HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-15-DR - MIKAMI / SCHOFIELD - SOUTHCENTER RETAIL II SITE GRADING DESIGN REVIEW89-15-dr 16813 southcenter parkway
epic-32-89
epic-25-89
epic-29-89
89-04-dr
mikami
; rerA'iz /PA-cA
4. We discussed his situation:
MEMORANDUM
To: File No. 89 -15 -DR (Mikami /Schofield Design Review)
From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
Department of Community Development
Date: 3/11/91
RE: Modify B.A.R. Design Decision.
I met with Mr. Robert Schofield (RS) today from 3:45 to 4:30 p.m.
and discussed the following issues:
1. RS requests to be allowed to paint the accent bands on the
(front) Building A north and west elevations, and the (rear)
Building B north elevation; instead of providing prefinished
metal accent bands as shown on the BAR approved drawings.
2. RS also wondered if there were any way at all that he could
go before the BAR to modify the design approval without
paying the $900 fee.
3. RS recognized that the fees were effective on 5/1/90, well
before his 10/30/90 request to appear before the BAR for a
design modification (see Item 2). I informed him that the
need for the BAR fee was an administrative decision and that
he could appeal it; but that it would only cover the fee
requirement and not affect the design decision.
•
•
a. his high cost estimates for accent strip installation,
b. his assertion that the drawings are unclear because the
drawings read "to match exist'g (sic)" when the
previously existing Phase I building accent strips were
not placed in areas without exterior lights, as are the
areas now in dispute,
c. he knows the design best since he designed the building
with Lance Mueller only doing the drawing and the
proposed accent strips would violate the intended
design theme, and
d. he is willing to paint the building accent strips as a
compromise.
5. I explained that Rick Beeler, Jack Pace and I discussed this
extensively months ago and determined that staff did not
have the authority to make the a major design change from
metal to paint, and that. BAR approval would be required. RS
had been worked within this informal decision process and
agreed to its terms.
6. I did not see anything in the present that was not
considered in the initial decision. RS was told that his
next option would be to formally request an administrative
design modification as shown on building elevations and
detailing the justification for such action to be submitted.
Rick Beeler would make a formal determination and RS could
then appeal this decision.
7. I confirmed that RS always had the right to meet with Rick
Beeler or Jack Pace to discuss the situation.
8. RS is meeting with another metal fabricator . this week and
will call me by Friday as to his actions.
.
S. TAP?
R ICO.A1
building a plan
bar approved
May 23, 1990
CITY OF T UKWILA
;300 SOUTIICENTYik BOULEVARD. TIIKN'll.a, It:1 S111,`Y ;T(hx 98188
Robert Schofield
4212 Hunts Point Road
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Southcenter Retail II Site Grading DESIGN REVIEW
I' n Ian;l.03.I M
( ;ap l.. lanInsrn. AIi, or
Dear Mr. Schofield,
Thank you for your prompt attention to this issue. Yesterday
you, Steve Bacon and Vernon Umetsu of my staff met in the field
and resolved the outstanding issues. The following is my
understanding of this resolution.
1. The 4 foot cut was a result of a minor slope failure brought
on by recent rains. You have raised the surrounding grade,
bermed this cut with clean sand, and emplaced straw to
prevent further erosion and slope failure.
2. Existing steep slopes in the truck loading area are the
result of stockpiling excavated materials from the drainage
lines. Regrading this slope from the current edge of
vegetation in a maximum 2:1 slope will not cut into the
native hillside and allow construction of the proposed truck
loading area without need for a rockery or retaining wall.
No further cuts into the existing vegetation line will be
made.
These findings were substantiated by level and tape data
generated during your field meeting with Steve Bacon and
Vernon Umetsu.
Based on the above, the project is being constructed in
compliance with approved plans and SAO Waiver conditions. I
therefore withdraw my earlier letter of May 22, 1990 with the
understanding that:
i. no cuts into the native hillside shall be permitted and
ii. adding that no further cuts into the existing vegetation
shall be allowed.
Sincerel
.
L. Rick Beeler, Director
Department of Community Planning
cc: Hugh Goldsmith, Bush Roed and Hitchings
Phil Fraser, Public Works Dept.
File
Please contact Vernon Umetsu immediately at 431 -3684 if I have
misunderstood anything related to the above or if you have any
further questions.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA. it •%SIILVGTON Jx1ss
May 22, 1990
Robert Schofield
4212 Hunts Point Road
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Southcenter Retail II Site Grading.
Dear Mr. Schofield,
Findings
Required Actions
Prn).VIi a (206) •l3 .1,4011 Gar). L. t ,nDrrsrn, dlurur
A field investigation of your site on May 21, 1990 has raised
significant concerns in the City. My findings and required
actions based on this investigation are listed below:
A. A cut in the native hillside on the southern half of the
project approximately 4 feet in height. This is in
violation of the SAO Waiver condition not to cut into native
slopes; a condition which you have previously agreed to.
B. Further cuts in this south slope area may be necessary to
provide the five foot wide sidewalk and footings for a
structural retaining wall under the existing development
design. Such cuts would further violate the SAO Waiver
condition and require City Council approval.
