HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 82-16-SPE - CENTER PLACE - COOPERATIVE PARKING SPECIAL PERMISSION82-16-SPE
17101 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
CENTER PLACE COOPERATIVE PARKING SPECIAL PERMISSION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(10 /T2.MEMO)
r
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
/v(!//7J 'f �, , 5,p4252
MO /M9
)'/ 16 of l 'r j leer
%'DPafr ,Ct7 /G --
110 4" 75'/(
zi,/ .4 4( " fPiii"XL/V1
den/D/770 ° V%
k
J
r 1
ei//-(2 1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(10 /T2.MEMO)
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(2O6) 433 -1800
Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
`-t'YooiJ %fit rhi )
cx5/..1
oy)v sec t Li4440,i`C L > P2'o
000,0t, CPYYt 101_0_4- a� /� Yid Mda.14 l...� t
L- 1/11,yam (R) /)_1 IL A
OW. ( A l.i . (kte 4Daf ,
0.e-P_oY(1 /✓1 , c ( .�/l�!/� Lam . y ��G[�la� aeJct4,/ C�0
1,040,,4,b Ll�//1.._ , l.�t� A iJt J i) c L�.O� `11Xi7 LJ Jae
00 13
('a m toal �-0Q (.r.�.l.l �i zA LAzo vt tt o a
Qiq upatZ14 9 cji'i
February 10, 1984
DAVID T. POE
Donut Center
17165 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE:. Addition of fast -food lunch service
Dear Mr. Poe:
Pursuant to your letter received February 7, 1984 the record was reviewed
regarding the Property Use and Development Agreement of November 5, 1982
and August 10, 1982 parking study. Your proposed lunchtime take -out _fast
food use falls within the agreement and study. Therefore, we endorse this
use as you specified in your letter.
Respectfly
c k reeler
Associate Planner
RS /blk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Brad Collins
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mr. Collins:
We wish to inform you of our intention to add a fast food take -out
lunch. According to our agreement with the City of Tukwila, we need -
your permission to make any changes in our operation.
We would be adding only four or five items for lunch- -which would
run from approximately 10 :30 a.m. until 2:30 p. m.
After operating the Donut Center for over a year, I have become
quite familiar with the traffic pattern. During the period from
10:30 a. m. until 2:301 p. m. there are many available parking spaces.
At our peak business hours, between 6:30 a. m. and 10:30 a.m., we
have not exceeded our 14 parking spaces. Due to the fact most cus-
tomers are parked only from four to seven minutes, I do not believe
the fast take -out lunch will cause any impact on parking whatever.
We are under our original estimate of 14 spaces from 10 :30 a.m.
daytime and 8 spaces night time. Our actual space useage is five
spaces daytime and two spaces nightime.
We will have to relocate the existing cooking equipment and will
have to add two ori.three new pieces. To accomplish this we may
have to remove one section of wall between the cooking area and
the storage area. If any changes are made in the seating area,
there will be a reduction in capacity only.
Please let us know your decision at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
David T. Poe
Donut Center
17165 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, Wash. 98188
525- 5575
W ,
.. - - -..
iFEB 7 1984
• CITY
PLANNING DEPT
•
A
•19 Oa
A City of Tukwila
Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
11 October 1982
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Peter Van Dyke, Vice President
Hayden Island, Inc.
909 N. Tomahawk Island Drive
Portland, Oregon 97217
RE: Cooperative Parking Facility at Center Place
At the regular Planning Commission meeting August 26, 1982, the Planning
Commission approved this cooperative parking facility at Center Place,
subject to the following conditions:
1) Total on -site arrangement of parking spaces shall be as described
on Exhibit A - 1st Revision of this application.
2) In the event of change in the complementary tenant mix that adversely
affects the parking, the staff (Planning Department) may send the
application to the Planning Commission for review of the cooperative
parking facility agreement, and the Commission may require cancellation
thereof or modification of its terms.upon finding of adverse impact to
public safety or health.
3) It is understood that the cooperative parking facility is approved
under this application upon finding by the Planning Commission that such
action is taken in the public interest. The Commission reserves the
right to review this cooperative parking facility agreement annually
and may require cancellation thereof or modification of its terms upon
finding of adverse impacts to public safety or health.
The cooperative parking facility is based on the proposed tenant mix,
listed on table one (see, attached), per TMC 18.56 adopted April 20, 1982
by the City Council.
As you are aware on September 2, 1982 Mayor Gary Van Dusen appealed the
decision of the Planning Commission made on August 26, 1982 regarding the
Center Place cooperative parking to the City Council. At the
September 7, 1982 City Council regular meeting, the Council reviewed the
appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission's decision to approve a
cooperative parking facility at Center Place, subject to the three conditions
listed above. Following the decision on the appeal, Chuck E. Cheese Pizza
Page -2-
' Mr. Peter Van Dyke, ,e President
Hayden Island, Inc.
11 October 1982
Sincerely,
Attachments
Caroline V. Berry
Assistant Planner
CVB/blk
xc: Ping. Dir.
City Attorney
Time Theatre and other proposed tenants could be approved for building
permits.
Attached you will find a Property Use and Development Agreement prepared
by the Tukwila City Attorney. The City Attorney has suggested including
the signature of an authorized: representative of the company having a
leasehold interest where Center Place is located and the signatures) of
the owner(s) of this particular property. Please review this agreement
and return with any comments as soon as possible. When signed and
notarized, the City may file the agreement in the records of King County.
If you have questions regarding this matter, please call the Planning
Department at 433 -1849.
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this date in favor of THE CITY OF
TUKWILA, a municipal corporation (herein called "City "), by the
undersigned owners of the within- described property (herein
called "Owners "):
W I T N E S S T H
WHEREAS, Owners are persons owning a fee simple or a
leasehold interest and /or having a substantial beneficial
interest in certain real property (herein called the
"Property ") which is more particularly described in Exhibit 1
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.56 of the Zoning Code of
the City of Tukwila, Hayden Island, Inc., a Oregon corporation
(herein called "Hayden Island ") has petitioned the Tukwila
Planning Commission for approval of .a cooperative parking
facility located at the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission, with affirmation
of the Tukwila City Council, is willing to grant the petition
for a cooperative parking facility subject to the execution and
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Page 1
9097A/431/LEH
recording of an agreement with the City pertaining to certain
uses and developments of the Property in the interest'of public
safety and health;
NOW THEREFORE, Owners hereby covenant, bargain and agree on
behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, that
the Property will be developed and used subject to the
following terms and conditions:
1. The proposed tenants are as described by name or type
of business in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. Total arrangement of parking spaces on the Property
shall be as described in Exhibit A of the first revision of the
application (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 and
incorporated herein by reference).
3. If any change is made to the above described tenants
or tenant mix and such change adversely affects the parking,
the Tukwila Planning Department staff may request the Tukwila
Planning Commission to review the cooperative parking facility,
and the Tukwila Planning Commission may require cancellation
thereof or modification of its terms upon finding of adverse
impact to public safety or health.
4. It being understood that the cooperative parking
facility is approved upon the finding by the Tukwila Planning
Commission that such action is taken at the time of approval in
the public interest, the Tukwila Planning Commission may review
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Page 2
9097A/431/LEH
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Page 3
9097A/431/LEH
the cooperative parking facility annually and may require
cancellation thereof or modification of its terms upon finding
of adverse impact to public safety or health.
5. This Agreement shall be recorded in the records of
King County and the covenants thereof shall be deemed to attach
to and run with the Property and shall be binding upon the
Owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall apply to
after - acquired title of the Owners of the Property.
6. This Agreement may be amended or modified by agreement
between Hayden Island and the City; provided such amended
agreement shall be approved by the Tukwila Planning Commission
after written notice is made to property owners within 300 feet
of the Property.
7. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Tukwila
City Council from making such further amendments to the Zoning
Code as it may deem necessary in the public interest. Nothing
in this Agreement shall prevent the application to the Property
of future amendments to the Zoning
8. This Agreement is made for the benefit of the City and
for the benefit of owners of property within 300 feet of the
Property, and either the City or any such property owner may
institute and prosecute' any proceedings at law or in equity to
enforce this Agreement. The City shall be entitled to recover
from the Owners reasonable attorney fees and costs for any
action commenced pursuant to this Agreement.
9. In the event any covenant, condition or restriction
hereinabove contained, or any portion thereof, is invalid or
void, such invalidity or voidness shall in no way affect any
other covenant, condition or restriction hereinabove contained.
DATED:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
C O U N T Y O F K I N G
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Page 4
9097A/431/LEH
, 1982.
HAYDEN ISLAND, INC.
By
Its
By
Shimatsu
By
Mikami
On this date, before me, the undersigned, personally
appeared , to me known to
be the of HAYDEN ISLAND, INC.,
the corporation that executed the within and foregoing PROPERTY
USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and acknowledged said instrument
to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day
of , 1982.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
C O U N T Y O F K I N G
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF K I N G
) ss.
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - Page 5
9097A/431/LEH
On this date, personally appeared before me
SHIMATSU, to me known to be the individual described in and who
executed the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and
acknowledged that he /she signed and sealed the same as his /her
free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day
of , 1982.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
On this date, personally appeared before me
MIKAMI, to me known to be the individual described in and who
executed the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and
acknowledged that he /she signed and sealed the same as his /her
free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day
of , 1982.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
{d^
a.
;14 ••••••4
Mw.•4
.070 I, :4.N.
' �i I ; (.+.. I I i 1 I
► t. 1
-.
—4
!j _.
J.. .
" - . - - -j
H
EXHIBIT "B"
ling -- A
site parking plan
•
—
•—` r..
MI4.A.A ~W '+
r
410.0.614 ~oar
. :T q- .'M't Itrnw 1
A l .0 . P/NV U. M
why L'•IPO
•
•
ft
-- - ►.+....
4J u.
EXHIBIT 11 -1
MF • •
PLANNING DEPT
•
TABLE ONE
Parking Parking
Size Requited Required
Tenant' Name (Sq. Ft.) Old Code New Code
Medical Clinic 3,430 9 9
Organs & Pianos 2,695 7 7
Retail - Unleased 1 • 3 3.
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4 4
Hallmark. Shop & 5,600 14 14
Office Supply .
Taco Time 2,710 35 55
Haagen Dazs 1,300 19 26
One Hour Photo 1,750 5 •5
Computershop 2,800 7 7
Sears Business 3,150 8 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3 3
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4 4.'
Donut. Shop 1,400 20 28
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 138 173
Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 16 4 1 114
TOTAL NEED 44,490 302 287
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224 224
-78 -63
1 Restaurant parking, old code = N.F.A. I. 7 5 (Place of
public assembly 'assumed to be 50% unless known)..,
2 Restaurant parking, new code = G.F.A.. 100 or 50
3 Chuck E. Cheese - Restaurant area 10,168 /Game Room
4,722
4 Retail tenants only = 112 parking spaces
fa—
• to
•
EXHIBIT
nB11
•
Z
•50
1). •
• 3.
.
• 70
3'S •
t p
13
e Zt�3 .
GM4A—
a•v..
10106(.41. • wa�6wwJ- at •11411* tA'O.� /AWE • •
•
site parking plan
•
r .- r
� •. 4 i �wd/
,_ ,, Mr. N
1' If a 11 -+,
•
I.
...0 111:......, . 4 1 t4 iiii P W
••l tlw•i. L t(
/.... NYJ
tiLLX l blh/s.4
4- 4M6160 +,/ ' C
IT I.�. . OW P.NN/+0 w {f.{r/fYM
PLANNING DEPT
s �.
EXI-fIB1T
MF
• (
7‘ i I.1
•• � .. J ,.: won.
OLT. \ t: ....... . 0 if *Iv vi
1
•
EXHIBIT "B"
•
•
Z •
go
10
1 5-
3
•70
is
10
13
• 2L
0.4..42 wTA
•• 1 K�UY
yV1. KM. M+t � � •.1LM
‘10.0 •40 ,q,i•• •
r•
site parking plan
•
- R ++r www.
416+4• :;••••••••••••
• / A..•s4Y.•
or •••
• M •.•M if•• •w. M
r aripaz t tErrAid.t te
• wY iyHM/rp MK.iFN1r•+•
•
•
PLANNING DEPT
sr •
EX1 - l
MF •
•
n
v
TABLE ONE
Parking Parking
Size Required Required
Tenant' Name' (Sa . Ft.) Old Code New Code
Medical Clinic 3,430 9 9
Organs & Pianos 2,695 7 7
Retail - Unleased 11 3 3 .
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4 4
Hallmark•Shop.& . 5,600 14 14
Office Supply-
Taco Time 2,710 35 . 55
•
Haagen Dazs 1,300 19 26
One Hour Photo 1,750 5 . 5
Computershop 2,800 7 7
Sears Business 3,150 8 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3 3
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4 4_'
Donut. Shop 1,400 20 28
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 138 173
Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 164 114
TOTAL NEED 44,490 4 302 287
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224 224
-78 -63
1 Restaurant parking, old code = N.F.A. s- 7 i 5 (Place of
public assembly 'assume& to be 50% unless known)..,
?Restaurant parking, new code = G.F.A. 100 or 50
3 Chuck E. Cheese - Restaurant area 10,168 /Game Room
•4,722'
4 RetaiL tenants only = 112 parking spaces
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGU^R MEETING
September 7, 1982
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Continued
Proposed Compre-
hensive Water
Plan (Page 11 -4)
(cont.)
NEW BUSINESS
Ordinance #1272 -
Repealing Ord.
#573 relating to
applicants under
Civil Service
Denial of re-
quest for City
to take over
the Riverview
Plaza utilities
Appeal of Plan-
ning Commission
decision con-
cerning Center
Place parking
Councilman Phelps asked where the City stands with regard to
water rights and how are they acquired if we don't have them.
Mr. Penhallegren said the City has no water right at the present
time. There seems to be some water potential in the valley.
D.O.E. sees no problem as long as a water well is below the river
so that water is not being drawn directly from the river. To
acquire the rights an application must be made to the Department
of Ecology.
Mr. Sneva clarified that Item 8 is only if a reservoir is planned
within the boundaries of Water District #75.
Councilman Phelps asked to be excused from the discussion on this
item since her husband is a member of the Civil Service Commission.
MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY BAUCH THAT THE PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE
ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED.
Deputy City Attorney Woo read an ordinance of the City of
Tukwila, Wash., repealing Ordinance No. 573 relating to
civil service applicants.
MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1272 BE
ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH VOTING NO AND PHELPS
ABSTAINING.
MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST
OF TECTON CORPORATION (RIVERVIEW PLAZA) TO ACCEPT THE PRIVATE
UTILITIES. MOTION CARRIED WITH HARRIS VOTING NO.
Mayor Van Dusen explained that this is a complicated issue and is
important to the Council and the City. This is a quasi- judicial
hearing.
On behalf of the administration of the City of Tukwila, Mayor
Van Dusen filed an appeal on the decision of the Planning Com-
mission. They approved a cooperative parking agreement requiring
the owner of the Center Place Facility (17001 -17195 Southcenter
Parkway) to provide 224 parking stalls. The Tukwila Municipal
Code requires 287 stalls.
As the person filing the appeal, Mayor Van Dusen stepped down as
Chairman and turned the meeting over to Council President Bohrer.
Attorney Hard noted that the authority for this action is TMC
18.90.020. Mr. CoTlins said that TMC 18.56.070, Cooperative
Parking Facility, is the section under question. It, in part,
says that a cooperative parking facility agreement can be per-
mitted for business uses that have different hours of operation.
It also says the Planning Commission may modify a cooperative
parking agreement as it deems necessary. The question tonight
is- whether, under that section, the minimum parking standards
'can be changed for the City of Tukwila.
Attorney Hard explained that this appeal is something Council has
never had to consider before. It is specifically authorized under
the new zoning code. This is a matter Council can consider along
with new material and statements presented tonight. Since this
is a quasi - judicial proceeding, each Councilman must be sure he
or she is eligible to listen to it and to be sure there is no
conflict of interest or appearance of fairness problem. The
Mayor is the one that has filed the appeal. The code says that
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REG MEETING
September 7, 1982
Page 6
NEW BUSINESS - Cont.
Appeal of Plan-
ning Commission
decision con-
cerning Center
Place parking
(cont.)
9:50 P.M.
any person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission
may file a written appeal. There is some question as to whether
the Mayor could file as an aggrieved party. Assuming that he is,
Council should continue to hear the appeal. Attorney Hard asked
that any Council Member with a financial interest or some pre-
conceived notion on this appeal to remove themselves from the
participation. This is a matter of great importance to the ap-
plicant.
Council President Bohrer asked if the intent is for Council to
deal with this tonight. We have just received the information,
and it is not a simple issue. Mr. Collins said that is the
intent. It's crucial point is the parking standard for multi -
tenant commercial operations in the City of Tukwila and how this
may be affected by the Planning Commission's decision. Council
has to determine whether or not the standard is still intact
or whether or not the policy has been changed and, if so, whether
they concur with the policy.
Attorney Hard urged Council to hear the testimony of the people
in attendance.
5 minute break Council delcared a five minute break to allow staff time to
furnish them a copy of TMC 18.56.070.
Council President Bohrer said the first issue Council should ad-
dress is the one raised by the City Attorney - -is the appeal pro-
perly placed before the Council and should they now consider it?
MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY BAUCH, THAT COUNCIL HEAR THE APPEAL.*
Charles R. Blumenfeld, law firm of Bogle & Gates, is the attorney
for Hayden Island. They have researched the question of "who is
the person aggrieved" and have reached the conclusion that, unless
there is a City ordinance stating otherwise, a City Official is not
a person aggrieved. Historically, a person aggrieved was one wit►•
an economic interest in the matter. Second, there is a policy is-
sue here. Was there a reason for making the Planning Commission
the final arbiter in the code? If there was, then it should stay
with the Planning Commission. If you want the parking agreements
to come before Council, then the ordinance should provide for
that. We entered this cooperative parking agreement process with
the clear understanding that the Planning Commission was the
final arbiter unless somebody (a citizen of the City impacted by
the parking agreement) filed an appeal.
Council President Bohrer recalled that, in this ordi-
nance at Council level, this issue came up. At the time, it
was agreed that the aggrieved person could be a staff member.
Attorney Hard said this is a question that people have disagreed
on, but he feels it is properly before Council.
Peter Van Dyke said he is an officer of Hayden Island Corporation
who is the .developer of the Center Place Shopping Center. He
also, has a problem on who is aggrieved and he asked the Mayor
to on the grievance.
Mayor Van Dusen explained that after discussion with the Plan-
ning Director on this issue, he was the only one that could ap-
propriately do this. He appealed the Planning Commission deci-
sion because of the possibility that they were setting policy
that should lie with the City Council. In the future, if we allow
this "excess relief" in the parking requirements, what is going
to happen to the standards.
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REG4'' '�R MEETING
.September 7, 1982 l
Page 7
NEW BUSINESS - Cont.
Appeal . of Plan-
ning Commission
decision con-
cerning Center
Place parking
(cont.)
Robert H. Scofield, representing the Mikami and Shimatsu fami-
lies, asked if anybody is really aggrieved. Nobody has really
admitted they are over the action concerning their development.
They would be aggrieved in the future. Now, the City has to
decide how they will handle these in the future. The Planning
Commission hearing on this was thorough and lasted several hours.
There was much testimony and there was a 4 to 0 vote.
Richard Kirsop, Chairman of the Planning Commission, clarified
that the Planning Commission reviewed all the facts of this
specific case in trying to arrive at a decision. They were not
seeking to create new policy directions for the City nor set a
precedent that others may want to see as an escape from the
proper parking requirements. They felt that, in a development
such as this, parking requirements seem to be somewhat self -
policing. If the parking lot is full, the customers aren't going
to stop and management is going to have to find some other solu-
tion to the parking problem.
Deputy City Attorney Woo said that, regarding the question of
aggrieved party, there is a rule of statutory construction that
if a term is not clear, you can go back to the legislative intent.
Mayor Van Dusen said he is acting in the best interest of the
City in filing this appeal.
Councilman Hill said Council's interest is making safe parking
areas for all customers using those businesses.
Councilman Phelps said if the Mayor's concern is who should be
the proper policy setting body of the City as far as parking
requirements and special provisions, then the zoning ordinance
should be amended to provide for. Council review of the Planning
Commission's recommendation rather than to appeal their decision
on this project.
