HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 90-01-SPE - DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT - HOMEWOOD SUITES DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE PARKING90-1-SPE
6825 southcenter boulevard
89-06-smp
89-12-dr
epic-26-89
Permit 90-01-SPE - DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT - HOMEWOOD SUITES DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE PARKING
P.O. Box 795
200 Front Street (71457)
Natuhituchc8, LA 71458.0795
318 -352 -8238
318- 352.5093 (Telecupicr)
December 8, 1990
01/08/90 14:50
,Navisa.Pmer
Mr. Jack Pace
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98118
318 352 5093 Safari ro9t. Co.
RE: Proposed Homewood Suites Hotel Development
Dear Jack:
t� Developer And Manager Of
HOMEWOO D
SUMS _
Pursuant to your request, Dimension Development Company, Inc. is pleased
to provide the following information regarding the extent of available parking
proposed for the subject hotel development project. We look forward to a
favorable Planning Department report for our proposal and wish to thank you
for your assistance in this process.
Dimension has submitted a site plan to the City of Tukwila for the proposed
development which indicates a total of 114 guest suites. In accordance with
local requirements for hotel use, the site plan also indicates a total of
114 surface parking spaces.
The subject site plan also indicates a two story "Lodge" building in which
occurs hotel administration and guest oriented activities. One such activity
involves the use of a "Guest Activity Room" which has a seating capacity
not exceeding 50 persons.
According to the City of Tukwila, the inclusion of the "Guest Activity Room"
as part of the hotel's operation may create the need for (1) additional on -site
parking, (2) a reduction in the total of available guest suites, or (3) the
providing, by Dimension, of a cooperative parking agreement. Whereas,
Dimension believes that no additional area on -site is available for additional
parking spaces, and further believes that reducing the number of available
guest suites would be economically damaging to the project, Dimension herewith
provides the following reasonable justification for the existing total of
parking spaces now indicated on the subject site plan as being adequate for
the Hotel's operation.
1. Utilizing an accupany /parking space ratio of 4:1 for the Guest Actifity
Room would create the need for 13 additional parking spaces on the site.
(50 person capacity 4 4 M 12,5)
Mr. Jack Page
December 8, 1990
Page Two
2. The total parking space requirement utilizing a 1:1 suite /parking ratio
plus the above 4:1 occupant /parking ratio would amount to 127 required spaces.
(114 + 13 Q 127)
The existing site plan with 114 spaces provides nearly 90% of this total.
(114 i 127 = 0.897)
3. The subject hotel is projected to achieve a stabilized annual occupancy
rate of 80% by its third year of operation.
4. Although no historical parking use date exists for the Homewood Suites
Hotel chain, its parent company, the Holiday Corporation, is the previous
owner of the Residence Inn Hotel chain which did compile such data. The
Residence Inn product is conceptually identical to Homewood Suites. The
historical data for that chain would indicate that the ratio of actual required
parking spaces to available suites is 0.89. This figure is based on a great
number of hotels operating for several years at occupancy levels of between
75 % -80 %. (similar to the subject hotel's projected occupancy. See No. 3
above)
5. Applying the parking space use factor noted above to the parking
requirement identified in No. 2 above yields a utilized parking total of
113 spaces. (0.89 x 127 = 113.03)
Applying the same parking space use factor to the existing number of spaces
now indicated on the subject site plan and then adding the additional spaces
required by virtue of the Guest Activity Room yields a utilized parking total
of 115 spaces. (0.89 x 114 + 13 T 114.46)
Either method of determining actual parking use for the subject development
would indicate adequate coverage being provided by the existing site plan.
In addition to Homewood Suites statistics from its previous experience with
Residence Inn, our company developed and operated eight Residence Inn hotels.
Two of the eight properties contained similar parking to that proposed for
the Tukwila project. The Residence Inn in St. Petersburg, Florida is an
88 suite hotel. This property has 90 parking spaces. In 1988 this property
had an achieved occupancy percentage of 83% of the available suites. We
did an actual car count in March of 1988 and again in August of 1988 and
determined that during these two months the average number of vehicles on
our property at 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., the two most heavily occupied times,
was 81 automobiles. I might add that of the 31 days checked in August of
1988, 17 of thos days the hotel was 100% occupied and the results would
certainly give you comfort that the parking spaces available at Tukwila will
be more than adequate for our project.
Mr. Jack Pace
December 8, 1990
Page Three
01/08/90 14 ;51
We also developed a 96 unit Residence Inn at Jackson, Mississippi and again
developed only 90 parking spaces due to site size. During 1988 this property
ran an occupancy percentage of 79% of available rooms. A car count at this
property during the same two months of 1988 revealed that the average car
per night was 83 cars. The property was 100% occupied on 13 of the 31 days
of August. Again, I believe that these figures will make you comfortable
with our proposal.
A copy of the Homewood Suite information letter to us is attached hereto.
As part of allowing the implementation of the subject development's existing
site plan, Dimension Development Company, Inc., as the owner and operator
of the development, hereby agrees to the following:
1. To restrict signage advertising the Guest Activity Room to inside the
building and not mounted so to be visible to a person outside the property.
2. To restrict the distribution of promotional material for the subject
hotel in which the Guest Activity Room is also promoted to targeted potential
demand generators and not the general public.
3. To restrict the rental, lease, or general use of the Guest Activity Room
to those persons or groups who are in -house registered guests.
Jack, we trust the above will serve as adequate justification for implementing
our existing site plan proposal and we look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.
rvic
ark E. Hansen
Executive Vice President
s
copy: Sam Friedman
John Henrickson
Molly Headley
VIA FACSIMILE
S 318 352 5093 Safari mgt. CO. 100:i07*
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 5
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of,"
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
B. Applicant will install improvements within six months of
approval date.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
B. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
C. Increase effective height of new landscaping /screening so
that it will be a minimum of 10 -feet high at installation.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 -CUP AND DESIGN REVIEW 89 -10 -DR WITH
CONDITIONS AS JUST PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF ARCH-
ITECTURAL REVIEW. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI-
TIONS:
1. Applicant agrees to provide a total of 119 parking spaces.
This number constitutes a maximum 8.4% reduction in the
required amount of parking for this site and its intended
uses.
89 -13 -DR - HOMEWOOD SUITES - Request for approval of a design
review application and cooperative parking agreement for a 106x,
unit extended stay hotel.
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT: (4P0- OJ- S PE )
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report
recommending approval with conditions.
Mark Hanson, Dimension Development, Memphis, TN, the applicant
for the project, further described the proposal for the Board.
2. Applicant agrees to restrict use of meeting areas to regist-
ered guests only after 5:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 6
3. Applicant agrees to restrict use of facilities to registered
guest only at all times if documented congestion occurs on
the site.
4. Applicant agrees to restrict signage advertising the meeting
areas to inside the building.