C. The truck loading area was located by S. Bacon of R.W. Huff.
Grading for this area would result in a retaining wall
approximately 8 feet in height. This wall is not in any
approved plans and would be a very serious violation of the
SAO Waiver condition.
D. All remaining native slopes are over 15% and cannot be cut
into without City Council approval.
E. Mr. Bacon, Field Superintendent for R.W. Huff was instructed
by Vernon Umetsu on May 21st, to make no further cuts into
the hillside.
1. Contractors are hereby notified that no further cuts into
the hillside shall be permitted without specific written
City approval of plans which have been updated from the
4/26/90 approved set.
2. The City requires that the following information be
submitted by June 1, 1990 at 8:30 A.M.:
a. A licensed survey shall be submitted showing (i) the
current western edge of Building B with spot elevations
of the western corners and center point, and (ii)
existing hillside topography.
b. Should grading for the truck loading areas result in
cuts into the slope (Finding C), the loading area shall
be relocated. A possible relocation site is on the
north side of Building B. A site plan with relocated
truck loading zone shall be submitted if necessary.
c. Stamped civil engineering plans shall be submitted
showing proposed building, sidewalk, retaining walls,
and extent of any over excavation into the hillside.
d. The Washington State Dept. of Transportation shall
approve any modifications which affect hillside
drainage and stability prior to submitting engineering
plans to the City per Item 2c.
Failure to submit all required information by Friday, June 1,
1990 at 8:30 A.M. will result in the immediate issuance of a stop
work order until all required items have been completed.
Please contact Vernon Umetsu immediately at 431 -3684 if I have
misunderstood anything related to the above or if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely -)
L. Rick Beeler, Director
Department of Community Planning
cc: Hugh Johnson, Bush Roed Hitchings
Phil Fraser, Public Works Dept.
Vernon Umetsu, Community Development
Field Superintendent at construction site.
. AGREEMENT TO BE SUBJECT TO A CRITICAL AREA SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE
site.
The undersigned owner /developer of real property located at 16813 Southcenter
Parkway, Tukwila, Washington, and more specifically described in Exhibit A
attached hereto, hereby acknowledge that such property is subject to the moratorium
imposed by Tukwila Ordinance Nos. 1544 and 1550. The undersigned have
petitioned for relief from the provisions of the moratorium as provided for in
Ordinance No. 1550 and in consideration of such relief, agree that if the City of
Tukwila will process the following applications:
EPIC -32 -89 — SEPA for Mikami Design Review
89 -15 -DR — Mikami Design Review (BAR)
Mikami Building Permit Application to Implement Above Project
The development of the property described in Exhibit A will be subject to all of the
provisions of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as finally passed by the City Council,
even though those provisions may be more restrictive than any conditions or
limitations imposed by or resulting from the SEPA, BAR and Building Permit
processes described above.
The undersigned agree that such processes will be continued solely at their risk and
expense and that the result of the final Sensitive Areas Ordinance may be to require
extensive project modifications and reevaluation or rescission or withdrawal of any
approval arising out of the SEPA, BAR and Building Permit processes. It is also
understood and agreed that continuation of the SEPA, BAR and Building Permit
processes does not mean that any other application for this project will be accepted
or processed unless the City Council approves a petition therefor.
The undersigned acknowledge that the waiver was made subject to the following
conditions which the undersigned agree to meet as partial consideration for the
waiver.
A. Fill may be emplaced to feather grades up to the existing 34-ft. contour;
however, cuts may not be made into the 28 ft. contour west of the drainage
ditch. Development may occur up to the 30 to 34 -ft. contour which lies
westerly of the drainage ditch as shown in Exhibit B and represents the toe of
the 15% slope.
B. In the stockpile area, the original 34 ft. contour shall be used as the maximum
cut line. No cuts into original slopes above this contour shall be allowed. This
maximum cut may only be done if slopes no more than 2:1 can be established
between any cut and the existing slopes. No development shall occur above
this 34 ft. contour line in the stockpile area as shown in Exhibit B.
C. No rockeries or retaining walls shall be allowed in the northwest corner of the
F1 i
tor u;+dlu at 1 % d nest of
NAME _,_
ADDRESS
CITY
I t
,The undersigned further acknowledge that this conditional waiver was given in
reliance' on the accuracy of the information supplied by the undersigned, including
the original and existing grades as shown on the Bush Roed & Hitchings survey as
revised on March, 12, 1990, and agree that they bear_all risk of inaccuracy of such
information.
The undersigned acknowledge that the covenants herein run with the land
described in Exhibit A, and that this document will be recorded with the King
County Department of Records and Elections and that those covenants cannot be
released without the written consent of the City of Tukwila.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
DATED: Marcy
ce ;
y r
MATT M. MIKAMI, Owner
ROBERT H. SCHO
Developer /Applicant
,1990.
radetoi
L
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that MATT M. MIKAMI, Owner,
and ROBERT H. SCHOFIELD, Developer /Applicant are the persons who appeared
before me, and said persons acknowledged that they signed this AGREEMENT TO
BE SUBJECT TO A SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE, and acknowledged it to be
their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
.