Councilman Morgan said she feels uncomfortable in considering
this matter without the Planning Commission documentation. The
Mayor's letter said the decision is arbitrary and capricious
and clearly erroneous." The actual grounds of the appeal are
not here.
Mayor Van Dusen said he is appealing the reduction of parking
stalls for this development. Policy should lie with the Council.
Councilman Harris said that Council gave the Planning Commission
the right to decide the total requirements under the cooperative
Parking agreement. She said she didn't believe there was a
grievance here.
ROLL CALL VOTE: •
HILL - YES
HARRIS - NO
BOHRER - YES
PHELPS - NO
DUFFIE - YES
BAUCH - YES
MORGAN - NO
*MOTION CARRIED - 4 - YES; 3 - NO.
Council will hear the appeal. Council President Bohrer noted
the staff report and applicant information refer to NEW Code and
OLD Code. He asked if there was any necessity for Council to
consider the Old Code. Mr. Collins said it would not be help-
ful, but does add a bit of confusion.
UKWILA CITY COUNCIL, RE ' AR MEETING
eptember 7, 1982
age 8
EW BUSINESS - Cont.
ppeal of Plan-
ing Commission
ecision con -
erning Center
lace parking
cont.)
Mr. Van Dyke explained that they started in January on the re-
view process and got their building permit under the old code.
The parking clearly says 1 for 400 square feet. They came in with
174 parking spaces, and it was approved unconditionally with one
exception. It said "no building permits would be issued until
final approval of the landscaping." This was done and they
proceeded with the project. At no time did anyone ever mention
that some uses call for a different amount of parking than other
uses. Then Council decided 1 for 400 is not enough for restaurants
so they were considered under "Places of Public Assembly." But,
still no one said anything to them. Until 6 weeks ago, when
Chuck E. Cheese came in for their building permit, did we find
out about the parking. They were turned down because of inadequate
parking. He said he believes that, legally, he is under the old
code. After Chuck E. Cheese was shut down, we had a meeting with
Tukwila and discussed alternatives.
Under the old code, we needed 114; we got approval with 174 and
now we are up to 225, and it is packed. Everyone knew we were
discussing a lease with Chuck E. Cheese who will be a heavy night
time use of the parking area. They have carefully picked the
other tenants to have compatible parking usage. The first one to
ever really listen to them was the Planning Commission. We are
being hurt; we need to get the center open and operating. We
went through all the requirements.
Mr. Collins said that the objective analysis indicates that they
do not have enough parking; subjectively, when you look at the
mix, perhaps, the Shopping Center will work. Our main concern is
if we don't have an objective standard we can apply we are
going to create a great parking problem. We need the objective
standard in review of other projects.
Councilman Hill noted Item #5 of the Planning Commission's
recommendations. "It is understood that the cooperative parking
facility is approved under this application upon finding by the
Planning Commission that such action is taken in the public
interest. The Commission reserves the right to review this
cooperative parking facility agreement annually and may require
cancellation thereof or modification of its terms upon finding
of adverse impacts to public safety or health."
Mr. Van Dyke said they agreed to this. The Planning Commission
also left in No. 1. "Total on -site arrangement of parking spaces
shall be as described on Exhibit A - 1st Revision of this appli-
cation."
Mr. David Poe, Donut Shop, said that another business like his
does all their business with 12 parking stalls. Mr. Van Dyke
said, if he has to, he can back out of the agreements with two
tenants. Staff recommended to Planning Commission that they go
with Taco Time and Chuck E. Cheese, but the rest has to be re-
tail at 1 to 400. This is unfair and unreasonable; we have a
project that will work.
Mr. Kirsop said the Planning Commission felt it was unfair to put
the'Donut Shop and Icecream Parlor in the drive -in restaurant
category. Basically, the developers had demonstrated through
their own study that they have a good tenant mix. There was a
substantial moral obligation on the part of the Planning Com-
mission to approve this in view of the several previous hearings.
The increase of parking spaces is from 174 to 224.
Councilman Phelps asked Mr. Collins if he was aware of any time
that the developer was cautioned about requirements for parking
stalls. Mr. Collins could not recall any time. The minute
staff knew there was a problem, it was brought to their attention.
Councilman Phelps said the applicant has met all of the City
1v
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REG 'AR MEETING
• September 7, 1982
Page 9
NEW BUSINESS - Cont.
Appeal of Plan-
ning Commission
decision con-
cerning Center
Place parking
(cont.)
y a
0\0'
ADJOURNMENT
11:25 P.M.
requirements in putting this development together. Chapter
18.56.070 is very significant here. Council gave the authority
to the Planning Commission to make the decision on the cooperative
parking facility.
Mr. Collins said he believes the Planning Commission and the
applicant have followed the proper steps. The only thing that
is a question is, did it change the City's policy on parking?
Council President Bohrer said that there is an issue of policy
here. There is also a real issue of public safety and health
and whether we are providing adequately. The City did not
have enough information to realize there was a problem until
the very end.
MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL ABIDE BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION.*
Councilman Hill said Council gave the Planning Commission the
right to alter the parking.
Councilman Bauch asked what would happen if Council changed the
requirement; in the annual review would they have to come under
the new requirement.
Attorney Hard said this should be clarified in the written coopera-
tive parking agreement.
Councilman Bauch said the basis for this whole cooperative parking
agreement is based on the assumption that Chuck E. Cheese will
be an evening operation. Can Council regulate the opening hours?
Attorney Hard said he believed that an agreement could be reached
on that.
Mr. Collins said the Planning Commission approved the application
creating a cooperative parking facility at Center Place subject
to the following conditions:
1. Total on -site arrangement of parking spaces shall be as
described on Exhibit A - 1st Revision of this application.
2. It is understood that the cooperative parking facility is
approved under this application upon finding by the Plan-
ning Commission that such action is taken in the public
interest. The Commission reserves the right to review this
• cooperative parking facility agreement annually and may
require cancellation thereof or modification of its terms
'upon finding of adverse impacts to public safety or health.
3. In the event of a change in the complimentary tenant mix
that adversely affects the parking, staff may send the ap-
plication to the Planning Commission for review of the coopera-
tive parking facility agreement and the Commission may re-
quire cancellation thereof or modification of its terms upon
finding of adverse impact on public safety or health.
Council Presddent Bohrer noted that he cannot support the Plan-
ning Commission decision.
*MOTION CARRIED WITH BOHRER AND BAUCH VOTING NO.
MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY PHELPS, THAT THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor
1
0
Q
olLA
1909
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
4; City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department Staff
23 August 1982
Supplemental Materials- Center Place
In addition to the items pertinent to the proposed cooperative parking
facility for the Center Place retail project which was included with
your staff report, we wish to draw to your attention the availablity
of supporting data supplied by the proponents. Accordingly, we are
transmitting to you copies of the following material which should be .
considered on Thursday night along with the staff report:
1) Exhibit A -lst Revision - (Revised Parking Lot Layout)
2) Traffic and Parking Analysis - Cottingham Transportation Engrs.
3) Letter of 10 August 1982 from Hayden Island Inc. in support
of cooperative parking and reduced ratios.
r ,.,, \ Le
EXHIBIT "B"
7
fi - Y- --
e
_J
1
-j
Il I
j rl
1 _ ��: =_
- 1
(! . r UL --
j 1 I ,•— ,o. . I
1
Y .., «..• . • ,
. I�
I • E . I
a 0.9i tlr..••It4� ILb
•
\ , jSO tq rofl 1 i
\I I
NNW •fF
nr
. 1.1 $ te i. .
1
(• 4,S.
site parking plan
e_,re •.., n..w• I
— r building - A
•
•1 7
• v rwY w•H•.
`, 0e0.• aA/.
411W/V 'GNU.
P140 GMT/1
.u.u 341
SOLL(uGl. 4 .MI)•••4• W it* 7AUa•
woo .+c
1 I
i
t O:�Ktr y /�f�ft /aJt�
11 II
II
1
r _t �•+L 1 ?�• 1 � 1 3 1 tl• er e.f..ni
•
ce ..„ �
31 pae raj.. ft/ y\
- building - __B -- _� �_
I
T rT fl TrrrT V R --
10 ,M M v6".r
14 -•••••••• ,1 ) WW1 -, 4'
•
- ..± ..
� "1 am, 1I
��.K •� • we
.. !� i
r,'
•
�.r
_v •
L I ! I
.
re-
4I
9
PLANNING DEPT
EXHIBIT 4 -1 s1-
MF
tjFnaJ,�y 141!7 ...�j
COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
aFi ta+ ' 'F .
' {. „ .�r•'ti' � � i SUITE 701, PLAZA 600 BLDG. • 6TH AT STEWART
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 88101
^ �': (206) 447.11877
r fy
Mr. Brad Collins
Director of Planning
City Hall
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Traffic Analysis Center Place
17001 Southcenter Parkway
Dear Mr. Collins:
August 11, 1982
[AUG 12 1982
G OF TUKWILA
%. DEPT
The attached traffic analysis focuses on three basic areas of operations,
namely (1) internal circulation including parking, (2) external circulation
as related to Southcenter Parkway, and (3) generation of traffic based on
the tenant use of all buildings in Center Place.
The project analysis from a traffic adequacy view is clearly demonstrated
due in part to the diversity in use by tenant business located in the Center.
Traffic conflicts should be greatly diminished when viewed in relation to
the peak -hour of traffic on Southcenter Parkway and compared to the peak
hour of Center Place.
The driveway configurations also are ideal in providing internal circulation
through two locations and spread along the Parkway over 300' apart. With
the existing center two -way left -turn lane on the Parkway, no changes need
be made in traffic lanes, channelization or signalization to accommodate
existing or Center Place traffic.
The trip generation in this analysis encompasses two separate approaches;
one based on anticipated business attraction.and the other based on maximum
building occupancy for the major tenant.Chuck -E- Cheese and anticipated
business attraction for the remaining tenants. Both approaches show adequacy
for the parking lot to accommodate the demand parking without parking on
the arterial Southcenter Parkway.
The street /driveway volumes in a peak -hour will approach the parking
lot size due to turnover rates that include 11 hour to 10 min. parking
durations. The highest peak volume of 300 entering and 250 leaving will be
accommodated in the existing peak -hour flow on the Parkway without conflicts
or revisions to geometrics. This volume approximates 5 per minute leaving
via two driveways, some left - turning and others right - turning. This should
be within the parameters of service level "8" to "C" and not require turn
prohibitions in foreseeable future.
Mr. Brad Collins
August 11, 1982
Page 2
Kenneth E. Cottingham, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
KEC:ce
Enclosed: Traffic Analysis of Center Place
CO.
Should further analysis be required, I will respond at your'request.
Very truly yours,
COTTINGH4 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
OF
CENTER PLACE - TUKWILA
INCLUDING
CHUCK -E- CHEESE PIZZA TIME THEATRE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Center Place Shopping Center is located in the city of Tukwila on Southcenter
Parkway, west side, and immediately north of the present Wendy's hamburgers.
Directly across the street is the Red Robin restaurant as well as a diesel
engine and truck repair facility known as Emerson.
The site for Center Place envisions Building A and Building B. The square
footage of the various businesses to be located in the two buildings which are
connected with a common parking lot is as follows:
Tenant Gross Sq. Ft.
Chuck -E- Cheese 14,890
Medical Clinic 3,430
Organs and Pianos 2,695
Retail - Unleased 1,015
Bedspreads 1,300
Hallmark Cards 5,600
Taco Time 2,710
Haagen -Dazs Ice Cream Shoppe 1,300
One -Hour Photo 1,750
Computer Shop 2,800
Sears Business Machines • 3,150
Materntiy 1,190
Dry Cleaning 1,260
Donuts 1,400
TOTAL 44,890 SF
As can be seen from the above tabulation'of square footage, the Chuck -E- Cheese
tenant, at approximately one -third of the square feet of the total Building A
plus Building B, will be the largest single tenant. The enclosed aerial photos
which were taken at the site while under construction on Sunday, July 25, 1982
show the proximity of the buildings to the Southcenter Parkway and other
existing businesses.
As of this writing, the second week in August, 1982, the parking stalls that
will be available for the total Center Place Shopping Center are 224. The.
-1-
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT - Continued
-2-
building occupancy level, as determined by the Tukwila Fire Department, has
been determined by the Fire Marshall to be 652 for the Chuck -E- Cheese establish-
ment. This breaks out to 360 for the dining room (at 5411 square feet), 247
for the gaming room (at 3704 square feet), 12 for the kitchen (at 2566 square
feet), and 33 for miscellaneous services, (at 3298 square feet).
Based on the above distribution of square footage usage for all tenants, it
then became necessary to analyze total Center Place Shopping Center as to its
adequacy to provide parking during a peak- weekly situation, which was determined
to be a Friday.
During the course of this traffic analysis of the shopping center, discussions
were completed with various persons who were interested in the project, both
from the developer and the City of Tukwila. Among those were Mr. Brad Collins,
Director of Planning for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Mark Caughey, Assistant
Planner for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works
for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Doug Gibbs, Acting Fire Marshall for the City of
Tukwila, Mr. P. L. Phelan of the Tukwila Police Department, Mr. Peter Van Dyke,
Vice President of Hayden Island, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, Mr. Robert H.
Schofield of Coldwell Banker, Tukwila, Mr. Frank N. Jones, President of
Chuck -E- Cheese, Mr. William P. Miller, Construction Manager for Island
Construction, and Carl Prothman, Technician in the Tukwila Public Works
Department.
It was through the conferences and discussions with these persons that suffi-
cient data was gathered for the'proposed Chuck -E- Cheese establishment in Tukwila.
Additional information, based on the Federal Way and the Lynnwood Chuck -E- Cheese
stores, that are now in operation, was gathered and in particular at the
Lynnwood establishment. Peak -hour times, total parking, building occupancy,
and the general attraction and generation of traffic, was studied at the
Lynnwood store in order to determine how these patterns of traffic circulation
would impact the internal and external circulation of the Tukwila proposed
Chuck -E- Cheese and Center Place Shopping Center.
Chuck -E- Cheese
July 25, 1982
View W.
Chuck-E-Cheese
July 25, 1982
View S.E.
INTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SITE PLAN
The enclosed fold -out sheet entitled "Site Parking Plan" by the architect
David Hickman, depicts Building A and Building B as related to the on -site
parking and Southcenter Parkway, and to a scale of 1" = 40'.
The driveway locations include a three -lane driveway at the south end near
the Chuck -E- Cheese location, and a two -lane driveway near the north end.
Both of these driveways have good geometrics, a good turning radius to prevent
encroachment on adjacent lanes of traffic in the turning maneuver either into
or out of the shopping center, and a two -lane exit to allow right and left
turning when exiting vicinity of the Chuck -E- Cheese.
The plan fold -out was prepared in the second week of August, 1982, and
specifically includes the most recent revisions resulting in 224 parking spaces.
The fire lane and delivery roadway behind Buildings A and B will separate
and reduce any internal conflicts with the front parking area, or the service
and loading area. In addition, the provision for a fire lane around the
buildings will enhance access for emergency services that would include medic
as well as fire and police.
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Southcenter Parkway is a 60 foot curb -to -curb street composed of five lanes of
12 foot each. The center lane is a two -way left -turn lane, and will run the
full length of this development, as well as along adjacent businesses to the
north and south. As can be seen on the aerial photo taken in July of this year,
the two -way left -turn lane provides access to all adjacent property owners
and does not restrict crossing to and from this lane. This separation of
directions of traffic is desirable and allows gaps in either one direction or
the other direction of Southcenter Parkway to be utilized in gaining access
from the driveways on each side of the parkway. Therefore, with gaps in traffic
developed by the traffic signal to the north at Strander Boulevard, or the
first traffic signal to the south at the Boeing /Jafco signal, no signal
coordination is needed nor any change in signal phasing in order to absorb
-3-
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - Continued
and provide the traffic generation anticipated for this Center.
Previous work on this roadway by the author has provided background on peak -hour
and 24 -hour traffic volumes, as well as the noon and weekend type peaks.
Recognizing that not all peak traffic situations are the same and that there
are certain large generators of short duration that will sometimes exceed the
capacity of Southcenter Parkway, it would appear that the Center One Place
traffic volume will have no problems in gaining access to and from Southcenter
Parkway and will not require additional signalization or street capacity in
the foreseeable future. The capacity of the arterial in peak hours will not
be exceeded and a service level "C" to continue in this.section of Southcenter
Parkway.
The present lane arrangement providing two southbound and two northbound lanes
with the two -way left -turn lane will also be adequate when analyzed in relation
to spacing from other channelized locations and provide sufficient lane width
for turning as well as through vehicles. The 35 mile an hour speed limit
should be retained until such time as the level of service in the future may
decrease due to additional developments to the south on Southcenter Parkway. .
Enclosed in the Appendix of this report are traffic counts made by the author
on a previous Wendy's restaurant project, and represent traffic volumes in
the vicinity of the Wendy's restaurant for March, 1981. Additional traffic
count data was gathered by the City of Tukwila in May of 1981 for specific
movements at the Strander Boulevard intersection, and at the S. 180th Street
intersection. These are also enclosed as background information utilized in
the Chuck -E- Cheese and Center Place traffic analysis.
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to properly assess the impact of the parking lot to the buildings,
the hourly usage (and therefore accumulation of parking requirements), as
related to the hour of peak traffic on the serving Southcenter Parkway, was
necessary to estimate traffic volumes based on ultimate use by each tenant.
Therefore, a distribution of parking demand by hour of a peak Friday was made,
based partly on code requirements, partly on actual observations of similar
establishments during peak customer volumes, and partly from recognized
standards of generation of traffic by ITE. The following break -out of hourly
' parking stalls as related to each tenant is based on this procedure and shown
on the following page. Of particular note would be those hours from 4 p.m.
to 7 p.m. when the peak shopping center traffic would occur, the peak South -
center Parkway traffic would occur, and the same peak for Chuck -E- Cheese occurs.
For the hour ending at 6 p.m., 193 stalls would be required on the peak Friday,
with 121 of these stalls for the one tenant, Chuck -E- Cheese. The other major
tenant at this time would be Taco Time and with lesser parking requirements
by the other.tenants due to the late hour or the type of business.
Based on the 193 utilized stalls as against the available stalls of 224, this
represents an 86% usage for the peak Friday hour. All other times, including
Saturday, would be less usage for the shopping center as a whole, but with
different distribution of accumulated parked vehicles.
From another methodology, relating the figure of 121 for Chuck -E- Cheese and
utilizing the building maximum capacity of 652, indicates at least 5.4 persons
per vehicle overall. In reviewing other establishments, the 5.4 persons per
vehicle does not appear unreasonable for customers, but would be for employees.
Studies made in the Lynnwood area show that customers averaged just under 6
per vehicle, whereas employees were 1 per vehicle minus those "dropped off"
by others.
1 Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation copyright 1979.
-5-
CENTER PLACE TENANT
MAXIMUM ESTIMATED PARKING REQUIREMENT BY HOUR OF DEMAND
For
Hour Endin At:
9A
10A
11A [ 12N
1P
2P
3P
4P
5P
6P 7P 8P
9P l,igg
11P
Chuck E. Cheese
0
15
50
125
79
.
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Continued
Therefore, using a weighted average based on 6 persons per vehicle for customers,
one person per vehicle for employees, (but subtracting out 10% as "drop- offs "),
results in a total number of vehicles of 98 customers and 55 employees.
These 153 vehicles, when added to the remaining tenant usage in the center of
72, totals 225 spaces requirement under the "highest number" consideration,
but only using building occupancy of Chuck -E- Cheese, instead of the estimated
demand for service. This 225 nearly approximates the supplied 224 stalls
and could be considered a cross -check or final check of the adequacy of the
' present parking layout, but under a maximum or upper limit basis.
REFERENCES
Traffic Counts - March, 1981 by C.T.E.
Traffic Counts - May, 1981 by City of Tukwila
Transportation & Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2Ed., 1982 by I.T.E.
Wendy's Restaurant Transportation Analysis - April, 1981 by C.T.E.
