HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 90-12-DR - RADOVICH - FORT DENT III DESIGN REVIEW90-12-DR 6860 southcenter boulevard
fort dent iii
RE: 1990 B.A.R. Final Decision for FORT DENT III DESIGN REVIEW
(File # 90- 12 -DR)
Brian -
MEMORANDUM
Apri117, 1998
To: Brian Shelton, City Engineer
Public Works Department
From: Alexa Berlow, Associate Planner
Planning Division
Let me know if you need any additional information.
Attached is the final B.A.R. decision for Fort Dent Three from 1990, including two (2)
conditions of approval. A site plan highlighting the recommended conditions is attached.
I have also attached a copy of the staff report prepared for the public hearing presented to
the Board on October 29, 1990.
You also asked about B.A.R. decisions from 1988, of which there are none. There were
conditions applied to the SEPA for Fort Dent Three issued in 1988 that were carried over
to amendments made to the determination in 1990.
Alexa.
VICINITY MAP
FORT PETIT 11
SITE STATISTICS.
SITE PLAN
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN!
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING ELEVAITON
WEST BUILDING ELEVAITON
SOUTH
NORTH BUILDING ELEVAITON
EAST BUILDING ELEVAITON
.. a DAWN eWV
1...Y1 ryi ut[. I. «..P.. QS DAY."
YIt.M K/P10..� N.. AN
I I
I /
I I I
I I I
• I I
I/I
.SPM.L, PASEYCN7
r_
o
.+..041..1. In.
THE FAR COMPANY
,N MO•OI •N•L(N 1
KW.. .. *MG
pat
255 -2fle
ASPHALT PAVEMENT
. l7
uu,.c SE.tE
AMA.. w
FORT DENT III
LELAS DESCRIP MIN
to Y .v. ••
...c1 "
Nro awuZ:1 «In. :.0
.luM m.Nn 17 -n.l N..rt -ow.a w «.•1
DWG. ROTATED 33'
FOR PLOTTING
PRELIMINARY TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
JOHN C. RADOVICH
�: � 1
PVT DENT III
CDNCEPTTIAL UTLITY PLAN
9 1•=r
W Pat
la-Mta
tr.032
k EL LC OM
r'31 j I Aifi(/ 1 r
-
row..
•
Fa Of Mad
11 (..
f • t
•
Urban Design, Inc.
1..* awe.,
twoavar. •
BIOFILTRATION SIAIE
Scale 1 = 30'
VI M.. Sat..
ISM
(2N) 122 - usa r.. (101) az ram
oft.
N.A., W.. .0. WO
1171-570t
F
NCH II.CT
100'
(OS WW1 BIER UN
60 40'
75
45
15
75
45
3+00
2+50
2+00
1+50
1+00 0+50 0+00
75
45
15
1 L
75
45
3+00 2+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0400
75.
15
75
45
15
3.00
2+50
2. 00
1+50
1+00
0.50
0+00
75
45
15
75
45
15
3+00 7+50 2+00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00
B
75.
45
15
75
45
• 15
3+00 2+50 2.00 1+50 1+00 0+50 0+00
Urban Design, Inc.
C.3.0
...cap Del, •
Sorwc.s
4
15
2+00
NCH WWI
100'
311 Man. II... S. 3
(1003 021.000* - (4) 421 7470
rad: On.e.
i .
1/1-37131 "731
1+50 1+00
1.00 WI • WREN/.
60' 40'
0+50
1.....+++. 1
45
0+00
CR(Di 20.01
01 0
Urban Design, Inc
mime: 00.4
We) VI -3701 «733
Prome (3. u2-4•46 i.. ( 572 1110
1•44 1IMINIr
i r
11
FORT DENT Ill
LANIASCAPE PLAN
94 032 1 L I
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
Date November 9, 1990
Sincerely,
e,
Jack Pace
Senior Planner
NOTICE OF DECISION
Katie Grief
John C. Radovich Development Company
200 124th Ave. N.E. B103
Bellevue, WA. 98005 •
PHONE # (206) 433.1800
Re: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review
File Number: 90 -12 -DR
This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR)
has approved with two conditions, your project's design as
presented on November 8,1990. (The Conditions are listed on
Attachment A.) The BAR findings and conclusions are contained
in the Minutes dated November 8, 1990.
Any changes to the specific design approved by the BAR will
require further BAR approval. Minor, incidental changes may be
administratively approved by the Director of Community
Development.
The decision of the BAR is not final until the appeal period has
elapsed, which is ten calendar days after the above date of
decision. Appeals must be filed in writing to the City Clerk by
5:00 pm. on the final day of the appeal period. Where the final
day of an appeal period falls on a weekend or holiday the appeal
period will be extended to 5:00 pm. on the next work day.
If you should have any question regarding this project please
feel free to write or call.
Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor
ATTACHMENT A
90 -12 -DR FORT DENT III
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The BAR adopted the modification reflected in attachment J
(revised Landscape Plan 11- 07 -90)
2. Where the pedestrian access from Fort Dent III connects with
the river trail, the applicant will provide river related
amenities. The revised plan needs to meet the approval of
the Community Development Director.
Planning Commission /BAR Page 2
November 8, 1990
Mr. Haggerton closed the public hearing at 8:15 P.M.
MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE
MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
90- 11 -DR: Texaco
Jack Pace reported that the applicant had requested continuation to
the December 13th meeting. The staff recommends approval of the
request for continuation under the condition that the applicant
submit any revisions by November 19, 1990 at 5:00 P.M.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
CONTINUATION TO DECEMBER 13, 1990 SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS.
MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent Three
Jack Pace reviewed the staff report. The applicant is proposing to
consolidate the property lines. Fort Dent II is in the process of
being constructed. Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III will be mirror
images of each other, but flipped in different directions. There
were two general areas looked at in the staff report: 1) the
general criteria for design review and; 2) Interurban Special
Review. One area of concern was the building design. As mentioned
earlier, the two buildings are mirror images of each other and, the
applicant has rotated the buildings from the earlier drawings.
There is no sidewalk connecting Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III.
Additional landscaping is needed to break up the parking areas and
to provide larger massing of landscaping along the river. One of
staff's greatest concerns is that the current proposal has few
elements which are sensitive to the natural amenities of the river
environment. This proposal offers less uniqueness as opposed to
the earlier submitted drawings. In conclusion, staff would
recommend denial of this particular request due to the similarity
of the two buildings, and the lack of sensitivity to the natural
amenities of the river. Staff is suggesting denial of this request
to allow time for the applicant and the staff to work up better
solutions. The landscaping and existing access can be easily dealt
with, there are more fundamental issues given the general design
review criteria and the Interurban review criteria.