5. Applicant agrees to restrict the distribution of promotional
material for the subject hotel in which the meeting areas
are also promoted to targeted potential demand generators
and not the general public.
6. Applicant agrees to provide a parking study if need arises
in the future.
7. Conditions shall travel with the facility, shall be recorded
with the King County Department of Records and Elections,
and may be modified only with the written permission of the
City of Tukwila.
MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KNUDSON, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND KIRSOP
VOTING YES AND MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO.
Mr. Knudson asked to be excused.
A 10- minute recess was called.. The meeting resumed at 10:30 pm.
DESIGN REVIEW
Molly Headley review t he de sign review portion of the request
recommending approval with conditions. She asked that the record
show a correction in the staff report from 114 units to the
correct amount of 106 units. She distributed an addendum to the
staff report which reflected additional conditions, based on
shoreline requirements.
Mr. Mark Hanson, applicant, further clarified the proposal adding
that Condition 1(a) be corrected to reflect the inclusion of
trees along the north (not west) property line.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE APPLICATION 89- 12 -DR, SUBJECT TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY
16, 1990. THE CONDITIONS READ AS FOLLOWS:
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT
THE FOLLOWING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL:
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 7
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1. A revised landscape /site plan indicating:
a. The inclusion of trees along the north property line.
b. The addition of trees to the landscape area on the east
side of Building E -5.
c. Stamped approval of landscape plan by a Washington
State Landscape Architect.
2. Lighting plan for site to include placement and level of
intensity produced by lights.
3. Prior to submittal of application for State Shoreline Permit
the applicant will provide:
a. A cross - section for every 75 feet of development along
the shoreline showing:
(i) Existing ground elevation
(ii) Proposed ground elevations
(iii) Height of proposed structures
(iv) Elevations of trail /access road and dike
configurations which clearly indicate eleva-
tion of ground at beginning and end of
development (i.e., trail /access road, paved
parking area).
b. Elevation prints of Buildings which show height of 35'
as required by the Shoreline Program and dimensions of
buildings and indicates scale of drawing.
c. Statement of composition and volume of any extracted
materials and proposed disposal area.
88 -7 -DR EMBASSY SUITES - Request for approval of an amendment to
the site plan to eliminate 2.5 -story garage and replace with
expanded surface parking on 1.9 acres to the east.
Molly Headley, associate planner, reviewed the staff report for
the proposal, recommending approval with conditions.
John Sloan, architect for the project, represented the applicant,
further described the proposal. He stated that they generally
agreed with staff's recommendations.
Tim Lavin, represented owners of the parcel, described the
history of obtaining the site.
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 8
Mr. Mike O'Donin, 1517 S.W. 16th Street, requested that permis-
sion be granted for a shared directional sign (with Longacres).
He was instructed to submit a sign application directly to
Tukwila Department of Community Development.
Robert Losey,\ owner of the adjacent property, Renton Auction,
expressed a concern with the delay he is experiencing in obtain-
ing a date of `sale from the purchaser.
Mr. O'Danin expi the purchase process and the legal process
they must go through to obtain Mr. Losey's property and the time
elements involveth
MR HAMILTON MOVED D CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT 88 -7 -DR
EMBASSY SUITES, SUBJ CT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Prior to issuance f Building Permit:
A. Provide a revit44 site plan to be approved by Planning
Director which w111 provide pedestrian access:
1. Between the neJ,SE parking area and the tower
2. Between both parkin areas and Longacres Way and
West Val'ey Highway.
2. Building tilewoZ to be installe• as a previously approved.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY' APPROVED.
89 -18 -DR - HARTt1NG- TINPERLINE BUILDING - R-• est for approval of
design review /application to construct an 8 000 square foot
retail /industrial building with 136 parking s' =ces on three acres
of land.
structure.
Discussion ensued on the proposal
Vernon Upetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the app ication,
recommending approval with conditions.
Al Croonquist, One Union Square Building, Seattle, WA 98101,
architect for the project, represented the applicant. He further
clarified the project.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
APPLICATION 89 -18 -DR - HARTUNG- TIMPERLINE, BASED ON THE STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; THE BLUE COLOR SELECTED FOR THE GLASS
HEARING DATE: February 22, 1990
FILE NUMBER: 89-12-DR Homewood Suites
APPLICANT: Dimitri Demopulos Architects, Inc.
REQUEST: 1. Cooperative Parking Agreement approval for a
reduction of 7.6% (10 spaces) in required
parking.
2. Design Review approval in conjunction with
Shoreline Permit Application for the
development of a 106 unit hotel with
associated buildings and recreation areas.
LOCATION: Lots 31 and 32 of Interurban Addition to
Seattle: north of Southcenter and west of
Green River; in vicinity of Ft. Dent Park.
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
(
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PREPARED FEBRUARY 16, 1990
3.12 acres
Commercial
C-2 Regional Retail
Provittir
Mitigated Determination of Non-significance
dated January 8, 1990
A) Vicinity Map/Site Plan (Large Scale)
B) Landscape Plan (Large Scale)
C) Elevations (Large Scale)
D) State Farm Plan/Elevations
E) Ft. Dent Site Plan/Elevations
Staff Report
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
to B.A.R. Page 2
VICINITY /SITE
1. Project Description: The proposal is for the development of a
114 unit extended stay hotel. As indicated in Attachment A, the
site is surrounded by proposed and existing office development
and the Green River. The project has focused the buildings on a
central multi - purpose building and recreation area as seen in
Attachment B. The buildings vary in height from one to three
stories. Parking is located around the perimeter of the site on
three sides of the buildings and is screened from the Green River
with landscaping.
2. Existing Development: The site is currently undeveloped.
3. Surrounding Land Use: Vacant at the present time with future
development consisting of a State Farm Office building and a
proposal for another all- suites hotel.
4. Terrain: The site is generally flat
5. Vegetation: The vegetation consists of long grasses.
6. Access: The only entry to the property is an extension of
Southcenter Boulevard which will be shared with adjacent-property
development.
This staff report will review two requests. The first is for
approval of a Cooperative Parking Agreement and the second is for
Design Review.
DISCUSSION
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT
DECISION CRITERIA
The Cooperative Parking Agreement Criteria is listed below in
Bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact.
TNC 18.56.070 states that a Cooperative Parking Agreement is
required when two or more uses occupy the same building or when
two or more buildings or uses cooperatively share an off - street
parking facility and that the total requirements for off - street
parking and loading facilities shall be at least the sum of the
requirements for the greater of the uses at any one time or as
deemed necessary by the Planning Commission. All applications for
cooperative parking shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
The applicant is requesting approval for the reduction of 10
parking spaces (7.6% reduction) through a cooperative parking
agreement. The proposal includes the construction of a 106 room
hotel and associated conference rooms with a total of 1428 gross
square feet.