1ID
1
t 0
. 1.c1
781
l
e y
14
13
3o
TI
53
#.,
_
'7o
ZSC
30
To
45"
1
4r
56
4r
184-
4s'
110
� ve
if
,s
Cf
1 !
is
3o
4r
117
7
dL
2
,.:' x°
n
70
4 r
/6Z
lq6
171
!S fi
8'4/
1 s
117
5°p
Is
11_8
Ir4
so
4r
4
z
3°
4s
14r
21 - p
Z
11
/0-
M
3oS
(
134
G40
6 '°
►z8
ser
sr
c
sr
81
6' --ttt
or
is'
Its
x
4
3
//9
Checker
Checker
Checker
Dater r4 �3i Day J_�_4�_— Location 4u �t 'Y `L / Z7 iraI
Weather P/19 �../n'/'J— Station Number.
Control Station
Sheet_Lofheets
1 1 . 9p
(33
Surface
Summary
/5 Min.
Interval
Ending
3:
I r
30
4r
North baf� Jas e —
yoar
/S 1,
13 .
2.1
S 1A1/..7
141
Interval
lrr
)0
Nor1`itioukd- ZVaMCJ _ Newt hound Z /ape./ _ /lit./ 6f4Kv Z /gofer
Interval
Total
zr
1
/5muv fgaar /,
Interval
4r 13
21 .�M. 11 s8
kiwi' /r
/Sr+.
39
4s 46
r'; °� r7 200
Interval
3J
90
/y0urly
/
170
14.1
4T 29G
4��
Totals Entering
Intersection
E -W N -S Total
s
4
1
4
ILr
Vehicular Volume Count
CO7TINGHAM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
269
TWCnfy fur,Your 7o t 4 / { A-0m , 3 f' 7-0 3/
ad Pen /L re /J, / 9(9,/ 6, SSS' N3 rod /(r
4r Ic o
7_-V, 1
1r /z3
t
4.7
—'
tr
l
II4
87
30
4r
Iw
I S2
1
r8
I r'
70
4r
/0-
Is
IIZ
71
41
21
3
3o
4r
tq
31
S4C
46
311
z 12-1
!S
30
4l
7
A
/s
30
Z
4r
71 �
Z
s
IS
3
4
Z
2
0
6
7
S3
11
11
q7
1T
►S
30
45
3°6%
210
710
to? 7z4
U
0
70
30 /0
1
7o
��
MI
11/ ,d'II
o
I �__�
I____
I
4r
, j,
4Y 1
4i' 1
1_OW
r
S=° r
/ 6
17P
coy
1
7r 0
/r
� °
4r
j6/
63
?u
1 °
pit
4r 3
I �
9 1
1
O'
,s, 7
/��
1-O
33
°°
is
o I ����
� I ����
6t''
41
1 4,
6P 3
" '
2 -,
1
- -,
).
20
_
30
13r
__
/63
/S'
4r
4 r
147
71we'�
/ lQtrh
faurNeur
/2 r./3/967
/9B/ =
76.0.- .�ovsa
/L /ZS reha /er
-jvM -
-TB
`�
601
1.. o
13
�
IZ
S Y
/s- 131
is I ,1t'
30
/74
3° G
I ■
P
Date 440 4 P/ Dayi /Vitt' Location ..So"7 A c2 /7Z77>¢a'/,''rff
Checker Weather /H/» Station Number
Checker Surface Control Station
Checker Summary Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets
3°19-1
70
Min. Sodf4!bctI4 pame./
Interval
/IS
612
Interval
Total
4r
1
11
6
/2 4 17
..‘ 2 /4Ne1 Soo7fiewsd -2 /4r l hoaN /- 2 /arrt _
Interval
Total
Interval
Total
30 Iqo
ofr
Interval
Total
Totals Entering
Intersection
E - W
N - S
Total
/ r
/d7 •
/‘o
/I"
/09
4-r
Z
/r
P
Z q
rr
3v
41"
Ir
70
2-S0
/97
-z1 C.
rIF
It/
lo a
/o�I
832_
4r
tug
M IM
12 4r
6MT:a Ir 28 1
S7o
45
-�r
4
Vehicular Volume Count
COTTINGHAM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
r r
,. r -•. ; •.,. .;..,.: —: ,: a •:��i'�e' ... ..r. 1 . .
YDEN" :ISLAND' .1
lV �
HIGHWAY lig'AT JANTZEN. BEACH ":
909 N. TOMAHAWK ISLAND DRIVE
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Gentlemen:
• PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 • PHONE 283 - 4111
August 10, 1982
ATTN: Mr. Brad Collins, Mr. Mark Caughey and all other
involved Department Heads.
This is a formal request that representatives of Hayden
Island, Inc., developers of Center Place Shopping Center
in Tukwila, Washington, be put on the agenda of the August
26th, 1982 Planning Commission meeting to seek relief from
certain parking requirements being imposed by the City.
The resolution of this matter is extremely urgent in that
by withholding the Building Permit on Chuck E. Cheese
Pizza Time Theatre the cost to Hayden Island is approx-
imately $30,000.00 a month in interest and lost revenue.
Our request will be that the Planning Commission approve
the tenant mix and uses for the Center per the attached
Exhibit "A ". You'll note the "new Code" if fully enforced
would call for 283 parking spaces. The old Code under
which we received approval to build the Center, as we read
it, called for 114 parking spaces. The Center, per the
attached site plan (Exhibit "B "), has 224 parking places
(more than twice that required by our permit) and based
on the following we believe we have more than enough
parking.
Our contention is that because of the way the Center was
leased we have compatible parking needs and ample parking
during the periods that the various Tenant's businesses
peak in volume. When we leased approximately 33% of the
Center to Chuck E. Cheese we knew that 75% to 80% of their
business was done from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. They cater
City of Tukw40
Planning Depa , cent
August 10, 1982
Page Two of Two
primarily to families with small children (5 to 15 years
of age). The average occupancy of the customer's cars
is over six people. It's a family oriented restaurant
and a very small percentage of their parking requirement
is generated during the day.
Knowing this, we then proceeded to lease the rest of the
Center to Tenant's who either require very little parking
at any time, or who do the greatest percentage of their
business during the day when the demand for Chuck E. Cheese
is low. The attached Exhibit "C" breaks down the various
actual daytime and nighttime needs for the various Tenant's
and the reasons used in reaching those projections. A
recap of the actual daytime and nighttime needs is found
on Exhibit "A" in the last two columns.
Even more important than my estimates of parking needs
are those done by Cottingham Transportation Engineering,
an outside consultant we hired to do a study at the
request of the Planning Department, attached as Exhibit
"D ". It supports our contention of compatible use and
shows our 224 parking spaces to be more than adequate.
To review:
We ask that the Planning Commission grant our request
to obtain Building Permits for the various Tenant's
shown on Exhibit "A" for the following reasons:
1) The Code in place when we received our permit in
December of 1981, called for a minimum of 114
parking places. The Center has 224 parking
places.
2) The new Code which is being imposed on us, re-
quires 283 parking places without taking into
account the compatible uses of the various
Tenant's.
3) Both our study and that of Cottingham Engineering
show that the 224 parking places now available
are more than enough.
Peter Van Dyke
Vice President
Hayden Island, Inc.
PVD:cel
Enclosures
SPACE TENANT NAME
1) Medical Clinic
2) Organs & Pianos
3) Retail - Unleased
4) Bedspread Shop
5) Hallmark Shop &
Office Supply
6) Taco Time
7) Haagen Dazs
8) One Hour Photo
9) Computershop
PROPOSED TENANT MIX AND ACTUAL PARKING NEEDS
FOR CENTER PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
10) Sears Business Systems 3,150 8.
11) Maternity Shop ' 1,190 3.
12) Dry Cleaning ••1,260 3.
13) Donut Shop 1,400 3.5
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 77.
14) .Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 37.
TOTAL NEED 114.
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224.
+110.
' EXHIBIT "A"
PARKING PARKING ACTUAL ACTUAL
SIZE REQUIRED REQUIRED DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
(SQ.FT.) OLD CODE(1) NEW CODE(2) NEED(3) NEED(4)
3,430 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 6. cars
2,695 9. 25 11 9.25 "i 8. " 8. 11
1,015 2.5 " 2.5 " 2.5 " 2. "
1,300 3.25 " 3.25 " 3. 11 3. "
5,600 14. " 14. " 14. " 9. 11
2,710 7. " 54. " 27. 11 18. "
1,300 3.25 " 26. " 15. " 12. "
1,750 4.5 11 4.5 " 4. 11 4.
2,800 7. 11 7. u 7. 11 4.
8. 11 8. 5.
3.
3.
28.
1 1
3. 2.
3. 11 0• (closed)
14.
8.
11 171. 11 117. " 81. "
11 115. 11 50. 11 . 11
286. " 167. " 196. "
" 224. " 224. 11 224. 11
-62. " +57. 11 +28.
NOTE #1: The "old Code" under which we received our permit, specifically permits
restaurants (excluding Drive -Ins) under the C -1 use. It also requires
one space for each 400 square feet of leased area.
NOTE #2: The "new Code" reclassifies restaurants causing the sharp increase in
those parking requirements.
NOTE #3 & #4: These are our best estimates as to our actual needs during daytime
(10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), nighttime (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and
show an actual surplus of parking both day and night.
11
EXHIBIT "C"
Tenant by Tenant analysis as to actual parking need broken down
by daytime and nighttime needs:
1) Medical Clinic
The code requirement should cover daytime visits,
nighttime activity would be primarily emergency visits
which would be minimal. 6 cars at night would be
ample.
2) Organs and Pianos
This is a big ticket tenant with a historically light
customer load, normally run with 2 employees days and
1 at night. 2 to 3 customers at a time is average. 8
daytime spaces and 8 nighttime is reasonable.
3
Unleased Retail
No tenant here, code is okay for daytime, I reduced
from 2.5 to 2 cars at night.
4) Bedspread Shop
One item retailer, average price $75.00 to $100.00. I
don't anticipate high volume. It's a 1 employee
tenant. 3 spaces days and 3 nights should be ample.
5) Hallmark - Office Supply
Self service office supplies, cards and gifts. 4
employees days, 2 at night. At least 60% of their
gross will be office supplies, 80% of which will be
purchased during the day. This type of use will drop
off sharply at night. 14 cars days and 9 at night is
a reasonable expectation.
6) Taco Time
Here I strongly disagree with the code. This is not a
typical McDonald's or Wendy's with a drive - through
where they expect 80% of their business to be
take -out. Only about 20% is take -out, the rest
consumed on the premises. That's what is important,
not whether or not they eat on china or paper. In
addition, at least 70% of "their business is lunch, so
their impact on parking drops sharply at night. If we
allot 27 spaces daytime, that's 5 employees and,
figuring 2 people to a car, 44 customers. I have
never seen a Taco Time with 44 customers at one time.
18 cars at night would give you 3 employees and 30
customers which is more than ample.
8/10/82
PVD:clr
7) Haagen Dazs
Here again the code is punitive. They average 2
employees. Most visits are made by families. Car
count probably averages 3 people. 15 spaces days
gives you 36 customers, 12 spaces at night with 2
employees gives you 30 customers. I have never seen
over 15 people in a Haagen Dazs store. Another point
is that a great many of their nighttime customers will
come from Chuck E. Cheese which will not impact
parking at all. Also, Chuck E. Cheese volume peaks in
the winter months, Haagen Dazs peaks in the summer.
Again, a good compatible use.
8) One Hour Photo
Quick in and out, no long -term use. 1 employee. I
think 4 cars daytime, and 4 nighttime will be ample.
They plan to close about 7 p. m.
9) Computershop
Sophisticated, technical hardware. Very few
customers, with big ticket sales. Almost no night
business. 7 spaces daytime, 4 spaces at night is
reasonable.
10) Sears Business Systems Center
Same as above. Both these Tenants will be working
with small businesses in the design and installation
of computer components. A good percentage of their
work will be off the premises which will not impact
parking at all. I think 8 spaces days and 5 nights
will do it.
11) Maternity ghop
Low volume tenant. Sales will average $300 a day.
That's 10 customers all day with 1 employee. 3
daytime and 2 nighttime is reasonable.
12) Drycleaning
Minimal use, just drop off and pick up. Will close at
about 6:00 p. m. 3 spaces during the day, none at
night.
13) Donut Shop
This one is a real problem. The code calls for 28
cars and in fact this tenant won't impact parking at
all. 75% of their business will be done before 11:00
a.m. They start baking at 5:00 a. m., open at 6:00
a.m. By noon they are down to one employee. From
5:00 p.m. on they will be lucky to have 3 customers at
a time. I think 14 spaces daytime and 8 at night is
more than enough.
1908
A s ti City of Tukwila
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Island Construction
909 N. Tomahawk Drive
Portland,. OR 97217
Attn: Sue Ramsey
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Subject: REVISED PARKING LOT LAYOUT - CENTER PLACE
19 August 1982
The revised site plan for Center Place prepared by the project
architect and dated 9 August 1982 has been reviewed by the
various city departments. The plan has been approved for field
implementation, but we direct your attention to the following
conditions and cautions:
1) Approval of the site plan revision of 9 August 1982
does not by explicit or implicit action resolve the
current shortage of on -site parking occasioned by the
Chuck E. Cheese restaurant tenant. That matter is to
be decided independently at a future date by the Tuk-
wila Planning Commission. Therefore, you may proceed
to construct the parking area as depicted on the plan
with no guarantee that a building permit will be issued
for Chuck E. Cheese or that the Planning Commission
may condition such a permit with further site plan
modifications.
2) The 55 stalls at the west edge of the site are not
in conformance with city design standards. The di-
mensional requirements of the 50° or 60° stall as
provided in the zoning code must be maintained.
3) Full compliance with all technical standards for
construction of curb cuts, curbs and gutters and
driveway aprons is expected, except that radii for
aprons may vary between 10 and 20 feet (per Dept..
of Public Works).
4) Security lighting acceptable to the Tukwila Police
Department shall be provided for those parking stalls
located'on the west side of the buildings.
5) Parking or loading spaces shall not be designated in
front of any fire hydrant or building exit door.
6) Fire lanes are designated in yellow on the attached
Page 2
August 19, 1982
copy of the revised site plan. They are to be labeled
in the field in the following manner: Stencil on
asphalt in yellow 24" high letters "NO PARKING - FIRE
LANE" and 4" wide line (at 50' intervals).
This letter constitutes your authorization to proceed with these
improvements Please direct questions to the Planning Division at
433 -1849.
M C/js
XC:
Ping Dir.
Bldg Off.
D. P. W.
Fire Dept.
TUKWIL LANNING DEPARTMENT
Mark Caughey
Associate Planner
City c)f Tukwila
• 19 08;
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Tukwila City Hall
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members:
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
September 3, 1982
On August 26, 1982, the Tukwila Planning Commission rendered a decision
involving an application by Hayden Island Properties for approval of a
cooperative parking facility (TMC 18.56.070) for a project located at
17001 -17195 Southcenter Parkway in the City of Tukwila.
The Planning Commission approved a cooperative parking facility providing,
that a total of 224 parking stalls shall be required for the facility. I F
On behalf of the administration of the City of Tukwila, I hereby appeal
that decision to the City Council for review.
The reasons for this appeal are as follows:
1. The structure involved is a commercial building with a total.of 44,490
square feet.
2. The applicant, as the owner of the building, is subletting space in the
building to various commercial tenants. Based on the application, the
following uses, the approximate square feet to be devoted to each use,
and required parking is as follows:
TUKWILA CITY COUNCI
September 3, 1982
Page 2
fib
TABLE ONE
•
Parking Parking
Size Required Required
Terint'Name (Sq. Ft.) Old Code New Code
Medical Clinic 3,430 9 _ 9
Organs & Pianos 2,695 7 7
Retail - Unleased 1,015. - 3 3.
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4 4
Hallmark Shop & 5, 600 14 14
Office Supply.
•
Taco Time 2 , 7 10 35 . 55
Haagen Dazs 1,300 1 9 1 26
One Hour Photo 1,750 5. •5
Computershop 2,800 7 7
Sears Business 3,150 8 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3 3
•
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4 4'
Donut.Shop 1,400 20 28
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 138 173
Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 164 114
TOTAL NEED 44,490 302 287
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224 224
-78 -63
1 Restaurant parking, old code = N.F.A. i. 7 .5 (Place of
public assembly 'assumed. to be 50% unless known)_.,
•
2 Restaurant parking, new code = G.F.A. + 100 or 50
3 Chuck E. Chee - Restaurant area 10,168 /Game Room
4,722'
4 Retail tenants only = 112 parking spaces
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
September 3, 1982
Page 3
3. The major tenant of the building will be a facility that is a combina-
tion restaurant and amusement center. Food will be sold on the pre-
mises and patrons will be encouraged to use a number of amusement '
facilities located within the space. The offstreet parking require-
ments for an amusement center are 12 stalls for 4722 square feet.
The offstreet parking requirements for a restaurant are 102 stalls
for 10168 square feet.
4. All of the proposed tenants in the building will operate their busi-
ness within the normal business hours of approximately 8:00 a.m. un-
til 6:00 p.m. There is no requirement that one or more of the pro-
posed tenants limit its hours of operation.
5. The requirements of the TMC regarding offstreet parking for all of
the proposed uses is 287 stalls.
6. The Planning Commission has approved a cooperative parking agreement
requiring the owner to provide 224 stalls.
7. The recommendation of the Planning Commission is approximately 22%
fewer stalls than is required by the Tukwila Municipa .code.,
8. The decision of the Planning Commission •is arbitrary and capricious
and clearly erroneous. ,wt ba
9. The failure of the owner to provide the required number of offstreet
parking sites as set forth in the Tukwila Municipal may'pose sub-
stantial problems involving traffic congestion along Southcenter
Parkway and may result in persons parking or stacking vehicles along
the edge of Southcenter Parkway or other undesirable or illegal loca-
tions in order to patronize the facilities at the subject property.
Very truly yours,
GLV /co
Gary L. Van Dusen.
Mayor
*IILA
1908
GLV /co
4/ City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
• MEMORANDUM
TO: BRAD COLLINS
FROM: Mayor Van Duse
DATE: September 2, 1982
SUBJECT: BUILDING 'PERMIT--CHUCK E. CHEESE
As per TMC 18.90.020, I am appealing the decision of the Planning Com-
mission made on August 26, 1982 concerning Center Place cooperative parking
agreement.
Therefore, I am directing you not to issue the Building Permit for Chuck
E. Cheese until such time as the City Council can respond to the appeal.
cc: Bud Bohrer
AGENDA ITEM
FINDINGS
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Application 82- 16 -SPE, Center Place Shopping
Center
�---- • - ilk\ 4 •' �;; T
INTRODUCTION .i , 1
�� d C ! ` , ..2 , : ,
o.wt i GM \. , , C -;
The developers of Center C ` � "' ' - - "N --
Place appeared before the .(
Planning sitting as 1 ` is
the Board of Architectural — ! - '
Review, in January of this year b ` #: C4, N •
Cm and obtained approval of the tip! `-0 ! — : =. �r ;
site and architectural concepts .:is ' . 11 'i
for the project. Since that 1 ' ( Y f I
i z. I I I ct�. • i
time, the developers have pur- �' � '�-° c-M ' ;� "� „""
sued intensive leasing negotia- t ` -M
tions with potential tenants. ri ! .... °,,
The tenant mix is now well- -- r ; 1 7.
established, it has become ,;� c• i ! !•. r
clear that the current tenant `4 . i C44. C.10. % %`
mix cannot satisfy the strict 0j \. \ !; i J,
a he a min mumhquantity code for i i It 4 '
• spaces required.. It is also
apparent that physical space constraints on the site preclude
re- design of the parking area to achieve full compliance.
Therefore, the applicants have assembled a proposal for
cooperative use of available parking by differentiating peak
useage periods among the various tenants.
1) The approved site plan for Center Place depicts 174
parking spaces.
all, .21i, M92,--
2) Following discussion of leasing arrangements with the Chuck
E. Cheese Restaurant as the major tenant in the center
and at the request of the City, the applicants revised the
site plan to increase available parking by 50 spaces to 224
(see Exhibit A - 1st Revision).
31 TMC 18.56.070 provides. for Planning Commission approval of
"cooperative parking facilities" in multiple occupancy
developments. The total requirements for off - street parking
and loading facilities shall at least the sum of the
requirements for the greater of the uses at any one time or
as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
Page -2-
Planning Commission ..
