HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-08-R - GENCOR - NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING REZONE88-8-R
5900 southcenter boulevard
Permit 88-08-R - GENCOR - NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING REZONE
September 12, 1988
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
Steve Friedman
GENCOR
11801 N.E. 160th Street, Suite G
Bothell, Washington 98011
RE: REVIEW OF B.A.R. RIEVISED SITE PLAN.
Dear Steve,
I have completed my review of the B.A.R. revised site plan and have the
following comments. These comments correspond to notes on the attached
maps.
1. A five foot sidewalk along the western driveway is required per the
B.A.R. approved plans for North Hills Apartments.
2. The western driveway width should be increased to a minimum of 26,
and preferably 28 feet between back of sidewalk and property line.
This should be done even if it means reducing the eastern driveway to
22 feet.
3. The 15 compact stalls exceeds the 13 allowed under the 30% rule. One
compact stall along the front parking strip could be converted to
full size by using 8.5 ft. wide standard stalls. Another compact
stall could be converted by converting the northern building sidewalk
to a 3 ft. landscape strip and shifting the last three spaces
northward.
4. Only one handicapped stall is provided per the Zoning Code. It is
not permitted to double count the striped walk area.
5. Mark the 2 ft. parking overhang along the eastern strip.
6. The eastern driveway slope requires making up a 10 ft. grade
difference in 46 feet. Please indicate the location and top /bottom
elevations of any rockeries.
Please send two copies of a corrected site plan for my further review.
Sincer ,
a.
rnon Umetsu, Assoc. ' .nner
NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICANT: Gencor, Inc.
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
FILE NUMBER: 88 -8 -DR: North Hill Office Building
REQUEST: Construct a 16,821 square foot, 3 -story office building
on 1.75 acres
LOCATION: East of 5800 Southcenter Boulevard, in SW } of Sec. 23, Twn. 23,
Rge. 4; Tukwila WA
The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the request on
August 25, 1988, and approved this project as summarized in the attached con-
ditions and plans. Revised plans should be submitted for Planning Department
review. After this review, 8i" X 11" PMT's of final approved plans will be
required. The BAR adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the staff
report dated August 15, 1988.
Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to the City Coun-
cil 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.
(29 /NTC.NHILL)
.fu g.savx ywraao;..yuc zsv:. =.:rir.:zcsasem n:rrtIv,:ack: ra.raanpms;x ',svgl?:f .% `;"" `rr;;r'KA'M{;'.°s`;t5.n
NOTICE OF DECISION
DATE:
Vernon Umetsu
Associate Planner
a /a? /8 8
. i'i�tr:siif�'if'<.f' f;{pis;X r E� , ils`r�.Yii# ,+k;S� ti "JA. rtax sty::u;w;:4 • t a.a;:t4= k:•::;a:.'C.'Y: ;C A.im rf.e !s .!rvic rstrA. icmml! cSCG: mr... arrrhu xx.:...... na m<+ n+..K aarza,..• mszcwrvvC0;rluYtt+lr'1:Md3::3+ +141 0FJ ?WGN.;
(22/88- 8 -DR.C)
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
E. Lighting plans must be provided.
Board of Architectural Review
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
aS
File - 88 -8 -DR: North Hill Office Building
The following shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his review and
approval.
A. A revised project plan based on the attached BAR - approved plan.
B. The frontage landscape shall be shifted approximately 8 feet to the east,
the western access increased to approximately 28 feet wide, and the eastern
access modified to reflect a 22 -24 foot wide driveway.
C. Establish the legal rights to use of the western driveway for joint access.
This shall include reciprocal access easements from the North Hill Apartment
driveway to the North Hill Office property, and an access easement from the
North Hill Office site to the North Hill Apartment property. Final site
plans should be approved by the Planning Department prior to drafting the
easements.
D. A landscape plan prepared by a Washington- licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted. This plan shall reflect the berming of front landscaping and
an automatic irrigation system.
:9..; set'. �1S�: M1> ?�1: it'%' e�. �.t'i+dtiG7t{'imrt «J..tC::h::... nb+wtnesd:•w:'.r.
