Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L98-0021 - SABEY CORPORATION - DESIGN REVIEW
L98 -0021 SABEY CORPORATION DESIGN REVIEW 12421 Pacific Hwy. So CITY OF TUKWILA DETERYIINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 3 OFFICE /LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON THE VALLEY TRUCKING SITE A HILLSIDE ON THE W SIDE OF HY 99 5 OF SR 599 PROPONENT: SABEY CORPORATION LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. IF ANY: ADDRESS: 12421 PACIFIC HY 5 PARCEL NO: 092304 -9031 SEC /TWN /RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E93 -0006 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** This DNS is issjued under 197 -11- 340(2). comments must be submitted by _ . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for )3' days from the date below. id( jJ'Q 1 rL 5 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Date City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. Attachment A bleMPA /AtX+Ya \y _ +atw kpsnH� Tim =tR+Nr+is�!!✓K+RP`STC.K...___ -- _ —_ ___ .+�' z w fig, —J C.) 00 uJ J =s LL. w g Q • P- d. ILI Z I- O: Z U w ui 10 Cc U N; z p411104R. a1d = - --__ t i' AriZ NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: l,a-r DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: 12, CASK ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE REFUNDED BY MAILING TO: (please print) . P - • 1S.!. N OF ITE'4s TO ENr8 EA OA) (ir -' oT 1 wxwiia DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM 4 a UST u ;;•i's'a=•:t',.�•t�.;.••:.•.4'v .r 1•''",lS'��:."•1;tlF :�e;'tiZ:ir?i'•vw,�.��G•i• ° � °'hf; but uv J DATE: cat • •• 01 K. it ,/ NAME w ant L • ADDRESS: .1111 ano PERMIT NO.: 'D TEL. No. ZOG •• Ojsi CfT STATE/ZIP 5 E1b - t-•'t- E' eD10 ac r + ED (RE. PQR=NCE • OE R SC. • a 1111 46 • • oir..asii. t © • • As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, t hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of S 2 00 ($1S0% of value to complete work described above) and attach supporting docvme anon ter value of wont. I will have this work carried cut and call for a finel inspection by this date: ! ' 1. 1 ! 00 1, or risk having the City use the funds to carry out the work with their own contractor or in -house manpower. if i tail to carry out the work, l hereby authorize the City to go onto the property to carry out completion of the etbove deficiencies, I further agree to comp eta all work listed hove rior to requesting inspection arid release of these funds. SIGNED: TITLE: hs - 'FOP- j_ J 4%)aa014Aa,Ca-WJc. Val' Ls-� :- " =,o'W3; =" J V51223.TEcrtd, .- THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED. SIGNED: DEPARTMENT HEAD; AMOUNT; CD CASH CASH Eau NAt ENT DEROBrED THiS DATE; crY RECEIPT No, REcEIV=_D BY: c br~'{rs': _ ,--w' ,.ire, ':`w',... - , A1! w.o;k ldenJfied fn S ":on 1 Qf this io,-,71 Eves now been c,��;�•�" a a which �•r: zed warranty 1 here '- FCR an re�u.;Ia„ tc da:,arn,.rrt .�, ,,.... , OF FUNDS request ins;ect ion, anal release of my cas,Y:ash equivalent. DAIS: 72 HOUR NOTIFICATION iNSPEc ifli•i AND n:.L ASE . DEVELOPER'S REa FIESEN TA T IVE C ;HECKED 6Y: i have reviewed the above work and found it a =ept able and therefor authorize the release of the above cash assignrrlent. ALTTHOR=D BY: DEPARTMENT: ....�......�, ...�..,.�... „�,,.- ...�- .r�...,..... r"..� -. 1b;,'ts�''�71"+•r1Erya Il.Y0!.I X11: i cAsK EQUIV LE T — L ETt EF, AUTHcRIZING P L ASE C:,SH CITY CHECK N-3. r:.^_! ASE�J T lS .EiLEA.s D BY: , FINANCE ..:_,.. • Ss ..Ibn 2, Final ca paiiicn,nal shall ' L1 ,1 c mplaticrt of ert i(e: ._,',T„ Fir.a •a personnel sond =pies tz: — De•ralop-a: — Finances Dapartmont Cz.ct*atar, DCD s�7a =pies — Dav'etcper Fina'tca Ovpa: it — Por,,.r: Cmr'irtu,ct, OCD iuz rtt1 1-1:JJ riA VJOL4IO 4 titT r7T 1 uKwlla DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM ci.TuaCGa NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: lay 1We'T, C. DEVELOPMENTADDRESS: 1 Z o1 K . Iart=rt,J , ass ad v _ PERMIT NO.: T7 -. o DATE: '0 pp CASH ASSIGNMENT SIIAU. BE REFUNDED BY MAiLING1 TO: (please prim) NAME: "1:2-w„- t 3 c.�. 1 rJ5t)RAR. e, Co. TEL. No. 206) - 582 -'19Oo ADDRESS; - — . VC4> rES CiTY/STATE,ZiP OSt;At- :N - ITEM& ED( R . Ca PLANWDOCUMENTa wipe A4 Ar fArI r-1` -r I n1 G-t 0 F _ - ?GTST�1 ©2. Cep ►� 1 G�LL^T -L� K O y..e !-t erm'T A4 , o e 0 As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, 1 hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of S t Z� C't�Q . oo ($150% of value to complete work described above) and attach supporting documentation for valve of work. 1 will have this work carried out and call for final inspection by this date: 1 Q 1 1 / ooe ), or risk having the City use the funds to carry out the work with their own contractor or In -house manpower. If !fail to carry out the worfc,1 hereby authorize the City to go onto the property to parry out completion of the above deficiencies, 1 further agree to compiete all work listed a ve prior to uesting inspection and release of these funds. iIGNEC: 1 TTTLE: c- ' �' ^ T TtaNtYM ,Y41 � - T THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED. SIGNED: G DEPAFRTMENTHEAD: Ai lCUNT: •.+-%.0- v.wt�..:...++'✓ -.! .RT —n•ti ..: i��( : /. TV' N! rI ..M.Y+!.•.r.4— !"t!.2w- .'�.i.11 tip.' • �• . I. fogy in ,v ;:; - 14:4'=`" 4; All work identified in S ib; tat this form has now been =mpie:ez 72 HOUR NOTIF1CaT1oN Fon and returned to department which au ncrized warranty. 1 here :vi INSPECTION ION AND RELEASE OF FUNDS request inspection and release of r-„y caswcash equivalent. DEV_LOPER'S REpRES_NTATiVE: -•Q7� vi\ :r,�+ r'-" -. - .r•. ..•r. "'�' I K: TIII a ;. V,710 " ; 1 have reviews -J the above work and found It a =epteble and therefore ''..' authorize the release of the above cash assignment. AUTHORIZED 8Y: DEPARTMENT: DATE.: CHECXED BY: CLSH EauiV4Ler- LETTER AUTHORIZING RELEASE CASH CITY CHF:K N-:). RELEASED Trlis DATE: L=11 ©notation fin, Sec inn 2, Finance per;onnel shall sdnc =pies — Devefcper Finance Department Forrnit Cmryirtator, DCD RE! _ds5.0 BY: FINANCE DEFT. ' Urxn c:zrapiatian c( entire iv„ 1, Fns,, ^,ce personnai si1''.•'i sand =pies to: Devalopa; — Fin3.1CD Department Pat,,.?, DCD z w re JU 00 cn W= f- w0 2 < =w Z I-0. zI- • Ci 0 O - CI w W o LLI z U2 0 ~. z cfr,A-c?i iuWlia DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM --1-.....,czyrs.:..•-;:vrsx.c.' • - isrmr.y:47T-;.(5g.ri-t utFacrat 04_ .r.;':IA:ZirrfeV:•4•0:?4,1.:.''' •-•"7..itv...v.:14.:-.1-42Telf,"11, i.an4.:::..e.:::•.01;.,1,r...i7, .„,, ....,..,ns,.0 a : • ...ti reaqfp,.*,30 --, p•Q — PAW er..4: -ff7*;... 147:77,*.t.4.:::?5,-1.0't • .ri ' c,itiii,i.w..--,::-.t, NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: .Th-reitricortet . WE-5-r, 15,3 i L„,-pini c C DATE: ci 1•./k0S,..e CO ) DEVELOPMENTADDRESS: I 2,1 01 jjj PERMIT NO.: P°j — CA 5 1 CASH ASSIGNMENT NAME. w . IJSu - . • TEL. NO. 1cE3- b.2.,_ - co SHALL EC REFUNDED BY MAILING TO: ADDRESS; ci cici 7... .... Sc.) 00 Ole aso print) CttY/STATEIZIP 5 efLu--t-t—S4 W4t 9_1!2_10 ` , C a S S C P 4 c ITEMS T S E CZ:3-Wa-rED (S.EFERENCE .. 1--Crr C.. P Aste. ).4W1 %'4E rx.,..- - PI Om RISc• , L- - 11.-- C_A.- N.3 im..• •‘`,•icti& ,tj • I--• 1-• k''' L.-:5 -'` C Di 5 Aw--_:igriZZE,:,F2-el--SL.,...3F- 0 eJ CLa." 1-- • , _ . . • . DEP.OSITED THIS As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, 1 hereby submit cash or cash equivalent In the amount of 5 2.4 1 0 00 , co ($150% of value to Complete work described above) and attach supporting documentation for value of wo*. I will have this wc.rk carried ot.rt and call for a flu/ inspee.lon by this date: f ei 1. 1 I co . , or risk having the City use the funds to carry out the work with their own =tractor or in-bouse manpower. If I fail to carry cut the wo?k, I hereby authorize the City to go onto the property tQ carry out mco doletion of the etbove deficiencies, 1 further agree to complete all work F. e alcove prior to requesting insp-io, ;len and release of these funds. i SiGNED: X.< a- 1 THLE: it:„. A4rsror Foi2.1;4rsizaikarub..1,44...C.TA‘TE400 WEST Li- t... I 9' 1 ••••••,,..-••• L ; This FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED. ; 17. .. ' SIGNED: o PI ;\ D DEPARTMENT HEAD; . .. Amougr: 4 , 4 0 00 V V •MMIllito CASH EQuivALEN-r D DEP.OSITED THIS crre RECEIPT No, ftlei44, *Gm 5Gfse, R RacEiVED EY: 9 9' 1 1 , • AD work identllif.id in Sectlon 1 of this fcrn its now been Fon and returned to depenrrient Which ?).11r1ViZe:.-1, warranty. 1 OF FUNDS rLIGS; inspection and release c; :::-...stVcash equivalent. 72 HOUR NOTIFIcalioN INSPi.-.'cTIoN ANC. FiE LEASE --• CFN r....:EL0F11z „ 1.:14t.&r‘ef:Viirt7-1 CHECKED EY: ALITHORaD BY DATE.: • 1 have reviewed the above Wcr`K and tound It acceptable and therefore authorize the release of the Ci-OYE? cash assi;nment. DEPARTMENT: ...4.,••••••••■■• ro•I ,',1•:.•"%S...1-1 • IMM/7•74V. • ■ A.1,t0U;iT: C.LSH E'cIt..11\/:..L.E.?•;T- LETTER AUTHORIZINZ FIELEA.SE • j CASH 7.,Frr CHECK NC. RELEV,S0 THIS CAT: F,ELEASE0 BY: FINANCE CET. U,i :ii Ser.:inn 2, Finance pa/;41& z•nall Sem:: =pies — Osvetcper • Finaliza Ovpartercnt - Forrr:rt ccru-2.Inirsct, OCO • • Uri c..crnpleticn cord =piss ct etitit-z. ivm, Fir.nr.a paisannel s.. — i . - ' -- — F:in Lice Oepancnynt - Pr. Cteztz.",nattr, OCO mh„ r, • Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1, , nieJ O-1Y ,Ui IIe HEREBY DECLARE THAT: :Nep- . of 6e {ov�E 51511CA 1►`u ics Notice of Public Hearing (brF) . Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting x'2&1 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt . 11VI`00/1/ Project Name Sa102v Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Project Number: 1,-(AS". 00)-1 Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail-Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - .Seattle WA 98111 X Other ('J©kL-_ O-+' G(S�CliL Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this c`a l day of 1Q in the year 2000 INks i,u,ucL CN -p . :Nep- . of 6e {ov�E 51511CA 1►`u ics , aC,V (brF) . < em gAertait x'2&1 .(' . 11VI`00/1/ Project Name Sa102v Project Number: 1,-(AS". 00)-1 Mailer's Signature: (j P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM 1: L+ ', • `s akaiv.4JH w`fkYST.D USA. M AT111'' z W 6 JU U O; co w wz V) u. w O. I (f) a. Z� o- o>- w W. illO Ii. Z. - z To: Gity of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION Haynes Lund, Applicant Steve Black, Sabey Corporation Greg Sherlock King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter serves a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. PROJECT BACKGROUND FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0021 Design Review ASSOCIATED FILE: E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review APPLICANT: Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Modify the design of a site that received BAR approval in 1998 by adding a 2,600 square foot mechanical building. LOCATION: 12421 Tukwila International Boulevard This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Board of Architectural Review at their February 24`x' public hearing. The BAR voted to approve the design of the building as proposed without the condition recommended in the staff report dated February 14, 2000. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planner is Nora Gierloff who may be contacted at (206) 431- 3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 , r: -':... •i;r i:: s•. C' A','4`^o.'f%x�.:1T+SS��;,, ?iJ: rid =rid tk +'r:su �:is'. `i ,ata i 1tAe 4 lil7tietkTPi ?+iltr$4,4. X' A 4ii4`i ��r7na{rKtfi?ll ��' �'� }! "Er..: -.ri1'!M.'✓�'.r. ., .�iri�.{w. . Notice of Decision Page 2 The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, February 25, 2000. The BAR decision is appealable to the Tukwila City Council. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City. 1Fic y::r _�.° - .•r...;!..:. ... c':' G�.e, .. %::" r; . ^fir. d4Y'.;...c;fn. >i.., >�vinia�kii:Gt� c'H.., %.tii`vs'I'x'�?i.Jei;+ 4! { i''" ��irw %:3n"F.�+ir,'•:'2:ir�.ii.d. �•'a�`�u <i " z w .6D! Jo 0 0; W tea' co d' 1- W. Z o; z�: LLI W. U 0: 0 H :W W ILL I-I 1• - z. Lli N 0 -•, off! z. Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , O k� ` 0 le igEREBY DECLARE THAT: XNotice /� of Public Hearing CO-c0-- Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public. Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Project Name c) O's q _t A, O\QC0 Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt \-1R9 - Official Notice Mailer's Signature: Short Subdivision Agenda Ott'UQc Notice of Application \\9,111,' Shoreline Mgmt Permit s. Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 day of in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM Project Name c) O's q _t A, O\QC0 Project Number: p (IR -- (700 (7 \-1R9 - QQal Mailer's Signature: Ott'UQc \\9,111,' P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT- MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION The Sabey Corporation has filed a revision to the approved design for the lntergate West (Pacific View) Development located at 12421 Tukwila International Boulevard in the City of Tukwila. A 2,600 square foot mechanical building is proposed to be built behind the southernmost office building on the site. The building would house up to four emergency power generators. Permits applied for include: Design Review Other known required permits include: Land Altering Building Permits FILES. AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E98 -0006 SEPA Checklist L98 -0021 Design Review OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for February 24th at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The hearing is subject to change. You may confirm the time and date by calling Nora Gierloff at the Department of Community Development at (206) 433 -7141. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 433 -7141 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Notice of Hearing Issued: February 10, 2000 �,: � t u. a:d'.� w' i;?�� uttxfi3 ;`,;,n;+�GSC.t �ti�:�.1��ri ✓h.'UE.._.:C� : L.iau`` ^�i�.. ,. 1 •y "ti�..�4Sy.Ss "T Yrz,VM11:1:,11: EXODUS SEATTLE 2 Partial Site Plan INTERGATE WEST TIKWILA WA FAX • TO: TO FAX #: FROM: PHONE: Ms. Gierloff, Nora Gierloff 206 -431 -3665 Greg Sherlock 253- 657 -3912 DATE: February 23, 2000 Pages: I I greatly appreciate the information you passed onto the proposed addition to the Sabey Corporation's o: sent by FAX is of great help in understanding what Please accept this FAX as my written opposition to Corporation. ne by telephone . today in regards to ce complex. The material you also involved in this matter. e proposal by the Sabey Be advised that some of my opposition reasoning to' s project is as follows: *Some of the noise created by fossil fuel powered get' erators (even though the plan lists mufflers will be installed) will radiate out from the building. This measurable sound at the property line could be above city codes. *The noise of the auxiliary generators PLUS the noise of the noisy heating /cooling units (of which I have already filed a complaint for) will be above the city codes. I look forward to learning more about this project at the scheduled review to take place on Thursday, February 24, 2000 at 7:OOPM at the City Hall Council Chambers. During this meeting I would like the opportunity to ask questions and verbally make my concems known to the Architectural Review Board. If you have any questions or comments as to the content of this FAX, do not hesitate to call me at my work phone number of 253- 657 -3912. You may also leave me a message at my home phone number which is 206 -242 -3898. • TO /T0'd ZZ£1,0 £Z:ZT £Z- Z0'000Z M: :.r:�ri:a:L,— ..�,.y ::.� :f :�c%x1i.^:%".•lit4': e',f^ .+K' .t'i:]' .Ts1aS'z;:+w 1.4%4atF.14w ve. :^^ ;s5f'.si WLl91 -a I W 01 UN: : WO8d City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: LOT SIZE: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared February 14, 2000 February 24, 2000 Notice of Public Hearing mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site February 10, 2000 L98 -0021 Design Review E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation Modify the design of a site that received BAR approval in 1998 by adding a 2,600 square foot mechanical building. 12421 Tukwila International Boulevard 12.8 Acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial /Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial/Light Industrial RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Nora Gierloff A. Plans and elevations of proposed structure B. Landscape Plan C. Colored plans and elevations (to be presented at hearing) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 ._i . .n .. r.i':t•f:):��1�:. i`si:•�1i! � ;1�`.. L.�i, a ' J' f •' S11tnQ.::4rTallw�t:%l.�A ,! �fiSvwik�kV {:�';�:5'X�tiA�'f%�Ltl� -�iYne SMF:b1F.Vc+k:.'f3".+:ir`flti ' 4"! }1$ihwV.'L±iAltN gitM1Y.��?bA:C'%sT411e:4111'.w2vYW.Hk4 Pacific View /Intergate West ■. —rice Park L98 -0021 Staff Report to the BAR Page 2 FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION A. Project Description. The applicant is requesting Board of Architectural Review approval to add a 2,600 square foot mechanical building on the hillside behind Building A of the Intergate West (Pacific View) project. The building will house backup emergency power generators and fuel tanks to serve Building A. A noise study is being conducted and the generators will be required to comply with Tukwila's noise ordinance. B. Existing Development. The project is a 240,000 square foot, three building office /internet services complex adjacent to Tukwila International Boulevard. Other generators have been added to the project in an annex attached to Building A, in the parking garage of Building B and in a smaller enclosure behind Building B. These have been considered minor modifications due to their size and/or location. C. Surrounding Land Use. There is a small apartment complex to the south and a larger complex at the top of the slope to the west. To the north is the 99/599 interchange and to the east is WSDOT property and former Boeing warehouses. D. Topography. The site is benched, with steep slopes between the flat portions of the site. The hill behind the buildings rises steeply to the west. Vegetation. The site has been or will be landscaped according to the approved landscape plan. Some of the landscaping around building C is still bonded and will be installed when construction is complete. The upper portion of the slope to the west of the project has numerous trees that were preserved. F. Access. Access to the site is from Tukwila International Boulevard. Two driveways are currently planned, with provision for a third if needed in the future. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN DECISION CRITERIA This project is subject to reapproval by the BAR because the addition of the mechanical building was determined to be a major modification. In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold, followed by staffs comments. z z' w' QQ � J U' U O: 'CO uk • w =. • u_ w O` LL a;. • I- w: I- O zI- w ww .L1 16, lu UN z Pacific View /Intergate West u.rice Park L98 -0021 Staff Report to the BAR Page 3 DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. Response: The new building will be set into the hillside, directly west of the parking lot behind Building A. The site slopes significantly upward from Tukwila International Boulevard with the top of the slope offsite to the west. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged; B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character; D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: The building should be screened from Tukwila International Boulevard by Building A. The roof will be somewhat visible from the apartment complex to the west, though all equipment will be contained within the building. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; - ..,::gt3:-NSRO'aW4'.W.`!H'lfY .a.... ... :. 11�1��IYA `. Zvi. i. Fl�triM1 '�,ASI�w�..�.�,(v.`+�iC' "S'd$iiYw�. 464 41p*Uk'da'4,i ."',weiFS70i,-4: Si4.. .��i':fikiigG.'„ z W: QQQ_ 2 JU 00 CO 0 WI w w0 2 u-Q =d ._ z I- 0 Z uj 2 n0 co O I- LLI = U' LI 0 • Z Lb U =. O ~: Pacific View /Intergate West L.iice Park L98 -0021 Staff Report to the BAR Page 4 G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used; H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Existing vegetation has been retained along the sides and back of the site per the approved landscape plan. Additional plantings are proposed around the new building, see Attachment B. There is one existing parking lot landscape island in front of the building site. 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B Buildings should be appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: The proposed building will be constructed of synthetic stucco with metal coiling doors and louvers, see Attachment A. The building will be painted to match the rust and beige colors used on the existing buildings. The building has been stepped back so that the tallest portion is 18 feet above grade, facing the existing parking lot. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: No changes are proposed in this area. Pacific View /Intergate West uitice Park L98 -0021 Staff Report to the BAR Page 5 CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site The building has been set into the slope behind Building A. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area All equipment will be contained within the building and the generators will exhaust to the east, away from the residential uses. The only significant offsite visibility of the building will be from the upslope properties to the west and the existing trees should provide screening from that direction. 3 Landscape and Site Treatment The building will be softened, but not really screened by the additional douglas firs and vine maples proposed on the landscape plan. An additional landscape island should be added three stalls north of the existing island for balance and to enhance the symmetry of the building. 4. Building Design The building has been partially set into the hillside and stepped to minimize its visibility. Colors and materials have been chosen to echo the design of the office buildings. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture No changes proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the building with one condition: 1. One additional landscape island should replace the parking stall three spaces north of the existing landscape island in front of the building site. Gail Muller, 11:05 AM J2/10/20, Re: City of Tukwila Public Not X- From_: gmul @seattletimes.com Thu Feb 10 11:09:30 2000 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 11:05:45 -0800 From: gmul @seattletimes.com (Gail Muller) To: Tukwila Department of Community Development <tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Subject: Re: City of Tukwila Public Notice Content -Type: text /plain; charset =US- ASCII; name = "MIME bodypart headers" Content - Transfer - Encoding: 7bit Content - Description: cc:Mail note part Content - Disposition: inline; filename = "MIME bodypart headers" Content - Type: text /plain; charset = "us- ascii" Content -Type: text /plain; charset =US -ASCII Content - Transfer - Encoding: 7bit Content - Description: cc:Mail note part Wynetta, This Public Notice (Case # L98 -0014 and Case # L98 -0021) is scheduled for publication in The Seattle Times for Friday, 2/11/2000. Thank you! Gail Muller gmul @seattletimes.com phone: 206 -652 -6018 Reply Separator Subject: City of Tukwila Public Notice Author: Tukwila Department of Community Development <tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us> at Internet Date: 02/10/2000 10:28 AM Gail, Could you please call me on 206 - 431 -3654 and verify you received my notice. Also could I please get copies of the notice once they go out. Thanks! WynettaContent -Type: text /plain; charset =US- ASCII; name = "MIME bodypart headers" Content - Transfer - Encoding: 7bit Content- Description: cc:Mail note part Content - Disposition: inline; filename = "MIME bodypart headers" Content -Type: application /octet- stream; name= "2- 24- 200.DOC "; x- mac - type= "42494E41 "; x- mac - creator= "6D646F73" Content- Transfer- Encoding: base64 Content - Disposition: attachment; filename= "2- 24- 200.DOC" Printed for Tukwila Department of Community Development <tuk... 1 ;stc:,:v.'4.:t3r ; tw�sh�sx.,% 6: xa�; a'.,isvu*,4ir;'�a;'ai�;iiz:�i�K �k�:v,'t`� `i •'£ �3atir f 14',4 .:t R{'di'$i$tt'"'404Y`M z Wiz. rt w ate; J O 0 O. I (no w= J N u wO u. u) a Hw z� o z • W: U� O -. O I— W W .z'. W U =' 0 z STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 1 2. Name of Applicant: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 3. Date checklist prepared: 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. G: \ APPHAN \LANDUSE.APP \SEPAAPP.DOC, 12/08/99 3 • Agency Comments . it.1,14w4,00. 0.8-4:414, Pacific View Office Park Project Timeline Clock Date Action 3/12/98 Pre - application meeting held Follow up meeting with Haynes Lund, Doug Schumacher, Corby Howell and City staff 3/23/98 Letter summarizing comments from meeting sent to Haynes Lund 3/23/98 SEPA application received by City 4/1/98 Design review application received by City 4/6/98 Level 1 downstream analysis received by City 4/14/98 Notice of incomplete application sent/faxed for SEPA and design review applications 4/17/98 Haynes Lund resubmitted items per notice of incompleteness 4/22/98 Staff met with David Sabey to discuss the project 0 4/24/98 Notice of Complete Application mailed/faxed to applicant 4 4/28/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss project and procedures 4/30/98 Letter from City Environmentalist to Sabey restating the need for a watercourse study 5/4/98 Sabey faxed letter to Building Official asking for determination of the number of stories 5/5/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss number of stories, building height, retaining walls, drainage, traffic report, Highway 99 design issues, SAO studies, and building design issues 5/6/98 SEPA revision comments sent to Haynes 12 5/6/98 Affidavit of posting returned by Haynes Lund 14 5/8/98 Notice of Application mailed and posted, 14 day public comment period starts 5/12/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss drainage, building height, BAR issues, was deadline for Sabey's submittal of building revisions but revised elevations were not submitted, SEPA checklist submitted was missing 3 pages 5/14/98 Haynes Lund submitted two revised elevations showing an entry on the east building face 5/19/98 Staff met with Sabey team, received complete revised checklist, new site plan, drainage diagram, revised traffic and geotech reports to be submitted this week, discussed BAR 27 5/21/98 Public comment period ends 5/21/98 Haynes Lund sent in a colored east building elevation showing the added entry 5/22/98 Letter sent to Haynes Lund regarding design issues, need for SEPA documentation, reports 5/26/98 Staff met with Sabey team, discussed SEPA status, received traffic, stream, drainage studies, sketches showing planterboxes, articulation of the garage, and axonometric drawings 34 5/28/98 Staff faxed revisions /corrections to SEPA checklist to Haynes Lund 5/28/98. Staff met with Sabey team to discuss design revisions, presented suggestions to step back portions of the facade to provide greater modulation 5/29/98 Sabey team met with Mayor Rants, resolved building design issues 6/1/98 Haynes submitted BLA application 6/2/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss traffic issues, requested changes to SEPA checklist 6/8/98 Haynes submitted final design review drawings including colored elevations and perspective 47 6/10/98 SEPA threshold determination issued 48 6/11/98 Notice of public hearing mailed and posted 6/12/98 Staff faxed remaining BLA comments to Haynes 6/19/98 Staff faxed staff report to Haynes Lund 6/23/98 Staff met w /Sabey team to discuss BAR hearing, Staff recommendations, demolotion permit 6/25/98 Building and site designs approved at BAR hearing 6/26/98 Notice of decision mailed TIMELINE.XLS ,- .... r' z��`:�:''dok &;uia9�`kr;:fs:.`.' sip. �• 1uii���.*» ��i; Y�%,: Yis< L .i3:r'.i�..�r'�'Siw�d�F�rs{ie:+ Page 1 11.e.4431 $j • 4.4/44,1 Z a• w re JDI U0 CO W =. J � N LL W0 2 Q. I— W Z' Z� I— 0 Z I— uj U `O N 0 I—. W LU. HU Z' al U= o I 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I 2003 I 2004 2005+ Real P ropertyInvestment Housing Agencies Partnerships 8i Code Enforcement ➢ D ➢ Improvement Grants 8t Demonstration Project D Aggregation of Redevelopment Sites Incentive Program ➢ ➢ D ➢ Standards Flexibility • • • • • Setback Modification ➢ ,➢ • • • • • • • • • • • • Property Brokerage 81 Acquisitions Market Expansion_ Residential Density Modification for NCC Zone and Multi- family allowance in RC Zone ommunity Development Neighborhood Improvement Programs • Neighborhood Signs • Tree Planting • Stream Clean -ups ➢ ➢ ➢ Art in Infrastructure ➢ I➢ ➢ ➢ ➢I ➢I D ➢I ➢I ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢I➢I➢I➢ ➢ I ➢ ID ➢ ➢I➢ Code Modifications for Improved Design Pacific Hy. Design Manual • BAR review of development in RC Zone • Zoning Code's Landscape Chapter • Sign Amortization ➢ ➢ ➢ Public Involvement/ Marketing Program ➢ ➢ ➢ Ped. /Bike /Transit Plan Strategic Plan for Education ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ Infrastructure ;and Faciltties;Investment :> Pacific Hy. Improvement ➢.➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢. ➢ ➢ Infrastructure Upgrades • Improve water lines and fire hydrants Improve Telcomm. Create a Cross Street Improvement Plan • Reconstruct Cross Streets D ➢ ➢ Neighborhood Resource Center D D Cascade View Park D I > ➢, ➢ ➢ DIDI ➢ ➢I ➢I ➢I ➢ Southgate Park ➢,➢ ➢,➢ DI ➢I➢ ➢I ➢IDI➢ ➢ ➢ ➢I➢ D • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 iA:Y`s't!S.4�av ?rK.?w:4tk8a7.33 :40 t^kSaG14.44V`aid'`. Z ~ W 0 O, (D �. U) W' LU 1-- tn u. W }O} u_ U)a =a = Z ZO W W UD O— .0 W UI HU O ~ _ Z A F F I D A V I T 1. 7uzei-Nw6 O F D I S T R I B U T I O N 691- hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet f Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action ['Official Notice Other L 1 tc 8--ton 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on q5.5 Prrr - Name of Project * row File Number Lq g " C) ;)--1 Signature - r Y ?_, .., d; i'i cz.G 3; ._ e:y %i - +.a�.:3•.r.;1,. £.: ifrf.‘M. fnx `.e11%G;15ha% r°.rk %fLi'�"ea, a7i^•,.:.Ta.hfv:gs:n5.+45i�uFtiPTi7i. :7c awXMwY#%1!IIaKx 'i@kS'Mig,le a 4,4(U'rfiti i‘Yr Wt$1.: x z �w • 2 JU! 0 O; cn w • w =, r J H. w0 73I' J, _.w'. • f- _. . z � 1-0: •w~ • O -` wuf • 0 i ii z. co O z . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Haynes Lund, Applicant John Welch, Property Owner Dwight McLean Washington State Department of Transportation King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter serves a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. PROJECT BACKGROUND HEARING DATE: June 25, 1998 FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0021 Design Review ASSOCIATED E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review PERMITS: APPLICANT: Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct three office buildings totaling 240,000 square feet on a sloping site adjacent to Pacific Highway South. LOCATION: 12421 Pacific Highway South LOT SIZE: 12.8 Acres NOTIFICATION: Notice of Application mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site May 8, 1998 Notice of Public Hearing mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site June 11, 1998 SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued June 10, 1998 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 :,4i:?i'.d!+r3.?..n' �h>;;•• r,: r�! tiuFts d' ki` tT��o:+' ;'iu'i5'tlaiiew:S "�it�l�E?t!i:i z a w UO0;. co w =' • LL, w 0' LL <, - w z� O zI mc o. w ui z: U w, o z Notice of Decision Page 2 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Planning Commission at the June 25th public hearing. The Commission voted to approve the design of the proposed building based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report dated June 12, 1998. The conditions of approval are as follows: z 1. A detailed design for the water feature shall be submitted to DCD and approved by the w g Pp Y r4 2 Director. 6 2. Designs for the freestanding and wall signs shall be submitted to DCD and approved by the v 0 Director. w w= Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the .N p` uj permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between g ¢. 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planner is Nora Gierloff who may be contacted at (206) 431- min . 3670 for further information. _ z� Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax :z O; purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. w p no The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, June 26, 1998. The Planning Commission decision is appealable to the Tukwila City Council. Appeal w W materials shall contain: 1 0: = 0 .z w U =: 0F'` z 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City. nl•:'�i�a'ii).�i�l'%.YCl::iw4t X11• ' tJv`.':. isS1. v: �✓:: Sfi%: f4�}' �'r:.`l�ii�.4,ZiF }�'iJf4'1�i53' +41.4triA2i4t.46' M44.' °'�, SEATTLE EILIIOTT BAY 414, sNsi SITE PLAN for PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ROAD SEA- TAC INT'L AIRPORT ,z3&b.1, ui E on � �� w2isrir d at:tti z; ki rt3r.0 aiiedi. oiota`gkkow, rin i1 tiF 1k knYVi�lt u"`kY#SiiVaiai,,iixed.4 4fr,cgoit ;kit :lane' City of Tukwila Steven M.•Mullet, Mayor February 2, 2000 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 -4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park/Intergate West L98 -0021 Pac West Generator Enclosure Dear Haynes, Jack and I have reviewed your recent proposal for a generator enclosure for Pac West to be located in the landscape area behind Building B. Per our previous discussions we determined that the enclosure would not require Board of Architectural Review approval because it is set into the hillside and screened with landscaping. However, the retaining walls and generator enclosure meet the definition of a structure and so are required to be at least 15 feet from the rear property line. Please adjust the plans to meet this setback requirement. If you have any questions about this please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC. Jack Pace, Planning Manager 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 ' 4ia� -n:c >, ..a ^,, k.. yr . 1 } > �. ;. ..yu_.:, t41- 4:xvi+�;'xi�t "e "ift3ci0' :Sa.'S!3�`!�• �'y i4.:: -�Y'�i : � x+il�:`i` ° �m• l:: u', rutir�t,' �..-.« i.... s .C:,3�vn::nmSr.�.`�"�?.:Ja�.:"S • x`i ��ik�3. F. sd. 1�3 :>!�1,...YaBi4':'F=.�`vY.yi„ v .'k:�+,9'1:�it1S%ekL�7U:`tlr. i+ rt 90 +. irFCi;:: �.,... <- 5 ",r._ .�'r - ....,, rt�. rtz. x, -. 2, \' iL {._..r ^3ti�ti`.5 ^��,ar3eStiiEii tS," .aiw.r 1 • • • W; JU; U O; • u)w MI =; d: • mw Z 1.■. Z I: 12 ml• oo o . H; -w w' wz • O ~; • z :4 4j ^y1 • } Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 2, 2000 Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 -4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park/Intergate West L98 -0021 New Generator Building Dear Haynes, Jack, Steve and I discussed your recent proposal for a new generator building to be located in the landscape area behind Building A. Steve determined that the building would require Board of Architectural Review approval due to its size and height. It is still possible to make the February 24th BAR agenda, to reserve your place we need the following items by February 9th: 1. Design narrative for the new structure 2. 