82- 16 -SPE, Cenr Place Shopping Center
4) Table One below describes the required parking for Center
Place and its present tenant mix; for information, it is
compared to the old zoning code requirements in effect at
the time of initial plan review:
TABLE ONE
Parking Parking
Size Required Required
Tenant Name (Sq. Ft.) Old Code New Code
Medical Clinic 3,430 9 9
Organs & Pianos 2,695 7 7
Retail - Unleased 1,015 3 3
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4 4
Hallmark Shop& 5,600 14 14
Office Supply
Taco Time 2,710 35 55
Haagen Dazs 1,300 19 26
One Hour Photo 1,750 5 5
Computershop 2,800 7 7
Sears Business 3,150 8 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3 3
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4 4
Donut Shop 1,400 20 28
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 138 173
Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 16 4 1 114
TOTAL NEED 44,490 302 287
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224 224
-78 -63
1 Restaurant parking, old code = N.F.A. a• 7 s 5 (Place of
public assembly assumed to be 50% unless known)._,
2 Restaurant parking, new code = G.F.A. i 100
3 Chuck E. Cheese - Restaurant area 10,168 /Game Room
4,722
4 Retail tenants only = 112 parking spaces
Page -3-
Planning Commi ion
82- 16 -SPE, Cen .r Place Shopping Center (
5) An analysis of project - related traffic generation has
been prepared by the project traffic engineer. His con-
clusion indicates that the present tenant mix will have no
appreciable impact on circulation efficiency either
within the project boundaries or upon Southcenter Parkway.
CONCLUSIONS
1) The staff's principal concern is that the operation of
Center Place will not cause additional congestion on
Southcenter Parkway as a result of vehicles entering the
facility or executing turning movements therefrom,
particularly in the northbound direction. Because the
project is on the west side of the street, left -turn
movements outbound will be significant in that the most
convenient access to freeways out of town lay to the
north. Therefore, adequacy of parking, stacking and
maneuvering space becomes crucial.
Under the wording of TMC 18.56.070, the Planning Commission
has a number of optional approaches to consider in deciding.
whether or not to approve a cooperative parking operation:
a) Alternative One: "Full Code Compliance"
- This alternative is simply a denial of the cooperative
parking concept and would reduce the availability of
food - service tenants in the complex.
b) Alternative Two: "Greatest Sum of the Uses"
- As stated in TMC 18.56.070, any cooperative parking
arrangement must reflect full code compliance for the
sum of all tenants open for business at any time.
The proponents have indicated that business hours
for all tenants will include both a daytime and
evening component, with the exception of the dry
cleaning establishment which closes at 6:00 p.m.
- If we assume that the full tenant mix as described
in. Table Onewill include "Taco Time ", the "Donut
Shop'; "Haagen -Dazs Ice Cream ";and "Chuck E. Cheese ",
the project will be 63 spaces short during the day
and 59 spaces short after 6:00 p.m.
- Assuming Removal of " Haagen Dazs" and the "Donut
Shop" (for which no permits have been issued) from
the tenant mix and substitution of retail activity
in that same amount of floor space, parking per the
new code would be as follows:
Page -4-
Planning Commi ion
82- 16 -SPE, Cent.: Place Shopping Center
TABLE TWO
Size Parking
(SO. FE.) Required
Space Tenant'Name
1) Medical Clinic 3,430 9
2) Organs & Pianos 2,695 7
3) Retail - Unleased 1,015 3
4) Bedspread Shop 1,300 .
5) Hallmark Shop & 5,600 14
Office:'Supply
6) Taco Time 2,710 55
7) Heagen -Bass (Retail) 1,300 4
8) One Hour Photo 1,750 5
9) Computershop 2,800 7
10) Sears Business 3,150 8
11) Maternity Shop 1,190 3
12) Dry Cleaning 1,260 4
13) Beet -Shop (Retail) 1,400 4
14) Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 114
TOTAL 241
PROVIDED 224
DEFICIENCY - 17* Spaces
*If retail uses were calculated together instead
of separately, then four .(4) less parking spaces
would be required making the parking deficiency
only 13 spaces at any one time.
(daytime)
- 13 Spaces
(evening)
- A variation on Table Two which would result in a net
surplus of available, parking requires conversion of
"Taco Time" from a "fast food restaurant" to
"restaurant" per the Zoning Code. The required
parking would decline from 1 space /50 square feet
to 1 space /100 square feet or 28 spaces in the case
of Taco Time. This would result in a net surplus
of 10 spaces by day and 14 by night:
Page -5-
Planning Commission
82- 16 -SPE, Cent.: Place Shopping Center
TABLE THREE
Size Parking
Tenant Name (Sq. Ft.) Required
Medical Clinic 3,430 9
Organs & Pianos 2,695 7
Retail - Unleased 1,015 3
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4
Hallmark Shop &' 5,600 14
Office Supply
Taco Time 2,710 28
Haagen -Baes (Retail) 1,300 4
One Hour Photo 1,750 5
Computershop 2,800 7
Sears Business 3,150 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4
Bextit -Shep (,Retail) 1,400 4
Chuck E. Cheese 14,980 114
TOTAL 214
PROVIDED 224
SURPLUS + 10 Spaces (daytime)
+ 14 Spaces (nightime)
- Other changes could be required, but have not been
proposed, to alleviate parking deficiencies.
c) Alternative Three: "Planning Commission Discretion"
- The language of TMC 18.56.070 suggests that the
Commission may use its judgment in reducing parking
requirements below the "greatest sum of the ;uses" when
circumstances so warrant. Consonant with this approach,
the applicants have devised an alternative parking
scheme based on their perception of "actual" daytime
or nighttime need. Narrative justification. for
each proposed tenant space allocation is found in the
appendix to this report.
Page -6-
Planning Commission
82- 16 -SPE, Cent( Place Shopping Center
Space
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
TABLE FOUR
Tenant Name
Medical Clinic
Organs & Pianos
Retail - Unleased
Bedspread Shop
Hallmark Shop &
Office Supply
6) Taco Time
7) Haagen Dazs
8) One Hour Photo
9) Computershop
10) Sears Business
11) Maternity Shop
12) Dry Cleaning
13) Donut Shop
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE
14) Chuck E. Cheese 14,890
TOTAL NEEDED
TOTAL AVAILABLE
SURPLUS
Size
(Sq. Ft.)
3,430
2,695
1,015
1,300
5,600
2,710
1,300
1,750
2,800
3,150
1,190
1,260
1,400
Actual
Daytime
Need (3)
8.5 cars
8.
2.5
3.
14.
27.
15.
4.
7.
8.
3.
3.
14.
117.
50.
167.
224.
+57
'1
Actual
Nightime
Need (4)
6. cars
8.
2.
3.
9.
18.
12.
4.
4.
5.
2.
0. (closed)
8.
81.
115.
196.
224.
+28
- The applicant's proposed reductions in actual code
parking requirements present some difficulty for us,
in that they are not verifiable by any objective
standard which we can.identify and are largely the
informed opinion of the leasing agent. Further, the
success of this joint -use parking proposal rests on
the assumption that the tenant mix remains constant.
Any change in tenancy from a lower - intensity to
higher- intensity useage, such as conversion of the
"Bedspread Shop" to a "Discount Drug Store" may
increase parking demand beyond the fixed number of
spaces available to serve the project.
Page -7-
Planning Commis ;.on
82 -16 -SPE, Cent Place Shopping Center (
• MC /blk
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is persuaded that the developers have made a sincere
effort to plan a complementary tenant mix which may, with
proper attention, function safely with parking provided
at slightly less than the code - required optimum level. We
accept the use concept discussed in Table Two or Table Three
above which allow full use of retail spaces as well as
• Taco Time and Chuck E. Cheese restaurants deletes the
ice cream,and donut shops in favor of retail. This alterna-
tive results in a maximum deficiency of 17 stalls or 7%
of total requirements by code. Our acceptance is predicated
on the fact that the site plan has already been adjusted
for maximum parking lot use; that no more land is available
to afford further modification, and that the parking ratios
required by code are designed to accomodate the standard of
the 20th busiest hour of business during the year, meaning
that on most days the actual deficiency of parking spaces
should be even less or non - existent. More drastic remedies,
including the availability of unimproved land adjacent to
the site on the north, could be implemented if public safety
is adversely impacted.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of application 82 -16 -SPE
creating a cooperative parking facility at Center Place,
according to the following conditions:
1) .'.Total on -site arrangement of parking spaces shall be as
described on Exhibit A - ist Revision of this application
2) The entire shopping center shall be devoted to retail
uses as allowed in the C -2 zoning district with the
exceptions of Taco Time and Chuck E. Cheese restaurants
as noted on Table Two or Table Three.
4) The owners of the project property and the property
adjoining the project site to the north are parties to
this agreement.
3) No more than 17 spaces below the total number of parking
stalls required for the project under TMC 18.56.050 shall
be permitted under the cooperative parking facility
agreement.
5) It is understood that the cooperative parking facility is
approved under this application upon finding by the Planning
Commission that such action is taken in the public
interest. The Commission reserves the right to review this
cooperative parking facility agreement annually and may
require cancellation thereof or modification of its terms
upon finding of adverse impacts to public safety or health.
ROBERT W. GRAHAM, P.8.
CHARLES F. OSBORN. P.S
MAX KAMINOFF, P.6
.1. TYLER HULL. PS.
ARTHUR G. ORUNKE. P.8.
'RONALD E. MCXINSTRY. P.S.
EDWARD C. BIELE. P 6.
RICHARD S SPRAGUE P.6.
IRW1N L TRE1GER, P.S.
PAUL W. STEERE. P.8.
"ROBERT J. BLACKWELL
ROBERT A. STEWART
DONALD L JOHNSON. P.8
1(0
DON PAUL 80168. P.S
'PETER D. BYRNE8. P.R.
GERHARDT MORRISON, P$
JOHN 7. PIPER. PS.
THOMAS J. IACKEY, P.6.
EOWAPD G. LOWRY III
JOHN P. SULLIVAN
DUSTIN C. MCCREARY
RONALD T. 6CHAPS
MIKE LILES. JR.. P.8
DAN P. HUNGATE
PETER M. ANDERSON
DELBERT D. MILLER, P.S.
ROBERT D. KAPLAN
DALE B. RAMERMAN
E. MCOUFF ARCHIBALD
RICHARD M. CLINTON. P 8
MICHAEL 5. COURTNAGE
KARL J. EOE
"'MICHAEL W. DUNOY
'CHARLES R. BLUMENFELD
JAMES A. SMITH. JR.
THOMAS C. GORES
KIMBERLY W. OSENBAUGH, P$.
JOHN F BOESPFLUG, JR
LAW OFFIES
BOGLE & GATE S
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDINO PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
T17ADOAS 1. A
"'DOUGLAS A. RIOOS
SPENCER HALL AI.
ARTHUR C CLAFLIN
D. MICHAEL YOUNG
"JAMES N. REEVES
J PETER SHAPIRO
KELLY P. CORK
ROBERT C. GRAYSON
ELAINE L. SPENCER
01 V P. MICHELSON
CHRISTOPHER .1. BARRY
WILLIAM E. VAN VALKENBERO
RICHARD A. MONTGOMERY
PATRICIA H. CHAR
CHRIS ROBERT 701117
HELEN A. HARVEY
WILLWA F. CRONIN
LUCY P. 8. MAXI
DAVID R. MILLEN
ROGER M. TOLBERT
RICHARD O. WOOD
SUZANNE MILLER KOESTNER
ELLEN SCHREIER ALEXANDER
ROBERT J. THOMAS
SUSAN E. BOYLE
DENNIS 0. BTENSTROM
SALLY H. SAXON
LE8 T 0 AYLOR E
W1 SAN
RICHARD D. VOOT
DOUGLAS 0. MOONEY
ANDREW A. GUY
WILLIAM O. CLARK
BRYCE L HOLLAND, JR.
LYNN EDELSTEIN DuBEY
JEFFREY R. MAGI
Counsel
"'TERRY L LETTZELL
"JOHN A DOUGLAS
AO.Nay
STANLEY D. LONG
EDWARD 0. 008RIN
FRANK L MECHEM
ORLO B. KELL000
THOMAS L MORROW
ROBERT V HOLLAND
'WASHINGTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARB
^DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY
"'ALASKA STATE BAR
ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ONLY
Ms. Caroline V. Berry
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Ms. Berry:
BRUCE A KING
BRADLEY 6. KELLER
"'EDWARD L. MINER
"ANNE E. MICKEY
JAMES H. LOWE
THOMAS SCOTT HODGE
JEFFREY W. LEPPO
ROBERT H. BUMS
JUDITH A ENDEJAN
ANNE V. MCCLELLAN
GEORGE E. GREER
CELESTE M NORRIS
8811(8 LIED
LAVEEDA DARUNOTON.MATHEWB
DIANE G. FITZ•GERALD
JEFFREY A. PETERSON
PATRICK 6. BRADY
LAURA TREADG0LO OLES
RICHARD R. HACK, II
ROBERT A. LIP60N
PETER J. MUCKLESTONE
RALPH E. CROMWELL JR
W. SCOTT WERT
'CHRISTOPHER L. KOCH
L sEP251982
C. OF TUKWILA
P! ANNING DEPT.
Re: Cooperative Parking Facility at Center Place
THE BANK OF CALIFORNIA CENTER
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164
CABLE "BOGLE SEATTLE"
(208) 682 -5151 TELEX 32-1087
SUITE 725
1575 EYE STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005
(202) 628.0485 TELEX: 89-7410
SUITE 525
900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE
ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501
(907) 276.4557
PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE •
FILE NO.:
October.22, 1982
We are writing in response to your October 11, 1982
letter to Mr. Peter Van Dyke enclosing the draft Property
Use and Development Agreement. As you are aware, we serve
as counsel to Hayden Island, Inc. and Mr. Van Dyke asked us
to make certain modifications in the agreement.
Enclosed is a revised Property Use and Development
Agreement. The major modifications are as follows:
1. We have modified the agreement so that it is solely
between the City of Tukwila and Hayden Island, Inc. Hayden
Island has a long -term lease on the property and has taken
the position consistently through this process that it is
applying for permits on behalf•of itself and not on behalf
of the owners of the real property. We believe the City is
fully protected since the agreement by its terms applies to
all of Hayden Island's successors in interest.
2. We have made certain changes in paragraph 3 to
clarify that the concern of the City is about increases in
the number of parking spaces which new uses might create.
1
Ms. Caroline V. Berry
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
October 22, 1982
Page 2
In addition, we have provided that Hayden Island shall
notify the Planning Department of any such changes. Also,
we have suggested that the City Council have final review
authority. Finally, we have limited the sanctions to
(1) modification of the cooperative parking agreement or
denial of the relevant occupancy permit. This seems more
appropriate than cancelling the cooperative parking facilities
when the concern of the City can be alleviated by denying
the new tenant occupancy.
3. We have modified paragraph 5 to be consistent with
our position that the owners the property are not a party
to the agreement and that their ownership interest should
not be affected by this agreement.
4. We have modified paragraph 7 because we believe the
second sentence is not required. Any future amendments to
the Zoning Code will apply to the property through operation
of law if applicable.
5. We have modified paragraph 8 to reflect the fact
that the consideration of this cooperative parking facility
did not include concerns of adjacent property owners. The
City's decision, in our opinion, was based on protecting the
interest of the City of Tukwila, not any particular property
owners.
We do want to point out that the exhibits attached to
the agreement were not numbered and that Exhibit 1 still
must be provided.
Please advise us of your comments on this agreement.
We would be happy to discuss them with you at your convenience.
Enclosure
BOGLE & GATES
cc: Planning Director, City of Tukwila
City Attorney, City of Tukwila
Mr. Peter Van Dyke
Very truly yours,
Charles R. BluiKenfeld
BOGLE & GATES
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this date in favor of
THE CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation (herein called
"City "), by HAYDEN ISLAND, INC., an Oregon corporation
(herein called "Hayden Island "):
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.56 of the Zoning
Code of the City of Tukwila, Hayden Island has petitioned
the Tukwila Planning Commission for approval of a coopera-
tive parking facility located at certain real property
(herein called the "Property ") which is more particularly
described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission, with af-
firmation of the Tukwila.City Council, is willing to grant
the petition for a cooperative' parking facility subject to
the execution of an agreement with the City of pertaining
to certain uses and developments of the Property in the in-
terest of public safety and health;
NOW, THEREFORE, Hayden Island hereby covenants,
bargains and agrees on behalf of itself, its heirs, suc-
cessors, and assigns, that the Property will be developed and
used subject to the following terms and conditions:
1.. The proposed tenants are as described by name or
type of business in Exhibit 2 hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
2. Total arrangement of parking spaces on the Pro-
perty shall be as described in Exhibit A of the first revision
of the application (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3
and incorporated herein by reference).
3. If any change is made to the above - described
tenants or tenant mix and such change increases the number
of parking spaces required by Chapter 18.56 of the Zoning Code
of the City of Tukwila as of the date of this Agreement,
Hayden Island shall notify the Tukwila Planning Department.
Upon such notice, the Tukwila Planning Department staff may
request the Tukwila Planning Commission to review the coopera-
tive parking facility, and the Tukwila Planning Commission
may recommend to the Tukwila City Council modification of
the terms of the cooperative parking agreement or denial of
the proposed tenant's occupany permit. The Tukwila City
Council shall adopt or reject the Tukwila Planning Commission's
recommendation.
4. It being understood that the cooperative parking
facility is approved upon the finding by the Tukwila Planning
Commission that such action is taken at the time of approval in
the public interest, the Tukwila Planning Commission may
review the cooperative parking facility annually and may
recommend to the Tukwila City Council cancellation thereof
or modification of its terms upon finding of adverse impact
to public safety or health.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon Hayden
Island, its heirs, successors and assigns.
6. This Agreement may be amended or modified by
agreement between Hayden Island and the City; provided such
amended agreement shall be approved by the Tukwila Planning
Commission after written notice is made to property owners
within 300 feet of the Property.
7. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the
Tukwila City Council from making such further amendments
to the Zoning Code as it may deem necessary in the public'
interest.
8. The City may institute and prosecute any pro-
ceedings at law or in equity to enforce this Agreement. The
City shall be entitled to recover from Hayden Island reason-
able attorney fees and costs for any action commenced pursuant
to this Agreement.
9. In the event any covenant, condition or
restriction hereinabove contained, or any portion thereof,
is invalid or void, such invalidity or voidness shall in no
way affect any other covenant, condition or restriction
• hereinabove contained.
STATE OF
County of
DATED: , 1982.
By
Its
HAYDEN ISLAND, INC.
ss.
On this date, before me, the undersigned, personally
appeared , to me known
to be the of Hayden
Island, Inc., the corporation that executed the within and
foregoing Property Use and Development Agreement and acknow-
ledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he was, authorized to
execute said instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this
day of , 1982.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of
residing at
8211231016
PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS INSTRUMENT, executed this date in favor of THE
CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation (herein called
"City "), by the undersigned owners of the within described
property (herein called "Owners "). Hayden Island, Inc.,
an Oregon corporation (herein called "Hayden Island "):
WHEREAS, Owners are persons owning a fee simple and /or
having a substantial beneficial interest in certain real
property (herein called'the "Property ") which is more par-
ticularly described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and in-
corporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Hayden Island has a leasehold interest in the
Property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 18.56 of the Zoning Code
of the City of Tukwila, Hayden Island has petitioned the
Tukwila Planning Commission for approval of a cooperative
parking facility located at the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Tukwila Planning Commission, with af-
firmation of the Tukwila City Council, is willing to grant
the petition for a cooperative parking facility subject to
the execution and recording of an agreement with the City
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 1
W I T N E S S T H
. pertaining to certain uses and developments of the Property
in the interest of public safety and health;
NOW THEREFORE, Owners and Hayden Island hereby covenant,
bargain and agree on be ".alf of themselves, their heirs,
successors and assigns, that the Property will be developed
and used subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The proposed .tenants are as described by name or
type of business in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
2. Total arrangement of parking spaces on the Property
shall be as described in Exhibit A of the first revision of
the application (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3
and incorporated herein by reference).