Staff Report 89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
to B.A.R. Page 3
The Dimension Development Company proposes to build a hotel to be
known as Homewood Suites as shown in Attachments A -D. It is
located adjacent to and bordered by the Green River on two sides.
The remaining two sides will be developed as office buildings
(Attachments E -F).
The most intense use of the site is for the 106 hotel rooms. The
applicant has provided 106 parking spaces, one for each room, as
required by the TMC.
Based on additional uses the parking required is increased to 130
spaces. The following table will explain the process used to
determine parking requirements:
Standard Recuired Parking
Use(Rate of Parking Required)
106 Hotel Rooms(1 space per room)
1428 Square feet of Meeting Area
(1 space per 4 persons based on
Uniform Building Code Occupancy Load) 24
TOTAL REQUIRED 130
PARKING PROVIDED = 120 spaces
REDUCTION REQUESTED BY APPLICANT = 10 spaces (7.6 %)
This hotel would normally require 106 parking spaces if no
additional uses were located on the site. The proposal indicates
that approximately 1,428 square feet of space will be used as
conference /meeting areas. The applicant has explained that the
Great Room will be used by the guests for reading, watching TV
and enjoying a Continental breakfast in the morning and hor
d'oeuvres and drinks in the evening. It will not be advertised
and is intended for guest use only. Homewood Suites asserts that
this is a special type of "extended stay" hotel which focuses
services only on registered guests and does not solicit outside
business, as is common practice with standard hotels.
In the past, the Planning Commission has approved a maximum
reduction of 8 %. Observation of parking use indicates that the
recommendations have been appropriate. Table 1 reviews past
decisions:
Required
Parking Spaces
106
TABLE 1
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
Staff Report
to B.A.R. Page 4
Project Required Approved Deficit
Marriott Hotel
Nendels Inn
CONCLUSIONS
Parking Parking per cent
201 172 +
13 reserve 8%
356 343 3.6%
Reserve parking was allowed where the applicant had the potential
space available to expand and construct additional spaces.
The peak period for conference room use is generally during the
day during low residential use. They begin to overlap in the
early evening (around 5:00 p.m.). As a result, congestion could
occur due to nonresidential use.
1) Past decisions for cooperative parking agreements with
Nendels and Marriot have been under 10% . Subsequent site
observations by staff have proven the appropriateness of
level as little or no traffic congestion has been observed.
2) The proposed site plan does not allow for additional parking
to be developed on -site should congestion occur.
3) The property will not allow any additional parking in the
event of increased need on -site due to its geographical
location with the river on two sides and office building
development on the other two sides.
Shared parking with adjacent office development is not
feasible because of overlap in use periods.
5) Ft. Dent Office building has an overflow of parking;
therefore, the possibility exists for Homewood Suites to
acquire access to additional spaces if the need arises in
the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of a 7.6% reduction of parking with the
following conditions:
{(9
1) Applicant agrees to provide a total of 121 parking spaces.
This number constitutes a maximum reduction in the
required amount of parking for this site and its intended
uses. v.00
Staff Report
to B.A.R.
2) Applicant agrees to restrict use of meeting areas to
registered guests only after 5:00 P.M.
3) Applicant agrees to restrict use of facilities to registered
guests only at all times if documented congestion occurs on
the site.
4) Applicant agrees to restrict signage advertising the meeting
areas to inside the building.
5) Applicant agrees to restrict the distribution of promotional
material for the subject hotel in which the meeting areas
are also promoted to targeted potential demand generators
and not the general public.
7
Applicant agrees to provide a parking study if need arises
in the future.
Conditions shall travel with the facility, shall be recorded
with the King County Department of Records and Elections,
and may be modified only with the written permission of the
City of Tukwila.
BACKGROUND
DESIGN REVIEW
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
Page 5
As indicated on the vicinity map (attachment A), the proposal is
located in an area bordered by the Green River on two sides.
Neighboring properties have previously been approved for
development of office buildings for State Farm Insurance Company
and Fort Dent Two. Fort Dent Two has withdrawn its application
and a proposal for an all suites hotel is anticipated in the near
future.
DECISION CRITERIA
The decision criteria are listed below in Bold, followed by
pertinent findings of fact.
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;
Staff Report
to B.A.R. Page 6 •
C) The height and scale of each building should be
considered in relation to its site.
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
The Shoreline zone has specific height limits which the applicant
must meet. As shown in Attachment B, Building C -5, Building E -5
and Building D -8 are all located in the Low Impact Environment
with a height limit of 35 feet. The applicant has met the
proposed height limit and further mitigated the potential impact
of the buildings on the shoreline by separating Building E -5 and
C -5 with a landscaped courtyard. The proposal also provides a
landscape area between building E -5 and the trail edge of ten
feet in width. As shown in Attachment C, the proposed
landscaping consists of low growing shrubs with the remaining
perimeter of the shoreline planted with trees, shrubs and
groundcover.
The asphalt parking area which rings the buildings on three sides
has been modulated with double width landscape islands and
concrete pairings for texture. The applicant has provided
pedestrian connections with the Green River trail system.
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.
Applicants site plan indicates shrub planting only along north
property line. The landscape plan for adjacent properties
indicate planting of shrubs, trees and ground cover and Homewood
Suites should do likewise.
Applicant has provided visual (concrete patterning) and
functional sidewalk linkages with the trail from the south
parking area and the southeast buildings (Building E -5 and C -5).
A sidewalk connection has been provided to Southcenter Boulevard.
Internal on -site circulation is provided for pedestrians.
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
Staff Report
to B.A.R. Page 7
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, plantings 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 the adjacent area.
Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design.
Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be
avoided.
The site plan indicates a development which is focused around a
central courtyard as opposed to a focus on the Green River. The
result is a project that does not line up along the river
frontage but is set back and screened by landscaping which
reduces the visual impact on the river.
The landscape plan provides the required tree screening along the
Green River frontage and the interior plantings are adequate. The
plan that has been presented has been designed by an out -of -state
designer. Since this site is located in the Shoreline area it is
especially important that the plant materials are compatible with
native shoreline vegetation. A review and approval by a
Washington State certified Landscape Architect would ensure
compliance.
The applicant has provided curbing along the perimeter of the
parking lot which will protect landscape materials and reduce
runoff into the landscape areas.
Staff Report 89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
to B.A.R. Page 8
Applicant has indicated that the one trash receptacle area on
site will be enclosed with a fence of the same color and material
as the building. A detailed plan should be submitted prior to
issuance of Building Permit.
Applicant has supplied examples of lighting which appear
consistent with the architecture and ambiance of the development,
i.e., a "homelike" atmosphere. The site plan does not provide
information on placement of lighting in the parking lot and
around /on buildings. A lighting plan should be submitted which
will indicate the placement of lighting in the parking lot and
around buildings to ensure that overspill of light does not occur
in the shoreline area.
