Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 88-14-DR - SCHNEIDER HOMES - PARKSIDE TOWNHOUSES GARAGES DESIGN REVIEW88-14-dr parkside townhomes garages City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor NOTICE OF DECISION FILE NUMBER: 88- 14 -DR: PARKSIDE TOWNHOMES (GARAGES) APPLICANT: Schneider Homes, Inc. REQUEST: Provide five garages with two parking spaces in each structure in front of townhouses. LOCATION: 6531 and 6537 South 153rd Street, Tukwila, WA The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) conducted a review of the request on October 27, 1988, and recommended approval subject to compliance with conditions. The BAR adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated October 20, 1988. 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. Jack Pace Senior Planner November 4, 1988 ci gii.4am',itz14, aa` ♦' J'.i"..."iyl iYfTLAg.Xz : satt ' Aial :i3.sr. finh[ta9L\ ,'S4S+ 3.14= ='A ✓SPfMSRC`04 :takt. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 88- 14 -DR: Schneider Homes A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for his review and approval. The plan shall include the following: 1. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to enhance the sense of enclosure in this space as shown in Attachment B. Extend landscape islands as shown in Attachment B. 3. Revise sidewalks as shown in Attachment B to improve efficiency. Provided extruded curb or wheel stops in open spaces a minimum of 2 feet from sidewalk /landscape area. 5. Relocation of handicap parking space to provide accessibility to sidewalk area. L Planning Commission October 27, 1988 Page 2 1. London Planes trees (3) in access easement. 2. Use of concrete pavers for the central plaza area. 3. City Council approval of use and development of City -owned property in exchange for a public trail and easement. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 88 -14 -DR - PARKSIDE TOWNHOMES (GARAGES) - Request for design review and approval of five garages with two parking spaces in each structure at the Parkside Townhomes development. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, reviewed the project recommending approval subject to conditions. Carl Bloss, Schneider Homes, 6510 Southcenter Blvd. (applicant) generally agreed with the conditions; however, he preferred not to use wheel stops. Eleanor Hines, 6519 S. 153rd Street, expressed her concern regarding the limited parking now available. She did not want this development to add to the parking problem that now exists. Discussion ensued on the proposal. MR HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE 88- 14 -DR, BASED ON THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS #1 THROUGH #5 MADE BY STAFF, EXCEPT MODIFICATION BE MADE TO #4 TO READ EITHER CURB OR WHEEL STOPS BE USED, AND ATTACHMENT B BE ATTACHED TO THE PERMIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS. MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to enhance the sense of enclosure in this space as shown in Attachment B. 2. Extend landscape islands as shown in Attachment B. 3. Revise sidewalks as shown in Attachment B to improve efficiency. THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. . w��_ ��. �.».. i.. ���•.... �. �vuc� .rrcu.svwnxsn- N.V.'.."F.MKi F,�S�Y .4'.�n: 1tCkAW .x?�A.."31'1.k'feiYYts'^!^ ;,: 4. Provide either curb or wheel stops in open parking spaces a minimum of 2 feet from sidewalk /landscape area. 5. Relocation of handicap parking space to provide accessibil- ity to sidewalk area. , :�,,. REQUEST: Provide five garages with two parking spaces in each structure in front of townhouses. ... .... .. . , _ .t, *r �V a.Frr 'r!7l "" i. a, • t ...,.`Ht , *,:: ,. �.:. :., t hag,... a.> r„ Sria::.,.:. tr: t: �._.. ar,,. t,,..>.,..._,..:.. x.,_ r.. r.,.- x.,..,.-.4 w:.., r....,< x.._ >......n..n..tx.- :•rsn =:.•w .�ye•.war.::.>na;1T. . �;. 7r�::," x, c.•.,,. ya .x�tx,x,a�.. ;it:.. ?..: _.. ........ .. �...... .,., .. E. ... .f... _, ,_ .. STAFF REPORT 88- 14 -DR: Schneider Townhomes to the BAR Page 2 VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION BACKGROUND DECISION CRITERIA FINDINGS 1. Project Description: Applicant is proposing the addition of five garages housing two garages each to a development of nine townhouses to replace open space parking. 