3. If any change is made to the above described tenants
or complementary tenant mix and such change affects the
parking analysis submitted by Hayden Island on August 10,
1982 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 4 and incorporated
herein by reference). so as to create a need for additional park-
ing, the Tukwila Planning Department staff may request the
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 2
Tukwila Planning Commission to review the cooperative parking
facility, and the Tukwila Planning Commission may require
cancellation thereof or modification of its terms upon
finding of adverse impact to public safety or health.
4. It being understood that the cooperative parking
facility is approved upon the finding by the Tukwila Planning
Commission that such action is taken at the time of approval
in the public interest, the Tukwila Planning Commission may
PROPERTY.USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 3
review the cooperative parking facility annually and may
require cancellation thereof or modification of its terms
upon finding of adverse impact to public safety or health.
5. This Agreement shall be recorded in the records of
King County and the covenants thereof shall be deemed to
attach to and run with the Property and shall be binding
upon the Owners, Hayden Island, their heirs, sucessors and
assigns, and shall apply to after acquired title of the
Owners of the Property.
6. This Agreement may be amended or modified by agree-
ment between the Owners, Hayden Island and the City; pro-
vided such amended agreement shall be approved by the Tukwila
Planning Commission after written notice is made to property
owners within. 300 feet of the Property.
7. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Tukwila
City Council from making such further amendments to the
Zoning Code as it may deem necessary in the public interest.
Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the application to
the Property of future amendments to the Zoning Code, if
otherwise applicable.
8. This Agreement is made for the benefit of the City.
The' City may institute and prosecute any proceedings at law
or in equity to enforce this Agreement. The City shall be
entitled to recover from Hayden Island reasonable attorney
fees and costs for any action commenced pursuant to this
Agreement.
9. In the event any covenant, condition or restriction
hereinabove contained, or any portion thereof, is invalid or
void, such invalidity or voidness shall in no way affect any
other covenant, condition or restriction hereinabove con-
tained.
DATED: Alorerriber s r , 1982.
°REGo^(
STATE OF WMAiitielett )
/eitU.7NeMAM ) Ss.
COUNTY OF N+NS
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 4
HAYDEN ISLAND, INC.
By
Its 6.,raceinvt VAC - Pgawichr
OWNERS
A iko Shimatsu, Trustee
Nancy I.
1 Mikami
ka i
akumi Mikami
On this date, before me, the undersigned, personally
appeared "D 1 r i d S . a ri e r , to me known
to be the fxeccerive V,Ge Presi'dtnr of HAYDEN
ISLAND, INC., the corporation that executed the within and
foregoing PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and acknow-
ledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and
deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he /s.kie was authorized to
execute said instrument.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND
1982.
NIo � Fin•b,e r ,
r, .,�
COUNTY OF KING
On this date, personally appeared before me AKIKO SHI-
MATSU, to me known to be the individual described in and who
executed the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
and acknowledged that she signed and sealed the same as her
free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this / /4e . , day
o f 19 8 2.
t • t- ,.� -e�-,� , _ .._.._.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
' On this date, personally appeared before me K'VOTO MIKAMI,
to me known to be the individual described in and who executed
the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT and acknow-
ledged that he signed and sealed the same as his free and
voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this / / day '�
• •,
1982.
) ss.
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 5
OFFICIAL SEAL this .6"/".b day of
Notary Publisja and for the
State of wafficint,a, residing
at PoRrla,n d , 0 R E6o,4
6XQlyds: 7/2.9/94
No Public in and for tine
Sta e of ashington, residing
at
Nota blic in ni for the
S ✓ashington, residing
at
•
•
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
On this date, personally appeared before me NANCY K.
MIKAMI, to me known to be the individual described in and
who executed the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREE-
MENT and acknowledged that she signed and sealed the same as
her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes
therein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this /,rt day
of �� , 1982.
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
PROPERTY USE AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 6
y Public in and for the .M , >
S e of =ton, residing
at
'' ,',rl 111 NNN
On this date, personally appeared before me TAKUMI
MIKAMI, to me known to be the individual described in and
who executed the within PROPERTY USE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREE-
MENT and acknowledged that he signed._and sealed_. the._same ... _
as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this
of -2 �✓ itr ✓ , 1982. /C
Nota • 'u•
St4pr of
at
lic ` for ne: 1 .
"shington, residing.- :. :;•..
i iut? i - . CuttzA pCi4L1L
butA cfru4t
•
Emma
•
•
•
Situate in the County of Ring, State of Washington.'
•
•
DESCRIPTION:
That portion of the Northeast k of the Southwest of Section 26,
Q D Township 23 North,. Range 4 East, ' W.M.., described as follows:
•
•
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Northeast of the
• Southwest }; '
N thence South 87 ° 55'53" East, along the Southerly line of said section,
yei
• a distance of 621.98 feet to the Westerly line of Southcenter Parkway;
C thence North 01 °05'23" East, along said Westerly line; a distance of
• 155.01 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence, continuing along said Westerly line, North 01 ° 05'23" East a
distance of. 609.96 feet; •
thence North 87 ° 55'53" West a distance of 212.22 feet the Easterly
line'of Primary State Highway No. 1 (S.R.5); •
thence South O1 °18' 40" West, along said Easterly line, a distance of
77.62. feet; - •
thence Soutli' °51'11 ".West a distance of 37.81 feet;
CD thence Southerly to a point which is North 87 °55'53" West a distance
of 250.04 feet :fronf.the true point of beginning; .
thence South 87 ° 55'53" East a distance of 250.04 feet to the true
point of beginning; •
PLANNING DEPT
EXHIBIT
M= BI- 11•x1
• DTI' 2
1
TABLE ONE
• � Parking Parking
Size Requited Required
Tenant' Name' (Sc. Ft.) Old Code New Code
Medical Clinic 3,430 9 9
C Organs & Pianos 2,695 7 7
N Retail- Unleased 1:0)-5. . • 3 3
ri
Bedspread Shop 1,300 4 4
•` p Hallmark•Sbop. & '5,600 14
14
Office Supply.
Taco Time 2,710 35 55 2 •
Haagen Dazs 1,306 19 . 26
One Hour Photo 1,750 '5. 5
Computershop 2,800 7 7
Sears Business 3,150 8 8
Maternity Shop 1,190 3 3 .
Dry Cleaning 1,260 4 4.•
Donut .Shop 1,406 20 28
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 138 173
Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 164 114
TOTAL NEED 44,490 4 302 287
TOTAL AVAILABLE ' ) _7.8 224 i 224
:.1 -63
• 2 Restaurant parking, new code = G.F.A. s• 100 or 50
•
Restaurant parking, old code = N.F.A. s- 7 s- 5 (Place of
public assembly 'assumed• to be 50% unless known)__,
•
3 Chuck E. Cheese - Restaurant area 10,168 /Game Room =
•4,722' •
4 Retail.tenants only = 112 parking spaces
• -
r
•,/^0,1
.- p4 I4
I • •■•••••■••.••■• ga
I. •
• k 1- I I r
• 1
•••■••••■••■••••■••■••■•••
=TA
FILMING
..„ , s .--...--..........•
' r • ' ' '44.'"ik`M 'AUDI
OF .. :■' •-• ! ' • • ' • ' ''.'
torir:cf!M•r: . r' - • •.
. . • a . , .• ., •
. .
. .
I
ill s44.
■,•• •••••,•■•
■•••
-Wert' 004
1
I .
b. I
•
4.0
•••• •.••••■■•••••••■•■ • •••■•••••.
../ ;
•-wr- •
•••••••••••••••••■•••
CriCA —
4r43.44.4t Knead
ton.1.04‘. • MeKteeer-
44,444. •
1
• - • I ,
1 building
I
••••••■•■
,. c7 :. •
. 4 ; . • . i
'T
; I • .
; L1 . jw„14 si. • -
talatitft-tre sle.•Jr..te
site parking plan
:
IM7*.
- ••••■•■04 1.0 .414,106._
eivie0 ' • •
an.••■•• ;
AO WM/a
•
104•01#1114 0/10.■.••604i44/■■•(••••••■••••■...."
TtElag.a-,744.
10,•.4 ••••• A
11 rilif Pah.. •41.14r40.1...4.
.11
•
I.
. .
Mi 1.0.e*.tv31..v::t..—...--_r
a.
cc
w
F-
•
DI 0
909 N. TOMAHAWK ISLAND DRIVE • PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 • PHONE 283.4111
August 10, 1982
r i City of Tukwila
Planning Department •
rl 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
CI
N Tukwila, WA 98188
ci
c-! ATTN: Mr. Brad Collins, Mr. Mark Caughey and all other
up involved Department Heads.
EXHIBIT 4
•
Gentlemen:
This is a formal request that representatives of Hayden
Island, Inc., developers of Center Place Shopping Center
in Tukwila, Washington, be put on the agenda of the August
26th, 1982.Planning Commission meeting to seek relief from
certain parking requirements being imposed by the City.
The resolution of this matter is extremely urgent in that
by withholding the Building Permit on Chuck E. Cheese
Pizza Time Theatre the cost to Hayden Island is approx-
imately $30,000.00 a month in interest and lost revenue.
Our request will be that the Planning Commission approve
the tenant mix and uses for the Center per the attached
Exhibit "A ". You'll note the "new Code" if fully enforced
would call for 283 parking spaces. The old Code under
which we received approval to build the Center, as we read
it, called for 114 parking spaces. The Center, per the
attached site plan (Exhibit "B "), has 224 parking places
( than twice that required by our permit) and based
on the following we believe we have more than enough
parking.
Our contention is that because of the way the Center was
leased we have compatible parking needs and ample parking
during the periods that the various Tenant's businesses
peak in volume. When we leased approximately_ 33% of the
Center to Chuck E. Cheese we knew that,75% to 80% of their
business was done from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. They cater
City of Tukwila
• Planning Department
August 10, 198'
Page Two of Two
primarily to families with small children (5 to 15 years
of age). The average occupancy of the customer's cars
is over six people. It's a family oriented restaurant
and a very small percentage of their parking requirement
is generated during the day.
Knowing this, we then proceeded to lease the rest of the
Center to Tenant's who either require very little parking
at any time, or who do the greatest percentage of their
business during the day when the demand for Chuck E. Cheese
is low. The attached Exhibit "C" breaks down the various
actual daytime and nighttime needs for the various Tenant's
and the reasons used in reaching those projections. A
recap of the actual daytime and nighttime needs is found
on Exhibit "A" in the last two columns.
Even more important than my estimates of parking needs
are those done by Cottingham Transportation Engineering,
an outside consultant we hired to do a study at the
request of the Planning Department, attached as Exhibit
"D ". It supports our contention of compatible use and
shows our 224 parking spaces to be more than adequate.
To review:
• We ask that the Planning Commission grant our request
to obtain Building Permits for the various Tenant's
shown on Exhibit "A" for the following reasons:
1) The Code in place when we received our permit in
December of 1981, called for a minimum of 114
parking places. The Center has 224 parking
places.
2) The new Code which is being imposed on us, re-
quires 283 parking places without taking into
account the compatible uses of the various
Tenant's.
3) Both our study and that of Cottingham Engineering
show that the 224 parking places now available
are more than enough.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Van Dyke
Vice President
Hayden Island, Inc.
PVD:cel
Enclosures
EXHIBIT "A ".
PROPOSED TENANT MIX AND ACTUAL PARKING NEEDS
FOR CENTER PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PARKING PARKING ACTUAL ACTUAL
SIZE REQUIRED REQUIRED DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
SPACE TENANT NAME (SQ.FT.) OLD CODE(1) NEW CODE(2) NEED(3) NEED(4)
1) Medical Clinic 3,430 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 6. cars
2) Organs & Pianos 2,695 9.25 " 9.25 " 8. " 8. It
QD
r•1
O 3) Retail - Unleased 1,015 2.5 ' 2.5 11 ill 11 2.5 2.
N 4) Bedspread Shop 1,300 3.25 " 3.25 ," 3. " 3. "
ei • N 5) Hallmark Shop & 5,600 14. " 14. " 14. " . 9. "
OD Office Supply
6) Taco Time 2,710 7. It 54. " 27. " 18. "
7) Haagen Dazs 1,300 3.25 " 26. " 15. " 12. "
8) One Hour Photo 1,750 4.5 " 4.5 " 4. " 4. It
9) Computershop 2,800 7. " 7. " 7. " 4. 1 '
10) Sears Business Systems 3,150 8. " 8. " 8. " 5. II
11) Maternity Shop 1,190 3. " 3. " 3. " 2. "
12) Dry Cleaning 1,260 3. 11 3. 11 3. "
0. (closed)
13) Donut Shop 1,400 3.5 " 28. " 14. " 8. "
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 77. " 171. to 117. " 81. "
14) Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 37. " 115. " 50. " 115. "
TOTAL NEED 114. " 286. " 167. " 196. "
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224. It 224. " 224. " 224. II +110. 11 -62. 11 +57. II +28. "
NOTE ##1: The "old Code" under which we received our permit, specifically permits
restaurants (excluding Drive -Ins) under the C -1 use. It also requires
one space for each 400 square feet of leased area.
NOTE #2: The "new Code" reclassifies restaurants causing the sharp increase in
those parking requirements.
NOTE k3 & ##4: These are our best estimates as to our actual needs during daytime
(10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), nighttime (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and
show an actual surplus of parking both day and night.
-
A�
fai
�I
1�
•
•
1 i._.1_ "�—�
..,_ _ . ir..tw . r. b��• w.
nJ.v ...IL
EXHIBIT !'B"
•
.....
..
.w. *.» :
, — /�
• k .1c. i,.I. '
_
f/Wcrlo GM•N
Co.Iq•GT MK.h �•�'
.Tz.gwo r.�w. »�
10' - -LL MAGI*
..a47.44 MONO
site parking plan
1 — building --- A';
• ..,..
f r .a
41.4t4P
9IOTC2 tt7.R
tC1
I 1.—,i 1 . . •
...r • 1 t •
I •
•
44041, rata d
I MM(.r A 4...
1 I h... ..•1'•.
3)i
it0:k_�teyre�/l /:.1f�
z es
r —,sa �»,•t lam:,_ ,.. V OA 1 . 1 0t
.�.., s " 3' ;.` iI . I I I
s a�.• -nom - -, • .
4. 61 ? ate,,
building B
•
� a c4 .t 6 .y
/
1 .14: Ail flewRL}.t
F 4tPN
-- - r w....
: - FLA'w'so
U +=
.Nr:1t1+..s
1
+._..- ,....,ter
• II
—}t4E 1 I
p. •
; ll 1
ta� -
1
Tenant by Tenant analysis as to actual parking need broken down
by daytime and nighttime needs:
1) Medical Clinic
The code requirement should cover daytime visits,
nighttime activity would be primarily emergency visits
which would be minimal. 6 cars at night would be
ample.
2) Organs and Pianos
This is a big ticket tenant with a historically light
customer load, normally run with 2 employees days and
1 at night. 2 to 3 customers at a•time.is average. 8
daytime spaces and 8 nighttime is reasonable.
Unleased Retail
No tenant here, code is okay for daytime, I reduced
from 2.5 to 2 cars at night.
6
EXHIBIT "C"
Bedspread Shop
One item retailer, average price $75.00 to $100.00. I
don't anticipate high volume. It's a 1 employee
tenant. 3 spaces days and 3 nights should be ample.
Hallmark - Office Supply
Self service office supplies, cards and gifts. 4
employees days, 2 at night. At least 60% of their
gross will be office supplies, 80% of which will be
purchased during the day. This type of use will drop
off sharply at night. 14 cars days and 9 at night is
a reasonable expectation.
Taco Time
Here I strongly disagree with the code. This is not a
typical McDonald's or Wendy's with a drive - through
where they expect 80% of their business to be
take -out. Only about 20% is take-out, the rest
consumed on the premises. That's what is important,
not whether or not they eat on china or paper. In
addition, at least 70% of their business is lunch, so
their impact on parking drops sharply at night. If we
allot 27 spaces daytime, that's 5 employees and,
figuring 2 people to a car, 44 customers. I have
never seen a Taco Time with 44 customers at one time.
18 cars at night would give you 3 employees and 30
customers which is more than ample.
7
8) One Hour Photo
Quick in and out, no long-term use. 1 employee. I
think 4 cars daytime, and 4 nighttime will be ample.
They plan to close about 7 p. m.
9
8/10/82
PVD:clr
Haagen Dazs
Here again the code is punitive. They average 2
employees. Most visits are made by families. Car
count probably averages 3 people. 15 spaces days
gives you 36 customers, 12 spaces at night with 2
employees gives you 30 customers. I have never seen
over 15 people in a Haagen Dazs store. Another point
is that a great many of their nighttime customers will
come from Chuck E. Cheese which will not impact
parking at all. Also; Chuck E. Cheese volume peaks in
the winter months; Haagen Dazs peaks in the summer.
Again, a good compatible use.
Computershop
Sophisticated, technical hardware. Very few
customers; with big ticket sales. Almost no night
business. 7 spaces daytime, 4 spaces at night is
reasonable.
10), Sears Business Systems Center
Same as above. Both these Tenants will be working
with small businesses in the design and installation
of computer components. A good percentage of their
work will be off the premises which will not impact
parking at all. I think 8 spaces days and 5 nights
will do it.
11) Maternity Shop
Low volume tenant. Sales will average $300 a day.
That's 10 customers all day with 1 employee. 3
daytime and 2 nighttime is reasonable.
12) Drycleaning
Minimal use, just drop off and pick up. Will close at
about 6:00 p. m. 3 spaces during the day, none at
night.
13) Donut Shop
This one is a real problem. The code calls for 28
cars and in fact this tenant won't impact parking at
all. 75% of their business will be done before 11:00
a.m. They start baking at 5:00 a. m., open at 6:00
a.m. By noon they are down to one employee. From
5:00 p.m. on they will be lucky to have 3 customers at
a time. I think 14 spaces daytime and 8 at night is
more than enough.
LAW OFFICES OF
Ierguson 6 Burdell
29Th FLOOR, ONE UNION SQUARE
Sea11Ie,Washinglon 98101
TELEPHONE (206) 622 -1 71 1
TELECOPIER (206) 682 -8078
TELEX 32 0382
November 16, 1982
Gd
+ri
C'7
Mr. Daniel Woo '
Attorney at Law
CNZ LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung &
GO
Emory
3900 Seattle -First National Bank Building
Seattle, Washington 98154
Dear Mr. Woo:
Re: Shimatsu: Hayden Island; Center Place
The undersigned represents Akiko Shimatsu, Trustee, Kiyoto
and Nancy K. Mikami, husband and wife, and Takumi Mikami and Yoshie
Mikami, husband and wife, who are named as "Owners" under the
Property Use and Development Agreement from the Owners and Hayden
Island, Inc. to the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation.
Please be advised that the Owners understand that the
Cottingham Transportation Engineering Traffic Analysis, dated
August 11, 1982, is a part of Exhibit 4 to said Property Use and
Development Agreement.
WDS:mh
cc: Akiko Shimatsu
Robert Schofield
Charles Blumenfeld
Exhibit 4 Continued
WM.H FERGUSON JAMES E. HURT
CHARLES S.EURDELL (1973) WILLIAM D. STITES
WM. WE55ELHOEFT BRUCE P. BABBITT
DONALD Mc L. DAVIDSON E. P. SWAIN, JR.
EDWARD HILPERT,JR. CHRISTOPHER KANE
THOMAS J.GREENAN HENRY C.JAMESON
HENRY W. DEAN SCOTT S. OSBORNE
WILLIAM B. MOORE
C. DAVID SHEPPARD DAVID N. LOMBARD
W. J. THOMAS FERGUSON ANDREW L. SYMONS
Very truly yours,
FERGUSAN & BURDELL
zwa
Bv:` William D. Stites
MICHAEL M'CORMACK
SHAWN OTOROWSKI
PHILUP S. MILLER
GREGORY 5. PETRIE
DAVID R. LORD
ANDREW D. GILL
DENNIS J.DUNPHY
ARNOLD R.HEDEEN
THOMAS H.WOLFENDALE
ANNE D. VOE LAWLER
LAW OFFICES
BOGLE & GATES
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ROBERT W. GRAHAM. P.S.
CHARLES F. OSBORN. PS.