12 copies of a colored front elevation of the new structure 3. 12 copies of a revised landscape plan for the area around the new structure 4. Public notice board on site 5. Noise study for generator 6. New property owner labels, we have a set of occupant labels If you have any questions about this please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC. Jack Pace, Planning Manager 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 af'44742difist): s - $s.^t: .t z aa � JU ? cn to w, al .J F-t • u_ w o}' u- Q 0 no mow;. z� F= O Z F- IX Ill U o. o t. w w' H V', 11 z' ui.co H_,.' O z SAIBEY CORPORATION January 27, 2000 Jack Pace Planner Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Generator Enclosure for Pac West 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard Dear Jack: RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter is an update to the letter we send you on 1/21/00 regarding the generator enclosure for Pac West, a tenant in Building B at Intergate.West. The attached drawings (site plan, plan, east elevation and section) show our updated scheme for this enclosure. The scheme is still virtually identical to the scheme that the tenant's architect, Rene Galaviz, reviewed with you on 1/13/00. This design consists of concrete retaining walls on the south, west and north sides, with a louvered screen wall on the east. The generator will sit on the concrete slab inside an acoustical cover. There will be no roof on this structure. This proposal should be seen, then, as an equipment pad surrounded by walls, most of which will be buried in the hillside. We have made two changes from the drawings you reviewed with Rene. First, we revised the location slightly to move the structure away from the property line and to accommodate the existing drainage ditch. You will note that the enclosure does overlap into the building setback line along the west property line. This issue was reviewed with Nora Gierloff on 1/25/00 and it was determined that the scheme was acceptable as shown since the only incursion into the setback was a retaining wall (see Section drawing). The second change is in the finishes for the enclosure. Since the side and west walls will be mostly below grade, these walls will be painted concrete to match Building B. We will provide Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) facing on the east wall. Rene reported that you considered his scheme to create no significant impact on the site. In that case, the scheme could be approved administratively and would not require presentation to the Board of Architectural Review. Please review these drawings and confirm that they are consistent with what you found to be acceptable previously. We request that you let us know by 2/1/00 if there is any feature that is unsatisfactory to you or that would prevent your department from approving our permit application. We have begun to prepare construction documents based on this scheme. Unless we hear from you otherwise, we will proceed with our building permit application with the understanding that this scheme has the approval of the Planning Department. We appreciate the time you have spent trying to resolve the issues regarding the location of this generator. Hopefully, we have finally found a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved. Sincerely, Haynes Lund, AIA As agent for David A. Sabey CC: File, Laurent Poole, john Lang, Ernest Hyden, Rene Galaviz, Doug Miller S:11 ntergte\W Pltukw27ja00.doc architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 - 4220.206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 ,.L 'ankli� < n.!hl'Nf ailiattiaral 'iT1 hi i.;4i+4NS1Wa :z '. w • m • ,J U UO. N O • u) W; • W =: J F.; WO. g a. Y2 dc. • W. Ztz—` • Z ,— ONi • o H tiJ Z v_ _:. O I-; Z . SPEY CORPORATION January 21, 2000 Jack Pace Planner Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Generator Enclosure for Pac West 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard Dear Jack: ' i.M N 0 ,f 46,00 C S 7 The attached drawings show our proposed scheme for the generator enclosure for Pac West, a tenant in Building B at Intergate.West. This scheme is virtually identical to the scheme that the tenant's architect, Rene Galaviz, reviewed with you on 1/13/00. We have revised the location slightly to accommodate the existing drainage ditch, and to reduce the overlap into the landscape buffer along the west property line. Also, since so much of the side walls and all of the west wall will be below grade, we are planning to provide Exterior Insulation and Finish System (EIFS) facing on the east wall only. The exposed portions of the concrete walls will be painted to match the EIFS. Rene reported that you considered his scheme to create no significant impact on the site. In that case, the scheme could be approved administratively and would not require presentation to the Board of Architectural Review. Please review these drawings and confirm that they are consistent with what you found to be acceptable previously. We request that you let us know if there is any feature that is unsatisfactory to you or that would prevent your department from approving our permit application. We are ready to being preparing construction documents based on this scheme. Unless we hear from you otherwise, we will proceed with our building permit application with the understanding that this scheme has the approval of the Planning Department. We appreciate the time you have spent trying to resolve the issues regarding the location of this generator. Hopefully, we have finally found a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved. Sincerely, t„." Haynes Lund, AIA As agent for David A. Sabey CC: File, Laurent Poole, John Lang, Ernest Hyden, Rene Galaviz, Doug Miller S:1I nterg te1W Pltu kw20ja00, doc architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 - 4220.206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 :','",,.:'t;" i:.;:Y'�'3•r: �s.•.µ•;nr .2 m: -^'s}„ �. ""•rr w+s �'fr. :>�..3.. •;,:n. �:y..r��,. t. ^. ..e,'.� -. .rR,icw :. .6,,l .�•ss= r �,,j,,. ry., '.wry; V>i;,4gR . :. A _ ,.k E. �..:, ��u�...'. r�� .,.�.e;�;°v.�s�'�t�s:����r�.�� .... ��r�z.., �: a�. i�,.. a; ss' tr" �i. aw ,�s�?�sis't�:M1.�Y�£%tf,•-r?�7� �i'w.a:.,.4.�:.>��a•c�•S�??vr h,,.c�i��: Z _1- 1 1-w ce 2, U O; U U; wu,u.: w, w 0:. D. d, If—.w. F—:0 Z IH;; ww U 10 • ,D F—: • w 1110?,‘ r': t Z: :U z.. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 30, 1999 Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119 -4220 • RE: Pacific View Office Park L98 -0021 Generators, Cooling Towers Dear Haynes, In your letter of November 8th you discussed some changes to building mechanical systems that are being driven by the technical requirements of tenants in buildings B and C. These include additional backup power generators and cooling towers. We appreciate your efforts to install the generators for Pac West and Zama Networks in the parking garages rather than in outbuildings as this would remain much closer to the BAR approved design. If the only change to the exterior of the buildings are the exhaust vents they would be considered minor modifications and not require review by the Board. If ICG opts to locate their generator in a pad building instead of in the garage they will be required to go back to the Board of Architectural Review for approval. Depending on how well the enclosure building is designed and screened Staff may not support the modification request. The cooling towers proposed at the north end of building C should be unobtrusive due to their position against a retaining wall and the topography of the site. If the screens are painted to match the building colors as you have proposed they would be considered a minor modification and administratively approved. Therefore, I find that the solutions you have proposed fulfill the intent of the design goals set by the Board and are approved. A copy of this letter will be placed in the design review file, L98- 0021. It is your responsibility to submit any permits or revisions necessary to construct these changes. I have an additional design suggestion for the site. As you have excess parking stalls for the project I would like you to look at removing the four stalls at the end of the driveway between buildings B and C (between the walkway and the landscape island adjacent to the water feature) and replacing 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ':.j:.';li': ":L;qX +u:r'2>= .`. Gt ,ra,`:a':5e +e'3i;�i::IDFfttii.: �;.F tNl •`.;,tilii • 4.5' <ki $Ad''E'fS�G.'tY'.cx : y iil"uii'fC'.1., z z' _iO. UO CO C. CO L W - w. w0 g Q. a. i, zF O: Z~ uj U� 0 H: W.T. W U' H U. O .z 0 =;. oF-; z them with an enlarged landscape vista for people entering the site busy on -site intersection. If you 7141. Sincerely, Page 2 island. This would enhance the water feature, create an attractive and remove a possible safety hazard where people back out into a have any questions or comments, please call me at (206) 433- Nora Gierloff Associate Planner S4BEY CORPORATION November 8, 1999 Jack Pace Planning Manager Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Generator Bunker at Pacific View Office Park Building Permit Application D99 -0383 Dear Jack: N{:; ? u 1999 - r`.;pMENT On October 22, 1999 we met with you and other members of the City's Planning and Public Works departments to discuss our submittal for a Generator Bunker for some tenants in Building B at Pacific View Office Park. At the meeting you indicated that your department considered our submittal to be outside the scope of the site plan that was approved by the Board of Architectural Review. Before you could process our application, we would have to obtain BAR approval for the modification to the site design. At that meeting, you offered us some alternative solutions. You suggested that we could locate the generators within the parking structure. If this location caused only minor changes in the building facade, then BAR review would not be required. A second alternative was to bury the Generator Bunker more deeply into the hillside. If the building could be suppressed to where it had minimal impact on the site, then your office could find that the design was within the scope of the approved site plan. We are writing today to withdraw Permit Application D99 -0383. On November 15, 1999 we will submit a Building Permit application for Tenant Improvements on Floor P2 of Building B to house the generator for Pac West, the tenant on Floor F2. The tenant on Floor F3, ICG Communications, is pursuing with your office the idea of locating their generator in an acoustical enclosure on a pad on the site. We have offered to them the possibility of locating their generator on Floor P2 as well, but they have not accepted that solution as yet. As we discussed at the meeting on 10/22/99, the tenant for Floors F1 and F2 of Building C, Zama Networks, Inc., will require generators as well. We are designing this project to include locating 2 generators on Floor P2 of Building C. We expect to submit a Building Permit application for their Tenant Improvements on 11/22/99. As of today, there are no other generators planned for this site. You may recall that the mechanical system for Zama Networks includes cooling towers. We are currently planning to locate these cooling towers behind an enclosure at the northwest corner of Building C. At our meeting, you expressed concern about the appearance of this enclosure. We are submitting the attached drawings to show how this structure will look. You should note that, due to the retaining wall to the west, the building to the south, and the steep grade to Highway 99 at this end of the site, this enclosure is almost completely hidden from view. We have designed the enclosure to fit into the overall building design, using the same materials as the rooftop equipment screens and a similar color scheme. We trust that you will find this design to be only a minor modification to the BAR approved site plan and within the scope of your authority to approve without BAR review. architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220. 206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 o11`r.ei iu z ,z ix w u6= 00 N.0 u)11.1 0' ga co d = w. H = zF 1— 0: z D o; off' w W; IL O . z. N. F== O H, z Jack Pace 11/08/99 page2of2 We appreciate the time your office has spent bringing your concerns to our attention. We hope you will find the proposals described herein to be a satisfactory response to those concerns. Please contact me promptly if you have any questions or require any further information. Sincerely Hayne Lund, AIA As agent for David A. Sabey CC: File, Poole, Driano, Gardner, Lang S:\I NTERGTE \WP \PAC E05 NV99.DOC t;":i::.e ntkVI C i.”. ,r w =sr�twyw , : '')Va c" xr a'4e ?"n1Mc` s.&"!f rak.k r Yar,' +ANWal5rf*. City of Tukivila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster; Director October 14, 1999 Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park L98-0021 Water Feature Design Dear Haynes, This letter is in response to your submittal of a detailed design for the water feature and stairway between buildings B and C. The schematic design for this feature was approved by the BAR on 6/25/98 as part of the overall building review. Your detailed design shows the stairs switching back over two cascades and using river rock to cover the concrete structure and create a natural appearance. I find that the design you have submitted fulfills the intent of the design goals set by the Board and is therefore approved. The revised landscaping plan approved on 9/28/98 as part of the mechanical equipment minor modification should be revised to accommodate the new layout of the water feature. A copy of this letter and the water feature design will be placed in the design review file, L98- 0021. It is your responsibility to submit any permits or revisions necessary to construct this design. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ... October 11, 1999 Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 S4BEY CORPORATION RE: Pacific View Office Park L98 -0021, Design Review 12101 -- 12301 Tukwila International Boulevard Dear Nora: The Design Review Board's approval for this project included the requirement that the developer obtain the approval of the Department of Community Development for the design of the Water Feature. We are hereby submitting to you the following drawings for your review: SK -C 11 SK-C12 SIC C13 Partial Site Plan Showing Water Feature East elevation of Water Feature Hand Sketched Section through Stair & Water Feature dated 10/11/99 dated 10/11/99 dated 10/11/99 As you may recall, the water that flows through this cascade is entirely off -site drainage . The amount of that flow varies considerably with the seasons. It was an important goal of our design work to arrive at a solution that will be visually interesting with a water flow ranging from quite heavy to zero. We believe that this solution, which incorporates the stair into the water feature and includes two separate and visible cascades, a pond and an open water channel, meets these design goals. We hope that you will find that it meets the expectations of the City as well. We -are ready to begin work immediately on the water control structures and the stair. Your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated, as we are anxious to get the water course complete before the rainy season begins. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Haynes Lund, AIA As agent for David A. Sabey CC: File, Laurent Poole, John Lang, Doug Schumacher, Ken Stickley architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220. 206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 ._..... wssnk+ ��e. tia:' c7(. wr:}' �t�4` i�� ;a`.v:v�'••,•.5�',Gus(:t%+ia.° Yam 'x�yi'':x'i4i!iti'A;"iu�ifr:f;+t err ^5':a.ra1 'w�xek�:YS�� ti.oF';r;y t:;x n,• SBEY CORPORATION July 16, 1999 Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pacific View Office Park D99 -0006, Building Permit Application for Building B 12201 Tukwila International Boulevard ... Mt.. L 1 9 1999 nEVT:LOPMFNT z 2 H re 2 w. JU UO: CI co W w w =. J F_ • w: Ili O: 2 Dear Nora: g w ?! We will be requesting a Final Inspection next week in support of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy H ILI (TCO) for the Tenant Improvements for Continental Alliance (Permit #D99 -0078) on Floor F1 of z Hf Building B. In order to receive the TCO for these spaces, we must have a final inspection and acceptance 0 of the building from your department. Unfortunately, not all features of Building B that impact planning w w and zoning will be complete at that time. We request that you accept a Developer's Project Warranty for 2 D: the following items: O 1. Landscaping of Lot B: Due to the continuing construction activity on the site, we are unable to w W install the landscaping and irrigation on Lot B. Per the letter we sent you on 5/7/99 regarding the �- 9' landscaping bond for Building A, we calculate the cost of the landscaping for Lot B to be $!6,245 LL 0; (25% of $64,977.75). U 2. Screening of Mechanical Equipment: The approved building plans include metal screenwalls 0 around the roof mounted mechanical equipment. We cannot install these screens at this time as Z.. they will interfere with the installation of equipment for future tenants. The cost of providing screen walls is $20,600 as shown on the attached Bid Proposal from Kenco Construction, Inc. 3. Security Screens for openings at Parking Levels: The approved drawings show decorative metal screens in the exterior openings for the parking levels. Due to delivery problems, we will not be able to provide those screens by Final Inspection. The cost of providing these screens is $18.096 as shown on the attached Bid from our supplier. All other items required by the Department of Community Development will be complete as necessary for the occupancy of Floor F1. Since this level constitutes 18,517 SF of office space, we will provide approximately 100 striped parking stalls (in excess of the 3 per 1,000 SF required). We will furnish handicapped parking as required for the number of parking stalls provided. There will be an accessible route from the property line to the building, and an accessible entry to the building. For Building A, we furnished bonds to cover the construction cost of the incomplete items. For this building, we would prefer to submit Standby Letters of Credit. We propose to submit letters, made out to the City of Tukwila, for 150% of the construction cost of each item listed above. If the City has a standard format for these letters, please forward that to me. architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220 • 206/281-8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 a'odtettrelit"ri3` *.kd.. 1:c 1.:te93Ft :.,'b'.zt't"�i"•.;.' k �f(:r',�' Ow% .' 3 xui "° ', # k: Nora Giertoff 07/16/99 Page 2 of 2 We would appreciate it if you would promptly review the items listed above and let us know as soon as possible if these items are acceptable to the City. Please include any other items that you believe may require a warranty, and whether the standby letter of credit is acceptable as a means of supplying that warranty. ' Thank you for your help in this matter. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely,— Haynes Lund, AIA As agent for David A. Sabey CC: File, David Hills, John Lang, Doug Schumacher, Ken Stickley S :1lntergte \VdPltukw13jI99.doc 4: kitir; thSan i7 i +!a:'%= 4;�S:Si[a`U+�`lt 154: 07/15/1999 16134 2052418223 SABEY CONST KENCO CONSTRUCTION INC. PAGE 02... 12601 - 132nd Avenue N.E. (425) 823 -0599 KIRKLAND, WA 98034 FAX 823 -0423 KENCOCII4BPN Inly 6, 1999 Sabey Construction 101 Elliott Ave. W, Suite 400. Seattle, WA 98119 Phone (206) 281 -4200 Fax (206)281.0920 - Attn. Mark Vasquez RE: International Gatxway Buildings "B" & "C" We propose to furnish and install Sheet Metal aiding *nd.associated flashing at Mechanical screen wall an buildings 18,. and "C". Note: Price far building ''C "•is based on drawing for buildin¢ "B ". Any difference in net Will change the oricia aaccoitdia dy Z CC w 6 00 ■ N0. • u) w =:. 'Li 00:. J'. u- < Including: = 0: • 24ga. V- L1NE32 with standard factory color (non metallic) 1-. W Flasbiag, copings, accessories, caulking and components related to metal screen wall systems. Z 1=—` 1-0_ Z t—> WW 0 co 'O 01 WW O. •ti. Z' co Z Base Bid Building "R" • S20,600 -00 Base Hid Building "C° ••• $20.600.00 Exclusions: All structural steel, Misc. natal or tight gage framing supports for the screen well systems. Frit;anne$ and storefronts, • All glass curtaia,vall and skylights. Interior work of any kind. Doors dootframc hardware and prep for hardware. Light gage.metal framing. Plywood and wood blocking,, Gypsum wallboard assemblies Insulation • Penetrations and material for pooatrations not shown on the drawings. Canopies of any kind. -. • • Qua-lineations: • • On site utilities, (Waits, Electrical,) to be provided by others. • Hoists of tneterial to roof by general contractor. • . Sales tax, inspections and permits am excluded. • Construction barrios traffic and pedestrian control is to be provided by others. • Adequate site access and staging / lay down area is to be provided.. • Price guaranteed for 30 days. KENCO CONST I JCI'ION INC. Sean afar, Sales and Estimating WASHINGTON OREGON ALASKA 1 "w.'•6 ^i; ,�. .. .r.+�:>�' w?.cFr�3 t:,c.- }�11,isa,d: `� t":;. u: 5iri°•.{. I6L ':.aiJii�`e7Z�tf/kYu'G4�ti;<+ �v4, esiltis.' iniL %z?f;i:�;4ro�.t'�,rS�.r:fT.S S, �f7QP' F." 'r:,ViR; &i1,'{GS4:.'*e.p±%.i.;' e`,•; 4`•;` ti5�cu�C7t :i'iYknbr�:i:Ji':SSu..�,Kw. 1> e/:4' 2 ib2418223 4.'1a1.77 1•i• JO O.& b Wt.LU1Nl1 it'll. ll ,� JANUARY 22, 1999 SABEY CONST PAGE 02 206 2H2 4212 P.03/05 r'^'1 INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY CORPORATE PARK, BUILDING `•B" 6. BOLTS STEEL TO STEEL AND STEEL TO CONCRETE (OUR WORK ONLY) MISCELLANEOUS STEEL rIEMS: LNCLUSTONS? �1. EMBEDDED ANGLES (26/S -11) V 2. BENT PLATE EDGE BEAM (FIELD WELD) (6/S -15) ✓ 3. STEEL CANOPY FRAMING (10/S -17) S 4. SCREEN WALL FRAMING (20/S -17) V" , 5, PRE-CAST SPANDREL CONN: (11/S -18) �pp' �J EMBEDDED PLATES WITH (H STUDS AND REBAR (18/S -20) - • ANGLE CONN. ,/8. ANGLE BETWEEN BAR. JOIST (ROOF AREA) (18 & 19/S -20) 9. HANDRAIL Q STAIR / RAMP (A2.4) s 710. HANDRAIL @ LEVEL P -2 (A3.0) 5 PIPE BOLLARDS P-2 & P -I (A3.0 & A3.1)y ` L)T4 X12. GARAGE EXHAUST FRAMING (3/A5.1) :' f`-*' -'13. ELEVATOR PIT LADDER (1/A5.3) S e6-` i/14. WINDOW WASHING TIE (5/A6.4) S `1 '15. GUARDRAIL (a) DECKS (1 & 2/A6.4) 0 116. ELEVATOR SILL ANGLE (9 & 10/A6.5) 5 116i. v7. TUBE FRAMING WITH GRATING (12JA6.7) s ./18. I N T E R I O R R A I L POST (6/A6.7) s ' 4 i ;IS, ALL FOR THE SUM OF DELIVERED TO STORAGE AREA JOB SITE ESTIMATED WEIGHT 726,500 #± io2 •�g5 ADDITIVE BID ITEMS 1. STEEL STAIR LYSTEM FOR FURNISHING STEEL STAIR SYSTEM WITH HANDRAIL (PANTED) (A5.3) FOR THE SU1VI OF DELIVERED TO STORAGE AREA JOB SITE 2. MgIAL GRIDS (ITEM #1) GALVANIZED METAL SCREEN GRILLES AS PER S /A6.7 NOTE: WIRE SCREEN TO BE HORIZONTAL NOT DIAGONAL FOR THE SIJM OF_ _„- „� 18,096.00 DELIVERED TO STORAGE AREA JOB SITE $ # z }iii% ' ° ' a .S N'eX060441014 • " g52`' , iih (34/16 /69 FR1 14:33 FA1 S3S2-17b4 PS &r SURETY -C \ST 002 c:iry ,r t u114WtIa DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM riFfiat,..s..-17;;Ac:L%: lac-I=lcVIEW OFFICE 54Z -I IL- anti -s "l' DATE: lil 3UL.. -t- on 1u01 utcu,� It.Pr I Rtvy[ZQct. " jI3 ID PERMIT NO.: T)9( — 000Co NAME! *P-sL Ooicj 11i5t.na4c/`1 Cc) . _ TEL, NO. /.-4::(- 3gZ' `7 boa ADDRESS; q ' ' 'Ave 5ci i'rE 1100 CfiYl3TATE/Z1P Cj b \ ' 2j1© NAME OF DEVELOPMEN T: DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS CASH{ ASSIGNMENT SMALL BE REFUNDED BY MAILING TO: (please prim) Ir csi OP ITEMS TC 8 1 .._ ED - R CE DE sr'. P 'SG goo u 1 P gam" "*" s p As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner,1 hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of S . ao ($150° of valUe to complete work described above) and attach supporting documentation fvr v1aiva of work. I will have this wens carried otrt and call for a flnal inspection by this date: ( 10 J 30 ( °\9 ), or risk having the City use those funds to carry out the worts with their awn contractor or in -house manpower. if I fail to carry out the work, I hereby authorize the City to go onto the property to carry out completion of the above deficiencies, i further are to cam piete,11 work listed abg1 prior to requesting inspection and release of these funds. SIGNED: Tr LE: 1D, (v 4.. .11•'`'.J , ,t ; , :, j - : ED P '! ,3 ut • THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED. SIGNED: Dt ?PARTMEr,er HEAD; , i i ' e• AMOUNT; : i CASH 0 CASH EQUIVALENT DE?OSfTED THIS DATE; CiTY RECEIPT Na, RECEIVED SY: 72 HOUR NOTIFiCATtON FOR INSPECTION AND FF,LEASE CF FUNDS DEVELOPER'S RGQRESE 4TATiVE: CHECIGE0 BY: ... ••sas '•Isom• •,..n. ••••••..,....... .4'y.. ers.tm..:•••9,0•• w.....r,.,.w,.....•y . p-..r• + .oNs.,.Wn,.....,.ose9,it.:... p.trs:•••••'w9.4*.- .. All wor'N identliied in Section ; c: ,..;s tarn has now been and returned to department whi =;, a _4u :h.tized warranty, i here:- request inspection and release c' r „y castVcash equivalent:. DATE.: I have reviewed the above work and found It a =eptable and thereto, e authorize the release of the abode cash assignment, AUTHORCTsD BY: DEPARTMENT: �,-° ,. :�> ,,i�; :� ,ar;' :: •,.qtr ;,. �-"s...2:; ..:d :-.:y r .•+, .�� :. �w�����' ., j .. �� j3,,.� wy'����;','3 =.��,j sit'/iC7U �'i 1: r' ) CASH l EOU1VALE; i T - LE'i i ER AUTHORIZING RELEASE RELEASED THIS DATE: GASH z r In o'u:lrt Seziz.n 2, •inanze aersionnel si�ai! send Cplas 1 : w. : - Developer -- Finande Dc;.ar;rnni Berri; Ccordina;cr, O �G RELEASED BY: , FINANCE aT: . L i n completion ci sni:'a form, r- trance personnel lend rapias to: _rev ©I;c ,-anca Deaznmant DCD ,13.* tf,�?LU�r�! Y"it� cC i� Eis1 }wh3ljC� 04/16/99 FRI 1.4:33 FAX 93824764 PS &F SURETY -CNST 43002 eery .r I wcwlla DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM ,101.4,!t or, • NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: A,cclFlc Vr sw OFFICE 1 :ui t .2, tn4- DATE; 21 , u t_ . 9'9 DEVELOPMEHTADDRESS: 1 ZLo1 ZK. t LA, \ aJ ..1 _wD PERMIT NO.: "D�'F( — of)oG CASH ASSIGNMENT NAME: 1-41501C -S IriSURcrrJC.e. Co . TEL, NO. '24 - 3'z- 7 oc SKALL MA LI REFUNDED ADDRESS; O 3� ns �c� I- j `�00 BY MAILING TO: - (please print) Cf iY1STATE,ZIP ' b 1 0 -N - ITEMS TO = - ■ ED -F R CE PtAliStOCYMNT8 •w►iERE ITEM ACMOESCRtt'E01t �v 21 G'g "+JS pop- -F 4 r.JGC (- a"Ve -L5 I Pi Ai•-n> Fl--) A5 SMa'N oN) ,O Amt (Ai f Z. (mss 23/#64C0,1 a•,.riP 1 , .e:, As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, I hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of S 2'y iii' • oo ($1E0° of value to complete work described above). and attach supporting documentation for value_ of work. I will have this wcrk carried otrt and call for a final Inspection by this date: ( 10 JZ.Ltej 9c1. ), or risk having the City use those funds to carry out the worts with their own contractor or In -house manpower. If I fail to carry out the work, I hereby authortz he City to go 0 o the p petty to carry out completion of the above deficiencies, I further agree to eo te II work listed a ve pri to requesting inspection and release of these funds. SIGNED: ^� r TTiLE; ,, , V •t�N t D `JAY .....r�.V:.. • • . ••••••••••••• . X.-a. . • .................... ... .+. rZ*01,.y11404w.•101. Y.,••• •••••,,,,7444,1, ,W, SIGNED: aaatQ►v . THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED. DEPARTMENT HEAD; AMOUNT: CASH EQUIVALENT DE ?OSfTED THIS DATE; CRY RECEIPT No, RECEIVED BY: •-: w. o. e.>.. �aY� ...,,K!y»•t.'w++tx�..+..wa:L vrx. mo•. vr..-^ �. r+ �w••. �• na•. wq...-.... u• a... w..,.^ �.:- nYr•: 7• b«. n..M.,.rM•LG.+- ,...r•.► ^.r•.•.r '.•;�:...;�:;:3, ..;.r..a•R9.3!. t' VAC. jt:•17.a$,L. 72 HOUR NOTIFICATION FOR INSPECTION AND RELEASE OF • FUNDS DEVELOPER'S REPRESENTATIVE CHECKED BY: All work identified in Section 1 of this Corm has now been =mpieted and returned to department which authorized warranty. I hershy request inspection and release of my cast/cash equivalent. DATE; I have reviewed the above work and found it a=eptable and therefore authorize the release of the above cash assignment. AUTHORED BY: DEPARTMENT; ..... uy. t..,: A,•„ p. Y:•...- w.-•....,.. y.:.•....;..:.,,-..., Cw; M•>,:,`^ 7�P�'-.,.....<......._•.,...,,,.....: 3,.,.. T.•, w- n- n...,.,! v,,••..,• fW2 •.��.SW«•.>R....o'- .V.r.,.:,. y.r:.. :s: u- •r-rj�xmswnnraarreraeats�tcs arr�r r BD CASK EQUIVALENT- LETTER AUTHORIZING RELEASE Bp CASH CITY CHECK NO. as AMOUNT: RELEASED THIS DATE: Upon completion through Section 2, Finance personnel shall send =pies lc: — Developer - Finance Department Permit C ordlnatar, OCD ...��:tt�'S'•': It �+ �. i' 1� ?kf�Ni1t::: +fifi$F:kfFi�",�1�:' RELEASED BY: , FINANCE DEPT. ' Upon completion of entire form, Finance personnel shall send =pies to: - Developer - Finance Department - Permit Coorellnatot, DCD J' •'C 04/16/99 FRI 14:33 FAX 93324764 PS &F SURETV -CNST X002 c:iit Jr !myna DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY REQUEST FORM NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: A((vlc VI ew LJ Frce r • • 'R.,:...*,4 ?,::* *ah7r;11 ,,Y^jw o I L.bi/V DATE: DEVELOPMENTADDRESS: I S CASH ASSIGNMENT SHALL BE REFUNDED BY MAILING TO: (please prim) • t;A - z141- ITEMS L--err TO ER 01 �K It.�• 1rt-cc>�,aa. NAME: Aeuc.r lrJSta c.:✓ Co . �'w 1 eJ U L.Y 9 •� a D PERMIT HO.: "D9( -- 0006 TEL. No. Zoc, od • -- ADDRESS: q�� c3� I-t-E 1`700 CITY/STATE/ZIP • • . • D 1 -r ED •E R CE �J DS GA=P t-- 1• Grl o • . L••1 A...Jo L.4. As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, I hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of S t(o7 . 5� ($160% of value to complete work described above) and attach supporting documentation for value of work. 1 will have this work carried out and call for a final inspection by this date: ( I 0 j °jO j 99 • ), or risk having the City use the funds to carry out the work with their own contractor or to -Douse manpower. If Hail to carry out the work, I hereby authorize the City to go onto the p -petty to carry cut completion of the above deficiencies, I further agree to co •p1: e all work listed a• - s prior • requesting inspection and release of these funds. SIGNED: _„�_;, �j,`,•f • TITLE: IDA \lc o, ^•e'6 ••,a•v_ w00,•. ►••+...n.....mrn .•rxm - �v..— ...::..:. �•� !�• �^ 'rMV•M ^r..xvn':'••ww.- •- :eo•.!aevraw.w.ereen•tvi� SIGNED: AMOUNT: CASH CASH EQUIVALENT CITY RECEIPT NO, THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO, BE ACCEPTED. DEPARTMENT HEAD; DEPOSITED THIS DATE; RECEIVED BY: ....tl"J.>•c..e..qut....M + w .e.o.o•o, v..T•.......- •e*!TG' • •- r..•- ,- ^w•oa'- •• -.:Yri • _•...z...•j. eye .....wpaeao.•7:.».ox_........e. ZJ1.iU�]:,; {w��: •.`N.�y, +. -..��. ,�.. � .�•:. _•.�.�,;:�. r,.,�•a � 1•''+ - •.- • -:. >c All wcr'� Ident!(ied In SE1:on 1 o; ;r.s • , �, � has now been �r,.'..•� - 72 HOUR NOTIFICATION FOP and returned to deQ3rt,rhertt whic;, warranty. 1 here- • . INSPECTION AND RELEASE OF FUNDS request inspection and release 0•' ^y asrvcash equlY2ien',. DEN LOPE S RE.ERESEN TAT1VE: CHECI4EC BY: I have reviewed the above work and found it a =eptable and therefore authorize the release of the abova cash assignment, AUTHORaD BY: DEPARTMENT; 1 cases Eauly i ' i S k CAU l ENT— L-T ; ER AJTNoRIZ(NG RELEASE vll Cr•1cC`r; NO. carnp laiicn send =p(as tc: tnrouln a7_ inn 2, rinan_a petzcnriol shall - Developer Firtanca Ovpartrn nt •' i'orrnh c000rdinatvr, DC RELEASED THIS )AT: REDL LASED J Y: up=n c mpletlan send =pies to: , FINANcE iw :.. of entire ,_ . F•r,, ^,ca personnel she. :%C �til:l tom!'• Departmont ^.rdfnatar, DCD �{��4:.f: r:.,^. Fri ":F^ Tiv�'r�'�i }(Yr15!,�5itdil x�?a4 i i1'ACTeb •� ,1114 . < t64:.0 Ali it cj S4BEY CORPORATION April 9, 1999 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director Dept. of Community Deveiopment City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Certificate of Completeness For Building A at Pacific View Office Park Dear Mr. Lancaster: P� ;' 9 logo `-t/(3 I0 15 W/ SfuLe- Sabey Construction, Inc. is currently engaged in constructing Building A at the Pacific View Office Park. Our • schedule calls for the work to be finished by 4/23/99. The tenant for the building, Exodus Communications, Inc., would like to occupy the building on 4/26/99. We understand from previous conversations that the City of Tukwila cannot issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the building at this time because the entire building will not be ready for occupancy. However, a Certificate of Completeness for the Building A permit (D98 -0214 ) would allow the tenant to occupy those portions of the building that are complete under that permit. We request that the City conduct all required inspections so that a Certificate of Completeness can be issued for Permit Applications D98 -0214 and D98 -0321 on April 23, 1999. It is important to note that we are requesting a Certificate of Completeness only for the following permits: D98 -0214, for Building A, and D98 -0321, for Building A Annex. The work covered by these two permits will be fully complete by 4/21/99, except for the following items: 1. Exterior painting cannot be finished until later in the spring due to the wet weather. 2. Landscaping will be delayed until Building B is complete so that there is no risk of damage due to construction activities. All other work will be complete including all the Tenant Improvements on Floor 1. and sprinkler systems and fire alarms on Floors 2 and 3. We understand that all life safety features for the building must be installed and functional prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Completeness. There is work on the site that is covered by other permits. Grading and drainage are covered by Permit No. MI98 -0109. The Detention Vault for the drainage system is covered by Permit No. MI98 -0138. The site utilities are covered by Permit No. MI98 -0136. The work under these permits will not be complete on 4/23/99 and we will not be requesting Certificates of Completeness for these permits. All work under these permits necessary for the use of Building A will be complete. That work includes the following items: 1. Site grading will be complete to the Interim Grading Plan submitted with the Permit Application for the Land Altering Permit (MI98 - 0109). Excavation and re- grading will be in process at Building B, but all grading and retaining walls required for fire department access will be installed. The roads may be gravel in some areas and asphalt traffic base (ATB) in other areas. We have reviewed this condition with the Fire Department and they have determined that it will be acceptable. 2. Site drainage will be fully installed at Building A. The area drains, roof drains, etc. will be functional and connected to drain lines leading to the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220 •206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 :1,so ....y,t-<<i:'£.: wi?:.•1,;;.A:W.- 0+7.14, it:'... chit.''`x�/3.4ti`' 'S CLSUn5i k4.tii��t +kb 5. .� k.P 11Vit&F z -• • re w JU 0 0' CO 0 w N wO: Q. u) d` H= Z� I— 0 Z E— LU ILL U 0, 0 N': CI I—: w w; O lit Z U= O~ To: Steve Lancaster April 9, 1999 Page 2 of 2 Control ponds. The Detention Vault and permanent bio- swales will not be installed until early summer. The wet pond at the north end of the site cannot be installed until later in the summer. The offsite drainage will continue to be piped directly offsite until the wet pond is installed. 