2. Surrounding Land Use: Multi - family residential uses are located to the north and west, Tukwila Park lies to the south, and the hillside sloping down to Interurban Avenue is to the east. 3. Terrain: The terrain slopes at approximately 8% from the north lot to the south lot. This project was previously approved as a nine -unit townhouse development in April 1988. At that time parking consisted of all open space parking, ten to the north and eight to the south, which fulfilled minimum parking requirements. In October 1988, the applicant submitted a revised plan which proposed replacing ten of the open space parking with five garage structures housing two cars apiece. After reviewing the revised site plan, the staff determined that there were significant problems with circulation, as well as minor problems relating to landscape and aesthetic issues. The applicant and staff worked together to satisfactory resolution of many of these issues. The applicant submitted a revised plan for approval (Attachment A). Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Review Guidelines 1. TMC 18.60.050(1) - Relationship of Structure to Site The site plan shows the addition of five parking garages associated with five units on the north side of the site. Three of these units are located in the N.E. corner of the lot and two of them to the N.W. The intervening space includes 1 handicapped parking space and three regular spaces. The open spaces are interrupted by a landscaped area 19 feet wide by 25 feet long. At the south end of the landscape island, the applicant is proposing the location of tenant mailboxes. The two garage structures to the south are again located in the corners of the lot (S.E. and S.W.). The remaining four regular open parking spaces are divided by a landscape island 5 feet wide by 19 feet long. The landscape plan submitted does not indicate plant materials. The proposed placement of the garage structures will be functionally and aesthetically useful to the occupants of the townhouses. STAFF REPORT to the BAR ..: NitY; t;. LJa: t: ��S. tr:•... •: m\n 'rh`� , ...N Ulfd:•.2•+ti >Ytt::;viL`.i Vii. ^ ..Y'•i:.w.. +� ........:.'. Ye+, h:. T).'. 1Y' ..r:h'Y.- •YXsGi'[d::"J- A,.7!sfn T° 1�T- r;:. 1.•}:...,',:' iSQ'!t:" 4 ;"^•. i' �S•:•:;':"_ i !'::':'s�`.'�w?:',i'.+;K�'r'?fi ^.`',' CONCLUSIONS 88- 14 -DR: Schneider Townhomes Page 3 2. TMC 18.60.050(2) - Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area The three buildings are harmonious in texture, lines and masses with the proposed townhouses. Landscaping areas abutting the garages are effectively designed. Vehicles will exit directly from parking area to roadway, a dis- tance of 20 feet. 3. TMC 18.60.050(3) - Landscaping and Site Treatment The applicant has submitted a plan that will effectively present an aesthe- tic appearance to the applicants of these townhouses in most cases. Some areas that are proposed are deficient in plant materials as indicated by the drawings. Grass is used as a ground cover quite extensively. Some of the sidewalks are awkward in appearance with sharp angles that result in awkward landscaping areas and visually and functionally unusable space. 4. TMC 18.60.050(4) - Building Design The building design is attractive and consistent in color, materials and design with the proposed townhouse structures. 5. TMC 18.60.050(5) - Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture The applicant has proposed the addition of a mailbox unit for tenant use. There are no drawings of what it will look like. 1. The height, scale site design and colors of the proposed garage structures are consistent with the proposed townhouses. 2. The applicant has not submitted a revised landscape plan. 3. The revised plan results in a safer, more efficient use of this site for vehicular traffic. 4. The space could be more visually attractive by making some minor revisions to the site plan as shown in Attachment B. 5. The mailbox unit is an excellent idea. The design should be consistent with the development. xi ii:g4 . : 4r.alry % *l_u- olu -ogg ite..v itrxJ rYK3.:revtua icuraw e+a:rr. xivamsessc....casezwavo4aosamervam tzu tdeeta*x+MnroaxTtxteaCAS.