MAX KAMINOFF, PS,
J. TYLER HULL P.S.
ARTHUR 0 ORUNKE. P.S.
•RONALD E. McKIHSTRY. P.S.
EDWARD C. BIELE, P.5
RICHARD 5. SPRAGUE. PS.
IRWIN L. TREIGER, P.S.
PAUL W. STEERE. P.S.
'''ROBERT J. BLACKWELL
ROBERT A STEWART
DONALD L JOHNSON. P S.
DON PAUL BRADLEY. PS.
'PETER D. BYRNES, P.S.
GEPHARDT MORRISON. P.6.
JOHN T. PIPER P.5.
TNOMAS J. RACKET. P.S.
EDWARD G. LOWRY 111
JOHN P. SULLIVAN
DUSTIN C. MCCREARY
RONALD T. SCHAPS
MIKE LILES. JR_ P.S.
DAN P. HUNOATE
PETER M. ANDERSON
DELBERT D. MILLER. P.S.
ROBERT 0. KAPLAN
DALE B. RAMERMAN
E MCDUFF ARCHIBALD
RICHARD M. CUNTON. PS.
MICHAEL 6. COURTNAOE
KARL J. EN
...MICHAEL W. DUNGY
'CHARLES 11. BLUMENFELD
JAMES A. SMITH. JR.
THOMAS C. GORES
KIMBERLY W. OSENBAUGH, PS.
JOHN F. BOESPPLUG. JR.
Dear Dan:
JAMES F. TUNE
TNAOOAS L ALSTON
"'DOUGLAS A RODS
SPENCER HALL JR
ARTHUR C. CLAFLIN
0 MK7UEL YOUNG
... JAMES N. REEVES
J PETER SHAPIRO
KELLY P. CORR
ROBERT C. GRAYSON
ELAINE L SPENCER
GUY P. MICHELSON
CHRISTOPHER J. BARRY
WTLIUM E. VAN VALKENBERG
RICHARD A MONTGOMERY
PATRICIA H. CHAR
CHRIS ROBERT YOUR
HELEN A HARVEY
WILLIAM F. CRONIN
LUCY P. S. (SAKI
DAVID R. ROGER M. TOLBERT
RICHARD G. WOOD
SUZANNE MILLER ROEMTNER
ELLEN ROBERT J. T OMASALEXANDER
SUSAN E BOYLE
DENNIS G. 6TENSTROM
SALLY H. SAXON
RICIURD J. WALLS
LEWIS TAYLOR EGAN
RICHARD D. VOOT
DOUGLAS 0. MOONEY
ANDREW A GUY
WIWAM 0. CLARK
BRYCE L HOLLAND. JR.
LYNN EDELSTEIN MKT
JEFFREY R. MASI
'WASHINGTON STATE AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BARS
"0)STRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR ONLY
"'ALASKA STATE BAR
ALL OTHERS WASHINGTON STATE BAR ONLY
BRUCE A. KING
BRADLEY S. KELLER
"'EDWARD L MINER
"ANNE E. MICKEY H. LOWE
THDM S SCOTT NODGE
JEFFREY W. LEPPO
ROBERT H. BLAHS
JUDITH A. ENDEJAN
ANNE V. MCCLELLAN
GEORGE E. GREER
CELESTE M. NORRIS
ERIK R. LIED
LAVEEDA GARLINOTONIATHEWS
DUNE G. FITZ•OERALD
JEFFREY A. PETERSON
PATRICK S. BRADY
LAURA TREADGOLD OLES
RICHARD R. HACK. II
ROBERT A LIPSON
PETER J. MUCKLESTONE
RALPH E. CROMWELL JR.
W. SCOTT WERT
'CHRISTOPHER L 5001
Cana/
•'TERRY L LETRELL
"JOHN A DOUGLAS
AcMomy
STANLEY B. LONG
EDWARD 0. DOBBIN
FRANK L MECHEM
ORLD B. KELLOGG
THOMAS L MORROW
ROBERT V. HOLLAND
Daniel Woo, Esq.
LeSourd, Patten, Fleming,
Hartung & Emory
3900 Seattle First National Bank Bldg.
Seattle, Washington 98154
cc: Peter Van Dyke
William D.. Stites, Esq.
Exhibit 4 Continued
Re: Hayden Island, Inc. - Center Place
Very truly yours,
BOGLE & GATES
Charles R. Blumenfeld
THE BANE OF CALIFORNIA CENTER
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98164
CABLE "BOGLE SEATTLE"
(206) 682 -5151 TELEX 32.1087
SUITE 725
1575 EYE STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005
(202) 028 -0485 TELEX: 89-7410
SUITE 525
900 WEST FIFTH AVENUE
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501
(907) 276 -4557
PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE
FILE NO.: 13873 -25278
November 15, 1982
hand delivered
We are writing as attorneys for Hayden Island, Inc.,
for the purpose of advising you that Hayden Island under-
stands that the Cottingham Transportation Engineering Traffic
Analysis, dated August 11, 1982,'is a part of Exhibit 4 to
the Property Use and Development Agreement executed by Hayden
Island.
{
J =7 City of Tukwila
0
uJ
cil
1909
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
Planning Commissioners
Planning Department Staff
23 August 1982
Supplemental Materials- Center Place
I
MEMORANDUM „,
In addition to the items pertinent to the proposed cooperative parking
facility for the Center Place retail project which was included with
your staff report, we wish to draw to your attention the availablity
of supporting data supplied by the proponents. Accordingly, we are
transmitting to you copies of the following material which should be .
considered on Thursday night along with the staff report:
1) Exhibit A -lst Revision- (Revised Parking Lot Layout)
2) Traffic and Parking Analysis - Cottingham Transportation Engrs.
3) Letter of 10 August 1982 from Hayden Island Inc. in support
of cooperative parking and reduced ratios.
1 �_1
•
1"
•1.# I' L
i
EXHIBIT "B"
rivuLrda [M — K 1
GOWI•G1 swoocooss
••■Or..o
1p4L
•
,. .6 .4•G..
P•,
site parking plan
•
•
9 IorcZIT=Ze
building -- A -
•
•
r -,1 — NAOMI
1 1.1 1 I
4' • e... N9'.
.1.
K MtL1 11 /..,H
t ••>77HSR.fl.• IW. - •
I l
f Tr •
•
i I 1 1 t I Ih� -{i d J •
• I _I� =- 1 -'�=1 . 1 1 ... (• L I 1 i I 1 I I
ll'�� —� /r l s• 1lr. .+'• I,,v . r• •.. . {w r +ew ' • L4�`t_tue y re4.J �.t.(.
Y
— . .�.
l E. L
IF LI"
IT *0 q ... . a r A 4..Ary ed.v. 17 • �rY t Y Y K. r� 0• •• A(N r.lr e.1.. • • i•r.I..r
•
1 1 1
x
- - 1
PLANNING DEPT
sr
EXI'IE 4-I
MF
PP ■ ........ .....■........1,11-Y
� ' �•.r111I�` I III 1 � � ��
• I t , ( # ....,a ......••• .... •—• , • t a)—IOV�Ll� 1
I.,
Ii RU.. • — ...
1 ..MI
N14Mr{A 11.04. n •
9
• C:
ti
0
r4� Mr. Brad Collins
Director of Planning
ei City Hall
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Traffic Analysis Center Place
17001 Southcenter Parkway
Dear Mr. Collins:
SUITE 701, PLAZA 600 BLDG. • 6mH AT STEWART
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 8101
(206) 447 -0977
August 11, 1982 •
Gi11DEED
1 . AUG 12 1982
G: OF TUKWILA
• - "dING DEPT
COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
The attached traffic analysis focuses on-three basic areas of operations,
namely (1) internal circulation including parking, (2) external circulation
as related to Southcenter Parkway, and (3) generation of traffic based on
the tenant use of all buildings in Center Place.
The project analysis from a traffic adequacy view is clearly demonstrated
due in part to the diversity•in use by tenant business located in the Center.
Traffic conflicts should be greatly diminished when viewed in relation to
the peak -hour of traffic on Southcenter Parkway and compared to the peak
hour of Center Place.
The driveway configurations also are ideal in providing internal circulation
through two locations and spread along the Parkway over 300' apart. With
the existing center two -way left -turn lane on the Parkway, no changes need
be made in traffic lanes, channelization or signalization to accommodate
.existing or Center Place traffic.
The trip generation in this analysis encompasses two separate approaches;
one based on anticipated business attraction.and the other based on maximum
building occupancy for the major tenant.Chuck -E- Cheese and anticipated
business attraction for the remaining tenants. Both approaches show adequacy
. for the parking lot to accommodate the demand parking without parking on
. the arterial Southcenter Parkway.
The street /driveway volumes in a peak -hour will approach the parking
lot size due ,to turnover rates that include 1 hour to 10 min. parking
durations. The highest peak volume of 300 entering and 250 leaving will be
accommodated in the existing peak -hour flow on the Parkway without conflicts •
or revisions to geometrics. This volume approximates 5 per minute leaving
. via two driveways, some left - turning and others right- turning. This should
be within the parameters of service level "B" to "C" and not require turn
prohibitions in foreseeable future.
Mr. Brad Collins
August 11, 1982
Page 2
Should further analysis be required, I will respond at your request.
Very truly yours,
COTTING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Kenneth E. Cottingham, P.E.
Transportation Engineer
KEC:ce
Enclosed: Traffic Analysis of Center Place
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
OF
CENTER PLACE - TUKWILA
INCLUDING
CHUCK -E- CHEESE PIZZA TIME THEATRE
.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Center Place Shopping Center is located in the city of Tukwila on Southcenter
Parkway, west side, and immediately north of the present Wendy's hamburgers.
Directly across the street is the Red Robin restaurant as well as a diesel
engine and truck repair facility known as Emerson.,
The site for Center Place envisions Building A and Building B. The square
footage of the various businesses to be located in the two buildings which are
connected with a common parking lot is as follows:
Tenant
Chuck -E- Cheese 14,890
Medical Clinic 3,430
Organs and Pianos 2,695
Retail - Unleased 1,015
Bedspreads 1,300
Hallmark Cards 5,600
Taco Time 2,710
Haagen -Dazs Ice Cream Shoppe 1,300
One -Hour Photo 1,750
Computer Shop • 2,800
Sears Business Machines 3,150
Materntiy 1,190
Dry Cleaning 1,260
Donuts 1,400
TOTAL
-
Gross Sq. Ft.
44,890 SF
As cari be seen from the above tabulation'of square footage, the Chuck -E- Cheese
. tenant, at approximately one -third of the square feet of the total Building A
plus Building B, will be the largest single tenant. The'enclosed aerial photos
which were taken at the site while under construction on Sunday, July 25, 1982
show the proximity of the buildings to the Southcenter Parkway and other
existing businesses.
As of this writing, the second week in August, 1982, the parking stalls that
will be available for the total Center Place Shopping Center are 224. The
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT - Continued
building occupancy level, as determined by the Tukwila Fire Department, has
been determined by the Fire Marshall to be 652 for the Chuck -E- Cheese establish-
ment. This breaks out to 360 for the dining room (at 5411 square feet), 247
for the gaming room (at 3704 square feet), 12 for the kitchen (at 2566 square
feet), and 33 for miscellaneous services, (at 3298 square feet).
Based on the above distribution of square footage usage for all tenants, it
then became necessary to analyze total Center Place Shopping Center as to its
adequacy to provide parking during a peak- weekly situation, which was determined
to be a Friday.
During the course of this traffic analysis of the shopping center, discussions
were completed with various persons who were interested in the project, both
from the developer and the City of Tukwila. Among those were Mr. Brad Collins,
Director of Planning for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Mark Caughey, Assistant' •
Planner for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works'
for the City.of Tukwila, Mr. Doug Gibbs, Acting Fire Marshall for the City of
Tukwila, Mr. P. L. Phelan of the Tukwila Police Department, Mr. Peter Van Dyke,
Vice President of Hayden Island, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, Mr. Robert H.
Schofield of Coldwell Banker, Tukwila, Mr. Frank N. Jones, President of
Chuck -E- Cheese, Mr. William P. Miller, Construction Manager for Island
Construction, and Carl Prothman, Technician in the Tukwila Public Works
Department.
It was through the conferences and discussions with these persons that suffi-
cient data was gathered for the proposed Chuck -E- Cheese establishment in Tukwila.
Additional information, based on the Federal Way and the Lynnwood Chuck -E- Cheese
stores, that are now in operation, was gathered and in particular at the
Lynnwood establishment. Peak -hour times, total parking, building occupancy,
and the general attraction and generation of traffic, was studied at the .
Lynnwood store in.order to determine how these patterns of traffic circulation
would impact the internal and external circulation of the Tukwila proposed
Chuck -E- Cheese and Center Place Shopping Center.
-2-
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to properly assess the impact of the parking lot to the buildings,
the hourly usage (and therefore accumulation of parking requirements), as
related to the hour of peak traffic on the serving Southcenter Parkway, was
necessary to estimate traffic volumes based on ultimate use by each tenant.
Therefore, a distribution of parking demand by hour of a peak Friday was made,
based partly on code requirements, partly on actual observations of similar
establishments'during peak customer volumes, and partly from recognized
standards of generation of traffic by ITE. The following break -out of hourly
' parking stalls as related to each tenant is based on this procedure and shown
on the following page. Of particular note would be those hours from 4 p.m.
to 7 D.M. when the peak shopping center traffic would occur; the peak South -'
center Parkway traffic would occur, and the same peak for Chuck -E- Cheese occurs.
For the hour ending at 6 p.m., 193 stalls would be required on the peak Friday,
with 121 of these stalls for the one tenant, Chuck -E- Cheese. The other major
tenant at this time would be Taco Time and with lesser parking requirements
by the'other. tenants due to the late hour or the type of business.
Based on the 193 utilized stalls as against the available stalls of 224, this
represents an 86% usage for the peak Friday hour. All other times, including
Saturday, would be less usage for the shopping center as a whole, but with
different distribution of accumulated parked vehicles.
From another methodology, relating the figure of 121 for Chuck -E- Cheese and
utilizing the building maximum capacity of 652, indicates at least 5.4 persons
per vehicle overall. In reviewing other establishments, the 5.4 persons per
vehicle does not appear unreasonable for customers, but would be for employees.
Studies made in the Lynnwood area show that customers averaged just under 6
per vehicle, whereas employees were 1 per vehicle minus those "dropped off"
by others.
1 Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation'Engineers, copyright 1979.
-5-
_ ,,,,.......,.
i
Pf.. TENANT.
•
MAXIMUM
130
130
131
16?
191
187
168.
125
29
16
TOTAL PARKING
8211231016
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Continued
H Therefore, using a weighted average based on 6 persons per vehicle for customers,
ri ri one person per vehicle for employees, (but subtracting out 10% as "drop- offs "),
:7 results in a total number of vehicles of 98 customers and 55 employees.
NI ri
r r These 153 vehicles, when added to the remaining tenant usage in the center of
Q7 72, totals 225 spaces requirement under the "highest number" consideration,
but only using building occupancy of Chuck -E- Cheese, instead of the estimated '
.demand for service. This 225 nearly approximates the supplied 224 stalls
and could be considered a cross -check or final check of the adequacy of the
present parking layout, but under a maximum or upper limit basis.
REFERENCES
Traffic Counts - March, 1981 by C.T.E.
Traffic Counts - May, 1981 by City of Tukwila
Transportation & Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2Ed., 1982 by I.T.E.
Wendy's Restaurant Transportation Analysis April, 1981 by C.T.E.
t
log A 1.5 " .
.O..
'40: Z017
Mr. Brad Collins
Director of Planning
City Hall
Tukwila, WA 98188
COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
SUITE 701, PLAZA 600 BLDG. • 6TH AT STEWART
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 4474977
Re: Traffic Analysis Center Place
17001 Southcenter Parkway
Dear Mr. Collins:
August 11, 1982
G NOMM
F A 12 1982
( F T!?u1A'lLA
The attached traffic analysis focuses on three basic areas of operations,
namely (1) internal circulation including parking, (2) external circulation
as related to Southcenter Parkway, and (3) generation of traffic based on
the tenant use of all buildings in Center Place.
The project analysis from a traffic adequacy view is clearly demonstrated
due in part to the diversity in use by tenant business located in the Center.
Traffic conflicts should be greatly diminished when viewed in relation to
the peak -hour of traffic on Southcenter Parkway and compared to the peak
hour of Center Place.
The driveway configurations also are ideal in providing internal circulation
through two locations and spread along the Parkway over 300' apart. With
the existing center two -way left -turn lane on the Parkway, no changes need
be made in traffic lanes, channelization or signalization to accommodate
existing or Center Place traffic.
The trip generation in this analysis encompasses two separate approaches;
one based on anticipated business attraction and the other based on maximum
building occupancy for the major tenant Chuck -E- Cheese and anticipated
business attraction for the remaining tenants. Both approaches show adequacy
for the parking lot to accommodate the demand parking without parking on
the arterial Southcenter Parkway.
The street /driveway volumes in a peak -hour will approach the parking .
lot size due to turnover rates that include 11 hour to 10 min. parking
durations. The highest peak volume of 300 entering and 250 leaving will be
accommodated in the existing peak -hour flow on the Parkway without conflicts
or revisions to geometrics. This volume approximates 5 per minute leaving
via two driveways, some left - turning and others right - turning. This should
be within the parameters of service level "B" to "C" and not require turn
prohibitions in foreseeable future.
Mr. Brad Collins
August 11, 1982
Page 2
Should further analysis be required, I will respond at your request.
Very truly yours,
COTTINGHAM TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
4 4414"4"1:r
Kenneth E. Cottingham, P.
Transportation Engineer
KEC:ce
Enclosed: Traffic Analysis of Center Place
DESCRIPTION'OF PROJECT
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
OF
CENTER PLACE - TUKWILA
INCLUDING
CHUCK -E- CHEESE PIZZA TIME THEATRE
Center Place Shopping Center is located in the city of Tukwila on Southcenter
Parkway, west side, and immediately north of the present Wendy's hamburgers.
Directly across the street is the Red Robin restaurant as well as a diesel
engine and truck repair facility known as Emerson.
The site for Center Place envisions Building A and Building B. The square
footage of the various businesses to be located in the two buildings which are
connected with a common parking lot is as follows:
Tenant Gross Sq. Ft.
Chuck -E- Cheese 14,890
Medical Clinic 3,430
Organs and Pianos 2,695
Retail - Unleased 1,015
Bedspreads 1,300
Hallmark Cards 5,600
Taco Time 2,710
Haagen -Dazs Ice Cream Shoppe 1,300
One -Hour Photo 1,750
Computer Shop 2,800
Sears Business Machines 3,150
Materntiy 1,190
Dry Cleaning 1,260
Donuts 1,400
TOTAL 44,890 SF
As can be seen from the above tabulation of square footage, the Chuck -E- Cheese
tenant, at approximately one -third of the square feet of the total Building A
plus Building B, will be the largest single tenant. The enclosed aerial photos
which were taken at the site while under construction on Sunday, July 25, 1982
show the proximity of the buildings to the Southcenter Parkway and other
existing businesses.
As of this writing, the second week in August, 1982, the parking stalls that
will be available for the total Center Place Shopping Center are 224. The
-1-
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT - Continued
building occupancy level, as determined by the Tukwila Fire Department, has
been determined by the Fire Marshall to be 652 for the Chuck -E- Cheese establish-
ment. This breaks out to 360 for the dining room (at 5411 square feet), 247
for the gaming room (at 3704. square feet), 12 for the kitchen (at 2566 square
feet), and 33 for miscellaneous services, (at 3298 square feet).
Based on the above distribution of square footage usage for all tenants, it
then became necessary to analyze total Center Place Shopping Center as to its
adequacy to provide parking during a peak - weekly situation, which was determined
to be a Friday.
During the course of this traffic analysis of the shopping center, discussions
were completed with various persons who were interested in the project, both
from the developer and the City of Tukwila. Among those were Mr. Brad Collins,
Director of Planning for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Mark Caughey, Assistant
Planner for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Byron Sneva, Director of Public Works
for the City of Tukwila, Mr. Doug Gibbs, Acting Fire Marshall for the City of
Tukwila, Mr. P. L. Phelan of the Tukwila Police Department, Mr. Peter Van Dyke,
Vice President of Hayden Island, Inc. of Portland, Oregon, Mr. Robert H.