3. All utilities serving Building A will be installed and functional. The new 12" water loop is complete and has been accepted by Water District 20, including the hydrants at the northwest and southeast corners of Building A. The water system has valves and branch lines for Buildings B and C. The sewer line is connected to the sewer main and has been approved by Val Vue Sewer District. Seattle City Light has installed new power lines, switchgear and transformers, with provisions to extend the system to Buildings B and C. 4. Parking to meet the requirements for the occupied portions of Building A will be provided [3 per 1000 SF * 29,327 SF = 88 stalls, including 2 handicapped and 1 van stall]. The parking area will be paved and striped, though the surface may be ATB. The final traffic surface and striping will be installed when the parking areas for Building B are paved. 5. A temporary building address to meet City Requirements will be installed on Building A. The permanent address will be installed after the building is painted. Handicapped parking signage will be installed. All signage required for life safety will be installed inside Building A. We request that the your office approve this letter as a statement of the work that is required to be complete in order for you to issue a Certificate of Completeness for Permits No. D98 -0214 and D98 -0321. The signatures below will indicate approval from the separate departments responsible for these permits. We understand that the Certificate cannot be issued until your inspector determines that the work described herein is complete and acceptable. We further understand that this Certificate of Completeness only allows occupancy of Floor 1 of Building A. Before the tenant can occupy Floors 2 or 3, Tenant Improvement drawings must be submitted, a permit must be received and the City must issue a Certificate of Completeness for the Tenant Improvement drawings covering those areas. The signature below by ;j Tenant's representative indicates their acceptance of that condition. Sincerely, aynes d, AIA Paul u7' root as agent for David A. Sabey Director of Facilities, Exodus Communications, Inc. Steve Lancaster Duane Griffin Director, Dept. of Community Development Building Official, Dept. of Community Development Jim Morrow Nick Olivas Director, Dept. of Public Works Chief, Tukwila Fire Department J E:\98-70\Intergte\WP\tukw09ap99.dot TO: FROM: Ros / st DATE: October 1, 1998 SUBJECT: Determination of Traffic Concurrency City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director INTEROFFICE MEMO Steve Lancaster The Department of Public Works has determined that the development of Pacific View Office Park Building "A" under case file number D98 -0214 meets the requirements of Chapter 9.78 TMC, Traffic Concurrency Standards. This determination is based upon the following: 1. A determination that improvements to the SR 99 to SR 599 southbound on ramp will be needed to adequately accommodate traffic generated by Pacific View Office Park. 2. This capital improvement is included in the City's adopted six -year capital improvement program and adequate funding is assured. 3. A Developer's Agreement specifying any additional funding for this improvement will be developed and executed prior to additional development approvals for Pacific View Office Park. cf: John McFarland Kelcie Peterson ,'V1fl Cn„thr'ontor Rn„lovar, S,,ito K inn • Tukwila. Washington 08188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (2061 431-3665 ,m∎A .trx byr s+ln2.n', ;� i; ka px,* v`Gii ,r %awaifi ,°:K,— t'Ir`l',:42Z, ' i1i 1, 4. c ;..S751R$4,,,,11594, 0,4ies4o4 z 1H. re w• • .`J U' U O' .0 U' Ww. W I: wo. Z I- o wuf :O o ww O: .. w z 01" z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 28, 1998 Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park Design Changes Minor Modification to L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: This letter is in response to your request for changes to the design of Building A of the Pacific View Office Park. You have proposed an addition to the north end of the building to house mechanical equipment needed for the proposed tenant. Though the building's function will be different than the rest of the office buildings the same materials and detailing have been used, including spandrel and vision glass to carry the look of the office building across the addition. The building is set back into the hillside so it is largely shielded from view by the adjacent buildings. The landscaping plan has been revised to incorporate evergreen plant material to screen the north edge of the addition from the adjacent offices. Overall I find that the proposed addition has been made in the least obtrusive manner possible by repeating the design of the office buildings and setting the addition back into the hillside. The proposed revisions are within the scope of the Planning Commission approval. In context with the scale of the development this modification will be considered a minor modification to the design review approval and therefore approved administratively by this letter. A copy of this letter and the revised site and building designs will be placed in the design review file, L98 -0021. It is your responsibility to submit a revision to the building permit to cover these changes. If you have any questions or comments, please call Nora Gierloff at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 iie"t�2i+"•1� Ck.:u:4:dtiC9'`ti " v.' :VOi`iiti tY 'RY' 'mW".3.U'Y4ri"Z"*. July 27, 1998 City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue E. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Pacific View Office Park Mitigation Plan - #E98-0006 & #MI98-0109. Dear Haynes: I have reviewed the revisions in the recently submitted plan prepared by B-Twelve Associates, Inc. (Date- stamped 7/27/98). The Pacific View Mitigation Plan is approved as a fmal plan for constructing a habitat/water quality improvement pond. Per the standards of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Chapter 18.45.080 - Mitigation Timing C.2.e & D.2d.), the subject mitigation pond must be fully installed and completed prior to November 30, 1998. It is understood that the sewer lift station will need to be removed first, and the City will provide support to make that happen in order to meet the required completion date. If you have questions about this letter, please feel free to call me at 431-3662. Sincerely, C c. 3 94 C. Gary Schu Urban Environmentalist cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Nora Gierloff, DCD Associate Planner Gary Barnett, PW Development Engineer Ed Sewell, B-Twelve Associates Bruce Kessler, Nelson-Bourdages 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax- (206) 431-3665 • July 23, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue E. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Pacific View Office Park Mitigation Plan - #E98-0006 & #MI98 -0109. Dear Haynes: This letter is re -written as a design review of the water quality pond that is a sensitive area mitigation feature on the Pacific View office project. The on -site watercourse will be altered and partially piped to facilitate an improved parking situation. Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45), the pond will be constructed during the development of the site to replace the existing watercourse. The design of the mitigation pond is focused on a water quality improvement function and includes dense shrub and emergent plantings. As a mitigation site, the survival of all plantings is important for its success with the intent that there be very little need for sedimentation maintenance. The emergent plants are specifically important for a biofiltration function around or in the pond. The recently submitted plan prepared by B- Twelve Associates, Inc. (Date- stamped 7/21/98) is very complete . and appropriate. To approve a final plan, there are some minor technical revisions that need to be made to the mitigation plan sheet. The following comments include specific items that need to be addressed for a fmal plan approval and the Land Altering Permit. 1) Section 1.0 Mitigation Concept & Goals Please verify and correct the statement regarding the size of the pond pool areas. It appears the stated areas are slightly higher than on plan detail. Also, it appears the pond depth for normal pool will be 3 feet instead of 2 feet. 2) Section 3.4 Planting Schedule and Warranty As stated in the plan, a fall- winter installation is preferred and will result in better plant survival and lessen the need for irrigation. There may also be a groundwater influence in this area of the site which makes the fall a better time for excavation. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Mr. Haynes Lund July 23, 1998 Page 2 Per City coordination with the Department of Fish & Wildlife, planting and activating pond hydrology will be permitted after October, 1998. Detailed coordination and scheduling will allow the pond area to be excavated and planted as soon as feasible in late fall. To minimize potential erosion from the pond area, the excavation could occur early to allow a low grow seed mix to stabilize the area prior to connecting to the watercourse. This is important because the pond area requires a PVC liner with an added topsoil layer. Final planting can occur in late fall and winter with moderate weather and temperatures. Please include a seed mix to provide temporary erosion control and stabilization. A clover mix is recommended for success and adequate cover. 3) Planting List Substitution of selected plant species is allowed for availability issues or grading changes. Because the pond is planned to be deeper than 2 feet, the emergent plantings may be adjusted after plan approval. 4) Performance Security Bonding or another form of security will be required prior to building occupancy. Please note that the City requires 150 percent of the mitigation cost for performance security. In addition, please provide a breakdown of the mitigation cost to separate the plant material, installation, monitoring, and maintenance costs. As stated before, I appreciate Sabey Corporation's cooperation to provide this mitigation design. All of the requested revisions have been coordinated with B- Twelve Associates and are agreeable. If you have questions about the contents of this letter, please feel free to call me at 431 -3662. Sincerely, C., :et C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Nora Gierloff, DCD Associate Planner Gary Barnett, PW Development Engineer Ed Sewell, B- Twelve Associates Bruce Kessler, Nelson - Bourdages SABEY CORPORATION July 21, 1998 Steve Lancaster Director, Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE; Pacific View Office Park = MI98 -0109 Land Altering Permit Application Dear Mr. Lancaster: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUL 2 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER At the request of Gary Schulz from your office, we are submitting today a Watercourse Mitigation Plan. The purpose of this drawing is to describe the modifications to be made to the existing watercourse which crosses the project site. During the SEPA review, it was determined that this watercourse is a Type 3 classification, which normally requires a buffer zone around the stream bed. Since the buffer zone would render this site unusable, we worked with your staff to develop a mitigation alternative. The stream will be directed into pipes across a portion of the site to allow for functional building and parking areas. As mitigation for piping this watercourse, we are constructing a new wet pond habitat area. The pond will be fed by this watercourse, which is carrying run -off from the upper, wooded portion of the hillside. The Watercourse Mitigation Plan shows the grading for this pond as well as the new landscaping, and it describes the maintenance procedures which we will follow to insure that this area will continue as a healthy natural habitat. The Civil and Landscape construction drawings for this project have been modified to defer to this document for all work in the wet pond area. According to Phil Schneider of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Hydraulics Project Approval for the work on this watercourse will have a deadline around the beginning of October of this year. We will not be able to complete the pond work prior to that date because of the work being done by Val -Vue Sewer District to remove the existing lift station. For this reason, the Watercourse Mitigation Plan shows that we will use the high flow by -pass which has been incorporated into the watercourse drainage plan to by -pass the pond until it is ready to receive flow. The Wetlands Biologist who developed this mitigation plan will be contracted to oversee construction of the pond and its landscaping. He will determine when the pond is ready to be activated. We will utilize the temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures described in the Civil drawings for this project to control erosion from the pond until the new plantings are established. It is important to us to receive the Land Altering permit promptly so that we can complete this work on schedule for establishing the plantings in this pond. We believe this Watercourse Mitigation Plan provides complete documentation for our obligations under the agreement we developed with your staff. We are grateful to your staff with their efforts to help develop a solution for this problem which works to the benefit of all parties. Sincerely, Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect CC: File, Schumacher, B- twelve Assoc., PhD Schneider E: \HAYNESL\98- 701INTERGTE \W P \TUKW 21 J L.LTR architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119- 4220.206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 $aiF?rsigiAM=.a ..4.*: July 15, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue E. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Pacific View Office Park Mitigation Plan - #E98 -0006 & #MI98 -0109. Dear Haynes: This letter is written to review the design of the water quality pond that is a sensitive area mitigation feature on the Pacific View office project. Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45), the pond will be constructed during the development of the site to replace the existing watercourse. The on -site watercourse will be altered and partially piped to facilitate an improved parking situation. The.design of the mitigation pond is focused on a water quality improvement function and should include dense shrub and emergent plantings. As a mitigation site, the survival of all plantings is important for its success with the intent that there be very little need for sedimentation maintenance. The emergent plants are specifically important for a biofiltration function around or in the pond. The current plan submittals have pond details divided between the building permit and the land altering permit. In addition, there are some technical revisions that need to be made to the planting specifications. To approve a final plan, a mitigation report and details of planting and- grading need to be combined and included with the Land Altering Permit. The following comments include specific items that need to be addressed for a final plan. 1) In general, the current planting plan does not include as diverse mix of species as is possible. The grading that is proposed to create planting zones is not being reflected in the drawing. Certain aquatic species can be used for the normal pool area. Please revise the drawing to incorporate a higher diversity and density of native plant cover. The pond mitigation plan needs adequate detail to be a construction document showing grading and planting details. After plan approval, cost estimates of pond installation and maintenance will be required for the performance security requirement listed in the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45.080 C. and D. The additional standards of mitigation are baseline data, environmental goals, performance standards, detailed construction plan, monitoring and maintenance, and a contingency plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 w re 6 g. U O' ' v) w. w I, _1_ w 0' ?: Z I- 0 Z �. LLI 0 in W; H V. u_b. - O: ,Z U u). Ham. O Z Mr. Haynes Lund July 16, 1998 Page 2 3) A Hydraulic Project Approval Permit (HPA) from the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife will be needed before construction begins. Please include a written description of how the watercourse will be diverted during the construction of the pond. A temporary pipe may be all that is needed during the excavation and the planting of the pond. 4) A performance bond or other security measure is required to ensure the monitoring program and overall success of the mitigation pond. This performance will be required prior to occupancy of the project. The performance-security will cover the costs of plant installation and a 3 -year monitoring program. The first year of performance may be warranted by the landscape contractor. Please provide a cost estimate for the plant materials, their installation, and the monitoring program. The performance of emergent plantings may be assessed by percent cover. A first year report will be necessary to determine if the contractor has to replace plantings or if adjustments are needed. The mitigation pond has great potential to be a demonstration project for habitat and water quality improvement in Tukwila. I appreciate Sabey Corporation's support in its design. If you have questions about the contents of this letter, please feel free to call me at 431 -3662. Sincerely C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Nora Gierloff, DCD Associate Planner Gary Barnett, PW Development Engineer Ed Sewell, B- Twelve Associates Bruce Kessler, Nelson - Bourdages i Z; re w u�o 0O t CI, CO 11J w= J H w 0 Z 0 Z w uj D CI O —1 1—' w w, ti..Z O Washington State la Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation DATE: July 1, 1998 TO: Nora Gierloff, Project Planner Tukwila Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 (206) 440-4000 RECEIVED JUL 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: SR -99 MP 22.61 CS 1701 Pacific View Office Park 12421 Pacific Highway South File #L98 -0021 OM: Robert A. Josephson, PE, Manager of Planning & Local Coordination Washington State Department of Transportation Northwest Region 15700 Dayton Avenue North, MS 122 P. O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133 -9710 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review this project, our response is checked below: We have reviewed the subject document and have no further comments. The project will have no significant impact on the state highway system. X The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the impact of the project's generated peak hour trips on State Highways and also determine what mitigation measures, and channelization changes, if any would be required. If it appears a traffic signal may be warranted, the above plus a signal plan must be submitted and a signal permit will be required. If you have any questions, please contact John Sutherland, (206) 440 -4914, or Don Hurter, (206) 440 -4664 of my Developer Services section. JBS:js 1 strspns.doc z a ~ w tY J0 oo CD wi w z: t ,J H cn w 0' J; w.a N D. = c3r. w z z o � p N', ,: H: w w; • 1- w Z, t. 1' f' z • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Haynes Lund, Applicant John Welch, Property Owner Dwight McLean Washington State Department of Transportation King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter serves a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. PROJECT BACKGROUND HEARING DATE: June 25, 1998 FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0021 Design Review ASSOCIATED E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review PERMITS: APPLICANT: Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct three office buildings totaling 240,000 square feet on a sloping site adjacent to Pacific Highway South. LOCATION: 12421 Pacific Highway South LOT SIZE: 12.8 Acres NOTIFICATION: Notice of Application mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site May 8, 1998 Notice of Public Hearing mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site June 11, 1998 SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued June 10, 1998 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 : i ai#- �Iv.iY}Lt.4�e11Sa i�G'' \L1 �vJnWe �:4�'lsAr^'�':(j'7� >. r,. 1S:+, A.{ �. 1' t�iA�: r, i. �', Jhi+.* 4: a.. 1' 1$ FZtit2 ,.n U..I_Spe 'v .biz LGfAd+`5tiWii3.}a,+%„eil.t�.Jx 1 Notice of Decision Page 2 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Planning Commission at the June 25th public hearing. The Commission voted to approve the design of the proposed building based on the findings and conclusions in the staff report dated June 12, 1998. The conditions of approval are as follows: 1. A detailed design for the water feature shall be submitted to DCD and approved by the Director. 2. Designs for the freestanding and wall signs shall be submitted to DCD and approved by the Director. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planner is Nora Gierloff who may be contacted at (206) 431- 3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, June 26, 1998. The Planning Commission decision is appealable to the Tukwila City Council. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City. N ai �stii ,. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: LOT SIZE: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 12, 1998 June 25, 1998 Notice of Application mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site May 8, 1998 Notice of Public Hearing mailed to Surrounding Properties and posted on Site June 11, 1998 L98 -0021 Design Review E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation Design Review is required for this proposal to construct three office buildings totaling 240,000 square feet on a sloping site adjacent to Pacific Highway South. 12421 Pacific Highway South 12.8 Acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial/Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial /Light Industrial SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non - Significance issued June 10, 1998 RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions STAFF: Nora Gierloff 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ' {•:., �. � „t e �Si;ti� _ ...... ... , .. psis: rYdi;4,a+ta`�ta'ta �'r�..Erts;�ttu:�wc �a�:': �s: P ;;7'.<�,;�zi4it,�$�h�n "rra?k�5, SSti��Kt� ++i'�4Lr�'rdar,:i��ik'r' �rz:yi�11�%iut� a� +,Grp y ��'�'s",al~• ^� � ,��, `F�, U0:' V) Ill; W I • LLi wq age u_ ?: co o. u z.�i 1-0` Z F-! Lij D o. • V)' 0 1--` I W; V', .z: w 0 ~' z . y '9 Staff Report to the BAR Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Determination of Non - Significance B. Design Review Application C. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria D. Colored Perspective, Site Plan and Elevations E. Set of Building Plans F. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) xL•lete:e ;+ 1.7).» +a.x; ^h:.13Aieeci$ie'st,; iui:s "u��i'i`- :S` ^•.i�si�4 �. 'vF:a'ia`.Gv$L+:i i.-. � ._< ?:i;;t'Z:iCu�..t.�FSia;A•7i" Staff Report to the BAR Page 3 FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION A. Project Description, The applicant is requesting Board of Architectural Review approval of the proposed design for a three building office complex, pursuant to TMC 18.60. Under the proposal 240,000 square feet of office space and 750 parking spaces would be constructed on the Valley Trucking site adjacent to Pacific Highway South. B. Existing Development. The site is now used for heavy equipment sales and rentals. C. Surrounding Land Use. There is a small apartment complex to the south and a larger complex at the top of the slope to the west. To the north is the 99/599 interchange and to the east is WSDOT property and Boeing properties. Topography, The site is benched, with steep slopes between the flat portions of the site. Significant grading and retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the parking garages, provide building foundations and create driveways with slopes of less than 15 percent. Vegetation. Vegetation on the site consists of small trees, shrubs, and grass. At least 20 percent of the canopy cover on the site will be retained per the Tree Ordinance. Access. Access to the site is from Pacific Highway South. Two driveways are currently planned, with provision for a third if needed in the future, see Attachment E. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN DECISION CRITERIA This project is subject to BAR design approval as required under TMC 18.60.030 due to its location in the C/LI zone and size. In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold, followed by staff's comments. For the design review application see Attachment B, for the applicant's response to the criteria see Attachment C. ,,h ig bi2id±."5.`zi.:SP4w.s.L.A4?:Zi 41.4At.t.=3tis z w - U, UO No. 'co w` w If J am;. CO w 9: CO a. • •Iw: 1--O z o wW . Z. 11J N Staff Report to the BAR Page 4 DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. z re w . J V: UO co 0 ;.W= u. w O. Response: The site slopes significantly upward from Pacific Highway with the 2 top of the slope offsite to the west. Buildings and parking are located on north- g Q south benches across the length of the site. Retaining walls and rockeries will run cn the length of the site to support these benches. Landscaping will occur along the F w street front, between the benches and on the undeveloped upslope areas. z z o. Building A will have three stories of office space. Buildings B and C will have w two floors of structured parking beneath four stories of office space. These two 2 o` buildings will be 75 feet tall at their eastern elevations, though due to the grade v �. O change they will only be about 45 feet above parking grade on the west side. 0 I.-; w w' U 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. p; A. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged; iii U B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; z C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character; D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: Existing vegetation will be retained along the sides and back of the site. Pedestrian paths will be provided between the street and the pathways that run north -south on either side of the buildings. A loading dock is located at the southern end of Building A. Two driveways into the site are currently planned, with separate right and left turn lanes: A third driveway could be added in the future if traffic volumes make it necessary. iitrliir+. ,S ?irxa‘i :.''ti + '3�L3v G.`:' >:'+d'ti: b ; 4,- AW,:. F '2itt:(ld'aYSin:,51- kA.DF? = etErsi ✓Y7tA?iAeva Staff Report to the BAR Page 5 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used; H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Sidewalks will connect the building entrances to the street. The front of the site will be landscaped to meet the requirements in the zoning code. Landscape islands have been used throughout the parking areas to provide additional planting area. A water feature will be constructed in the middle of the site using water from an existing watercourse that will be relocated and piped. A wet pond will be constructed and planted with native plants to provide habitat and water quality treatment to mitigate for the piping of that watercourse. A retaining wall and landscaping is used to screen the loading area at Building A. The garbage dumpsters will be enclosed within masonry screen walls. Pole and building mounted fixtures are provided around the building and parking lot for safety lighting. 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B Buildings should be appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building Staff Report to the BAR Page 6 components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: The three buildings in the complex will be larger in scale than other buildings along this section of Pacific Highway and will be highly visible across the valley. Building A will be lower and larger in footprint than Buildings B and C which will be mirror images of each other. All three buildings will use the same colors and materials and use similar details such as the entry canopies and planting boxes. The buildings will have entrances both on the street and uphill sides. Modulation for the buildings is provided by the "erosion" of the street side corners and small sections of the upper facade. The colors shown on the perspective rendering do not match those shown on the colored elevations or the material board. The roof -top mechanical equipment will be screened by metal screen walls painted to match the buildings, but specific equipment locations and sizes have not been determined. S. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: New pole light fixtures will be installed on the site throughout the parking areas. Sign locations have been indicated on the site plan, but sign designs have not been included in the submittal. z F=- W re 2 6 00: CD Ca W J • u. wo • u. 4 co _: z F, o:. IA Li' 0 co —: ,o I- = U. V_ � z ui =, z Staff Report to the BAR Page 7 CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site The buildings are sited to work with the long sloping site by placing parking floors partially below grade and providing entrances on both main elevations. The size of the proposed buildings are in proportion to the size of the site. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area The proposed landscaping will provide an attractive transition to the surrounding properties. The retaining wall and plantings will adequately conceal the loading area. The height and site coverage of the buildings are different than the surrounding development patterns and may act to encourage the redevelopment of the area. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive streetscape and entryway to the site as well as partially screening the parking lot from the street and softening the edges of the building. The lighting plan should enhance the safety of the site without creating unnecessary brightness off -site. The length and visibility of the retaining walls across the site will make them a significant feature of the development. They will need to be well designed with a textured or patterned surface to make them an asset to the development. 4. Building Design The architectural theme of the building is that of a shell of thin concrete walls that are "eroded" to show a core of glass at the corners and along the top floor, all of which has been placed on a dark base that is notched into the hillside. Retaining the concrete spandrels over the "eroded" notches along the top floors of the buildings diminishes their modulating effect. The concrete shell walls are further articulated through different paint colors and slight variations in thickness across the wall plane. The pedestrian entering the building is somewhat sheltered from the experience of approaching the nearly flat 75 foot tall east walls of Buildings B and C through the use of entry canopies and landscaping. The colors shown on the materials board and the elevations are indistinct earth tones that do not further the architectural theme of the building. The brighter, clearer colors shown on the rendering harmonize with the green tinted glass and help give the building a lighter feel. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture Freestanding signs to display the campus logo and provide directional information are indicated on the site plan, though actual designs have not been submitted. The building facades have a well designed space for tenant signage. Staff Report to the BAR Page 8 Site lighting will need to be carefully designed to avoid off -site glare onto the neighboring residential properties. No lighting plan has been submitted. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions to be approved administratively by the Director: 1. A detailed design for the water feature shall be submitted to DCD. 2. The retaining walls shall be textured, as depicted in the rendering, or patterned rather than smooth concrete. 3. The concrete spandrels shall be removed from the notches in the top floors of the buildings. 4. New paint colors shall be selected to match the building colors shown on the perspective rendering. 5. Designs for the freestanding and wall signs shall be submitted to DCD. 6. The site lighting shall be designed to minimize any off - premise glare or spillage onto the adjacent residential properties. e. ;L. .,fAMPtrr.40414x,wra =anwAw x em°10P-ink/ u z s 1` w: 6 J U: U 0: W =' w 0'. LL Q' . co w. z 10 z f•, n UN :0 —! `w w = U: z:. U co; H8-':. 0 Z A F F I D A V I T (4P�L J12A- 4A-kEti 25otice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet • fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet []Planning Commission Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet E Notice of. Application for Shoreline Management Permit QShoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance J Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ODetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other w was mailed to each of the following addresses on A-71-A0M Name of Project SAISEy [ 013 File Number L92 '602 .. ".MYtI'Yry!FrKt .-+. Ni s�v�ii�1� o k.i:;ti �(•=`i xll•:.4+itiw kle'.' ' o'i+.•�i Signature CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION The Sabey Corporation has filed applications for construction of three office buildings to be located at 12421 Pacific Highway South in the City of Tukwila. Work will include demolition of existing structures, remediation of site contamination, grading portions of the site, frontal improvements and construction of the office buildings and associated parking lots. Permits applied for include: Design Review Demolition Tree Permit Other known required permits include: Land Altering Building Permits LES AVAILABLE FO,R PUBLIC REVIEW;: The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E98 -0006 SEPA Checklist L98 -0021 Design Review You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, scheduled for June 25, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall. The hearing is subject to change. You may confirm the time and date by calling Nora Gierloff at the Department of Community Development at (206) 433 -7141. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 433 -7141 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: April 1, 1998 Notice of Completeness Issued: April 24, 1998 Notice of Application Issued: May 8, 1998 Notice of Hearing Issued: June 11, 1998 Na: A ld • ..,L.:,tN+,..::e'�xC y.,: �H ' ;A. :.wNi7'biEY!<`iie z • HZ' riO w UO. W=. u„, wO g W d: z �. �--0 off: 0 I- w w; -O .. z•. U =; O~ z SEATTLE eELLIOTT ��v VICINITY MAP NO SCALE S BOEING A ROAD \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ > \ \ \\ \\ \ \\\ \ \ \\ \ \\\\ \\:\\ \ \\ \ \• \ \ \ \ \\ \ - \ ' \ \\\\\\\\\\ \ \\\\\\ \1\ _ -�• I 1111111 \ \11 1111 1111 \ \ \111 \111 \ \ \\ 1111 \11; \1 •* . \\ \\ \ \\ \111111`11 111 \11.1 V • • •■ • 11..