Notary lic in a for the State of
Washington, residing at
My Commission Expires: 9 " 53
CT`
CD
U
C")
nt
C)
DESCRIPTION:
PARCEL A:
EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 2
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED
TO AS THE SUBDIVISION) IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST N.M.
LYING WEST OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 972, MESS BROTHERS ROAD, CONVEYED TO KING
COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 921233 (SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
FORMERLY 57TH AVENUE SOUTH), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 1,020 FEET NORTH OF
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE NORTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 294.82 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, TO THE INTERSECTION
WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD;
THENCE SOUTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 294.62 FEET, MORE OR LESS,
TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE RUNNING EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING
PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION;
THENCE WEST ON SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR PRIMARY
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 (SR 5) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5524599 AND
5992105;
AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER
PARKWAY AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6343852;
SITUATE IN THE CITY OP TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
PARCEL B:
THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE WHICH
IS 1,020 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE HEREINAFTER
REFERRED TO NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4:
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP
23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST M.M., DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS
OPPOSITE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS HES) LW
2504 +89.33 ON THE LW LINE SURVEY OF SR 5. SOUTH 178TH STREET TO SOUTH 126TH
STREET, AND 553.73 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM;
THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2505 +00 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND
590 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM;
THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE
570 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM:
THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE
515 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM;
THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE
500 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM;
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE SAID HES AND 428.97 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM;
THENCE SOUTHERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE POINT OP BEGINNING;
HES LW 2505 +75 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND
HES LW 2507 +15 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND
HES LW 2509 +50 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA. COUNTY OP KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
VOW
EXHIBIT A, Page 2 of 2
ORDER NO. S
ESCROW NO.
LOAN NO.
MORTGAGOR
PLAT MAP Vol
his map does not purport to show all, highways, roads or easements affecting
aid oroperty: no liability is assumed for variations in dimensions and location
.
--711--
r.
w .,.,_ - _7(1
• ____---
-
4r -
4
6
-
- .• . _
.
;4 _ _
.__ _ _._rGeAvc-7,1trPon•O,ry.o4E,c,,,,ji.f1)
__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __
__
Et Or at
_.. ...
.111•40.c.F wt..- . _
.
9(3043009
40
s
SC
8;
3
NO St): g-D
WEbt lompfs-Ty 1.114E &EV/47014 4 WAL4, P2DC
64A4A: - 10'
MA
Tyre rE
IL? 241
AN
2 70
•'• ' N
• \ .•
40
30
2-C
20
7vPe.I wttutto•
TOP 26.10
WV 7.5
(Malta' Ittouto
of• *or_ -arr.O...5
IttRawar Qum)
=CV a' vosEt_
4r/ut
0
.TY't ChTL. 5410ii0
TOP 27.1
TWEI•••OZSTw•
OW 1).41' • 0P i0.3$ El
nor lb 10
4I,
e ICTIU 1tfui
CATCH TA*511.1* heao
- TYPE
it 54- 0/T b? tut
'RV 17.0 tofu
braa
OW 11.10
11.10 ( 12-0 . ,
21.10
C. OKI
94:40
• Tv 10
14: 1100115
141
Onve ftfrOestt
?VOMIT
AYALA-
rtorfawalm.
•••••1,..
Cos.nacT moo r5
L', I5 4
ELEV• 12,1.50EurYn
/ ..15r1'ta 41Cu).0.6 _
=======
0- - - -
REDUCE nersnlc,
D1401 • .u.e.
10144611 emg sip
Owsgetas..
am.% ro.i.awnou)
IM•M OMB
ecycoue ,
111
111
‘ .0 re
iLLYMMA
40..f. VET.,
OCat 40.72
8
&Dant 00,..
- -
1400 4110 LOU Watt,
la■ LO.. MO
Ccanliat..).tel..m.g" 1 10 S.. 0l1 14.01)
'we= • 54 .3 /4040 TOP (UCta
TO?. 15.11
- 1W• 16.5
aour14
.S".5.6/_ to/ 1 • Man._
4044 (truer
„:7;verrI MI.
11.11' 14.12.
1-)Ar-v-Loo.t
1140 141010 c•fACT..)
100
t•-u Liu Suarf.
e.ca.wtse_no.. t.../.• •
[Aso R)601
TYPE
- me 27.0
11111
I e- -•
-------.
11•714 .A.stu+
DMZ 71 10/10Ef10P
'TOP
WV.
Zo
WI 'mar th...
To re - VW-ATGO
P2I0t TO COMSTIUKTWO
CONTROL 1.40I4‘40lE 4 4.
TyPtI 720141 CR,
WI MLLES
TDP
OW • 14,
OVG¢Ft.ou) 21,4W
W' .31 2_
--o
Itt1.0- COY 470 01.
1)U.E.f..1.c- [Wt.
LOITi 12.019$
34051.4
EXHII B
3 /14 17o
vu
F.
' CF..? 411.
ELDS■c.a Cal■REO, CompLi
PU1/4 PREOARSO Att ' Bute, P-OEO 141T4411403
DINTED 10/D2fee3 - erwaeo 10131155
RPPE0040 1 Tor- C.,-n1
LOCAlloat OW - TWO LOX.