Schofield of Coldwell Banker, Tukwila, Mr. Frank N. Jones, President of
Chuck -E- Cheese, Mr. William P. Miller, Construction Manager for Island
Construction, and Carl Prothman, Technician in the Tukwila Public Works
Department.
It was through the conferences and discussions with these persons that suffi-
cient data was gathered for the proposed Chuck -E- Cheese establishment in Tukwila.
Additional information, based on the Federal Way and the Lynnwood Chuck -E- Cheese
stores, that are now in operation, was gathered and in particular at the
Lynnwood establishment. Peak -hour times, total parking, building occupancy,
and the general attraction and generation of traffic, was studied at the
Lynnwood store in order to determine how these patterns of traffic circulation
would impact the internal and external circulation of the Tukwila proposed
Chuck -E- Cheese and Center Place Shopping Center.
-2-
V I f .
V i.
View W.
Chuck-C-Cheese
July 25, 1982
View S.E.
1 ,4
9
A
2-0 ..44 ,..-st•4
_ • . . • •
to.
.1' 7
I
• t"
; 1
so is Y's
/ stoSte-_,
:4; .4. ere 'W.
AFsr-T P10.0 t...
/ -
PA. s • A.o
1 • I
T
• • - de J.1: 61 •GIV 'As tf•z*
! •
& Llimpousre
1
I 1
IV
1 , ea.-id...4...4-
4
s- • I . „
L:E.-r •-
•••••1••%••■•
• fo•o.
G•es.JC.
•
•-• ••-•••• .••••••••
_ 2.! (0
4-
I- r Y
! rs
•
site parking plan
s.
•, • t i i'.. • ; • ,,s. , ••
.....„..
—
j..._2....... 1___2 : s',.,L,• - • ,---------- )___ ,71/4 ±
l- . + _ I , .
k. .
' -... 1 ..3,
o . r..,s ___".....r-et*.rip.7. _. _ ____, r•v-p., Isi 17-o.. I ' 1 - 4 7q ., . „.t....s..4 _....P 4 : f..-:-.7. e-0 ‘._ 1 e_..t'•eft !•f _....,
--- . ' \ . 4i •
SI;
• it. 41- ts..c ... , ":„,*-c ... _ _ „,.,. ,-, 4...-•-c , 4,. touo,
--s....--...:-sr---• I
N --4.4 , 1!•. , .....• 3o, .
• -
1.4.4e
?.%-11
e'7.5"
• Ci•17,-‘ —
co •••
11: I
7"rre....;.r z... rc.s..g..%Uu4)V.).)—
7 ,e. .9
building A
ks •
:A47 M
•
a-
,
— —SEUL.—
F.---545..■ 7c f
. . • '
•
11 12 t 14 15 16
,..e -....(7.17•, • v- - 4 , • 1 .t!" •
i .
; •
I t
N./
I'
j
1 •
A
1
i !
...- ' . I ... L. .
:
' 1 : i k LI•..l•r....• L
1 • •
•;. ■••
-
•3
3.3
•
building B
. 1
I • e..,...r.:••• ..•,63
• :-.• V.) , i
4. - • —‘,......--...:•arrnal 0 .^,.•-af.-. ---,)
E : ..._.
-----..
• ■•■
e•
'?
...4.. 4141..l.A.rt PLAN:
•—• ...11.2.4.— .....—.. — —Wad—. — —11=1—.L.
,..
& • • li
1
• ' 1
1
......
. ' ; 4 !•••'' ••••••••• .
.I _
„
r • : t , t .....t.........—
..--•••
. — • '— — • \-
•i' • •:••• •Z p '50 e-c...t5( : . s:. AZ: ,,A• C ' .. 5 ‘r 6 -...., • 6. 4 •;-•. fo.-_-•-.....,,.2 1 .- ?:?_!...:•:.. :.•_______ ...., _______-,... :1_1:,,,_ ,• • ..
• 2.1
•••,., •
Th•
"ZP
.4C•rel
I
•":'• •-,a7P6Z A
.
r
r,
• 4.-
L
,
•
•
•$'
•
4. •
3
1 •
17
\
. •
•
• re.*E '•;/
.40 1,•••
r ..v.•‘•a
18
. 4 4 \
,••■••■••••■•
• .i, ,/
,
V ' ,/ .
_
:- e . .,, • '.7.1: ...,:-.- ..!-).c
, _.,._._. _____ • i • '
• i •
c.,• • i Q
•
Center Place .
Tukwila
August, 1982
INTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND SITE PLAN
The enclosed fold -out sheet entitled "Site Parking Plan" by the architect
David Hickman, depicts Building A and Building B as related to the on -site
parking and Southcenter Parkway, and to a scale of 1" = 40'.
The driveway locations include a three -lane driveway at the south end near
the Chuck -E- Cheese location, and a two -lane driveway near the north end.
Both of these driveways have good geometrics, a good turning radius to prevent
encroachment on adjacent lanes of traffic in the turning maneuver either into
or out of the shopping center, and a two -lane exit to allow right and left
turning when exiting vicinity of the Chuck -E- Cheese.
The plan fold -out was prepared in the second week of August, 1982, and
specifically includes the most recent revisions resulting in 224 parking spaces.
The fire lane and delivery roadway behind Buildings A and B will separate
and reduce any internal conflicts with the front parking area, or the service
and loading area. In addition, the provision for a fire lane around the
buildings will enhance access for emergency services that would include medic
as well as fire and police.
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Southcenter Parkway is a 60 foot curb -to -curb street composed of.five lanes of
12 foot each. The center.lane is a two -way left -turn lane, and will run the
full length of this development, as well as along adjacent businesses to the
north and south. As can be seen on the aerial photo taken in July of this year,
the two -way left -turn lane provides access to all adjacent property owners
and does not restrict crossing to and from this lane. This separation of
directions of traffic is desirable and allows gaps in either one direction or
the other direction of Southcenter Parkway to be utilized in gaining access
from the driveways on each side of the parkway. Therefore, with gaps in traffic
developed by the traffic signal to the north at Strander Boulevard, or the
first traffic signal to the south at the Boeing /Jafco signal, no signal
coordination is needed nor any change in signal phasing in order to absorb
-3-
EXTERNAL TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - Continued
and provide the traffic generation anticipated for this Center.
Previous work on this roadway by the author has provided background on peak -hour
and 24 -hour traffic volumes, as well as the noon and weekend type peaks.
Recognizing that not all peak traffic situations are the same and that there
are certain large generators of short duration that will sometimes exceed the
capacity of Southcenter Parkway, it would appear that the Center One Place
traffic volume will have no problems in gaining access to and from Southcenter
Parkway and will not require additional signalization or street capacity in
the foreseeable future. The capacity of the arterial in peak hours will not
be exceeded and a service level "C" to continue in this section of Southcenter
Parkway.
The present lane arrangement providing two southbound and two northbound lanes
with the two -way left -turn lane will also be adgquate when analyzed in relation
to spacing from other channelized locations and provide sufficient lane width
for turning as well as through vehicles. The 35 mile an hour speed limit
should be retained until such time as the level of service in the future may
decrease due to additional developments to the south on Southcenter. Parkway.
Enclosed in the Appendix of this report are traffic counts made by the author
on a previous Wendy's restaurant project, and represent traffic volumes in
the vicinity of the Wendy's restaurant for March, 1981. Additional traffic
count data was gathered by the City of Tukwila in May of 1981 for specific
movements at the Strander Boulevard intersection, and at the S. 180th Street
intersection. These are also enclosed as background information utilized in
the Chuck -E- Cheese and Center Place traffic analysis.
-4-
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to properly assess the impact of the parking lot to the buildings,
the hourly usage (and therefore accumulation of parking requirements), as
related to the hour of peak traffic on the serving Southcenter Parkway, was
necessary to estimate traffic volumes based on ultimate use by each tenant.
Therefore, a distribution of parking demand by hour of a peak Friday was made,
based partly on code requirements, partly on actual observations of similar
establishments during peak customer volumes, and partly from recognized
standards of generation of traffic by ITE. The following break -out of hourly
parking stalls as related to each tenant is based on this procedure and shown
on the following page. Of particular note would be those hours from 4 p.m.
to 7 p.m. when the peak shopping center traffic would occur, the peak South -
center Parkway traffic would occur, and the same peak for Chuck -E- Cheese occurs.
For the hour ending at 6 p.m., 193 stalls would be required on the peak Friday,
with 121 of these stalls for the one tenant, Chuck -E- Cheese. The other major
tenant at this time would be Taco Time and with lesser parking requirements
by the other tenants due to the late hour or the type of business.
Based on the 193 utilized stalls as against the available stalls of 224, this
represents an 86% usage for the peak Friday hour. All other times, including
Saturday, would be less usage for the shopping center as a whole, but with
different distribution of accumulated parked vehicles.
From another methodology, relating the figure of 121 for Chuck -E- Cheese and
utilizing the building maximum capacity of 652, indicates at least 5.4 persons
per vehicle overall. In reviewing other establishments, the 5.4 persons per
vehicle does not appear unreasonable for customers, but would be for employees.
Studies made in the Lynnwood area show that customers averaged just under 6
per vehicle, whereas employees were 1 per vehicle minus those "dropped off"
by others.
1 Trip Generation by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, copyright 1979.
-5-
CENTER PLACE TENANT
1
MAXIMUM ESTIMATED PARKING REQUIREMENT BY HOUR OF DEMAND
For Hour Ending At:
9A
10A
11A 112N
1P
2P 1
3P
4P 5P .
6P 1 7P l 8P
9P
10P
11P
Chuck E. Cheese
0
15
50
80
80
60
60
60
80
121
121
100
70
50
10
Medical Clinic
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
8
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
Organs & Pianos
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
0
0
Retail - Unleased
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
0
Bedspreads
1
1
2
2
3.
3.
3
3
3.
2.
2
2.
2,
0
0
Hallmark
1
4
8
12
14
14
14
12
8
4
4
4
4
0
0
Taco Time
0
4
10
16
12
10
10
12
20
22
22
27
20
15
4
Haagen Dazs
0
0
4
14
14
i 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
0
One -Hour Photo
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
Computer Shop
2
2
3
5
5
3
3
3
7
6
5
4
0
0
0
Sears Business Machines
2
6
4
4
7
4
4
8
8
4
4
4
2
0
0
Maternity
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
0
0
Dry Cleaning
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
Donuts
10
10
4
6
8
6
6
6
8
8
8
10
8
0
2
TOTAL PARKING DEMAND •
.26
55
;00 ;59
164
130
130
133
162
193
187
168
125
79
16
GENERATION OF TRAFFIC VOLUMES - Continued
Therefore, using a weighted average based on 6 persons per vehicle for customers,
one person per vehicle for employees, (but subtracting out 10% as "drop- offs "),
results in a total number of vehicles of 98 customers and 55 employees.
These 153 vehicles, when added to the remaining tenant usage in the center of
72, totals 225 spaces requirement under the "highest number" consideration,
but only using building occupancy of Chuck -E- Cheese, instead of the estimated
demand for service. This 225 nearly approximates the supplied 224 stalls
and could be considered a cross -check or final check of the adequacy of the
present parking layout, but under a maximum or upper limit basis.
REFERENCES
Traffic Counts - March, 1981 by C.T.E.
Traffic Counts - May, 1981 by City of Tukwila
Transportation & Traffic Engineering Handbook, 2Ed., 1982 by Z.T.E.
Wendy's Restaurant Transportation Analysis - April, 1981 by C.T.E.
-7-
/5' Min.
Interval
Ending
NOr* hOt/ Z/as cf —
NOr/hAou/+d Wa+nCs _
Nar}h6.uMd- Z faneJ -1 /Yiti -i 6.a 1 z /woes
Totals Entering
Intersection
/C
yap+/'
Interval
Interval
Interval
/
Interval
Total
/5/r,.sr
/four //
/5i*4
/)xrr /y
/r,,,iI.
Ieu/ /r
E - W
N - S
Total
3: Ls TAZ. 7
I IMP
Z5-
7!r4
30
4r
519
3JXp
17o
39
46
'Q
4.3
Iir
24 G
15
141
30
9
30
I3T
4r
13
4r
2 -79
781
I2-
IT
11
37
g
roA
Is'
r?
fl
20
s3
4 =p
/r
211
264
142.
I;oop
zoo
1r•
7 „,41
S
14
10
S3
?o
224
30
70
45-
9
41-
S6
4 r
114-
4s
/it
9
1r i
3
CS
9-,J
is
74
S9
zZ4
.6
/T
/6Z
196
8
S°"p
ie3
877
1r
168
10
4
3°
7/
3O i
171
3 °
1 s+
4T
Z
43
g
43"
1 S fi
43
14S'
2:1a
Z
11
1ONA
M
303"
C°r P
1 134
44 o
6 '°
1 MI
sqs
ts
c
tr
of
6's
I3s'
t S
af >T
2•
1
3°
1/4
30
(3.1
+J
1
44 "
Ile
Tyyerdy
March
urf/our
/zrc/S,
I
Iota
/98/ =
/
d, SS'S
{ro.,., 3Pm70,tiM
NB
veA ;da
4T
It o•
+
3.'"
Z
it
1104
I3s
471
°
1 2 3
544
/t
r
it
172.
7
tr
!t 3
J
0
3
114
30
1 S Z
41
4
4f
ZJJ
47
loo
4 =„
2
11
1
)Z =N
al
71
8
114
461
1'1
4
IS
ZoT
I r
p7
3° 2 .
70
tot
.
71'
1t'1
4r 3
5-`°-Al 2
II
4s
/elf
1q j
117
74/
4r
49
q °Q0
11
31 1
:1T
O
rs
zit)
1r
112
;30
Z
114
it
7D
71
:4
6
IT
142.
4r
4)
G: °oA
7
/S
Z°D v
173
Ter
10.1.
Z7
zs7
1r
6
0-
173
is
3C
3°
13
3D
203
?.0
2 q
4r
?S
4
Ifl
4r
3
7 jl
S3
q 7
'
3 -
I(q
726
_) I•:op
2 S -
IL!
I
Date A/'M /3 P/ Day ? /W4', Location �De+fi�Cl� /�Q N & /7Z7S deLeL .
Checker Weather Pft 7 ..1 f f7 Station Number
Checker Surface Control Station
Checker Summary Sheet_ . of Z Sheets
Vehicular Volume Count
COTI7NGHAM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
Min.
Interval
Ending
SOt/ hhtu/Ni-Z/arwd
Spy /460/•1/ - 2 /oft es jsee4iir sd - Z /owf
i Se 1 2.4tI?! -
Totals Entering
Intersection
Interval
Total
Interval
Total
Interval
Total
Interval
Total
E - W
N - S
Total
3
/2
//
it
7.19
14r
3
1 f V
70
I /6r
'°
1I
3°
/ 73
3°
I qt)
4r
I17
4r
/`
'
/ST
41-
r
¢ gy p
/a0
60)
12 v1
17
gPA
13
694
I �r
1 3
74¢
Ir
/j-
13
22
Ir
1,4
IT
ir,r
30
4/
30
/0
70
71
3n
174
41-
/¢!
45
9
43-
06
4r
1 s
S" p
46
to
/P
1
4?
Cf`=
7n
343
s
/7/
Gq,
/r
/7?
7r
o
13-`
8c.
)5
140
'° -
/6/
?.0
IL
7°
84
-
1 (0
Jr
/
,,I
141
4r
3
4-r
/o 7
4C
l78
‘ 'r
6,3
7. sR
z
9
/0'
//1
3 fl
G ° i�
/72
701
1
3
/t7
1N •
171_
3 143
30
7
90
13r
4i
/63
/Si-
4r
3
4T
149
7'w,e•'/5,
N/oryl,
AlvrNeor
/2 r./3,/067
Toter/
=
{,.o
AO /2S
3pv>ajoM
Pr /Wet
-
SS .
7 9- 17
601
3:74
0
i3
f"
1 17
52Y
/ r /sq
/s
3°
I
C.
)3
177
/42
1°
/44
4r
/3 9
45
1
«
ii-8
2 y
1??
r70
4 -t.
0
9
j J J
23
I37
lr
/o 7
/ s
Z
is
Zr3
3v
86
.7u
.
3•
28e
4r
f7
41'
2.
4T
257
qow
9P
370
S''74
6
12.
1 "--p
23
/048
l3
/o'7
/s
Z
rs
2-3
30
79
70
y
39
230
4r
la
4r
Y
4r
/97
)O
3
Z4z
6 R
/ 1
2 4
Ze-dp
sic
81 Z
1s'
28
/r
Ir
'7
).'
13
)0
4i
20
1p,
4r
31
4r
124
4r
/6
//
23
9S
7
z sl
4r2
3 °--p
/ pr
o 1
Total
i Date /Ow* /Z 9/ DayF /eir 1 ocation -5;.4106•44,, p4r.E dy e1'7Z71/egi/i�ir f
Checker Weather 1'fuHkr Station Number
Checker Surface Control Station
Checker Summary Sheet 2 of 2 Sheets
Vehicular Volume Count
COTTINGHAM
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
HAYDEN ISLAND INC.
Fi1 {WAY Al IAN1 /E.N f1EAc
909 N. TOMAHAWK ISLAND DRIVE
City of Tukwila
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
• PORTLAND, OREGON 97217 • PHONE 283.4111
August 10, 1982
ATTN: Mr. Brad Collins, Mr. Mark Caughey and all other
involved Department Heads.
Gentlemen:
This is a formal request that representatives of Hayden
Island, Inc., developers of Center Place Shopping Center
in Tukwila, Washington, be put on the agenda of the August
26th, 1982 Planning Commission meeting to seek relief from
certain parking requirements being imposed by the City.
The resolution of this matter is extremely urgent in that
by withholding the Building Permit on Chuck E. Cheese
Pizza Time Theatre the cost to Hayden Island is approx-
imately $30,000.00 a month in interest and lost revenue.
Our request will be that the Planning Commission approve
the tenant mix and uses for the Center per the attached
Exhibit "A ". You'll note the "new Code" if fully enforced
would call for 283 parking spaces. The old Code under
which we received approval to build the Center, as we read
it, called for 114 parking spaces. The Center, per the
attached site plan (Exhibit "B "), has 224 parking places
(more than twice that required by our permit) and based
on the following we believe we have more than enough
parking.
Our contention is that because of the way the Center was
leased we have compatible parking needs and ample parking
during the periods that the various Tenant's businesses
peak in volume. When we leased approximately 33% of the
Center to Chuck E. Cheese we knew that 75% to 80% of their
business was done from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. They cater
City of Tukwil
Planning Depar .went
August 10, 1982
Page Two of Two
primarily to families with small children (5 to 15 years
of age). The average occupancy of the customer's cars
is over six people. It's a family oriented restaurant
and a very small percentage of their parking requirement
is generated during the day.
Knowing this, we then proceeded to lease the rest of the
Center to Tenant's who either require very little parking
at any time, or who do the greatest percentage of their
business during the day when the demand for Chuck E. Cheese
is low. The attached Exhibit "C" breaks down the various
actual daytime and nighttime needs for the various Tenant's
and the reasons used in reaching those projections. A
recap of the actual daytime and nighttime needs is found
on Exhibit "A" in the last two columns.
Even more important than my estimates of parking needs
are those done by Cottingham Transportation Engineering,
an outside consultant we hired to do a study at the
request of the Planning Department, attached as Exhibit
"D ". It supports our contention of compatible use and
shows our 224 parking spaces to be more than adequate.
To review:
We ask that the Planning Commission grant our request
to obtain Building Permits for the various Tenant's
shown on Exhibit "A" for the following reasons:
1) The Code in place when we received our permit in
December of 1981, called for a minimum of 114
parking places. The Center has 224 parking
places.
2) The new Code which is being imposed on us, re-
quires 283 parking places without taking into
account the compatible uses of the various
Tenant's.
3) Both our study and that of Cottingham Engineering
show that the 224 parking places now available
are more than enough.
PVD:cel
Enclosures
Peter Van Dyke
Vice President
Hayden Island, Inc.