^atmo t Y?4arut2lwC'9"lRtDi^ STAFF REPORT to the BAR (22/88- 14 -DR) 2. Extend landscape islands as shown in Attachment B. 3. Revise sidewalks as shown in Attachment B to improve efficiency. wmg NU, 88- 14 -DR: Schneider Townhomes Page 4 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning staff recommends approval of the project, subject to submittal of a revised landscape plan, to include the following: 1. Additional trees and shrubs shall be planted to enhance the sense of enclos- ure in this space as shown in Attachment B. 4. Provide wheel stops in open parking spaces a minimum of 2 feet from side- walk /landscape area. 5. Relocation of handicap parking space to provide accessibility to sidewalk area. 7 e / " = /P • / 9 -840 Wee' Z4 !� 1 4 .• P. Co; v4 OF •■ •� . • 1j • • 0 ■pi i1 d Pi 9'19' MX T ATTACHMENT B . • • 4 r ,,. • • NU NM BBB OBI sue sus fliefT SIDE NEAR iiiff so* LAO illr5 NIT 1143 rwitrase • - f 1 NIT 12.151 _ . m.s. ATTACHMENT C ilaWILDINGTY 3 EXTR•WIONS BUILDING ELEVATION (NORTHSIDE) REAR LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE M' Mei 1 FRONT • I -MR .141e r ID* .Hor rico BUILDING TYPE.ViXTR. ELEVATK)NS, BUILDING ELEVATIONS (SOUTHSIDE) ■••17••• A5 1 ` . •o n id-r: r iL 1 s• 1 FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN FRONT ELEV. • g ' M SIDE ELEV. GARAGE TYPE 2 GARAGE F2 GARAGE BLDG SECTION (TYP.) SIDE ELEV. GARAGE TYPE 1 GARAGE A GARAGE F1 GARAGE G1 GARAGE G2 OtilMei.6 Lvs ` W TH See Map 40 COPYRIGHT,© 1984 BY ..� ,.... +.. Provide Garages at: I /WE,Csignature(s)] swear that we .re e owner s or con ract purchaser s o th? 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: 10/10/88 L.. ....ei'J::� ^- ::4:'.l,.i, i_1::1':il:'.T;1:1 ^.I:N4 wRi[. t•s a[u.,n .��,n" c•✓. hwWC: vM1F�i .wX:,.vCnvN4Y +N�'nnt- •:i'�ft .[,far•<rovc.�. a.rl:+r[• 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE . ivrol�a:: M1:: a: �ArF •xi's:Y,sr,�'[.4a��1, ....., . ?:f'!'•t:' ?,Sf� 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: Garages are proposed over existing approved parking stalls. One garage per unit. Garages are scaled to units. Breaks up expanse of asphalt pavement. 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: Garages are compatable with units, parking & circulation. Will be the only garages in neighborhood. .1 �• ?.r. �..n,�. 4:::7.',S.t: i i it:. r, � .>.vty. 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT r^:.'S Yawl �.arr.'sw^r h:v 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: Garages are compatable with Parkside Townhouse: (under construction). grades. circulation. appearance & landscaping. Exterior wall- mounted outdoor lights will be provided to promote safety. • 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- 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: Garage design is consistant with the townhouse units they are intended to serve. LWP&L 67-V.U1.,,..I:Y1'AVA:7J#7 :::.1 »!- t:.'1.ttak `.C:K::C: x.'.'ti ^A'vShFt;:'.`.is Ce:: t:`: T1°' Tf:: t+ .Yi��.:t:ViS'::Y.•.;T;;:,v,`f�o 7t'.',n ti� T,' ?.8 ; "Yi�t :• \• ;nA +•.t; 3 >4' '.': DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 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: NOT APPLICABLE 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. NOT APPT,TCARLE 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. NOT APPLICABLE c.1 W:,` /1?,SM. 4,r.: t•'w;t:,5os;4 ^.r,? Y. ».t!1 tlt,••r alro'zt�cY„It3"4tl:!,L'ie DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 ,,. .:.:... ..: .. . . . ., :,,:: , , , <t� .,.. ....,. .... _ . ;.Fe7�•:n.• .• y•n'a'•;fC'n"TJin.:; ".. . ,.� . ,::... E:e. '•fir '.n,: ,rci:u ^ *re tis zr.; ws;,^:........_.... xt.:. e;; �.:.. ac.:r:!! a:=,,..,.-.. C3?L3�' .13:..a...3,..,.G:'".." @2;L ....... :; ,. . ....... ... ....:�x,. t. .,,, Y. ....:.:...... c,. L.,....... rv.: aa..,...,... Sa. .... �... S... w�rL..? t.,. S4; 5. v. c�•, t., r, .,,+..a'G;'i.i:.;v < 5�:.41.9: 7 (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3) Not applirabla 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. Pedestrian circulation does not change 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Garages are compatible with neighborhood use. 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. No adverse impact DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area.