4) Building Design
Al Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a
project should be based on quality of its design and
relationship to its 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
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 exposed
accessories should be used to provide visual interest.
As indicated in Attachment D, the applicant has presented a plan
which is residential in tone with well - modulated roof lines and
attractive details such as large sashed windows and porches. The
buildings that are proposed differ in style from surrounding
buildings in that they have a residential effect. This is
appropriate for the use of the buildings. Adjacent office
development is very dissimilar in its choice of materials and
architectural design from the proposed development; however, the
use is also very different.
State Farm (Attachment E) has chosen a basic simple architectural
design constructed of brick in earth tones. The only accent color
indicated is in the red State Farm sign mounted on the building.
Ft. Dent Two (Attachment F) plans illustrate a modern concrete/
glass exterior of pale grey with accent colors of yellow and teal
blue. Homewood Suites proposes a light ivory exterior with
accents of teal blue and gray.
Staff Report 89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
to B.A.R. Page 9
Applicant has agreed to screen all mechanical equipment on the
ground with a structure similar in style and color to the
building materials. There will not be any roof structures other
than the chimneys indicated on the elevations.
Exterior lighting fixtures have been previously discussed and
will provide an attractive element in the overall appearance of
the development.
5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Al Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be
designed to be part of the architectural 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.
There are no miscellaneous structures proposed.
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
This site is located in the Interurban Special Review District.
The applicable guidelines (in bold) have been reviewed by staff
and it has been determined that they have been addressed in the
regular Design and Shoreline Review process.
Special Review Guidelines Applicable to All Proposed
Developments.
A. Proposed development design should be sensitive to the
natural amenities of the area;
B. Proposed development use should demonstrate due regard
for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas
and facilities;
C. Proposed developOment should provide for safe and
convenient on -site pedestrian circulation;
D. Proposed property use should be compatible with
neighboring uses and complementary to the district in
which it is located;
Staff Report 89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
to B.A.R. Page 10
E. Proposed development should seek to minimize
significant adverse environmental impacts;
F. Proposed development should demonstrate due regard for
significant historical features in the area.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions are grouped under the five Design Review
guidelines.
1) Relationship of Structure to Site
The site plan is internally oriented with a courtyard and
central building providing a focus for living and recreation
space. It is consistent in height with adjacent development
and will not differ greatly in its overall architectural
impact.
2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
Location of handicap parking spaces is in compliance with
state requirements. Concrete pavers are connected visually
and functionally with entries to trail. A pedestrian
sidewalk connection has been provided from the site to
Interurban Ave. via Southcenter Boulevard.
The proposed landscape plan shows a shrub border only along
the north property line. Applicant should provide trees as
well as shrubs to buffer its use from adjacent development
and to provide continuity with adjacent landscaping..
3) Landscaping and Site Treatment
Applicant has provided a required 10 foot wide landscape
buffer between buildings E -5 and C -5 along the Green River
shoreline frontage. The area should be planted with trees
as well as shrubs to provide the appropriate level of
screening for the trail.
The landscape plan has not been approved by a Washington
State Landscape Architect. This should be accomplished due
to the close proximity of the site to the shoreline and its
intensity of development. Curbing is provided along the
perimeter of the parking lot to protect landscape materials
and reduce runoff. A lighting plan should be submitted
which indicates the placement of light fixtures in the
parking lot and on or around the buildings and the level of
intensity of spill from the lights.
89 -12 -DR Homewood Suites
Staff Report
to B.A.R. Page 11
4) Building Design
The architectural style of the proposed development is
attractive and provides a residential feel to the site.
Proposed colors will work well with adjacent development
providing little contrast.
5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
There are no miscellaneous structures or street furniture.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Division recommends approval with the following
conditions:
Prior to issuance of Building Permit applicant will submit the
following to the Planning Director for approval:
1) A revised landscape /site plan indicating:
No-t
a. The inclusion of trees along the -west' property line.
b. The addition of trees to the landscape area on the east
side of Building E -5.
c. Stamped approval of landscape plan by a Washington
State Landscape Architect.
2) Lighting plan for site to include placement and level of
intensity produced by lights.
t f �.'. t .tusai Site. Plan n:v
Green River
ATTAR
Green River
e •
q0'0
ATTACHMENT A 7
7, mac POLL11
, • L LCUIP4ERT
11 t01111,104T !MCP
4i="Lf.t."
.1,51CAPPLO
C19 ONCEL 073?
2' 11,11.111tOG 41
i: 2:40 CASCMCNT
[2.rOng ,
71 0 40* SPORTS COUNT
II,TC
n , trrn
x IS. POOL
11. 1 0101 CATO
20. 630.11.0 OPILL
21. TPA. =PUN
22. PAT,INMOO COMM=
23. 2741/4
A. ,,,, C.CTC
25. 11 TU1
26. CLIVATOR
In.
12.
13.
14.
15.
13.
17.
Sheet Notes
A 32
O 2
C 14
• 6
E 23
• 24
H •
Unit Tabulation
Standard Suites 82
Master Suites 24
TOTAL 100
Connacting Badrooms a
PARKDIO
Ragutor 92
Handicapped
Compact 20
TOTAL 119
Sita Area 3.12
DananT 33.97
Project Data
.......
Wools I
4 '
Vicinity Map
9
Dniui
Demopulos
Inc.
retOnICS
1204141OLL40,101 Ovum.
Ne10tIMILIT7 !op !well
313.•12(201 7111
HON 1 DM OD
SUTTEE
1.10/ SUITkS (10
1r...seined by
torgelntean
FlOVIS •
Owner "
1 nmi NSIrpi DWI 1 C.21M1
r.OMPANY. INC
I revekrne r
tem.
Paa Una Ormemon
1 1/10090
1/20/00
from Toe
Sae Plan
Pnrjea
War Ow
101
Pr1
Ondtedlly TO
DMIgn■
WW1 hba.
C
rez • ■•••,•■ •
- nen
2>"
0
p7
CO.
I . •/ •
• I,.
e•
T
- 2a
• se
„-
r
• I /
•
.0-00 •
t
1 4.1 . 1L
1
, I •
.•••■-•-•
/ • • ne. •
Man
tr.
r
7
t
•••
ei_earpr
•
t.
/
tl!l
it
,, 1„
• ..-.1
,„, i /
1 ' 1
f 1
/N7ZZA4././7; 'W
../,:4•111/1/(11.111,1 .1 ' 1/1.,••••••
Neu,
\ La_
NNW
• I
a
cs•
•.
(1
Cl• comet...TN
kert412=7 , e/
lege Wee. Ilerlrewrieel
tee Woo. lenreeeteell
tler Itliierleebemeel
Wefts Mawr'
Landscape Plan
1310 Y
"LA/MIMI .714
L 111.21.1112, S1411 lecete sal vestty tne
of all LLLLLL pre. to 11. .0000 01 t. torn.
