The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 90-05-DR - SCONZO ASSOCIATES - EAGLE HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW90-05-dr 101 andover park east epic-8-90 eagle hardware and garden EAGLE HARDWARE DESIGN REVIEW City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor • ADDENDUM STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared August 15, 1990 HEARING DATE: August 23, 1990 FILE NUMBER: 90 -5-DR: Eagle Hardware APPLICANT: Sconzo Associates, Architects REQUEST: Revise previously approved design to extend building area 60 ft. to the south; adding 14,224 square feet. LOCATION: 101 Andover Park East; in the SE 1/4 of Sec. 23, Twn. 23, Rge. 4; Tukwila, WA. ATTACHMENTS: A. B.A.R. Minutes of May 24, 1990 B. B.A.R. Minutes of June 28, 1990 C. Architectural Site Plan D. Drainage Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Building Elevations STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. BACKGROUND 90 -5-DR Eagle Hardware Page 2 FINDINGS I The applicant requests revision of the previously approved project design to accommodate longer term needs, as he is buying the property instead of entering a several year lease. Minutes of previous Board actions at their meetings on May 24, 1990 and June 28, 1990 are shown in attachments A and B respectively. The revision results in a 14,224 s.f. building area increase which exceeds the 10,000 s.f. threshold for Board review. The Director of Community Development determined that the proposed changes exceeded his authority to approve minor design changes and has required further Board review. The proposed revisions are shown in Attachments C through F and summarized below. A. The addition's gross area will be increased from 22,140 s.f. to 36,364 s.f. by extending the building southward (Attachment A). Total building area will be 154,633 s.f. B. Thirty-six (36) parking spaces on the south will be lost due to the building's extension. A total of 387 parking spaces will continue to be provided which exactly satisfies the City's minimum parking requirement. C. Only the southern site area and building design have been modified as follows: a. paved parking areas have been replaced by building area, b. the building elevation has been modified by extending the southeast glass wall to the southernmost wall line to form a straight building face, and c. almost all original landscaping has been retained in a modified configuration. DECISION CRITERIA Board review criteria are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. 18.60.050: General Review Criteria. (1) Relationship of Structure to Site. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movements 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 the site. • STAFF REPORT 90 -5-DR Eagle Hardware to the B.A.R. Page 3 The southern area between Todd Blvd. and the building face is the only part of the site which is significantly affected. The 30 foot high building wall has been moved forward 60 feet and the previous modulation on the southern building face eliminated. The increased potential for a massive building dominating the streetscape is off -set by increased architectural quality, retaining a reasonable building separation, and increased landscape density. Architectural quality has been increased by significantly improved integration of the addition with the existing building and breaking up a bare, 30 high concrete wall (see B.A.R Criteria No.4). An 87 foot separation between building and right of way is retained while the previous extent of landscaping is maintained in this narrower width. This combination increases planting density and enhances the ability of the separation area to moderate perceived building mass and paved areas. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony of 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. Transition from building to adjoining properties is not affected except that the Todd Blvd. streetscape is improved as discussed above. (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, 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 encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination. 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. See Criteria No. 1. STAFF REPORT 90 -5-DR Eagle Hardware to the B.A.R. Page 4 (4) Building Design a. 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 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. 1. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed 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. Building architecture is only significantly affected on the south. The southern extension does eliminate the significant building modulation (Attachment C). However, overall architectural interest is maintained by extending the garden shop's glass wall along a previously bare concrete wall, to the loading docks. Most significantly, the new glass element greatly improves architectural continuity between the existing building and its addition by using the same glass wall proportions as found on the north and east building elevations (Attachment D). (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture None proposed. CONCLUSIONS 1. The new glass wall breaking up the 30 ft. high concrete wall, coupled with the higher density landscaping between building and Todd Blvd., results in an overall improved transition and street presentation. 2. Architectural harmony between existing building and addition is improved by using glass walls of the same proportions as found on the north and east building faces. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning staff recommend approval as presented. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor NOTICE OF DECISION FILE NUMBER: 90 -5-DR: Eagle Hardware Addition APPLICANT: Sconzo Associates REQUEST: Design review approval for new construction of 22,140 square feet of retail /office space in an existing building and addition. LOCATION: 101 Andover Park East; in the southeast 1/4 of Sec. 23, Twn. 23, Rge. 4,; Tukwila, WA. The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the request on May 24, 1990 and June 28, 1990, and approved the project as presented. The BAR based its decision on the materials presented at the June 28th public meeting. Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing an appeal in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the above date and shall state the reasons for the appeal. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner June 29, 1990 A rrqcf. A CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Flesher, Kirsop and Knudson. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Darren Wilson and Wendy Bull. Mr. Haggerton inquired as to the status of filling the vacancy created by Lee Cagle's position. The Mayor has not made any appointments as of today, according to Senior Planner, Jack Pace. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - MR. HAGGERTON MADE A NOTE UNDER MISCELLANEOUS PAGE FOUR. REGARDING LETTER FROM LOUISE STRANDER REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ASK THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL TO SEND THE GRADING AND CLEARING ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND HEARING. MR. HAGGERTON NOTED THAT MOIRA DID DRAFT A LETTER THAT STATED THAT WE DID WANT THE GRADING AND CLEARING ORDINANCE NOT ONLY TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND HEARING, BUT ALSO TO BE INTEGRATED AS A PART OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE IN GENERAL. EVERYTHING WAS TO BE REVIEWED IN ONE PACKAGE BEFORE IT CAME BEFORE US. Jack Pace, Senior Planner stated that no final decision has been received from the City Council. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1990. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Haggerton mentioned that item number four on the agenda is a new item. After the approval of the minutes, there will be a Citizen's Comment for anyone that would like to make a comment on any matter that relates to the Planning Commission or BAR activities. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE - Asking for approval for on street truck maneuvering and design review for new construction of approximately 22,140 s.f. of retail and office space in an existing office /warehouse building located at 101 Andover Park East. ; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 2 Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, explained that Staff report recommendations were based upon the facts and findings prepared on May 15, 1990. The applicant subsequently submitted revisions just prior to the Public Meeting on May 24, 1990. Staff analyses presented to the Board would reflect the newly submitted project design. The building would have a significant visual impact in a nearly 360 degree arc. The extensive revisions and additions which would result in a new western facade, extending into the new south addition. Staff concerns about project design were discussed. Staff could recommend approval of the project subject to the modified plans an associated verbal agreements. These verbal agreements, stated in the record, include but are not limited to bermed western landscaping adjacent to the building, blue metal canopies, and applicant working with staff to achieve better architectural integration of the addition with the existing building. Mr. Knudson expressed concern regarding setbacks and truck maneuvering. Would we be in trouble if trucks are going in and out of traffic? Staff's response was that the Public Works Director was consulted earlier and did not have any objections. It is not anticipated that there will be large volumes of traffic since Evans Black Drive is a dead -end street and not envisioned for further extension. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would like to see accurate plans of the project presented to them. Mr. Knudson agreed that he would like something that shows what they will be approving. Tom Sconzo, of Sconzo Associates who is the architect for the project spoke on behalf of the applicant. He went through each change on an item by item basis and told the Commissioners how each item could be taken care of, and recommended approval. Mr. Sconzo further agreed that the applicant would abide by Mr. Umetsu's decisions. Clete Casper, Sabey Corporation spoke on behalf of project, and stated that the delay impacts the tenants and others who have financial responsibilities. Tukwila will gain a beautiful new building as opposed to vacant warehouse, according to Mr. Casper. Mr. Umetsu noted that the signage meets the sign code. The Public Hearing on 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE was closed by Chairman Haggerton at 9:00 p.m. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 3 Discussion ensued on the project. Mr. Umetsu agreed that before a building permit is issued, the Planning Division will make sure BAR design elements are reflected in the building plans. New submittal of plans for the Planning Division to be submitted to the Planning Commission on June 14, 1990, special meeting to show all architecture details as they have been changed. The Board is withholding final approval on the exterior details /treatment and exterior architectural treatment of the southern end until they see what the applicant is actually proposing how everything is going to be implemented. COMMISSIONER KIRSOP MOVED THAT PLANS BE ACCEPTED AS REVISED AT THIS MEETING FOR 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Detailed review of exterior colors /contrasts to be rendered to more fully track with final agreement with staff on exterior treatment. 2. Building canopies would be metal, 3. Chain link fence be replaced with a more ornamental style of fence, 4. Loading doors be painted a dark gray or black to harmonize with glass effect, 5. Western wall shall be described in greater detail, 6. HVAC equipment be kept away from parapets and grouped as practical to minimize the visual effect. 7. Screen design and paint will minimize the visual effect of the HVAC equipment. All screening materials shall consist of the same color /colors of the exterior of the building. Screens shall be slanted wood slat per agreement with Planning Division for individual HVAC units as presented at BAR hearing. 8. Maneuvering of trucks on Evans -Black Drive is acceptable. 9. Garden Department will be left as presented. 10. The final submittal of the canopies shall consist of the configurations and colors /materials as agreed upon per public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 4 MOTION BY KIRSOP AND SECOND BY FLESHER. MOTION CARRIES. 90- 5 -SPE: The BJSS GROUP ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS. AIA (Foster High School) Requesting Special Permission for two freestanding signs. The applicant was not present for the meeting. The Planning Commission continued this item until the applicant can be present. Recess at 9:30 p.m. - Meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Marc Hinshaw from the City of Bellevue Urban Design presented a slide show giving examples of how development visually affects the community. Mr. Knudson would like the City Council to see this presentation as well. Commissioner Hamilton expressed a desire for a list of criteria needed. June 14, 1990 - Special meeting at 7:30 for Adult Business. Public Hearing at 8 :00 p.m. At that time Eagle Hardware and Foster High School Sign will be discussed. Cascade View Annexation passed. That will be effective September 1, 1990 and it adds about another 2,100 people to the City. New Sensitive Areas Flier is out and there will be an informational meeting next week. Mailed to all property owners and residents of Tukwila. Discussion on how to get the packets to the Planning Commission by mail faster than usual. Foster High School building permit has not been issued yet. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10 :51 p.m. MR. HAGGERTON MOTIONED FOR ADJOURNMENT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Bull, Recording Secretary DIRECTOR'S REPORT Called to Order: Members Present: Staff Present: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. 6anDusen, dlayor CITY OF TUKWILA BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW /PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of JUNE 28, 1990 8:06 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton Messrs. Haggerton, Gomez, Kirsop, Flesher, Malina, Knudson. V. Umetsu, D. Wilson, Mr. Haggerton read a letter by Mayor Van Dusen re the appointment of Mr. George Malina as a new Planning Commission member. Mr. Haggerton also read a letter which was addressed to him by Joan Hernandez, Council President. The letter dated June 15, 1990 was regarding the Clearing and Grading Ordinance. COMM. KIRSOP MOVED AND COMM. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON MAY 24, 1990. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Item #1 under Old Business: 90 -5 -DR EAGLE HARDWARE REMODEL PROJECT Staff report given by V. Umetsu: Mr. Umetsu reviewed the Board's previous design approval with only minor architectural changes being required. Staff also reviewed its supplemental report conclusions that B.A.R. conditions 2 - 10 were satisfied, but that changing the western textured band from dryvit to metal and not matching any of the existing colors would result in a cluttered wall. Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of June 28, 1990 Staff reviewed the applicant's redesign submitted four days earlier showing a different metal banding which would exactly match the raised column and beam color, and have a similar texture to the dryvit. The staff final conclusion based on the newly submitted data, and the previous B.A.R. approval; was that the proposed project would satisfy Design Criteria subject to an exact color match between the raised beams /columns, using a low reflective paint, and having a similar texture between dryvit and 5 ft. wide metal band as proposed by the applicant. Mr. John Hallstrom, the applicant's project architect addressed the Board re the materials being used and was confident of being able to satisfy all conditions. Chairman Haggerton closed the public comment portion of the item and began Board deliberations MOTION BY COMM. FLESHER AND SECONDED BY COMM. KIRSOP TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED. PASSED 5 - 0 WITH COMM. MALINA ABSTAINING AS HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE INITIAL PROJECT REVIEW. Chairman Haggerton closed the meeting on 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE at 8:42 p.m. NEW BUSINESS - Public Hearing 89 -14 -DR 62ND AVE APARTMENTS City Consultant Mike Aippersbach addressed the Board re this presentation. Two errors were noted on the Staff Report- the first was on page 3, Section 3, under the surrounding land uses, the name of the development to the east of the proposed site is Cottage Creek. The second error was that the Board received black & white photocopies of the applicant's color board by mistake. Colored copies were handed out to the Board. This proposed project is exempt from the City's sensitive areas moratorium. The Applicant and Sunwood Homeowners Assoc. are in litigation to which the City is not a party. Three letters were given to the Board from Sunwood property owners which were not part of the Staff report because they were not available at that time. These letters were distributed with the agenda packet. Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of June 28, 1990 Discussion took place re the site design and on slope construction concerns. Four plan attachments from the staff report were presented and referred to. Access to this complex would be gained from Sunwood Drive; therefore requiring a portion of existing landscape medians being removed. The initial environmental concerns included: A. Placement of the structures avoiding the bedrock present on the site. B. Unattractive massing of structures on the site. C. The exposed exterior facades. D. Landscaping - the selection and placement of plant material. E. Appearance of proposed retaining walls. The Applicant and the architect responded to the concerns raised by the Staff as well as submitting reports concerning soils, noise, storm water drainage during the construction and drainage during the life of the project. This provided the basis for the issuance of the City's mitigated determination of non - significance for the project. Aerial photos, with overlays, were also presented to show how the proposed structures would impact the hillside. In response to the concerns raised by the Staff and those raised by the Sunwood Homeowners letter (Attachment A in Staff report), the development plans were revised. Re- submittal was on June 13, 1990 with the following revisions: A. Exterior facades to the structure now include additional cedar siding, a darker color of beige for the earlier stucco, use of gables, and the recreation area was revised. B. A colored aerial photo was presented to help the Board visually understand the density and placement of the existing development as well as relative impact of color selection for the exteriors. C. Retaining wall horizontal and vertical modulation was increased (see Staff Report Attachment FF). Revisions to the drawings were handed out which had been reviewed by the City and the Staff. Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of June 28, 1990 The net result of the revisions as recommended by the Staff were: A. Condition 1B - this condition has been met to the satisfaction of the Staff. Mr. Aippersbach recommended deleting this condition. B. Condition 1C - there was landscaping modification which satisfied the Staff. This condition was recommended to be deleted. C. Condition 1D - there is now a walkway between all buildings. Staff recommends deletion of this recommendation. D. Conditions lA & 1E - Applicant disagrees. He himself will state the reason. E. Condition 2 - remains. Will be done during building permit review. F. Condition 3A & 4 - one modification was made and this condition has been met and deletion was recommended. Condition 3C, landscape plan were revised, reviewed by the Staff and condition 3C is deleted. Conditions 3B, & D will be complied with during building permit review. G. Condition 4 - will be complied with at the time of building permit review. Discussion between the Board and Mr. Aippersbach re the geo- technical report, the retaining walls, color, density of the retaining walls, fire access, parking spaces, and emergency lighting took place. A color perspective of one building was presented. The Applicant, William Jeude, a co- developer, handed out a response letter to the Board which related to the Sunwood Homeowners letter in their packet. Mr. Jeude pointed out that they are not in litigation with the Sunwood Homeowners Assoc. The sellers of the property are in litigation with the homeowners. Mr. Jeude, Neil Thompson, a representative of the architecture firm, and Mr. Bruce Johnson, the landscape architect, all made presentations on project design characteristics. Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of June 28, 1990 Mr. Jeude addressed the Board re Conditions LA & lE of the Staff report that were not complied with: A. Point LA - the wall is 6' at its highest point and with the landscaping and the natural barriers that are present, the wall will not be very visible. B. Point lE - Building B cannot be moved and the Staff's alternative is not feasible. Landscaping with grouping size and density will be used to create a separateness between Building B and the building adjacent to it. C. Item 2 re the dumpster enclosures will be complied with. D. Item 3 will be resolved at the time of building permits. Mr. Jeude handed out an aerial photo that outlined the property that needs to be returned to him at a later time. Mr. Hunt, a planning consultant retained by the Sunwood Homeowners Assoc., addressed the Board. He handed out an outline of the discussion with the Homeowners Assoc. re the issues that the homeowners had concerning entrance to Sunwood, streets, setbacks, retaining walls, landscaping, recreation areas, storm water retaining tanks, deterioration of the 62nd Ave. Apts, and the type of renters that the apartments will attract. Mr. Hunt submitted a letter of Sunwood concerns based on the previously distributed plans and protested the late plan changes which have just been circulated at this evening's meeting which may greatly affect his analysis. He also reviewed the series of last minute plan changes and short review times given to the Association previous to the B.A.R. meeting. Mr. Hunt's concerns regarding the applicant's materials submitted at this meeting and not necessarily covered in his submittal include the following: A. Site area was measured at 3.77 acres as shown on plans, not 3.85 acres as printed. B. The aerial photo shows the project from a misleading angle (observer in the air, not on the ground) and shows only buildings without the significant affects of parking lots and retaining walls. C. Trees needed to soften parking lots since effect on vistas is minimal in light of proposed roofs. Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 1990 D . E . Page 6 Staff report was available at the City, but not sent immediately to people on the mailing list. Colored entry rendering is from the perspective of an observer two stories above the 62nd Ave. /Sunwood Blvd. entry; not the pedestrian level where greater visual impacts would be apparent. F. City approved all phases as a unified project; not separate developments. Mr. Hunt will present written concerns to the Planning Div. since the Board decided to continue this item. Julie LeMay, Sunwood resident, stated that the proposed buildings are too large and that the site's steep slopes should be kept grassed; not developed. Beth Stanley, Sunwood resident, requested that the Board protect her from the proposed project's poor architecture, large building size, view blockage, (potential) uncaring renters, and the large entry sign which gives the impression that Sunwood is part of the 62nd Avenue Apartments. Ryan Thrower, Sunwood resident and Chair of the Sunwood Homeowners Assn. Board of Directors, stated that the Sunwood Board has responsibility for Sunwood Blvd. construction and maintenance, but has not been contacted for acceptability of the SEPA conditions or road design. Neither was the Sunwood Board contacted about an 8 ft. retaining wall on its property line nor permission to use excess storm detention facility capacity by the applicant, as presented to the City. The Sunwood Board asserts that the access road should remain under unified administration (not separately owned segments between Sunwood and 62nd Apts.) Mr. Thrower also stated that a condition of R -4 zoning for the project site was additional joint recreation facilities for Sunwood use per a covenant written by City Attorney Larry Hard, and that Sunwood Blvd. should be designed as a boulevard streetscape. A letter by Joan Gessner,Sunwood Homeowner, was read by Mr. Ryan Thrower and a letter from Geraldine Tarver, Sunwood Homeowner, was submitted with the Agenda packet. Sandra Ault, Sunwood resident, stated that the presented project doesn't reflect its actual look, the project is too dense for sloped site, not enough landscaping is provided along the boulevard, children could fall off the high retaining walls, and Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of June 28, 1990 that she didn't want to be perceived as living at the back of a low quality apartment project which is not maintained through successive owners. Vernon Plinkett, Sunwood resident, stated that apartment projects aren't kept up and pointed to the (North Hills) apartment project to the immediate southwest which already looks in poor condition. John Crausar, Old Stone Real Estate Services, representing the seller of the property - Citizens Service Corp.- addressed the Board re the quality of the apts. in question believing that the apts. were of a quality equal to or greater than those of the surrounding apts. He also stated that buildings look the same whether they are apartments or condominiums and that road and utilities would be highly maintained. Chairman Haggerton closed the public testimony portion of the meeting. The Board voted to continue the meeting and directed Staff to assist the Applicant and Sunwood Assoc. in ironing out smaller items that were of concern and then present major items to the Board in order for a decision to be made. He stated that the Commission could not be fair in reaching a decision at this time until these differences could be worked out between all parties involved or issues more clearly defined. Staff agreed to identify design review issues and work with the parties toward resolution of as many as possible in time for the next B.A.R. meeting if additional consultant support could be authorized. Mayor Van Dusen stated that he would do all he could to support the B.A.R.'s work. COMM. KIRSOP MOVED AND COMM. MALINA SECONDED A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. The item was continued without setting a meeting continuation date. Director's Report Mr. Umetsu reviewed the B.A.R. /Planning Commission work schedule. The Board agreed to the following meeting schedule: July 17th: SAO Workshop. July 19th: Adult Entertainment Ordinance Workshop and Public Hearing. July 25th: SAO Public Hearing. Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 1990 The Board also recognized the need to complete its SAO recommendation by August 9th. The Board specifically continued the 62nd Avenue Apartments B.A.R. design review to July 26, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in the Tukwila Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT Respectfully submitted KIMBERLY I. HART Recording Secretary Page 8 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 433 -1800 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM To: Board of Architectural Review From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner / Department of Community Development `- Date: June 19, 1990 "�• RE: File No. 90 -5 -DR Eagle Hardware. BACKGROUND The Board directed that this item be continued from the May 24, 1990 meeting to accurately present the project as conditioned. The Board's ten conditions are shown in the attached draft Meeting Minutes. Further clarification was provided by Commissioner Kirsop and confirmed by Chairman Haggerton that Board's resolution and conditions were intended to generally approve project design subject to only minor project revisions and an accurate overall presentation of the project design. The applicant has submitted the following attachments representing the proposed project. Staff has verified that drawings are consistent with each other. Att. Al: Architectural Site Plan Att. B1: Building Elevations Att. Cl: Landscape Site Plan Att. Dl: Landscape Plan Elevations Att. El: Sign Design (gcv MAT it,Acs gOM-P) Att. Fl: Building Elevations with Signage Att. G1: Ribbed Metal Accent Strip Detail Att. H1: Colored Bldg. Elevations (to be presented at meeting) Att. I1: Colors and Materials Board (to be presented at meeting) CONCLUSION The Planning staff concludes that the new submittal satisfies Board of Architectural Review condition numbers 2 through 10. However, staff has concerns about satisfying Board condition number 1 regarding the building's wall facade. The textured accent band which ties into the upper window line (Att. B1 and G1) has been changed from the previous dryvit finish which matches the extruded columns and beams; to a painted, ribbed metal strip. Staff has the following concerns regarding the metal paneling: 1. The ribbed metal panel presents a third type of surface (i.e. smooth concrete /dryvit /metal) in a very small area. This could make the building wall appear cluttered with different building forms and materials. Ribbing of the same dryvit finish /color as the extruded column and beam would significantly increase design harmony. 2. The metal ribbing may not be deep, wide, or sharp enough to . provide definite texturing. Three or four inch right angle ribs would be more effective. 3. Paint does not typically last more than two seasons on exposed metal panels without maintenance. Almost all metal panels are factory finished (i.e. kiln baked). � 'fir C 1 A ft Jet T CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Jim Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Flesher, Kirsop and Knudson. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, Darren Wilson and Wendy Bull. Mr. Haggerton inquired as to the status of filling the vacancy created by Lee Cagle's position. The Mayor has not made any appointments as of today, according to Senior Planner, Jack Pace. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - MR. HAGGERTON MADE A NOTE UNDER MISCELLANEOUS PAGE FOUR. REGARDING LETTER FROM LOUISE STRANDER REQUESTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ASK THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL TO SEND THE GRADING AND CLEARING ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND HEARING. MR. HAGGERTON NOTED THAT MOIRA DID DRAFT A LETTER THAT STATED THAT WE DID WANT THE GRADING AND CLEARING ORDINANCE NOT ONLY TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION AND HEARING, BUT ALSO TO BE INTEGRATED AS A PART OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE IN GENERAL. EVERYTHING WAS TO BE REVIEWED IN ONE PACKAGE BEFORE IT CAME BEFORE US. Jack Pace, Senior Planner stated that no final decision has been received from the City Council. MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD APRIL 26, 1990. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mr. Haggerton mentioned that item number four on the agenda is a new item. After the approval of the minutes, there will be a Citizen's Comment for anyone that would like to make a comment on any matter that relates to the Planning Commission or BAR activities. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE - Asking for approval for on street truck maneuvering and design review for new construction of approximately 22,140 s.f. of retail and office space in an existing office /warehouse building located at 101 Andover Park East. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 2 Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, explained that Staff report recommendations were based upon the facts and findings prepared on May 15, 1990. The applicant subsequently submitted revisions just prior to the Public Meeting on May 24, 1990. Staff analyses presented to the Board would reflect the newly submitted project design. The building would have a significant visual impact in a nearly 360 degree arc. The extensive revisions and additions which would result in a new western facade, extending into the new south addition. Staff concerns about project design were discussed. Staff could recommend approval of the project subject to the modified plans an associated verbal agreements. These verbal agreements, stated in the record, include but are not limited to bermed western landscaping adjacent to the building, blue metal canopies, and applicant working with staff to achieve better architectural integration of the addition with the existing building. Mr. Knudson expressed concern regarding setbacks and truck maneuvering. Would we be in trouble if trucks are going in and out of traffic? Staff's response was that the Public Works Director was consulted earlier and did not have any objections. It is not anticipated that there will be large volumes of traffic since Evans Black Drive is a dead -end street and not envisioned for further extension. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would like to see accurate plans of the project presented to them. Mr. Knudson agreed that he would like something that shows what they will be approving. Tom Sconzo, of Sconzo Associates who is the architect for the project spoke on behalf of the applicant. He went through each change on an item by item basis and told the Commissioners how each item could be taken care of, and recommended approval. Mr. Sconzo further agreed that the applicant would abide by Mr. Umetsu's decisions. Clete Casper, Sabey Corporation spoke on behalf of project, and stated that the delay impacts the tenants and others who have financial responsibilities. Tukwila will gain a beautiful new building as opposed to vacant warehouse, according to Mr. Casper. Mr. Umetsu noted that the signage meets the sign code. The Public Hearing on 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE was closed by Chairman Haggerton at 9:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 3 Discussion ensued on the project. Mr. Umetsu agreed that before a building permit is issued, the Planning Division will make sure BAR design elements are reflected in the building plans. New submittal of plans for the Planning Division to be submitted to the Planning Commission on June 14, 1990, special meeting to show all architecture details as they have been changed. The Board is withholding final approval on the exterior details /treatment and exterior architectural treatment of the southern end until they see what the applicant is actually proposing how everything is going to be implemented. COMMISSIONER KIRSOP MOVED THAT PLANS BE ACCEPTED AS REVISED AT THIS MEETING FOR 90 -5 -DR: EAGLE HARDWARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Detailed review of exterior colors /contrasts to be rendered to more fully track with final agreement with staff on exterior treatment. 2. Building canopies would be metal, 3. Chain link fence be replaced with a more ornamental style of fence, 4. Loading doors be painted a dark gray or black to harmonize with glass effect, 5. Western wall shall be described in greater detail, 6. HVAC equipment be kept away from parapets and grouped as practical to minimize the visual effect. 7. Screen design and paint will minimize the visual effect of the HVAC equipment. All screening materials shall consist of the same color /colors of the exterior of the building. Screens shall be slanted wood slat per agreement with Planning Division for individual HVAC units as presented at BAR hearing. 