ESTOOL,Itto L.1.144 090T
01101, shot. Ou 01144114.
0010. DRAW., Nutt 1 111.0
Wall 0014G itof 13..o,Teoto
UOOttalUS 14 f Eso.11.1,
et
-5212,4 Scums-,
011.0440
53470 4?
• CALL
OEFOIE YOU OM
1181424555k
GRAPHIC SCALE
•t.,
1 ..S.GstA.117
; a' • EY SPor 6.0r.#
- 1 aPOT rtAaKti ‘ ,20431 .
•••
- Peot•cuLD Fl14e114 &2A= C01415112-
E.Vt-t 0 441.10140011.1)0.01.171.
- -C- - P1011107
0210140.4*. TaTtt
== === el. Start GIT.OLOLTAtaat IS%
•• GM.. et ?VOMIT LIMES 1•17••■ tufo...Twat
90051000 ttl Mau ME X., (.p.14.0O20 CO) 0011103
1.140 40t14.Ea.45 4-106 Clact-ta to 44 SePrItel
Ze.rurror_ SI., 451.43 4E1.11 *44.. 114F02111.Td'L
?not To COusnr.ocrtoJ
10
Attachment
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
FILE NUMBER: 89 -15 -DR
APPLICANT: Robert H. Schofield
REQUEST: To construct 28,000 square feet of retail space in two 20 -foot tall
buildings with 82 parking spaces.
LOCATION: 16813 Southcenter Parkway, in the SW 1/4 of Sec. 26, Twn. 23,
Rge 4; Tukwila, WA 98188
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the request on
March 22, 1990, and approved the pfoject with the attached conditions.
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
March 23, 1990
SUMMARY CONDITIONS TO
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. 89-15-DR
1. The southeast corner of Building "B" may be squared off and "Alternative 1"
shall not be required.
2. Staff Recommendation No 1 shall be eliminated and traffic circulation around
the blind corner should be provided for with a stop sign.
3. No landscape strip in front of the dumpster shall be required.
4. Implement landscape modifications to increase the number of trees and
complete landscape design at the southern driveway as discussed in the staff
report.
5. Maximum light standard height is 20 feet.
-4-
, 89- 15 -DR: MIKAMI DESIGN VIEW - Request for approval to co n struct 28,000 square feet
of retail space in two, 20 -foot tall buildings with 82 parking spaces.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal recommending approval of the
request subject to conditions that the building be redesigned to eliminate the blind
curve per SEPA requirements. The design change must be submitted to the Community
Development Director for approval. Some landscaping modifications must be incorporated
and light standards shall have a maximum height of 20' and glare diagrams shall be
provided to demonstrate no off -site light spill -over.
Mr. Knudson asked if this is a replica of the first application.
Vernon Umetsu answered the first application was L- shaped and this is a redesign. There
will be sidewalks. The SAO moratorium was triggered because there is a slope of over
15 %. The owner had a permit to fill prior to the moratorium. City Council has concurred
it was reasonable for the applicant to develop as long as they did not develop any 15%
slopes in the areas. All development would be feathered in. There will be some
retaining walls. There will be no cuts into the original hillside.
Mr. Hamilton asked if the slope is stable.
Vernon Umetsu answered that geotechnical reports submitted stated the slope would be
enhanced by the site preparation. The development cannot cut into the slope at all.
Mr. Kirsop stated it seems instead of cutting off the corner of the building a traffic
signal would be better.
Vernon Umetsu said it will be up to the developer to submit a plan that will eliminate the
blind curve. We will be dealing with a SEPA requirement. It will be subject to BAR
review. The Fire Department is also concerned about the blind corner and they require
a solution.
Bob Schofield, developer of the property, stated the parking is important. If land-
scaping is done in front of the trash dumpster you would not be able to see it because
of the parked cars. With respect to the corner setbacks -- on the second building
the jog is not practical. He said he would like to consider not having the jog
modulation and omit the landscaping on the parking lot. The blind corner can be
resolved with the engineering department. There will be a memorial placed in front
of the building to the Mikami family, original owners of the property.
Chairman Haggerton asked about the hanging baskets. They had impressed him in the
original design.
Mr. Schofield replied the hanging baskets were in the original plan. When staff
wanted another plan it did not include the hanging baskets.
Vernon Umetsu said the project was approved with the hanging baskets if they could get
them in the plan. When the project is approved they go out before final approval and
occupancy and check to be sure all requirements have been met.
Mr. Schofield said the building would be concrete, steel and wood.
Chairman Haggerton closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. Flesher said with respect to staggering the building he agreed with the applicant
that another approach would be better.
Vernon Umetsu said the form and detail would be visible from the road. It helps
make a link between Buildings A and B. The Director felt strongly about this.
C -5-
Mr. Cagle stated he would like to support the project as recommended by staff. He
said he could not see the setback on the west building will give much to appearance.
Mr. Hamilton said it is expensive to build. The back building is tilt -up concrete
rectangle and he does not like that type of building. He felt the back building
could be handled differently.