Mr. Knudson noted that the similarity of the two buildings may be
due to the applicant's development theme.
Jack noted that there were other ways of achieving this, such as
moving the building (Fort Dent III) in different directions. When
looking at the beginning model of Fort Dent II and III, and the
current proposal, the quality is not the same.
C
Planning Commission /BAR Page 3
November 8, 1990
Mr. Malina noted his concern for the circulation of parking, the
parking stalls near the garage entrance and the location of
sidewalks.
Mr. Knudson asked why staff felt the applicant was utilizing the
river less in the current proposal, versus the earlier drawings.
Jack stated that in the earlier drawings there was a corridor
where the hill in the background could be seen. There.isn't any
major uniqueness to the site. The backs of the buildings are
facing the river. There are a number of creative options that
could be utilized.
Katy Grief, John Radovich Development Co.:
There is a tenant which is ready to lease 3/4 of the Fort Dent III
building based on the current configuration of the building. The
staff report noted areas where the development was lacking, and we
have tried to address as many as those issues as possible. One of
these issues is the sidewalk connection to building II. We have
added a sidewalk that connects to the front entry. Another concern
was the parking near the garage. We've taken out three parking
stalls directly across from the garage, to eliminate any backing
out problems, and we've put in approximately 30' of landscaping
there to create a focal point,.. and - .. TEi the
landscape.ngth,at...,.I o tes_is_ proposing. Scotch Pines have
been added to break up the parking area and to provide consistency
of plant materials between projects. With regard to staff's
concern for access from the rear of building three to the river,
a walkway constructed of an exposed aggregate concrete will be
buirt for people to get across.
Mr. Haggerton asked what caused the changes from the first plan
submitted to the current plan proposed.
Katy noted that the first plan had many frills in it and was
economica]J y feasible. Building Two had an underground basement
proposed, which was not feasible due to the water table in the
area. We did not like the buildings oriented in that direction;
the build.ngsfQcuaes _.on...eacth - o-bher rather than on the site itself.
Mr. Knudson asked what she thought about staff's suggestion of
flipping the buildings 180 degrees so the entrance would face the
river.
Katy said that the emphasis of the building would then be facing
the, river, where very few people would see it. She didn't feel
they would be interested in making that change. She went on to say
that the suggestion of moving the building closer to the river
would only increase the parking area in the front of the building
and do nothing for the leasibility or marketability of the
Planning Commission /BAR Page 4
November 8, 1990
building.
Ed Linardic, 1319 Dexter Ave. N., Seattle (architect for the
project):
He noted they were basically looking at two different site plans,
the proposed two years ago and the current site plan. With regard
to the first site plan, it did not take advantage of the view of
the river. Also, in the first site plan, the entrance of the
building was not easily distinguished.
Mr. Knudson asked if the changes proposed by the applicant, given
the staff's recommendations, addressed any of staff's concerns.
Jack noted that the landscaping changes addressed many of the
concerns. There are still the fundamental issues of whether the
two buildings should be identical and has the applicant done enough
to meet the design criteria based on the amenities of the site.
Mr. Malina asked how staff felt about the applicant's revised
pedestrian /vehicular circulation.
Jack noted that their changes have addressed the comments in the
staff report positively.
Katy Greif stated that they would be happy toinclude of
" uniqueness " or. ...monument_to.. the_s.itp if the Commission and staff
felt those types of things were important. She also noted that
they felt this building was attractive and it was not unusual for
developers to repeat the same building design.
The public hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M.
Mr. Kirsop noted that the open arrangement, as laid out in the
current proposal is an improvement over the original proposal.
Also, it's not unusual to repeat construction.
Mr. Knudson agreed with those comments. He felt the current
proposal was attractive and not monotonous. He felt it was hard to
take better advantage of river than was currently proposed.
Mr. Malina agreed with staff's recommendation that more needed to
be done to emphasize the site's amenities. He suggested that a
plaque or something similar be placed on the applicant's property
to identify the Trail.
Jack clarified that staff was looking for direction from the
Planning Commission regarding the design criteria of the site.
Mr. Hamilton said that he felt the project design had deteriorated
from the original proposal. He felt that the project had been
Planning Commission /BAR
November 8, 1990
Page 5
modified in order for the applicant to cut costs, and the applicant
and staff should get together to provide better consideration to
the site. The original proposal offered more ingenuity and
thought.
Mr. Gomez felt the current proposal was a vast improvement over the
original.
Mr. Hamilton reiterated his concern that costs had been cut from
the original design, such as removing the courtyard.
Mr. Haggerton said that he would like to see a more elegant entry
or driveway into the site. He also indicated that he did not like
the building layout in the first proposal.
MR. KIRSOPMOVED TO APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR. FORT DENT 111 BASE
ON THE REVISIONS PRESENTED REGABDING THE SIDEWALK ARRANGEMENT
LANDSCAPING;' GIVING STAFF: TILE ;;I LATITUDE TO. WORK WITH THE APPLICANT
PROVIDE SHORELINE AMENITIES AT THE ACCESS FROM BUILDING 111 TO
THE TRAIL.:`: MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE
OF 3-2 WITH MESSRS. MALINA AND HAMILTON OPPOSED.
During the Director's report, Mr. Malina discussed a draft memo
from Jim Haggerton to Rick Beeler regarding' emergency exit
illumination for apartments and hotels. He noted that under the
Uniform Building Code, emergency lighting is required for buildings
where there is an excess of one hundred tenants. Mr. Malina's
concern is that in buildings with under 100 people, no emergency
lighting is required, and there have been recent incidence where
people were stuck in lavatories. He stated that he would like to
see the number of tenants reduced from 100 to 25 as the criteria
for requiring emergency lighting. New construction and remodels
would be subject to this modified criteria. This is a public
safety issue, especially for the elderly.
Mr. Kirsop stated that a new edition of the Uniform Building Code
will be coming out for 1991, so at the time of adoption of that,
it's a logical time to propose an amendment.
The Planning Commissioners agreed to review this issue further and
address it again at a meeting in the future.
Jack Pace reminded the Planning Commission of the workshop prior
to the meeting on December 13th. Also, there are plans to postpone
the regular meeting in January.
The,meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sylvia Appleton, Administrative Secretary
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200SOGTHCF.NTERF01 TL' t17L:1, WASHINGTON 98188
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. B.A.R. Application
B. Site Plan
C. Landscape Plan
D. Building Elevations
E. Details
F. Parking and First floor plans
G. Second floor and Roof plans
H. Fort Dent 2/3 Site Plan October 1988
I. Fort Dent 2/3 Site Plan September 1989
PHONE 412061 433.1 800 Gary I.. l in fluscn.Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared October 29, 1990
November 8, 1990
90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent Three
John C. Radovich Development Corp.