.z:!crN�mitvty'^./.L`r,! ^�S,xN. Ne]A.}'L§lYn: '�')WYw :; T, M. S:".' li£: mv:' F+' YNTi!!':. bnT�Yi? U71:% Y.' ruFf�vc �k• Ne13tf. �' �!+ �vria' MkY„ tOS: Y. L!". �. N+ �.YYSMt�"�iLri:"�1.�';?jf�.'�}� i''r'�r1'�i..: +Y1�7����;:.� s }�{
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 25, 1988
The meeting was called to order at 8:03 p.m. by Mr. Haggerton,
Vice Chairman. Members present were Messrs. Cagle, Kirsop,
Verhalen, Haggerton, Knudson and Hamilton.
Mr. Coplen was absent.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, and Joanne
Johnson.
MINUTES
MR. KNUDSON MOVED THAT THE JULY 28, 1988 AND AUGUST 2, 1988
MINUTES BE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. MR:HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION
WHICH PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Haggerton distributed a letter to each of the Commission from
Marilynn J. Van Hise which commented on the procedure followed at
the July 28, 1988 public hearing and offering suggestions for
improvement. She also commented on the Riverton annexation
proposal.
87 -1 -SUB GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER Request for Final Plat
approval.
Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner reviewed the staff report recom-
mending approval of the Final Plat and that it be forwarded to
the City Council subject to conditions stated in the Staff
Report.
Mr. Paul Konrady represented the applicant and stated he concur-
red with the Staff's recommendations.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACCEPT THE KAISER
GATEWAY REQUEST AND FORWARD THE FINAL PLAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
�e�f�ti u,..`•: : � �u� . w".��:L �r�iiF'L':L� iili
1:K „n^.! +.ea Wv.rz-Swr:o-:.m.uaxwviors,:s:. mosti si;?o ncl: h;: 71;ir WqRAM I,'; 7:; Vt int' SH.' t:. k::Sei•L:r'• "7iliQ:�E?)ca`R'S,tr lYrt,:mcvc."xawuiracw.:trAr :Wu=t4tur9LY!.11Tr F%M?:2m,.'-.",r7 u ?."^: it •4'27,NitSN *3
Planning Commission
August 25, 1988
Page two
The Conditions read as follows:
1. DEDICATION
• 10.1 1
Know all men by these present that we, the undersigned,
owners in fee simple of the land hereby platted, hereby
declare, dedicate and convey to the City of Tukwila for the
use of the public forever all streets, water, storm drainage
and sanitary sewer systems located on easements and rights -
of -way shown thereon and the use thereof for all public
purposes not inconsistent with the use thereof for public
roadway and utility purposes; also the right to make all
necessary slopes for cuts and fills upon the lots and blocks
shown on this plat in the original reasonable grading of the
streets and alleys shown hereon. IN WITNESS THEREOF we have
set our hands and seals.
2. The lot line or fence in Lot 4 will need to be adjusted to
meet the setback requirements of the Tukwila Zoning Code
(TMC 18.50.020).
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
88 -7 -DR EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL -- Request for design review
approval to construct an 8- story, 236 -room hotel and separate 3-
story parking structure on a 3.27 -acre site.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal using
slides of the site, as well as site plans depicting the design of
the proposal. He reviewed the Staff Report recommending denial
of the request and that guidance be provided to better satisfy
criteria as outlined in the recommendations on page 6 of the
staff report.
Mr. Dick Chapin, attorney representing the applicant did not
agree with the comments in the staff report.