Mr. Schofield said there is no concrete in front. The windows were put in at the request
of staff.
Chairman Haggerton reopened the Public Hearing to admit testimony of the architect.
Lance Mueller, architect, stated the back is the only part that is concrete. There
is a canopy in front that will cast shadows.
Chairman Haggerton closed the Public Hearing at 10:14 P.M.
MR.KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE DESIGN WITH THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUILDING B SQUARED TO ALTERNATE 2 AND SUBJECT TO SUITABLE TRAFFIC
CONTROL TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE BLIND CORNER AT THE REAR OF BUILDING A, A STOP
SIGN OR STRIPING CAN SOLVE PROBLEM AND DELETE ITEM 2(a) FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN
THAT AT THAT POINT LANDSCAPING IN FRONT OF DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE IS NOT WORTH DELETION
OF AN EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACE STALL; STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 2(b) AND 2(c) AND 3 WOULD
BE RETAINED.
MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO.
Chairman Haggerton called for a 5- minute recess. 10:20 - 10:26 p.m.
90 -4 -DR: CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - Request for design review approval to
improve and widen roadway /bridge at the intersection of West Valley Highway (SR181)
and South 180th Street.
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, stating the Planning Division
recommends approval of the SR181 /South 180th Street road and bridge widening project,
with one condition: (1) Detailed landscape plan to be submitted prior to finalized
construction plans for proposed project for approval by Planning Division.
Mr.Hamilton asked about the timing of the project.
Ron Cameron, City Engineer, stated it would be early 1991.
Chairman Haggerton closed the Public Hearing at 10:32 p.m.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILILTON SECONDED AT MOTION TO APPROVE THE SR181 /SOUTH 180th
STREET ROAD AND BRIDGE WIDENING PROJECT WITH THE CONDITION RECOMMENDED BY STAFF THAT
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINALIZED CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PROPOSED
PROJECT FOR APPROVAL BY PLANNING DIVISION.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, stated his report had already been covered in the discussion
regarding the proposed City Council Ordinance recreating the Planning Commission.
Mr. Gomez stated the Planning Commission should ask for a meeting with the City Council.
Mr. Hamilton stated the City Council can change the terms of tenure but they are wrong
in changing the make up of the Commissioners. Removing business representatives
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared March 15, 1990
March 22, 1990
89- 15-DR: Mikami Design Review
Robert H. Schofield
To construct 28,000 s.f. of retail space in two,
with 82 parking spaces.
16813 Southcenter Parkway in the SW 1/4 of
Rge. 4; Tukwila, WA
1.74 Acres
Commercial
C -2 (Regional Retail)
To be made prior to meeting.
A. Site Plan With Finished Grades.
B. Architectural Site Plan
C Building A Elevations
D. Building B Elevations
E. Landscape Plan
20 foot tall buildings
Sec. 26, Twn. 23,
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
89 -15-DR Mikami Design Review
Page 2
1. Project Description: To construct 28,000 s.f. of retail space in two, 20 foot tall buildings
with 82 parking spaces as shown in Attachments A through E.
2. Existing Land Use: Vacant.
3. Surrounding Land Use: The site is generally surrounded by commercial uses in one
and two story structures to the north, south and east. 1-5 lies to the west.
4. Terrain: Existing and finished grades are generally shown in Attachment A. The
eastern 9 /10ths is flat with the remaining western area being a rapidly rising vegetated
slope.
5. Vegetation: Vegetation is generally an alder -maple mix with underbrush.
6. Access: The site is accessed via Southcenter Parkway.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is Phase II of the Southcenter Retail commercial development.
Phase I is located to the immediate south and is shown on Attachment B as "Existing
Retail Building and Parking." Phase I was approved by the Board in 1988 and has been
constructed.
This project is being processed based on a waiver to the Sensitive Areas Moratorium
granted by the City Council pursuant to Ord. 1550. An environmental threshold
determination (SEPA) has not been completed as of this writing. However, staff
anticipates completing SEPA review prior to the Board's meeting.
DECISION CRITERIA
This project is subject to Board review due to its location in a C -2 zone and its gross
building area exceeding 10,000 s.f. pursuant to TMC 18.60.030. 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
to the B.A.R.
C
89 -15-DR Mikami Design Review
Page 3
Proposed buildings are sited to architecturally mirror the existing "L" shaped Phase I
building to the south, with Building B set back against the hillside. Building A is sited
with its nearest wall 20 feet from the property line and stepping back to 30 feet.
The area in front of Building A is landscaped as shown in Attachment E. The
remaining frontage landscape strip is 10 feet wide along parking areas facing
Southcenter Parkway. The parking lot has been broken up into three areas whose
paved surfaces are visually moderated with landscape islands and perimeter strips as
shown in Attachment E.
The Public Works Dept. has determined the internal circulation system to be
generally acceptable subject to elimination of a blind curve at the northwest corner of
Building A and providing survey data demonstrates the accurate coordination of the
northern driveway location with the 168th St. improvement. Elimination of the
blind corner and /or a southward shift of the northern driveway will require some
building redesign.