2. The runtracser WWI 1341e7 ell ..`nt eeen.'
/141.14/00 IM1111111111 0.13141,0 Out ' Mori
an all, drew..
3. *11 s00e11.111.1.1. 173.0411 30 IM aasealten.
01110*1.110111M *ND MICTIalt ffmndin Stan.. IMSer,
Item. peulasnal by Os mane. N20.4.110111.
0.
1. *0 0 rut: 10 3111 . tre yerefful 101.0y 10•0
'maw/ .1 *0? 0101410•1 NO Verve. MI /•••
MAC% 4i111141.20111.1 . 1. 'valor.
ropneentettee.
3. 111 7103. srult 110 WM MI•Mno.11/..•
enale ee Ire plant', e019.
•. eLyne 40611 Le 041.100.1 Warp1 nr ontatier
getue,
3101111.3 41 11 43 0041 .111.1. All Met
Maw ••11.:MlICII b104.1 10 rtervef
tee t 3.•...1.1•
7. eat: a.r.t.auuer er.. stare. 0. areetrar malt
0*00,11 4.0 CIO Antetrar eill 41uU LIS 0143 eve.n
Ira num. iv re, varstul ntrecluess.
11. .Ill 31 "MAIL, LAO 1.111.1 CI 1111 MO*
etra IMAMS tr•I•L 0. 111400.1 ter aroom.1 ty 1,10
111•••••mt
1..C.••••••••■•
I. (Il re LLLLL le rel.... et
...mon.. iv •re, •Letreenr. suet
al, t •e• :amber. anatit.t ur ern ,
■••••,71 Irwil••••1.111•••.
31. • te• ILM• t/
• 'AL r.I Lln •••••./...
•
M. DIA1111 C.II le 'nth 11/1 ents.asascant
bests aIter tonere. tene. 411 Lel 1. seurreui mew..
SAIII Ls/ re...1 ette en MI /MINIM...
IM IQ..., on Pa. Izret ewe..
IL Pl. seal/ Wenn 113 ea. et dsseterarcy lame.
A.11 Mee 1,1*034.0003100301411.44010 73.11 4.40* ere rw.,. ill. Meerut1* teneral
menet 00 734* veLl ea 34201144.1 one trstallu.i.
13.
14.
1).
All pLest. rest sum. 1.11 be en, yle. vales,
*MIMI. MM. /..
The ...am mon.. StuaLl pm.. 10.1 1111 ea
' 41 " / 77017103
re
07041 1.3 et ankeret seenty cr core rtten. 31
eea•srely. uuree 1.174 IMAM,' seamen. .
metralitey Vial.4 rotor ta Ins ueetr.st
01.3:111011004 IOC 0101110.41 re.aressints. ALI
Ln.oap *1011 QC I. Iv Mr/.1111 isereyiern.i• .
31.
• •
Oentreter mall rattly Arereteet ot any ...sun.
be.. 7:.1111. /*put ana arum*
Crete... .11711 Mi. tree AN "MAO 11.• 1.1.103
gee oripswel 01 lre•yet Arrttent baton eareestien
el ptle select *011 101 otraret..
•
PateitaLe 'mural. 17r transelantee 17411 111 014
0 .11 tenmts 401 nelantst
Ineentustely. •
v. a
futtrritz suit. Mtel
La. real
Mean
W•l II el. Uwe
eart 3 Pale CMOS" 24
..... er 110711.111
len Ansel 40 044.
elan... Are. / rtte
or 4000060 04.10101
A
• Ic
OIW T
. n 011 m Itn. a •c.. .
L n1 inn .,.. Yun1
u
w.nu+, n t , al ,r .JL:.Y . are
+•I1 w : r.vo
.naia.
anal ...tt .r..l u pn- n.:u.• 1:11 ..
1.11,31172 me . J•1. n
. 11 4 ' A:1 ILn1
1. r torstu
.1 m tor0.ltttivuli r to tt tr•• t ALI
II. V.A. P 11.131 Anon :r. CM. of OI.crtMr• tete..1I
runt Wt are rz.r. :.1: i:ct 1,It0ru4 n...tft•I
on Pl.. mill Cr ILnl:lus Jne Y4u11.Y.
11. tln.rlclor .n.11 •cflty ..441t. * nI .1nr nr.clr...ey
N 1..w• r...o.w :_ntvq ut.11 W .4.011
20. Centroct.r .till: I trw ..J r.n. n•1 1...t1+.
for rrinv 4l 03 111 1c. A+m11.et 1.rtory sochotten
01 011.4 u.lws wilt ant nLOt.la..
21. n.r.ru:. .n..r.,t t tar IrarwLntliq or.111 Lt .w
� f :4'.1 A M.l••'15 Srs nY .rvl.nlnl
Yul.11.
rl �/.•`.JrlO DOtar1.
Me la dr
IL I1. Lnifun. = STr.+.cirJ11 toter to Ito 01.1.1t rtwl.Ylr.0 loth M roll 'fwAn1[0(
t l�utn<tnn .11.1 to tl4 the
V, rota 1
Iwl l
Y.v.un
Ibur 21 C4r I... .f s
sal 2 ;Acts ow r. v, tilt .11.
NAILS 1,r R
Loan At
J
1. r r '
.• /// e.
it/ILIZe ArrLIfAT101r
runt.), Mau I rt. 3 :L.. 10..•4 I G. Ti.
of r..r..r.a 111101.0 0.41.
ATTACHMENT B
ou
It A
•
1 .;.• 141.
(". ".44:s?.4.! 40 _./. _ r.1 •...._
'.>"•■•4•// • .tr •- ::. .........
11••r 2-:. l 1,.i;. ...... .l...
!+ T�r".`pn''' 4".:1,. � r - s•2
.._. roe .....:x
P..I.y7)1.41.
r I • I
—•..r
• Si • 53111•11 .1 12 .. CC..I.r ./rent ....J . Vv... le
e.": =:.1 c .'
1
Dimitri
Demopu}os
Inc.
wea TICIS
WADI q..0.u101 n.....
101111 4101111
2221 n..n.. L..1. ...Fee 100
m. T...r 2:011,
11)411 0011 I... 40. 1110011
HON(EROOD
SUITES
R..w.M
nn Dale 0r,.0A111
1/211/1 10
1I..I lele
howl ra
1u Dale
Demo
hocked By
L 'i
Building No. C5
Building No. C5
Building No. C5 vs' T,.r
in III
� ddd
7/
•,•..
I II
bb 166
ATTAC
z �
;III ( ; =1;
N
UPElr. i fi r !D I
iF , �I IC-. ! r te! 1117. .