Mr. Dean Powell, Mesa Az, . also represented the applicant,
reviewed the proposal. He entered into the record the interior
design of the suites as Exhibit A. He commented on the outside
details of the proposal entering into the record the outside
elevations of the proposal as Exhibit B. Next, he reviewed the
site plan, entering it into the record as Exhibit C. He re-
quested that the Commission approve the proposal as presented.
z;re.:rAos:. .
r�. r: suuaeunues+.: 4envnyus .a:e•.s�..»,rxma��sr:u: Vft ASJ'SIIK NktL':FRM .. a`.d a:t'Sf`C � ... r::vY.fi: i_, ... Fn' Y>: f0: v`.✓/ Fa lf"7.Y'.S:e c.k. •V,,..FPzrgi:ig5;.:.. ..
tL
Planning Commission
August 25, 1988
Page three
Jim Nelson represented Helen Nelson who owns property adjacent to
the site. He stated that she approves the design as presented by
the applicant.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO CONTINUE THE REVIEW OF THIS PROPOSAL AND
ACCEPT THE FOOT PRINT AND BASIC DESIGN OF THE HOTEL WITH MODIFIC-
ATIONS TO THE PARKING GARAGE TO GET A BETTER BLENDING OF THE
STRUCTURE'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WITH THE PARKING GARAGE AND
LANDSCAPING MODIFICATIONS TO REFLECT A MUCH ENHANCED LANDSCAPING
DESIGN, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF DESIGN
REVIEW, FILE NUMBER 88 -7 -DR. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH VERHALEN, HAGGERTON, CAGLE, HAMILTON AND
KIRSOP VOTING YES. MR. KIRSOP VOTED NO.
A 5- minutes recess was called. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 pm.
88 -8 -DR: NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING -- Request for design review
approval to construct a 16,821 sq. ft. three story office
building with 46 parking spaces.
The applicant did not contest Commissioner Verhalep's partici-
pation in this action, even though he resides at the Sunwood
Condominiums which is adjacent to the North Hill Office Building
site.
Mr. Umetsu reviewed the Staff Report on the proposal, entering it
into the record as Exhibit I. He further clarified that the
staff report recommends approval subject to conditions outlined
on page 5.
Leon Grunstein, President of Gencor, stated he was in agreement
with Staff recommendations.
The colors to be used for the building were distributed for
Commission review.
Michael Glanz, architect, answered questions posed by the
Commission.
Mr. Steve Friedman spoke in favor of the proposal.
MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SITE PLAN BASED ON STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATIONS "A ", "B ",
"C" EXCEPT THE WESTERN ACCESS TO BE 24 FEET WIDE; AND "0 ",
(ELIMINATION OF "E" BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONFORMED); AND "F ".
�S.: X'.>. ii.' istr:::. H. 4` Stw::: �tik4"_ k!=:; rr' s1il:"^ iSe ".Gff.:.:Cti::r�.:.f:.r.:v..•^a sa,+.•. r. v.: ...u:.• >�:,•: <t 'u• uC�R.'S*,s� - "'.5: v..�.:25Ir,:1±."t3 %Rtta:'. :S+7:tng;,S::J,'r -;t7,? ;;sr:wr.•w,v..:rn^:: t^a�
•
Planning Commission
August 25, 1988
Page 4
The conditions read as follows:
A. Elimination of the northwest parking space, as discussed in
Criterion 1, to enhance the relationship of structure to
site and adjacent public street.
B. Establish the legal rights to use the western driveway for
joint access, as discussed in "Access ". (See staff report).
C. The frontage landscape shall be shifted approximately 8 feet
to the east, the western access increased to approximately
24 feet wide, and the eastern access modified to reflect a
20 -foot wide driveway. This will maximize compatibility
between on -site and street circulation patterns, as discus-
sed in Criterion 2. (See staff report).
D. A landscape plan prepared by a Washington- licensed landscape
architect shall be submitted. This plan shall reflect the
berming of front landscaping and an automatic irrigation
system.
E. Lighting plans must be provided.
MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH PASSED WITH KIRSOP, VERHA-
LEN, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND KNUDSON VOTING YES. MR. HAMILTON VOTED
NO.
88 -10 -DR COSTCO - Request to approve design review to construct a
365 space parking lot expansion and associated landscape /picnic
area.
Mr. Umetsu, planner, reviewed the staff report on the proposal
recommending approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Randall Gould, 12200 Northrup Way, Bellevue, represented the
applicant. He stated that the applicant was in agreement with
staff's recommendations.
MR. CAGLE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE SUBMITTAL WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE
THREE CONDITIONS ALL BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF FOR APPROVAL.