The landscape strip in front of the trash dumpster is necessary to provide the side
dearance to open car doors. This clearance area is normally provided by adjacent
parking stalls, but is not available when adjacent to an eight foot tall wall.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
a. Harmony on 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.
Elements of site design harmony between Phase I and the adjacent areas include:
(a) coordination of vehicular access driveways --the southern access is proposed to be
relocated and enlarged to better serve both phases while the northern access is
designed in coordination with the 168th St. improvement project;
(b) design of the proposed building masses and materials echo the existing "L"
shaped Phase I structure, as well as the building lines and 20 ft. commercial
building heights in the surrounding area; and
(c) coordinated landscape design and materials with Phase I as shown in
Attachment E and discussed further in Criteria No. 3.
(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, puking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide
an inviting and stable appearance.
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
t
89 -15 -UR Mikami Design Review
Page 4
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.
Landscaping and site treatment are shown in attachment A, B, and E. The proposed
street trees are spaced 75 apart. This is greater than the 30 ft. spacing normally
provided and inconsistent with the 40 ft. spacing provided in Phase I. A 75 ft. spacing
might be appropriate in front of Building A to frame the structure's architecture and
recognize the 3 to 5 birch trees at each building frontage corner.
The applicant has agreed to provide three additional trees to increase streetscape
design harmony and better moderate the affects of paved areas. The modified
landscape plan will be presented at the Board meeting.
No landscaping has been shown for the newly - designed south arm of the southern
driveway. The applicant has agreed to provide landscaping to match the northern
driveway arm.
Light standards are to be of the same design as used in Phase I (Patrick Kerr, Lance
Mueller Arch., 3/15/90). No data on height was firmly established as of this writing.
Glare diagrams to demonstrate no off -site light spill -over have as yet not been
submitted.
(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
antidpated 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
front 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,
form and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
The central importance of architectural harmony between Phase I and Phase II has
been generally discussed in Criteria No. 2. The architect has used building location
(.
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
(5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
( ,
89 -15-DR Mikami Design Review
Page 5
and shapes to echo the "L" structure of Phase I. This architectural harmony is
reinforced by using similar materials, window proportions, colors, and accents. A
colors and materials board will be presented at the Board meeting.
The trash enclosure at the northwest corner of the site is the only miscellaneous
structure proposed. This is a stand alone structure measuring 12 ft. by 19 ft. by eight
foot tall screen walls. Walls will be concrete with reveal strips which divide the wall
in thirds. It is appropriate that this enclosure be fronted with a landscape strip as
discussed in Criteria No. 2.
1
CONCLUSIONS
1
Staff condudes the following based on the findings specific to each design criteria and the
inter - relationships between these criteria.
1. Criteria No. 1: Relationship of Structure to Site, would be satisfied under the
following conditions:
a. site or building should be redesigned to eliminate the blind curve. Staff considers
this to be a minor design change since it is to the rear of the building and not a
visible part of the streetscape. Staff administrative approval for such a change
would be appropriate;
b. assuming that the northern driveway is properly aligned with the 168th St.
improvement design; and
c additional landscaping is provided to satisfy the design assumptions inherent in
the minimum compact stall dimensions.
2. Criteria No. 2: Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area is satisfied. Data
provided to date indicates that the site design and building architecture is
harmonious with the surrounding area.
3. Criteria No. 3: Landscaping and Site Treatment, would be satisfied under the
following conditions:
a. landscape modification to increase the number of trees in front of and within the
parking area as agreed to by the applicant and to be presented at the Board
meeting,
b. specifying landscape treatment at the newly modified southern driveway,
c. maximum light standard height should not exceed 20 feet which is the building
height, and
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
89 -15-DR Mikami Design Review
Page 6
d. glare diagrams should be submitted to demonstrate no off -site light spill over.
4. Criteria No. 4: Building Design, is satisfied, based on the architectural design
harmony between Phases I and II, and the combination of building off -sets, glass
windows, and tile accents.
5. Criteria No. 5: Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture, is satisfied based on the
trash screen wall materials being the same as the building and assuming identical
colors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
The Planning Division recommends approval subject to the following conditions.
1. The site or building shall be redesigned to eliminate the blind curve per SEPA
requirements. The applicant shall submit the design change to the Community
Development Director for approval.
A typical design modification will be presented at the Board meeting. A major design
change would require further Board review.
2. The following landscape modifications shall be incorporated:
a. Provide additional landscaping in front of the trash dumpster to satisfy the
design assumptions inherent in the minimum compact stall dimensions.
b. Provide landscape modifications to increase the number of trees in front of and
within the parking area, as agreed to by Applicant and Staff. Modifications will
be presented at the time of Board review.
c. Provide a landscape treatment at the newly modified southern arm of the south
driveway. Landscaping should be consistent with that provided on the northern
side of this driveway as determined by the Community Development Director.
3. Light standards shall have a maximum height of 20 feet and glare diagrams shall be
provided to demonstrate no off -site light spill over.
bush roed & hitchings
grading storm sewer sanitary sewer and water lines
southcenter retail building II
robert schofield
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
R/W AND UTILITY. LOCATIONS
FROM CITY RECORDS
ED CAST - IN - PLACE CONCRETE Clip
BAR.
