 -8787 I/ WE,[signature(s)]� swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contrac purchaser(s) of t 1e property inv in this application and that the foregoing ;statements and answers containe application are true and correct to the best of my /uur lu►uw1et.16t cilia belief. Date. S4 • • lved in this t L Si(iN titVtuvy Ivry CRITERIA .• • The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional . response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, de signed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: The design maximizes placement of landscaped areas in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the site (other than river levee buffer landscaping) _ near the S G1ALit _placeJrpntage and_aj, .e access point. The height and_ . scale of the structure will be similar to and consistent with other adjacent structures in the industrial park 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures ;should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of sa.fety,.efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E: Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: Proposed building is to be located in Southcenter South Industrial Park. The structure's mass, scale, texture, color, and exterior surface articulation will be similar to and consistent with adjacent structures in the park. Pedestrian circulation other than along the levee will be minimal. Vehicular circulation, both on -site and at street access has been designed to facilitate truck access to loading /unloading points in the structure and passenger vehicle access to ,parking adjacent to primary and secondary building entrances. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION POO 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topog"raphic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. * C. Landscape treatment should ei h nce architectural features, strengthen vistas and itnportant axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or slu•uhs in paved areas is encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be Imslghtly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination, of these, Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: Proposed Lansis.upi rig, sj to treatment, and,..alte,-,l,ghting cpIlsi,tent with and an extension of the recedence set by_,other sites within the industrial_pArk. Landscape treatment at west river side of .. rgcture will provi de _A n iye _ shrubbery screen of approximai<ely six foot- _lielab a , maturity interspersed with more vertical landscape elelnents_arees) rQArtic,ulate .and. break_uri._ the large expanses of adjacent structure wall. Visual acces fr.QnLtlte_stree_ _(3. G1acier,p]�re) iC min1waj cilie o existing adjacent development and the cul -de -sac configuration of the street. 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring de- velopments. ULSILiN FiLVil;W AI-'I'LIL.A TIVN ruju'. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro - portions and relationship to one another. DDuilding components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roes[, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should he avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: Building design, using painted, precast concrete _anel s and aluminum storefront glazing, will be very similar tp and consistent_] th the exterior design of other adjacent existing structures in the perk -. Truck openings, although placed primaries in response to functional needs, provide color variation and articulation of the wall surfaces and eIt ]tsh a rhythm of punched openings in the long wall surfaces. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET tURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. . B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: Not applicable. reti N HEVIEW A('f'LICATIQN INTERURBAN SPECIAL R1=VIEW DISTRICT Page The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capi talize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River. and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. Not applicable. 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. Nnt applicable. 3. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- lation. Not applicable. • 4. The proposed property use should be compatible wi th neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Not applicable. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im- pacts. Not applicable. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. Not appl..j ub .. r0 [Az- -rR.& ENv. IL- J7. W _ ;ZIGt-tl& TP,131..6 - - ------ _ _ 1 P.c., I 19 Epps 91,-,94.0...tomi. -nricilogo-T-4),: .rat$7f 1,1!',1111410Ar-bYtM°14-1 ii-ii ........ xi:-/Ny1.14. • 1 7.V-)(16TINEy : • : Jok-1 40°1;1 • • . • •••'•-:..!'":';-:::17 7'. • ' ■%, •-• k.t:1■44 • „ - - - - • . ,04, e. — .. V4e1r-04■12 'blegmt,r.pylEA ItIkv1/2,:.._:1- &dr' C '1- °.• azouNixove-g-‘tAsipe* -.1(f-, 60.111161,91 cc* I 441,.e so,e,,, .e,,, ...,---.. .f)o-nt.,00 6066, tro lA - ' .. ..• ""-Ir:' --7,4 rzfrPhohli PUP1- .0), to," Vot V014 ' 1. -.g. 10 . 4012,9r2v.10to..m .1.,11, e. lwl\lt)9 u orro sLotkutzp-IA.1 LSI! 6 0,6, Ni,g; • MANoNIA .icer5N* . MAHoKi IA ;LON.; C \O<NGOUVr%14- I „ • 1 _ tsiSti414_ "0, G■ fttit. X. U. A Re.T04rAlathij*. _ . . 1,A\N1-1: • '..V.4Al 6Mite- <14T 44Z KA 1•‘ ••11 u-ntAri =0,91• . • .:•••• • • • NG0-: Au-romATv. M9E-It-114.1,5r— Rizieig1ot-4 ***MM WU, IN,41-^2 .\\ 61\ • • —. 11...11.`iii 1,U . u* NIbleA 117-,NAAA.s.! • 1/0M0Ar--17"/ MrtAte. /LH , ./044)5:1" *ut•I xFrftJ- S" cosi, 0 PV erNkr-r-,/,44.tA rtzwe-r-i r5,Ar.. A,&i 11 /0E4 &14-11\1"1," Ct. Amur- 4Ld. . 1'.1 • J , ", --.1A116+15.5g- . 1531,140.. pi vh,--e-bA 1,, - 11J w-x Nea tizg-ero -r1P-At-wPIANI--rr A4. 7 MA64.101A A .101435,0iA211 OYAMA lviA6rN01/1" 4 -9 1 GHAMA AtAMON WffN& 6epArri se iplJ 7' ; e V,P, NI 5024\10M PLACA-I-UM -Tomr-1,1117*um viDufariUM 9' .t-r-vi\iu/Q 1.4/01-94414A. role-ivbua. 1464)12.V.. o TO Vii t0-(ell a ¶1-1().3,4, 444,1 t:).-KITAI...16- • 440441.47 61ZeW-.1 r'Y RAM IP604/0 +I C 12-10.G. -61z0UN7V JE eITH - C46.1\tedi.-101cqh 6,01-1N1)0 (.0Y.b1A- rwy.64,--- pugr-1,2 izDyP.1,- Po MD Ke-I3utif 7-1 • a le140.t20b544r,g01■4 . tzu1\10'2 1441/.( crro 1,0111.6-14 LAutze.i., 1-1511 e, 3 Z)11 0 I 4'0NIA .1e.e.r.am* 'Gr-FIN6, MAI-401:11A • 1 .txt.-•. 21.;eAua,, • . r-YoN■ZIOUV -1APW:14N:1 1-4-1Nle,14 • 1 6743.,... • 6 0, 6., VCVQT- &e:;i71) 77. • • (rn1/17r1:?' - 7--FAA44916147* RA • 1 • . . . .• . • . • ' 4\1161.544 MAI RIVER AREA PLAN SOUTHCERITER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK • -r — / • • • • ,,, , . r • AREA PLAN f • 1.V SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK TUKWILA WASHINGTON H.C.100NOWTIA-1.4.8. ASSOC..U.S.A.C.1 ICTS N.+r •.. ......§0. , . - .4-,'0,.' 4, "-,(14 -1 - `.,.: i*...., (ip;.:�. _w,.. its. --'.• 2 - 7 Jac 4.4/1./4 ✓� p219.is — CJraaN+�J�� uts 710a'o. - Add 1hC►�Is•M ib (/W • di& IAD& Moil 41141/ 1/. Cncien dGJNI •M 1Aa 4Lil•IG4.L. t=ArAi •. 41.41.•Otte+26M6 - • Gen/se, a92.140 it..• daMiiiiragirt.• 40:441 .61" fake) 60 rWC416. 000 1.9 lac ei.- 7I wolflike 4J* oia'a9 • vaid vJn1 :las 1424'4 '• s40d ':•t K F4.L.VBENO FNM-- sWJV•elS1a J e rrV%viii ail* s L1044I11y LEGEND (E)K r, •^..Va y D4ww 4) rKx e, f..a. 4144 erra... s....w 4) ay Yvni1 .rf T wyi c u....,. . ® xKa ...Jr VIM m wT MCI © R. ABBREVIATIONS -.awerro A. a • l.. .M.. Il. W..l taN CaRara MWtp ✓ p.. 17.:. =.T ur•t • :ARR. • Petal ▪ l.t ▪ Rialor aee. .. ran P •moi:.. 014* arabor Rerire h.ria.l u VIR ersT P-1 •P -1- -z. P-11- P-1 14- 1r-1 DRAWING INDEX D<ICRIPTION T 9rG rrt-,vGI rr MA ¢ 4:7T ;•• ExitLIcti- GI.GV/Ticn, '' C'7F# RSP- x- JEG?IGTVS -r t.. 1 rt..4 vnaT valla[ ,aowWAY .4/ AREA PLAN •CACI I. • ICO. SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK TUKWILA WASHINGTON LEGAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL NOTES y. a Ty ._._.u..w.h.0w.n.ommtiY taarel 44•11 . .a . .,, , .w r r MD POW V. tom. i r la..4 .w RR. 1:. s. 1444.41 e.wartsor Rail larals• era 1.4.1 ar444.41.4 4444•41 ..f. 4 . ▪ _.. _ ........._ ..r... ` w ........,_. 44•144.444 R•44.14444Z, • •a • VICINE j y. ✓ I2 -WOE/ r MYR NO 0,.112 • aa/11- ui - SaJT}t - r irka13j1-ice fAPK p _ 1' coFP► PIz iy I1.LV97 t_'' ALFAtOI100N OLT AACMT Tr y • , d.. M L1 RaaJawa wlao„1w .. ' Na- R ta7 M Ir*LL MMM„oTw+ al w qql . ti, w TIra ao ete.vfrcr ict4 0 1 I all MIMI Y ao ete.vfrcr ict4 0 r ku• 0444.14T eJILonJ (• 1`f r l 1C r irll'1 ='7M W4IGnN/ 0 • EPgr ELEYPcTIai -Aril. pa - 49j9 -1-1 aavA-pc44 vl i -d j=11Ettomen i . U1N eLevATlotl via - I Lg2.-oOSo 0 1 I 0 i 0 C . WIWI. 0 r ku• 0444.14T eJILonJ (• 1`f r l 1C r irll'1 ='7M W4IGnN/ 0 • EPgr ELEYPcTIai -Aril. pa - 49j9 -1-1 aavA-pc44 vl i -d j=11Ettomen i . U1N eLevATlotl via - I Lg2.-oOSo site plan christensen greenbelt green river flow landscaping and site furniture plan right bank wood ground rail details . CHRISTENSEN green river cross sections . alfred croonquist