The conditions are as follows:
1. Light standard design.
2. Illumination plans.
3. Picnic area fixture designs.
MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
,, . V,:c:,. .'i'ti"d °'. v ,.i::t'is7.S*i:.` -.
;':F`vhz a' ;k3119:.:4::1 T :4ii7allktglki.is rva• outs
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
x>oaauvr Yrt.nixincr -i'l :WM aatf.^,V" 3..' TCMUt ieJfib `.V.VEVIE.4 r'!
� rI
C
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
STAFF REPORT
to the Board of Architectural Review
Prepared August 15, 1988
August 25, 1988
88 -8 -DR
Gencor, Inc.
Construct a 16,821 square foot, three -story office building
with 46 parking spaces.
Immediately east of 5800 Southcenter Boulevard, in SE * of
Sec. 23, Twn. 23, Rge. 4; Tukwila, Washington
1.75 acres. Project site is on southern half of parcel.
Northern half is being developed for apartments.
Commercial
P -0 (Professional- Office)
DNS issued on August 18, 1988
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Site Plan
Building Elevations
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Perspective
Surrounding Land Use
.12.!,t•o z"-r sln!visawiS7'fYt avu rlY��lY:.3F»:YA lni •.
STAFF REPORT
to the BAR
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
... v.;°;:; ��. �.:. o.<.; ea.. w a•: r✓:. xrn,.. rn�..- �w r......;•ti
FINDINGS
v.
88 -8 -DR: Gencor, Inc.
Page 2
1. Project Description: Gencor, Inc., proposes to construct a 16,821- square
foot, three -story office building. The proposed development is graphically
shown in Attachments A through D.
There are existing 4 to 18 foot tall rockeries along the northern and east-
ern perimeter of the improvement area. The applicant proposes to leave them
as is, and demomstrate the suitability of these rockeries to protect the
increased life and property exposed to hazard. The Planning Director has
granted the applicant's request to be allowed to demonstrate rockery suit-
ability during the building permit process in joint recognition of the
following:
a. The City does not permit rockeries over four feet in height, whether or
not they perform a structural, slope stabilizing function.
b. A geotechnical engineer will be required to certify that the slopes are
stable, that the slopes would be stable even if the rockeries were to
be removed and replaced only with erosion control facilities, and that
the rockeries are permanently stable.
c. Any significant project design changes will be subject to further Board
review.
2. Existing Development: The site is generally vacant. However, it is cur-
rently being used as a short -term site for soil storage and a construction
supervisor's hut.
3. Surrounding Land Use: Surrounding land use is shown in Attachment E. In
general, multi - family uses are to the immediate north, single - family uses to
the east, I -405 to the south, and commercial uses to the west.
4. Terrain: The project site is generally a "U "- shaped amphitheater facing
south as shown in Attachment A. Vertical rockeries define the north and
east building perimeters with average 80% slopes above rock walls.
5. Access: The project site is accessed on the east by a right- turn -in and
right- turn -out only driveway, and on the west by a full access driveway
which uses an adjacent property's road to link with Southcenter Boulevard.
An access easement will be required from the adjacent property. This may
not be a serious problem at this time since Gencor also owns the driveway
property.
6. Utilities: The site is served by a full range of urban level utilities. No
drainage plans have as yet been submitted. The City has a program to use
natural drainage swales to filter storm runoff, which the Public Works
Department would recommend for parking lot runoff.
..
STAFF REPORT 88 -8 -DR: Gencor, Inc.
to the BAR Page 3
The project site is located north of I -405 and east of I -5. It is therefore
subject to Board review (TMC 18.60.030).
The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code criteria (TMC 18.60.050) are listed below
in bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact.
1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site
The project area is separated from the back of sidewalk by gradual slope
approximately 50 feet wide. This would be developed as a 35 -foot wide
grassed public right -of -way and 15 -foot wide treed landscape strip. A
58 -foot side parking area forms the frontage improvement area approximately
8 feet above Southcenter Boulevard. The building itself sits 14 feet above
Southcenter Boulevard and rises three stories.