Design Review of Phase II - an office park
development including a two -story,
40,379 square foot building with an underground
parking garage.
6860 Southcenter Boulevard, Lot B, Tukwila
Approximately 2.5 acres
Commercial
C -2 Regional Retail
Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance,
10/10/88.
Staff Report To B.A.R.
Page 2
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
1. Project Description
90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
The project includes development of a 40,379 square foot building with two stories
of office space over one story of garage parking. The building is oriented toward
the west with the main entrance facing Southcenter Boulevard. It is ringed on
north and east sides by the river and river trail. Fort Dent Two is located
southwest of the proposed Fort Dent Three. The project also includes
development of associated surface parking, landscaping and a lineal trail along the
bank of the Green River.
2. Existing Development
The lot is being used for dirt storage excavated from the Fort Dent One site.
3. Surrounding Land Use
Fort Dent regional park to the north, railroads and industrial use to the east,
vacant land (soon to be Homewood Suites) to the south, office buildings (Fort
Dent 1 and 2) to the west.
4. Terrain
The terrain is generally flat until the riverbank where there is a drop -off which
ranges from approximately 1.5 to 1.0: (horizontal to vertical).
5. Vegetation
6. Access
Due to the filling that has occurred periodically in the past, no significant
vegetation exists.
Vehicular access from Southcenter Boulevard will be shared with Fort Dent Two,
Homewood Suites and the State Form office building. Fort Dent Three shares its
eastern boundary with Homewood Suites.
Staff Report to B.A.R.
Page 3
Pedestrian access from Southcenter Boulevard crosses the parking lot via a
sidewalk. The walkway leads across the landscape islands, and proceeds to the
building's entry courtyard between two parking stalls.
9. Utilities
All utilities are available to serve the site.
10. Public Facilities
The Christensen Riverfront trail will be extended along west bank of river as
properties develop. The developer proposes to create a stormwater detention
area with a constructed bench along 230 feet of river frontage. As will be done
with Fort Dent Two, the bank will be cut back to create extra flood storage
capacity during high levels of the Green River, and eliminate the need to provide
the storm water capacity on -site.
BACKGROUND
90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
This project is the third building of an office park complex. The original design concept
was approved in October 1988 (Attachment H). Since then, the applicant requested
modification to Fort Dent II. That request was approved in September 1989.
(Attachment I)
As part of the modification to the site plan, the applicant proposed Fort Dent II and
Fort Dent III be on different lots. The Boundary Line Adjustment (90- 2 -BLA) was
approved in June 1990. As part of the proposal for Fort Dent III, the applicant has
proposed the lots be consolidated so that Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III will be on the
some lot.
This project is subject to design review for three reasons:
1) the building is over 10,000 square feet,
2) the project is within 200 feet of the shoreline and
3) the project is within the Interurban Special Review Area.
The report format consists of two parts, the first being the general Design Review criteria
and the second, the Interurban Special Review criteria.
DECISION CRITERIA
1. GENERAL REVIEW GUIDELINES (TMC 18.60.050)
Staff Report to B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 4
Board review guidelines are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion. The applicant's response
to the guidelines is contained in Attachment A.
111.0.050: General Review Guidelines.
(1) Relationship of Structure to Site.
a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with stieetscape 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.
With the change in plans for Fort Dent III, the parking layout for Fort Dent II is being modified in the
front with the redesign of the access road. In the earlier proposals, the buildings ere located in a straight
line. The emphasis was towards the river and the hills in the background. With the current proposal, the
dominate element is building number three.
The relative scale and height of the building is compatible with the two adjacent structures by the same
developer. A sidewalk from the Southcenter Boulevard leads to the project entrance along the main
driveway aisle to building number three. However, with the modifications effecting building number two,
there is no sidewalk connection.
(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 eh established neighborhood
character.
d. CompatibWty 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.
Fort Dent III is similar in design to Fort Dent I and II. To the east is Homewood Suites which has
residential style of architecture. Given the different styles of architecture between Homewood Suites and
Fort Dent III, a better transition than meeting minimum landscape requirements is needed.
In the current proposal the front of the building becomes the dominant element as you enter the site.
Compared to the earlier proposal (Attachment H) the applicant has rotated the building to improve river
views for building tenants.
Staff Report to the B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 5
(3) Landscaping and Site Treatment
a. Where existing topographic pattern 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.
B. 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.
The applicant has indicated groupings of Rose Bush, Spirea, Norway Maple along the river front.
Although the groupings of plants provide distinct areas of vegetation, breaks still remain in the
landscaping along the bank. These gaps fail to adequately screen the vehicles in the parking lot from the
future recreational trail users. Flowering trees, shrubs and sod will be planted around the building's
perimeter, along with Otto Luyden laurel, a low -lying evergreen. These plantings are similar in character
to those at Fort Dent Two.
The site plan (Attachment B) indicates the number and placement of "typical" lighting fixtures at the
building's entrance, but provides no specifics about the appearance of the exterior lighting weather in the
parking lot or adjacent to the building.
A walkway leads out of the north door toward the riverbank through parking stalls to a grasscrete
maintenance access area. No specific landscaping is provided to set off the pedestrian route and lessen the
feeling of walking through the parking lot. No specific provision has been made to lead the pedestrian
from the building to the trail.
The landscaping area opposite the garage entrance needs to be redesigned to provide a better transition
to the Homewood Suites site and minimize the traffic conflict with the entrance to the garage. The parking
lot between Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III needs some additional landscape islands to break up the
parking lot area. In addition, more landscaping is needed in the parking area where the Fort Dent III
sidewalk connects with the trail.
(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.
Staff Report to the B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 6
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 harmonious with building design.
g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of
detail, from and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
The form of the proposed building is exactly like the Fort Dent II building, which was approved in late
1989 by the B.A.R. The contemporary architectural style is unchanged, as are the building materials.
Three primary building materials include: tinted glass curtain wall on the entry facade, painted concrete
and painted aluminum panels. The primary color is a light grey, as in Fort Dent Two. Spectrum blue is
used as an accent color.
The building's main entry contains a painted metal freestanding element (labeled "portico" on the
elevations). The portico feature is not included in the rear. The building's entry appears to include an
awning feature which is not fully specified in the elevations. The mechanical equipment will be screened
and painted the same color as the body of the building. The applicant has not provided any information
regarding the design of exterior lighting fixtures and standards.