• • • • • ... . SEA —TAC INT'L AIRPORT r;�N1'II' ;pird, ,.4+Fre\ ' ik'.•. 5h" tfit' 1i4�) i�' c�` aL, �; Y .q�Fr�E1L''i�1rX•.`�V�;�+ia7i?� CITY OF .TUKWILA Department Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW (P -DR) APPLICATION FOR. STAFF USE ONLY ReceiptNum Application. Compiete'(Date: = Fie Number::. Project. Fite SEPA`File #: 0.. �.Applicatlon incomplete `(Date: Shoreline File # 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: PAC,' P IC. V t 'w Ott 1 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) .11 A R8 S: J742,1 1 I C i �v "�' Pt : c i &-C; C. C °1 V3C4— — c.4 cri z3c-+ - 93c9 — C9 Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: l--1 A" A- i; ADDRESS: j J } O.T' :::/ W.: .SUi'Tte 33C . F..'rt't I\vA 9 epi ( ci PHONE: "7_,C6, v1 d C Fti X '. 'Z.0 G: -- R 1 - c C-i ZL' l _ SIGNATURE: DATE: 1 ' t' :'Cy ..,:i: S;xieti5� <<if':zti;+;:;r °s`2n s,.i7i:%k.',s�` ���;ii;..?, M. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR - 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER Attachment B Z <W • re 2 JU 00 0 (N!) w w= J f-. Nu. w to Z Cy FW Z� I— O Z 1—' W uj ON.. 0E--. =U 1- 1= —47O Z w 6 O Z • D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. 1 understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at (city), .Q 6e'ta.Ni .1 CZC__1A 'L 1 , 199 e:? . (state), on (Print Name) 2.421 F „{`-'1C �iiC - lW1ScY at�`r-z -� (Address) 2,06 — - b 0 (Phone Nu ' : - r) (Sig Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. 43. K,u °,C : ^'i ::i ' ii, tsr t is efse. .. ? r .. ro<^W:vet't' n” �v= Gt Yi1�kY" �' �r': v?1, 4i: 3i' ki} t' isT'. dY�- .�cAkS'y1}�'h9�:F4'jitZa�SC�L'a e' � a;:: �o5ii3 ..titnT".d2�fk'.54:A�32i?bzn 05/1.1/98 MON 15:59 FAX 206 281 0920 Sape3 Construction c.orp Pacific View Office Park Design Review Submittal Revised May 12, 1998 Response to Design Review Criteria tjuU4 A. The Relationship of Structure to Site The site for this project is a transition zone in many ways. It fronts on HighvNay 99 as it transitions from a limited access highway to an arterial street. It sits on a steep slope that is a transition from the Duwamish valley to the plateau. In terms of land usage, this site is a transition between the larger .scale office and industrial activities to the north and the smaller scale commercial and retail activities along Pacific Highway South. And, most importantly, this site is a transition between what that Pacific Highway South is today and what it will soon become. This proposal responds to these transitions very directly. By distributing the. square footage into three buildings, the bulk of the project is reduced and the buildings provide a middle scale between the structures to the north and the existing and planned structures to the south. The buildings are curt into the slope, which greatly reduces their size when viewed from the residential areas to the west, while also permitting views to and from the buildings. The site entrances are located as far to the south as feasible so that entering and exiting will occur in the lower speed section of the highway. The buildings are situated to take maximum advantage of the amenities of :the site. While they primarily face the easterly view across the valley, each building also has some view to downtown Seattle to the north. There are open decks on each floor at the east corners of the buildlhgs, and thesis: were carefully positioned so that the decks on the north side of each building can see downtown. The buildings are also sited to use the slope to maximum advantage. The south building (Building A) has two floors that abut the hillside, so they have no windows to the west. These floors have higher floor to floor heights to make them marketable for technical businesses. The top floor of this building is entirely above grade and can be used for office functions. Because of how the building fits into the hillside, this level has its own grade level entry. The remaining two buildings (Buildings B & C) will be mirror images of each other. Parking is tucked underneath these structures on two levels, and the main entries are located on the uphill side of the buildings at the second office level. This arrangement uses the parking levels to take up most of the slope of the hillside, so that the office levels can have windows on all sides. The remaining parking is on grade on three 'terraces' which step up the hillside. Vehicular circulation is very simple consisting of a loop road with parking with a inner loop across the middle parking terrace. The terraces serve to break up the parking lot with landscaped banks and retaining walls separating the asphalt areas. The intent of this arrangement was to accommodate the difficult slopes on the site. The result of the arrangement is that most people will be unaware of the amount of parking on the site with so much of It hidden under buildings or broken up by terraces and landscaping. B. The Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area As is often true of transition zones, this site does not currently have strong connections to any surrounding properties. It is cut off from any connection to the north by the freeway. It is cut off from the properties to the east by the highway, the elevation difference, and distance. It is cut off from its neighbors to the west because of the elevation change and the forested area between them. There is soma connection to the property to the south, but those properties are not conforming uses to the current Comprehensive Plan nor to the aims and desires of the Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan. In a sense, this site has a stronger connection to what will be in the future than to any current adjoining use. Rather than evaluate this project in terms of any established neighborhood eharacter, it is more Important to see how it contributes to the planned future character of the neighborhood. The site is laid out with the long dimension of the buildings parallel to the street which provides a strong connection to the highway. The two entries off of Pacific Highway South were determined by the needs for having efficient access/egress from the site without creating bottlenecks. The clear organization of the on -site circullatlon makes for easily understood and safe travel patterns within the site. Pedestrian access routes are provided to accommodate the pedestrian Pagel Attachment C 05/11/98 M0N 15:59 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 tJUU:S precinct that the city envisions. The terracing of the site helps protect the existing slopes while modifying them to fit the needs of the site activities. These features all are part of the site design criteria of the Pacific Highway Design Manual and are discussed In detail below. C. Landscape and Site Treatment It has always been the aim of this project to develop an office building complex which is nestled into the sloping wooded site. The site treatment and landscaping have been designed to meet that goal. One of the amenities that this site offers is the natural woodlands that surround it. The west (uphill) portion of the site will be left undeveloped, which preserves the major woodlands areas. There will also. be limited development at the north end of the site where the tree - covered slopes tie into to the adjacent wooded areas. The remainder of the site will be cleared and regraded, but the landscape plan includes a number of evergreen and deciduous trees interspersed throughout the parking areas and between the buildings. It should be noted that, by placing the parking undemeath the buildings, the amount of surface parking was redu:.:ed. The area saved from parking was either left undisturbed or planted with new landscaping. Other feature; of the landscape plan are a cohesive and attractive planting of the entire street frontage, including the I;:io- swaie, and the incorporation of the off -site storm drainage into a water feature located directly in front of the major site entry. D. Building Design The elements of the exterior design were developed to create a unified campus across the site. Within that continuity, however, are some variations in the individual buildings which acid visual interest to the overall composition. The building exteriors will all be constructed of the same materials: painted concrete cladding, aluminum mullions and curtainwall frames, glass windows and spandrels, metal wall panels. The two north Buildings (Buildings B, and C) will be mirror images of each other across the main entry. The south building (Building A) uses similar building elements, but adds variety due to its different proportions. The design composition for the elevations was developed with a strongly delineated balsa element to help anchor the buildings visually into the sloping site. The large 'arch' elements provide a Regular rhythm to each building which is repeated across the site. This element is carefully scaled to provide interest at the near approach while still maintaining a presence when viewed from across the valley. The glass curtainwall used at the corners provides a counterpoise to the rest of the walls reducing the scale of the buildings and making the entire building seem lighter and less massive. The metal wall panel that serves as the coping for the curtainwall also serves to tie the rooftop mechanical equipment screens into the building design. Overall, the composition of the exterior uses materials appropriate to the area and the market to create a design which unifies the entire site while providing a high level of visual interest. It should also be noted that the retaining walls will serve as a source of continuity and variety across the site. Due to steep slopes of the existing terrain, retaining walls are required at m:RRny locations in order to create the terraces that are needed for the buildings and parking lots. The walls become part of the system of nestling the structures into the hillside, and they extend across almost the entire site. The construction system for the walls will be a textured masonry unit system and will be consistent throughout the site. The total effect of this layout will be of ribbons of walls interlacing the site between and around the buildings. E. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture There will be no miscellaneous structures on thls site. All structures are part of the building design, including the mechanical equipment enclosures on the roof. The trash enclosures will be hidden beside the buildings, tucked in unobtrusively at the upper parking level. The enclosure walls will be made of similar materials to the buildings. The limited building area on the site did not allow for the development of on -grade pedestrian precincts. In lieu of that, we have incorporated outdoor spaces (balconies) into the building designs. The only street furniture on the site will be the lighting standards for the entry drives and parking areas. These light standards will be simple and unobtrusive, providing adequate lighting for circulation and safety , while limiting their impact on the surrounding areas. There will also be a well - developed :!:ign program for the site, including monument signs for the office park identification, and directional and directory signs to assist visitors in navigating the site. Page 2 . , .:% il• 2. 4b�L-± �siir�C '-!:�'4.Y�i <`.s:fSi`u.i`?� • 05/1.1/98 MON 16:00 FAX 206 281 0920 Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 Sabey Construction Corp 11004 F. Application of Pacific Highway Design Manual Because of the nature of this site as a transition zone, some of the Pacific Highway design standards do not apply fully. Since Pacific Highway Is still a limited access highway for a poation of the site, vehicular movement expectations must be modified. Also, the north end of the site is disconnected from the highway due to the significant grade differential, so standards relating to connection of the buildings to highway need to be adjusted. The extreme cross slope should also restricts the application of standards which were developed for more level sites. Further, since the site sits at the very end of the development district, it is inappropriate to apply standards regarding connection to surrounding businesses or developments. The following is a listing of all of the Pacific Highway Design Manual criteria with a description of their wpplication to this project and how the project complies. 1. SITE DESIGN A, Site Design Concept Design Criteria 1: Organize site design elements to provide an orderly and easily understood arrangem: rit of the building, landscaping, and circulation elements that support the functions of the site, We believe that this guideline is complied with fully. The layout of the buildlings parallel to the highway is clear and easily understood. The vehicular circulation path is very simple. Pedestrian access through the site is clear and direct. The building design consists of similar elements to create unity across the site. B, Relationship to Street Front Design Criteria 1: Organize site design elements to create a distinct street edge and minimize parking between structures and street. This requirement does not seem entirely appropriate to this site. It is hard to establish a street edge when the street is twenty feet below the site. Even where the street and site are on ni: arly the same level, the requirements of accommodating the cross slope dictate that the buildings be sited back from the street and at a higher elevation. We have managed to move the buildings as close to the road as feasible and to minimize the amount of parting in front of the buildings, but the cross slope on the site limited our ability to fully comply with this criteria. Design Criteria 2: Orient at least one building entry to a major public street. Building A, at the south end of the site, does have a major entry facing the :I,ttreet. The entries for Buildings B and C are on the west side away from the street because that is part of the :scheme to tum the slope of the site into an amenity. Having the main entry at a middle level, which puts more office space within easy access of the entry, is an attractive marketing feature for these buildings. We have inyestigated the possibility of putting a secondary false entry facing the street, but there is no way to resolve the problem of having to enter across the parking level. Because of the on -site slopes and the limited access highway in front, this site has more of the character of a suburban office park than a fully urban district which the desi6ln guidelines are directed towards. In such sites it is quite common to have to drive into the site to locate the building entries. By designing marketable structures which work with the slopes of the site, we have arrived at a configuration which is at odds with this criteria. We believe this is acceptable in this Instance because this rsite is at the end of the district and is atypical due to its slopes and the lack of a strong connection to the highway. C. Street Corners Design Criteria 1: Emphasize the importance of street comers through building location, the provision ca' pedestrian access, special site features and/or landscape features. This site is not a corner location so this criteria does not apply. D. Continuity of Site with Adjacent Sites Design Criteria 1: Maintain visual and functional continuity between the proposed development and adjacent and neighboring properties through setbacks, building massing. circulation and landscaping where appropriate, This site has no adjacent sites to which it is connected functionally or physically. Since Building A is closer to the street, the possibility of connections to future buildings is encouraged. Building A is also lower in scale and has a entry on the street which will help to connect it to the forthcoming developments. 1:'',t {.;%�':k iJ.$F41�h�i%:�trv•'La.ir }i {; ub:. d;'`} id' �."`. �` r� ..C1.Ai%.'2i�-,t{�tt'ifuav��3: '.'� ' } - Page 3 z a� �w 00 rn W X J H U u.. w0 2 u_ Q. —0 1_w Z _t- Z 0 uj UD ON 0 H. ww U Z U� H Z. O 1- z • 05/11/98 MON 16:01 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 [6 005 E Shared Facilities Design Criteria 1: Incorporate opportunities for joint development of sites where there is potential for common building walls, shared driveways, landscaping, or other shared facilities. This criteria does not apply to this site. i� F. Site Design for Safety Z Design Criteria 1: Minimize conflicts between drivers and pedestrians through the siting of structures, location of circulation elements, landscape design, Q and placement of signs. ul We have incorporated into the site design direct and clear pedestrian circu.i'ation paths. These paths will be v 0 concrete walks set on top of curbs to provide separation from the drive lanes, Crosswalks are provided where p necessary, but only three are required because there is little conflict. The pedestrian path from the public uwi w sidewalk connects directly to the walkway in front of Building A and another path leads across the site and up stairs to connect to the sidewalk along the upper parking terrace. This sidx':walk is continuous for the entire N u_ length of the terrace and selves to provide an easy uninterrupted pedestrian link between the buildings, W Design Criteria 2: Design and site structures to maximize site surveillance opportunities from building'; and public streets. This criteria is met because all the surface parking areas are easily observi:td from the office buildings. There N are no potential entrapment areas on the site; the parking garages under the structures will be secured areas = C�. with limited access. �' W Z�. Design Criteria 3: Provide adequate lighting levels in all pedestrian areas, including building entries, along walkways, parking areas, and other public Z 0 areas. W w We will provide lighting for the parking areas which will cover both drive aisl es and pedestrian pathways. The site lighting will be designed by an electrical engineer and light calculations, will be provided to demonstrate c.) N compliance with the 2 foot - candle recommendation. o Design Criteria 4: Design landscaping so that long term growth will not interfere with site lighting and surveillance. = U The landscape plan which we have submitted complies with this requirement. u_ O Design Criteria 5: Use durable, high quality materials in site furnishings and features for ease of mainteiance, ui N_ The site plan requires very little site furnishings and we will comply with this requirement. v =: O~ G, Siting and Screening of Service Areas Z Design Criteria 1: Minimize the visual and aural Impacts of service areas such as loading docks, trash .bnd recycling collection points, utility maintenance areas, etc., through site design, landscaping and screening. The current site plan shows screening around the trash collection areas for each building. Only Building A has a loading dock and it is cut into the hillside, so that the building and the retaining walls will contain the visual and aural Impacts. H. Natural Features and Sensitive Areas Design Criteria 1: Preserve natural features such as existing topography. significant trees or wooded areas, wetlands and/or watercourses and incorporate them into the overall site, where appropriate. We are preserving the natural slope and vegetation along the west edge and north end of the site. The remainder of the site has been modified by previous owners and has no 'nal.ural' features worthy of preservation. We have demonstrated, through other submittals, how we ari!: complying with the Tukwila Zoning Code ordinances covering trees and sensitive areas. This section of the de:i;ign guideline Includes diagrams suggesting ways to site buildings to preserve the topography and vegetation. We comply with these diagrams by the way the buildings are cut into the slope and by the new landscaping vtich we will install to fill in the open areas around the buildings. We follow the topography with the way the grade steps up on the west side of the buildings. The treatment of the elevations provides some degree of horizontal modulation which is enhanced by the setbacks at the comers for the open decks. :i'.i. .r':�,;�,.,,:: f��t... 0�: 1:..::: ��H' V1E;; �iF� '`"i <'!'i:.4seh?i✓r"�Ri'i`+F' . 05/11/98 MON 16:01 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabes Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 t3 006 Design Criteria 2: Design and site structures an hillsides to minimize the visual and environmental in'oact of development in these locations. We have minimized the impact of this project by splitting the square footage into three structures, by cutting the structures into the hillside, and by the treatment of the facades to reduce the scale of the building. By placing parking under the structure we have reduced the surface area being developed. We believe we have achieved a good design which utilizes the features of the site while minimizing the impact of the development. Z Design Criteria 3: Employ site design techniques that take advantage of and/or enhance visual focal points along the corridor, where feasible, Z- Z' We do not believe that this criteria applies to this site. aQ: I. Surface Stormwater Detention Facilities JU Design Criteria 1: Integrate water quality treatment techniques such as hrofiltration males and ponds with overall site design, where possible and , N c appropriate. ' (r) W This project incorporates a bio-swale at the north end of the site. While the swale is located along the street -1 I._, frontage (option c. which is least desirable), the highway in this area has slrtped down away from the site. In N actuality, the swale will only be visible from the office buildings and will not impact the street frontage of Pacific L Highway South. The swale will be landscaped to fit into the overall landscape design, so its impact on the view from the buildings will be positive. a' J. Pedestrian Circulation Y2 a Design Criteria 1: Provide paved pedestrian walkvrays that connect all buildings and entries of buiidingrt within a site. F _ The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria. ? H. Design Criteria 2: Provide a paved pedestrian walkway from the public sidewalk(s) to the main entry of developments; where a development fronts two W W. streets, access must be provided from both streets, 2 0. The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria. Note that since the main entry for Buildings B o w. and C is located on the uphill side of the buildings, we have utilized the water feature to add interest to the o - walkway from the public sidewalk to the upper parking terrace. w ur Design Criteria 3: Provide pedestrian connections from the on -slte pedestrian network to walkways on.!.djacent properties and to other off - site . destinations, where feasible. u_ O. This criteria does not apply to this site. w Design Criteria 4: Support pedestrian movement between properties and from private property to public; rights -of -way by providing facilities that traverse 0 '- natural or man -made barriers, where appropriate. Z This criteria does not apply to this site except that stairs have been provided) in the walkway to the upperlerrace. Design Criteria 5: Provide direct pedestrian walkways from businesses in commercial areas to transit si:ops, and/or provide additional transit amenities, where appropriate and feasible. The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria. There is an existing transit stop at the south end of the site which will be connected by public sidewalk and on -site pedestrian ways to this entire project. K Pedestrian Amenities Design Criteria 1: Incorporate pedestrian amenities in site design to increase the utility of the site and enhance the overall pedestrian environment in the corridor. where possible. The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria. In particular, combining the walkway with the water feature sets an excellent precedent for applying this criteria to the development of the corridor. L. Vehicular Circulation Design Criteria 1: Minimize conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria. Design Criteria 2: Minimize the amount of space devoted to vehicular circulation by limiting access driveways; ensuring that internal site circulation is efficient; and/or taking advantage of opportunities for shared driveways, The revised Site Plan submitted an 5/12/98 meets this criteria. 05/11/98 MON 16:02 FAX 206 281 0820 Sabey Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 10007 M. Parking Design Criteria 1: Minimize the amount of space devoted to parking by taking advantage of shared parking and/or methods for reducing parking demand, where possible. The revised Site Plan submitted on 5/12/98 meets this criteria, In particulcr, having two levels of parking underneath Buildings B and C significantly reduces the amount of surface parking on the site. The Developer will implement a Transportation Management Plan to encourage van poofer, car pools and the use of public transportation. 2. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural Concepts Design Criteria 1: Develop an architectural concept for structures on the site that conveys a cohesive and consistent thematic or stylistic statement, and Is responsive to the functional characteristics of the development. This project meets this criteria in many ways. A cohesive campus design i:i: obtained through the repetition of similar overlaying rhythms between the buildings. Variety is also obtained Through the manipulation of the overlaying layers of the facades, Buildings A & B are asymmetrical within tbiemselves (in the way the corners . are treated), but are symmetrical about the entry drive when viewed together. Further, the manner in which the corners are cut back and the way that the office levels step out beyond the lower floors forms a kind of terracing that is reflective of the sloping character of the site, Design Criteria 2: Ensure that development on sites with more than one structure employ similar or complementary architectural styles and/or are related In scale, for, color, and use of materials and/or detailing. This project very strongly follows this criteria. The buildings all employ the q>ame materials, colors and design elements. It has always been a goal for the design of this project to develop a cohesive campus of buildings, and the design that has been submitted fully realizes that goal. B. Architectural Relationships Design Criteria 1: Provide for visual and functional continuity between the proposed development and adjacent and neighboring structures when these structures demonstrate an appropriate level of architectural quality. This criteria does not apply to this site. There are no neighboring structured that establish a quality standard to which this project can respond or that meet the Pacific Highway design criteria. Design Criteria 2: Reduce the apparent scale of large commercial buildings located in the Neighborhoal.i Commercial Center district and located adjacent to residential districts. This criteria does not apply to this project because it is not located in the Neighborhood Commercial Center. However, it should be noted that by separating the office space into three structures and burrowing the structures into the hillside, a good precedent is set for reducing the apparent scale of large commercial buildings. This project also employs some of the techniques described in the guidelines for this criteria. The mass of the buildings is broken down by the articulation of the corners; the :.scale of the facade is broken up by the overlaid frame elements which are offset from the plane of the wall and are further articulated by a change in color; the roofline is also given variety by varying the heights of these frame elements. Even though this criteria does not specifically apply, this design demonstrates how many of the recommended techniques can be successfully applied to achieve these goals. C. Building Elements, Details and Materials Design Criteria 1: Provide distinctive building comers at street intersections through the use of special architectural elements and detailing, and pedestrian- oriented features where possible (see definition of pedestrian friendly facade). Since this project is not located at a street intersection, this criteria does not i:>pply to this site. However, for other reasons, all three buildings do have distinctive comers. Design Criteria 2: Relate the design and scale of building elements and details to the building's overall f' rm and massing, The design of this project very successfully follows this criteria. The overlaid 'arches' serve to break down the scale of the facade while providing a recognizable design element when viewed across the valley. The window bands have articulated mullions which provide a human scale element and th'readable' facade, ..yr., '% •. �P,.?'.:. ij3. tSV1i. �f�utikFi: ��i�» �n' FPStr% ���i. S�ry1��Jk� `SN "f�1?n}•ituYrt�,iS�+ipi'Y Page 6 . 05/14/98 MON 16:02 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1,1998 1j 008 Design Criteria 3; Employ architectural details that are appropriate to the architectural character of the building. The submitted design fully meets this criteria. Design Criteria 4: Utilize durable, high quality building materials that contribute to the overall appearar ce, ease of maintenance, and longevity of the Z building, These characteristics are entirely consistent with the goals of the developer. The material selections for this • i- Z project (concrete wall panels, glass, aluminum mullions and curtatnwail) provide these characteristics in a 2 manner appropriate to the market for this project. None of the inappropriate materials listed in the guidelines 6 are used on this project (the glass will be tinted, but not reflective). o O co o. Design Criteria 5; Integrate the design and placement of exterior lighting with the architectural design rind materials. The exterior lighting for this project will be understated, efficient parking lot lighting fixtures. There will be - 1-- additional lighting at the building entrances. The lighting will 'highlight' the water feature because of the N 0 required lighting for the adjacent pathway. w D. Pedestrian - Oriented Features Q Design Criteria 1; Provide pedestrian - friendly facades (see Definitions) on the ground floor of all building that face public streets and entry facades that N face parking areas. = d The entry facades for this project are the west facades facing the upper packing terrace. They all meet this t" _ criteria because they have transparent window area for over half their length.? E'. Design Criteria 2; Provide special treatment for large blank walls (see Definitions) that are visible from redestrian walkways and parking areas. LLI w; None of the buildings in this project contain large blank walls = o — ,Design Criteria 3: enhance building entries through the use of weather protection, landscaping, pedestian amenities and/or distinctive architectural O -, features. H. All of the building entries in this project will be provided with architectural canopies. These are shown on the = twi building elevation drawings that have been submitted. LL �. O E. Mechanical Equipment w� N Design Criteria 1: Locate and/or screen roof - mounted mechanical equipment to minimize visibility from public streets, building approaches, and adjacent properties. 0 ' — There will be rooftop mechanical equipment in this project. it will be locatecl towards the uphill side of the Z. buildings and will be provided with screening that will relate to the building dt''sign. Design Criteria 2: Locate and/or screen utility meters and other ground level utility equipment to minimi; :e visibility from the street. There will be no ground level utility equipment in this project. The meter !ovations have not been determined, but there will be many places that they can be located to comply with this criteria. 3. LANDSCAPE DESIGN A. Landscape Design Design Criteria 1; Develop a landscape design concept that demonstrates a clear and appropriate aesthetic statement. The landscape design begins with preserving the existing wooded areas along the west and north sides of the site. The new landscaping provides flowering trees at the site entrances, anti along the major drives. Shade trees are included to provide cover and visual relief for the parking areas. Ar :cent trees are located around the buildings to soften their edges. Evergreens are included for variety and they are dispersed in a consistent manner across the site. The intent of the landscaping is to Integrate the new development with the surrounding wooded area. Design Criteria 2: Develop a landscape design concept that reinforces site design and fulfills the functioral requirements of the development, including screening and buffering. The landscape design meets all Zoning Code requirements, and the guidelines listed for this criteria. , 0,5/11./98 11ON 16:03 FAX 206 281 0920 Babe,' Construction Corp Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 Q] 009 Design Criteria 3: Ensure that the landscape design reinforces and complements plantings in the public right of way. There are no current or proposed plantings in the public right -of -way other than the street trees for this project. A. Planting Design Design Criteria 1: Select plant materials that reinforce the landscape design concept and are approprid:.te to their location in terms of hardiness, maintenance needs and growth characteristics, The revised Conceptual Landscape Plan, submitted on 5/12/98 complies with this criteria. Design Criteria 2: Incorporate existing significant trees, wooded areas and/or vegetation in the planting plan where they contribute to overall landscape design. The existing wooded areas will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. The existing blackberries along the street frontage will be removed and replaced with appropriate plant materi,iil, pending agreement with the State Department of Transportation. 