Transition to the project area could be enhanced by a slight berming of the
15 -foot treed strip to better screen parked cars, while continuing to pro-
vide visual access to the building. The two tiers of distinct trees serve
to provide a good transition from street to building.
The Planning staff and applicant agree that seven full -sized spaces should
be modified to compact spaces along the south perimeter parking strip. This
will increase the entryway landscaping and increase turning area for fire
trucks.
The parking space at the northwest building corner does not satisfy minimum
parking dimensions, nor does it satisfy minimum site design standards.
Deletion of the space will leave the minimum required 42 permanent parking
spaces and three temporary parking spaces.
The height and scale of the proposed structure is compatible with the site.
2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
Building mass, texture and lines are generally harmonious and compatible
with the established neighborhood character (see Building Architecture).
On -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems are relatively com-
patible. Their interface with Southcenter Boulevard access design could be
enhanced.
Vehicular and pedestrian systems are shown on Attachment A. The eastern,
right -in /right -out driveway is 30 feet wide, while the western full access
driveway is only 20 feet wide. Visitors may be confused into thinking that
the limited access drive is the main entry and be encouraged to make illegal
left turns in a busy intersection area.
Decreasing the eastern driveway to 20 feet wide and increasing the western
full access drive width to 30 feet would clearly mark the project's main
entry. These driveway modifications would also increase fire truck turning
feasibility.
STAFF REPORT
to the BAR
+aXf:r.,.rz�tt a'.'_ ,:21':.:. ^]'rd:,..,..+. �, _...... �.u;t�a.. _
88 -8 -DR: Gencor, Inc.
Page 4
Transition to adjacent properties is primarily provided topographically by
the site's "U" amphitheater shape. Minimal landscaping is provided between
topographic breaks and adjacent properties.
3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment
A preliminary landscape plan is shown in Attachment D. The perimeter street
trees and interior arch of accent trees generally frame the building and
provide a sense of entry. The public right -of -way between back of sidewalk
and property line will be grassed.
The proposed landscape plan has not been prepared by a registered landscape
architect. Staff and the applicant have together reviewed and modified the
preliminary landscape plan for presentation at the public meeting.
The existing rockery walls help to define the improved area. The viability
of these rockeries must still be demonstrated (see Proposed Project). No
change to the natural vegetation above the rockeries is proposed. This is
an area of dense undergrowth and young alders.
No landscape irrigation details have as yet been provided.
4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design
The proposed building is shown in Attachments A, B and C. The building has
two visual focal points: the architectural arch and the southern building
face. An enhanced roof cornice with three 4- to 5 -inch deep offsets runs
the length of the project to provide an additional element of visual
continuity.
No color samples have as yet been submitted. The applicant states that the
building will be a light "sand" shade, the upper arch will be a darker sand
shade, and the lower arch will be the darkest sand shade.
The architectural arch is the most prominent feature. Its visual focus is
enhanced by the building offsets. Using a darker shade of the building
color will tend to make it visually recede within a lighter building frame.
The arch could be emphasized by reversing the building color scheme (making
it the lightest colored elements) or using a stronger color value on it.
The pedestrian orientation of the 20 -foot tall arch could be enhanced with
offsets /fluting at the corners on the structure's lower eight to ten feet.
The south building wall has no window offsets and a glass /stucco pattern
which, together, fail to provide significant architectural interest.
Additional architectural interest should be provided along this wall to
avoid monotony of design, in a manner which clearly relates to the arch.
No lighting details have as yet been submitted.
5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
No miscellaneous structures have been proposed.
x�a.L'•..iyt ",:..o'k.::.i!ti: =.. c..s:i:'.r.:Ft`1�.:i. til: {tn.
STAFF REPORT
to the BAR
Criterion 5 is not applicable.
F. Lighting plans must be provided.
(22/88 -8 -DR)
..erw...r..rtre v.:.. x...... n•. 1: :?,3i'i:.WA7- 1Y �^.L4':? ?t5 "IS4 ' ?'{+.....vtti xPC._rf
`I'[TA.YrciYa M^ t ki:'ffi*K`Y'_ °r_+.A .'}n.NT t�YJ� .K`^.••:.GiY..tCZ.'i'.R::.. •
88 -8 -DR: Gencor, Inc.