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
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 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.
No miscellaneous structures or street furniture has been indicated on the plans. As noted earlier, the
applicant has not submitted any lighting details.
2. INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW AREA (TMC 18.60.060)
DECISION CRITERIA
Board review guidelines are shown below in bold, along with staff discussion. The applicants response to
the guidelines contained in attachment A.
(A) Proposed development dew should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area.
If you were to fill in the river today, the applicants current site plan would not be affected; the dominant
element is Fort Dent III. The revised site plan and building design contain very few elements sensitive to
the natural amenities. The applicant's response to this criterion was The building has been placed on site
to allow views of the Green River and Mt. Rainier. The recreational trail will be completed along the site
which will allow future completion on the trail system and enjoyment by pedestrians."
Staff Report to the B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 7
In the first proposal (Attachment H) there were design features such as the outdoor plaza and locating the
building to provide view corridors. The current proposal is oriented to Southcenter Boulevard and the
building turns its back to the river.
(B) Proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public
recreational areas and facilities.
As part of this project the applicant will provide pedestrian connections to the to the river trail.
(C) Proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian drculation.
Earlier sections of this report noted, that Fort Dent II has no pedestrian connection along the sidewalk
leading to Fort Dent III. From the information provided by the applicant, it is not clear how this
pedestrian crossing will be delineated.
(D) Proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district
in which it is located.
The current uses in the immediate area include offices, hotel suites and a county park.
(E) Proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts.
As noted earlier in this report, the applicant will be creating a stormwater detention area with a
constructed bench. In addition, the applicant will be providing grass swales for storm water treatment.
(F) Proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area.
No significant historical features have been identified on site. The area in general was host to Native
american activities, as well as the Interurban Settlement.
General Design Review
CONCLUSIONS
° 1. Relationship of Structure to Site
The height and scale of Fort Dent #3 is consistent with the proposed and existing
development. Improvements are needed in the pedestrian connection and
improved screening of large parking areas.
2. Relationship of Structure to Site Adjoining Area.
Fort Dent III has several of the same design elements as the other office buildings
in the area. This provides harmony of texture, lines and massing structure.
Some improvements are needed in the area between Homewood Suites and Fort
Dent III to provide a better landscape transition. Further refinement is needed of
the pedestrian circulation system is needed to minimize conflict with cars.
Staff Report to the B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 8
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment
The proposed landscape plan along the entrance road strengthens the axis to the
entrance to Fort Dent III. The landscape plan does nothing to strengthen vistas
and important axis to the river. Additional landscaping is needed to break up
parking areas, and to provide larger massing of landscaping along the river.
Exterior lighting details have not been provided, so design compatibility cannot be
assessed.
4. Building Design
Fort Dent III is a contemporary architectural styled building which is compatible
to the surrounding office buildings. The applicant has provided screening of the
mechanical equipment as part of the building design. Fort Dent III and II differ
only in the accent color and "rotating" the building foot print on the site. There is
a some degree of monotony of design due to the similarity with Fort Dent II.
The building design is oriented to the entrance of Southcenter Boulevard. This is
reflected by the "portico" located in front of the main entrance. That portion of
the building facing the river, also has an entrance, but lacks these design details.
5. Miscellaneous Structures or Street Furniture
No miscellaneous structures or street furniture is proposed.
Interurban Special Review Area
(A) Sensitivity to the Natural Amenities
As compared to the earlier design, the current proposal for Fort Dent III has
few elements which are sensitive to the natural amenities of the river environment.
While the development now turns its back to the river and does little to make the
river an integral part of the site development. Earlier proposals show several
different opportunities to provide development more sensitive to the river.
(B) Enjoyment of Public Recreational Areas
The applicant has provided pedestrian connection to the river trail.
(C) Safe and Convenient On -Site Pedestrian Circulation
Staff Report to the B.A.R. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent III
Page 9
Refinements are needed in the pedestrian circulation system for the following
areas:
1. Pedestrian connection is need from the main sidewalk to Fort Dent II.
.2. The pedestrian crossings need to be better defined.
This can be done with landscaping and changes in paving materials.
(D) Compatible Uses
The proposed use is compatible with neighboring uses.
(E) Minimize Adverse Environmental Impacts
The applicant will be creating a storm water detention area and providing grass
swales for storm water treatment to minimize adverse environmental impacts.
(F) Historical Features in the Area
While there are no specific historical features on site, the area has some historic
significance due to Native American activities and the Interurban core. The
applicant has not demonstrated regard for the historical features in the area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is an opportunity here for the Board of Architectural Review to obtain the design
quality they have desired. This is reflected in the earlier submittal (Attachment H).
Planning staff is recommending the applicants proposal be denied. And the applicant
resubmit for the December 13, 1990 B.A.R. meeting, this would allow staff and the
applicant time to resolve the various issues.
Key areas that would be addressed are:
1) Provide safe and convenient pedestrian circulation.
2) Revise the landscape plan to provide better screen of the large parking area and
transition to the Homewood Suite project.
3) Revise the site plan and /or building to be more sensitive to the river as an
amenity. Possible solutions include: 1) rotating the building, 2) providing a small
plaza between the river trail and building, 3) redesign the building and move
closer to the river.
4) Revise the building detail to Fort Dent III to break up the monotony of
design.
MEMORANDUM
To: Homewood Suites /Fort Dent II /State Farm Files
From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
Date: November 6, 1990
RE: Conflicting designs.
1. On Friday, 11/2/90 at 4:30, Greg Villanueva brought a
problem to my attention: the Homewood Suites access road
was under construction and several State Farm trees and sod
would be removed. Catch basins were already in and the road
location was fixed. A quick review project review also
showed that the Ft. Dent access point seemed to be
incorrectly located and other design conflicts. (Ro ll CtCvirrewr)
2. On Monday, GV scheduled a meeting for Tuesday at 11:00 A.M.
3. The following summarizes the Planning items covered.
a. Ft. Dent II parking area drainage uses catch basins
instead of sheet flows. This will result in a 4 ft.
deep biofiltration ditch instead of a 1 ft. deep ditch
with gradual slopes. This perimeter design does not
allow BAR required landscaping nor the overall
perimeter design. It must be redesigned to provide for .
a shallow swale.
b. Homewood Suites is responsible for all restoration for
access road construction. Homewood representatives
agreed that they would be responsible for landscaping
the 9 foot perimeter north of the access road which
lies on State Farm property. Homewood will coordinate
with State Farm on an acceptable design and submit it
to me for review and approval.
c. Two State Farm trees, sod and irrigation lines were
removed by Homewood for road construction. Homewood
will be responsible for replanting or replacement.