8. Maneuvering of trucks on Evans -Black Drive is acceptable. 9. Garden Department will be left as presented. 10. The final submittal of the canopies shall consist of the configurations and colors /materials as agreed upon per public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 1990 Page 4 MOTION BY KIRSOP AND SECOND BY FLESHER. MOTION CARRIES. 90- 5 -SPE: The BJSS GROUP ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS, AIA (Foster High School) Requesting Special Permission for two freestanding signs. The applicant was not present for the meeting. The Planning Commission continued this item until the applicant can be present. Recess at 9:30 p.m. - Meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Marc Hinshaw from the City of Bellevue Urban Design presented a slide show giving examples of how development visually affects the community. Mr. Knudson would like the City Council to see this presentation as well. Commissioner Hamilton expressed a desire for a list of criteria needed. June 14, 1990 - Special meeting at 7:30 for Adult Business. Public Hearing at 8 :00 p.m. At that time Eagle Hardware and Foster High School Sign will be discussed. Cascade View Annexation passed. That will be effective September 1, 1990 and it adds about another 2,100 people to the City. New Sensitive Areas Flier is out and there will be an informational meeting next week. Mailed to all property owners and residents of Tukwila. Discussion on how to get the packets to the Planning Commission by mail faster than usual. Foster High School building permit has not been issued yet. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m. MR. HAGGERTON MOTIONED FOR ADJOURNMENT. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Bull, Recording Secretary DIRECTOR'S REPORT HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: C, City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared May 18, 1990 May 24, 1990 90 -5 -DR Sconzo Associates, Architects New construction of approximately 22,140 s.f. of retail and warehouse space in an existing office /warehouse building. Approval to maneuver trucks on Evans -Black Drive per TMC 18.56.040(4)(B). 101 Andover Park East; in the SE 1/4 of Sec 23, Township 23, Range 4; Tukwila, WA. 9.08 Acres Light Industrial C -M Industrial Park Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued on May 8, 1990 A) Vicinity Map B) Site Plan C) Landscape Plan D) Building Elevations E) Sign Conceptual Design DECISION CRITERIA VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 1. Project Description: The proposed action is shown in Attachments A through E. It involves converting portions of an existing office /warehouse to include retail uses, construction of a 147 by 150 ft., 31 ft. high addition, construction of a 160 by 90 ft. one story addition (both to the south), and revision of the eastern and southern parking /landscaping areas. 2. Surrounding Land Use: To the north is Tukwila Parkway and I -405, with properties on the east, west and south being developed as commercial /office /retail uses. 3. Access: The project site is accessed via Tukwila Parkway, Andover Park East, and Evans -Black Drive. Evans -Black Dr. is a dead -end alley which is not envisioned as a through street. Truck maneuvering is requested at the western end of the roadway. The Public Works Dept. has not objected to the proposed truck maneuvering at the end of this road. 3. Terrain: The site is generally flat. 4. Plants: Plants on site were installed to fulfill previous landscape requirements. BACKGROUND The site was previously developed and utilized as an office /warehouse facility. Its location at the central business district's northeast corner; a site which benefits the developer considerably and could benefit the City as well. The design, layout and use of the site will form a significant first impression for many visitors to the City. The site is zoned CM Industrial Park which has the most stringent front yard setbacks in the zoning code. The intent is to provide an effective landscape buffer between the use and the city street. In reviewing this request, the BAR must use the following zoning code guidelines in making their decision. The Design Review Guidelines are printed BOLD followed by pertinent findings of fact. 18.60.050 Review Guidelines 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area a. Harmony of 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. 1. Relationship of structure to site a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movements. 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 the site. The building is currently set back from Andover Park East /Tukwila Parkway between 210 and 270 feet. The building setback on Evans Black Dr. is proposed to be reduced from 240 feet to a minimum of 90 feet. The addition to the south of the existing building will fill in the site and provide better visual anchoring of the building to the site as it is viewed from Andover Park East. Transition from streetscape to building would be provided by a 15 foot wide perimeter landscape buffer and 10 - 15 foot wide landscape islands in the parking lot to be planted with large stature trees. Smaller, more colorful trees would be planted adjacent to the building. Pedestrian access is currently provided for with sidewalks rimming all street frontages. Additional sidewalk connections are proposed from Tukwila Parkway and Andover Park East to the building. Pedestrian walkways now located adjacent to the buildings would be extended around the addition to the loading dock area in the south. Pedestrian use is concentrated on the east and north side of the building. Truck and other bulk loading facilities, and the trash compactor are located in the southwest corner of the site. Loading areas and the trash compactor will be screened from Andover Park East by a 14 foot high, 40 foot long wing wall. These areas will be visible from the Evans Black frontage, however, this view mirrors the truck loading facilities immediately across the street. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. The smooth, highly contrasting appearance of the building is created by its light facade and dark windows. The horizontal lines created by the windows are similar to other office /warehouse development in Tukwila; however, they differ from existing retail in transparency. The site is bounded by streets on three sides with the landscape plan providing a pattern of large stature street trees which is harmonious with adjacent properties. The western building face is 31 ft. high by 294 ft. long with a smooth finish, painted concrete surface. This building wall will be an imposing element on users of the Southcenter Annex (Mall) and 3M Building. The proposed landscaping will have only minimal effect on breaking up the wall face and softening its presence. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, 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 encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination. 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. Landscaping has been designed to complement the adjacent street tree pattern along the perimeter, soften the large paved parking areas, and break up building lines from the street. Relocating existing maples to the perimeter will Building Canopy lessen the time landscaping will have a significant softening affect. All parking and landscape areas will be curbed. The loading area and trash compactor are screened on the Andover Park East frontage, but not the Evans Black frontage as discussed in Criteria 1. The lighting fixtures are square, dark and modern in appearance and are consistent with the architectural design of the building. The applicant has revised the proposed pole height from an initial 30 feet to a maximum 20 feet. A 20 foot height is more compatible with the 26 ft. high building frontage to the east. Light standards in addition to those shown in Attachment A will be required. 4. Building design a. 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 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 the 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 harmonious with building design. g. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. The hard, finished architectural design of the existing structure would be continued in the addition. The building is currently one story higher than adjacent development but the size is balanced by its siting and the large lot size. The overall newly constructed space requires additional building design elements to architecturally integrate it with the existing structure. These elements could include materials, building architectural lines and accents, and reveals. Specific design comments have been sequenced to proceed from the eastern face in a clockwise direction. The applicant has chosen to incorporate red rounded over awnings into the building design (Attachments B and D). The Garden Dept. Addition softness of the rounded over design is very effective in balancing the hard building design. However, the proposed fabric awnings are inconsistent with the building's finished design. Rounded over metal awnings would be more in keeping with a permanent, finished building presentation. Lighted canopies would present a series of lighted bands of red which would be inconsistent with the hard modern building design. Lighting under the canopies to provide architectural and security down lighting would be appropriate. The garden dept. addition is on the same building plane as the existing building's eastern face. A 10 ft. setback of this area would use modulation to provide architectural interest, and provide architectural symmetry as it reflects and balances the northern third's setback. Garden Dept. Canopy The proposed garden dept. canopies are proposed as metal shed roofs. These roofs present building materials and angles which are inconsistent with the existing sharply square building lines and the rounded over canopies. Exterior Fence The proposed chain link fence presents a very informal, utilitarian image which is inconsistent with a retail /office building having a hard, finished design. A hollow tube steel fence, with its finished clean lines would provide the required security and be more consistent with the overall building design. Using a dark color similar to the existing glass would also make it function as a visual continuation of the window band and help architecturally integrate the addition. Loading Doors Loading doors have been proposed as red to match the canopy accent color, and would make the doors visually prominent. A dark color similar to the dark glass would make the doors recede and help carry through a visual continuation of the window band; helping to architecturally integrate the addition. Western Wall The entire western concrete wall would be newly constructed as part of this addition. It is 31 ft. high by 394 with a smooth painted concrete finish. No architectural elements are proposed for this area. The wall faces the Southcenter Annex as discussed in Criteria No. 2. Colors and Materials An important element to softening the overall building and its harmony with adjacent structures is the use of non- reflective paints and subdued colors. The applicant has submitted colored building elevations (to be submitted at the public meeting) to indicate a general concept, but no specific colors and materials board. Screening of Mechanical Equipment HVAC equipment would be approximately 6 feet high and roof mounted. All roof mounted equipment are proposed to be enclosed with a perimeter screen wall set back from the parapet approximately 30 feet. Painting all rooftop equipment and screening a similar color to the roof would help such obtrusive elements visually recede. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. None are proposed. CONCLUSIONS 1. The new addition requires additional architectural elements in order to achieve a harmonious design blend with the existing structure. The following design changes should be made in order to assure building design quality and harmony: a. The building canopies should use metal and be opaque in order to blend harmoniously with the buildings finished presentation. b. The garden department addition to the south should be set back 10 feet in order to provide a minimum level of architectural interest, and provide architectural symmetry as it reflects the northern portion's setback. c. The proposed garden area shed canopies should be redesigned with building lines and materials which are consistent with the building's squared finished surfaces and the rounded over canopies. d. The exterior chain link fence should be replaced with a dark ornamental fence in order to better reflect the building's modern design and visually carry forward the dark window band as an architecturally integrating accent. e. Loading doors should have a dark color similar to the glass to help them visually recede and visually carry forward the dark window band as an architecturally integrating accent. 3. The western wall (31 x 394 ft.) should be redesigned to provide a level of architectural interest and variety of form and detail to moderate its imposing blank mass on adjacent retail and office building users. The proposed landscaping will have no significant impact on breaking up the wall face for 5 to 10 years. 4. A colors and materials board is essential to the Board making a responsible decision in this case. Such a board should be submitted prior to decision making. Subdued, non- reflective colors should be used to soften the overall appearance of this large building. 5. HVAC equipment and screening should have a color identical to the roof in order to help them visually recede. RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff recommends continuance of the Design Review application until a colors and materials board is submitted due to the importance of color pattern in the overall appearance of this large building. In addition, the Planning staff recommends that the building be redesigned to address the following conditions. 1. Provide additional elements to better architecturally link the renovated and new structures. 2. The building canopies should use metal and be opaque. 3. The garden department addition to the south should be set back 10 feet. 4. The proposed garden area canopies should be redesigned with building lines and materials which are consistent with the building's squared finished surfaces and the rounded over canopies. 5. The exterior chain link fence should be replaced with a dark ornamental fence. 6. Loading doors should have a dark color similar to the glass. 7. The western wall (31 x 394 ft.) should be redesigned to provide a level of architectural interest and variety of form and detail to moderate its imposing blank mass on adjacent retail and office building users. 8. HVAC equipment and screening should have a color identical to the roof in order to help them visually recede. 9. Recommend approval of truck turning maneuvering on Evans Black Drive pursuant to Public Works approval (see access). LIM TOE' ACCESS -43F- -WAY -- 475.75 15 . . Tg.RSTAT.E7. PARKWAY ESmT. 0.C.T.I. 0.C.1.1. 10 CS aaap 115 -s. IR PART FOR WITHOUT 111 100 7E7 240 No .■.5.3!) 5 Z P4 IC 4; d o• M IX • // , . - s! t;. ArTAC 1 54co lei to ,„ cs,,0„ 0 „ p •••• • ..soU-THCENTER, t3V I tin .. , ,mitaila s ,//1//i/// / r i c a 1 ,11 / I 4 I \ .,....,, ; 450 . • - .......... 4 TR. 2 69 • Iw o 14 " • OA PA t .4E Aclu . MI \ I 1 SOUTH OF ANC1OVER. TL : 217- ; i NbUS,TRIAL: PARK NO. 2 Lir“2- i IIPAAr00 N ON CLAMI 7 V NS - BLACK DRIVE 1"...r iiTLAS . : COO . SEA1TLE • COPYRIGHTED & PUBLISHED tiT ' (ROLL MAP compuly, INC., SEATTLE' C' /5 28 I 4.. • ' I MI I 1 1 1 11 1 1 fm,-1,1,1.1‘ I - 8 tf 1°ft 101111111 10 11: 1 11 i4GIG,G I I } l 1 1111 ! `�Glt�tt rl 1 F O ! I! I 11 I � Iry 11* r t EXIST. L OFFICES 1 = t1f1.7• ANDOVER PARK EAST Ir IFFri FTTIT11 II11111I,I4iIIILL b IfY MUST. BUILDING •-e III I I! ``!`I`I`I` I ( I I i'I I I I 111 I I! '!��i�l�lGl l i l f` I I I - "WIG tOfvG whir) r It:UCO NO 1444fm 1 1 I III 1, I 1 Ir."1 1I 1 . oit1•,Ir)1 i:'I Iiis'il»f II11�11111 • 1 i I II i vo of tl' I � g CIVIL OSIMMO MOP MOS • MOM. Mi _I., M n 13. M 10111 IMMO MIL MOM.. 4M-M MOM. IMIIMILIM gr sOf MILL OM IMMO Loom m071. 100.7•Le LAININCIR •,On,tn. tank.. •,Y• .i 7•1141T11 's g I i I f! tit • • • • ' O IWI JO. MO. MIAOW Al 1 0.00 Lot ---77:Li• ArirTe 51.C.LV9C/7 /-7 Jwp "avo 51•••7. (p.) Invurarg CaLVVo7R),/ ViD z Get result) .000 . .70.0r a - 70.1.• Mel memo oarra/CVA 70", (V0/0,01.76~/vVV.1011. MW))? K),•7%.* LW.* OrPlAgrawetents orms,/mrsgremes ~waif CUM wrevaraii/gmranani LUDI2rirri 11/99 (1) ,1111.0VVW ...vary; Prwl Arresram ,4 t (L') Airs% nracracamm -g 0 AMMO OrNELIRVVVP, eVACIIIII00304 MIV -we) (s) wrserr asille/V2nYl/Ver7 C/1/~ COD jem,s Vve1pir9 (7•1) Wows Ireof ker7Volver WorMSI 0 gykr *(e) AftriratbOtalr VVISW1Wra92 917/94/ 53 WIN 109.9(9r)Wend nVersvliVTAltra970 Sertnand Gyp Api;f 0.0 ranar,Arninartr. An77),4i1//6 3W,0179 (9) 39d Vii1JalY/PWIN g7/%W IWO 7,9,9 (00,1207CraWr AVVV.V.9.7.1110V 0 (20 720o2 aWn frw-unxi, 011007701 0 " (CO Sod 111. oSto.a2734 0 (9) 22097/ 91.7.1c1X1 of.1.10,0774/ /101-101d aaP SW/19/= 02 I/11.w ea aria .91./LLCIVg /*Yfebrgtd 01 ~OW 911/1S1.10 1 paae6e g 09 0 1 - SY 0 / .L 02brvy Sr -Lesor9 nvosinv cti Inn." LINZ IW VIVA417 Clmevrs., <WP 7VIVILLVIsl AW.L.VOGI 77Y MIND 5 -.• • 1 .20 0 nen lat 1:1 *I@ ig) tarStsavrei, _itiNgtymme.46 it (1) to, 141 irstAr gatL grIMVOTKR:XX:700 VIW,LVIX9 ClELLYX.7731./ Q 21VV7■11 row cdra grv111/ ••VALV1712 OftlYnarTVII 9 v•••,,zr, j.71119 g22/WL nr:/tv =7=1 • 1,0( 4 111•11. 1•1 \ (\i/ ••••5 4 E ,0,1•■••• V .■ Niagd zaoupazu • u,ca. tmalr-14 WK.. LIrtadLL 1111112•1111•11 - - t 111111111111111111111 WYK% MUCCI 4.011 CIAZ.L.4 AXOT011 le.t [COL s7 IO D:01. UAL UMW ".4M* thuIrX) 11111111111111glinaminumumm , , _ • C04.• srAurr.,) MD LY� ?WA Y407. r rca- 1.11.