Q 14,1– I !�� _`� „— �G ^��
•^n_![
rn
llI #ifili
11
0
1. 000P NATC0IAL
S. PLAST011 NALL A113EM51.2
S. JOINT
A. PAINTED 000N1POIT
S. RAILED COILING
0. CC0ANIC TILL
7. HANDRAIL
S. I 1 10 TINDCOS
P. PAINTTD ODTTCR
10. PAIOTC0 NCTAL 051110[1 CM
II. AIOGC VEST
1.. S,.OICCTOP
II. ID' DIAN TCR METAL WOVEN
11. IU1310 CCILINO
15. PIA0 CSTIIINISIICR [ulnae
11. ROOT IN {COTTON
Sheet Notes
ATTACHMENT C 7 I gaI�SP�
COMPOSITION 1111X01[
TILL
ETA1.0511G S{AI1 METAL
Dimitri
Demopulos
Inc.
AAOntcrs
0554111 DIMOhM03 7 .
201111 .111111 bit h.NXn
7717 aee... 500.. 0.0 YM. 100
. 1., 7701.
711. m ..
761 001, 2.. ^e 7 51 0011
HON IE\' OOD
SUITES
-tU511 \100) SL'i.? HOTr:
r,.,:1 :II.r1: D1
Hn ta.. 2 OIOn10h0O
HO': ZO% HO7rl3
GITnU•N
!.O ?. \,t.1
`C.
iI. L
�I
ilevArrN
VI. 0011 Drumm.
1/20/00
S).11 550
Sheet b.
Noon 1.n.
►01. pale
Darn 0e 059
CbA4M By
A3.5
01
2.13
.0110•11• Ow. .0.1.11.111•.101 as
11•1MINIM O. Joe •••■■••• ra11
R e
I THE CASTI LLO COMPANY Pnrul
.WM1. 10 QOM 03034 10021 731-11CM SOUTH SEATTLE.. WA.
SERVICE CENTER
ATTACHMENT D
HOMEWOOD SUITES
L
Emu.
Meg 1101.1111.1. 1111111M
LAM.'
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
NI SIM 10130 PL•111 011011111670t.11.1.313
11101/11113010110 NMI= CAP.*
/CM Ma 10■100111115 411.274=111 AMOY .001.2 1.10 IN.
/4C1 NM 0101:110111011111313.00101 VIM MS
NOS an1030,11= 300110101110.310101) 7/11■011
CNN C1210100 MM.. •0111 110•7=30
EMU MIMI& NM. 13 IN. 12.. •001.3M1 Mt •1100 FIAT
nal Pi 0111101 . 310011 1 01011 • IN= 0013Er 0=01131:1 M21.11 2.10 IN.
IL= Mil 011300311 NOMA 11•••• CUMIN M.1 1.111 no.
JUN .311113110030 =mom. KAMM 00•13•311 MIME 3.30 SE.
Me 111010110111110111•00.10 M.= MOB MO AMIN 14-30 1..
ear •011101•31.131 `YEW MK AM. 1.10 IN.
MY NEM WA. • 031S1 MO' ■ WAY 1.10 7.1.
1.0/13 1.007.0171110106111,13011 400/081. 1•1301011M1 1.31 SM.
L1113 14110111.1101 001011■11111101 4/00000. 301=11 nu
NYC 101011111111 /117110•01.311* 0000IM IMAM MeV 1.311 0,
/000127.00 •3011
OM CAMS 0110000010a •7= OM
OM 0110011 OMR MD
MINI iii=1110 11011001131 1031111010 3101001110102. 1 OM-
•{1111 VIIIIi MO 0 1.11. 0.C. MUMMA PIM 114.1113
1 A
COMM 11■133 111111
0 10 70 10•
NORTHEAST ELEVATION
1 TR0 4/SA
+• THE CASTI LLO COMPANY
NORTHWEST ELEVATION
SOUTH AST ELEVATION
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
ATTACHMENT D
HOMEWOOD SUITES
SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
44414
GREEN RIVER
LANDSCAPE PLAN.
ATTACHMENT E
HOMEWOOD SUITES
rknet.C.
25 409. 17.64.55..
5 ...5... ..o/C- ,31s).L.e
VegiG .1.01.
1 44,11,5 .frVE
..11.0 ECCCELIt.
2.1r105111v,
104715 matinixr SPLE175 .." --,511. .0 1 . 15 .s.-
1. AC-e".. 1 LATANCAGe5.
.14CA4A( 7" 12 ex/aft-N..4...a )
FiZuwat5
lex* LaYr..ew VOW,
alk) 1.1.,5 L
6
(744, 41,1.7
rr.era 51
• , . . . f e e 4 . g e f 5 4 Z,Les_
••••s&c
•Co.lwx a. 4. =sc.,"
LO architects
woo ad goo . ageWellt•
list oleeliabe amt.. ewe UN
seams. we.. Ii061343-41.
cowsultants
Thaw I.. Pew
Mathias PS
amosafarr
project :
FORT DENT
2 & 3
sheet title
LANDSCAPE PLAN
L - 1
kw
r.
1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
summuistan•i
4
I Ifinniall NEMER
II
•
al
3 WEST ELEVATION
;.• 3 SOUTH ELEVATION
3 EAST ELEVATION
dal
111111111rWM
IUI W ri a--
j" 1111r
11■11
MOM 1 9'
3 NORTH ELEVATION
ATTACHMENT E
HOME WOOD SUITES
" . •
•
- „•,/,
!
74.0 4,
PZI
jonfinu•n Ernmpummilm.
1,1.0.1.43 6.4.41,11l
01
M
MITHUN
4 _
- --A-7
- -
DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
200 Front Street
Natchitoches, LA 71458
January 4, 1990
Mr. Jack Pace
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Proposed Homewood Suites Hotel Development
Dear Jack:
After our conversation this morning regarding a "cooperative parking
agreement" and after receiving from you a representative sample
of this form of agreement (Re: Marriott Courtyard), I came to
the realization that there .is :: an apparent lid sunderst:anding _of:.the
intended use of this area and that. this. misunderstandi.ng, in all
probability,. originated in our . naming this area.. a "Conference" room.
In actuality, this area is best :named'.and /or.:described as a "Guest
Activity Roam" and will henceforth referred - to as. such :. The
use of this roan n will be restricted to Guests' use only and-.will
be considered as an amenity. to the hotel operation. It was never
intended to be sold, rented, leased, or marketed as a conference
room or meeting space to any entity other than in -house guests.
Examples of intended uses for the guest activity roan included the
following:
1. Over -flow seating space for the Great Room.
2. Television Room for special events (Re: Nbnday night
football.
3. On many in -house groups such as audit teams,
litigation teams, etc. require a convening space to recap
daily activities. The Guest Activity Room is designed
to accommodate this need.
4. A gathering space for children of in -house guest.
5. Meeting space for small in -house groups such as training
classes.