Page 5
CONCLUSIONS
Criterion 1 is satisfied except for landscape berming and parking modification.
Criterion 2 is satisfied except for establishment of a western access easement
and driveway modifications.
Criterion 3 is satisfied except for review and revision of the preliminary
landscape plan by a licensed landscape architect, demonstrating the suitability
of existing rockeries, and submittal of an automatic irrigation plan.
Criterion 4 is not satisfied. The arch /building color scheme should be modified
and architectural interest on the south building wall increased.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed project subject to
the following conditions which shall be implemented by the Planning Director.
A. Elimination of the northwest parking space, as discussed in Criterion 1, to
enhance the relationship of structure to site and adjacent public street.
B. Establish the legal rights to use of the western driveway for joint access,
as discussed in Access.
C. The frontage landscape shall be shifted approximately 8 feet to the east,
the western access increased to approximately 28 feet wide, and the eastern
access modified to reflect a 20 -foot wide driveway. This will maximize
compatibility between on -site and street circulation patterns, as discussed
in Criterion 2.
D. A landscape plan prepared by a Washington- licensed landscape architect shall
be submitted. This plan shall reflect the berming of front landscaping and
an automatic irrigation system.
E. The building color scheme should be revised to emphasize the arch, and the
south wall should be modified to provide much better architectural interest
and avoid design monotony as discussed in Criterion 4.
luud woo
.0.1.13
- 74 — , —
°mpg)
a or*
*VAN st.,04
019-8115 MOS) 51126 WINN /OM 003 Vrt 11.2V P
Ott *Mt su •AO Y.Orgralt 6011, pfel Vt. 4 r11/Pitrl.
/Ina will.niolo Al.kilywo 6 71071 1=39 1
6uNuorl orwsppo
":1411.7"aar W oi
4 7 'Ming 3'71440 C3 CACI 111.4
• • '
S
.•
..••■■•■
./.■■••■=
ec, 4 11-1
• I airltAt-
••••■■•11
•
/
•••■••■■
I i
'
• A
ihatl
'tLJC. ez
1 2 c:f OA& ors
--•vrauct-tier• ft '10 t. LA W.4
RP.... (.•
L
At° .
•••■•=.11
11'4
toto
i.
• '
st1•9
N•••■•••■.,
.1t2
1
• • •
C
Vt
' C
• v
•
t.
gingo art/ileum, and planning P •••■■S
do's
•f • be
44" •
cimun
01109 %Godwin *vs na •••••
t•olls wattington 9111S (POO) S24-01125 thINI*0
r
th•114 00
•&
I..'
rr I. •,.., . ,. .
1-'
.,_ ___ • 1'1 F
'... I
V.'
i• I I
C ®
4 ( •7 :7 47 =5 r !�C
I. C ' �L l 7 1. I i e <• ai ` 2i f f.
�. V. c o c
i
/ •1. . •
4...t - }' ."�iI�IIW STUUT(— 5 . 5161 4 '(
'�1 m 9 a O�tlatclMt and p1orYWp
r! 4 OFFICE P.;UIL- 011 w0' C.. 14C.OR ALL".. 7I::.,
Sao 5 ••—lrlcotlal: -eima 1V" '-1►, WX • 0909 tmouotul wt nt nee In
o' _ FIZ6L'1+1 t.s� J a/*�. �i.&•! monis owrhnylon 90115 (900) S99 -0125
4
z
aa.�l 300.0
dwt i 15.00
boon m
} hs hsd
chalk piing
•
/Pest
1":": I I I !..
e..",;11..i Fon evE.4.16.a •
n'1 WJTY.LEr /1I-A3 ¶J
. 7.
drawl
•
3
I
z art i irli Uri
I N %
AO BM En
: . i r ..' • ES NES
MR BEM BEI
1 : • 1' :' .• Eilig BM
MR IIIME Viti iffin
AMP ... BEM EMIR
ma. Nit mon
STEITITSZ
II. III Iff ERIE
11110 Inn 111
1 g rim:MI7 W__m 1 S IM
. . . ii: L . " . Isasso iii=
\ sof NI WM Rai
Ear r
• liali SM.