3. SIGNS A. Signage Concept Design Criteria 1: Provide signage that is integrated with the architectural concept in scale, detailing, tine of color and materials, and placement. The 'frame' elements of the facade design will be utilized to contain and onlrlanize the tenant signage on the buildings, as Is shown on the submitted elevations. By this means, the signrs will necessarily be in scale with the building and will be integrated into the overall building design. B. Sign Placement Design Criteria 1: Provide signage that Is oriented to both pedestrians and motorists in design and place ment. The tenant identification signs will be oriented primarily to motorists. The campus logo signs and site directional signage will be oriented to both pedestrians and motorists. Design Criteria 2: Provide adequate directional signage on site and building Identification numbers that are legible from the street. Once we have determined with the Fire Department the address(es) for glens buildings, a location for the identification numbers will be found to comply with this requirement. The architectural site plan that has been submitted indicates the location for the site directional signage. We recognize that it is important to the success of this development that the directional signage clearly locate the access route to building entrances, for both motorists and pedestrians. Design Criteria 3: Integrate freestanding signs with the landscaping. We concur with the intent of this criteria and will comply with the guidelines as the landscape and signage details are developed. C, Sign Design Design Criteria 1: Consider both day- and night -time viewing in the design, placement, and lighting of signage. Signage is located adjacent to access roads and parking areas that require alight -time lighting. We will endeavor to insure that the site lighting is particularly bright at these signs. We will provide direct lighting for all site directional signage. Design Criteria 1: Provide durable, high quality materials and finishes for signage. We will utilize similar materials to the buildings (concrete, glass, aluminum, ertc.) for the site signage. Page 8 z =Z ~Q w. J U` U OU. vii w; NO g Ji co F-w. z Zo • g a 0~: ww u. b.. Z U— .H .O /— . Z May 22, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119-4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98- 0021= Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: City staff has been meeting with your design team to discuss your application for construction of the Pacific View office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific' Highway South since the pre- application meeting on March 12th. However, there are still a number of serious issues to resolve and your deadlines for obtaining a SEPA threshold determination and securing a place on the June BAR agenda are fast approaching. I think you will agree that City staff have fulfilled Mayor Rant's commitment to you regarding expedited review of your project. In a period of extremely high demand for development review 'services, we have made your project a top priority. We have spent many hours with your staff and consultants to fmd answers and solve problems in a proactive and collaborative manner. Mayor Rants has asked that in return for these efforts the Sabey Corporation commit to building a development of high design quality that will serve as a positive example for future projects in the Pacific Highway corridor. I do not believe that your project design, in its current state, will achieve this objective. The buildings have undergone only minor changes since the BAR application was filed, despite significant concerns raised by my staff. Your firm has designed a series of typical suburban office park buildings that do not further the City's vision for revitalizing the Pacific Highway Corridor. The most serious design issue is that buildings B and C turn their backs to the street. The main entrances are on the west facade and so are hidden from the public. The solution you have proposed, creating small off - center entries that open into the parking garage, does not provide a gracious entry for pedestrians, transit users or people who use the aisle of surface parking along the street. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665 •'; Page 2 The buildings also lack a consistent architectural theme that would help to pull together the various elements into a coherent whole. The "arches" that are so visually dominant rely mainly on color for their articulation rather than modulation or material. They are meant to appear overlaid against the facade, yet the color scheme has them dark (which tends to recede) against the light spandrels (which tend to advance). The colors you have chosen for the buildings - beige, taupe, gray - green, and brick red - are indistinct. The buildings will be seen against a wooded hillside and clear, strong colors would help them to stand out. The street -side facades of buildings B and C rise 75 feet straight up from the east sidewalk with less aw than 12 inches of horizontal modulation across the wall plane. This harshness is compounded by J g the very minor amount of landscaping that is provided in front of the buildings. Significant U O horizontal modulation should be incorporated to add depth and texture to the facade that will be N w visible from Pacific Highway and across the valley. Replacing some parking spaces in front of the N building with an enlarged landscape area would also help to create a more inviting appearance. w o 5 LL Q I- ILI Z I--o Z I- UJ 'O =. CI I-- ww o w z.. UN O_. ~ z The first two floors of buildings B and C as seen from the street will be the structured parking. A high- quality treatment of the building base is necessary to ground the buildings and provide a pleasant experience of the building for people entering the building through the garage. The trellises and decorative grillwork shown on your latest submittal are a good start toward this requirement. The other factor affecting your ability to be heard at the June 25th BAR meeting is that the City needs to issue a SEPA threshold determination at least 28 days prior to the hearing, which would be May 28th. In order for us to make this determination you need to submit copies of the watercourse study, traffic study and geotechnical study addendum, the Departments need to review them, and we have to incorporate our fmdings into a staff report. If you are not planning to submit the studies until May 26th we are not likely to be able to accomplish this on your timeline. We will be meeting on Tuesday the 26th to discuss the substantive issues with this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431 -3670. Steve Lancaster Director, Department of Community Development Mayor Wally Rants John McFarland, City Administrator David Sabey, Sabey Corporation John Lang, Sabey Corporation Nora Gierloff, Planning Division Gary Barnett, Public Works Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist •1,'#��' a' s�, !:�3�r'i�'erdai:Fii�s�"'_`v'• "� �1�`.;�i�t!z' -, °i SBEY CORPORATION May 12, 1998 HAND DELIVERED Mr. John MacFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. MacFarland: Working together, we have come a long way on our project at the Welch site since our first meeting with you and the Mayor at your offices in February. It appears that together we have been able to solve most of the development and construction problems that this tough site has presented to us. Your Planning Department, Public Works Department and building officials have done well in working with us to advance this project. We thank them and you for their extra effort. Now that it appears we can build this project in the time frame necessary, we need the City to confirm the responsibility for the offsites and improvements on Highway 99. This is the last hurdle we need to get over in order to move forward with this pioneering project. My letter of April 10 (see attached) outlined the request that we made to the City during our first meeting. We have now reached the time in the development process when the City needs to commit to take responsibility for the costs of the offsite improvements generally outlined in items 2 and 4 of that letter (i.e., the improvements to Highway 99 that we expect the City to pay for include the widening for turn lanes, sidewalks, lights, curbs and gutters, curb cuts, storm sewers, repaving and the 12" water main in front of our property). In order to proceed, we need the City to make a commitment in the next few weeks. We have agreed, as a result of the City's potential commitment and as a stakeholder in the successful turnaround of this blighted area of Tukwila, to give our best efforts to assist the City in anyway possible to help move the entire Highway 99 improvement project forward. We will work with you at WSDOT and Olympia, as well as locally, to do our part to gain necessary political support and important funding. You will find us a long term positive force and partner in this area of your City. We also agree to be flexible with you as to the actual timing of these improvements. The basis for our request, as you may recall, is that as a condition of our taking the risk in this underdeveloped area of Tukwila, we would expect the City to improve Highway 99 in a similar fashion to that recently completed near the Boeing Museum of Flight. I realize this is out of sequence with the current development plan for Highway 99. I think we all agree that the City architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220 • 206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282-9951 ddFWia`.Y.' 31ii'+�Ar...Sif! #ijSyTI"L.�`A•' ,;'�'::; z . -z 0 • 00. Nwf • w =' J f". 11 . w o. LQ • • I— w: • Z 1. 1-- O .zI- O —N 0 1—: = V; u--O. • z cuco • 0 F•.. z Mr. John'MacFarland May 12, 1998 Page 2 would have paid eventually to improve this section of Highway 99 anyway, but by moving this part of the highway project forward now, our project will jump start and influence in a positive way other development in this critical corridor. We understand the burden our request creates for you, but with everything considered we feel this is a great deal for the citizens of Tukwila and this area in particular. I request that we meet any time this Friday to discuss this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 206- 281 -8700. Thank you for all you have done and we await your answer. Sincerely, SABEY COIPORATION David A. Sabey President r Attachment I:\wpluldas\macfO512.Itr.. h j,t4.,,; 141540V/43 itt rli. 14 pit;;�1440Zi,A.V.r}:jf :..0A,#tH AZ:Z.c': Agf. r ait' AT ltBiB JO O O: N t' i w z w 0 co u. Q; no, F O; z� W o CO,. I- 111 11. O Z; w 0 r— z >. z. SABEY CORPORATION April 10, 1998 Mr. John MacFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. MacFarland: Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1998. As you know we are working very hard to determine the feasibility of our proposed project on John Welch's Valley Truck and . Equipment site. High site costs as a result of the slopes and marketing problems associated with the neighborhood make this a very difficult project. At this moment without some help, I do not think this project will get financed. The following is a list of the issues I think the City can resolve with little cost that will be of extreme importance in getting this project started.' As we have discussed, it is imperative that this property is included in the "economic development enterprise zone." If there is anything we need to do to help this process, please do not hesitate to call. The request we have for specific assistance has not changed materially from our previous conversations and are as follows: 1. We need our grading plan including site retainage devices approved in June. Fortunately, this is something that really does not cost anything. It just administratively needs to be pushed through the system. Because of the site conditions, the cost of a false start would kill this project. 2. We are requesting that the City be responsible for all of the offsite work associated with the Hwy 99 improvements. We are requesting that Hwy 99 and the 599 south access ramp be improved along our entire east property line in a • manner equal to the improvements done along Hwy 99 (i.e. curbs, gutters, sidewalks, landscaping and street lighting) at the south end of the Boeing Airport. We also require when this work is done that you design the improvements in such a way that we can turn left out of the drive in the center of the property on to the northbound lanes of Hwy 99. This work can be budgeted and funded in the future, but it is important for our project that this work be done in the next 24 months. architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220 •206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 47 .1^L∎∎6.%,..' ?.HCae "+* �ii1 '�trlrN1FSz�:r.n�014:2NdiS. aiikpO: "4,41eiciNt... ofd+ ?; Mr. JohnNacFarland April 10, 1998 Page 2 3. Public works is suggesting that this project be charged with the cost of bringing a 12" water main from the Duwamish River up Hwy 99 to our site. This line will not benefit our project in any way. As a result, this project cannot afford this cost. 4. We need administrative approval for several site conditions. We would like to move two of the buildings closer to the front property line in order to manage the grade problems caused by the steep slopes on the site. Our request is an approval to allow the front setback of the buildings and part of the retention ponds to be within the landscape easement from WSDOT. Fortunately, our request for administrative help should be revenue natural to the city. The improvements to Highway 99 we our requesting would be part of the greater road improvement project budget and the money would eventually be spent whether our project was build or not. As a result, the City is in the enviable position of being able to increase its tax base while taking a significant step to change this blighted neighborhood with little additional financial exposure. We look forward to working with you to see if we can solve these issues in a manner that is acceptable to both the City and us. Please call me to arrange a meeting so we can discuss these concerns. Thank you for you help and I look forward to meeting with you soon. itlwp`sedaVntacID408,1tr Sincerely, SABEY CORPORATION VOW 41/44. David A. Sabey President 4,14U.ihS.44Mik .:44aZIPICOONT.0110VON., • • A F F I D A V I T \Ne.,dy Fxill O Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting fl Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet. Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice �ther J�t� GPe oT pI I1Dr\ Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project, Fac •fi c Vi & O"-1'UILS' ignature File Number_P O 17 Lci a -002 7sF.c^'F.tt ffi'"a.?.iiz, 'F,".cctv4iY.YLe' " '::{Sir.r iS�.i sti' n'i '. A9Yra3 ro 't .^ httsyj iF aili'...4.1iki ; ekea 0.0* Vai V:4. ewW_. CITY OF rfKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Sabey Corporation has filed applications for construction of three office buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South in the City of Tukwila. Work will include demolition of existing structures, remediation of site contamination, grading portions of the site, frontal improvements and construction of the office buildings and associated parking lots. Permits applied for include: Design Review Demolition Tree Permit Other known required permits include: Land Altering Building Permits Studies required with the applications include: Geotechnical Report Level 1 Downstream Analysis Wetland/Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study An environmental checklist has been submitted with the permits identified above. The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100. Project Files include: E98 -0006 SEPA Checklist L98 -0021 Design Review Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 p.m., May 22, 1998. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, tentatively scheduled for June 25, 1998. To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The design review and environmental review decisions are appealable to the City Council. The tree permit is appealable to the Planning Commission. The other permit decisions are appealable to Superior Court. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: April 1, 1998 Notice of Completeness Issued: April 24, 1998 Notice of Application Issued: May 8, 1998 (L� vvvI� m N0000E- \ �\ \ \ '\ \ ,\ \ \�\, \ ` '\\ \\ \` \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \`\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \` \ \�;\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \` %, \ \\' 4 \ 1 \ ` '` \ '\ \ `\ `' ■ \ \ \ .4 \ \ \\ 4' \ ► 4' 11 1 ■ ■ �� 1 ►\ \.\ 1\ % \\ i\\ ■ ► 1` , \'` 1' ►' ►\ . g^ in 2 m )- m Owl hu �21E 8 00 d N ID dm cc a W LL LL 0 - O Z Z VJ aY CL Z W. 0. O 0 . cnp W = J � • U_ w O. 2 J u_ _` I-� _. Z�, F- 0 W U 0 I- I0 Li. O. wz =. O~ Z Ciy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Haynes Lund, Applicant Steve Black, Sabey Corporation Greg Sherlock King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter serves a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18:104.170 on the following project and permit approvals. PROJECT BACKGROUND FILE NUMBERS: L98 -0021 Design Review ASSOCIATED FILE: E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review APPLICANT: Haynes Lund, Sabey Corporation REQUEST: Modify the design of a site that received BAR approval in 1998 by adding a 2,600 square foot mechanical building. LOCATION: 12421 Tukwila International Boulevard This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Board of Architectural Review at their February 24th public hearing. The BAR voted to approve the design of the building as proposed without the condition recommended in the staff report dated February 14, 2000. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planner is Nora Gierloff who may be contacted at (206) 431- 3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 ": 2:;".) t :•'•3}S^sv'a „w»"kYd�i�',{S'rf+ 4:T2Y?:'k`.µ"3. /•1".a ewi"zov3S*.+iAl-"3eva i9.w �. ' 'u'7i9- cm,Fett$Si "2%,_ , Rf4'!` 5i S5 `br'^f"k3�J.'t•SS; ^2 X21}ti�'f!,'i4' ".'d is kY y7: fi:�*, ,'iStX`a",i•?'v;}': z. 1Z' er 6 t-w UO. ,,0) q W w; =, w • � 2 J w Q^ a =W zF F- 0 Z� ww. np O —: o wW z Notice of Decision Page 2 The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, February 25, 2000. The BAR decision is appealable to. the Tukwila City Council. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. The public notice sign must be removed from the site by the applicant after the appeal period has expired, unless an appeal is filed with the City. ,z :!mow JU 00 'CO 01 WI J V) LL, wO 2 g J. co D. s �- w. z�': z 1-; Ili D W W`; X Of • 1-1. ▪ O: ui Z 0 =, 0 z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 30, 1998 Mr. Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Avenue E., Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Sensitive Area Ordinance requirements for proposed Pacific View Office Park - SEPA #E98-0006 & Design Review #L98-0021. Dear Haynes: I have reviewed the lastest plan submittal and discussed sensitive area requirements with Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development. I have also re-visited the site to look at drainage features that may be subject to the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). The definition of a regulated watercourse includes drainage areas modified by man (TMC 18.45.920). My observations indicate a groundwater influence on the watercourses crossing the site. The southernmost drainage is partly supported by off-site wetland area near the top of slope. The Ordinance requires a study of sensitive areas if present on a site (TMC 18.45.020 F.). Your geotechnical work satifies a portion of the sensitive area study requirements. The land survey work completed to date is adequate for mapping the watercourses. However, a wetland/watercourse reconnaissance-level report is needed to identify areas, assess their characteristics, and determine ratings per the Ordinance. A qualified wetland/stream consultant will conduct the study. The report needs to include a determination for potential wetland presence on the property. Also, this report will need to be completed prior to issuing the SEPA Threshold Determination for the project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ' vmvori nragATIVAA 't. "Walt Mr. Haynes Lund, Sabey Corp. April 30, 1998 Page 2 This requirement was identified in the City's March 23, 1998 letter to you. Please feel free to contact me at 206 - 431 -3662. I will attend the scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 5 to answer questions you may have. Sincerely, C. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Gary Barnett, Development Engineer Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator April 24, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119 -4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lund: Your application for construction of three office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South has been found to be complete for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. You should contact them directly to find out what their application requirements are. 6300 Southcenter Boulevar4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 �it,.:;x -l: ..,�., -� .,.:4tt � °�$.w..,t; ws.(l.s7r.,.i'`a— rv�'.� -: �J•+ r�' �: si: ��. ktF.. t' ' ti. AS:+ i .�::��irii�SG4�h"t§'�:h'.iior3iu `�,. ci Jtcvig,1?" k - 11(411,,cc.4t;' s' „.” n t!:T d.'C444. k.'�'tn.iegir"s z i1 w. re 2 U O, w D; wW W= J I—, N LL W0... J a.Q D. a F z �. . z o. Lu U 0' ;o-. W W, u- 176, LLi U Z. o 1- z We will be meeting on Tuesday the 28th to discuss the substantive issues with this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely,. LL Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department. ,.. ,4`,a,:... •.:, :i^ �u�.7, pv .,f:�Nl' 'pFf ;% •`R4ti f. �f A eti e,.t�;v4:�i'�Si�:`b:S)i= .l.GSe �9 �....- i:.F.illtr.:.tC;f.t4.>r uh�.'''C ltr..�,.,.�.,' %�.iitSrb N "v„t�aE?2'.ksn,rnr: %z:a.w {irsfi%9fr'.:t�3.;�•.+,.x� e *:t,.sL�.�i;';c�� %Y.�c�tlS • S ®BEY CORPORATION April 17, 1998 Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Ms. Gierloff: We have received the Notice of Incomplete Application for the above referenced project. In the spirit of the cooperative effort necessary to get this project underway by early July, we appreciate your initiative in consolidating the SEPA and Design Reviews into a single application, and we encourage all efforts that your department can make to simplify and shorten the review process. We are submitting herewith several items which you requested to complete our application. We are also re- submitting our site plans and elevations because the project has undergone some design modifications in our attempt to best utilize the site. The revised plans incorporate the additional information which you requested. Enclosed please find the following items: a. Three sets of mailing labels for residents within 500 feet of the project. b. Seven copies of revised Sheet A2.0, Site Plan (submitted with Design Review application) showing revised site layout. This plan incorporates a number of changes including reducing the number of buildings, adding another level of parking under some buildings, and providing a continuous loop road around the site. You will note that the areas of non - compliance with Fire Department access requirements have been eliminated. c. Seven copies of revised Sheets A4.0 and A4.1, Building Elevations, and 7 copies of colored renderings of the elevations (submitted with Design Review application). This information is re- submitted because the site plan revisions caused significant changes to the elevations of the buildings. The basic building systems described in the Design Narrative still apply. d. Seven copies of revised Sheet A5.0, Site Sections (submitted with Design Review application). This information is re- submitted because the site plan revisions caused significant changes to the relationship of the buildings to the site. e. Seven copies of Sheet 1 of 1, Conceptual Landscape Plan (submitted with Design Review application). This plan has been revised to incorporate the new site layout. f. Seven copies of revised Sheet C1, Preliminary Grading Plan (submitted with SEPA application). This plan has been revised to incorporate the new site layout, and to incorporate the additional information you requested. In particular, the drawing shows the schematic layout for the site drainage, including the means of handling the offsite drainage. g. Seven copies of revised Sheet C2, Critical Area Plan (submitted with SEPA application). This drawing has been revised to show the impact of this proposal on the existing tree canopy. architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 - 4220.206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 ... x��r:r:`; :.t4 �`F:t�v� vr$. iw4 'v;.�ez�Ai4'2:5sf ?.i:>;aid+i` iidrs�i��'x✓.��",.r:+ +' :�:rr!,aiialtre5, . •. 9racrsit?,4 QQ � WD JU; U O; ' • en C11 W r u. W O'. 2qq J' . Q: • Nom' I-- W Z 0 W,. • 01 11 5, V N; • • ;0•` h. Seven copies of new Sheet C3, Existing Water Course Plan. This drawing has been added to show the type and extent of existing water courses, as you requested. i. Seven copies of new Sheet C4, Preliminary Drainage Plan. This drawing has been added to show the concept for handling the off -site and on -site storm drainage flow. j. Seven copies of new Sheet C5, Preliminary Water and Sewer Plan. Per your request, this drawing has been submitted to show the existing and new water and sewer lines for this project. k. Four copies of a report prepared by Nelson - Bourdages discussing the application of the King County Surface Water Design Manual core and special requirements as they apply to this site. 1. Letter, dated 4/16/98, to the Director of the Department of Community Development requesting an exception to the City of Tukwila Tree Regulations based on canopy cover. m. Letter to Jack Pace, dated 4/15/98, providing a Response to Pre - Application Conference comments. This document is provided to describe how the revised site plan responds to the issues raised. We believe that these documents fulfill all the requirements for completeness for this SEPA and Design Review application. We look forward to receiving a Determination of Non Significance for this project at the earliest possible date. Our design team is available to respond immediately to any questions or concerns that your reviewers may have. It is important for the viability of this project to begin construction this summer, so we will make every effort to expedite this review process. We hope that the City will do the same. Please contact me promptly if there is any further information that you require. Sincerely, Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect CC: Flle, Lang, J. Sabey, Schumacher I: \WP \PROJECTS \VALTRUCK\TUKW17AP.LTR iicxka`.L:j.'; :.1... +.,14,,:ji,ti...:aa:'1V, RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 PERMIT CENTER SGBEY CORPORATION April 16, 1998 Steve Lancaster Director, Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 . Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Lancaster: We have submitted to your department SEPA and Design Review applications for the Pacific View Office Park project. This project consists of developing approximately 240,000 SF of office space with associated parking at 12421 Pacific Highway South. The site contains several sections of Class 2 Sensitive Areas (slope from 20% to 40%) as defined in Tukwila Zoning Code Section 18.45.010 E. Most of these sections are currently wooded. Due to the difficulty of identifying significant trees on these steeply sloping areaas, we request that you allow us to use the canopy cover approach to calculate the requirements for the retention and replacement of trees, in accordance with Section 18.54.140. This approach requires that the site shall have a minimum canopy cover of 20% of the site area, or equal to the existing canopy cover, whichever is less. The existing canopy cover on this site is approximately 33% of the site area. Under the Site Plan which we submitted for Design Review, the existing trees to remain will cover approximately 22% of the site. In addition, the Landscape Plan which we submitted shows over 50 new trees to be planted. There is no question that this site will be in full compliance with Tukwila's "Tree Ordinance ", under the canopy cover approach. We hope thatyou will find this request for exception to use the canopy cover approach acceptable. Please contact us if you require any further information. 4.1 Haynes Lund, AIA Project Architect CC: File, Lang, J. Sabey, Schumacher I: \WP\PROJECTSWALTRUCK\TUKW 16AP.LTR architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119 -4220. 206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 7 1998 PERMIT CENTER nfat ; ts�PA',rbu 44iC4 dX Ab h ,:iekxati54 'Z W • 6 00 0; • .cow •'WO;.. • Nom. • • _ Z .;. :Z U � i0 co' • '41'1111 F=:. • O. Z J April 15, 1998 Summary of Core and Special Requirements for the King County Surface Water Design Manual Pacific View Office Park 12421 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, WA Project Overview A 12.8 acre site is to be converted from an existing industrial equipment yard to an office/light- manufacturing business park. The site is located along Pacific Highway South (Highway 99), just south of the intersection of Highway 99 and Highway 599. The drainage system includes about 70 acres of upstream basin to the west, the subject property, and downstream conveyance to the northeast, that ultimately discharges to the Duwamish River. Refer to preliminary drawings C1 through C5, Level 1 downstream analysis, and Figure 1 (upstream basin), for an overview of drainage control. Preliminary Conditions Summary The site has significant contour relief, sloping from west to east, in a series of graded benches. The western boundary is a uniform steep slope of young woodlands and grasses, terminating at the uphill (western) edge with a multi - family residential and other urban developments. The majority of the upstream basin is intercepted by an existing ditch at the toe of the upper slope cut , near the western boundary of the site. Stormwater is collected and conveyed through the site to an existing culvert located near the northeastern boundary of the site. The culvert discharges to the northeast, under Highway 99. There exists a significant water course to the north of the site, that conveys upstream flows around the northern portion of the site, and discharges northeast to the same culvert as noted above, crossing Highway 99. Core Requirements The design criteria for drainage is the King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual, King County Department of Public Works, January 1990, Revised November 1995. 1. Discharge at the Natural Location The regrading of the site will accommodate this requirement by directing upstream flows to follow, as close as practical, to their existing course to the same point of discharge off the site. The onsite flows will be directed ultimately to existing discharge points, after treatment and run -off control. There exists additional existing culverts running northeast under Highway 99 that collect and convey on -site flows. 2. Offsite Analysis Upstream tributaries and a Level 1 downstream analysis will be included in the Technical Inforniation Report (T1R). RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR 1 7 1998 PERMIT CENTER ,rrk:L3Y.;x.� e „, 4,. _,' ise�: rtlsr4: �: t'+; tccx+ ii. �` a3: i�r:. E. �' �''; Yt� .IJ?i;��ijrirwrowat:'�trt�4n€:n „'�isr�^•rss�:ii ;���''u:, Saw.'••< k�F. ifis, �; tti4i� ;tdii�its�7.{Z2Y= •'e;�^�iY"a '!4.14AeV• ,;•f•raiElE�:I�� �,"`r n” i:3Ktis,44,. Z Q Z- re W' J U; 0 N 0 W • =' J 1— • N U. W 0;. LLQ H W;. Z Z• II-0. Z D. ;O —.. :0 ,W W. H U; Z w U N. Z Summary of Core and Special Requirements for Drainage April 15, 1998 Page 2 3. Runoff Control The peak rate of runoff will be controlled for the 2 year, 24 hour design storm event, and the 10 year, 24 hour design event. For the 100 year event, the facilities will be reviewed for adequacy of conveyance. Control of release rates for the 100 year event may be required under the Special Requirements section. Water quality measures will be implemented for on -site flows. Off site flows will bypass the water quality feature(s). The Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph method will be used for hydrologic analysis. 4. Conveyance Systems. All on -site facilities will be analyzed for adequate conveyance during the 25 year peak runoff' rates. Selected elements, such as culverts, will be sized to accommodate 100 year peak runoff rates. 5. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control The plans will address any and all features that provide protection to downstream properties from uncontrolled runoff of silt laden waters. Facilities are to include, as necessary,all elements defined in Section 1.2.5 of the manual, such as perimeter protection, clearing limits, temporary construction entrance, dust control, etc. 6. Maintenance and Operation The contract documents will include an Operations and Maintenance Manual, addressing those elements requiring continued maintenance. 7. Bonds and Liability Bonding procedures will be established, as directed by the City of Tukwila. Special Requirements 1. The City of Tukwila has requested upstream flows be routed through the site using open channels. Prepared by Robert Bourdages, P.E. Nelson - Bourdages a Division of Poggemeyer Design Group, Inc. 512 Sixth Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 • Zi W 2: V O` to w W =' W 0' ' .u_<: = F- I— 0: Z ►- w w. • :0 co. = Vi LL'O; •Z .US. • O~ Z:. FIGURE 1 1 0 Footb id Z17.) LL CN tjJ C) c•-,1 CZ) CK U) cr: IN WM% • ./ • WY Mt,» •.1% • $.101414 0444 4■•4.4...4...414......44... "c.c. e`tr.`,7. 1.949 14 WS 11.0101 tri YLtc rOS NELSON — BOURDAGES 1998© o division of Poggemyer Design Group, Inc. 512 6th Street South Suite 202 Kirkland, WA 98033 (425) 827 — 5995 FAX: (425) 828 — 4850 - ' SABEY CORPORATION PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK UPSTREAM BASIN 7.5 MINUTE USGS MAP vomm*IsAitir 1.! 4r- z z re 2 6 00 LUX coo • 11.1 1— • u_ w 0 g co — I— Ili Z 0 Z 11J u j c..) co O — o tu LI: • Z C.) 0 SABBEY CORPORATION April 15, 1998 Jack Pace Planning Manager, Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Pace: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your letter of March 23, 1998 with regard to issues raised at the Pre - Application conference for the Pacific View Office Park project. On 4/17/98 we are submitting a revised site plan and other drawings for this project as part of our SEPA and Design Review applications. Our intent herein is to show how those drawings resolve the issues listed in your letter. The format is to list the comments from your letter followed by our response. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Site Plan • The function and relationship of south driveway to rest of the site needs to be clarified. The south driveway is located as far south as possible so that vehicles exiting the site would be able to connect with the access ramp for northbound Highway 99. It serves as the primary entrance for Building A (the south building) and now provides direct access to the upper parking terrace from which Buildings B & C are entered. • The interior parking areas and parking access need to be improved to ensure safe and efficient vehicular /pedestrian access on site and between buildings. The revised Site Plan shows the on site circulation reduced to a loop road with an inner path to access the parking under the buildings. The pedestrian circulation is via a sidewalk at one side of the parking or by walking directly into a parking level of the building. • The footprint of each building may need to be revised for better site plan order and function, given the need for appropriate slope retention while providing enhanced onsite views. These goals have been accomplished by reducing the number of buildings, and consolidating them towards the center of the site, away from the areas of cross slope. • The width of parking islands should be increased to accommodate required landscaping, exclusive of tree canopy requirements. Landscape peninsulas have been inserted into the parking aisles to provide visual relief for the rows of parking. As it happens, under the revised site plan, all parking islands have been eliminated. architecture • construction • development • management 101 Elliott Avenue W. • Suite 330 • Seattle, WA • 98119- 4220.206/281 -8700 • Fax: 206/282 -9951 . `4,e +'b5t.,ii„ a ‘A' hii;.7n;�, �::..