Mr. Jack Pa
January 4, 36,.0
Page 2
Jack, it would not be in our best interest as hotel operators
to attempt "selling" this area to outside entities. Doing so would
only jeopardize the convenience of our hotel guests by creating
an influx of automobile traffic on the site. Our business in this
development is to rent hotel suites, not meeting space. In light
of this, I request that the Planning Department withdraw its
condition of providing a cooperative parking agreement for this
proposed development.
Sincerely,
Mark E. Hansen.
Executive Vice President
Dimension Development Co., Inc.
cc: Sam Friedman
John Hendrickson
. iubtt'.11' a it�'j'YP
r.rrr�� i"L:1.11ti1d.11WI V
1.1 l i
01700:9G 14152 E 3525093
:25.HOPPAC FOODS LE9 901 332 220?
Marsh 21, 1989
William A. Carson, II, Esq.
Armstrong, Allen, Prswitt, Gentry,
Johnston and Holmes
1900 One Commerce Square
H mphis, TN 38103
Re= Kemnhis - Lest pit,
D ear Bill:
You have advised me that the Office of Planning and
Development has requested information on the historical .
parking use for Homewood Suites hotels. We have no
historical data for Homewood Suites hotels since none are as
yet open. You may be aware, however, that Holiday
Corporation formerly owned the Residence Inn Chain. The
historical data for that chain would indicate that the
ratio of required parking places to constructed suites is
The relatively small amount of parking is due primarily to
the absence of a restaurant in extended stay hotels. Thus,
Virtually all of the users of parking facilities are
guests in the hotel. This figure is based on a great number
of hotels over a period of several years.
Very truly yours,
Ralph B. Sake
General counsel
/fld
cos Dave Jones
afari M9f Cb
0 5
P.?i7 �.
Dear Ms. Ramey:
September 16, 1987
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
Marrianne C. Ramey
Marriott Corporation
Marriott Drive
Washington, D.C. 20058
RE: Separated sidewalks and landscaping comments
As we discussed on the telephone, I am sending you draft plans
for locating a six foot sidewalk easement in place of six feet of
right of way dedication as currently proposed (see attached).
The Department feels that implementation of a separated sidewalk
system in the Central Business District is important to creating
the type of quality environment which we all desire.
This alternate proposal would result in a much better street
presentation of the project and area with only minimal design
changes, not increase building permit review time, and help
establish a quality street pattern to be implemented in an
overall City streetscape project. This proposal is characterized
by four actions:
1. Dedication of one -half foot for road right of way along
Andover Park West;
2. Deeding over a six foot sidewalk easement five feet in from
the property line, leaving a five foot planter strip along
both sides of the sidewalk;
3. Moving the street trees approximately three feet to the west
such that center line of tree was four feet from the right
of way (see attachment); and
4. Moving the shrubs to the eastern landscape strip.
I appreciate your taking time to review this option at this late
date.
In another matter I have reviewed the proposed landscape plan and
have the following comments:
Marriott Corporation
September 16, 1987
Page 2
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Vernon M. Umetsu, Associate Planner
206 - 433 --1858
•
Tree root bare!ers to a depth of three to six feet are being
viewed as necessai; to minimize sidewalk and roadway damage.
This will also hel to minimize tree root damage during
later road constructs. -In by forcing roots below the
construction zone.
Trees at the south driveway entrance cannot be located
closer than thirty feet from the curb.
Trees along the north property line have been located in the
path of the Trek Drive extension. They should be relocated
to the five foot strip which would remain after road
construction.
London Plane street trees should be replaced with another
tree such as Marshall Seedless Ash, Red Maple or Red Oak.
London Planes seem to cause severe lifting problems after 10
years.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
W I T N E S S E T H:
This Declaration f Covenants (the "Declaration ") is
executed as of the of 1987 by MARRIOTT
CORPORATION ( "Marrtt "), a De with a mailing
address of 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland, 20058,
Attention Law Department.
THAT Marriott is, by virtue of that certain Corrected
Special Warranty Deed dated February 6, 1987 and recorded
February 26, 1987 as reception number 8702261746, the record
fee owner of that certain real property (the "Property ")
located in the City of Tukwila, King County, Washington and
described more particularly on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
THAT Marriott has applied to the City of Tukwila (the
"City ") for the necessary governmental approvals to construct
on the Property a hotel facility containing fewer parking
spaces than would otherwise be required by the applicable
ordinances; and
THAT the Planning Commission of the City approved the
aforesaid request on August 13, 1987, subject to the condition
that Marriott impose a certain declaration of covenants upon
the Property that would obligate the owner of the Property to
construct additional parking spaces upon the occurrence of
certain conditions; and
THAT Marriott wishes to comply with the aforesaid condition
imposed by the Planning Commission and, therefore, does hereby
execute, publish and impose the conditions set forth below upon
the Property as covenants running with the land, to be binding
upon Marriott and its successors and assigns for the benefit of
the City, which shall have the right to enforce said covenants
by means of any and all legal remedies available:
1. Marriott has submitted a site plan for the proposed
improvements (the "Improvements ") that has been approved by the
Tukwila Planning Commission. Marriott shall, prior to being
issued a building permit for the Improvements, deliver to the
City's Building Official an alternate site plan which adds to
the Improvments a sufficient number of additional parking
spaces so that the the total number parking spaces will be not
more than eight per cent (8 %) less than the number that would
have been required by ordinance without any variance therefrom.
•
2. Promptly following the first anniversary of the date of
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Improvements,
Marriott shall cause a parking demand study of the Improvements
to be made by a traffic engineer acceptable to the Tukwila
Planning Director. Said study shall indicate whether the
existing number of parking space is adequately serving the
persons using the Improvements.
3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
Improvements, Marriott shall deliver to the Tukwila Planning
Director payment of a deposit in the amount of Twenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000).
4. Marriott agrees that if the aforesaid parking demand
study states that the existing parking spaces are not adequate
to serve the Improvements, then Marriott shall promptly at its
expense cause the additional parking spaces to be constructed
in accordance with the alternate site plan.
5. Should Marriott fail timely either to commission the
aforesaid study or to construct the additional parking spaces,
then the City may cause such study and /or construction to be
performed and pay for same by drawing upon the aforesaid
deposit. Should the deposit be inadequate to pay the aforesaid
costs, then Marriott shall promptly after receipt of written
demand for payment from the City reimburse the City for the
amount of such shortfall.
6. Should the Tukwila Planning Director receive complaints
of parking congestion on the Property during the first year
following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
Improvements, then the Director may in its discretion cause a
parking demand study to be performed immediately by a traffic
engineer acceptable to the Director. If that study indicates
that additional parking is needed, then Marriott shall promptly
cause the additional spaces to be constructed in accordance
with the alternate site plan. Marriott shall pay the cost of
the aforesaid traffic study and the installation of the
additional parking spaces. If Marriott fails to pay for the
cost of the traffic study, the Planning Director may pay for
same out of the deposit. If Marriott fails to install the
additional parking spaces promptly after receipt of the traffic
study and written notice from the Planning Director, then the
Planning Director may cause such spaces to be constructed and
pay for the cost of same out of the deposit. Should the
deposit not be adequate to pay for the aforesaid costs,
Marriott shall promptly after receipt of written demand
therefor reimburse the City for the amount of the shortfall.