=1 f.t.0 1.1 bATILLC. suLuLgoseAccolna Lerkun:D) 41:1)1101J IL kanneu if..) V4 •r,o n Ul4114.. to a U. IsttIFSQ_ •CO SOM.: LOT ____ .10 IJCATH LLLVA7101.1 1 4.:• armumisimal ri11 :z111111111111111111111111 UV U. 11 rffalT1.0) 1 Off. Yftlf ( L.. MLLE. vt &LIN. auq, SOUTH FJ1b\101-1 1 AT E,LLVAT I 01-1 U.ST r.t.ENA iti.Lsts.„,, (elk 1.:04.a. ftari.11Art. Vs.. &V rs13... cr., S S 57-tfteu7 ra, Leo/ f $1 If t, Is I .• I cS SM0 .411 11.7 it ,r..rtsn MT*, sa.f.2.7 ‘. • • r • s f • • " • ' — • • f.2.1.4r I 2 2 I I le JO. OW PICKUP Maga A2 {0} HEATH SIGNS r.••...• . .11f. 11. OM MI •.1••I.•n .1 MO N Mw •.MM... •.1 M. M.MO 1+..41 IM• mlm.Y ., •f .23 - 9 ..... J --Jat' 9 ., D 4-(uGr -) ..,. A- . z7. 90 ErsG!it- 1- 44+2cwisi - rZAewt Lei WA .f. Or !.+••UdAI>JLIJt� L-c>:L' w /44.2..Tr- I" ifl 1 TYPICAL OiANELIJIE'8iiD LOOOBOC 5 V4' RED RETURNS WITH 5 114" RICK STEET METAL BACKGROUND PANTED TO MATCH RETURNS FLAT WHRE PLEC FACE WITH BLUE 3630 -67 VNYL OVERLAY PER DETAL OHANELI*E'EAGLE LETTERS 5 V4' RED RETURNS FLAT RED FLEX 2415 FACES tLLU1RIATE WITH 11E011 AS REQUIRED FLUSH MOUNT WTTH CONCEALS) RACEV Y AS REQUIRED SINGLE FACE ALUMINUM EXTRUDED CABIET PANT RED TO MATCH #2415 FORAED FACE PAM CRAW WHITE BACKGROUND PAM BUIE TO MATCH 3630 -67 VINYL EMBOSSED LETTERS PAM WHITE FUJOfESCFM ILLUMINATION AS REQUIRED AXONOMETRIC VIEW- No scale l G!j -ITS A�� OF -TWO I a I a1.-64::%/P.7". MIS2& fw4ST TV+ To \/ I E W. APR S 0 J •T ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MUST SE VERIFIED BEFORE DES' 101 Andover Park East • REVIEW APPLI,ATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Convert existing office /warehouse facility into a retail hardware store including corporate offices. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Quarter: SE Section: 23 Township: 23 Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Sconzo Associates (John Hailstrom) OWNER Address: 919 - 124th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 455 -3203 Signature: z _ _y; Date: ' --c4 * The applicant is the person whom the taff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. Phone: 281 -8700 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Sabey Corporation 4 Address: 201 Elliott Avenue W. Suite 400 Seattle WA_ nip I /WE,Csignature(s)] . �. / swear that we are the o.rfer s) orr co purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: g_ ,e ,/fg9 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION 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 cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. 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: A. The existing building is setback from the streets sufficiently to provide adequate landscape area. Sidewalks for pedestrian access existing on t • B. The existing parking lot will be enlarged and regraded and the street 1 • I • S .1 S . 5 - - - the street. The truck service area will be screened from the street by extending the building walls. This building screen wall will be partially screened y a large landscape area directly in front of the wall. 6. 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 estab- lished 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: A. The concrete building will match the construction of the existing building. B. The perimeter landscape transitions on the east and south sides w • ,, . - • .. • orth one west will remain unchanged. C. The character of the existing building will be rel ativel y UM, Ianyed le y L bui iffy add Liu►. D. The par lut, and Lr loading circulation patterns will be improved by the re- stripping and re- grading proposed. E. The existing street entranceiwill be utilized at or near the :present locations, which permits unobstructed circulation paths on and off -site 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 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 encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, 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. RESPONSE: A The site topography is relatively flat and will remain unchanged. B. The existing parking lot will be re- graded to provide •n A, - access to . and structure, including shade from the street trees. D. The parking layout n . .. . , . • vehicle paths will avoid the landscape areas. E. The building site provides ample landscape butters at the perimeter of the property. the ends of all rows of parking will be enhanced by the addition of landscape islands. F. The truck loading area will be screened from the street by extending the exterior building . . , . ■ • . . . - . to t material to be used in all areas has been selected for and the use of provide a light level necessary to ensure the safety of all customers using the tbcllity. Ine tixtures are designed and positioned to limit the lightett areas to within the site. 8. BUILDING DESIGN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 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 per - ma ent 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. Fix- tures, standards and all exposed 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: A. The building modification and addition will be complimentary to the existing building in materials and mass B. The building addition height _ . ■ II C. The existing building components will remain and the building addition - . • . ted "Egg Shell" white. Red and blue accent colors will be utilized for accent detdil]is and signage. h. Roottop mechanical equiptment will be individually screened with materials and colors compatible with the building exterior. F. The exterior lighting will be mounted on 30' high poles in the parking lot together is - I, • • I • • • awning, pre - finished metal canopy and glass wa]�ted Garden Department itfe add i ti�rrarl imte Lh raA Lu e exist i ung building. en&I st re ari 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT N /A N/ A A. 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 pro- portions should be to scale. RESPONSE: 9A_ and 9R_ Are not applicable to this project. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. 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 appear- ance, 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. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. N/A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. N/A 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3) N/A (29 /EXTRA.RESP) EXTRA RESPONSE SPACE 5C. The 22,582 S.F. Buildings addition will match the height of the existing building. ,t137'. ruce. n,lr Trw JRt .. ..4,w. '.4M.! sttuuf.rii.uuu0'u•uu IUIuwtUdUUUIU9I r n rstTr9) I tU)) ♦` 044:[1.1 nn ry o 4 4n^ t+✓ le.. w a._ 41341tt A. Ai.uu •,, ruc..nt w.r :�. ,1,14•••••.-1•144.0[1.) • 44 Nlart wG� G:7�W 9r.w'l,.119 tt tt maw Gtluv tIRL rwa...m wN4u.S.M. 0) UCnT i LiXA C -1 .ar.Tw•. tWNr t:ty:..,l G V. !i r....i[l.) LL. ,Nfl1 .:l+.Tµ! Gi ['tyL v crw.t •�+or r•'u, �m uin n n �. inie tunnunnou LJ� I L,. wv r.,i ni+'c t la w n ) .n., i `.l• u., au.. &Vtst N..T. • 4•t.y f1n.La. • , 1 •I••uIUIIIIIUIIl A2 and ove pat @ad. lam mat oM0 /1 r Q lurIrlultD �. 9; 40 171e. 7;71'4) tIG .:'f.', r rl t (k) 11 I k 1 I (�9 I 11,0 1 I (f, 0 c I b V 11 c4, gl a ak, r 0 " 0 o ewst/i7g nxape to refill/0 a Ji° existjn t' to r dx/Qiis tit' recall, -7 8A7,577 cx/S //t pie to re-ra/ /7 ex757i /& vine rna,o/e to , crnain t67D ex/sfing abe /ia to fermi vie cresting .,aaar7are /rkiedo to ra raa/n 4 axistIrq r7kr/Laa'en1rai fo remain exYst /r{g sub-a /pine t ,•- fz7 rerna m d exist /ng Jinia to re.•na/n existin/ag� /v to /-97712/t7 ax/St7rT9 grass to /enk)! /n re/ca maple re /cca ed p /um re /ocaf dou /as r/r relocated P/rre relocated vino maple atilo relocated rhododendrons ® relocated boxwood, 39 sp t o r5 .Z' SO • , /n.:/s cetzwr-aarro�rpurlaV parole-leaf plain, 2 "2 cal, pa.>anus pcer,to;/a /'ar 1OP) plane o S"4�aa/, o ccr /d,•,ah / /u . /L�+tsu7z? ." re, b ' o, bran n; t1g to /OU ® pnu.s . /ausrroan black ,Dine ' irt by=e cgy esca /lama ;jubilee', 5 ya/ cant • n17t7on.Gr alarm, urn,, or on rapt 5 aa/ cowl as se m e ats r� 2 P/nnfJ = *it • hododendron s cheer' o � y 'airnstrn i 2 30 .. b I7ars' 2- 32 c) - 2-f 39 v/bu//1um daudn J,a/ 2Y ac tr, sp t9 EBB fragy.ara chr /occurs, scvti s =awxrr laa / coot, !6 oc tai Sp PL U MINI M erl+ he/n'i'erxiirsh r�� ,ga 24 oc tr sp ty,, c�r7r 1 ,ta) 1 c=3 (.= .c . y lz"? 4.21/07Z C, -Jo - lOaS , R124/5/m eiatioriar 2:71: q17..r (p ;t' £12t //13./SY a/01W vgem../oq../e /froMUIttifict vglaa 2.ratiexibl /:ZAni7X0c7 eWc7t7 viciew PUM Vie .reprne2,0 2/dal/ PU OBS 07/ _Java' -7 Agcapia -Vac/ Izip,I -/ SgAte.LV.,Y NOLL/CNO.9 amo AI/ Ii o pee Ntli n a@ p ro ., ? 1 uew WILD114 Albmol4 • ; ;Got.l= Vt�oIJ:'�GIAZIUG;': ':: ::EXIST GV�21uy PIAGIc NUT Pirw'�K.SIbEOF. EXIST, GL)ZIIJG F1A t- EXI5TII. ;, BUILDIIJG (TO BE IlE -PAIti ii OLII.:-,Mrt4 t ,r1t !. Fta.r: -II ra EU IIDII.16 AWITbkI EXISTIIJG BUILDII44,Ci .VONb(10 BC ILLTAIIJTGD) , • MI)o rLy11UooD GAUOFy FAS;.IA (PAIuTFA) VI LIQI.J CILA?- II • eXISTIIJG BulLpllJG (.TD ICE Le- TAINTED) i pu5711J4 OFFV -e• GUILDIIJG (lD MMAW;UIJLNgIJGFA) CQU IrTMGIJT � C gVT�I L✓ kth 'fo • IIIII'I �Illll�l(II'II IlllIIIIII J1( Il II ill 11I I I I I I ` !ay >WII I j'I IV ! I IF; THIS MIGROF ,IL'MED� CLEAR THAN° TH � 5 T N01 nnE n t u sV u E ik i % ••••:-• --•••••, ••••.' • • . , • • • • • • • • • • • • • -F. A"■ - 6 4 ri 5sr ricv.. AS-.741 -a • A SV " , V O' -AlR iV 14 21 .11511° I P% jktli ‘F 142 617:464W-7:-. 4111. /61 kV4r41‘. g d 797 tlatait I 7.- i t-1cl t.mx;6r.e. l iff I I l ip#7‘ ..,. ......,..., 5cyrity, iiiiik, . . „, L rat-laWioti. OEG/D VOUS 7 57:41GE/AIG • 4j . e 7 v ig . 90: 4 : • • 9 10 11 12 IF.*!::.(105MICROFILMEQDOCUMENT-4 CE;EAkiTHWTHIS'i,tiOTICE;WIteJS:iDUCITI IlAtiltgorg•TtitaortisiNAt ion wadriva ro AefriAmi • (1;?) 5X/67/NG piAte To /q44/// exicsrbv 600 74) Ase,44/A/ eal-Z47 oxfarfocia M (3; ikei4eA7ao l77 FY/4'# 0 Re2ecATF.-0 Extts-rhu0 V/04 /44,'e4 oz? 0 ACS l'1.47.■W4 cAove.,c)ce..aei' (/p) s at AVA/(45 Ana,g4Afrotst pxue BOA: earzYcYPRYavii ...1.4pavievi-04 (/ u 1 ? (21) i "Mutis ce..x.deripeow az)2 3 1t M44 n , .ax) Aprovop,,05/rA4.ecA/fiw.440.?cr-cf • (w) ,4.,,syit$00,acihrati ,4-AMsTii.Adsifogariallor.°Y. . evo00scooki, -Nola; Vhsaw0I.:0„::;Tztoks:' ' 4# '1. "e/ fivArathesushleivkileis0:0 44 I keet4 ' '19 lAsicW4 " Wari*,440f.4041/ /41.:• /6.44. e .ILILW. 5040 MOO 04)4' ' ' • • DATE 0 ' — 'STATE.OF • • . , . WASHINGTON • . • k, .• LANDSAL RCHITEC nnclovw rpnr AIIIM■WENFMMOMMEIIMIW k+ a Sk .\ taaSay ef71 kAtt41"‘ I M \ 7" , \ N o4 r • 0 ALL'EXIST/Ai PLANT MATEIVAL 5cg>, ,•?...otrAtcs cove,¢ /14 774/0 AAF 7T 4/A■ oxcepr Aiorea oAi a7.71657 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . , • . • ' • . • . . . • • . „ . ' • . • . • . ' • • • ' • • • • • • , • , „ .• , • • • • • .. • • , • . • . • • • • • •• ; • • • • ' , • :„., .:.• •••: • • • • •••‘.• • •.• • • •;• , • •• , • • • , ,• • • :::•••',•,,• • . scQ/e! // =i /O// 111111111111111111111111111111111111111M1111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111 111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111 1111111 mor • 3t'"a: i. «F ',.� ' S. r 'NT 3. ..�.i, .�ri •7d3frl2.s4i;s':�,�: "3 �< ?' S ., i :.i • ,. .. III IIRI ! IIU111111111I11!11111!111, !T, 1 1491 1 1 4 N1 1IIIIIIl11111111111nnulllnlul ILI 111 111 nl I n1 I 1 lil '''' l ? 3 6 :? 7. I � - RO f i 1 4DOCU Ti $LESS �rr Y E E C auE TO Qf,` '' •L` '0L L L's* Z 1 6 , L / ~ F ' I 1..3 , , i llt 1 :....1.• :..•. . 'Ian� - j�..'... i {ay4 gg,. 1 , te i�., � , ..a .,..i •"' 11111 I I I IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIiilh111111tl111 lint IIIIl1111 1111 IIII 111111111 1 in in 11 i 1. iui i 1 111 Ii 1111 1111 •.... •::1... :.1 Ill!1, 11 1 6jiFL f Ikfiy`'"'�fr > 6 inhj 3s,. ai.. � iyL, yy S I t 4�t •• O j �. II 111 INI Hai 11ll thil• IIrllirl i Irrllrl ii I loHltl C rlli u1rY1 ` +av; ®.11111111111.11111 1 1 1 ll l 11111! 111111! i t 1 1 1 II. 1 !1 111111 Il l Illl I II 1111111 l III I II II I 11111 1 III Illl l � II FSiA it <� f Cts.ji 1111 ti�11t•:, d' \ t:4:. P, %. •.. ° � �.r "�.... � IIIIIUiE;�l' • ci 1> ' rise ; r!III1III!I - 1 I IIl l I IIII Il 11 I I IIi lill!I�liillll IIIUIIlill11111!!TIII IDlllIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IUlllilllilllllli IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi ►III!Iii III! IIII! 11111Difiilll 'lllll�!I!1i111!11101111111111 I1i1111111111111111111tlillllllllllllllll IIIII! 11111111111111111161 hill III IIIIIIII'llilllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIPJIIIIIIIII�III !111!IItIIIIIIIPIhI!'llllll .;!v. y l.ty!I� r.• Tr:s� t.iP t un•nna:cetsasur. rer rill•.:.. �:. {`... .:. atYJ;rSt. �.'vratix �: ..r • t' . : •1 — -.- . :. r . . : ‚ :1 .. s m m n lsa, GG ®� �',t � aN �' ti:f � 1A Yw f'.^��i� l67� CW :tom f �� •�'. �'.�i 'k¢ ts:• 1�} :1 �:Y :�.Y 9:F: r7.J �Y :.. u.' F x . �� { � k. �i . 1ft . . . . .. . . . .t . 4 •r' - .. k . ( r _,• 1 . 1 . ' 2 3 ... -, - .- .- 7 ...- - 9 10 11 . ..- .. ... .- V. • . f \ . • iru , , i ioiuz000cus .TI,5LEs$ .- .-..* • j••. 1 ImMn .1j.j_;_;.;/1 I 1' : . z :r • n�a _ - . . — • __________ L-i , EJ :. . • , . 1 ‘ 7:• • ' co, Al '4; i3t.,OGIGINGt ' ' ,••• - - ,-,rs.t1.1irl3TWOL's/7 " • , . . • !ORA .CHECICEDVti • iftAzicett 1 - 1 5 0 TFIT 6, F elVIT!' • 1°L.:31;44toci •Suol.riyirrg. '+: . : , • ' „ ... , .. . ,.. . ,. . , • . • ..... . . , „ , . :',:.."••• :.;:•-• • . 2 All l cams ofarisdngutUId are approximate Ray to bate and verify the horloonW and shall take precaudona to avoid damage and dist 3. Storm 'drain pipe shall be either: . a. Comma • per ASTM C14 • laxs 3 , b. • PVC • per ASIM 3034; SDR 35 . C. Smooth wall Advanced Drainage:Systerira •12 4. All pipe and appurteoanon shag be laid on a with Section 7.023(1) of the amt State of W '� .....� and Bridge Construction.. This shall include n top of the foundation material a well is p . �... material to'.unlfctm grade' .0 that the entire unyielding base.' Pilta esceptica dense All trench beckllU pavement and structural MI and 90% otbendse pa, shall be 6e over. and under PVC pipe. - 5. Drainage 'structures located outside of paved areas 6. All roof dnioa shall be canceled directly to the connected to the footing drains. . 7. . StructurawhaU not be permitted within' 10 feet of the • pipe,' or 15 feet from the top of any channel bank.' • FW areas shall be 'comps' ompaaed to at last%%% of mdmurry and to at least 95% 1n parking, curb, s1dewaik, bull . d method MTh( D-698 shall be toed a the standard, • 24. , �>�n 2507 25AI 9 . FM areas shall be compacted in maximum 8'.fiil Ufta , WATER NO F .... . I 1. ' ' AU work shall conform to the City of 7Lkwi4, APWA.AW W l " YGv . -- awe -'d . , Spodthatioa. • Fire'hydrant aisemblies shall be gnashed' per City o Tukwila'Standards end ,City • Ordiosnoa #729. ; ' .. . AU tteodrea shall be compacted to 95% ,of the maximum dearly per ASTM 13.1557. . AU water mains shall be dual ucWo Iron, daii 52. Lion in accordance • ,Specifoation for Road trench bottom or the - I • of reiyubed bedding wiU"be:aupported on a'. • A pass 'C, with the 2q• f um '95% for 13•!¢57,70. Pea • bedding • system not to be , ,'. curb `a .i -•� RIM 25.33 IE 22531N IE 19.431N NEB IE 1923 OUT S IE 19 IN ReLDLAAIi EX/HTIM'i comma , CONDUIT Lk1HT i19LEA PEK ;.L/C1 T /Ner :PLAN BY . OTNER* • (TYP/c41)'. . RIM' 23.59 • IE21.92 v 24.10 tilll I I I11IIJI19 11111I11III1,II11II1,1 Ulilil • RIM 24.00 -. _ • 24b4 'andaeped . JIM . 4OI1uKWIla PalI i . •1'ukWlla r W3ri)11FI1)tOf1.: 98l'A9 2••5tory 'LOniitte blip `118,445 xl:it.• ( Pd l'k- • East N.912' 08 Idol 39�. • AYSTALL MUD urine - 2552 •. NM ry [ L.�tt a r . • 26 • • f• r., o 27.77 . 2787 REL c.ire FIRE DEPT . =mecum mec , w 7D NEW LANDSCAPE R3LAND. ASIAN N 4 RENOVE• EXIAr/Nfl' AWRM azAIN ' LINEl3 AND r3Dell TU 93 MVDER NEW ADDITION: (TYPICAL).. - .. - .__ __.Q_ :_:.�e'T84.t1Tu. :7NLb, - -, 7 - • - _ - 77 - _ - 23 _ . ... - L .J .51 . ' +! WaIF:•.utdi a •.. .YP(rl �rcb.eamrm.� dM.nl6!�ti - . - ,24.11 ' . '24.34 a 4 mama- fD em X rDRAIN /.E.' &Of • .rcwb l top. tee,e M6a14o 24 t^ 24.61 '24.15' y e y clan . - 9. L- c AMNIXN EX 41/14.0" '. MAIN .LWVDER.N9.W 43. ALa17m0N:wec E EX/aTaw, MICE HY A44y -141 nr •emove. camel j /ItANTrfi MVO 474 MAT 0X/Pr /N6 44A 168 2539: `�" •,.. -, ..•. t- 2575' • 1 Or ad e25Cr■ ent APOl0411Ob45 N. < .. iC rLwl► iT DnLe45 . \ 25.39 . I M 24 . RIM 24.53 a r : 24135, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1i 1 .10 . 11 , wrrow.., 12' TL•ANTEA" •Aa -99: BENO(MJ) COM7. ALxQ. • • • . • . ' A E I ' TUXW /LA ;. ; : STANAAItDS • ANINTA/N 6X/3T/N4 G/RB/✓NE. c , 24 77 i ;c 1 1.I1)111IIIIJi1111lillliuliil 11 MISIMICRQ 'Ig4Q OOCLIAENT.,WLESS CEO► R^THANrTNIS `NOTICE;r. Ir EOU ,S,X.O Oft 1 t 1 El . . • ; ,, ,, !. VI? • .4. ' • ' ,.,...- , .: ..... .,,, ...,.. , „ .....-,...,... ... ' ..:`,..,.....•.;: - 1 f, SP. , .13 •3dV1SONV1 • 03MSID)tli , NOLDNI.MSYM t 311/.1.9., y>/pr-nr/s/ chAid:c?'Ft:*i4o • . cos 1:..1 %2•0 al S(6 - hairlier / (00S);(0/, 0 M ( 4:// '4ri:**traki 12 umn H tr■9; VS, 4W 4 P,IYA■fer, :: * ., ±eqty*F/A Yfri -411l iP2I0.(2 i7,0!9 :••• g , :0 17 /) /WSW,: 9f*a 9 6 4 #•?■' e"VOgeilig - y Cap '7 M (OV Vif),1 334 ,09)/4/W d/PP2 wird/ ntlyiyalfrivo***.sniPti P/71?0?),•;tvanew/i;#27//Yadter, /4 /Y/PW3Av of C7OP 71'V/190eg ONAS V/1/1 C/X2 (4.1) (P.L g • viwIsixg . . . . ,, . , 'V.11/ I 04,111 -;' t.tiqNaWflbOCOaltirA0113iiPSIWAI ", LL OL 6 •: • ;;. L 9 .7? • tiiirti It Id 111111 ill! III II II I 11111 kii.! ,&w ,&w C-R-RWL At mv ou /VIR/47.%Lp • snoncyoga itte.111.1 i fti 910 .. c•I - :10■1.1.sora .14 54 1 •-a-Me.L..crgas4 2 1.:../t_ntw crniv,ig .2.0 " tracitAn cirtv 9v4,1. V . Irma .. m'ANNAtilhaistrid 1 2ggHP NO ORION Sir' .4.e/Rox0 fwfri' T i o: 2 707=6 0 ifi. " 2 en rAW.4 teigq%160 0 °6;1 6 4 , PA Tadv.v4,-.4P.4' 0 Air4fIvu- 417..4•■=_4( -„ „: , , , , . „ , : „ •,. , : . • ,■•• • •• ." •.•- .• •-'•• ,, , , . • • • • . W.N. OPT) SOATTLe 1P6 NT. EXISTING do' W re MAIN /2 0 . : ' '66° 4 / 41 :• • t .., . ri % • - 0 - - glo 4. - . u . 0 Ay ..; a . •• ;.,.....„...., ..,.....„. - it': ' :•!' ": 1177 1 ... -"', 4 . , ; . :) . ! ,. .V ,, P: t -' ' ' " ..- : : *' - ' 3.1, " . . - ro6 31 1. 00.32. P : :, • . .. : ' ..*-1 10 •k g-prt ? .. • ':. . : • 78 . . ..cPe . : r f 1' T.' ri '15% t• .•• IA1, • 44 ; %.. ?„. t ^ 4 Pet;r-w'n't4i! • : , '• • ' : . , • ' • • " • • • • -•••• • • • • • • `. • • ...••• „". • . • • ,• , . " .,-• _ :