�,�:r'arfy. .,.r.�� a, i�.2�,,.� a �.al'.�'ufiJ'•R�R. Xr; it.x .� 1i31N3O 111%13d 8661 L I ddd VIIM)Ifll dO A.LI3 CIDA1303H :+•`C4'V,,Y,.Ctif+'i0:- :40;,,i, • •14 Review of Pre - Application Meeting Comments Pacific View Office Park April 15, 1998 Page 2 of 5 • Removal of parking spaces should be considered to provide additional landscaping, decrease length of parking areas and provide additional relief from extensive impervious surface areas. We agree and the additional landscaping is shown on the plan. Q • • Site plan must include minimum front and side yard landscape requirements along entire street frontage. W The submitted site plan complies with this requirement. ug� JU 0 W = C~: w 0: g • Accentuate and delineate building components. N The submitted elevations provide a visually interesting assemblage of elements that are echoed between the = d buildings to create a cohesive campus. t— III z ZO0 Lu DO O -- O F—. w UJ 0. LL'O. Z- O Z Elevations • Enhance the relationship between building entrance and site. The buildings are built into the slope which affords the opportunity for a dramatic bridge entry for Buildings B &C. BuildingA uses the slope to provide both a main entry facing the street and a grade level entry into the upper office floor. • Develop facade modulation through use of building materials, structural design or a combination of the two. The buildings have been modulated by such features as large scale "arch" figures, interwoven color bands, and glass corner elements which serve to break down the facades while providing continuity between the buildings. See the Design Narrative for a further discussion of the various aspects of the facade design. • A "high quality" building that is responsive to site features, local conditions and market forces. The elevations achieve a high level of visual interest while utilizing materials and building systems which are appropriate to the market. • Design features that are responsive to the location of parcel as a transition between industrial areas and neighborhoods. As stated in the Design Narrative, this project responds to this requirement in many ways. • Provide cross sections showing building, parking and retaining walls /rockeries. See Sheet A5.0, Site Sections submitted with the Design Review application. • Need to include design solutions to accentuate roofline and screen any rooftop equipment. The elevations show variety in the height of the parapets to provide visual interest. All rooftop equipment is screened with elements which have been designed to coordinate with the overall building design. Permit Requirements • A special hearing before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) is possible in middle of June outside of scheduled hearings on 4th Thursday of month, pending approval of BAR. We appreciate the willingness of the City to schedule this special hearing. By utilizing ideas such as this we will be able to begin our construction in early July, which is critical for our construction schedule. We must be able to complete our site grading and foundation work before the fall rainy season begins, or we will have to delay the start of construction until the following spring. • A minimum of 2 months will be required to conduct a concurrent review of SEPA and Design Review, in addition to the minimum 14 day requirement to review the applications for completeness. We request that the City make every effort to expedite this review. It is very important for the success of this project that all reviews be completed promptly so that we can maintain our schedule. We encourage the City to contact Sabey Corporation or its consultants to resolve any review questions as quickly as possible. Early notification via fax or e-mail (haynesl @sabey.com) would be helpful. ....., ?y�;. :: u�.¢ .. _.,: < aerti: �''. i�'. �+:& %,t +..'e,.`%•}, ?:w:G:i�;i:UtcYi `:X �U�nafirrk5�G3ks�u5?+v,"� , a a • kl Review of Pre - Application Meeting Comments Pacific View Office Park April 15, 1998 Page 3 of 5 • Lot Consolidation/Boundary Line Adjustments must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. We expect to submit an application for Boundary Line Adjustment in mid -May which should allow sufficient review time so that the application can be approved prior to a Building Permit being issued. • City of Tukwila demolition permits followed by land altering permit may be applied for after SEPA is issued and before BAR determination. We expect to have these permits ready for submittal as soon as SEPA is issued. • A demolition permit from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency must be submitted with application for City of Tukwila Demolition Permit. We understand and will comply. • Building permits will not be reviewed until a determination is made by the Board of Architectural Review. We expect to submit for Building Permit within 2 weeks after project approval by BAR • Building permits review is first come - first served. Structural review is done by outside firm. Minimum time for permit review, given scale and scope of this project, is 12 -16 weeks. We understand and will endeavor to submit for Building Permit as soon as possible after BAR approval. Environmental /Sensitive Areas • Areas on site in excess of 20% grade, watercourses and wetlands must comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). We have identified the areas of Class 2 slopes on Sheet C2 (SEPA submittal). In all other aspects, this project complies with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. • A geotechnical report will be required to demonstrate feasibility of project and adequate building design. We have provided the City of Tukwila with copies of the Geotechnical Report on this site prepared for this project by Geotechnical Consultants Inc. • Sensitive area slopes requiring tree removal will be subject to mitigation under the city's Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54). We have submitted a letter to the Director (4/16/98) requesting permission to use the Canopy Cover Approach to determine compliance with the Tree Ordinance. • Off-site, downstream water features of significance include Green/Duwamish River, WSDOT wetlands and Riverton Creek. Water quality of discharged runoff from the project site will be a significant issue for receiving waters, especially those features that include fish runs. We have submitted to the Citycopies of the Level 1 Downstream Analysis Report for this site prepared for this project by Nelson - Bourdages. • The tree ordinance allows for exceptions to standards. Any request for exceptions must be made independent of and before BAR approval, for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. We have submitted a letter to the Director (4/16/98) requesting permission to use the Canopy Cover Approach to determine compliance with the Tree Ordinance. • A landscaping plan must be submitted that includes tree coverage requirements and separate general landscape plan requirements. Sheet 1 of 1, Landscape Plan, has been submitted as part of our Design Review application. • Watercourse and/or wetland features on the parcel must be delineated as part of entire submittal. We have identified on Sheet C3 of 5, Existing Water Course Plan, the natural watercourses which impact this site. .�`•i; +: r:sa c4i3 .inti.`�ti'' »�K„'2 :mdPa24;5.7,:r ;;w.°`Al' i*tic'tlJ:a' h-d iL; ikSv adri:; G3.""..C�3[s"�Bi,:Li.:'4:s`LifS }+ Ct biFi.1.�%�`'" a. g . sSz:7Y(i� E?r',8wF..?a" s.. war ' !, Y +jtir .• .i+ 4' �.i3.u'�LZ �C'%'iX§k'�4^r'�1' 14;tx`:.u�'�a3;Xa�;ze.' dk3��t'iH �.'!N Z • J U: .0 O i 100. W ='.. w O. :1 • .u.¢ Z Ci w H =, Z� i— 0 Z t—; LLI D U� 1 t- -.. Z, uy O Z Review of Pre - Application Meeting Comments Pacific View Office Park April 15, 1998 Page 4 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Utilities • A 12 inch waterline shall be constructed the length of the project frontage. This line will be an extension of the City's southward extension of a 12 inch waterline across the Duwamish River. The water line in Pacific Highway South will not serve this site. This site is within Water District 20 and the new 12" line would not be connected to their system. Water District 20 has provided flow data indicating that they can meet all code requirements for water systems from the existing lines which serve this site, utilizing a looped system as shown on the Utility Plan which we submitted. There is no technical justification for this request from the City. • The applicant shall provide fire flow calculations that document sufficient flow available from the serving district. We have provided a Certificate of Water Availability from Water District 20 which shows the flow rates available to the site. Complete hydraulic design calculations will be included with the Building Permit application. • Provide a letter of sewer availability from Val-Vue Sewer District. The letter shall include discussion of the planned route of new sewer line to replace the lift station located on the project site. We have provided a letter of sewer availability from Val -Vue Sewer District. We have also requested to receive a set of construction documents for the removal of the lift station and relocation of the sewer line from Val -Vue. We will forward a copy of these documents to the City as soon as we receive them. Val -Vue hopes to complete this sewer system remodel this summer. • Access points are subject to Public Works approval following review and analysis of applicant's traffic analysis. The Traffic Analysis by Entranco has been submitted and we will work with the City to arrive at a mutually acceptable access system. It is important to the marketing of this project, however, that the north access point be configured to allow left turns into and out of the site. Based on the current location of this access drive, this configuration could be acheived with only minor modifications to Pacific Highway South. • Landings of driveway approaches should be a maximum 3 % grade for the first 5 0 feet, then slope into site. We will endeavor to comply with this recommendation. There is a change in elevation of over 40' across this narrow site, however, and it may not be possible to fully comply with this request at all entrances. The current grading plan shows full compliance at the south access drive; at the north access drive, compliance is possible, but the connection to other driveways would be smoother if we limit the extent of 3% grade to about 30'. • Curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting and associated improvements required. We are requesting that the City provide the street front improvements to establish the character for the future development of Pacific Highway South. • Electrical utilities to be undergrounded. Agreed. • A traffic analysis is required. See the attached sheet for required elements. A Traffic Analysis by Entranco has been provided to the requirements of the attached sheet. • Pending review and approval of the traffic analysis, access points and configuration, on and off -site traffic improvements and traffic mitigation fees will be determined. According to the Traffic Analysis, this project will have no significant impact on any intersections in the area. Mitigation fees should not be required. ZQQ ce 65, 00 07 0. W. W u_ W O; J: u.< Z�—: Z I' ui • CI O• N. 1-- W H U' Z' U O~ Z Review of Pre - Application Meeting Comments Pacific View Office Park April 15, 1998 Page 5 of 5 Storm Drainage • For SEPA review, a level one downstream analysis from site to the Duwamish River and a narrative discussion of King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) core and special requirements is required. A Level 1 Downstream Analysis by Nelson - Bourdages has been submitted. We will provide a report from Nelson - Bourdages discussing the Core and Special Requirements of the KCSWDM with our submittal on April 17, 1998. • Upstream tributary storm water shall bypass the onsite detention system. This water shall be conveyed via open channels. Because of the difficult slopes on this site, it may be necessary to route the off -site storm drainage through the site partly via conduits. We will endeavor to utilize open drainage courses for the off -site drainage to the fullest extent possible. See Sheet C4 of 5, Preliminary Drainage Control Plan, included with the April 17, 1998 submission for the current system design. • On site detention and water quality treatment is required. The November, 1997 Riverton Creek Storm Water Quality Management Plan is the best information and shall be used for project design of water quality system and peak rate control. The KCSWDM and the May 1986 Fostoria Basin Drainage Study are secondary resource documents for this project. We will provide detention and water quality treatment for the on -site storm drainage. The system design is shown on Sheet C4, Preliminary Drainage Control Plan, and is outlined in the discussion of the KCSWDM requirements. • TESC measures per the KCSWDM with a performance standard of "no turbid or sittladen matter shall leave the site" shall be applied. A bond to insure performance is required. See the Discussion of the KCSWDM requirements for a description of the temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures to be employed for this project. We will provide bonding as directed in City of Tukwila guidelines. • A NPDES permit is required. We will submit our application for this permit after we have completed the construction documents for our storm drainage plan. We hope that these responses are acceptable to the City. We look forward to working with you to resolve any issues promptly. We will do everything in our power to enable the SEPA and Design Review to be completed as quickly as possible. Sincerely, aynes Lund, AIA Project Architect CC: File, Lang, J. Sabey, Schumacher i\ user \haynesl \projects \valtruck \tukwl 5ap.ltr Rr.t.v . X53`" -al.,6g... r1$triAz:,i'u id4Z -; iTai`ra�titk.t.: �bza r• „ • 5 its . tith' isk.` n�:° fk'?✓ isw`:{{ Gnuuii7�%¢ sn.'%t �; 2• i.' �L��� i` �s' u�gs�s�'( ilw- 4�rr1LLi "�`'di }'�y'.'y�'�}yfS� �a"d ` " x" ,tC'i ?'- d:e&1�"ir..+i1<'alxiTn'iur .4�'3'r"[Y'b}'.�1^1i7'iiri,}: • April 13, 1998 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Haynes Lund Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Avenue West Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98119 -4220 RE: Pacific View Office Park E98 -0006 SEPA Environmental Review L98 -0021 Design Review Dear Mr. Luncl: Your application for construction of four office and light industrial buildings located at 12421 Pacific Highway South has been found to be incomplete. Though you submitted the SEPA checklist and the design review application separately, unless I hear otherwise from you I will treat them as a consolidated application. This will allow us to do one set of mailings and one notice board rather than two. My incompleteness comments therefore apply to both applications. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. Two sets of mailing labels for the tenants within 500 feet of the project, you only submitted labels for the property owners b. Seven sets of civil plans showing existing and proposed water and sewer lines, including tihe required 12" water line along Pacific Highway South c. Seven sets of plans showing existing watercourses and/or wetlands on the site d. Application for a tree permit covering all trees to be removed on slopes over 20% with the number and proposed location of the replacement trees, or with a request to use the "canopy cover" method of calculating tree replacement requirements c Storm drainage plan showing existing and proposed storm system which routes upstream oftsite water through the site via open channels Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). (30O Southccnter Boulevard, Suite #100 O Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ��).r'lu "S� itiM 34s ?lfi�sr::�s.v. 4etz a .it*. 4Wia :air... k[G +tv h ` rp, " h'4, . +ut x R} i - 541xPAl. z re J U:. U O' CI CO = H LL w O J co =a _ z I- . i-- O': zt- w w: moo:. off'. oI-` W w. H V:. w � — O: .z' I O - z AS a reminder, the drawings you have submitted to date do not address all of the issues outlined in our letter to you of March 23, 1998. The'Fire Department has commented that the access road on t �c ,,vest side of building A is not the minimum 20 feet wide and does not have a turnaround, which i:; requirccl for roads longer than 150 feet. Public Works will require a narrative discussion of the • core and ;special requirements for the King County Surface Water Design Manual. as they relate to your site. To avoid delay at the substantive review stage please revise the drawings and application 1nial.erials in accordance with the 3/23/98 letter prior to your next submittal. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433 -7141. S ineerely, ;�" dt , G '�G (_..„ Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist t. o,44. ,.c,s:'J tit:: �i:'.:. 5k-.: �Z: ddiis�st� 'ik`�a�:c >'r ?Gn�::1.r., ., i�a=." u:, �' x...' k#' v', ra; :` S•.±+:,` t. �. tiaf��9tit` c� ,�i1a'�`�}':crfL1Z:�i�daa¢ititi ,z _� "D: ILI o: W, J Fr W o: J . mac CJ; � o ,p �s w W: H a • 0 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund, AIA Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Ave E., Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 Re: Proposal for Pacific View Office Park, pre- application number PRE 98 -010 Dear Haynes: Thank you for meeting with City staff to follow up on your pre - application conference meeting. We also appreciate your including Doug Schumacher of Sabey and your consultant Corby Howell of Nelson - Bourdages in these discussions prior to filing for your land use permits. The following is a synopsis of issues raised at our meeting and are an extension of the comments provided to you at the time of the pre - application meeting: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Site Plan • The function and relationship of south driveway to rest of the site needs to be clarified. • The interior parking areas and parking access need to be improved to ensure safe and efficient vehicular /pedestrian access on site and between buildings. • The footprint of each building may need to be revised for better site plan order and function, given the need for appropriate slope retention while providing enhanced on- site views. • The width of parking islands should be increased to accommodate required landscaping, exclusive of tree canopy requirements. • Removal of parking spaces should be considered to provide additional landscaping, decrease length of parking areas and provide additional relief from extensive impervious surface areas. • Site plan must include minimum front and side yard landscape requirements along entire street frontage. 6300 Southcenter Eortleva_rd. S,,;t 100 • Trihllrla 001 go . ;ten,) ." ?? '?4 ^n . c,,.. i':.;'c.+� rn 3 s ? . a ' 3 , g . . ra F? � ax it k a �3s raltAua -, 44. r.+ a`: cn s'iu ri+`di7 Vo z z re al2. J U. U 0 w o. v� w w I. I-, • u w° u. i0 in z� 1--0 Z F- LU uj U� Oco. w w. H U; wO — z: w I. O~ March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Elevations • Enhance the relationship between building entrance and site. • Accentuate and delineate building components. • Develop facade modulation through use of building materials, structural design or a combination of the two. • A "high quality" building that is responsive to site features, local conditions and market forces. • Design features that are responsive to the location of parcel as a transition between industrial areas and neighborhoods. • Provide cross sections showing building, parking and retaining walls /rockeries. • Need to include design solutions to accentuate rooi ii e and screen any rooftop equipment. Permit Requirements • A special hearing before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) is possible in middle of June outside of scheduled hearings on 4th Thursday of month, pending approval of BAR. • . A minimum of 2 months will be required to conduct a concurrent review of SEPA and Design Review, in addition to the minimum 14 day requirement to review the applications for completeness. • Lot Consolidation/Boundary Line Adjustments must be recorded prior to building permit issuance. • City of Tukwila demolition permits followed by land altering permit may be applied for after SEPA is issued and before BAR determination. • A demolition permit from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency must be submitted with application for City of Tukwila Demolition Permit. • Building permits will not be reviewed until a determination is made by the Board of Architectural Review. • Building permits review is first come - first served. Structural review is done by outside firm. Minimum time for permit review, given scale and scope of this project, is 12 -16 weeks. { ?,,ash. t,..r,,. .;iii:;:: itfl �,., t: zi,.,. s: �%' r�. ar:. z. .4:�,way:9^�,raY,e:�E'`,��ai�,n eta:?".aYi�,.✓wU.%� >fir.ii9c ."'.°:; itiJ. �iv5;: e?4� ';awG''i:�Nex2ra'C''v"1,'ar;.i ':nFa6$b 4 1 • f Q . r4 2 JU U 0; CO 0': CO w; w 0'. Q: uj z� 1-0; Z 0 O 1— LLI ► z, vr-= 0 z . March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Environmental /Sensitive Areas • Areas on site in excess of 20% grade, watercourses and wetlands must comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). • A geotechnical report will be required to demonstrate feasibility of project and adequate building design. • Sensitive area slopes requiring tree removal will be subject to mitigation under the city's Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54). • Off -site, downstream water features of significance include Green/Duwamish River, WSDOT wetlands and Riverton Creek. Water quality of discharged runoff from the project site will be a•significant issue for, receiving waters; especially those features that include fish runs. • The tree ordinance allows for exceptions to standards. Any request for exceptions must be made independent of and before BAR approval, for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. A landscaping plan must be submitted that includes tree coverage requirements and separate general landscape plan requirements. • Watercourse and/or wetland features on the parcel must be delineated as part of entire submittal. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Utilities A 12 inch waterline shall be constructed the length of the project frontage. This line will be an extension of the City's southward extension of a 12 inch waterline across the Duwamish River. • The applicant shall provide fire flow calculations that document sufficient flow available from the serving district. • Provide a letter of sewer availability from Val -Vue Sewer District. The letter shall include discussion of the planned route of new sewer line to replace the lift station located on the project site. : s2�'; M1; �44443k# ,75;,: SZA< sInr, g,tw•nAas4VatiligW�,t�'' z Wiz' 6D J C) (JO' coca' co w in J CO U- O LL ?; Sn a. �w z�: O z D. 0 p ,o co, ,o Ili w. =U H; • O; w z� z March 23, 1998 Haynes Lund Re: Pacific View Office Park proposal Transportation, • Access points are subject to Public Works approval following review and analysis of applicant's traffic analysis. • Landings of driveway approaches should be a maximum 3% grade for the first 50 a 1.-z w. .J C); 0 0; . 0. • :tAWi N fL .w O' gal .w � std. 1_. z F: I-0: z1-; w w'. 'U D' !O ul' • • Ail z • O z feet, then slope into site. • Curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, street lighting and associated improvements required. • Electrical utilities to be undergrounded. • A traffic analysis is required. See the attached sheet for required elements. • Pending review and approval of the traffic analysis, access points and configuration, on and off -site traffic improvements and traffic mitigation fees will be determined. Storm Drainage • For SEPA review, a level one downstream analysis from site to the Duwamish River and a narrative discussion of King County Surface Water Design Manual ( KCSWDM) core and special requirements is required. • Upstream tributary storm water shall bypass the onsite detention system. This water shall be conveyed via open channels. • On site detention and water quality, treatment is required. The November, 1997 Riverton Creek Storm Water Quality Management Plan is the best information and shall be used for project design of water quality system and peak rate control. The KCSWDM and the May 1986 Fostoria Basin Drainage Study are secondary resource documents for this project. • TESC measures per the KCSWDM with a performance standard of "no turbid or silt - laden matter shall leave the site" shall be applied. A bond to insure performance is required. • A NPDES permit is required. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions about our meeting. We look forward to working with you on this project Sincerely, 0,_ Jack Pace Planning Manager cc: Reviewing City Departments Doug Schumacher, Sabey Corporation Corby Howell, Nelson - Bourdages ,. .. .. ..,. t. ,r:s.. .;;F,- .�w.� %a'J;,1� X14'' is�r. �;: c, K��7.. r+: tx�o; �: v:•, �:' diL�i% r?zt+'. �irfiriM' ii; Ic'. di' sii�A: 3' 7di: YS: t�7.' v> i�(�`G'a \�.:ti��'.J%tri".&iL"�Fm r�?. 1L2�. �n` �} 9�. ':: i?. viiit: �7` e., i) lk..�s11ut�a!!33$.n'it+isf7'i3 ;;G'b�eXSi�w�3St!_K:+ /i(/As? 6p-) � e e ;-7 � ) t / / � U P 7)-;7 /252,-,./,//‘„ 74-'„ W-f-0V-Ae- d LD5 _,() z , Z. /2/ j✓t'GV 1' "77,-; va 1-47 74 &9-72 fij kee- 7//-8-11 m vvem.e,1 71e/77 5 (/e)o 7/7—) 3. .--/Z4,45-/-,- car &I) /,74Y //))7.-&a167 7)7 6/a- a/e- ;'4`) 7 17 7 5;74_ .i to �rai�Y Dtis S V.14:+ 4sus'otiy Vit"4.4.V .A.PAA "`..soM CTA 4'fit '4411 IliVA GSA; i " 1 z. Ce 0.1 O ;. N O. CD ui J wo 2 g a. co d. = uI. z� I- o' zI 0 0; w w; w z 0 92 z 0''. z CITY O►'TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW (P -DR) APPLICATION <` F.OR STAF..FUSEONLY File ; Num ecelpt Num Application Complete (Da Application: Incomplete :(Dati oreline File ;# I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: PAC' t= I C VI 6W OF-P 1 CZ, B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) Se t-c`Pt 69z3c4- 43C07-6b 5ITEA*R - -5s: 124211 P, cir1G I-1iC HW�( o, Leri"6. 0`12304 q120 -OCo l- r C`. 09 2;304- 8031 -- 04 t_orb: 0923 ,D4- 93eFi—o`i Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: �tY��� f---u, �r �`�,`� �'oR -P_ ADDRESS: j 0 u3 W) u r-re- 330 _ SE,t ,.E-1Wk ci 5119 PHONE: �O% = S 1 -- ED 00 2,06 - + 1 - 0 c(z.O SIGNATURE: DATE: t7 �✓.,7 r;r QAi3i'r'4:':.'Id`. ^: w" -'`:f ;;,2,40.,;'t411.:ii il$1, 'awe. 'c:'S ` "IVOtr,Oa 3'a{4Ra", -giG RECVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR - 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER • r CITY OF TUKWILA Departs. :7t of Community Developmen. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION! CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 431 -3670. APPLICATION FORMS: LJ Application Checklist (1 copy), indicating items submitted with application Tr Design Review Application (4 copies) rr Design Review Fee ($900) 14451 .Y ❑ SEPA Environmental Checklist (6 copies) 4' ❑ SEPA Environmental Checklist Fee ($325) ❑ Shoreline Permit Application (6 copies) & Fee (if within Shoreline Overlay District) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA APR - 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER PLANS [Six (6) copies of the following]: f ' /Vicinity map showing location of the site. lid Surrounding area map showing existing land uses within a 1000 -foot radius from the site's property lines. Er Site plan at V= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect_ The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O Location and gross floor area of existing and proposed structure(s) with setbacks O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and outdoor service areas, with parking calculations and location and type of dumpster /recycling area screening O Location and type of site lighting, including parking and pedestrian areas O Location and type of site fumiture, such as benches, bike racks; location and type of any proposed public outdoor art O Location of any trails, parks, plazas or other outdoor open space provided for employees or the public; existing and proposed open space easements and dedications (if any) O Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District O Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, extending at least 5 feet beyond the site's boundaries, with a notation of the slope of areas in excess of 20% DESREV.DOC 1/30/97 O Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications O Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) O Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries, fences. LvJ Landscape/planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: O Property lines and names of adjacent roads O Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site furniture, any proposed public outdoor art O Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved ,..., /O Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. Lr" Building elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale and date. Each sheet shall have the license stamp of the architect. Include on the elevations: O Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements, with notations of materials to be used O Location and type of exterior building lighting ../O Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary. Lld Signage per Sign Code. lJ One (1) high quality 8 1/2" x 11" reduction of each of above plans. If the project undergoes significant changes, and additional set of reductions may be required. Colors and materials sample board showing colors and materials to be used on all building xteriors. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA: Written response to the Zoning Code Design Review Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Design eview Policies (see attached Design Review Application). OTHER MATERIALS: Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, eight (8) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. PUBLIC NOTICE: ❑ King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. ETwo (2) sets of mailing labels for all properly owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within Ct� 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, �\ condos, trailer parks —must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. i3.cA��S�'•''� '� � diilEi a,41° Weik.1414,5e0Aggi Pacific View Office Park Design Review Submittal April 1, 9998 Response to Design Review Criteria RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIIA APR -. 1 1998 �C hMiT' CENITES A. The Relationship of Structure to Site The site for this project is a transition zone in many ways. It fronts on Highway 99 as it transitions from a limited access highway to an arterial street. It sits on a steep slope that is a transition from the Duwamish valley to the plateau. In terms of land usage, this site is a transition between the larger scale office and industrial activities to the north and the smaller scale commercial and retail activities along Pacific Highway South. And, most importantly, this site is a transition between what that Pacific Highway South is today and what it will soon become. This proposal responds to these transitions very directly. By distributing the square footage into four buildings, the bulk of the project is reduced and the buildings provide a middle scale between the structures to the north and the existing and planned structures to the south. The buildings nestle into the slope, which greatly reduces their size when viewed from the residential areas to the west, while also permitting views to and from the buildings. The site entrances are located as far to the south as feasible so that entering and exiting will occur in the Tower speed section of the highway. The buildings are situated to take maximum advantage of the amenities of the site. While they primarily face the easterly view across the valley, each building also has some view to downtown Seattle to the north. There are open decks on each floor at the front corners of the buildings, and these were carefully positioned so that the upper floor deck on the north side of each building can see downtown. The buildings are also sited to use the slope to maximum advantage. Parking is tucked underneath the structure, and the main entries are located on the uphill side of the buildings at the middle office level (typically). This arrangement increases the elevation of the office floors for better views, while at the same time keeps every floor within one level of the entry. Parking is located close to each building, on terraces that march up the slope. The terraces all have direct access to either the entry level or the garage level of the buildings for easy pedestrian circulation. Vehicular circulation is also simple and obvious with continuous loops through the parking terraces. The terraces also serve to break up the parking lot with landscaped banks and retaining walls separating the asphalt areas. Most people will be unaware of the amount of parking on the site with so much of it hidden under buildings and behind the landscaping. B. The Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area As is often true of transition zones, this site does not currently have strong connections to any surrounding properties. It is cut off from any connection to the north by the freeway. It is cut off from the properties to the east by the highway, the elevation difference, and distance. It is cut off from its neighbors to the west because of the elevation change and the forested area between them. There is some connection to the property to the south, but those properties are not conforming uses to the current Comprehensive Plan nor to the aims and desires of the Pacific Highway Revitalization Plan. In a sense, this site has a stronger connection to what will be in the future than to any current adjoining use. Rather than evaluate this project in terms of any established neighborhood character, it is more important to see how it contributes to the planned future character of the neighborhood. The site is laid out with the long dimension of the buildings parallel to the street which provides a strong connection to the highway. Though the entries are generally located on the uphill side away from the street, the clear organization of the on -site circulation makes for easily understood travel patterns within the site. The two entries off of Pacific Highway South were determined by the needs for having safe access /egress from the site without creating bottlenecks which can cause safety problems. The terracing of the site helps protect the existing slopes while modifying them to fit the needs of the site activities. These features all are part of the site design criteria of the Pacific Highway Design Manual. Page 1 ti Pacific View Office Park Response to Design Review Criteria April 1, 1998 C. Landscape and Site Treatment One of the amenities that this site offers is the natural woodlands that surround it. The intent of the site design is to take full advantage of this amenity and to enhance with the landscaping which is added. The west (uphill) portion of the site will be left undeveloped, which preserves the woodlands in these areas. This area is also the primary expanse of Sensitive Areas (greater than 20% slope) on the property and the site design leaves it untouched for the most part. There will also be limited development at the north end of the site where the tree - covered slopes tie into to the adjacent wooded areas. The remainder of the site will be cleared and regraded. However, the landscape plan includes a number of evergreen and deciduous trees scattered throughout the parking areas and between the buildings. It should be noted also that, by placing the parking underneath the buildings, the amount of surface parking was reduced. The area saved from parking was either left undisturbed or planted with new landscaping. In addition, the entire street frontage of the site will be landscaped, including the storm drainage retention ponds. These ponds will be designed to be shallow linear elements that can be incorporated into an attractive street frontage. It is also planned that the main (north) site entry will incorporate a retaining wall /rockery feature which will include a campus logo sign. It has always been the aim of this project to develop an office building complex which is nestled into the sloping wooded site. The site treatment and landscaping have been designed to meet that goal. D. Building Design The elements of the exterior design were developed to create a unifying theme across the site. Balancing that continuity, however, are some variations within the theme which add visual interest to the individual buildings and the entire site. The building exteriors will all be constructed of the same materials: painted concrete cladding, aluminum mullions and curtainwall frames, glass windows and spandrels, metal wall panels. The three north Buildings (Buildings B, C, and D) will be very similar, varying only in the arrangement of the decks at the corners. Variety will be created, however, by the way they are sited, at different elevations on the hillside and with varying heights of retaining wall along the front. The south building (Building A) uses similar building elements, but adds variety due to its different proportions. The design composition for the elevations was developed with a strongly delineated base element to help anchor the buildings visually into the sloping site. The large 'arch' elements provide a regular rhythm to each building which is carried across the site. This element is carefully scaled to provide interest at the near approach while still maintaining a presence when viewed from across the valley. The glass curtainwall used at the corners provides a counterpoise to the rest of the walls making the entire building seem lighter and less massive. The metal wall panel that serves as the coping for the curtainwall also serves to tie the rooftop mechanical equipment screens into the overall design. Overall, the composition of the exterior uses materials appropriate to the area and the market to create a design which unifies the entire site while providing a high level of visual interest. It should also be noted that the retaining walls will serve as a source of continuity and variety across the site. Due to steep slopes of the existing terrain, retaining walls are required at many locations in order to create the level areas needed for the buildings and parking lots. These retaining walls form a regular pattern at Buildings B, C, and D where they are part of the system of nestling the structures into the hillside. The walls will extend out from the buildings often creating a continuous terrace linking the buildings together. The construction system and finished appearance of the retaining walls will be consistent throughout the site. The total effect will be of ribbons of walls interlacing the site between and around the buildings. E. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture There will be no miscellaneous structure on this site. All structures are part of the building design, including the mechanical equipment enclosures on the roof. The trash enclosures will be nestled beside the buildings, tucked in unobtrusively at the parking level. The enclosure walls will be made of similar materials to the buildings. Because of the slopes and high speed traffic, this site is not conducive to pedestrian activities. In lieu of grade level pedestrian precincts we have incorporated outdoor spaces (balconies) into the building designs. The only street furniture on the site will be the lighting standards for the entry drives and parking areas. These Tight standards will be simple and unobtrusive, providing adequate lighting for circulation and safety , while limiting their impact on the surrounding areas. Page 2 z IZ �w 6O. N 0 w= • CO Li. w O. u_? • a. I-w Z Z �. w. 2 p. U N. 0 1—. w W • U_ LI z• O N O~ z D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at S (city), WA I-{ I ,) C!'t' •NAl acRC..“ 2,1 , 199 b . 3c-)Hr Wa—L. (state), on (Print Name) 1 2431 (Address) Zoe r� o4 (Phone Nu (Sig, a ,a- Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. . ••.'• +:;/ .,'''':.:,, v;;s is +ti.;r �`� °tip# %;,�✓ >:N'yrWte't''. QcA"ii,"4�' :a`'' '.o ee` P t' Vi+ •APSI i W445 .�5"` +s�• 7Y ., irX IA: 11,30+�.Y i��`+c�'' ' .110..1 1$ IM y +9" EigiTf'St�rlfiti: 2' f'id V.til i VFA r lttd'i::". ieSag"eii a 5 Sheetl Pacific View Office Park Project Timeline Clock Date. Action 3/12/98 Pre - application meeting held Follow up meeting with Haynes Lund, Doug Schumacher, Corby Howell and City staff 3/23/98 Letter summarizing comments from meeting sent to Haynes Lund 3/23/98 SEPA application received by City 411/98 Design review application received by City 4/6/98 Level 1 downstream analysis received by City 4/14/98 Notice of incomplete application sent/faxed for SEPA and design review applications 4/17/98 Haynes Lund resubmitted items per notice of incompleteness 4/22/98 Staff met with David Sabey to discuss the project 4/24/98 Notice of Complete Application mailed/faxed to applicant 4/28/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss project and procedures 4/30/98 Letter from City Environmentalist to Sabey restating the need for a watercourse study 5/4/98 Sabey faxed letter to Building Official asking for determination of the number of stories 5/5/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss number of stories, building height, retaining walls, drainage, traffic report, Highway 99 design issues, SAO studies, and building design issues 5/6/98 SEPA revision comments sent to Haynes 12 5/6/98 Affidavit of posting returned by Haynes Lund 14 5/8/98 Notice of Application mailed and posted, 14 day public comment period starts 5/12/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss drainage, building height, BAR issues, was deadline for Sabey's submittal of building revisions but revised elevations were not submitted, SEPA checklist submitted was missing 3 pages 5/14/98 Haynes Lund submitted two revised elevations showing an entry on the east building face 5/19/98 Staff met with Sabey team, received complete revised checklist, new site plan, drainage diagram, revised traffic and geotech reports to be submitted this week, discussed BAR 27 . 5/21/98 Public comment period ends 5/21/98 Haynes Lund sent in a colored east building elevation showing the added entry 5/22/98 Letter sent to Haynes Lund regarding design issues, need for SEPA documentation, reports 5/26/98 Staff met with Sabey team, discussed SEPA status, received traffic, stream, drainage studies, sketches showing planterboxes, articulation of the garage, and axonometric drawings 34 5/28/98 Staff faxed revisions /corrections to SEPA checklist to Haynes Lund 5/28/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss design revisions, presented suggestions to step back portions of the facade to provide greater modulation 5/29/98 Sabey team met with Mayor Rants, resolved building design issues 6/1/98 Haynes submitted BLA application 6/2/98 Staff met with Sabey team to discuss traffic issues, requested changes to SEPA checklist 6/8/98 Haynes submitted final design review drawings including colored elevations and perspective 47 6/10/98 SEPA threshold determination issued 48 6/11/98 Notice of public hearing mailed and posted 6/12/98 Staff faxed remaining BLA comments to Haynes 1,v4k.04 (6, Z H W. rt 00 N 0: W =' w w O, QQ I- W Z �. I- O Z LLI 2 t_) O to 0 I-. W W. I=- -. LL O: Z U W, O ~� Z Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR Page 6 Design Review /Shoreline Substantial Development components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; Q =Z ~w re 2 J U UO. u) o: CO w wI J 1- N IL w ga Response: The three buildings in the complex will be larger in scale than other _, buildings along this section of Pacific Highway and will be highly visible across Z i the valley. Building A will be lower and larger in footprint than Buildings B and 1- O C which will be mirror images of eachother. All three buildings will use the same w ~ ILI colors and materials and use similar details such as the entry canopies and 2 o planting boxes. The buildings will have entrances both on the street and uphill O u) sides. Modulation for the buildings is provided by the "erosion" of the street side 01- corners and small sections of the upper facade. The colors shown on the = cw.) 1-- perspective rendering do not match those shown on the colored elevations or the 1 ~O' material board. w z v=. O 1- z E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. The roof -top mechanical equipment will be screened by metal screen walls painted to match the buildings, but specific equipment locations and sizes have not been determined. S. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: New pole light fixtures will be installed on the site throughout the parking areas. Sign locations have been indicated on the site plan, but sign designs have not been included in the submittal. CONCLUSIONS infat.Pi ?Lw m ra ashc ftausargta ;;IM t x+15 61fit 4• u /iris -r4 4n1AblOWF E 410, i' . i+31. aY aikir.:Rm i.W∎ fwr -a pa rr ...;6.4,4■Akt,41.Vel• ' "t ' . " ' = • "Ixr.A1k5V0,&.' *k.4 ,; ,y.,,,,,,,FA•a,r4o.z4^.4.11s-4,v./Soo,t.i.1:4:4•kg4VA4*Ild6Awikx,FAr- il=f4YdAtz, 'Mt • • 4..*•• e.040r.00,- o A Go Atautitaa, 41444., '4,4041,4 Wit'W URAYAJV JAW, ko‘givalicamo%,.140,), • z • z cc 2 6 D —J c.) 0 0 w UJI , CO U. Ili 0 Z I— 0 Z WUJ C.) UJ•T• W o — 0 z 11-1 r= o 1 1 1 ; ^4ri 1: �tii ir'�e r�i+:$,::',ij �tis;..�C SnLUJ,f�ir.+•t v:;tai`iak?w <�s�`,kton:sa spa '�c'ri5#; agly..likcti'w.r, lfm'a •is;;"s' '•��c+'ws :zu;. �.x'ii• R4�r'�`:na c.) O t V 2 2 It Z = Z CL JU 00 u) a cow J = F-- U) LL w0 a _ Lei., a _ w Z= f- I- O ZI- w U O - O I- ww 2 H � O .. Z W H'- O Z :5■1$ht..W.," "41,0if4 II isVatry AVV'atSk4t4iWtiaiAlit.,412,i.k.s. 11 1.1 t.o,,:fatk=A,,A4k4a.iYo4bet.4viszgli4,q;kAsktii',k:,„vd7.ga'r:.,vaikAia Es.ek ttl-stt la=4.4fatwoNair-- 51i7YYti {�G.�?.t hl 4iiml�`Sh ti:.R�.71�f4�f K�iiiiSi� kFi+1` sf3LL'i�f'w'f�i.W Gf� z ~ W' !Y 2 JU 00 W =' • u: wwQ0 LL Q, = d. ▪ W z1.- 1- 0 Z 1- w w U0 O 92 D 1- W W• 2 ~ U' IL F-: O. w z. U N. 0 H O z File: -o mm Drawing# /�<:•; ,.. t:.t. Vii} `,,,yr rr. 7rt: 1{' Vt .4Ur'itS..L'2 %i::..:L..:aliela. .�fj�J.i.;:N"I.._+{t2'C.h4`. +�atci�7ri�:F[:. • ;ZZ{. • 'J•Ui ;O cn W .s.• •• • .F- Wj.: • • Z�` Z0 *•i2 j; • 'Q 1 • _ I-1 W .W V • • 1—Z.. • ; O • ______ ,. , 1 i j, _ ,.. II . i .i, II 1 , ..... 1 1 • ; : I ' • -I 1 1, ' i 1_1_ _r_i___. ..j __j; :•. i ___.............._ .. _ ......_ -I-4--- - . , - --- i , 1 1 . : . -1- 1 . 1 1 1 ' i ■ ' ' . 1.— i --1---__._ I -1 i 1 I—I—LI -+ ' I ■ , _I --4•;-.... . - 1 N —14-i,--4;" i : I ! -4 • i l 1 --■-1---1---. '! 1 I I ' • 1 ; 1 __ 0.4fryttall 1 414P Ili...::: ; I I . ---. • ! I ' ' ' ----- • -• , -4 ■ , ' : __I i If I I • ir :1 -11- ..., 1 . ----1 hS1. • I._ i :., _ ..... -....-- - , _ i. 1 . • • - ti IL.L.N4 •, it' --"-- • . • . -4 -714.1:7: T : • / - --.--' . -4 • ...3 , AL i - . • .' .- 4 11 - ...1• .I _ - , . ..... . .• .-I ,_ - -tI ._ .A I 6 1 • _.. _ • . . • .10 ..• i 1.... A VI . • _ _ 1 .. . is -.-.... - (tIirI •-i •,, -- - -- - • • . . - I , _ --t- ------ - - - - 1 • • • . - --, . . . I Iilltair I , ....•••••-!• J 1 1 ! ' i 1 ._.. , I , ' w. • JE ?t. i ■ , . IP; ... i 1 ______ . _ _ ......_ _ _ 1••■••,-.. i I . I ..4 ,. 1 I vl 1 E 1 ■ a m1•0- 111 i.- W , ..r l i = - t I ' , , , 1 , , . , _ 1 • . i Ami L , . _. _ _ ---:"----7i -1E.4 i- ll-i Z---:: 1 l,e- m, 1 , M.iiaim.; .....). i , ai aS„kiSi i , i Sr 60AI mi Ill i IIIIII& st 1111.11 1 '. ;44 IMES !--J,_ • .71111W • ' •••-■ .1 I IIII . - . • I RN r EM • - 11"&%-'. r. . g .. --- 1 ; t • lc N ... 1 1111111111 01 1 •l• I 1 1 MEIN •• 1 • ES Lli I :. _111t. 5, ig-43 . UM Rui. 6 LT= 1 • 4 M Ai • II '''' • 1111111111IN II= ' . ! ARRA Li . . . a • • 0 1 1. p ir 1 • ....4 RN ME i dnaimm- . 106: dr • I - i 1 1 1 1 i I I nirim i 0 c g • ii. •,------ SIMI 1 1 1 11111 ' ELI Awimwftmasawraaoww--U1■--sx .M..ii.um• .I,R.-- - . . . - OaiIrN a =e- . _ - _ — -• i • 0 . .• r.7±..h .,_....•.•_• _ 10. . _amanuila .. . a .Nl ri _.-- , :Immmumaim 2 iii IiI S • 1 • t • IM IIIMII mN i iligatIn E w in MVO MIS siN im l I MEW -slimilm ua.s I z , ' ; , 7 ; wino. • : .,._• 1 grAppliff. 611:11. II ,- 1 gm ip:ltriiiI MIMS W•111111MIA••■111 La minalsussi,Thitiigaimigi-ramiam .._______,__ , ...,24._v_..... i ' ir..--vargirormijiiiiilairorw_ , . --t/1 -...... . ' . . • • . •.."......■ • - 1 ON KN a, p. -...'% 46- kesilMailtiti, ''.,„.S;V;i4lemilloS, ■ MU - ,--. 1......,, meamizarli Halve t•..1.•-• 7j.,. • 11111111111111111111 : . I , -_, • 1 • I IIMIll ,, HI • .. ; i _ t_ t 1 • Ram! i . . .. . . . . . t • ,:i4,41/47,hc",4,k4,6.fcig'Ato? • ' : ' 1. • I " . I I 1 : I i ' 1 . • I -1--,--- . 1 r I • 1 r 1 . • i I i , ......_1..±.....i........t....7....1 .1,1... ....... , 4 ....- i 1 I ; ; r 1- • I s"'s --I -1 ' -I ---;-"i"----- - - ; i 1-••• I 1- - -1- - •-• 1--4-----f-"-.1-1---: • I1 .-i- .- ,.,i,. ----1.-- ! -.I, ...... !...f . 4._.1...1.....7.1..,_.....,. • .I • ... 1, i -I • ;- • I • i -I" i 1 I ! 1 ; , : • ; ! i : ; 1 ; . I. ! -- I I , T i .1 r 1 4 L '1 . ,---r- r----- - • - •:-• • --• v.. -.- . :. —r— '''—" '''• I— "" — .44.4.•• I •••••••••••••••••••■■ • 1 • ; • I I : ; ..... i I . _i___i__ •_1....._•._,:___ va ... wo.......... 4..6... I 1 a....1 _4.. 4.• . • . i.• 01...L....T._ I , T • I • I t .--1.-- •• - • I • "- "•• I"" ' 1. --- ' --4---•---- -•- - ...... .1 1 . , .....]-.4_-L--...__, _ 1 i ....., , J ! I _ ..I, 6 6 6 • 6.1 • . „ . I 1, I i I I I 4:1 II *14t I. .1‘. 1. 1 . I I 1 I ,1 • / , L. „ . Ii 1 ., %,a,_.. _ :_. A . 4 ..1. .- I : I v- I 1 • • 1. • -1-,..... -, • ..... .......... •• .... ...... 1 •,-- 1 ••■• • TT 1- t- : - 1--- --- ..-... -..1. , ... i. . , ,:i.-. ---1-"7"1-•-•1--i-l•-, AT. , . I • 1 , , _____•...... : . . . , i , il , , .4 __, . . ,--, . , •••••••• • 1 • —4444 1 . . I i-•• ".••'; • 1 • I • ;• 4 .4t •41— - 4 '• ' I 1•44-4.44 I H. 11;4 • 1- i .0. • • • • 1.. 1.. ... . . -.1 — :__I. • 1 ; • 1 I ; t. • • • • 1 : •••- - : • - ••••!--1.-: • • : r • ... .1. • I ' ! ; r , ; L • • .1 , -r 1 • • 4.• ei 4, .4 --1 —r1:114.-441:1— "1. • -ri • -: • • • --t-- - 1 1 •._ 1 ; 1 . ! • i , ........1,. ...! . ., ., :. . , , ; . ..... ......,..i...!, . :......— --,.-- —1.—;—..-.—r--1-- i I J. r . • 1 . . • ' 1 . , : • 1 . • : ^-04-- 1^-•• • 1 . : I • • I. • 1 • •1 : : • . • — 1 • • • ' I i 4 1 I 1 ' • I '• l" :" "• " I" .: "1 • "7- --"1-" "---'" 1, - ""i - - -:- -1 '-' - 1 • I I . .. ., • . 2 ....:. ..... . i ... - ••• , — . • • • . • I — , • .- , - s•—• • .1. 1••••••1••••••• V.... ■•••••-■••••• ■■■•1-••■•-,••••••••••• ••• I • 1 1 1 • . : 1 aa... : • ■ .1. • ' • • . . . • 1 1 . . I I • 1 I 1 • ; ; . . . ' ! I 1 • i • 0. 1 ... " . . *. ".. • 1 • 1 r zooe o ZVA ooau L1 eo YVA VI:go 1VA 06/1i/Oo ZO 39Vd iSNOD AMVS EL-JEITPZ9OZ E900 6661/L1/60 ; • • •V• •• • 44;Y::■:)1.7:417••• • ?'.1:1 r *1144 ei..14,:41.thoe4.0.-4. '14:414.sita•-"ig0 •L. oozy mm Drawing# r r +.. ,.., tier 3iarr!.1•...v.t'•L•'r.',] s�.....�ditG)v,: �i'aS& m., nrc.^ �S .d•o-.. <a14`,.1v:�....:cir5, - ?a ,�arr..4.4�,s .... ?.4.:�. Vii; 11 : File: • ■I . -. ! • i' • • \ \ ' ARCHITECTURF GROUP COOLING TOWE 1"=60-0" 1 1 125 50 75 100 150 • 200 250 1 riTiT I'Ii 11i11r1111ill 1,,!1! iI�ILI,i INCH 1 CHINA +R Z SCR PROJECT DRAWING TITLE DRAWING Intergate.West SITE PLAN DATE 11 /6/99 SK- S1 3 Tukwila International Blvd. • SHOWING COOLING' TOWER SCALE is = 60' Tukwila, WA FILE sitel0A.dwg Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206 - 281 -8700 I i ('I I I :i i i r� r l .I i i 'i i i i i i f I 11.1I.1.111IIIliililillllT 5 6 SII.. ' ti� CI ..... LL KI° y -Of;"2 4{E�� �� �tfl ?�.�'�u ^, _9 L j b ��,•. C t �IIoC 111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111IIiiiIIIII iIIIl1i11. 111111111111' 1II iii111111iii .111111111111111.11,1111•I il.il iii11 111, 1. 1. iilllliiilill [111111111111iiil11111 .1..m•••=niftwimmummumrimaiirri■Em■ENNI■m•mommommomomon • • • • • • • • ■' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • ' • mi mom 1=1111=1111•111111■111111111MINIIMIIIIIMMIIIIIM IIIMINIIIMMINIMII■IMMINIIIMINIMMINIM1111 • ••■•■■••■•immoiimmiNIMMIIIIIMIIIIIM MINIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMMINI=1111■11MI■M111111=1•11111MINIMIIMIIIMMI-IMININI■1111111100111. IIIIIMIIIIMIIIMINIIIMINE=1111111•1111•1•11•111111•1111M1•1111111■mm IIMM--Mius - • cP PROJECT EAT ELEVATION 1/16' = 1'-0' NORTI-1 ELEVATION 1/16' = 1'-0' DRAWING TITLE I Intergate.West Tukwila International Blvd • Tuktuila, WA ELEVATIONS OF COOLING TOWER ENCLOSURE AT !BUILDING C Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 SABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP DRAWING DATE 11/8/9S SK- El SCALE 1/8' = l'-0' FILE FHO-el-C.dwg Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8700 CONCRETE RECEIVER STRUCTURE' SURROUNDED BY ROCKS ■■■■■■■■iM■■mmmmm■■■o■oo■■■...■.■■..r■■■■■ ■o■o■ mee■ o■■■■■■■■■■■ome■■■o■■om■■■■ o■ o ■■e■■■■ ■■■o■■o■■ ■■MMIIII■■■IIIM ■■e..■.,ur- ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■W■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■CO' ...dill ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■o■■o■m►m ■■■o■■ome■■oeme■■r- ,Ammo■ ■■■ e■■ oo■■■■■■ oo■ momo■ o■■■ ommmm0000■■ em■ 0000■ oo■■■■000e■m■et■■o■meo■o ■o■mmIRm ��io■o. m■ o■ o■■■■■■ 00000■■mm■■■■ e■ m■ mm■ oo■e■m ■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■m■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■■■mu mm■m■■■m■■r ,A■ ■o■■m■I "1\ ■■■■■OIN■■■■■■\ ■mm■■■■■m!" ice■■■■■ ■m■ 111 �.' r.»n�.. .' • .' • . `. • `. ". • `.' . • `LANDSCt�D.SLOE'S:— ■r - ROCKERY OPEN CONCRETE STAIR NOTE: STAIR 4 WALKWAY RAILNGS NOT SHORN FOR CLARITY mimmmummommommilmommmmommommommomminmemmilmimmmmummimmiummommimmum ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■000■o ■■mm■■■o■■o■■■■■m ■o ■■o■■ ■■■ em■■■■■ mm■■■ ■ ■ ■e ■mme ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■mm ■ ■mm ■m ■ ■ ■m■■ ■ammo ■ ■■ ■em■■ ■■■ ■■m■ ■■■■■■■■■ mmo■ 00000emm■■■■ oe■ ooe■ me■ ■■■m■oomm■■e■■■o■000■■o■o■ooe■■ 1■■■■■■ em■ m■■■■■ em■■■■■■■■■■ em■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■m■■■ ■m■■■■■■emm■■■■■■■ ■m■ mg em■o■■ mom■■■■■■■■ o■■■■■■■ Doom ■■ ■■■m■■■■■m■■■o■oem■■o■■■■m■o■ • OM =1111191r021111WE=1 1 ■rrt� r� rrJI UN ■rrti♦�rry .��.Br•� CONCRETE STAIR SURROUNDED BY ROCKS WATERCOURSE'LMED WITH LARGE STONES AND RIVER ROCK PROJECT DRAWING TITLE • S&BEY OORPOR�'ION ARCHITECTURE GROUP • Pacific VIeW Office Park Tukwila, WA EAST ELEVATION WATER FEATURE ' DATE 1ONl99 SCALE la' = 1' -0' FILE h2o- elv2.dwg DRAWING SK Cl �., •Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206 -281 -8700 9� 1►l. ;;EL Ll 4xzl�L9r4., E Z '�' A P IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIalllll1111 • IIIIIIl111IUlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLIIILIiI�1111�ILII�IIIjIII: IIIIIIiIiLliliII111111IIIIIIIiItI • • _ • • • • _ • • • ••••••••• • • _ • • • • • • s " ■■• 4■11. • • • • Immo& • • • emiimi— • • ■•=1:. • • AIF I U • _. ROCKERY h,_411111 III1111111111111111 ‘al IIIIIIIIII 411..• 4111/AM1111.1b .411110kIlimm.„,4_ M1\11\ OPEN WATERCOURSE • • MMIONI•11 sABEs ARCHITECTURE GROU ,1111111t - - BIG-SWALE - SCALE 1"=30'--0" o 10 20 •F;:. :;• ■ • • •■■ • • nmoilmo • • imam.. . • • • Hun' 40 60 80 100 .. • 4, 111 HI 1 'S4,0 00/ c 111111CI C 51-0 --SUJ-ALE ›- t • PROJECT • • 0111•11MMI • • 1•11=•••• . . • • ••■••■ • • DRAWING TITLE • PacIfic View Office Park TukuIla, SITE PLAN SI4OWNG WATER FEATURE DATE SCALE FILE DRAWING !miss SK— C11 I' 30' site 1 0a.dwg 'Sabey Corporation Architecture Group 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8700 • • _ File: • • 35mm Drawing# 1 `- 210 \*.‘,,,, -$6, \k.t.T\ , .4 ,.. „1/4,,,k,,,s, ........VN \. ss, +...,.. is ' . %,,,...-NNN A, \VA, z,--z4tsk 4011,..4," ik\-1/4N yr . \ ,S%Xek ‘1;444.%, V$N)V-1, `i' .O. �Z e `i ` ►'` '' ' ti.' '.0 +�0�`' s� ate. s�s>�j� \� �w; �;4 10 e a S'y •e•s• 4i N 14 r /-'' -- vo / -.-•• . -• - / - r,' /r i _ „.� 1 O / °%' / r f r .r r'' . Dior• rr "• • •-'- •,". -•'' -....- I/ �- ,.. ---- _/- '-gyp ,,,/ r j• / •i'- r„' '..✓ Bp -:::----.......3 r"'� -•110" ,....j`...,>,..... '! y r1p��~ r" s 9.1or„� -- . - --</,,-- /•--- -, - . -,•,' r-' - r % /'_ "r.'✓'- �`i'� '' fir— `- si0 -_ - • i % �'"-- ;...rte. -• �" : r/ "2-- '--�_ -''''' •.,,• 7,,,,./, / ,� �1`'� r�• i--• _ .•-''� ------ ice- „,--,--. - '/• -�,�/ / ...'_' _ _,,,_„ice ".^.',r :. r',-' - r,; "- "�+a♦.� \�O�Rw. / ~. --' ,/ �_r ▪ .• !-per 1a, • err 30 40 • SCALE: 1■60' 120 TOTAL :�1TE AREA = 559,389 SF TOTAL EXISTING CANOPY, 105,120 SF 23,694 40,886 7,279' 24,251 1021 TOTAL = 208,231 SF EXISTING CANOPY-COVERAGE = 37X - f "- / j '.r i r —� .". -•_fir / "�••"- ��. \ \ ,„/,/).//7/1:-/- • � � 7—/____,_17-_-:):__ 150w "`�7:1' ) ) ) ) • 91� J' y s --. >- •''' /', ' --- • `, r r/✓ ✓ J, ;a / �: -`' ■:\ • ::....i!r- ____ +i • ...• .„ ...._ __ __ ..., ___ ,„---____ __-- ---___- _.,..„....„:„.5„...:__-. ____-- _ -- -- --- --->; "-T._ -------_-----,:------------ .......;,,,-.....„----_,.....„--- ,,,,,-.--„„..•,,"°------,1----- ---------.'---'-'''..,*-n---411...;1\11/4;---it.-\.,,.....,-N,43 g--- ________ , , _...,<,,,,, ____; .............._ ...„ ,......,...._,.. ,... /„•.. �,•. --' .., --"• 190/ %r' .---' !'-- ..-.- �,' .-- -- ;.:-^' �. ��'w� ��y ,w� e: � y.�+►�i :� /�,, -'- / ..., -•-' /' ./ r,r .. - "'�- 180 r• -� -r i .."2.''''''':<'''''':'.:113....5 "- ♦•� ''''�+d�� ��� � +� �. ..� �v �,y +♦ . � ww� � t.----- • r � '*i��'�w+'\ .�5'a s +see '•� . • J�eos + %•O °�� ���♦ :,+n�`<0"OID. .: ... 4 ' :. -.�/ i �' _,. 10.e i .� %. w 8dsi�J�. O %�� :.!' ?:�� .♦ .'. ! - y°w+J+ . -+ p11.ti ♦iE+�.i'j� i -' f -.- -.._"- d.+i �� +<'� +�'•1 e+e`a1 .w' +a,a� : �w. J, %':1a�. �„+.y „,,.`....y`y'�i L<' -".---.......<2-"-- "J '♦<•��• ..w•. ��. +�`R'�L :: .1,:. , ', y'Lb''a�.„• -' c +i o ♦� °o e ' e'♦�6' i'i� 'Dw).".."c'* _ -s w +. a e,r�. ♦ �'o�w0 ,'�a��.- +35 '���i+ �e ieo +ei +s'�'. ♦ti . + »° 'a..•y,��*,,1,•:' �w� oi. ���+ <•+ r.� �we'�w�'� A ♦: °sa +•�sJJS ++ •+ �sa's�.ss � °•'° p .....�� �•y� `'J� ♦ o''•, a %� ! +: a +oi +i s :' �e'J'J+ �.• O J++a ♦a�1�eZ,ia� •, �e °o a,° :o.' °• s °s + +J + +J�'a: Ps +isi �� , e :'e�1+� V ���. -i. i 'i`•J'y+w� .J , s'� +e,''. + •'. ?+'%•+ee. o'. i °> e•. A.:OiLO�` y, . ♦' y♦.�°..e`�•�♦a�4.e ='' 1 , .. •, ;sis ♦ s! s o °• :• +e:::'::•. f ' f \ 'l1 r EXISTING CANOPY TO REMAIN: 105,120 SF 24,251 TOTAL = 129,371 SF REMAINING CANOPY COVERAGE = 23X REQUIRED CANOPY COVERAGE PER 18.54.140 = 20X r� 160 •- 1 -fir / ./ �- to A N A 8 N V Cl_ LAJ try fj IGEND i:•.: EX INDEX ELEVATION CONTOUR W/, { ELEVATION DENOTED .: — EX INTERMEDIATE: ELEVATION CONTOUR • tM •.EX SLOPES AT 2 20X SLOPE ,/ EX RWEE LMIE, 3`. i0 10' ALDER I APPROXIMATELY 1:TREE PER 160 SQ FT. ., .AREA NHERE EX TREES, TO BE REMOVED. Ex unuTY POLE, TYP I�11PPT1Trl'NIIIPPI111P�1 PiiiiIIIIIr1111hT� !I'.('I'�'1?��iTtlIrI'i11 �1:1�11IT!111119-1 'CONCH 1 r !` '. F I' 'x' s'1'''' l '.6 9l P1 6l et wr..6lsi :i6 ,+.-.$...•..L...i....P ..s•i 'i e i )",r p IuuliiidimlimlimliiiduulmilliuluuIIII1. uliiuhmlmlhiulmiliiubIiiU11 1.66iihulm1duuiIuIhmIiMIII uI DRAtW! 8Y BEM. CHECKED BY RB JOB ND. 980200 DATE . 04/17/98 SHEET C2. of 5_ SABEN CORPORM1ON ARCHITECTURE GROU • CONSULTANTS REVISIONS ISSUE DATE M drawing, and whim mOefOi appearing herein conegfu the original and unpubfollid wad, of the Sober Corporalk and the sow may not be duplicated, used or dulcet without the written concent of Alia Sabey Corporallo INTERNA TIONAL OA ?EWA 1' ruluald Interrtationel Blvd hicw118, WA • • DRANK ITILE: BITE RAILING PL4 PROGRESS DATE: WIT2/99 ntE IrrterglallsIteYsItelOAdus ' PROJECT NUMBER: e9-10-2I DRAWN NUL • CHEMED BY: JI. APPROVED BY: • . DRAM) NUMBER:. IITTITTITT111 I I 0.11111,1-11::,,,,,,l ,Le .: 7 1111Trlfl.ii.,.2.P,i:(11_::.:.C1111,1,f:1:45,11,:ri 0.'".; X4 •• ;.1 5. P1 a, • : • • " • PLOT DTE/ 4 5r6g:E 66//o po1od IMP'VOTalr9\811S\al8Jaiun:s PLANT KEY er-1t 1 51 F1,1/77G osti .CliveGt:gein7 AsT ■woring herein constitute the Sabey.Corporobon —sd, used or disclosed Sabey Corporation: \ 'SW South aok , Mir//6 1/7.2 fiGe//, ci-o64217/c, pw, /x, ai/. me), r7 11/7G , pafei4s wivmarn riegi2t 7/44 pf-h977y74 , 4X, at7,47;ife, ,ora",C.45,1-4; 1/1/WW" fr-„Wyce.:. vet:trial i4//7Gte • C/ • W CORPORA] ET IE.' CONSULTANTS 11164t1N—SwittEE-TADIELSIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 220 Main Rivet • Edmonds, Washington 98020 —7425) 77.1-4809 • (425) 7/1:>7271M-- • • , / Netkrrisi / art/te p0(71- ra7.ff 1/7 Aetp, are,. REVISIONS ISSUE DATE M drawings ond written matedal appearing herein'constilute the original and unpublished walk of the Sabey Corporation and the same may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written content of the Soboy Corporation. CNCEPTLIAL. '=.9CAPE PLAN • =:; . , ;0 a 1 ti toli --=.)„..-1,1160- ;:,' ..../ !:s, r,.....,,f, . .:10,::-.. .....- , -;,:-.. --. ...-- .....--. -- . • :r ,p --:4--'01"`-''' ''' - ....„.....___--- re ___ "F.:.:,_ -?,7 ---- -- --- 11 __- ......-- - ,....-- __...-- -- - o_.,:fklAliivo.'-. --- ....--- ,,,- ___.. • ' -.011_iYitizio ---- ---- • -- ,-- . ------ --- _----- ----.- --- ..----- -- ,--- • --- --- ----- -- _--- --- --- ----- -- Rni4/7"g74-4,77 PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PAR< 7aetricrlitrouth DRAWING TITLE: CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN A taiR6vEID D A■sa.i&I TE INIT \10-04 ••• • • • PECEIVEO CRY OF TUKYAIA JUN,- 8 1998 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE.• 1" • E?5,1 ;.; PLOT: PROJECT NUMBER: 98-10-04 DRAWN BY: L.Dt1 /.KL CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: cERMALM DRAWING NUMBER: • •!•:' 1"=60'-0" 0 . 25 50 . .75 ;.;.100% ;.•;;;'4,1 ' t. ,, • :,4•3` .; 150 • 200 • •. •. 250 — • . ,• .";•;•>,?.. ••••;, 4 •••••• , . 0AsEik.g.,A71- ^,;•• 3 • .1 , . •:,[ !,;•:;-:". •, • . 1 111 ITT 1T. iliTTii][1411.1 11.11-1171[1 111111f .•1 • et Irk el el . •t. C Bb: . . . . „.... . . EL 140' EL 120' EL 100' Mrdialrilk.'612■11■1911509W■9151111151M1211511.911■1121 ■■■■■■■■■WAIIM■WialMOPWV.IMW■IIMI 40111611014011 1 • •Mi 1 1 EN. SITE SECTION .@ BLDG A WALE. 1/16' 0 4' 19 ik NrAIMILIMM EMIEVAIWA, AY4 1 IY A■ AlOWALVAY■ ■116.. WEE UM Ell ■ ■411■ Alr4 11 II Agegatigniiit 46teasistatiostottmi 52' SITE SECTION @ BLDG B WALL 1/16' • l'-0` 0 4' 16' 52' PRINT DATE: PLOT DATE: 00/04/011 0522 z 0 1 war... Allowsw---400.1. .32 IN MI VAN' 4111. Al 'WA hIl. PAM 'AM I Ord I I I k .AVA 1 11111 X0WW AMIAMWMMMOIONMM IBS VAIVAIMMInagrA111151 NITAN MEM _• am 11 MI W. illtIRS13:111WitiOtNNONOPI06140vA0 IVA B.A.R. ,., . APPROVED DATE WZOSINITIALSIUA orrfriereiMvitA JUN 8 198t1 • SITE SECTION @ BLDG C %ALE. WV • I'-O 1 0 4' 16' 52' - • 101 °VAL . • 5 ; 6 91 tt E Z h1061011A01161111611(601111661116110115115A0060561111115055h511551150010:i 8 11 SHEET A5.0- AAICROSQUJISH 4TH FLR. 2RD FLR 15T FLR. EN = ■EM■ AWRIC- 4.4,5.4,-7/4,74 � •° •�'.�p,�. ��.y/ EAST ELEVATION BUILDING C lB SIMILAR) SCALE: IA•6 • 1' -0" 0 4' ' 16' 52' 4 4114 FLR • 454 FLR. 2-6" SRD FLR 2'-6• 2RD FLR. 2-6" ■t■ ■t■ 111 111 111 ■EM 111 111 111 EMU 111.I. 1 1 1 NNE MIME 15T FLR I Q I 4P "1 ■ 1- • •. 1 AL 4 m 5RD PLR 2'-be in 2 -. N.N. 15T FLR 2'-6• 11111111 CONCRETE • 1° WEST ELEVATION . BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) SGALEI 16' • 1' -0' 0 4' 16' 52' \ CONCRETE ®• ., —1110 (CONCRETE (3E0 NM -4A mss. MLLLION ( 07 ) CONCRETE H.M. DOOR • PRAM!® L 2',6• 4 4TH PLR 2-6• Q •: "ND rue 2-0. 2RD PLR' c:, 2.6• IST FLR 2-0" . ii -1 NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) SCALE. 1/16" • I' -0' 0 4' 16' 52' SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR). SSG —IALE; %IA6'' • r -Er . O 4' s16' 92' 2, .0• I'.4• P20 4 FETAL SCREEN M) METAL COPING ( 06 ) CONCRETE ( 02 ) 6LA55 ( 05 ) CONCRETE ( 05 ) CONCRETE ( 04 ) FA/U.ION (OT ) DOWNSPOUT CONCRETE (d ) • NOTE. ALL PAINT GGLOR6fRE MADE 51' SFOtl'MNi'eWAM6• B.A.R. APPROVED DATE 381NITIALS6,141 cn Enivawlu JUN -81998 PEFMITT•CENTEH' NO.. • • MATERIAL '• FMI8H COLOR 'OI GONGtETE' SMOOTH . el 2714 AWNIN6RED' .. 02 GONGtlTE SMOOTH SW 2249 Pr1.N1'S' ' 05 • CONCRETE . SMUOTN '„W 2064 'OURROATIKS' 04 • CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2066 'NANTUCKET W!' 05 &LA56 PP6 SWAM 900 . SOLAR OMEN • METALSCREC1 PAINTED SW 2064'LI1fERDANICS' 01 • MILLION .. ANODIZE DARK MOM . 00 METAL SIDING •. . PANTED SW 2245 MAIDS IDS III( �f�7�T' jtJijlll�r�l�llllijilililil��11111 [111P iPP111iP1i111YliPlijIPICIillITP1111111 1 O INC" • 1 1 r' a t '?�`i^� . ;T S CHINA t'• g 91 YI El Li ��..:- e.;,.e�.'t:,..:.Pwn�i..�•P C L 1`8b'0 . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111184611111III11I111101111111111111111I11 PRINT DATE: PLOT DATE: 06/04/88 0888 0] z 0 0) 3 CM Y= =• CIS O a°' t N •v 03 1 • a � • a 0► A O x a4 SHEET A•4.1 111 JI 1 1 •1 I 1 1 1 1 1 TT TENANT St0NA6 e METAL SCREEN ( 06 ) EAST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE. 1/16. • l'-0'' 0 4 16' 92. . 1;1 :r &LASS (--) CONCRETE CONCRETE ( 04) MULLION ( at ) CONCRETE CM) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,■■••■■• 1 1 1 . NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING A WALE. vie • r.o. 0 4' 16' 52' METAL SCREEN c CONCRETE (22E) KILN* Car) 6LASS Cd1E) CONCAME GOP4GRETE (MD CONCRETE (aID WEST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE. 1/16• • r-0• 0 4' 16' 52' 1 ) SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING A • SCALE; - 1/16* • 1'.0• • • 11 1 . 1 0 . 4' 16 52' METAL SCREEN GM, CONCRETE ( 02') &LASS ( 05) MULLION CONCRETE Lep ( ) toTI. ALL PAThe COLORS A.4Z tti■ve isr SFI:P411441LLIA)46. B.A.R. „ APPROVED RATE. .40.411..-.41NITIAL91.w1 JUN 7'0998 Pf2i1AIT CENTER ..-,NO. . ' ...,MATERIAL ' ' , FRAM COLOR . • VI 254 'AKINS CONCRETE eoTH 6/1 2245 '11ETW473' . ' 09 . =WAVE ' • Si 2064 SOITEMANKS' 04 ' MOW! . , .. oTH i1 2066 'NANTUCKET Pike .. 06 GLASS PPS &KATE 500 SOLAR 6RES4 . 06 ?TL SCREEN 1 1 1 I I I I SW 2064 'OUTEPISANKS' MALIGN , A.14001719 DIM OltONIE , 06 -E----- PM11 • 611 2245 'KIWI'S' . • . 1111 1,4 I 1 1 JI 1 1 •1 I 1 1 1 1 1 TT TENANT St0NA6 e METAL SCREEN ( 06 ) EAST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE. 1/16. • l'-0'' 0 4 16' 92. . 1;1 :r &LASS (--) CONCRETE CONCRETE ( 04) MULLION ( at ) CONCRETE CM) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,■■••■■• 1 1 1 . NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING A WALE. vie • r.o. 0 4' 16' 52' METAL SCREEN c CONCRETE (22E) KILN* Car) 6LASS Cd1E) CONCAME GOP4GRETE (MD CONCRETE (aID WEST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE. 1/16• • r-0• 0 4' 16' 52' 1 ) SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING A • SCALE; - 1/16* • 1'.0• • • 11 1 . 1 0 . 4' 16 52' METAL SCREEN GM, CONCRETE ( 02') &LASS ( 05) MULLION CONCRETE Lep ( ) toTI. ALL PAThe COLORS A.4Z tti■ve isr SFI:P411441LLIA)46. B.A.R. „ APPROVED RATE. .40.411..-.41NITIAL91.w1 JUN 7'0998 Pf2i1AIT CENTER ..-,NO. . ' ...,MATERIAL ' ' , FRAM COLOR . • VI 254 'AKINS CONCRETE eoTH 6/1 2245 '11ETW473' . ' 09 . =WAVE ' • Si 2064 SOITEMANKS' 04 ' MOW! . , .. oTH i1 2066 'NANTUCKET Pike .. 06 GLASS PPS &KATE 500 SOLAR 6RES4 . 06 ?TL SCREEN PAINTW SW 2064 'OUTEPISANKS' MALIGN , A.14001719 DIM OltONIE , 06 METAL SONS PM11 • 611 2245 'KIWI'S' . • . • CIVIL 1 • • 5 • a w.,;•44:',-,-; ;a; • „ • • st tt et at . _ p C 4 4- /55'4 • • . 1111111111111111111.111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII•111111111111111111.1111111.111111115115Ili1111551511.110114101551054151551115155111111 PRINT DATE: PLOT DATE: 00/04/08 0547 z 0 En” 411g SHEET A4.0 • • + 138 • 323- +. 102 + 100 ' r ..., r r r .../ r ../ ..., r r • r r ..... r r r r . r • ...--''' r r r ./..... r ../ r....-.• • ..... r r........ ... ..... .....• ..., r- ../ r r r r r .......... r r r r r r ../ r r ......' ...-- ' ../ r ,... ---- - ...... r ...., r ../ r r" r.....--- , -"" r ...., .../ r r • rr ..... :r r ../ ......- r r r r r . • :— . . . r . ...../ r ' ...7. ..-..- r ..., .. • r r r r ..---- r r r r r r r ......." r .......... , , r r r r r + so G14,31126°,..- . , , ..... .... , , ....... . . . I , . , .... ....... , . ., , . , . ..... ......' , ..... ./.. S, ..... , ' ..... .....' . , • es' r • r r r ..-- r ..-- ../ .--- • r r r r • r ---- r ..../ ...._ ..---' r ..... r r — --- r r ...-- - ..---' - - - - - - ..-., - - - - - - -- - - - I' - - - - - - - -- -- - -....--"--. - - - - - ..... - ..--..-- ...... .......... - - - • • .„• • • • • '• • •.•• . N1•d..111LEMS. 55.1.465 51. aapu•s A 5 SToRy, MU= USE LEVEL OPPICE oft P-2 • 2.1:173 Sr LEvta. 2. 0,99e or PO • 54,65 sr LEVEL El orricE ME • 50:165 •OTAL • 415,21S Sr Auras - 4 SToRY GITICL 2 RAMON., LEVELS (OW 0%411tArE) PARY-345 LEVEL P-2. 1425 SF PARKINS LEVEL P-h 14215 SP OFFICE LEVEL 1 I5A21 MICE LEVEL 2. 116111 Sr OPFICi LEAL 51 MIS SF 0/9900 LEM 4+ 1101 Sr TOTAL • limo SP 16.12011L4 4 STORY MICE 2 PARKINS LEVBA (ONE ORARALE) • PAMIRS LEVEL P-2. 1425 Sr MIMS LEVEL P-I. 14.11551' OFFICE LEVEL 11421 SP OPPICe LEVEL 2. 1/0111 SP . O•r= LEVIS. s, 11,6111 SP • MICE LEVEL 4$1/Pill • -. . , OVERALL PARKIN, RATIO. 5.15 STALLS RR 1000 SP .. RAMS* RATIO - MICE ONLY,010T ...... -- -- ..- --- ...- -._ .....- ...- -- 'MMUS RR WOO Sr ' - -- - _. ...... -- ..... _.-- - .....- - -- ..- „.....- - - - ---' -- - - -- ....... -- - - - - ...- - ■- - -- -- ..-- -- - - - -- - _ _- - - - .-- MVO C*4-- 108 _- - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - __, --- --- - *-- - SITE PLAN. NO Sall ,APrRuVED • DATE 402014,-INITIALS&ICI orrilgEgva .. JUN - 1998 • ' • • POW CENTER 1111PIT1'1111111 ' 11111111 irliiii411'iimi1 l ' 1 1 i 1 mipTi1 1 i1 1 i1 tpirfr1 1 iiiii1 1 1 1 i[l OA 1 7J-27•727.7r",'-'..'-3 •:.;":1"*.r7rf...•,.:i'i 5 . ; 5 2111111111511111111111C1111111111glifilli111111.111Aillilll'Iril;16111'1'‘Ill'ill11111:11.1-111111111'-;.11111111-1j-diloilloodipoludiffiliiiihoolini , ■• „,. PRINT DATE: PLOT DATE: 00/04/55 1945 0 % 0 11 z. SHEET A2.0 Attadvment E ■ rai/W0i/er : k S414 • 1 Jo/ oe? v-v■, • / vy / / / 7„ / 160 -7-7 // N / j - =7,#1-1±die,ftirtAalf -4/45_ - - — — < < < /4 morp,, 7, mimmom L9a 1.14, F /1- e/! minimum L..70141 A//011 /77//71MW/77 ...•111111111111111111IN•151• -...ingommounimiglErri,.•— eammummemonowilm,,:r. AiMicamkuumPaimmu.5.„,z1-.. erniaglA3111117.51Mr" P.M1/`="..--- Numi 11111 11 - C ARCHITECTURE N3533 I CONSULTANTS REGISTERED I • ARCHITECT JOHN W. LANG SIAM OF WASIIINOTON REVISIONS ISSUE DATEY- • Al timings and written motorbi tippoortni heroin constitide the MOW end capitalist! wont el the Sob, and the sane mg not be dedicated; used or= without the written consent of the Sony Capon:Man. • • • EXODUS rirrftIMISEL 6 B.A.R. PROGRESS mm DATuAPPROVED _ FRE INITIALSaal • i ". PROJECT NUMBER: MAIN STREET DESIGN , LANDSCAPE fARCI4ITECTURE 110 Third Ave (425) 771-4809 : 1Sclmonds, :WA .98020 (426) 771-5728 Fax • °y, 5 .;?;;-.: • 9l V 4 , 4 ... C a NB;a 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111161111i11111111111111111111111111i1.1111111111i16111.1111111111101111111111111111111111111 kttachment B • ■ r � / n ' c `� - ^ / • / / ..... ...................................... • • -�~- � �--_�~-~--� -�—_ - -�---- _- �- - --- - -- ....... // / ' / / / / / /, ..