MO SKR
SI lin 1111MOn
mg a archugturs end panning
ate
01109 tioacx0ouin one no nes 110
osott0. rowhiroo0 9015 f10616/02-0105
Pr010
VV. It.
tiOtal
••.t.
1111
N.LIZIEEK:
thicket;
thith profit
]S.•.•
TM! 0. M'NcM
TUKWILA
u •cell
s oe" - E NT)
•,,,,
1
•
Z.
•
I
1
• '
j
• `."
� :��-_
•
•
'.
wKi
n
•
t�.
19 O' !S
Surrounding Land Use T
` ti•
: �
+!b
/52ND
•
I11
•
O.�
e., yte"se , �
, lt �
.. H WY. 405 = � � •'•.,,
kit
`S
• cN TFR
9 A
•
rtMA7M1M11g
i (C.
1
P UTH NTEi�
II. ;f'
1. .1
Attachment E
1
,
4
OUTHce
•
•
•
•
•
• I
I
J ul
I.
I —)
o U T H g ;E
. I I
1 i
ti C ..' rj T
•
•
24.
Oaf
'$,
N
INTERSTATE =MWY
: PARKWAY
DO I
TR. 2
• M«
.,.1K
TR .Z
1
ANDO
'C .. [
C
r
A
1
e
a
r
I
•,•
N
It
C N
Cp
I'
r
t
I
jE I S t �: � �x j gix: 1 i;r
E/
it:' ii e l 4,1 S ti i :: is "r•° =s 's : ":;
,• £••/^ ! �iYtt �Rl~ ".:'.nt: c.x ".R =t�a ". I.' :i. �+ t;
a
- c i� !!! taai`� ° ^ :i -.;: ;II= ' ! . :;- :i a ;a:..a.:
E r sa iifiSicci l € t •j r a:i 'a''•i t ir_
•: i ' ' = " !i ?i F i =a a hi :1511 is c lit
i ! :-1 1. ia;� =t` �: se
ro ti Ii c a- E a: a E�: • h a i • a i : i:- t i ii t ! I f : •c; i z _.�i.: : .. {{a . r -
s 3 F - E"'
r " ":. `jc i' c i t =l "c:= r : ie" i �i rii
•
F . ," � r i "1:.4!": •
�
tC � ! ! 1 =Si3_t: 4 i . c :11 :c i i • dill!! ± a i ;rr.M I!,
it/ SP 111.11.111
SW.— .•" •
r • a. sea
we RIR Ern
1111..
1111116N1
Hei r af
R-1-
r
r e n•
6 . 0 . 7 ; r 1 . ;;ZS . 1 09'
1 2:
L
M -I
R IA.TUUL
ri R1.200
SINGLE FM1.Y RESCENTIAL
R•1 R0
Sa 3LE FAMILY RESCENTIAL
84.08
SMOLE DIMLY reacENTIAL
R1.72
` SIfLE FAMILY RFseCNTIAL
R -2
TWO FAMLY RFVFNTIAL
❑ TISIEE AFO FOUL RIMY RESCFNIIAL
❑ LOW ARARTAENTS
MfI
MLTRE RESOENGE 11611 DENSITY
Ei R-O
Ri7FES4d1AL AAp aFICE
El CI
FFYi BCi2100O RETAL
C•2
Rw ay& FETAL
p C -R
FLAMED BOS ESS CENTER
C•M
INDUSTRIAL PARK
n LIGHT ICXISTRY
M•2
FEA/Y HAW R!
8.1.90
R•I.120
R -I-72 _®
C0717 ?cam nra 5?11 f1F!?NVIM /
±a
Ni
• ,.:..:r
7
M
J
ARRL 20, 1082
MI
...
1
•
•
p.