SITE PLAN
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE CURB
CONCRETE GRID
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
FLOOR P.LAN
PLAN
NORTH ELEVATION
GENERAL NOTES
LANCE MUELLER
FLOOR PLAN
EASf. ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
BUILDING FLOOR PLAN
ALTERNATE NO. 1- SOUTH ELEVA
ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EAST ELEVATION - W•ir
FLOOR PLAN
EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
EST EL VATION
SOUTH
ELEVATION
ALTERNATE NO. 1 - SOUTH ELEVA
ALTERNATE NO. 1 - EAST ELEATION
OCAST - IN - PLACE CONCRETE Cy,R8,./:cf,)-veo cot+r-rarrEt
Landscape Legend
Landscape Details
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
R/W AND UTILITY LOCATIONS
FROM CITY RECORDS
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
R/W AND UTILITY LOCATIONS
FROM CITY RECORDS
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
SITE PLAN
Landscape Legend
Landscape Detais
SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
RAI AND UTILITY LOCATIONS
FROM CITY RECORDS
PRELIMPIARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
0
CIT OF 7'C KIVILA
ti,• 'f'1 Tl!( E'.\ I EIt /()j 'LE1'•I h'f . TI'K'WILL It' iNIII (;T(1. \' 9siNs
Date: January 9, 1989
Time Frame
MEMORANDUM
[MAT = (°Olil •la :i•IY (;t,n' l.. lanI i n, lLn•n
From: Vernon Umetsu
To: Bob Schofield
RE: Summary of 1/4/89 Meeting between Bob Schofield, Lance
Mueller, and Vernon Umetsu
Project time frame and the staff estimate of design changes
necessary to reflect B.A.R. design standards were reviewed at
this meeting. The following is a summary and expansion of staff
comments.
1. The proposed rezone is scheduled for Planning Commission
review on January 25, 1989.
2. Design review by the B.A.R. is anticipated on April 26th;
assuming that the City Council approves a waiver per Ord.
1550. The waiver must be granted no later than 30 days
prior to the date for B.A.R. review.
All SERA review must be completed no less than 25 days prior
to B.A.R. review to provide for a 15 day comment period and
10 day appeal period.
3. A building permit application cannot be accepted without an
Ord. 1550 waiver. Staff advises that the earliest possible
issuance of a building permit is May 7th due to the 10 day
B.A.R. appeal period during which no affected permits can be
issued.
A May 7th building permit issuance assumes the following:
a. All building permit review has been completed,
b. There have been no changes which require building
permit revision (such changes will require additional
review time and permit fees),
c. All legal instruments have been executed,
d. All impact fees have been satisfied, and
e. There is no B.A.R. appeal.
Site Design Review
4. The southern driveway should be shifted to the north to
provide a clearly defined access corridor and eliminate the
need for weaving movements immediately upon entering the
parking area from the street.
5. The buildings are sited in an acceptable manner in order to
provide harmony between Phase I and this Phase II.
Building Design Review
6. Staff considers the basic building form and materials
acceptable primarily due to the need for harmony with the
existing Phase I building.
7. Building A is very prominently sited and serves as a
transitional building to the main building. The perceived
height and mass needs to be reduced.
One way to reduce this perceived bulk would be to modulate
the NE and SE thirds by 12 to 15 feet; incorporate high
quality architectural accents (i.e. forms, color and
contrasting materials) at break points; eliminate the roof
peak; and improving the quality of landscaping (i.e. with a
water feature and tiled planters).
8. Building A should be designed for 360 degree presentation
with as much attention to quality detail given to the rear
and sides as to the front. Additional modulating quality
architectural accents (see No. 7) are needed on the north,
south and west to echo the increased building design quality
on the street face.
9. All modulation and architectural accents provided in
Building A should be carried through in Building B.
10. Glass windows and architectural accents should be carried
through on at least the northeast and southeast halves of
Building B since they will be visible.
11. There are otherwise no significant comments on Building B.
Landscape Design
12. Parking lot landscape islands should have a tree at each
end.
13. Large stature trees should be placed to the rear of the
southern entry (behind flowers) to emphasize its location.
A similar treatment should be designed at the northern
entry.
14. The two parallel parking spaces in the northeast should be
replaced with landscaping.
15. The parking space adjacent to the dumpster should be
eliminated in favor of landscaping to help soften the
prominent 8 ft. wall.
16. The northwest rockery will be prominent to entering cars and
should be fronted with a min. 4 ft. landscape strip of
shrubs to provide a finished, yet softened, project
boundary. Materials should match the dumpster wall
plantings.
17. Live ground cover shall be maximized to provide a 90%
coverage in 2 years. This generally means sod or ground
cover planted at 18" o.c. with a good growth medium.
cc: Beeler, Pace, File.
rnF Vi-16--DR
W <•• Re••••••
2
s
esi Sr394 / .
1 <W feie J.0n
/I 5O.A+ 053. 4 I
ve
l 4s
N
Id
es 3. CA
i— 4
row"
s•
2S0
b 0
0\
„
4
%I0•,
CU
J
0
•
h
.0
••
0 3
I.- " 1 ='a
4
WI t
0 h
3 •
a s'
cr 1 .� c 6 OZ p 2
0
0 0 1.6
7.c a/ 4. o 3
47 5A/40j
sp
'r
4 7S 3/"
1
Sa o
0
3. 00.
,L J. 3
•
•
• S Cs
J
C ', ‘?
Ir4 , 30 1
3i
PCL. 2
'CJ
l
N lA9 •+S • 58W'
G •
•�I
• - •' � PCL. 3
4
2
e
111F 8q -IS -OR
1(0 813
( (.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
So tATwce r4EDL ?r.24c
Phone: 4.1„L - (,
Signature: , � -��L L/.
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: TJu , L1 A1' o &. .24, 600 SF o F'
- K� TA 11_ M 11 l..T 1 F ►j ApjT 54' Lam'
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: .s Section: lc. Township: 2.3 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: 1!)Ee7t Sc}{-OFIC"U7
Address: U-1 14u N „Nr . FLU. w A. 98061
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: M t -n tt . P I tG A t-. I
OWNER
Address: 1( Sv
Phone: 2y( —L 3v
Date: / / —/L-8
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
:1 /WE,Csignature(s)] 0: (;4 )
swear that I we are the owners or contract 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: 1 / /<P 7
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: A) s
L.Auo s ./.Pt ►J 4, N Lo ►.1 c, 5712EET - .t"TLj sTRr
'$14 S. T t.DC,S • F2rK S etkrP•
3 "Th.Ct t.3 Pc (Leo.
so cT+'1S t b
6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 2
t_►.0 ft, s a< " 5o1.4 scl2Erve15 By
aL>e,. C - bu STOn 8t_t3L,. ea .- o AT1 6Ltr Co ..,stsTkrurt - tT1-1.
A 0 5►. 6E•1J7 ST2u Cris 0-t' - re S 0 •. r H • 1 k t_L Ft - uc.► u a -4- a rr , arb rt uu ro krOi1 l
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: p,)
ST`I v, I.a D o, a5
t\ Ve — r...1 i • G T -t-r1 I L1J , A r)444 , T E GT u At.t.%1
.t f•te1>ut A ism I
1 WT►••S An 1461 Furl t std.. *.L. ► i.rr Z .T € . coy
1 Pt F1Av
�uc�12�1tw S GT a ot_oe -.S "PLUS R- F11=1 1w) - I1Les - 1.4 6144c. C.¢ ►nPLE) Arr
4P -P.S DLO w■L E 'bS .► ZR 'S i � ) c ) `i Re 1'tP.44e r ►S S16NrD 'T'o
c 6 i- ?.1..tta est.%s g - TO SO um - Ta Le t FEEL t g P£L d et T SU
o..S a-..SE era . ALL y c e I, oa . Dria t.E� Par14c►,.) y rafts-
- DE SI E0 T.cc o fob t W 4 0-1 1,> 1� E Dt'SZllta+� e - ' . - " - ' •• g 70-1►CPt c "tale' S£P 164444 1 11 6
Ne . t; c Ner reA.16 •
7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of
a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced.
B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should
promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance.
C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen
vistas and important axis, and provide shade.
D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian
or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken.
E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs
in paved areas is 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.
sezttc lS 1=tir- 43.
:SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 3
LEu e - (ot-A G�
CAo+o —
RESPONSE:
l -h, 5 ia.., -f - 4 r c,,xu, 65 e
s(. *s Admi. S *...5 IN 040E33 Ms ., IgEF,44.HeA5 *um -RC& Ike
S eAtegP^_l =.. Rvt t -olN6. u6 tw=smitt tIpt L
west IN ScAuwes.K Itibleasr -1c e . ti) ButLitlio
t ( j 11- A-te3 I Go twueus Cthte -o o tuA .4.- Uu0.t P(' ..
1:464t' 1-sr o►A. tai A045..24: `;- OF eytmauv6 tri1E,
IN �
(.4641 two. teat It l stt !u-agt _
It-AxsTvel-S keze aco-virmacsr . r..tt LM L eopt- 'itx, w tw (�E
8. BUILDING DESIGN
A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should
be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings.
B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with 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:
AIDQa'1t t4 4 GENCES J- Pc r rArioni . C " *we 1ESt4U
2ou
owre
�L •
r •'
L
tit u
1"1.%
Du t- /.Y1•w VE).tGS
. Lam.
L r=1o+ S I w1
u 1-1- 1 evJ
DG a..E. T LIE
QcbieT V 121
ES l i c A 12-(Lt t" Q 1 wlTa
LCE� �► - L� . Q -INSoN 'f It.t c di-S J
cac. 0-.+4 Ns r - c n _ THE v - V - .eu S
d`I 1 t1 T 'kf .. . P
GLEE JT F}rt0.45,E
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 4
T1 ILE& g Lt N S L�I1 -TS
/P. 12V So LT
13 To
Lu
U E'
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: 4 1 Ak -i } . - zectpucAs.
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
•
.SIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 5
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.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 6
12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site
pedestrian circulation.
13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and
complementary to the district in which it is located.
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)