//://// ~ '/ / t - ----- - ----- -- ----- — ~ -- // • / / 2 / • ' / / / | ' / \ /. / / — ' \ / //// • ' / | /' ,' ^, \ \ ~` * ' '�./ '''''' ' ^ ~'.� J \ /'/ ' / // ~- ' /~�^~ -^~ .� -'' .''.///////, ///_ -- ^'- ''/�/,,.'///'-__-� '' ^� //!///' / -' ' ~ , ' `/ � ' 'r'//// ' _ / ' '// ' . / / / ' ' '/ / / ' / ', � /// /'/.//// |/�/- /' . /' / �0 / \- _~==_ / •_ _ ~ - ' _ __ � � _ _ ~�� � ' —~- / / / / / PARTIAL SITE PLAN ETAL 6 WAR. '.AV A BEY A HUl E CT--U R E CONSULTANTS . REVISIONS by Orceiro old .6.1 malefic' nrocraira hatch, cols.,. o9 cal cod ma* of lbe•Soliey Corcbtalier - ..` •EXODUS 01121110=111112=CISIg intergalaut ' — DRAWING MU: Site Plan SHEET METAL CAP eurrix mg Lamm POMO* UAW pvp /// / // vvoxmxxxmmoo Hill, ~ itiuc SOUTH ELEVATION Oh COILING DOOR ID61•66T AIR Leuven ' n—� —� —.' [ON� WmALv*^1.4.` ����� .�~-.-. ~.L~�.-`.~.` R�.C~ � CYPKE41 BY, � FILE —_' — 1111nr..151'4. mw_itice 1.641 ON BUILDING GLAD ON MADE rk elev. ^MT-0'y DRAWING NUMBER: ��.| �� ,��« �� ' ' : 'M ' . r-- 1-_____________ 1 . . ENSric4 eiopr-G aro/ vra-vori - wo r-v--40#7 a israralor.' Nhore . re,IsWe ail af-eas 614//7rif ,0•2S777./G7'707 \ / #111011' - \ . , )( -- --,- ,..------ J.,__., \ .- \ '7 ..- \ \ --•• .--; 110.1. A r■-ia- A . „.„.< 1,12,1 (3 • ..------ ..------- ...-- ---/ ..-----" ...----- .../ - ..----- ...---.- .----' • ../ .../ ..----- ,,,..--- ..,. ..-----" -----'' ..-- ..../ ....---- -------"-.. - ...----" ..--.'" . • _.--- .....--- !"... ...-/ ..../ ..----" .../..... • • .----- ...- ..--•-• ..---' ---- ..------ • P DRAWN BY: ISSUE DATE: (f) z 0 1) cL LJ_J ) Lj UJ L <z:C • BUILDING TYPE: v4.13.0&4441—tTo 11111r .............. . ........... ........ ........ .....---.. ----- ............. ....... ....P....77 .......... ........... .......... .......... ............... ........ ....... ....... .......... ......... --.----- • • MAIN STREET DESIGN . LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 220 Main Strad (426) 771-4609 Dimond., IVA 98020 • (426) 771-6728- Fax LANDSCAPE_ PLAN; „ SCALE 1• = 30' Fror-G. A 14.1 (-)< om 1 5 6 91 P1 et et E E Ab'o 1111111111111111111thlikillfillifililllilffilliliffiliiiIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIi1611111i11111111111110.1111110111111111101111111111111111111111111 _ IJ.o MITIGATION CONCEPT AND GOAT.` 1.1 MITIGATION CONCEPP'- The proposed die moral consists of construction of an office park with associated parking and - stormwYer facilities. The project proposes to re•route and rapipe secliow of the Type 3 stream to both allow a reasonable bnellopmsM as well at improve on the character and fr il= rank natural flow of ;tide watercourse. As previouily danribed, the disturbed ditch character of the watercourse and the idudrid use of tie site have resulted in a probable source of contaminants entering Ike riparian system u well as an incwase In wave Imperatore for flows passing through the site. The mitigation for in ,proposed aloud= of the struts will focus on restoring and =Mantles the thermal proration of the 'sw=am flows as well a imprwiy walla quality for the receiving dowauaw wMrbody (R verlt Creek). The proposed project will sun where lie tram eaten the flat upper archon of the site (Sec Nelsoa- IBourdage's We pan edited "Existing WMwoura "). At lids point the Pleb u wall as the W calvetld action udsr the cacnta.pd will be placed ban opus concrete lined animist for 'approximately 300'. The wM.twi I lien Mu a culvert and flow to Ile eau where It will discharge into a cawdiy series of rock lied pals I M will allow sedinents to drop ant Mira-water Mums. At an bottom of the molds action M will eater another culven end now to the awl* approximately 500' before discharging into a created vegetated poet The pod has bus dud bead upon cakuladoas by the ro P dal Winner (Nelson -Burden) 11 naive all of the natural arusnm flow p to the 6 math storm event. All Bows over the 6 monk evert will be bypaued b the 'animater system. This pod win have normal pool area of 2,723Maad coy exposed up to 3,610a la size during the 100 year Moen. The pool will has a maxima depth a1.ylt apd will be co=loured with a 10' wide bench. 1' dap and with 3:1 side slop* to allow se appropriate growing depth for hydrophytk vegetation. This au will be pleated with • mix of antis amiss ad.ber1 develop as a saub•shrM✓aquMk lad wetland area. The anew will allow Polhsz wiling of =dual ssdiiseMtYrom the whir column u wall u provide thermal cover fed the flowing water. The added benolt of this area is that it will result in a habitat futon that will likely be used by various epodes of wildlife Pethidine loved species of anhpldblaos. This will also act u a Mabee ' ad source of bvsrlbiaw to the wewouune that will undoubtedly migrate downturns lo fish bearing when. Water from this pad w will discharge Into unties culverts Ian area water dowwream to 'the eat to Riweios Creek. All surface water rat toftfrom the she will go through a series of water quality facilities including a bioewals before beim discharged duo the sans culvert as the vegetated pod. The mitigation should improve water quality in this stream u well a reduce surface water temperance • to the dowatnun receiving body. Riverton Creek. 1.2.1 MITIGATION GOALS • 1.2.1 Creme riparian wsdad/pod b d improve water quality a wildlife habitat. 1.2.2 Brame no function of Ai Nrearn through native press.. .. • 1.2.3 Remove invasive and exotic plane from the mitigaia and rplue with nation species. LO CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE/ • ;The cc iUii doa sequro of this project will bo implvmrntd u follows: • 2.1 Pm'coMmcton gusting 2.2 Coestmcdo. Making racing Construction ag end erosion control 2.4 Charing sad grading ,2.5 Kannada of milligram a es 2.6 Plant mania inealldon 2.7 ComMmction •pectin= 2.1 Array approval ,2.9 �oN hue removal � reporting. '2.11 Pmgjeet ompletioe 2.1 Pu•o.YVelioo Montag A ps•oaundio m.stiag will be bold oo-site prior to commencement of construction, to include the biologist, the co.Uoctor, the Owr arid Ibs City of Tukwila. The approved plan and spscificatiaa will ' be reviewed to imam That all parties involved trammed the inset of the coulnctioa docuaala, specification, alts esvira*onal comrade, de, ad agoras. '2.2 Conanatiesgfskim . QTY limits of Wang end Indies will M marked is the field by a Heated profeuioael lad surveyor priorb nom- ---- -t of oWrvMiol activities. '2.3 Cembectl a Prate■ L ilreies Cava • All orgies awol.srra eyaoea b the .itigalio um. ialdiag WM dank■ eat omga Ioutrudios Wars will be Walled. Lirmioe wad fasciae will reds armed the eniptio arm .tatll clewing, grata end hydroosdu/ are complete. .. • 1.4 Clearing & Guam Clrag aid' pedry Per aMazaeLOadiag PW by NeUon- Rordya. 2.5 fitahpiatir of MMigdr Ara _ A1I graded wale will he 'Wand with Veterans of mulched pr 3:4.2 upon capWion of gredby. Ounp oonan tin Wass W Morla rand fame will be motored rd plod around the intrados l.6 Plans MygW WuVlti- AU pan m Iaial will be pistoled by hed.p.r dun and Construction and Planting Noes. The MitigaIa Pia specifies the impaled ads, ipecia, gustily, sad locatio of pan mtoials to be iaisells. Tim Dorton* will reseed or wawa all hyd.ostlsd mess disturbed Boris the away prase• Ups completion of the *Wag, W roam cowed fencing will be roared end rpeiree. 3.7 Cenarythist Imspsdes Upon,00ryWios digesting, U WJWio or .aai Is vary ijgsificady frost the Mitigation Pas, Abe c tie:Mr will submit a repodaible "mbsMR' *swim to the Oscar. Upm oo.pkiies M iatalWim, is Gww will conduct es inpectiom to coifine proper implemrWim of the MOON" Mem. Amymratioa,aWWWorram* ipbe idatified is epoch lit ". 2.1 Ap•ey Appnsal PoUowieg eompumse of on iaslWin, a law will be prepared to tea City of Tukwila requWMag approval of the h I I1 tlos. 2.11 Mdlriag Impair sad RaPrthiP The aiwiy pops. will bogie In *scat growieglaio (ppoolmYely oae yam) followiag � Prows mr ioriag Iaprcions wan he godected ti academe with the swami 2.11 Skims Ils avd. GrnWas Deamol foram djawl to fat mitigation um will mein in place until ell arm slimesot to the mitigetW we hue been stabilised. • 2.11 PmbaGmpIMW • . If, after the feel yr of mrilomiy, the project hat satisfied the objectives sad goals of the approved Mitigtir Pies, a Wee wiU be p epanflo We City of Tukwila sgnsbliy feel epprovel * clown of the miiipaom pia. - j.1 CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING NOTO 3.1.1 SITE PREPARATION , 3.1.1 The Luaus* a Coalnctor will approve muting codhiou of'ubgrad. prior lo ninnies of any utilization bataliatios won. The landscape Coo*ractor will inform the Owner of any diarepecies haws the pposd,coiM000m Waimea ad misting andirons. 3.1.2 The Owwal Caeueclom will Bag the limits of clearing with omega castrrdm fraud rh will observe Ahem limits during oaaOwTair. No and fa=irs& uptake will be diairbd beyoed' W ddpeW limits of cheriag`. • 3,1.3 The Conran will road grub all wetly species including uncle broom, reed c=ry gnus, blackberry varieties, ranks medlar lay War wad ddpetd to be removed by the mWgMio plan. GrubMag of wads, Iad.Yig romatook, will be completed without the mehr ebonite'''. Wed debris wan be dipsd off ate. ... • 3,2.1 PLANT MATERIALS. -. -. • 3.2.1,AU pleat materials will be u specified in the pleat schedule, Oily vigorous plants free of defects, disaau ad Iaf.YYloa w .ccsplab a for radiation. 3.2.2 All plant menials will conform b die standards sod idol requirements of ANSI 260.1 'American Standard for Napery Stock". All plan materials will be Wive to the northwea, and preferably the Puget Saud fbgims, PIan-rWiala will be propagated from native dock; no minivan or horticultural varieties will be allowed. All plan sea vials will be grown from nursery stock udeu dherwiu approved. .. 3.2.3 All nursery grown plant materials will be in containers or balled and burlapped. Bare root pleating will be abject to approval. 3.2.6 All plan materials stud oralts longer than two (3) weeks will be organized in rows and . oWiad by the eosIracfor also additional cast to the owner. Plea stamiakiemporarily stored will be raised Io upertne W approval prior to installation. 3,2,5 Substitution requests mum be wabaittd in writing to the Owner ad approved in writing prior to delivery to ed.. . . •• . 3.2.6 AU plan materials will be dug pecked, transpond and handled with care to ensure protection from injury. All plan sawialaJµ.M gored on site more than 24 hours will be heeled into topsoil or awdoM. Tncauiarry morass call M taken to ensure plant ra niale de ad dry out before pining. Waled plane will be shaded W ■.road oral time of Wallaby. (a■diately..Uar ieraUMiogJbe riug4da plaids are wit be Wasted b avoid capillary arms. .3.27 7V rnatactor will verify all plea mMaiale, qurikllss ubmoe a lila platy proo, ad Igo pant' • scbedule. The gustily of pled rWids Mown on the plan takm pncdr.over the quantity o the pan unit. 3.3.1 PLANT MATPRIAL INSTALLATION 3.3.1 AU plea aeWisli man be iapecld prior to inasalnim to verify caformana of the materials whit Its plea schedule ieebdieg sine. quaky tad moodily. Any pin ■al.We decd uWadumry wan he rejected. 3.3.2 All plan material, delivered .d accepted should bo pinnid immdi. ty. Plan aWrials not planted Wilda 24 horn will be beaedis per note 3,2.6. PIMA mamriels mad under tee porsry conditions will Sides ale re*odWRy of Me comment. Plana will be prorated et all times lo proven on root ball from dryly out base. during, or dot pleating. 3.3.3 AU praline pits will be ckculer with venial Rides, and will be filled with improved Moils. If Wive Moils an detadad to sec be aopteble, pit ails will be amand.d with Cedar Grove match or 3.3.4rao fertilizers will be had within the wetland. In Ibfr lane oaly, uoill 'Agriform', or equal plan) fertiliser to all pleaded' pYM u epsifid by manufecloror. Fertilisers sig jjlowed only below grade in the plWiu% pilaus the buffer Hess. No wage ddp fertilizer ('SwrCe" or 'Grown') is allowed hi to aifigaioe mm. , 3,3,5 All ca.talaaisd pan aawina will be removed from Mir coetaie casfully b prevent dump to W plant end its roe. Paw removed from their cootainen will be plii ed immediately. 3.3.6 AU pleat .halals will be- plsrdlu ,howo a the 'pprovd dagatioe plan. If the feel 1. notational' varier from the approved mitigation plan, the coalrafor will provide a reproducible mylar as- ' built cif fie raddled coditians. All planyewnal will be flagged by the contractor. 3.3.7 All eaaiw trees will be asked per the detail on the miliguia plus All deciduous trees 1" caliper and larger wigs be raked per the detail on We minge nue plan. Remove Arm staking and guy wirra from all Irma after ons yaw. Ca guy wires away from tree. and remove who and Ins rakes from site. 3.4.1 PLANTING SCHEDULE AND WARRANTY 3.4.1 A fall -wines naW Wioa a=brade (October I" - Mach 1S" ) is preferred for lower mortality rates of cur praises. Upload iaitaWioe notate during as spring or rose (March IS' - Oct. I" ) the planing will be aiMMgaled with a temporary *unseen° irrigation wean throughout the summer moans. 7L anorak irrigado system will provide had to head covert'' of the Main planting am. The aulowtie eaewoller will be sobedaW for e .ioimom of fd(er(l5) Bran every day until fall rains s provide adequate dent tempera the plan mewiel. The mitigation prangs will be watered war it dey for Ahem (1S) nimbi for the feat week. 3.42 All disturbed uses will be mulched or Waled with mixes a peciFId on the plus ea Moo as the dagMio seen ■alit is cowpMle 'ie ■d swat bs gamiWed and a gees caw mWUaW by October 1'. If the cover is not adequately established by October 1', aped ails will be covered with approved undo cord arterial and contractor will ratify Owen in writing of alamative soil as4iUratiaa method med. 3.4.3 The coatroom will wariest all plat materials to remain honthy sal alive for t period of one ypr •, after 111W auplena. TM eoMngor will ;space all d=id or Wasik pan rrtsriai pr the approved plas sad Rpcificaioes. ' 3.j.P . SITE CONDI:DO S . 3.5.1 Tun Coatactor will madras with no Owner for oaatnGlw WbdWi.g. 3.5.2 Pleas iutallstion will bogie ace the City of Tukwila acceptance of podia■ Mad oawuuia. The Colrain will notify the Owiuof wigwam. of fuel grading. . 3.S.8Sw free wee be Mesabi a*Ne ti. dtgtiofarea as shows be the approved mitigation mediae proms. The coneala is responsible for repro aed rplecer t oink from disturbed dwiag pan baalWion. No equipment or sous will be Nord inside the iY imsm. 3.5,4 After clean, and grand is courant. in the dtiptim ace, exposed rail' will be traded or mulched. Orrgi onarucuoi Moe wIlI N placed card the min/adorn law to prohibit equipment and 1 pommel in the rWgation lams. 3.5.5 If soils are darmalned to be veritable for ■rood cover area, M landscape caneecuor will std 2' of tppsoll b the chide. saw. 1- 3.5.6 plan massio will be planted with suitable .oils pa prang dalails. Soils fron pleating low will bespnd ad rmlid eoraat . "MOM am. ' INTRODUCTION This lWwce program main the program, procedural sad goals foi'iddgaliw of W weasel isspcti at the Pacific View OIRa Pub .Wptio site. This asi-1 Once program will be Ws rsponuibtlily of the project owr Woe. hrough Abe duration of its • owlmiip of the ■Mi/Mioe swan or hayhmd site dur6llo' of the mdwiag period, whichever la. lmgr. The neahilrs- oonlaelor will eoupim the work. cared below. 4,1.1 ; MAINTENANCE WORK QCOPE . 4.1.1 The primary goals dike dli/Mda plea sro to oakum the small arm, prase predco.tsctim dream hydrology, improve sea quaky of the arum sad MAIM Ib maws pan casualty typically . farad Weed eadirer4.d apart usu. To accomplish this goal, morml laadlaapi-p methods man be modified to Maeda: a. No Noway or 1d.d, of proud cover or vagnaion in the mitigaim um. b. No plummet dianthus" ie the mitigation are. c. No plecewt of hest-mulch or equivalent In the dtigIIIm w :wept u noted b We nimbi chills. d. No planmal of gni"glIgpinp, a dupe debris, fill or oraiataW pan ..wiali In the mWplloa ace. _.. 14.1.2 Work to be included in a bjjtoyisit: a. Remove all litter including paper, plastic, bottles, construction debris, yord debris, etc. b. . a. ovo all noa-Wiw, ramrod and noxious vegetation Inetudhiy blookberry varieties, IYistlu, tansy ragwort, scotch broom, reed canary grass, etc. All removal of vegetation is to be conducted by hand without the era of pesticides or chemicals. All debris is lo be removed from alts and disposed in so approved landfill. Refer to agency Itat of noxious weeds for further kformatloa. .... 0. Repair silt adlor paroweel fencing and signage as needed, . 4.1.3 Work b be completed on an annual buns includes: • a. Replace dead or filled plant materials, Replacement plantings are to be of same specie., sire ad location as original plantings. Plantings are to be installed during the darnadt period. b. Remove Tree atakjae and guy wires from all frees alter ono year. 4.2. MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE The Owner will conduct all items lined In the Maintenance Work Scope on an annual buts. Additional work may be squired pr the Maibring Report and as approved by the City of Tukwila. Additional work may inhale removal of the grams amid each shrub and tree, installation of wood chips at each •rbnu and we bas, remedies the mitigation area, re-staking erating trees and,orosion control protection. , 4.3. WATERING REQUIREMENTS ' 4.3,1 If plaalinge are installed within the dornunt period throughout no winter mouths (October through Minh IS' ) watering id hoTrequirod. If plantings ere installed during the summer months (March through October 1' ) • temporary irrigation system will be ruined. The temporary irrigation system may be rammed ran the firs year providing the plantings are ewblished and acclimated to on- site conditions per Cooatsuctiai'ihaPliukgs Notes Sec. 4.0. ' 4.3.2 ,Irrigation will patron from initiation through Obtober 1" , or Ileum Juno 1" and Oct. 1"-for any subsequest rata. !trinities, if required, will provide head to head coverage for 15 nuance per day every day. 4.4. CLOSEOUT OF YEARS MONITORING PROGRAM Upon completion of the montorins program and acceptance of the mitigation by the City of Tukwila, the miolenen* of the project will be reduced to taclude removal of litter and debris, repair of perimeter fencing and dpege, removal of oxiou weds end undesirable vegetation, and repair of vandalised ireaa. 5.0 MONITORING PYQGYAM • The mitigation area will be mollorel nree Mu over a three year period. Mggjtoring will be conducted using IM sechaigs ad'procedures deaeribd below to quantify Itrsurvival, relative health and growth of plat antral as well u lie aucceuful creation of an area meting the project goals. A monitoring report eubmitsd following each oratorios visit will describe and quantify the talus of the mitigation M Ian Sae. . . 5.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY 5.1.1 Vego lioa 31. vegoWion tiiooitosiy cadW of two (2) distinct tasks. The tint is the inspeeliou of the planted aAurid b deiadre the health and vigor of the installation. All the planted material would be inspected during each monitories visit to dearmiae to level of survival of the installation. The apcad wk will be the sampling of the mitigation area to determine vegetative coverages of herbaceous species in tin pod area. The herb strata will he ramrod using 0.25m' rectangular plots randomly located along the umbels. At each plot, cover estimates for each species will be determined wing Daub..ire (1959) coverage chum. A table documenting frequency, relative frequency, coverage, relative coverage and importance value for each species in each atria will be produced. 5.12 Wildlife 1. Maul obrrvadoes of bird., mammals, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates found on-site will be identified and recorded. Binding or rating activity in the mitigation Mr■ Will be noted. Obrvaions will be Wald to the maul Tailoring lunation'. .5.1.3 Water Quality Watt quality will be visually monitored in the riparian area. Unacceptable water quality will include evidence Memnon within the dliption area and evidence of sedimentation, • 1.2.1 STANDARDS OF SUCCESS 5.2.1 Evaluation of the neap q(thn mitigation project will be based upon an 8O% survival rate for the planted sgetakn at de eed of year 3. Succeu of the mitigation will elm be determined by • cover of: 1:. r(erbaearu Mar Year 3 ' i 110% 5.2.2 Volume( native, noninvasive species will be included as acceptable components of the • mitiptio. 5.2.3 Mitigation Swum • The modloring results shall be compared to tie Standards of Success in order to deterdne the suceoas of the project. If, es a result of racial or annual monitoring site visits, the Owner la notified of • significant problem with the dtigMloa raced., tbo Owner will notify no City of Tukwila to develop a proposal for • ona,rry pee' -The Pacific View Office Park 'litigation requirements will have Iran met Wen the City of Tukwila dame'the mitigation r00oaM. 1.3 CONTI IIGENCY PLAN A cd.inpoy pro can be implemented If n.uemry. Contingency plot can belude regrading, addlliasa pleet WoWim, aroitoro trol, ddiIaul wat=t mistily twilitir, mdlficetioa lo hydrology, W phial substitutions Wading type, ale, and location. . • If the aeatlales results tdical lbbt any of the performance standards are not being rut, It my be uuaaary to impliemea all or put of the ootingeney plan. Careful *Maio: to main once is sandal is ea. lag the problem do sat air. Shedd ay of the Sites fell to .eat the swam criteria, • - costiepoy plan will be developed std bpleem d with the City of 1 kwj1a approval. Such plot are prepared on aaaa•b•ua heels to reflect the (tiled dtigatia characteristic'. ' Coatiop cyI- 1We■e'divides will Wide, but are not limited to: • ■ Wham{ AU pla=te loa.To %%Wales, droagb, or di.bam, is sece.ivy. • • Repleciss ay pan psis with a 20 prowl or grater mord* ran with the cons species or ddle spar 1pprowd•hp the City of Tukwila. • • • InipWg the walled area nay as Mammy during dry weather if plats appear to be too dry, with a dolma gaMpgelwwr. • • " Rnesdirg wetland and buffer any with an approved grass undue ue m necessary If wooa/sedimen tins coon. ■ Removdag all trMk or undesirable debris from the wetland and buffer arm u neeaury per 4.0 Malin.. Program. ' IIII�ITI�'(�II'I III;jIIi�I IIII�I�iI lI7Tllfll�rlllTl ljf�7�i���ijw���7jllih�Ijrlil iii)i�Ili i 0 inn 1 .�P ?'•, Z'TT ' .. ,'.3''• ., , 5 a 91 el Cf Ll a{^!,'. rGi: i:..1...:�- .f,,;<,..;P,r,;r.:�.. ..: P C e i'Rb0 • limluuhmluuluulmdmjliiidmiluulmilii( duuluului�lu�d�udi�iilmi�ii�duu�uubn��iudnnpndnnhaduuluul ; ;APPROVAL BLOCK I. The applicant will post • Mitigation Performance Bond bawd upon 1250 of the cost oldie installation and three yesrs of monitoring, in the amount of $7600.00 the City of Tukwila. 3. Final inspection shall be performed by 8- twelve Auocino+, Inc. Installation will,bo completed per Mitigation Plan by 13-twelve Auoci., Inc. dated 7/20/96, u aubaequently.reeiad by proper authority. The plan is not approved for cowatrucaon unless noted in ibis approval blodn .3. Upon notification of project completion, 8- twelve Awocioo., Inc. will prepare a find inspection report. Upon acceptance of doeprooject, a letter requesting )be,cooveraion of the Mitigation Performance ',bond to a Maintenance Bond will be sent to the City of Tukwila. B- twelve Associates, Inc. will conduct a three year monitoring program. The site will ter evaluated once every year using smuWdlied teats and procedures as noted on these plans. A report will be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila for review and approval prior to December of each year nnnitord during the three year cycle. Upon approval-of the final monitoring report or when the mitigation is deemed anecessfuh whichever is later, the City of Tukwila will release the Maintenance . PPROVED AS DESIGNED ATE PLANTING LIST QNTY PLANT NAME ;SIZE • SPACING TREES 613 267 Cascara Rhafnuf purshiana SHRUBS . Vine Maple Acer cirdnatum Red -osier Dogwood Comm sfolonlfera Nmtka Rose Rosa nutkana Salmonberry Rubin spec:abilis • Sitka Willow Salix sUchensls EMERGEf jTS • Small- fruited Bulrush Scirpus 'Metacarpus Simple -stem Burred Sparganium emersum . 4 -6' , as shown 4 -6' as shown 3 4' 48 "o.c. 24-36" 36 "o.c. 24 -36" 48 "o.c. 5 gale as shown sprig rhizome 18 "o.c. l8 "o.c. • Each 5 gal. Sitka Willow (Salfx sicheru'is) may be substitutes with 3 slips planted I8 "o.c. Scale 1" = 20' 2 1/2• min. Mulch -sterile draw for • spring, plontlrp Wood chips for roll planting Billed a: burtapped or contalnlrinnd plat as specified Cul h remove burlap from top I/2 of boll burley to be rotten" SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL N.T.S. Cul & romps burlap from top .1/2 of ball b rlp to be reliable 1.2211:1:21. boll (min.) Secure to tree with non- corrodible eke encased In reinforced dull grain rubber hose of points o =onion ellh tree. 2 - 2' a 2" hemlock/fir 'Mot 6' berm grade 3.1/2' n� n Mulch -attpIrrte ,trim for Wood ddp. for ° , fed plating Top soli A frtlimr TREE, PLANTING DETAIL N.T.S. 1103 trod linker West, cow C • Amt, n 010112-5751 • (25) MINIMA Ira (Las) m1 -473= rn 0 Job No. 98143 Designed B Hym ✓� Drawn Bp 4_ Checked Byi Date' 7/10/98 SHEET OF 1517:-."^AirfAI,WX1.01,:,103 EAST L-SVeZr I ON - 151-4,ar 5 i l 1 i 11 1 11 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 iii1111111111111.11.1 04111111 1 1 IiiiIii 1.1111.1(11H 1111111.1,11iii 1 I Ijijiliiii li 1 11 I 1 1 1 .1 It I 1111 ..11..11111111101111)1 waissagigal scortz r (OA ov Orr KO RAN 21 MAY cieb WEST ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE: I" = 20'-O" FL- 1 1 O -5' 20' . 40' PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CORPORATION M ENET to HO AI2Cf[ITP] &, INC., P.& Evergreen One, 10040 NB 33id Place, Suite 202, Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 827 -2100 i iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii i1;0il(Iiilii'ilii�ii i' .liiii�ii'�i ii` iili. uili>> ilii, i�lii ;iil�i�ili�:�i�i����i��,i��► SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE: n 0 4' 1/16" !Lou 1 16' 321 NOTE ALL PAINT COLORS ARE MADE BY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. NO. MATERIAL FINISH COLOR 01 CONCRETE SMOOTH 02 CONCRETE St1001-14 SW 2314 'AWNING, RED' SW 2243 'WETLANDS' 03 • CONCRETE SMOOTH 04 CONCRETE SMOOTH 05 GLASS PP 6 SUNGATE 300 06 METAL. SCREEN PAINTED 01 MULLION ANODIZED METAL SIDING PAINTED . SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' SW 2066 'NANTUCKET DUNE SOLAR GREEN SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' • DARK BRONZE SW 2243 'WETLANDS' • PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON =EMT HO A AIKIIITECTS, INC., P.S. D Perm= One, 10940 NI 33rd Place, Suite 202, Bellevue, WA 96004 (425)-027-2100 •••• • .• • . • :.4i/(AfPc4:1,.7% E • IO 1111111111111111111111 ill '1i j111 1111111111 Iii III I If 111111,1111.1.11111111111fIlltillidiEf1111;illifilithitlitliiiiiilli‘iiiiiiillioliiiil' METAL SCREEN ( ob ) CONCRETE ( 02 ) MULLION ( 0'I ) NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING A SCALE: n 0 4' 1 /I6" = 1'70" 16' NOTE: ALL PAINT COLORS ARE MADE BY SHERW4IN- 1ILLIAMS. NO. MATERIAL FINISH COLOR 0I CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2314 'AWNING RED' 02 CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2243 'WETLANDS' 03 CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 04 CONCRETE SMOOTH SIN 2066 'NANTUCKET DUNE' 05 GLASS PPG SUNGATE 300 SOLAR GREEN 06 METAL SCREEN PAINTED SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 09 MULLION ANODIZED DARK BRONZE • 06 METAL SIDING PAINTED SA 2243 'WETLANDS' • PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TU(WILp, WASHINGTON CORPORATION HO ARCHITECTS, INC., P& _°DD Evergreen One, 10940 NE 33rd Place, Suite 202, Bellevue, WA 98004 (425)27-2100 • �• 1'1111 fi�ii1 ii(11,1 iliiiili ii diiliiiili [I1,1iifii'1 ii iilii.Itliiii!iii1lii iliiii.ti.i�kii0l1u.il 1011:0)ii111lt 1 i1 1i.l1.11)li11I liiiiil • ,.. 1 '.r.,:rzr..:.h"-,,Vr'''ra''Irti.e.•.:V.f...vZir., " . wiffINENEM EAST ELEVATION BUILDING A %ALE: 1" 20'-0" n O5' • 20' 40' 1 A: PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CORPORATION • morn a In ARCIIITECrS, INC.- PS. • Evergreen One, 10940 HI Mr& Place, MU 202, Moue, 1111. 96004 (425) 827-2100 h• • • , • • e IILLIiJIjI1jJ ................... ............................... • • • • • *•,'..c.:v • • • L. - NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) SCALE: 1/16" .1 •• .• 1 0 4' 16' 32' NOTE: ALL PAINT COLORS ARE MADE BY SHERWIN-WILLIAMS. NO. MATERIAL FINISH COLOR 01 CONCRETE SMOOTH 02 CONCRETE . SMOOTH SIN 2314 'AWNING RED' SW 2243 VETLANDS' 03 CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 04 CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2066 'NANTUCKET DUtE. 05 GLASS PPG SUNGATE 300 SOLAR GREEN 06 METAL SCREEN PAINTED SW 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 01 MULLION ANODIZED DARK BRONZE 08 METAL. SIDING PAINTED SN1 2243 'NETLAND PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK SABEY CORPORMION TUKWILA, WASHINGTON IFL/Elllur HO „ ARCHITECTS, INC., P.S. Evergreen One, 10940 NE 32rd Place, Suite 202, %Ilene, TA 98004 (420827-2100 mizsgaggfry 1 • i'. Lw ii�ii�_ 2i+ /1�:`4�..�i�:�i:a'�`�iL }7inSv�' bY: SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) SCALE: 1 /16" = I' -0" n i 0 4 16' 52' • NOTE: ALL PAINT COLORS ARE MADE BY 5HERWIN- WILLIAM5. NO. MATERIAL FINISH COLOR 0I CONCRETE SMOOTH 5W 2314 'AWNING RED' 02 CONCRETE,• • SMOOTH 5W 2243 'WETLANDS' 05 CONCRETE SMOOTH 5W 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 04 CONCRETE SMOOTH SW 2066 'NANTUCKET DUNE' GLASS PPG SUNGATE 300 SOLAR GREEN 06 METAL SCREEN PAINTED 5W 2064 'OUTERBANKS' 01 MULLION ANODIZED DARK BRONZE 08 METAL SIDING PAINTED SW 2243 'WETLANDS' PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK SABEY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON CORPORATION FL/MEM s2f 110 .INC, . P& U _� Evergreen One, 10940 NE 93rd Place, Suite 202, Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 829' -2t00 f11111111ii1i11il111i11i 1111l11i 1111i1 11 l 1iil.ii`i)11111 Tula] 11! 111llllll .illliii1ji11Eii,lhl.11li1li .11ili���1111 liiil1111llii�li111 . ' q...,,r,t14..:.;214t.'01.1.44117211,177‘sig4.) 77-7,7:7,717, WEST ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) WALE: VI6n = ILO" r--1 0• 4' 16' 32' PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SABEY RFCN AN MOW 4C „ Al2CIIITECTS, INC., Pc& . Evergreen One. 10940 NE 313rd Place, Butte 202, Bellevue, WA 90004 (425) 527-2100 . „ 1111 111111111 11[1 111111111 1111111,[11111h1,11111111111111111111[11101.111. : ,rwa: :'.^��'_;c cry'^`.' lr',= �� ^;1�:.�..'il_�G:`n'r:i •::l'�41�y-,r�i %��ex ^�F� •rt' �._...` ""QO-R�.� EAST ELEVATION BUILDING C (B SIMILAR) SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" n i 0 4' 16' 32' PACIFIC VIEW OFFICE PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON BEY CCRPORt�i'ION ADCIIITTRInM lP.& Evergreen One, 10940 NE 33rd Place, Snits 202, Bellevue, WA 88004 (425) 927 -2100 Iliiii llilili l ililliiiii`iVlli�liliil`lil`ii� ii' fl, 11l11J�11lf lllllllllllJ. Il lll�llllllll lllllJ!Lllll•Ill!•liilii, l ijllJ.l�11111 lilt' L PLANT KEY 7 Mica einnti zi•-•"7-rCer 5:11/71,G 77-e-G; ,//27G 0.5P7 , , 5/.7445/7 VOA „.■.4A/1//6 aweayam, , 21' =//,It/et7/14 e,-cierrg 1,7.4#77 , Pair ,',19.f/7e"-r% -'17all cr71.2/e., alf//pe /77/n/InGen eet7 7' Ter,G: wf7 /77,1p/&,7A2A/7eGe Auste-47/1 P7f7G , Pi-; -e0-7/42eA. MeV/mit-77 /74.V(Ir .r.a/e44 prrt* , 011Pre.4007,94--, , i.orfial , 4-0.4404 vi,-ied, 4v/I6/ 4975 _ _ _ c#7,4677,4,- VI/ W /C 1 . • . • . 4-7 •-vg et.te2:. r..yrit/e (7-17 In .70,4"44. "- • .- _ • • rt-exsyerr,7 ePr- ruk-wal 7:cc .•••• CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 • SCALE %Ls 1"= 601-0" 0 n so 75 100 150 200 250 SABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROUP CONSULTANTS N-ST-REE-T-D Eti 464.4 te,140.SCAPI ^S.Ceol,C11.14a ZO.Ifols Simi • f.tmondr. Irdthinpon 0020 ---(4237771:7109 • (MTh' rirlisri- - — — — — REMO'S iSSuE GATE 4a ..e••••■;% pr erre. -4.041 ,..ttr 2.4 NW, cre74.1. -• IN,: v.4 ter -it,: •,:.• of tn., 14.7 ':cer•eqree •41 re utel 314r,sel t,e r.,:tel 41 1 Sltty ORPANG ME: CONCEPTLIJL 6CAPE PL.N PROGRESS DATE: it 5,55 PLOT: PROJECT NUmBER: U•7^.0.1 09AVIN CHECKED BY: APPROVED 01: DRAWING HINDER: 1 PLOT DAtE/ WE: • i',1,1111:F111.71 • • CHINA,: ' • • .:1111.1111.1[1111111111.1111[1111[1111111111,1111111.i.1.1.1.1).11.11‘1111.11111111.11.11,1111..111.11.111ffil Ii111,111.11,1iftf[1.0 ,,,,,, , 111.4[1:111,110),11.111.1111i • :;•.:::.1111111111111111.1111111.11.111.111111111ffilliiiii11.0. •I■ Attachment D z /, viz-% V7, 7/ Zz S ABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROU p5....sult-I 0E14 ct1-14 2 st 99 PROJECT DRAWING TITLE EXODUS SEATTLE 2 INTERGATE WEST TUKUJILA, WA Sabey Corporation Architecture Group NEW ANNEX BUILDING Partial SIte Plan DATE I/26/00 SCALE I' 60' FILE 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8700 DRAWING SKAI.2 APPROX. EXSTING GRADE (BEYOND) FUTURE SUPPLY AIR LOUVER (TYPICAL).: SUPPLY AIR LOUVER (TYPICAL) E .rTE ( YP RIOR LIGHT CAL) GNE (TYPI RATOR EXHAUST CAL) SikBEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROU TOP OF PENTHOUSE PARAPET rk Elev. ■ 161' -4' EMI 1 O.H. COILING DOOR O.H. COILING DOOR PROJECT TOP CF PARAPET • Elev. • 155' -0' APPROX. EXSTING GRADE (BEYOND) EXHAUST AIR LOUVER SCREEN /GATE (TYPICAL) DRAWING TITLE EXODUS SEATTLE 2 INTERGATE WEST TUKWILA, WA Sabey Corporation Architecture Group NEW ANNEX BUILDING East Elevation SLAB ON GRADE Elev. • 131' -0' DRAWING DATE 1/26/00 A 1.1 SCALE 1 /S' =I' -0' FILE 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206 -281 -8700. !`�,:� ir�5���Frii1rli,�i�i�i11 • II ill liiifl iiiliiiiiiiiiliiiilii i iiiliii .1.Iiiili1 "i1liiiili1.ili filiifilii ili��il. ��. iil��u li�i�ii►�I���al�i�i1[iii4.1. 01.iiiiliiiiiiii I • vi- e," ox c1.3 ee,cL 1'-33/4' 011 12' CAST-IN-PLACE RETAINING WALL. STORAGE / SHOP AREA +/- 1,112 sr 1 ■1011-ti-P 12,11.M.1 _41 DPLB 2 —»1 = .1 —11111 IIJ I. _L_ --I-1111 I fl 111 1 I 111 II__ J I ih iJI /- - 111 Hri _J1 _J1 LB-2 12' CAST-IN-PLACE WALL - TYPICAL. O.H. COILING DOOR . 21'-3' 4'-� 3/4' 3/4' PROJECT DRAWING TITLE SABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROU EXODUS SEATTLE 2 INTERGATE WEST TUKUJILA, WA • Sabey Corporation Architecture Group NEW ANNEX BUILDING DATE 1/26/00 SCALE vg.,.1.-0. F ILE DRAWING 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8700 !••,11 :i LH T • 1.14 • H..1„..1...7.171T117111flf.1111.1,111.! 1,!1,11111111.111111 I' 1 1111 0 INCH -- ' , •-•;•. • •. " • • CHIN • • . •—•,•/,‘ a St • Pt:, et ' c c, • ESB—D 1 1 I ESB—E 1 I I I- ESB—F —»1 = .1 —11111 IIJ I. _L_ --I-1111 I fl 111 1 I 111 II__ J I ih iJI /- - 111 Hri _J1 _J1 LB-2 12' CAST-IN-PLACE WALL - TYPICAL. O.H. COILING DOOR . 21'-3' 4'-� 3/4' 3/4' PROJECT DRAWING TITLE SABEY CORPORATION ARCHITECTURE GROU EXODUS SEATTLE 2 INTERGATE WEST TUKUJILA, WA • Sabey Corporation Architecture Group NEW ANNEX BUILDING DATE 1/26/00 SCALE vg.,.1.-0. F ILE DRAWING 101 Elliott Ave. W. Suite 330 Seattle, WA 98119 P.O.Box 9847 Seattle, WA 98109 206-281-8700 !••,11 :i LH T • 1.14 • H..1„..1...7.171T117111flf.1111.1,111.! 1,!1,11111111.111111 I' 1 1111 0 INCH -- ' , •-•;•. • •. " • • CHIN • • . •—•,•/,‘ a St • Pt:, et ' c c, •