• f1
s S
ti
==47 =N 0- 4 8-21 E
P
J
N
A
n
v o a —__ '-
/GS. /7
�! i..•K a E. i►5
1t0• -FAS. A
E •//
•
o
r
y o T Sp '8/. Z
N i y $f o � ,
` 8
" e , 0 0 4 . ei3
13 C.
•
!
1
1 qua
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICA
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: Gencor, Inc.
Address:11801 NE 160th, Ste G, Bothell, WA 98011
Phone: (206,4) 488 -1197
* 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.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name: Same as Gencor, Inc.
OWNER
Address:
tre fle/
ate:
Phone:
1
I /WE,Csignature(s)]
swear that r /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
knowledge and belief. Date: 7 / correct to the best of my /our fir
� J'
5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 2
The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your
proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri-
terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the
criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space
on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form.
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with
the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian
movement.
B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to
moderate the visual impact of large paved areas.
C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation
to it site.
RESPONSE: The site, parking, and service areas will all be screened to
the full landscape code requirements. This will providerscreenina
from Southcenter Blvd. The height of the building will not exceed
code and will be lower than the top of the slope to the north of
the building.
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: The building will . be designed with a class A theme, enhancing
the surrounding typographic and buildings. The vehicular pedestrian
circulation patterns will be located to the south and southeast of the
building. This will allow a minimum distance that a pedestrian has
to walk through a parking area to the building. The loading area will
be in the extreme NE corner keeping congestion to a minimum. A design
with 2 access routes has been designed with the assistance of a traffic
engineer. This will optimize ingress and egress to the building as well
as Southcenter Blvd.
V(::.:::!.t.ilY +:v::tfi.:t : t:3.•1'u..': a'<'Ti nf• S.'tl�"t +:.:•'•.i't•: k!•.'N: +..�.._: r:+n'
7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
tAt
SIGN 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: All the above items have been addressed in the design. The
building will take into consideration the sloping typographer that
surrounds it. This will include ramps and pathways as well as land-
scaping that will surround the facility. All service yards will be
screened with fences or shrubs. Rockeries will be used for safety
as well as an enhancement to the landscaping.
Lighting will be designed for maximum safety as well as
accenting the landscaping and dramatic scheme of the building.
..�...,._. ,: ,. •-•*,. «.....
•
8. BUILDING DESIGN
bcSIGN 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: The building will have significant modulations in its design
in order to avoid monotony. It will have a stepped look with a dramatic
entryway and treatment over the entry. All mechanical equipment will
be hidden on the roof.' The building will be three stories in height
and will complement the height of the buildings and grade of the
slopes that surround it.
The structure will be class A in appearance with an elevator,
anodized aluminum frames for the tinted windows, a stucco treatment to
the structure, and a finished lobby as part of the entry way. Lighting
will be used to enrich the colors and create shadows that cause
alternative perceptions in the design.
Woi v we4:04 tFaY ?t Yi! ASV:[`:J: 1Lr: uiY +.•,c.�Tr�.� «::f:.+�.J�.•.T: nsA tT'.4t4b }: ef'P.t: S: Y'.�Nf.'�4 R. • . �i: G> 7:` 0.J11i! i:?' ii: r': :., I ;0,
(I •
9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
N/A
.` rt> t ^ww.�}f ^.4'N?¢CM•}.tn4'C. }t5,771.
iSIGN 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: There will be no miscellaneous structure and street furniture.
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.
N/A
11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and
enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities.
(29 /DSGN.APP1 -3)
..«...,... r,. .......«�........A,n.,.,. «.�.as .. u.. r»:.. nwuxmr...<++ rr�. rn-.. a•. rw. nuc,..... �. w-, r.•. r:,.. v... r... .............. d..,...,-... �..,,.T nerrus ,r.,rnx�v:'rr:c<'f�.?Y'vr, ,, .:�: ^
UtSIGN 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 /EXTRA.RESP)
EXTRA RESPONSE SPACE
: K( SRt awA4: n. :til'navia.Yw..cuvvv✓J.n..+...., rnrtz+.0 s...+1,...? tItt I :".C. "A*
- 7 -7 .777
site plan
site plan
.
landscape plan
mga
floor plan elevation