I noted that the trees were to have been originally
installed outside of the 40 ft. easement and not need
to be moved (per landscape plan). State Farm and
Homewood were clearly informed that there should be 10
ft. of landscaping between State Farm parking and back
of sidewalk to be planted per approved plans. State
Farm will be checking to see what irrigation lines need
to be installed.
A side issue is that Ft. Dent III landscaping adjacent to
Homewood Suites may be in conflict with the Homewood Suites
Design. Ft. Dent landscape architects were previously told
to coordinate landscaping between both projects. A later
phone conversation with the landscape architect disclosed
that she had not seen the Homewood Suites design. Both
Homewood Suites (Jim Ford), and Ft. Dent developer and
landscape architect have been informed. This will be
resolved during the BAR review.
- 7;iu<eti c C4/ r--= (Fr7r2
( f Okf o o?>> c-A .
‘ 5 7_ FAIt.A4 /vL ij 61 o kl&K &) (7
7 PON . C . J 7 d . re CV, CL J
61, G-e noN P2oa 77/ /S Pe/4p
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Development consisting of a 40,000 square
foot, 2 -story office building.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
6360 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila.
Lot B of BLA -90 -02
Quarter: NW Section: 24 Township: 21 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: John C. Radovich Development Company
Address: 2000 124th Avenue NE, B -103. Bellevue. WA. 98005
Signature:
OWNER
Phone: 206- _4, 6060 '—', /
I �... a te: ? '- - 90
* The applica/is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the applica ion, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
4. PROPERTY Name: John C. Radovich
I/WE,Csignature(s)]
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
Address: 2000 124th Avenue NE. B -103. Bellevna_ WA, 9800
Phone: Aft6-45,40R60
swear that 1,/ are the owner 0 o contract purchaser(s) of the
property in ved in this application and that the foregoing
statements and answers contained in this application are true and
correct to the best of my /our SP-13 �
knowledge and belief. Date:
•
ATTACHMENT A
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.
5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with
the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian
movement.
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to
moderate the visual impact of large paved areas.
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation
to it site.
RESPONSE: The proposed building is the last phase of Fort Dent Office Park and
is located just north of Fort Dent Two. currently under rnricrr All
three buildings are 2 o 3
1 I • 1 . •
Parking, service and pedestrians are planned for: LandRraping is prnviMad
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: As a phased project, building design and scale. landscape and parking
flows have all been designer to =Par' a hus,inaSS pa fooling. Building
materials size of stru
ials.
•
7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
11 1 1
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: The existing grades are quite level and will not be altered significantly,
therefore, access to driveway. parking entries and building entries are unobstructed
plysically and are visible and safe. Plant materials were chosen to reflect the
types of spaces. Large canopy trees at the entry drive and parking areas, smaller
scale trees flank the interior roadway and smaller trees accent the building facade.
At the building entries permanent and seasonal plantings are combined to provide
year round color and interest. All areas not planted in shrubs and trees are soddec
The dumpctar haw. } a a an arrhitart»ra11y crraanad
8. BUILDING DESIGN
0
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 -
manent 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 campus like feeling has been achieved with this last building of a
3 -phase project. All building materialsihave been similar; concrete, glass
curtain walls, colored accents for each of the 3 buildings. Mechanical
equipment has been screened. The lighting, parking and landscaping for Fort
Dent Two and Three all flow as designed to be one phased protect rather than
two separate bui ldings
A dark royal blue is proposed as an accent color which will complement the
red of Building One and teal of Building Trn_
9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 5
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.
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni-
ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and
buildings.
RESPONSE: Lighting fully meets the needs of the project. Benches will be pro-
vided at the building entry, picnic tables along the river trail.
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.
The building has been placed on site to allow views of the Green River and
Mt. Rainier. The recreational trail will be comp1 red alnng_ti cite tshich
will allow future completion of the trail system and anjnymanr by rados.tx1Ans.
11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and
enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities.
Many employees will enjoy the adiacent Fort Dent Park and it is untikaly
the park will suffer any adverse impacts as g rPCttlt Of *his prajoct_
12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site
pedestrian circulation.
Sidewalks allow pedestrian access to the site from Southcenter Boulevard
and to the river rprrpatinnal trail
13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and
complementary to the district in which it is located.
Building type and materials are similar to Fort Dent One and Two. All
projects developed in the immediate vicinity have been dpvPlnp.d in
accordance with applicable land use requirements in mind.
14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse
environmental impacts.
The applicant has addressed any possible impacts in the environmental checklist.
No adverse impacts are expected.
15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant
historical features in the area.
The site has no historical significance that could be found. However, Fort
Dent park across the river is a historic site. Plarpmpnt of the broil/ling is
intended to allow maximum view a • . -
(29 /DSGN.APP1 -3)
r'•
1 • \ ..
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 6
11 - .
ATTACHMENT B
P
'cr
GREEN RIVER
-
/V-1\■V
.....--
-'„ srxr-
MAK R•wee
‘ i 1
\ I k \ I \
1
I 1 \ 1 1 I I
-- i I 4
........., , ■
, ...) i
. \ 1
- 9
stehltecte
consultants :
POW :
MOM
FORT DENT THREE
JCR
DBILOPIENT
COWA/
11111MA mom=
ONE Mill:
CONCEPTUAL UT IL I TifES
AND GRADING PLAN
,N•111••
Moly
•111•1•••
c :
.ice: As„ IIN1
;dH� %OV Q . o rir. . e
o�w v ra,.op'" • -'e oS' .Y �.�.,'oea.•
Naar
ATTACHMENT C
•■••■■••
NOM.
r■ rti/MM■••••;
Ni• 1••■•./20: 0
f)
mismaimininams RaRremlimaminanimmandiiim. cm
mormr
'Mt AWL 11._11111131111r=111L. EFL laiL. _in.' a
- sati=maemasomnsaussuelest termite nom
•13INIL 1171fIle LIC•••••
CM NM MILL
f ••11 11011•9 KAM net •
COOED LW 0911[111011
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
IMME111111111111111MIRERIIIMIN•11::= III:
-KW - 111111 II MEI/ 1•111 1111111111111111. 111111. 11117 EI5 T 1111IF "11
- : - -
NORTH ELEVATION
• — DINO MEM •Itl
/
.-- f • 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 4 1 . , . A { •
— IS 0 SOL Mt ovum
• lie VIP MPI-6111•1•00 IWO
•••••■••
EAST ELEVATION
ATTACHMENT D
consultants:
project title :
NICICIM3
FORT DENT THREE
JCR
DESELOPMENY COMPANY
11111118111iHRISILIMPISI
IIILLBIAurpooros
onus ems ~asp
MORA IIMMINPOO
sheet this
Om
atm..
moriszr•
`"*. ; te-6o
TOOL JOINT
LA4:OW*4G (TIP)
2T 0
PORTAL SEE DETNL 1
0 ENTRY
1
0 DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE
- PUUJOSE
C1.2.191... pal
4.1Er
.1 - 2 NOR OC
HL
- - -- 'IT" 10 ji.:
- - 11 MOM (AIM 10 MIDI ROC)
IA4 _
11•
PLAN SECTION ELEVATION
11
I I- coe'lica .se pot sus
vie* aim wo • TU
s RN
RIME
MISR ONE POI CAVE
- 7 11 _ il
----i- t- --r--
(vial
; lifj ''''''-- -*--
ucl-rr BALLARD Mv)-0: ;
?" 10 1
v i A
1
L
r k,
7 A
o . --
1
Fel 1` 0
MORI nut RAMO
AVM (TIP)
ELEVATION CMU SCREEN WALL
ri) PORTAL SOUTH
ATTACHMENT E
consultants:
arch. pc s
•
promo! toile
MVO=
FORT DENT THEE
JCR
OBELI:71E14T COWAN!
fen Mb All le • a
111111111111111101
11111•11601114M.4/10
IV/
IUML11.111011111111101
sheet title:
0-
0 •
0-
0- -
I•s1:::1
.1 wad* . ./fte1
, D i'D
1 , O . .• ,
1 I ' 0
I
• t1
„. ,,,, 1 i
. i i , ' , c i 1 1 '''
i , j : :, 1 I ., ...
.•..,„„..", , _ .. ; • • ( TAY,. 1 _
• i
;or
2 1 !
•
PARKING GARAGE PLAN
•
- •
,
' I ,
- 1 - 1 - -
• I •
- FIRST FLOOR PLAN
- t
ATTACHMENT F
project title:
191:11.0ND
FORT DENT THREE
Jai
DEVELOPIENT =RAW
INGINItAVIENEILIIES11:0
11111U.SULIIIMIOICITOPI
11111101C10111•WINIS
sheet title •
consult.ints
0
ii
R1
.
I 17
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
04 c1 (1)
4
ROOF PLAN
•
niMEICIIWZ
Kr,
T
I
T11111111
-
+-
b
N...-vs•Ares.vx
ATTACHMENT G
consultants:
project title:
n erailD
FORT DENT THREE
JCR
DEVB-CIPMENT CCORAPIT
111011dniN*111111/16•0
111111111001041•41110
• A U onno•
sheet title :
*** 10-1e,5.7
•
•
N1,n4...5 °AS
CAI
1.ii.t7Tel.rr e FP.1.1. I
.1-.C SNICK...PA
1-...-• -1 ta• C.:- rr‘ ant)
•
910 TIr-efrooAN 0•14 eu si
• 1.4r... "Lour. aatwo ;WM sliateu.e.
rr Pap ge*.c. 0..• 1.1/ky'. °APING/W..
TrCtV. "r) elcovl.pr_ iNarr
°F.X.
As I 1-1 (TYPIGONL)
Ito
„,„ r a.b rizzst a c.4 ,
77 .ceie 0 1... - r.x.entVe5
VGA/.
(dr.oc..ev e
Vi a... *cow
I . l_ • pra 10.5rt
1:rat..VA
Pl-fr\I-ITILIG PL-At-1
IHOIA:
mue LALMICe3C-ZUS
OrT L.U.I1CP..11112ej.,PFZ5VOC &
gi coolue
KGIUSAN. t,G49.4:4A7 • ,L.'4e
F1=F I
modo I i ll . .
••■••••■•
09r.or
si
go
0
m
z
camitMb :
pr s:
FORT DENT •
PHASE U iIII
1
ttt ON
EL ED 00 eselfitecte
•■■- In. OVIVeVa
l M ..__ aa sow MO
m.- I S-OM
.r.
— - -GREEN RIVER
4.� SITE PLAN STATISTICS:
MI Iwk as Wa
2_ o-1
~ Y ■S • an s
Iw ma!
tool 1111117 Mt* IMAM Or
nee :*+1.anum
0241110M m s
October 25, 1990
Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Subject: Hearing Delay for Fort Dent Three
Dear Rick:
Di
.. 00T MOO
- 25 1990
CITY OF 'i vKLViLA
PLANNING DEPT,
For the past several months we have been negotiating with a
tenant to take the entire Fort Dent Three office building.
In our negotiations we outlined an occupancy date that was
predicated upon an October BAR hearing date. In order to
comply with Planning Staff required revisions we were
rescheduled to a November 8th hearing date.
We feel that it was completely unreasonable to be given
less than eight hours notice to make a decision on the
options for SEPA traffic mitigation or be postponed on our
BAR hearing. We had no choice but to take the
postponement. Why couldn't the City issue the SEPA
determination and then negotiate the form of mitigation
prior to the hearing date?
We want to notify the City at this time that if this delay
should cause us to lose our potential tenant, we will be
seeking compensation from the City for our damages.
Cordially
e- adei- r/i&Aea-4e,
John C. Radovich
cRadovidhi
Development Company
2000 - 124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060
72 ■sc,ex.
Crre,s
Cyr° 5. •
•
, ra. 5 Oa
art ga
•: taw Ir••
...•• ay.:, S
• 4
•
•
nO•1
4.•
4 ' Or r ,.3.6•16 "..."" j:4- .. ..•
•
• AC
N. • r a .• • 4
••••,..1.r.•
• 5 4
•
+ItYTM4-
••■•,•- Awn.
JP*.
•
',Tye reirt
tor'.
.2.7.5/.1rta Ifl
....•■•■•", vet
A 541
%It
VA
br.-CreaCeb4 ybow
ATTACHMENT7W
•.u•
•Cre. (VS.- e s aal
1..ALACCUL
Orrin L.../4
ca7 41!1104,1 . 1•02,/
\ 5 eok.5 Gra
12:
9 ,
Eca.
geriov"
N
• Narb , R.G/E3 CkEbb C.-5T G••
• -- ••15
70 Se LCCA 0 57 Ca.
• a›-. CX •arUCS.
tS.Te.FL Of4•645o •bct■C•••
°ER
• ...•••••• AFr-0••
15Y !••"•-•. S•
erfa5 GraleR..5E.
LEDO Iffeldtests
owe. IMOD . ambluel.
me mono. am., gum am
••••••■••• aim rissme-aaa
coneultants:
L Ihrpr
Amoristft PS.
Jan I...L.
1•■••■
p10
NIIP4111M
FORT THEE
JCF1
DEVEZIPINDIr
COMM
shoot thIS:
io is • 90
City Tukwila
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -0179
Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace, Senior Planner
FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer
DATE: October 17, 1990
SUBJECT: Fort Dent Traffic Mitigations
This memorandum explains the process used to determine Homewood's traffic
mitigations and applies the same process to Fort Dent. The considerations are
the existing LOS "F ", fairshare of the Southcenter project to correct would be
"unfair ", and a compromise that provides for improving safety and capacity in
inappropriate fair share approach.
Peak hour trips are calculated as 13.6% of the 708 daily trips and that is 147
peak hour trips. This is from the Fort Dent Traffic Study.
Previously, the Homewood Suites traffic impacts were evaluated and mitigation
agreement made. That agreement of $50,000 was based on a $1,000 trip fee.
There were several considerations in reaching this agreement.
1. The Homewood proposed mitigations of signal improvements were
already being provided by WSDOT.
2. The City's project to increase capacity for the immediate
intersections is estimated to cost over $11,000,000 which is
significantly more than a "normal" intersection capacity
improvement cost.
3. The immediate Interurban intersections with Grady Way and
Southcenter Boulevard are at LOS "F" and capacity improvements to
work with the existing network and future network should be
evaluated.
4. The proportionate share of the $11,000,000 improvement for
Homewood would have been $110,000 which is disproportionate in
relation to other development mitigation costs. Therefore,
considering other mitigation costs of the immediate area, King
County and Bellevue's fees of $1,000 a trip, and the severe
existing LOS "F" problem, a fairshare cost of a study to
determine "immediate" capacity improvements was agreed to.
Jack Pace
MEMORANDUM
October 17, 1990
Page 2
5. The "immediate" improvements are envisioned as widening the
Interurban Avenue bridge to provide dual left turn lanes that
will serve "immediate" LOS needs and work with the future
improvement AND sidewalks for pedestrian safety. Both LOS and
pedestrian safety will be affected by increased Homewood vehicle
and pedestrian traffic.
6. Fort Dent is essentially in the same position as Homewood;
1. vehicle and pedestrian traffic will further degrade safety
and capacity; 2. the major City project is still several years
away and significant cost; 3. a fair share for. the widening of
Interurban bridge should be commiserate with other mitigation
costs - i.e., not exceeding the costs determined by. Bellevue,
King County, and being paid in Tukwila for traffic improvements.
7. The costs for Fort Dent's 147 trips (about 3 times the 50 of
Homewood) would be $147,000.
8. That mitigation would be used for the evaluation of widening
Interurban bridge and approaches for dual lefts and pedestrians.
If the study and work is not underway within 5 years, the funds
could be used for the Southcenter Boulevard project. If that
project is not underway, then, it could be used for other capacity
and safety improvements to Interurban (Southcenter- Grady), if
none are in progress, then, the fees returned to Fort Dent. This
is the same understanding developed for Homewood.
RC /kjp
File: Development File - Fort Dent III
Homewood Suites
September 20, 1990
Ms. Rebecca Fox
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Amendment to Shoreline Permit, BAR Application and
Environmental Checklist for Fort Dent Three
Dear Rebecca:
The main changes to our Fort Dent Three project are:
1. The addition of the garage parking which results in a
visual change to the north, east and west elevations of
the building and,
2. The decrease in river bank excavation which is now
confined to the southwest 230 feet of river frontage
rather than the entire frontage. We have addressed how
these changes effect our BAR applications, Shoreline
Application and SEPA Checklist. The changes are as
follows:
Shoreline Use Permit Application. Item 3; Rather than a
straight two -story building, we have revised the
project to include one floor of garage parking which
will include 44 parking stalls.
Design Review Application. Item 7, Landscape and Site
Treatment, B., regarding grades of walks, parking, etc;
We have added under - building parking which will be
located three feet below existing grade. The driveway
from Fort Dent Two site will decline to the level of
the parking garage entry and after exiting the garage
will incline. From the front of the building the
garage will not be visible due to berming and landscape
treatments.
Environmental Checklist. Page 3, Background
Information, Item 11, brief description of project;
Development of a 40,379 square foot Class A office
building with two stories of office space over one
story of garage parking.
CR adovich Development Company
Y ill II
2000 -124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060
Rebecca Fox
City of Tukwila
Page 2
Katie Greif
Development Manager
Environmental Checklist (contd.)
Page 4, Environmental Elements, 1. Earth. (e),
regarding approximately quantities of filling or
grading proposed; Grading will be handled in such a
manner as to balance the cutting and filling on site.
We will be excavating approximately three feet of
material beneath the garage and the garage floor
elevation will be three feet below the average site
grade.
1. Earth, (g); The impervious surface percentage has
been reduced from 68% to 62 %.
Page 6, Environmental Elements, 3. Water. (2); We no
longer propose to excavate along the entire river bank
frontage. We now propose to limit our river bank
excavation and slope alteration to the southwesterly
230+ feet of the river bank.
3. Water, (3); The quantity of material being excavated
from the river bank has been reduced from 1,150 cubic
yards to 937 cubic yards.
Page 13, 10. Aesthetics (a); Due to the addition of the
garage parking, the tallest point of the building has
increased from 37 feet to 42 feet. Exclusive of HVAC
equipment and screening, the tallest point is 33 feet.
Page 15, 14. Transportation (c); The completed project
will have 170 parking stalls.
I would be happy to sit down with you at your convenience
to answer any questions you may have regarding our project.
Cordially,
FORT DENT THREE OFFICE BUILDING
Proposed Accent Color
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Development consisting of a 40,000 square
foot, 2-story office building.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
6360 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila.
Lot B of BLA -90 -02
, FOR 'FORITAFF USE ONLY'
Quarter: NW Section: 24 Township: 21 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: John C. Radovich Development Company
Signature:
Address: 2000 124th Avenue NE, B -103, Bellevue. WA. 98005
Phone: 206- . . : JAI 6060 re
INESIP
* The applica/is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the applica ion, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: John C. Radovich
OWNER
ate: ?— 1:5 O
Address: 2000 124th Avenue NE, B -103. UellevuP, WA, 45005
Phone: 4100-45,4e60
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that I are the owner sY or contract purchaser(s) of the
property in - ved in this application and that the foregoing
statements and answers contained in this application are true and
correct to the best of my /our p � � Q
knowledge and belief. Date: �t
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.
5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 2
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with
the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian
movement.
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to
moderate the visual impact of large paved areas.
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation
to it site.
RESPONSE: The proposed building is the last phase of Fort Dent Office Park and
is located just north of Fort Dent Two. currently under rnnG trurtion_ All
three buildings are 2 or 3 stories in height and of tha maw building materials.
Parking, service and pedestrians are planned for. Landscaping is prnvidad,
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: As a phased project, buil desi and scale l andscape and nark
flows have all been designed to create a husinecs p rk fooling. Building
materials, size of structures and parking design am compatiblo
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: The existing grades are quite level and will not be altered significantly
therefore, access to driveway, parking entries and building entries are unobstructed
P hysically and are visible and safe. Plant materials were chosen to reflect the
types of spaces. Large canopy trees at the entry drive and parking areas, smaller
Grate trees flank the interior roadway and smaller trees accent the building facade.
At the building entries permanent and seasonal plantings are combined to provide
year round color and interest. All areas not planted in shrubs and trees are sodded.
• u •
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 -
manent 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.
0. 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 campus like feeling has been achieved with this last building of a
3 -phase project. All building material
ave been similar; concrete, glass
curtain walls, colored accents for each of the 3 buildings. Mechanical
equipment has been screened. The lighting, parking and landscaping for Fort
Dent Two and Three all flow as designed to be one phased project rather than
two separate buildings.
A dark royal blue is proposed as an accent color which will complement the
red of Building One and teal of Building Two.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 5
9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE
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.
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni-
ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and
buildings.
RESPONSE: Lighting fully meets the needs of the project. Benches will be pro-
vided at the building entry, picnic tables along the river trail.
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area
in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general 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.
The building has been placed on site to allow views of the GrPPn River and
Mt. Rainier. The recreational trail will be complptpd along the
Gite which
will allow future completion of the trail system and enjoyment by pedPctrians
11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and
enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities.
Many employees will enjoy the adjacent Fort Dent Park and it is itnlikPly
the park will suffer any adverse impacts as a result of this prcjoct.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 6
12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site
pedestrian circulation.
Sidewalks allow pedestrian access to the site from Southcenter Boulevard
and to the river rerreatinnal trail
13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and
complementary to the district in which it is located.
Building type and materials are similar to Fort Dent One and Two. All
projects developed in the immediate vicinity have been developed in
accordance with applicable land use requirements in mind.
14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse
environmental impacts.
The applicant has addressed any possible impacts in the environmental checklist.
No adverse impacts are expected.
15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant
historical features in the area.
The site has no historical significance that could be found. However, Fort
Dent park across the river is a historic site. Placement of the hnilding is
intended to allow maximum view and eniovment Qf the adjacent river and park.
(29 /DSGN.APP1 -3)
SECTION A
SECTION B
SECTION C
SECTION D
SECTION F
200' URBAN ENV. 1
1001,81011 IMPACT ' LOW IMPACT 40' RIVER (*.
.+.xMT. i
1
`x ar. P
� Ii
I i
1 1
..r.•. R
1
1
1
t
i
i 111 4090 CEG IFVFI
/ IT 1V'
Mat we
C1T0
...*
emu. . .
I I I
na.un
I.
1;
r' 1
SECTION 6
FORT DENT IN
I KNII
CROSS SECTIONS
anES
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION F&G ONLY
RIVER WCENNG
99.011
-
. • •
; •
•
• • , .. , „
",,, .• • •
imm iim 141%
1 hittaVn
im�rr •��. ■ ■= ■fir
r ��! - ..... -.. miIi i z �.
is „.......
ow .._,.__,, sigiminortmiL ______,_.:.:„...._,._....7.;__ , _ _....m...,
rm-iyosmw-mwfiivf-a.,.r„.,
mo mum rim
MI MI MI IR MI 1111111 NM NM EMI
VIII Ir .._
*
.
• •••';;;..:
• '
PRUNUS LA.UP-Zr--EleASUS
0 41/Z4fi xtij 44'
45YEree.0
•2 STRANDs 04to•
keRE 4043C, VivY4 1/0"4•
.•ON2 • taw 674�s 4V,
,NOTC11 Pattiatc_
' ' MN; I.ENC7/4 ./9/4" •
8.
.
Trz 'F agat
E
44 41 LAM'
•
..-2-111111
7 1.111.Fi- - . ..1t1111 •
1 117,:-
• casr•vis/EN PiAnn-.9
sizyw:ROOTBALL
3,q,44' TO'
71. . 06,
00:Ma P 4g0V,
lovr44VeR
7•YR491. A7N/SW a/49.01, „pig • Oiii
• .7.
L • of • a• / cd-
,...grecozo /114CW to
g , -: A:.
.t.0- •
xcEpr&Rhiac/44
mg/fit...Pt/aft
.007,NZI. ?REEF
Asr. 1#
. ,
0 /NerALL.A7.4774/ZER, REA
• 114N /W 4 C?. / .7 C774 . 11 . 8014 / .
exr,40 . a/r :49
REag/RED
"Oemocoril" /4./f-/4.
,oRigo4/47
"A4RO. reAnielAvrffig
• 11,44VILL 4444‘ APPROVED
TOPSOIL
wev,roeta "Lavr
20 IOW TABLET
• "AXE o‘ Rapra#1.4,
•
AIPPPIOVE• IOWA.. •
NIC•ORPDFATED. IN•O
' Dr EGIPit..aa
koTES •
• NO • "TRFE oVE.M.. 6" CA-. Exis oki srre.
• - rizaas LOCATED. At-oNs The eREc-H
gtvele. Tr-xi_ To ee Lcr_A e so' 60,
• C.C4■11 PIP-OVICS. R.J1-1>e Au
510DER. DESIa-lE0;112•RegrioN sYsrEm
PER :
• , -•.'•.',••- : '..:-: , . ,
.., „
, . . . . , ..,. „.., • ,,
. .,. •.
DIETZGEN MASTER FORM MF 139
NOTE: ON-SITE WATER, STORM AND ACCESS
EASEMENTS TO BE RECORDED
Y611 MAIRICET,-:•-STREET: ,
;SUITV:,4- " • ,
• KIRKLANDIWk98033 12061:6224686..`,:i•;FAX.120611:122416710.:,q:V
,
'
9,
•
.
• ■
,i,l-
..init'jk.4r -
• ' 1- 1 4 fi't e.! .e.1.0`4,1;
•• • ,••