7. Should the traffic study that might be required
pursuant to the preceding section 6 indicate that no additional
parking spaces need to be constructed, the Plafining Director in
its complete discretion may nevertheless require that the year
end traffic study specified in section 2 above be performed,
and if such study indicates that additional parking is needed
it shall be installed as provided in section 4 and 5 above.
-2--
[SEAL]
8. Marriott shall reimburse the City for the amount of the
out of pocket expenses of the City in administering the
provisions of this Declaration, as such amount shall reasonably
be determined by the Planning Director, including but not
limited to the cost of the parking demand studies and cost of
construction as provided above (if not paid by Marriott). The
Planning Director shall notify Marriott in writing of the
amount of such costs and may, if said amount is not promptly
remitted by Marriott, deduct said amount from the deposit. Any
portion of the deposit remaining on the second anniversary of
the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
Improvements shall be refunded to Marriott.
9. For so long as the Improvements remain on the Property,
any signs advertising the restaurant, lounge or meeting rooms
must be located inside the building and must not be mounted so
that they are visible to a person outside of the Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Marriott Corporation has caused this
Declaration to be executed by its duly authorized
representatives as of the date first written above.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: July 1, 1990
-3-
MARRIOTT C ON
By: K
ice resid
Assistantretary
[Seal] UV
STATE OF MARYLAND )
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY)
On this the /c ?" day of � , 1987, before me,
the undersigned officer, personally appeared 'Shc,u (1. has 6 er
and 54;4/4 S , who acknowledgtid
themselves to be the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of
MARRIOTT CORPORATION, the Assignor of the above document, and
that as such Vice President and Assistant Secretary, being
authorized so to do, executed the foregoing instrument for the
purposes therein contained, by signing the name of the
corporation.
In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand and official seal.
Name: - Jr4f AlAIJA/ / /}?ok /7 A.1
EXHIBIT A
That portion of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter
and the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section
26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in the City of Tuk-
wila, King County, Washington, described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of said Southeast quarter of
the Northeast quarter;
thence North 01 °05'05" East along the West line thereof, 609.06 .
feet; thence South 88 °16'17" East, 30.00 feet to the East road
margin and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing South 88 °16'17" East, 376.72 feet to the West
line of Lot 4, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 5, as recorded in
Volume 83 of Plats, pages 22. and 23, records of said county;
thence Southerly along the West lot line on a curve to the
left, the center of which bears South 76 °02'44" East, having a
radius of 410.28 feet through a central angle of 12 °09'48 an
arc distance of 87.10 feet;
thence continuing along said lot line South 01 °47'28" West,
• 136.73 feet;
thence along a curve to the right, having a radius of 410.28
feet through a central angle of 82 °57'36 an arc distance of
594.06 feet to the said East road margin;
thence North 01 °47'28" East along said margin, 21.10 feet to
the said South subdivision line;
thence North 01 °05'05" East along said road margin, 608.90 feet .
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION c CONDITIONS
1. The applicant provide an alternate site plan which shows
enough additional parking to require only an eight percent
reduction through a cooperative parking agreement.
2. The applicant agrees to construct this parking layout if: a
year -end study shows parking congestion.
3. The City shall have the option of conducting all studies and
making improvements to the extent of constructing the
alternate site plan at the property owner's expense . if
parking congestion is not expeditiously remedied.
4. The applicant provides a cash assignment to the City equal
to 150 percent of the cost of hiring a traffic consultant to
do the year -end congestion study and construct..the .alteraate•...,
site plan. All City costs associated with implementing
these conditions may be deducted from these funds at the
City's sole discretion. All unencumbered funds remaining in
City accounts 24- months after issuance of a certificate of
occupancy shall be returned to the applicant.
Complaints of parking congestion during the first year
shall, at the City's discretion, be cause for hiring a
traffic consultant to conduct a parking demand study. If
parking congestion is found to occur, then site improvements
shall be immediately required to remedy the situation based
on the alternate parking plan.
6. No signage advertising the restaurant, lounge, or meeting
rooms shall be visible off -site to the general public.
7. All conditions shall be executed in a legal document
acceptable to the Planning Director and City Attorney. This
document must be approved and executed prior to issuance of
a building permit.
ATTACHMENT
CLARIFIED PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS
1. The applicant provide an alternate site plan which shows
enough additional parking to require only an eight percent
reduction through a cooperative parking agreement.
2. The applicant agrees to construct this parking layout if a
year -end study shows parking congestion or if parking
con estion is found to occur in the future. All _parking
stud es s al T be done by a traffic engineer acceptable to
the Tukwila Planning erector.
3. The City shall have the option of conducting all studies and
making improvements to the extent of constructing the.
alternate site plan at the property owner's expense If
parking congestion is not expeditiously remedied.
4. The applicant provides a cash assignment to the City equal
to 150 percent of the cost of hiring a traffic consultant to
do the year -end congestion study and construct the alternate
site plan. All City costs associated with implementing
these conditions may be deducted from these funds at the
City Planning Director's sole discretion. All unencumbered
funds remaining in City accounts 24- months after issuance of
a certificate of occupancy shall be returned to the applic-
ant.
5. Complaints of parking congestion during the first year
shall, at the City Planning Director's discretion, be cause
for hiring a traffic consultant to conduct a parking•demend
study. The cost of thi stud shall be borne b he
applicant, be in ad • t on to a 12 -mont harking stu• an,
be •a able from the a••llcant's cash assignment at the Cit
P anning ' rector s so a discret on. f par ng congestion
is found to occur, Mien site improvements shall be
immediately required to remedy the situation based on the
alternate parking plan.
6. No signage advertising the restaurant, lounge, or meeting
rooms shall be visible off -site to the general public.
7. All conditions shall be executed in a legal document
acceptable to the Planning Director and City Attorney. This
document must be approved and executed prior to issuance of
a building permit.
_.. _
•••• a e sr
'
_
Gusto - Wrp
3 Slay
FF. 26.0
G•snot.,, Wry
SRA" IC Of
119 STANDARD
49 COMPACT
4 BARRIER FREE
172 TOTAL
13 OPTIONAL -
185 TOTAL (201 REQUIRED — 16(8%) = 185 STALLS) •
rt1 •...- M+ m+c.r �..
m. .e r
s •.=. v
.0 r.onl
....fb.f
C
C
n
•
/..... o C.C. roe .z»0
Barghauscn
_ g :3
cr
1 Consulting Enginccrs Inc. --,_ i 1_
1
MQPi'10tt
.IPO•.1�•
•
5-,
•
i 1
C w
~