SPACE TENANT NAME
1) Medical Clinic
2) Organs & Pianos
3) Retail - Unleased
4) Bedspread Shop
5) Hallmark Shop &
Office Supply
6) Taco Time
7) Haagen Dazs
8) One Hour Photo
9) Computershop
10) Sears Business Systems 3,150 8.
11) Maternity Shop
12) Dry Cleaning
13) Donut Shop
TOTAL PARKING NEEDS
WITHOUT CHUCK E. CHEESE 77.
14) Chuck E. Cheese 14,890 37.
TOTAL NEED 114.
TOTAL AVAILABLE 224.
+110.
EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED TENANT MIX AND ACTUAL PARKING NEEDS
FOR CENTER PLACE SHOPPING CENTER, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PARKING PARKING ACTUAL ACTUAL
SIZE REQUIRED REQUIRED DAYTIME NIGHTTIME
(SQ.FT.) OLD CODE(1) NEW CODE(2) NEED(3) NEED(4)
3,430 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 8.5 cars 6. cars
2,695 9.25 " 9.25 " 8. " 8. "
1,015 2.5 " 2.5 " 2.5 " 2. "
1,300 3.25 " 3.25 " 3. " 3• It
5,600 14. " 14. " 14. 11 9. "
2,710 7. " 54. 11
1,300 3.25 " 26. "
1,750 4.5 " 4.5 "
2,800 7. " 7. "
1,190 3. "
1,260 3. 11
1,400 3.5. "
11
8.
3.
3.
28.
171.
115.
286.
224.
-62.
11
11
27. " 18. 11
15. " 12. "
4.
8.
3.
3.
14.
117.
50.
167.
224.
+57.
7. 11 4
11
1,
u
11
4.
5.
2.
O. • (closed)
8.
81.
196.
224.
+28.
NOTE #1: The "old Code" under which we received our permit, specifically permits
restaurants (excluding Drive -Ins) under the C -1 use. It also requires
one space for each 400 square feet of leased area.
NOTE #2: The "new Code" reclassifies restaurants causing the sharp increase in
those parking requirements.
NOTE #3 & #4: These are our best estimates as to our actual needs during daytime
(10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), nighttime (6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and
show an actual surplus of parking both day and night.
11
11
1 1
. 11
11
1-0 44
t.1
4
• • 1- • - -•
,7
• g'-19
C.G.JC 4
•
• •
c. •
• A.
,
• 1 I . ,Pk'••■. •''' Aari.,..... OW 'WS
F.. /
F.'.-4- l
--.1:e.- ,
., ,...., r"4:% i•!..,2.1/4.1 - No r L.. ■•1
--) • -
,
i i
6
\L_._
:.__, . !
'
— — — 4..._— — .4•8-...1. rd.' • .. . -
1 & J.,-6 .:-•,, . ,__J •
• I .-T.-*- -.it
k •
_.,.." . . , .
. ' • I ; '1 I I..---1- • -- )--e.
_ — , ..., 1-: i '
.!...14*.-.441.. rt.-0 -4 •-0 4, 14'0 S ' 0 , .t tit -.... ....,e - g' - 5 - •!_.P..711 .7'-'::".:.—,,,:c*.i
. It l• !!•'-c . 4 .;;-0
t. ___,„........-.,-, A,.
- 1 1 1 T
1
VI l --..-
::.A.4 —
‘4,414,4 ....I
1 , v. ..,.:_s_i , _
.-..... :CF. 1...H:fc.....re 1-44 lc:
b, • s'awc.,........... —
FAJ
f:-.TAGO5 It 1
741...:.t•Ct...
3
• site parking plan
. ..fte..9434 White ..•
. "4 . GJ•Le'.
5.1 ee.
building' -
•
.5 1 i T . .'""•-•-■;.,z v.* - .... •
- --....-.....--
ta
-
-...,
i • su.---
•-■.:... . . •-co ......... - Po..
..I., .,:,.7....,., -.. es . 05e I ...; .i .
_ st•-•;...! €•••••••!.. :':. ..."..:NC
! '.. '• ' --q..
• , G ?....... 1 I -a4 :. '':.1:: tr,
4,--7- • %.
f ( ..... • ;•..C. 'A..C.
...-' • C
■-t•
1•601
— --111•14, 14 Ali-. —
10 1112 13 14 15 16
i 1 ,,,______. 1..L.t...._.• . .L. I" .:-.-:•!..07:, t '7±.-_•?.....___ _____,__ a •c. N ..!, = % Li ; ' 1 . :
_ I ...
% . i
• ! 1 4 t +4
*4 ••• :' \
•
• ,
•
•
•••••••
.:•C 0.1
•
building B
• .za.44•0%;;•••.
-,4-
4:'••••14:••••:.1.1. -2,1;;•62
kl
1 . . 1
l',.'; l. is... - .
. . •
• •--
-
• I
•
• ,..1.1..••..c.tvg
17
--(e..:••••:•
— •
• i , i 4. : _.... - _ ------ --
L, i...At-' •••......
—
r • ' : ........... .
..... '
',' x 6 . . . .... • c., „.. 6. ::. 't • - .." f. t7-0• .1 i f••••• * :!._._ .;..._•:
• - 4 0 ::[..■ AZ:, N t.'1::',
t / 0:
• ...-: . 4 ' . _
•• ta
'
. s'Yet• / i ' - '•'i : 1
I ,,, _''' ______ 4'; . G• •:., . :_?(, _
• kl•
f‘•
•••
Center Place
Tukwila
August, 1982
•
■••■■-
EXHIBIT "C"
Tenant by Tenant analysis as to actual parking need broken down
by daytime and nighttime needs:
1) Medical Clinic
The code requirement should cover daytime visits,
nighttime activity would be primarily emergency visits
which would be minimal. 6 cars at night would be
ample.
2) Organs and Pianos
This is a big ticket tenant with a historically light
customer load, normally run with 2 employees days and
1 at night. 2 to 3 customers at a time is average. 8
daytime spaces and 8 nighttime is reasonable.
3) Unleased Retail \
No tenant here, code is okay for daytime, I reduced
from 2.5 to 2 cars at night.
4) Bedspread Shop
One item retailer, average price $75.00 to $100.00. I
don't anticipate high volume. It's a 1 employee
tenant. 3 spaces days and 3 nights should be ample.
5) Hallmark - Office Supply
Self service office supplies, cards and gifts. 4
employees days, 2 at night. At least 60% of their
gross will be office supplies, 80% of which will be
purchased during the day. This type of use will drop
off sharply at night. 14 cars days and 9 at night is
a reasonable expectation.
6) Taco Time
Here I strongly disagree with the code. This is not a
typical McDonald's or Wendy's with a drive - through
where they expect 80% of their business to be
take -out. Only about 20% is take -out, the rest
consumed on the premises. That's what is important,
not whether or not they eat on china or paper. In
addition, at least 70% of their business is lunch, so
their impact on parking drops sharply at night. If we
allot 27 spaces daytime, that's 5 employees and,
figuring 2 people to a car, 44 customers. I have
never seen a Taco Time with 44 customers at one time.
18 cars at night would give you 3 employees and 30
customers which is more than ample.
9
11)
8/10/82
PVD:clr
7) Haagen Dazs
Here again the code is punitive. They average 2
employees. Most visits are made by families. Car
count probably averages 3 people. 15 spaces days
gives you 36 customers, 12 spaces at night with 2
employees gives you 30 customers. I have never seen
over 15 people in a Haagen Dazs store. Another point
is that a great many of their nighttime customers will
come from Chuck E. Cheese which will not impact
parking at all. Also, Chuck E. Cheese volume peaks in
the winter months, Haagen Dazs peaks in the summer.
Again, a good compatible use.
8) One Hour Photo
Quick in and out, no long -term use. 1 employee. I
think 4 cars daytime, and 4 nighttime will be ample.
They plan to close about 7 p. m.
Computershop
Sophisticated, technical hardware. Very few
customers, with big ticket sales. Almost no night
business. 7 spaces daytime, 4 spaces at night is
reasonable.
10) Sears Business Systems Center
Same as above. Both these Tenants will be working
with small businesses in the design and installation
of computer components. A good percentage of their
work will be off the premises which will not impact
parking at all. I think 8 spaces days and 5 nights
will do it.
Maternity Shop
Low volume tenant. Sales will average $300 a day.
That's 10 customers all day with 1 employee. 3
daytime and 2 nighttime is reasonable.
12) Drycleaning
Minimal use, just drop off and pick up. Will close at
about 6:00 p. m. 3 spaces during the day, none at
night.
13) Donut Shop
This one is a real problem. The code calls for 28
cars and in fact this tenant won't impact parking at
all. 75% of their business will be done before 11:00
a.m. They start baking at 5:00 a. m., open at 6:00
a.m. By noon they are down to one employee. From
5:00 p.m. on they will be lucky to have 3 customers at
a time. I think 14 spaces daytime and 8 at night is
more than enough.
HAYDEN ISLAND INC.
∎ - 1 1 1 ; 1 1 \ ti AY A l Intl 1 i F.N HI -A(.l1
909 N. TOMAHAWK ISLAND DRIVE
Mr. Brad Collins
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Brad:
Dining Room 5,411 sq.
Kitchen 2,566 sq.
Other 3,209 sq.
Games
• PORTLAND, OREGON 97217
3,704 sq.
July
27 z 1'1
[JUL 2 8 1982
r
DEPT.
ft .)Parking at one
ft.)space per 100 sq.ft. = 112
ft.)Parking at one
space per 400 sq.ft.
Total need evening hours 121
• PHONE 283 - 4111
Attached is a sheet showing each Center Place tenant, their size, the
parking code requirement as I understand it, and then what I feel is
the actual parking need for each tenant during the day and at night.
Following that is the reasoning I used for each tenant to arrive at
what I feel is the actual parking needed. I gave this a lot of
thought, obviously it's not an exact science, but I have been involved
in retail for 40 years and I think I am close.
If everyone can accept my figures then we have 64 spaces for Chuck
E. Cheese during the day and 117 spaces at night when they do 70% to
80% of their business. Chuck E. Cheese has 14,890 square feet. It
breaks down as follows:
= 9
It looks to me that we are within 4 spaces and that seems reasonable.
As we discussed, the only night we'll really load that Center is
Friday. Saturday and Sunday nights most of the tenants will be
closed, and since they cater to families with little kids, week nights
are slower.
Please keep in mind that we are all on the same side on this. I don't
want a Center with a lot of unhappy tenant's any more than you want
cars parked on the street. We were careful to lease to tenant's whose
use was compatible to Chuck E. Cheese in parking needs and !think we
accomplished that.
Mr. Brad Collins
July 27, 1982
Two of Two
unfortunately, this has all come up rather late. By the end of August
we'll have close to three million in that project, and we need tenants
in there doing business. I'll do everything possible to cooperate
with the City to get this resolved. I ask only that you move quickly
on a decision, I think we deserve that. I would hope we can meet
early next week with the City Attorney and whoever else needs to be
involved so we can get on with the project. 1'11 appreciate anything
you can do to expedite this.
Call me if there are further questions.
C des ' gards,
Peter Van Dyke
Vice President
PVD:cel
Enclosures
EXPRESS MAIL 7/27/82
cc: Mr. Ken Cottingham
Mr. Robert H. Schofield
Size Parking Code Actual Actual
(Sq. Ft.) Requirement Daytime Need Nighttime Need
1) Medical Clinic 3,430 8.50 cars 8.50 cars 4.00 cars
2) Organs 6 Pianos 2,695 9.25 6.00 3.00
3) Retail - unleased 1,015 2.50 2.50 2.00
4) Bedspread Shop 1,300 3.25 3.00 2.00
5) Hallmark Shop 6 5,600 14.00 14.00 7.00
Office Supply
6) Taco Time 2,710 54.00 27.00 12.00
7) Haagen Dazs 1,300 26.00 13.00 10.00
8) One Hour Photo 1,750 4.50 4.00 3.00
9) Computershop 2,800 7.00 6.00, 3.00
10) Sears Business Systems 3,150 8.00 6.00 3.00
11) Maternity Shop 1,190 3.00 3.00 2.00
12) Dry Cleaning 1,260 3.00 3.00 .00
13) Donut Shop 1,400 28.00 14.00 6.00
TOTAL NEEDS WITHOUT
CHUCK E. CHEESE 171.00 110.00 57.00
PVD:cel
7/27/82
RECAP OF PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS
AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL NEED
ui 81 9awrin ilE: 181E1 ?LACE Si.ni amt
S9fif
ME NIE FEET
11I HUM IvS1C !.3111
117 1111110110 FACrOIT/M1 NMI 1.M
191 /ICTE1 1NFW4TI41 STSIEE 2.O
SKr aui. It.
1!9 11E11WWI u;lil
111 M O SER 111/ 2.415
113 MT MIT 1,750
114 SWAY ES1YGiT, IE. 1.44
—T
11S TM WE f filrO. It .
0i9 S.F. 10.270
P1CMT S.F. 1.211
Wm E11ROiE S.F. 44.4N
1.711 (cc
t atN0t[E1D S.F. NT num !I WAS
.�5
I
:. -... F'' a .. ... - -.r �.`�' +�T: j!�.� .-,..s ..- i. • - -rte .- ..
UN ANT &ISO
EIoIEI 31, MAI
•
TOM Safe HOME: 44,479 S.F. SUSS: 44,479 S.F. lIIrMLE: 44,471 S.F.
* Restaurant Square Footage i= 6,650/ ( =15% of Total Square Footage)
Non - Restaurant Square Footage = 37,820 ( =85% of Total Square Footage
9.441
33
Q5
E4i1E: 44.179 S.F.
('
ft
ilo
mg. LANG
3 P-AVILI (^(e)
•
P i n4;4
Fnme-iwa
Pi •
•
. • •
11. -
LM-199C41,9* VL)
•
4"ceNc.
cot-itrck 41•4J
. ,.2.•'Gt•EPR. rot?.
. metTop,
• • .• . • 0 . ' •
".• ..•• °. •
ta4c, Arr2o/9.0 ose - rs4e- •
piRe. 1-At•10. -WO ".
WI' WPM) .*Pr mr.wimojyt
rAfT Ak01- 71 •
I ,
IGe41 : 1AVO''' , •
O t
0 . f4
-
t 00
1
. ‘
0 3o
,
ger.10 PeflA
0■1/416. OV6Plot • . • •
0&: re „Zia 1.4!=c;
'
at 23..0
— buliciing
r. „.
. . : .
. .• • •
1 '—
GONIP/■G'r ' e;6,
: P-2 161 •
TOTAL HAVicriPpE.p) :
Kr 1..K.
. ee-045 LIIJ NPIGATa
A POUR PLOG* • ‘ , 1•4 2 0.
/A GTH5 . SHAW m.
osiauoD,
si te parking . plan
,
LAND
PPJ PCA
. •
•
.Mize,.ANO
41 =
4 •:, 6 it• 6'4 agbAer'-o
.
30 4 fhp 1,130 '-e?
ses LA PCP:
.5f FG15.
1
6 7 11.111(0111%
a
i RULER -302 AWcrwurcv,-
oe CZ De a 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ IZ OZ 61 81 Li 91 GI L 'CI it R Ot '
..._1111111111111111111
A01 Ac-Gp 45
. •
E:t pm's:APE
• r .
3 4
' •r •
• (E ',, WIZ) at WY. (5.0)
1
,s'1•1.10;11.• 7,09pj.tAtier.
oj 01
•
111011.1.1m.mmin
• It, . ••
•.• :; xeriOgg
a, VOL- ArA). P1r4,
'ITH 'A tviiLe,"Gi
:FOCK T PUJ4 1,4/1 •
• T • [
"/././.) • • 1• Y 0.1-1Z 19-1-91
• ,.;
ev-c.c. 42%
/
Tcf . •
11-ie Da,•4k1 A gai/ rrehrie.er
A=1 :r0g- .1Ha • PulzPoo A7JL1*rir.Jc1
•.4i-16 041 , 'RoeaR. - ro 5149..wr A-I
• ,r6 - 12- 5170 95 / 4.12 OfWIFIGArre ,
Iding
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESSk
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
IS '•
e/-0.24
ji?
I
I
...,••
: o
. 1
rAv,p,----) •
I-- -Ice-. — —
L.A1.10SeoP•Pe. PL.AW
F\ LE ,
TO p,c.11.1 WIT1-1 61 or
iVJR
•
rge•00
r
re' . :
lot .„„..
cit (5 10Z 11.
6-SPE
w
7
by: T f
job:
cble:
revised:IAL*ez
- 1.01011riiiip l i pir rrr r i I 1
0 �•�•• 1 2 7
0
0 — '
NEW �514r Fu-1 21Nc, W/
( $01 - ) TnILL ¢Lc,¢ d .ttN
4c7-&
�111f\
000 I �.>. _ O
NEW WAL-I.-
f7UG1I I S` \
(7‘
1a / 2�usE Ek15
d fr1oN - �, ,
ri1 PIZZh R2FJ? l Imo 2
I �I 1 = 1
EXIST.
CD7LE
•REL)SL EX151: ITDIL.Er I =es - IcII.G��
Ph2T1�10N9 PLUMI3IN - I FIKTURES G I fL.S
12 - 0", ± TOILET ACcE55Qra% 5 I Etc- FROM h M
EOLI SHcr
a` TOILET 200M'S IN PIER. 1 5PACE. (
WC>21G IN TH15
Tc n AccQAPL15HED
ut. 5EPr 2ATE MIT-'
(Plcn_, 1 )
SUNDAE
TOPPING S
Iv1AIM DINING., T2cor•A
(No WORK IN THIS t2c
EXC ZEl_oc.ATT01.1 q=
EN cE)
IwMOVC (o" f2AISE7
I=L QOIZ
NSW rte_ •
CRAW L
0
`'FLOOR PtAN'J Its" _ II_dl
0
.9
EXI± ,, P : / 51DIl lc • i t "
_
EXIST, soFFIT
o
I5T. EN TTZI N FLL22 LEVEL
i2FI ncA T�`I Itilblf�
NEW 1 14"
11JALU&
ELEVATION
-i
E,X sT cEp/..112 Dw
1 is' = 11-0
IL
SITE PLAN
GENERAL NOTES
ALL WO2K 5 -AL_L_ ccM7L`-/ WITh THE UI.IIFc72M fJ Yt1211.IC cGoE
\ERIPy /al- -L DIMEN51QNS GL,NDITIoNIS AT JOf,51'1E
ALL MA FIhLISHES 51 ' LJ_ MATcH EXI5T'IN4 u4LE55 c7t1 - WIJc INocATE.1'7
< EXIST -
502C.FRoN T'
0 L7 P I� L
lJ
c scuiNCE 4 PAz W y
5 - 2 CL p4IN y
4.1
0
I11 =-1p!0i1 ±
4
_
0
PN-3 .accUPANcy
0
Ieg EDITION
MEM
6.UG 20 1996
cIrY OF 1Unvv11.A
PLANNING DEPT.
�x1�i • FLC.y
E6
El
N E
W
5
z
�E.
l '�m' Tfr �
OE 6Z 86 LZ 9 9Z 4Z CZ Z M OZ 61 BI M 91 91 t4 '0 ZI II 011 ;.
1,111 All10111 .1 11 �lU11011UIlI�I�!�gl!IlII ul I4AIl l pIlWlAll�lullgoll�lduu) AA1UluldlAl �IIIl 11Il11!!)l 1191II0111IWI0AlII0 401111pp11 :
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
i
r•
o =�
1 11
NSW vi t. Co'meD (C.T•.
C•C,,
U
I�
CL.G, - RD IE
REF'Lnca) , 02 2OEwa; EY
•
■,•
VJOe1Z II4.I - VHis
uwotg.' : 5Ef'47.ATE F> Mt1
(>•1 -
L' CEILING >PLAN, 1 /8" -11 -o"
45
R7 12CM/4ft4
ie , l_O„ •
• zoLo"
tr
L
B2--1(. -SPE
IR
Es
8
3
z
11 11 11 1 11T111 1 ,ir i
0 " +��»•� 1 2 3 4
•
1 11 1 1097911
7
UOFrFxr g.
of 6Z BL LZ 9Z 9Z bZ BZ LZ IZ OZ 6l CI Ll 9l 9 1 " El 0 ll OL
661 6140144 0A44 X1111 !ullu p ul 1 , 0
8
•
•
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS �.•...
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT