Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L95-0048 - PARK PLACE - FACADE AND SIGN DESIGN REVIEWL95 -0048 PARK PLACE 17501 SOUTHCTR PY SIGN REVIEW Chapter 17.16 DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (BSIP) Sections: 17.16.010 17.16.020 17.16.030 17.16.040 17.16.050 17.16.060 Purpose. Scope. Preliminary Binding Site Improvement Plan (BSIP) Approval. Final Approval of Plan. Improvements. Revision of Plan. 17.16.010 Purpose. This chapter is established to accommodate the division of land for the purpose of sale or lease of property within an integrated commercial or industrial center, which allows certain zoning standards minimum parking, setbacks, landscaping, lot area and lot dimension) on the individual lots to be modified provided the standards for the entire center are met. (Ord. 1833 § 1(part) , 1998) 17.16.020 Scope. A binding site improvement plan application may be submitted for a project located on any land zoned commercial or industrial, which is being divided for the purpose of sale or lease consistent with the terms of this chapter. (Ord. 1833 41(part), 1998) 17.16.030 Preliminary Binding Site Improvement Plan (BSIP) approval. A. APPLICATION /FEES: The following items are required, in quantities specified by DCD, for a complete Binding Site Improvement Plan (BSIP) application. Items may be waived if in the judgment of the Short Subdivision Committee said items are not applicable to the particular proposal: 1. Completed Binding Site Improvement Plan Application Form as prescribed by the DCD Director with fee as identified in TMC Chapter 18.88. 2. Completed Application Checklist. 3. A complete SEPA Checklist application if project is not exempt from SEPA. 4. Complete applications for other required land use approvals. 5. A vicinity map showing location of the site. 6. A survey prepared to the standards specified in TMC 17.04.060. 7. Site and development plans which provide the following information. The plans shall be neat and accurate on a decimal scale sufficient in size and detail to demonstrate the BSIP meets the ordinance requirements, on mylar sheets in record of survey format: TITLE 17 — SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS a. The owners of adjacent land and the names of any adjacent subdivisions. b. Lines marking the boundaries of the existing lot(s) (any existing lot to be eliminated should be a dashed line and so noted). c. Locations of existing and proposed public street rights-of-way and easements and private access easements. d. Location, floor area and setbacks of all existing structures on the site. e. Lot area, lot line dimensions and average widths for each lot. f. Location of proposed new property lines and numbering of each lot. g. Location, dimension and purpose of existing and proposed easements. Provide recorded documents which identify the nature and extent of existing easements. h. Location of proposed dedications. i. Existing and proposed topography at two -foot contour intervals extending to five feet beyond the project boundaries. j. Location of sensitive areas and sensitive area buffers (slopes 20% or greater, wetlands or watercourses) on the site. k. Location, size and species of any trees located within a sensitive area or its buffer or the shoreline zone unless none of these trees are to be removed and their location is not likely to create undue hardship on individual lots with respect to TMC Chapter 18.54. 1. Location of existing and /or proposed fire hydrants to serve the project. m. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm drainage facilities and roads to serve the lots. n. Expected location of new buildings and driveways, including finished floor elevations of the buildings. 8. Letter of water and sewer availability if the provider is other than the City of Tukwila. 9. Parking calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.56 have been met. 10. Proposed cross easement and maintenance agreement for shared parking, circulation, utility and landscaping improvements. 11. Legal descriptions of all tracts located within the boundaries of the short plat. 12. Items contained in TMC 18.104.060 not already listed above. B. REVIEW PROCEDURES: An application for binding site improvement plan shall be reviewed and acted upon in the same manner prescribed in Section 17.12.020B for short subdivisions. C. APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. Prior to approval of any binding site improvement plan, the Short Subdivision Committee shall insure that the following improvements are Printed January 17, 2002 Page 17 -11 i ArAmtlemormmv+'rmenrAtvvelrAmtwm'1S7 tdl;mtraktPtm.?tk +oP1'Z't��"'. r� z tu JU U0' to w. J F' w 0 g¢ z c7 �.w z�: zo w uj O N! 0 H° = w: H V WZ IL O z. APP. D A V I T nS Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting • fj Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Ei Short .Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit D Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the fol cct t c4 w and O F D I S T :I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action E Official Notice J Other Other • lowing addresses on c// 181g5- trcc -ect. D, cx, 611 �,� f� Paii Pkce Name of Project_ Signatur File Number L95 -CDLE B City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on September 28, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: CASE NUMBER: L95 -0048: Park Place APPLICANT: Howard Turner, Turner and Associates REQUEST: Approval of significant design revisions to the facade of the Park Place retail development. Also review of sign proposals for Park Place tenants. LOCATION: 17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: A briefing on the Draft Comprehensive Plan progress and the Southcenter Golf project. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Seattle Times September 15, 1995 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 wee biler City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila REVISED w a: is PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE o NC w J Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on September 28, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: CO LL: w 0' CASE NUMBER: L95 -0048: Park Place Design Review F ii...0:\ L95 -0049: Park Place Special Sign Permission ?f- Howard Turner, Turner and Associates M of 0U) ;o -;. REQUEST: Approval of significant design revisions to the facade of the Park ;o Place retail development. Also review of sign proposals for Park v Place tenants, and special permission for increased sign area. I- f-` O, • z; LOCATION: 17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila. v N APPLICANT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT: A briefing on the Draft Comprehensive Plan progress and the Southcenter Golf project. Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above case may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above item. Published: Seattle Times September 21, 1995 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION October 24, 1995 Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Dear Howard: This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved requested changes to Building B of the Parkway Place project (File L95 -0048) at their September 28, 1995 meeting. The BAR also adopted the findings contained in the Staff Report dated September 22, 1995. The appeal period for the BAR decision was fulfilled as of October 13, 1995. Since no appeal of the Board's decision was filed by that date, the decision is final. The BAR also approved the signage proposal as a part of their initial design review of Park Place (File L94- 0084), with the following changes: "The applicant [is] allowed an option of one sign which can be 30 feet high and set back 30 feet or it can be set back 35 feet and have a height of 35 feet, and perhaps placed in the median if that better meets the applicant's needs." The Planning Commission, in their review of the requested increase in size for certain wall signs (File 95- 0049), made the following determination: "Approval of wall signs A2, B, C1 and D. A reduction in size for wall sign Al is required to bring it in accordance with the code. A modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 is required to bring the sign in accordance with the code." Please call me if you have any questions. ti Sincerely, na Pat Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Jack Pace • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 P,St�%dS4lif: mod. -� ; .::�.h:d•� s.. ♦ .�L4iy"u'�'v ._ - ...... _ `iGdSa"u PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28,1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Commissioners Neiss, Stetson, Malina, Meryhew, Flesher, and Livermore. Mr. Marvin was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter, Ann Siegenthaler, and Sylvia Schnug. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27,1995. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizens' comments. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0049: Park Place Signage: Diana Painter presented the staff report. She noted the proposal is for increased sign area for five wall signs. They are also requesting approval for two pole signs. Two of the signs (Petsmart and Border's Books) exceed the sign area allowed per the Sign Code. Border's only exceeds the Code by one square foot. The applicant is proposing two pole signs on either side of the driveway, directly across from each other. Because these pole signs are so close together, and because they are identical, staff felt that would potentially clutter the streetscape. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of wall signs A2, B, C1 and D; a reduction in size for wall sign Al (Petsmart) to bring it in accordance with the Code; a modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 (Border's) is required to bring the sign in accordance with the Code. Additionally, staff recommends approval of the design of the proposed pole signs, and a reduction in the number of pole signs to one, or relocate one pole sign to the north half of the site. Mr. Malina asked how the square footage for the Petsmart sign was calculated. Ms. Painter stated that the applicant calculated the area for that sign on a computer. A polygon was drawn to determine the area. Howard Turner, Turner & Associates, 18420 24 Pl. NE., Seattle: He stated that exposed building face, facing the public way, would indicate the entire facade, regardless of its depth away from the street. In this case, that would include the loading area. _:r,..{s:Si. ull:: li:=. i'. tri i.' s^ w:- 13% a:%: Lri. k.^.: ait ft+}utY<'is3.fst "t'%t(iFi+:ndi' `."'! T: niOilf}.i+Si'47�C'ASLfeA'�1J'�a .ti�,•.l'i'Gf'lie 44,4,4 i 7.1m.v+.z. ...&11.'it4t ,:.8CyIkM1 ST7 i e {1l.�V'. 4v? .• z re w 6 J O. U O. ` W I; H: w O' LL< �d F _. zF ▪ m' U of ▪ W. � v o, w z: U _co; -. z Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 2 September 28, 1995 Jack Pace noted that with regard to the second pole sign, staff is not disagreeing with the applicant's right to have a second pole sign, they are concerned with having two freestanding pole signs that close together. Staff is suggesting moving them farther apart. Ms. Stetson asked what the rational is for putting the two pole signs that close together. re w n Mr. Turner stated the signalized intersection is the main intersection for the center. It is u6 -i v. where most of the people will be coming in. The setback requirement for the pole signs o O worked out the best at that location. Moving the sign further to the north would require ' 0 w w =; decreasing the height of the pole sign because it would have to be closer to the right -of- -' 1-: CD IL: way. The most open space to view these signs exists at the driveway. uj o; 2 Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. g a Mr. Meryhew said he didn't understand how the loading dock area could be considered _; part of the building face on the Petsmart building. z I 1- O. Z F-: Mr. Livermore agreed that the rules are cut and dry and the sign cannot be greater than 2 6% of the building face. There isn't any flexibility in the Code to deviate from that. D o; v co O- 0 H, Ms. Stetson stated that the Sign Code is very clear and they need to follow it. = v F- — u,1 With regard to the Border's sign, Mr. Neiss thought the Code should be followed as well Z' even though the proposed sign only exceeds the Code by one square foot. v N • P. H O , There was a consensus by the Commission that the Code should be followed with regard to the Border's sign. With regard to the pole signs, Ms. Stetson thought they should just have one pole sign at the entrance, and if the second sign is desired, more information should brought back to the Commission. Mr. Malina indicated he would like to see the applicant be allowed both pole signs. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0049: THE SIGNAGE FOR PARK PLACE BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WALL SIGNS AS FOLLOWS: "APPROVAL OF WALL SIGNS A2, B, Cl AND D. A REDUCTION IN SIZE FOR WALL SIGN Al IS REQUIRED TO BRING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. A MODIFICATION IN THE DESIGN OR REDUCTION IN SIZE OF SIGN C2 IS REQUIRED TO BRING THE SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE." } Planning Commission /BAR Minutes September 28, 1995 Page 3 WITH REGARD TO THE POLE SIGNS, THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED AN OPTION OF ONE SIGN WHICH CAN BE 30 FEET HIGH AND SET BACK 30 FEET OR IT CAN BE SET BACK 35 FEET AND HAVE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, AND PERHAPS PLACED IN THE MEDIAN IF THAT BETTER MEETS THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1, WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0048: Park Place Design Review. Diana Painter presented the staff report. The most recent design changes proposed by the applicant were significant enough to have them come back before the Board of Architectural Review. Staff had asked the applicant to have a pattern of narrow mullions that would create a finer scale texture and contrast in patterns between the openings of the windows and doorways and the larger openings of the colonnaded area The applicant would like to bring the window patterns out beyond the area framed by the columns, underneath the sign, for Building B. Staff felt this was a violation of a rule set up with the applicant of maintaining some kind of unity within the overall variety. The applicant stated he had intended to ask for this wider opening at the review in June and it was an error on the drawings. It was intended to be reflected in the building permit drawings and staff's response was that it wasn't approved because it wasn't there and staff felt it was outside of the parameters they had established. Howard Turner, Architect, 18420 24 PI. NE., Seattle: He stated he thought the wider glass was an improvement to the project. The glass breaks up monotony and adds variety. He added that he didn't feel represented a -significant change to the design. The change is dictated by a real need on the part of the tenant. Mr. Flesher asked if the proposed glass was clear or tinted. Mr. Turner noted that the glass would be clear. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Livermore stated he liked the additional glass. He added that they try and discourage monotony in design. Mr. Malina agreed. Mr. Flesher also agreed, and thanked staff for bringing this change to the Board's attention. s:aua; ,.., uv.i, e: :�.n;w� rvus�uYc:�r.•rnci: z rgg.w 7U! 00 U 0 cow N U. W 0'. N�j s v. oi z U0 CO ;OHS: =0 LL H; N z.. Planning Commission /BAR Minutes September 28, 1995 Page 4 MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN CHANGES AS PRESENTED UNDER L95 -0048, PRIMARILY ALLOWING ADDITIONAL WINDOWS FOR "LINENS AND THINGS ". MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. During the Director's report, Jack Pace reviewed design changes to the Southcenter Golf project and asked the Board if these changes could be approved administratively, or if they wanted the new proposal brought to them at a separate meeting to review as a part of design review. There was a consensus by the Board that this project, with its proposed changes, be brought back before them for review because the changes are significant. Ann Siegenthaler reviewed the City. Council's changes to the Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan and Map. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on October 5, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. to further review these changes and begin drafting their comments regarding these changes to the Council. Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug. ...._ ...n_:.�...i.J��eL:cL..divi.e� t:iai'n..: +i:: '`4 _ ..5 ..icy :•�.. �. ,� ,.. .u'ti:.i i5tttii tLs �v'si� zit" - y"�i3J? :+"r sr:)st:�u.:7k..f:?i:` .1.i,1:rf hi u 3;::46 tii..Xrx;s:+ City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION October 24, 1995 Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Dear Howard: This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved requested changes to Building B of the Parkway Place project (File L95 -0048) at their September 28, 1995 meeting. The BAR also adopted the findings contained in the Staff Report dated September 22, 1995. The appeal period for the BAR decision was fulfilled as of October 13, 1995. Since no appeal of the Board's decision was filed by that date, the decision is final. The BAR also approved the signage proposal as a part of their initial design review of Park Place (File L94- 0084), with the following changes: "The applicant [is] allowed an option of one sign which can be 30 feet high and set back 30 feet or it can be set back 35 feet and have a height of 35 feet, and perhaps placed in the median if that better meets the applicant's needs." The Planning Commission, in their review of the requested increase in size for certain wall signs (File 95- 0049), made the following determination: "Approval of wall signs A2, B, Cl and D. A reduction in size for wall sign Al is required to bring it in accordance with the code. A modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 is required to bring the sign in accordance with the code." Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, na amt r, Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Jack Pace • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188, • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 [JG3 IF 17 PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28,1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Commissioners Neiss, Stetson, Malina, Meryhew, Flesher, and Livermore. Mr. Marvin was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter, Ann Siegenthaler, and Sylvia Schnug. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27,1995. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizens' comments. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0049: Park Place Signage: Diana Painter presented the staff report. She noted the proposal is for increased sign area for five wall signs. They are also requesting approval for two pole signs. Two of the signs (Petsmart and Border's Books) exceed the sign area allowed per the Sign Code. Border's only exceeds the Code by one square foot. The applicant is proposing two pole signs on either side of the driveway, directly across from each other. Because these pole signs are so close together, and because they are identical, staff felt that would potentially clutter the streetscape. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of wall signs A2, B, C1 and D; a reduction in size for wall sign Al (Petsmart) to bring it in accordance with the Code; a modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 (Border's) is required to bring the sign in accordance with the Code. Additionally, staff recommends approval of the design of the proposed pole signs, and a reduction in the number of pole signs to one, or relocate one pole sign to the north half of the site. Mr. Malina asked how the square footage for the Petsmart sign was calculated. Ms. Painter stated that the applicant calculated the area for that sign on a computer. A polygon was drawn to determine the area. Howard Turner, Turner & Associates, 18420 24 Pl. NE., Seattle: He stated that exposed building face, facing the public way, would indicate the entire facade, regardless of its depth away from the street. In this case, that would include the loading area. Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 2 September 28, 1995 Jack Pace noted that with regard to the second pole sign, staff is not disagreeing with the applicant's right to have a second pole sign, they are concerned with having two freestanding pole signs that close together. Staff is suggesting moving them farther apart. Ms. Stetson asked what the rational is for putting the two pole signs that close together. Mr. Turner stated the signalized intersection is the main intersection for the center. It is where most of the people will be coming in. The setback requirement for the pole signs worked out the best at that location. Moving the sign further to the north would require decreasing the height of the pole sign because it would have to be closer to the right-of- way. The most open space to view these signs exists at the driveway. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Meryhew said he didn't understand how the loading dock area could be considered part of the building face on the Petsmart building. Mr. Livermore agreed that the rules are cut and dry and the sign cannot be greater than 6% of the building face. There isn't any flexibility in the Code to deviate from that. Ms. Stetson stated that the Sign Code is very clear and they need to follow it. With regard to the Border's sign, Mr. Neiss thought the Code should be followed as well even though the proposed sign only exceeds the Code by one square foot. There was a consensus by the Commission that the Code should be followed with . regard to the Border's sign. With regard to the pole signs, Ms. Stetson thought they should just have one pole sign at the entrance, and if the second sign is desired, more information should brought back to the Commission. Mr. Malina indicated he would like to see the applicant be allowed both pole signs. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0049: THE SIGNAGE FOR PARK PLACE BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WALL SIGNS AS FOLLOWS: "APPROVAL OF WALL SIGNS A2, B, Cl AND D. A REDUCTION IN SIZE FOR WALL SIGN Al IS REQUIRED TO BRING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. A MODIFICATION IN THE DESIGN OR REDUCTION IN SIZE OF SIGN C2 IS REQUIRED TO BRING THE SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE." z w` J U; U 0. N0. ww CO J: LL w 0: ga -` LL?; co _ Z �. 0' �. oN wus. u. z` • U 0 I- z Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 3 , , September 28, 1995 WITH REGARD TO THE POLE SIGNS, THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED AN OPTION OF ONE SIGN WHICH CAN BE 30 FEET HIGH AND SET BACK 30 FEET OR IT CAN BE SET BACK 35 FEET AND HAVE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, AND PERHAPS PLACED IN THE MEDIAN IF THAT BETTER MEETS THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1, WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0048: Park Place Design Review. Diana Painter presented the staff report. The most recent design changes proposed by the applicant were significant enough to have them come back before the Board of Architectural Review. Staff had asked the applicant to have a pattern of narrow mullions that would create a finer scale texture and contrast in patterns between the openings of the windows and doorways and the larger openings of the colonnaded area. The applicant would like to bring the window patterns out beyond the area framed by the columns, underneath the sign, for Building B. Staff felt this was a violation of a rule set up with the applicant of maintaining some kind of unity within the overall variety. The applicant stated he had intended to ask for this wider opening at the review in June and it was an error on the drawings. It was intended to be reflected in the building permit drawings and staff's response was that it wasn't approved because it wasn't there and staff felt it was outside of the parameters they had established. Howard Turner, Architect, 18420 24 Pl. NE., Seattle: He stated he thought the wider glass was an improvement to the project. The glass breaks up monotony and adds variety. He added that he didn't feel represented a significant change to the design. The change is dictated by a real need on the part of the tenant. Mr. Flesher asked if the proposed glass was clear or tinted. Mr. Turner noted that the glass would be clear. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Livermore stated he liked the additional glass. He added that they try and discourage monotony in design. Mr. Malina agreed. Mr. Flesher also agreed, and thanked staff for bringing this change to the Board's attention. Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 4 September 28, 1995 MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN CHANGES AS PRESENTED UNDER L95 -0048, PRIMARILY ALLOWING ADDITIONAL WINDOWS FOR "LINENS AND THINGS ". MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. During the Director's report, Jack Pace reviewed design changes to the Southcenter Golf project and asked the Board if these changes could be approved administratively, or if they wanted the new proposal brought to them at a separate meeting to review as a part of design review. There was a consensus by the Board that this project, with its proposed changes, be brought back before them for review because the changes are significant. Ann Siegenthaler reviewed the City. Council's changes to the Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan and Map. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on October 5, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. to further review these changes and begin drafting their comments regarding these changes to the Council. Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug :•3;.;:�:. �:..;.5r:�yr,± Y.:n.,k Fr• • .iced fwar�v.�ry.G ,•. t•. atiiiX�iPceallo:; 2:.; ke' G. wl4iksv :k.L"uic:t,::.li:stoYiSA;r%'t ': City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared September 22, 1995 HEARING DATE: September 28, 1995 FILE NUMBER: L95 -0048 Design Review (Reference L94 -0084 Design Review) APPLICANT: Howard Turner / Turner and Associates Architects Roy Bennion / Park Place Partners, Developer REQUEST: Approval of significant design changes to facade of previously approved retail center. LOCATION: 17501/17585 Southcenter Parkway ACREAGE: 676,948 sq.ft. (15.54 acres) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: C -2 Regional Retail Business SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued December 1, 1994 STAFF: Diana Painter (431 -3661) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 rn: JU; U O' moo. w w. J �! N V_ w 0` wa. i d' w Z w W.: DO -j ww Oi ui p Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review ATTACHMENTS: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. L940048: Parkway Place Page 2 Proposed facade change to Linen'n'Things Site Plan for Park Place Park Place Elevations in 9 -16-94 Design Review Application Park Place Elevations approved by BAR on 12 -15 -94 Park Place Elevations reviewed by BAR on 3 -23 -95 (to be presented at meeting) Park Place Elevations reviewed by BAR on 6 -15 -95 (to be presented at meeting) Applicant's Design Review Application - L95 -0048 Project Update - 9 -22 -95 •a..�.::�c: antes. d: :ificu,:'d:..:,..'L,:�.^ui3:zii ia:' a: w' ...:..:w ^�rr.:�',.:o:2.c.':,.,. ^n �:,:Css.'xs,�.•v ,max•, -,�z^ arc. �. �� .a::n�ltyu:.'- i1�.itrr._.:a::.v vr.:t�,.t,,..;, -••;, Staff Report to the L94 -0048: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 3 FINDINGS SITE/PROJECT INFORMATION The project, Park Place, is located in the southwest corner of Tukwila's commercial area. It is west of Southcenter Parkway and north of South 178th Street. The Park Place retail center consists of two freestanding buildings facing Southcenter Parkway. Building A, to the south, houses the Petsmart and Vetsmart tenants. Building BCD, to the north, provides space for Linens'n'Things (B), OfficeMax (C1), Borders (C2), and The Sports Authority (D). PROJECT' BACKGROUND This project was reviewed and approved by the Board of Architectural Review in a public hearing on December 15, 1994. Conditions approved by the Board allowed staff to work directly with the applicant to further refine certain aspects of the project. Subsequent changes to the project after the December 15, 1995 approval date included an increase in tenant spaces from four to five and a reconfiguration of all tenant spaces; an 8,500 square foot increase in building square footage; changes in the building facade design; altered site circulation; and conversion of a planned planted area to parking. These change were reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review on March 23, 1995. Staff continued to work with the applicant to refine the design scheme, and results were presented in an Addendum to the Staff Report on June 15, 1995. The changes reviewed included additional landscaped areas and pedestrian amenities at the front of Building BCD; increased fenestration at the entries; greater modulation of the structure at the entry porticoes; molding details on the central pediment; and a neon strip articulating the central pediment. The design elements of the storefront areas were regularized to provide some variation and flexibility within an unified treatment of tenant spaces. Building permits for Buildings A and B C D were issued August 18, 1995. The applicant is now requesting approval of further facade changes, which staff regards as a significant departure from the previously approved design. The applicant has not requested approval of further landscape and site design changes, which lave been made in the field. (see Attachment H, Project Update). •:. ".�.v.1vv �. rt•'. c�,> e( M+ ia.: e�N.' xC 1iA' �7: �: YU' . zl' 4R. ��s'w:n'1i'.�a::iYiY;vMa""lkar tirlw nHa3: rit's4:iaFS� •= a'u.�.�:Jrn.1 trlirau �^ tc; naYi��ti:�tira • - z o o: •' n o; cnw: w =: F-; w of =d I-o .Z • w; ° o • w w. • U-. Staff Report to the L94 -0048: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 4 DECISION CRITERIA In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section. 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown in bold, followed by the applicant's response and the staffs summary of relevant facts. Only Section (4) of the guidelines . are presented here, as this is the only section relevant to this discussion. The applicant's response to all review guidelines is included in Attachment G. Review Guidelines (4) Building Design a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with 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. • 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. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detai4 form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. g. Applicant's Response: a. The proposed wider glass area will not change the previously approve [sic] architectural style. The application drawings show the approved design next to the proposed revision, and there is no substantive difference. The proposed wider glass area will impove [sic] the scale relationship between the pedestrians and the building by reducing the the [sic] amount of "blank facade," and increasing the area of smaller scale building materials. Typically, city planning criteria require as much glass as possible in new building. Given the overall length of this building, wider glass should be seen as a [sic] improvement, and should be encouraged. Although the BAR original approval showed the glass areas restricted to the center portion of the entry portals, the widening of the glass area to the flanking portions of the entry portals will not ruin the proportions of the overall entry portal. * Wiz• hFs� b inJeSSF3:3 ne; .��.w'- ._ti • ea:;ti Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L940048: Parkway Place Page 5 The wider glass does respond to the needs of the retailer [sic] tenant operating within, and is therefore appropriate. Not applicable to this limited scope for a review of the revised entry at Bldg. B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. There is no request for different colors. e. Not applicable to this limited scope for a review of the revised entry at Bldg. B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. g. Not applicable to this limited scope for a review of the revised entry at Bldg. B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. The proposed wider glass area will provide more variety between the entries than the previously approved design. Staff's Response: z U O' v) w u.. w 0: z I. ui U 0, tn: o1- LLD w` a. The wider glass area does not change the overall architectural style, but it is in contradiction to the previously agreed to architectural elements — o within this architectural style that was generated by the architect. ui There is a substantive difference between the previously agreed to 17 . architectural elements and what the applicant is now proposing. b. Not applicable. c. The originally approved concept was recommended by staff as one in which the building components were in proportion and relationship to each other. A bank of windows and doors is typically framed by columns and porticoes, rather than bearing no relationship to them, as in the proposed change. The originally approved concept, which promoted a degree on consistency among architectural elements and arrangement of these elements from one tenant space to the next, supported the concept that the life of a building complex has a longer life span than the individual tenant spaces. In other words, there is typically a certain amount of turnover in tenant spaces, but the life of the complex as a whole could be from 30 to 50 years. 1 • Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0048: Parkway Place Page 6 One of the major purposes of design review is to ensure a higher quality design in buildings and building complexes as viewed from the public street. A certain unity among tenant spaces is therefore desirable, to promote the appearance of a unified design scheme in the complex, rather than a string of unrelated, individual tenant spaces. The evolution of this project from September 1994 to September 1995 (see attachments) clearly shows the development of a unified design scheme. Certain informal design 'guidelines' relating to the appearance of individual tenant spaces were established for this project to ensure that the individual entries will be compatible with each other and complement overall design of the complex. The changes applied for here do not meet these guidelines. Not applicable. e. Not applicable. f. Not applicable for this review. However, see Attachment H, Project Update, for a discussion of this subject. Variety within an overall unified design scheme was the approved approach to this project. As previously discussed, certain 'guidelines' were established by staff, in response to the architect's design concept, in order to implement this scheme. This proposal is in contradiction to these guidelines. CONCLUSIONS Staff recommended the design concept of variety within a unified design scheme to the Board of Architectural Review and received their approval on June 15, 1995. This concept was to be carried out for each of the storefronts and entries. The applicant has since stated that the drawings they provided on June 15, 1995 were in error, and that they intended to carry out this scheme for Buildings A, C1, C2 and D, but not Building B. The design scheme for the facades of the Park Place Retail Center involves delineating the entries for the five major tenant spaces with special porticoes, columns and an arcade, a special fenestration pattern, and architectural details that are carried throughout the project. Staff has worked with the applicant to articulate and make more consistent the following order to individual architectural elements. This scheme provides for both design consistency between entries and flexibility to meet individual tenant needs. • Staff Report to the L94-0048: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 7 Doors and windows are tall and narrow, to create a regular rhythm within the entry porticoes that contrasts with the larger openings between the columns at the entry porticoes. The openings are contained within the columned portico areas, and are arranged symmetrically within these areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to change the entry opening for Building B from approximately 45 feet in width to 60 feet in width to provide additional windows in the entry area, because the entry to Building B would then be inconsistent. with the storefronts and entry details previously approved for the complex and inconsistent with the entries to other tenant spaces. 'k! cri_DNG 8'ENTRY PERSPECTVE • (PROPOSED REVSKX1) ()OOLONG 8 ENTRY PERSPECTIVE (APPROVED- 8/2/95) r, _n4 � 4 ���._L 1Ir. .. 1 OaDwNC B ENTRY ELEVATCN (APPROVED- 8/2/951 • PARK PLACE TURNER AND ASSOCIATES wrwaa.r. ARORI$CI$ AMA 444ATIM m/A...II• ,_t_ _I! ELEVATIONS PAPK RAIZ. TLKM.A .J r . r REVISIONS *NET ATTACHMENT A A 4 ODUMPSTER PLANS & FRONT ELEVATIONS l�T� • �1.J1 • A NEW RETAIL 1. NEW RETAIL C1 NEW RETAIL C2 NEW RETAIL 3 NEW RETAIL TOTAL NEW • 26,960 40,020 23,402 30,177 43,050 163,629 • v w /0�ne7a sirli. I.wri -Iw:.0 •i nn il 1 1 U1 1 1 1 0 0 0 O 0 a 1 0 NOR AST OSCUjFIyST ELEVApION e v7. 00111110110 1iwilil it .1.1.11111.11 ILill OAT WSW ta•Is L_J outygy ENTRY E mpm TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ..- - ww AaMIICTE ur s•r.• SITE PLAN Ion pp 10, wr PARKWAY PLACE. TUOYLA a Mq T.c �:rn'jnaq e ..f REVISIONS YMf: vMf REVISIONS A2 ATTACHMENT C CAWVAIONI • I' . . a a 1 \I. (DMIVVATCN.... WS= 061. np EAST ELEVM 11 1 - fl 111111111 .■. - - •■■._ MEI - IBMIN ....... "I- i'i::.:■!: 11111111111111ffiliffil o EvAncti fl a 1 -r■••■•11117000S[M, idawd1111111Iih, III 911111•1•00 100 ,ca_AN6 VQ_XEJAL,0C PAIN ptIMEMEEtv...mittra NOTES Oftrn'Altr" OltrA121... IP • 10~ P00111 • • P•MID CPPOIE TT • MINIM MIMI NUMMI SPIRY 0 • MAN rte. C00,11I 1.0931 PO:PICAR COC PARKWAY PLACE TINT AND ASSOCIATES 11■111..1111. Al0111111 IBOVVIIII••••• OBL sts.... eml 1*. Er1=1:1 C=.1=32.111 .7111M Fr,". 1:91•11=1.'0, 1.7 SKIT A2 ATTACHMENT D City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Revised Entry at Building 'B' Park Place Retail Center RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE This site, should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at. Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Parking and service area should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. R E C E J V r> SEP ? 5 1995 ©EVELOPMEN r ATTACHMENT G City of Tukwila Design Review Applicat C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This revised entry will have a wider glass area, which does not change the height and scale of Building 'B' in relationship to the site. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The proposed wider glass area will increase the visual communication between the inside of the retail store and the site, and as such is an improvement to the previously approved design. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable _:.......,..mtntrgV'iIrakji;> 0 ;;;Vall;r',':.ikik ;44-ii 43;7G:XWe'47.;,∎Vi City of Tukwila ~? Design Review Application D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry : at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development they .should .be recognized and preserved and enhanced. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. City of Tukwila Design Review Application B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: The proposed wider glass area will promote even greater safety, and provide an even more inviting and stable appearance than the previously approved design: Typically, city planning criteria require as much glass as possible in new buildings. Given the overall length of this building, wider glass should be seen as a improvement, and should be encouraged. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. Responses Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. . In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: NA .._...1�.;,caa •.c%r._r� •:s )ryiaYi:L-�s::�:�'''•.:z`,.'s r� <r�Si! "J`. <�.ESir2[a ?� + {ifia�s '':G »5irv.. City of Tukwila Design Review Application F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls , and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. 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 shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project: .14.34 � ".,:u..�: 1 '. n.,. i:.: t. isii� :tS�.L..,,6:Gardri.hililias� I.S.�ci ' fciLi �: i .�x;ul'�;nl.�.�;2r'Utir:.:l ins... �Ga' �i' r+ �Y;: O :iwL� "+u�;:Y "ii�„�iJ:ca:.:gn£ City of Tukwila Design Review Application 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. Response: The proposed wider glass area will not change the previously approve architectural style. The application drawings show the approved design next to the proposed revision, and there is no substantive difference. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. Response: The proposed wider glass area will impove the scale relationship between pedestrians and the building by reducing the the amount of" blank facade ", and increasing the area of smaller scale building materials. Typically, city'planning criteria require as much glass as possible in new building. Given the overall length of this building, wider glass should be seen as a improvement, and should be encouraged. 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, Response: Although the BAR original aproval showed the glass areas restricted to the center portion of the entry portals, the widening of the glass area to the flanking portions of the entry portals will not ruin the proportions of the overall entry portal. The wider glass does respond to the needs of the retailer tenant operating within, and is therefore appropriate. :.isx= �'.;.;'ii�lSltd•:��1'w' suss :;1v:i:�i3T.i;i?ii:'.:�'_`.; SL'",:�. h.�l.;. ?1�..]',c�;il+ii:Pw]tf: z.. • 174 E. to loJU; W w w w 10: is F_ • ;w w. = v w z v N;. • O. Z. • -1 City of Tukwila Design Review Application D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. There is no request for different colors E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Response: Not applicable to this limited scope request for a review of the revised entry at Bldg B. See previous BAR application for the entire Park Place Retail Center project. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: The proposed wider glass area will provide more variety between the entries than the previously approved design. City of Tukwila {'^� Design Review Application 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE Miscellaneous 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. Response: Not applicable. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings.' Response: ward R. Turner, AIA September 15, 1995 ' . 't;a f �:tiib_ t .+.. S:::a :ti•......:i,�sw.v�.d+' -c;.R xa. -�3W...iR } °sa,t..a_t.£n�;:- y.,,ni_.•� lx'u:;:is +J.;.w .. es4xs:n.•.mv. sf 'c2 :�84.•' %x'�l ii:an'.g;a�s'4t »,,..a ...,�'f_�Ye.a.,Z'� °' .. ATTACHMENT H PROJECT UPDATE September 22, 1995 The following is a list of the BAR design conditions approved on December 15, 1995, and a discussion of the project status with respect to these conditions. As noted below, there are several instances where the applicant has not met conditions established by the BAR. Site design: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL December 15, 1995 1. SEPA conditions stipulate that the retaining wall be concrete in whole or in part, for long -term maintenance purposes. Design details of this wall will undergo peer review and staff approval, including the use of materials, finishes, landscape treatment, and any safety features that might be required. Final wall design will include ivy plantings to eventually cover the entire wall. • • Status: The retaining wall is concrete construction. Because of a change in wall construction technology, ivy will not be planted on top of the wall. The applicant has, in return, added additional landscaping in front of the buildings to compensate for loss of greenery on the wall. 2. Staff will review the screening of trash and recycling areas prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that this area is adequate in size, and screened in a mariner that complements the overall design of the project. Status: A screened area was included in building permit drawings that appears,. to be adequate for trash and recycling storage. The design of the enclosure is compatible with the overall design of the project, in that the trash enclosure is concrete and so is the building. Staff will review the screening at the loading area in the northwest corner of the site to ensure that it is adequately screened, and does not pose a safety hazard for pedestrians. Status: Less screening than originally envisioned is being provided for this area, ',as the applicant did not include required utility boxes and security fencing in earlier submittals. Screening appears to be adequate, however, given the location of the loading area. 1 ATTACHMENT . H z 0!. 00; .0.0; • W J - uJ J: u_a =• d;. � w • 3. w. 0 ;0 F-. ill rut X o Z... • •z 4. For safety and circulation purposes, a crosswalk shall be installed across the main entrance drive at Southcenter Parkway. Status: A crosswalk in this area is shown on building permit drawings. Building design: 5. Final building colors will be as shown on the detail drawing A2. Detailed sign design will be brought before the Planning Commission for final approval. Status: Final building colors have not changed from earlier submittals. The detailed sign design is being reviewed by the Planning Commission for special permission for increased sign area in a public hearing on September 28, 1995. The Board of Architectural Review will also be reviewing signage at this time. The exterior lighting scheme will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that lighting is adequate for safety purposes, does not interfere with other businesses in the . vicinity, and complements architectural and site design. Status: The new fixtures chosen for exterior lighting appear to be utilitarian in design and do not complement the neo- classical design of the structure or existing fixtures that will be re -used. Existing fixtures to be re -used on the site will provide an interesting contrast to architectural elements. The condition of these features, which have been stored on site during construction, remains to be seen. One of the applicant's responses to a request for a special focal point on the main pediment, e.g. artwork, graphics or another special feature, was to provide floodlights from the parking lot to "wash" the rough finish of the dark charcoal gray pediment. Levels of lighting to be provided in the parking area appear to be adequate. 7. Staff will review architectural detailing of the building prior to the issuance of building permit to ensure that the materials support the overall architectural concept. This may include, but is not limited to, the detailing of the finishes of the columns, the planter areas of the building facade, materials of window mullions, and finishes. Status: This is the fourth review of this project by the Board of Architectural Review. Planning Division staff has met with the project architect on more than a dozen occasions to discuss building and formal landscape design alone, 2 z 00 co ld Wzi F - M M LL; W O' ga: J LL Q. I--W .,- Z z a. tu U �. „i•-• H Pi iii z. U N= 0 z not including building demolition, site design, retaining wall design or compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Extensive design and drawing changes have been required due to: * design changes due to requests by individual tenants. * incomplete submittals (wrong set . of drawings, contradictory information, incomplete information, information submitted in the wrong sequence); design changes due to the fact that planning and design for previous stages was incomplete; design changes due to changes in the field that were not previously foreseen; and Despite the 'fast track' nature and complexity of this project, it has consistently improved in quality of design and site amenities. However, due to the number and extent of revisions requested by the applicant, staff has recommended that the project be be formally reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review for this most recent requested change. 8. Given the large scale of the buildings and portico elements, as well as the formal architectural vocabulary that has been employed, a more formal and bold statement might be made in the landscaped areas along the building facades so that these planers are not undermined by the architecture. Suggestions include the use of more formal- appearing plant materials, hardscape, and site and /or pedestrian amenities. Status: The landscape architecture scheme has continued to be informal in nature. This, according to the applicant, will provide contrast with the large scale, formal, colorful nature of the project itself. Additional hardscape, plant materials, and pedestrian amenities have been provided near the main entrance of the project, at staff's recommendation. This scheme was reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review on June 15, 1995. 9. In order to ensure that plant materials present a sufficiently strong element against the building facade, and that there is a clear focal point at the end of the entry drive, specimen trees of a substantial size (15; is recommended) are recommended for the planters flanking the primary entrance of the main building complex. 3 tyeY,ii_"bildikkWatit4 a4eab inAtieki'Vto al`.'' Status: Four specimen trees of the size noted, in the area noted, have been provided in the landscape plan. 10. It is recommended that an attempt be made to save significant trees on the site for use as specimen trees in the landscape scheme. Status: Virtually no trees from the 20 year old landscaping that existed on the site were saved. No attempt was made to save the trees. The entire development site has been used to stage construction and store materials. 11. To ensure the survival of the existing London plane trees flanking the secondary access drive just south of the Azteca restaurant, a projection barrier consisting of six (6) foot high chain link fence should encircle each tree five (5) feet outside of the dripline during construction. This is in place of the protective tree barrier shown on the landscape drawings. Status: Protective fences were not provided for the trees. One of the trees has been removed, and there is a construction shack where the tree used to be. The other tree is being used as a site to store materials. 4 - "a`�:�,� ut ls;' Six:'r",�1; <�Ysk.�t�;�i:'�:,i�r £•:�.�..:�;7..�3%t,�'r;: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 9A- 40 afid f2iLt P. John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Ag ' )o..0) Afiie Ski) 41A-IL 1''--C h ed ik / 41- -Cite 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 TURNER & ASSOCIATES 18420 24th Place N.E., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 August 29, 1995 Ms Diana Painter Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE. Park Place Retail Center Tukwila, WA BAR approval of Bldg 'B' entry Dear Diana, The enclosed 12 copies of A'�,�dated 8/29/95, show the proposed revision for the Linen n Things entry. We are hoping to get on the agenda for the September 28th BAR meeting. As you know, work has begun on -site, and we are very eager to resolve this remaining issue. Per our earlier discussions with you and Building Official, the building permit was issued as approved by the BAR, with a storefront opening width of 44' -8 ". The tenant, Linen n Things, has asked to widen the entry to 60' -0 ". The enclosed drawing shows the building in elevation and in perspective, with the entry storefronts shown with both widths. As we discussed last week, we will not be requesting any change to the material or colors in the design, and therefore will not be rendering the drawing. Perhaps you can bring the rendering from our last presentation. Please let us know if there is any other perspective views which you need to illustrate the issues. We feel the proposed revision is an improvement to the project, opening up more of the front of the building for windows and glass. The symetrical or classical design will not be hurt by widening the storefront width. Thankyou in advance for your work on this application. Si cerely, Howard R. Turner, AIA cc: Roy Bennion, Mike Sandorffy Jorge Garcia, Linen n Things • :M. • CE PIED 2 9 199 GU1vi:' urs, 1 OE.VELOPIVI Nl' BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN FIEVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680. RETURN THIS CHECKLIST WITH YOUR APPLICA TION GENERAL NI Application Form Design Review Fee — $900.00 Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Fee — $225.00 PLANS RECEIVED SEP 6 1095 commum Per DEVELOPMENT Seven (7) copies of the set of plans are required. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30', with the north arrow, graphic, scale and date all identified on the plans. Also, the license stamps of the architect and landscape architect shall be on each appropriate plan. The following information should be contained within the plan: A. Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks. ). ; AL-4 B. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads. tjAn C. Lot size and impervious (paved and building areas) surface calculations. ,N4 I D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area in excess of 15 %. E. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions, and driveways. F. Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will be saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and spacing. V! C.) O y 0 w. co LL. ui og' N a. z� I— Os z�: `ate; D Ot :w ut -410, ii Z: off` BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW •DESIGN REVIEW APPLICKTN CHECKLIST, Page 2 . G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and how water and sewer is available. NAD H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications. ®. I. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking calculations. KA n J. For multiple residential, location, dimensions and description of common open space and recreation areas. K. Dimensioned elevations of building drawn at 1/8" = 1' or a comparable scale. Elevations should show the type of exterior materials. NA L. Location and elevations of exterior lighting for buildings and parking areas. M. Location and elevations of dumpster screens. NQri N. Color and material sample board for exterior building and accessory structure colors and material. EXO. Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which accurately represent your proposed project. v One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each drawing reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most printing companies can make PMT's). PUBLIC NOTICE 4LJ A mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ") of, , Qp, j OLDS t) u , C P U , m e , Ir. La(j t Ntr ICJ A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6548. x .00: 'U Oi cold ;9 _! u) LL; W 0i W 0: Z~ W 0 N: 0 H W W z; N Z • I BOARD OF ARCHI ECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN .4EVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 Planner: FOR STAFF USE ONLY File. Number.. Cross- Reference Files: Receipt Number: 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: .)1 S1 ClJ 1 O f po4 -o 6 S ' c o P 'Race cLeTkt C A A 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- . division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) . Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: i" l%i. O -rtio4N6in j' " vP.(\J$a. eQAtt‘OCJNIE6 Address: 1 tiP4 W 1.4N .P1., t Phone: la& S 1431 Signature: - - , iS r Date: 9 / 5 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. N U F40003 Oo3 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERT Name: OWNER Addres Phone: I /WE,[signature(s)J swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchas of the property involved • in this application and that the foregoing statements and a ers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: TURNER & ASSOCIATES 8420 24th Place N.E., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 Fax(206) 365 -7504 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: Diana Painter City of Tukwilla 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Seattle, WA. 98188 DATE 9/8/95 I JOB NO. RE: Park Place 1 Linen n Things entry revision PMTs of A0.1, A1.2, A4 x^ a ir-- �a r tom' jr'~� WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 ATTACHED 0 UNDER SEPERATE COVER VIA THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: O SHOP DRAWINGS 0 PRINTS 0 PLANS 0 SAMPLES 0 SPECIFICATIONS O COPY OF LETTER 0 CHANGE ORDER 0 COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 varies PMTs of A0.1, A1.2, A4 x^ a ir-- �a r tom' jr'~� 7 varies Full sized A0.1, A1.2, A4 e , o.... �...r n .... a n.«....,... 1 9/5/95 1126 for BAR fee 1 ^ Application form and checklist P a 19:35 OE'VELOPM1tMPM.r THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below O FOR APPROVAL 0 APPROVED AS SUBMITTED 0 RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL O FOR YOUR USE 0 APPROVED AS NOTED O AS REQUESTED REMARKS : Ho s ou're feelin better. Please let us know if ou need an : additional. If ou : et a chance, • lease send a co 0 SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION 0 RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS 0 RETURN CORRECTED PRINTS of our staff report. COPY TO: P3 SIGNED File: L95 -00 mm Drawing# 3 thtthea 35•rnm Drawing# 3 shin 0 = =,1,1, _ jai Ill I r =' .J' ■Ia' 11 ■ al -;?;'L.111111 11 521 1TH" i. �+unLlu��� :�� � � i�l:�l:al�ll �I ,� �� � + ao ■� .� ■tRRtt= 4134 � 'I = °71 - �III,._ t_'v 1t 1FT lr 'III :.. .�I I'lll I'll 7�1�11'- II'�!I71� .� I'F'1♦I..!tl'1.I:Ir1 521 =I SHEET INDEX t 1 ARCHITECTURAL ( AO.1 "m-,COVER SHEET ' AU DEMOIJTION STE PLAN • ' At2 STE PLAN A1.3'.eutrSITE.PLAN DETALIS A2.1 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS - BULDNG A • A2.2 FLOOR PLAN - BULDNG O/C A2.3 ROOF PLAN - BULDNG B C A2.4 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS - BULDNG D A3.1 ELEVATIONS A3.2 BULDNG SECTIONS A4.1 ENTRY - BULDNG A } A4.2 ENTRY SECTIONS - BUILDING A A43 ENTRY - BULDNGS B & D ' A4,4 ENTRY SECTIONS - BU.DNGS B & D A4.5 ENTRY - BULDNG C j`A4.6 ENTRY SECTIONS - BULDNG C A4.7 CANOPY AND PLASTER SECTIONS , A4.0 LOADING DOCK - SECTIONS & DETALS A4.9 WALL SECTIONS A51 ENLARGED PLANS A52 DOOR SCHEDULE, ENERGY CALCULATIONS A53 ENERGY CALCULATIONS STRUCTURAL S1 S2 S3 1,S4 S5 • S6 a si �s8 .S9 isr I S14 ',513 S15 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMT 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 5/15/95 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 5/15/95 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 5/15/95 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 4/15/95 BO & PERMIT REV 5/15/95 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 5/15/95 4/27/95 ED & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 4/27/95 BBD & PERMT REV 7/1188/95 4/27/95 BBD & PERMIT REV 7/te/95 REV 5/15/95 :L REV 7/18/95 AAA, REV 7/18/95 h . REV 6/1/95 t, , REV 7/18/95 £0 REV 5/795 m ,REV 74795 REV 6/6 95 REV 75 REV 5/ /95 REV 95 REV 7/18/95 ':. REV 7/18/95 ,1„/A Ai REV • , REV 7/18/95 O REV 7/18/95 A REV 71895 • REV 7/18/95 !�A na n t. GENERAL NOTES, FOUNDATION SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT BLDG. "A" FOUNDATION & ROOF FRAAANG PLANS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT BLDG. "B" & "C" FOUNDATION PLAN 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT BLDG."B" & "C" ROOF FRAMING PLAN 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT EILDGAr ROOF BD CTD BRACE L£C AL29 BO PERMT RE S ROOF FRAMING SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD & PONT FLOOR FRAMING PLAN & SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMT BLDG. A PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT BLDG. BCD P.C. PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT BLDG. BCD P.C. PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT P PPLKS C 4/27/5 & PERMT C. PANEL PLACEMENT KEYS, & 9 BD P.C. COLUMN REWORDING ROOF FRAMING SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT MISCELLANEOUS SECTORS 4/27/95 BO & PERMIT ELECTRICAL E1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN E2 BULDNG PLANS 'LANDSCAPE. L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 LANDSCAPE DETALS ;L3 RRIOTION PLAN L4 RROTEN DETALS 'L5 ENLARGED PLANS CIVIL ;cm cm. COVER SHEET C21 TESC FOR DEMOLTRON /NORTH END 42.2 TESC FOR DEMOLTTKIN /SOUTH ENO C23 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C3.1 GRADING & STORM DRAINAGE PLAN /NORTH C32 GRADING & STORM DRAINAGE PLAN /SOUTH C33 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES AND DETALS C4.1 NORTH 1/2 WATER PLAN 'C4.1A ALTERNATE NORTH 1/2 WATER PLAN 'C42 SOUTH 1/2 WATER PLAN 1C42AALTERNATE SOUTH 1/2 WATER PLAN •C5.1 NORTH 1/2 SANITARY SEWER PLAN C52 SOUTH 1/2 SANTARY SEWER PLAN C5.3 SANTARY SEWER NOTES MD DETALS ,,,SURVEY TA /AGSM LAND TITLE SURVEY SHORING SS1 SITE PLAN & NOTES SS2 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS S53 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS SS4 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS SS5 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS SS6 SECTIONS & DETALS REV • 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV REV 6/5/95 REV 6/5/95 REV 6• /5/95 REV 6/5/95 4/10/95 REV. 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT 4/10/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7 /18/95 REV 7/18/95 RELY 7/18/95 TVA, n A, c, i ;Wilt REV REV 7/18/95 !!A REV 7/18/95 ®® 4/W95 BD & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 8 , REV. 7/18/95 4/W95 BD & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 8 , REV. 7/18/95 4/10/95 130 & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 ®, REV. 7/18/95® 4/10/95 BD & PERMIT REV, 6/8/95 6 , REV. 7/18/95 4/10/95 BD & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 A, REV. 7/18/95® (4/7/95) 5/3/95 4/7/95 5/3/95 4/7/95 NOT N TIPS SET NOT ,N THS SET CONSULTANTS ARCHITECT TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 18420 24TH PL NE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98155 (206) 365 -7431 FAX 365 -7504 CONTACT: HOWARD R. TURNER. AA STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHJTLER CONSULTING ENGNEERS, NC. 1300 11471-1 AVE SE SUITE 250 BELLWUE, WASHNGTON 98004 2o6 450 -4075 ACT: JOSEPH SHITLER • . CIVIL & SURVEY BUSK, ROED, AND HTCHJGS 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102 206 323 -4144 FAX 323 -7135 CONTACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, PE. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LANDFLAN PS. 600 MAN STREET, SURE D EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 776 -4932 FAX 774-t803 CONRACT: SHAWN PARSONS, L.A.N307 TRAFFIC ENGINEER TRAFFIC PLANNING AND EId'EERNG, NC. 2101112TH AVENUE NORTHEAST BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 455 -5320 FAX 453 -7180 CONTACT: MARK JACOBS, PE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE P3 /PARKWAY LLC. 800 511-1 AVE SLATE 3700 (206) 682-6868 FAX (2021182-1040 64 CONTACT: ROY 80i3 N, L SANDORFFY, CRAIG KEPPLER SOILS ENGINEER GEO ENGtEERS NC. 8410 154TH AVE NE REDMOND, WASHNGTON(98009 CONTACT: JACK TUTTLE, 861-6050 CFAJNOER • DEMOLITION R.W. RHINE, NC. 1124 EAST 112TH TACOMA, WASMIGTON 98445 CONTACT: 6I AASYNE (206) 531 -9548 FIRE MARSHALL TLKWLA FRE DEPARTMENT ANDOVER PARK EAST, TIMWLA WA. (206) 575 -4404 CONTACT: M<E ALDERSON RETAINING WALL DBM CONTRACTORS NC. 1124 EAST 112TH ST. TACOMA, WA. 98445 gON61) 40 ' K FAX E2)! 74 -6574 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER PATH ENGINEERS 17928 BOTFELL- EVERETT HWY, SE SUITE H (80T1-ELL, WA. 98012 (206) 481 -7692 CONTACT: CLFFORD Si-E 0N ( CONTRACTOR CLARK CONSTRUCTION CO. 408 AURORA AVE. N 521 C(206) 6)24-55244 FAX (206) 682 -7126 ') ONTACT:STEVE NORMAN TESTING - AGENCY OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCVTES 6747 MARTIN LUTHER KNG WAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WA. 98118 t 206 725 -4600 FAX (206).723 -2221 ACT: OTTO ROSENAU '. III III 111 III 111 `II III III 111 111 111 III 111 III 111 111 III 111 III III IIIIIII Iplgl 'r • CODE INDEX DIVISION OF SHELL / TI PERMIT RESPONSIBILITY ISSUE DEMO OF 9 STORY OFFICE RETAINING WALL PERMIT SENSITIVE AREAS ORDNANCE UTLITES COMPLIANCE WITH B.A.R. ZONING LANDSCAPNG STE LIGHTING FRE DEPARTMENT PLAN CHECK SPRN(LER DESIGN ENERGY CODE STRUCTURAL RACK PONT SIGN PERMIT & BAR APPROVAL UBC ISSUES: CHAPTERS CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 17 CHAPTER 22 CHAPTER 31 CHAPTER 32 CHAPTER 33 CHAPTER 38 GENERAL BULDNG CODE: 1991 UBC OCCUPANCY CLASS: B2 PREVIOUS PERMITS SUBMITTED 1/25/95 SUBMITTED 3/13/95 SUBMITTED 3/13/95 SUBMITTED 3/13/95 SPRINKLER CODE: NFPA Al 13 SPRN<LER DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR FRE CODE 1991 UFC ENERGY CODE: WA STATE ENERGY CODE 1994 AREA BULDNG A PROPOSED BULDNG AREA CONSTRUCTION TYPE ALLOWABLE BULDNG AREA BASE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE FROM SEPARATION ON 3 SDES (59'-20' x .025 +1 NCKASE FROM LERS • TOTAL = 8000 x t975 x 3 BUILDING BCD. PROPOSED ST FLOOR BELONG AREA PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR BELONG AREA CONSTRUCTION TYPE ALLOWABLE BULDNG AREA BASE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE FROM SEPARATION ON ALL SIDES TOTAL THS SHELL PERMIT mar ,IiII simmmuoisi man 11•MillI_flo NA SS1 -SS6 NCLUDED N THS SET FOR REFERENCE ONLY LTR1 -L5 REVISED 4/10/95 :REV. 6/8/95 Ctl -05.3 REVISED 4 /7/95, PFR CITY COMMENTS AtO -A5.2 DATED 4/10/95 REV. 7/18/95 AtO -At3 DATED 4/%1/95 REV. 7/18/95 L1 -L5 REVISED 4/7/95 E1 DATED 4/10/95 (REV. 4/27/95 DATED 4/10 95.-- SHOP DRAWINGS NOT N THS SET A52 A53 DATED 4110/95 & CALCS BY PATH ENGINEERS FOR NEATER BLDG. S1 -S13 DATED 4/10/95 REV. 7/18/95 NA NA ALLOWABLE AREAS B2 OCCUPANCY SEC 17A GUARDRALS 'I SOUS REPORT & ADDENDA: HC ACCESS, SITE & xx EXTERn7R OF BULDNG, AREAS OF REFUGE OR ROOF: SEC CLRTAN BOARDS )REQLRED FOR 1 �SLLL CE 6t FEAT VENThG EXITING FROM BULDNG SHELL ONLY, BASED ON PRELMNARY TI DESIGNS .39/5600 HGH PLE STORAGE FOR EMPTY SHELL SEC 38041a) _NO SPRINKLERS REQUIRED N NACCESSBLE ENTRY CANOPY ROOF ENCLOSURES = 26,980 SF V N, SPRNQ.ERED = 8,000 SF = t975 TA/ES =3 TAVS = 47,400 SF = 128649 SF = 10,000 5F V N SPRNCLERED = 8,000 SF = UNLMTED = UNLMTED SF FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS (PENDNG YARD EASEMENTS) BULDNG A V N SPRN<LERED EXTEROR BEARING WALLS STRUCTURAL FRAM: ROOF E'l1LDNG BCD V N SPRN<LERED EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS FLOOR -CELNG FLOCRS STRUCTURAL FRAME ROOF ZONING DESIGNATION FRONT YARD SETBACK SCE AND REAR SETBACKS =CM =20' =5' = NOT RATED = NOT RATED = NOT RATED, CLASS A = NOT RATED = NOT RATED = NOY RATED = NOT RATED, CLASS A FUTURE TENANT M'ROVEMENT PERMITS (NOT N THS SET) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA RE -REVEW PER TI RE -REVEW PER TI RE -REVEW PER TI FOR "HEATED BLDG." TI STRUCTURAL, F ANY TI DESIGN TI DESIGN NA NA NA NA TOLET ROOMS, NTEROR.BLDG., PER 11 NA, RE -REVEW TI DWGS. PER STORAGE FEIGUT & FRE CODE RE -REVEW TI DWGS. PER WALLS & FIXTURES RE -REVEW 11 DWGS. PER STORAGE, WALLS & FIXTURES EGRESS BULDNG A 26,980 SF OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELIt4ARY. T1 DESIGN RETAL 25,780 SF 3U# 859 OCCUPANTS STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 1200 SF /309 4 OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD = 863 OCCUPANTS 3 EXITS REQUIRED EXIT WDTH REQUIRED = 863 x 0.2 PROVDED BULDNG BCD = 173 NCFES = 204 ACHES 136.649 SF TENANT B 40,020 OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELIMINARY I DESIGN RETAL 34,020 SF /30' 1134 OCCUPANTS STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 6,000 SF /309 20 OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD = 1154 OCCUPANTS 4 EXITS REQUIRED EXIT WOTH REQUIRED = 1154 x 0.2 PROVDED TENANT C1 OCCUPANT LOAD -BASED RETAL STORAGE & STOCKROOMS TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD 3 EXITS REQUIRED EXIT WIDTH = 231 NCI-ES = 240 NCFES 23.402 I. ON PRELMNARY TI DESIGN 20,402 SF /39 680 OCCUPANTS 3,000 SF /38010 OCCUPANTS = 690 OCCUPANTS ott REQUIRED= 690x0.2 =138 FRONDED = 21 TENANT C2 30,177 SF OCCUPANT LOAD (FRST FLOOR) - BASED ON, PRELMNARY TI DESIGN RETAL 17,177 SF /30= 573 OCCUPANTS 1 STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 3,000 SF /38010 OCCUPANTS OCCUPANT LOAD =583 OCCUPANTS OCCUPANT LOAD (SECOND FLOOR) -BASED ON PRELMJARY TI DESIGN RETAL 10,000 SF /30= 300 OCCUPANTS OCCUPANT LOAD = 300 OCCUPANTS NCFES NCFES EXIT WIDTH REQURED 1ST FLOOR) 583 x 0.2 REQUIRED 2NC FLOG) 300 x 0.3 TOTAL RE D PROVDED = 117 NCFES = 90 ACHES = 207 NCFES = NCFES TENANT D 43,050 SF OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELIMINARY TI DESIGN RETAL 40,050 SF/3T 1335 STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 3,000 SF /30810 TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD =.1345 4 EXITS REQUIRED • EXIT WDTH REQUIRED = 1345 x 0.2 PROVDED = 269 NCFES = 324 ACHES MAXMIM DISTANCE TO AN EXIT DOES NOT EXCEED 200' N ACCORDANCE WITH NFP.A. 101 SECTION 2.5-26 AND UBC SECTION 3303 (0). VICINITY = .MiAP: GENERAL NOTES • t ALL CO■STR1CTCN 6 TO f1 10 105*1. STATE N 3T LIVED TOSC UPC 0tWC9N . • A 1 osmium ACT 981 -WtE 1, N -9130 HC STAMNDS. 2. TFE CONTRACTOR 6 TO vow,' ALL CI t AIO IEPO.T,. ANY I6OEPNC ES TO 11E PRO.ECT M YR= .._. 10 CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF MATERAS. . 1 ALL CO SCN8 RELATE TO FACE OF STIO NO/ C£NTOEUE CF CO.LIN, DO NOT SCALE MAWR, F. CN.ENSCAS ARE NOT PE CA160 CONFIN WITH PRO.ECT M4N<ER. 4. ALL awns TO THE rnRRACT U5T HAVE PRIOR APPROVAL FROM PFtO.ECT 9Af4 lx Z FOR oWRES NDT PROFi .X AUIHOI�D YRL NOT HO:IOTEn S. M.I. IXQISOUS OR 0.WCAICNS 9010 BE ATM./0 1110.01 PROJECT M4btOR N WRING g5FN (7) KWIC DAYS PRIOR TO BD oR ®ANYff G6ot5&J & 11E PROJECT MANUAL, 9PARATE COY=- 6 PART OF THESE CT OOOA.ENTS ALL CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSHE FOt HAVNO A . . 1FCROLOH LFCDSTANDND O' ALL ORANIOS AND SPECFGTOS. FALUE TO ACOUNIT 010 ELF NTH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 61T RElEVE CONTRACTOR 6 • Rq'OSH TY FOR PERFOI lG WORC HD AO7ffOEY. C0R'FNSA11N SHALL ALLOWED FOR FAL1/E TO DD S0. 7. 11-E CO ITRACT0119w1 MM)TM THE NTE 1Y OF IW atr*G'S SECURITY AT ALL TIES AND 94L TAME CARE TO KEEP 11E SLUNG as.,m & 116 BULDNG 941 tE FRE 9NQETED 11OU90JT F111DHO ALL SCOTT AND ATTC AREAS' TIE COON. CWIRLLBBACCC,T,OR 6 fECCS,,PONSHE TO�ODEsaNtAc SYS1D EONp.YID FIE ALMASYSIO10N U61AWA1 CDEUUFO THE 24 MC MOER(LER PER 9 C11 1 n3O7 Cr aF 17E UPC NE 61J»G SPR IS SYSIFM 6 TO BE OFSOE) PER OtOYRY F�NYZ /N51D009�CIG FT. N ALLMEAS ALL MINCER 's' N8 FRE ALARM OFSI 'ND 910P DRAW= 941 BE SUBMITS) TO 11E lLIOW.A FIE WS9i& AND FACTORY MUTUAL PRIOR TO ALLATDN' A CONTRACTOR TO COORDFNIE ACTMTE4 MD SC EOAE NTH CEMLITO1 CCNIRACTOR MD RETMOC WALL CONTRACTOR DOWER YAJ. FIVE MD PAY FO , NO (DERN. CONTRACTOR WLL COODNATE F SPECAL PSPEC1C 61 AS SPECFED N t. sEC10< JO2(c MD 304 R CONIRACTOt 941 EE AESPaSas FOR ALL DZCIRCAL" AECHANCAI, AND FLU,. FERMIS • 12. PPMM9601ALLL ExTliae & io I o -r FF1t 11 TEE AROETECT HAS RENEWED T1E I:EOTEONCAL REPORT t A D 1FESE =woos ARE BA9D CFI THAT RYORT, WADI _.1w MINNs CONSENT. TI NOTES t 11 PERAT A.9MTTALS TO FO10W 2. TENANT WEDS RLCR W ITTEN APPROVAL FROM INCLOD TO 11F:GI3TERED ARC111 ECT HOW/AD R. TOWER STATE Of WJS`1JCICW SYMBOLS LEGEND COLUMN WE INDICATOR 0 KEYNOTE INDICATOR WALL SECTION INDICATOR BLDG. ELEV. INDICATOR DETAIL INDICATOR ELEVATION INDICATOR DETAIL INDICATOR ROOM NAME & NUMBER 0 DOOR NUMBER COLOR INDICATOR HEIGHT /ELEV. NDICATOR PLAN ELEV. MARKER' WALL PARTITION TYPE A6 10-AO 1-A2 STORAGE •-■-■■•■■•■ SHEET INDEX ) ARCHITECTURAL .. • 1, A0.1.”COVER'S-IEET 4/27/95 BD & PERIAT REV 5/15/95 REV 7/6/95 AAA All DEMOLITION SITE PLAN ' 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 7/18/95 f At2 SITE PLAN • 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 6/1/95 , 7/18/95 ANA& A1.3STE PLAN DETALS 4/27/95 BD & FERMI : A2.2 FLOOR PLAN - BULDNG B/C 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 5/795 I, RV 74795 4/27/95 BD & PERMT RV 6/6 95 REV 7895 A21 95 , A2.1 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS - BULDNG A A2.3 ROOF PLAN - BULDNG B/C 4/27/95 130 & PERMIT RV 5/ /95 , REV / /95 , A2.4 FLOOR & ROOF PLANS - BULDNG D 4/27/95 BID & PERT RV 7/18/95 j .. A3.1 ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 BO & PEIT V 5/15/95 • REv 7/19/95 &IA, 7•A3.2 BULDNG SECTIONS . 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 7/18/95 A4.1 ENTRY - BULDNG A 4/27/95 EC & PERMIT RV 5/15/95 i A4.2 ENTRY SECTIONS - BULDNG A 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 5/15/95 A4.3 ENTRY - BULONGS 13 & D 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 5/15/95 A4.4 ENTRY SECTIONS - LD A4.5 ENTRY - BULDNG C 4/18/95 BD & PER/AT REV 5/15/95 • REV 7/18/95 BUNGS 13 & D 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 i A4.6 ENTRY SECTIONS - BULDNG C 4/27/95 EC & PERMT REV 5/15/95 • REV 7/18/95 ,.. A4.7 CANOPY AND PLASTER SECTIONS 4/27/95 BID & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 A4.0 LOADNG DOCK-SECICNS & DETALS 4/27/95 BD & PERMT REV 7/18/95 A4.9 WALL SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 i, A5.1 ENLARGED FLANS 4/27/95 BD & PERMIT REV 7/18/95 IA5.2 DOOR SC•EDULE, ENERGY CALCULATIONS 4/27/95 EC & PERIAT REV 7/18/95 A5.3 ENERGY CALCULATICNS 4/27/95 BD & PERMT / ; STRUCTURAL "■41411b... BIM NIS`4111■11•111, -4 ..27"gr-'411.1eijilM ; ow jomin: MINNI..111111M.IMIENAMM.I.r..1111111111= 1 ! 1 El!...1111... Airman0 -.1111.110 .••••••.,___-••••••••• ''• • • it it AL Ai rY, it REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 i. 91 GENERAL NOTES, FOUNDATION SECTIONS 4/27/95 EC S2 13LDG."A" FOUNDATION & ROOF FRAMING PLANS 4/27/95 BD S3 DIG. "B"&"C" FOUNDATION PLAN 4/27/95 BD .? 54 BLDG. "B"&C" ROOF FRAMING FLAN 4/27/95 BD S5 18LDG:•)• FOUNDATION & ROOF FRAMING PLANS 4/27/95 BD 56 , ROOF FRAMNG SECTIONS, BRACE & MECHANICAL4/27/95 eo FRAMING SECTIONS • 4/27/95 BD -j:',.,: ,',1 58 FLCCR FRAMING PLAN & SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD ,,9 BLDG. A PANEL ELEVADONS 4/27/95 EC .' t MO BLDG. BCD P.C. PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 EC S11 BLDG. BCD P.C. PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 EC S12 BLDG. BCD P.C. PANEL ELEVATIONS 4/27/95 BD S13 P.C. PANEL PLACDENT KEYS, CONNECTIONS & 4/27/95 BD P.C. CCLUI.41 REFFORCNG I S14 ROOF FRAM sena% 4/27/95 eo 915 MISCELLANEOUS SECTIONS 4/27/95 BD . 4/27/95 BD ELECTRICAL ELECTRCAL SITE PLAN E2 BULDNG PLANS , ,LANDSCAPE.. LANDSCAPE PLAN .L2 LANDSCAPE DETALS 11.3 FRICTION PLAN L4 I8IGT1ON DETALS L5 ENLARGED PLANS CIVIL cti avt. COVER SLEET C2.1 TESC FCR DEMCLITION/NORTH END -C2.2 TESC FOR DEMOUTON/SOUTH END 4C2.3 EROSION CONTROL PLAN GRADNG & STORM DRANAGE PLAN/NCRTH :C3.2 GRADING & STORM CRANAGE PLAN/SOUTH C3..3 STORM DRANAGE NOTES AD DETALS 'C4.1 NORTH 1/2 WATER PLAN iC4.1k ALTERNATE NORTH 1/2 WATER PLAN • .C4.2 SOUTH 1/2 WATER PLAN 1,C42A ALTERNATE SOUTH 1/2 WATER PLAN C5.1. NCRTH 1/2 SANITARY SEWER PLAN C52 SOUTH 1/2 SANTARY SEWER PLAN C53 SANTARY SEWER NOTES AND DETALS . . SURVEY AALTA/ACSM LAND RTLE SURVEY NOT 91 THS SET ".(.SHORING SST SITE PLAN & NOTES 5S2 PARTIAL SHORN G PLAN & ELEVATIONS •S3 PARTX SHORNG PLAN & ELEVATIONS SS4 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS 555 PARTIAL SHORING PLAN & ELEVATIONS SS6 SECTIONS & DETALS & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMT REV 6/5/95 & PEWIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 84 PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERK REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERIM REV 6/5/95 & PERMIT REV 6/5/95 & PERMT REV 6/5/95 & PERMT REV 6/5/95 ft A 4/10/95 REV. 4/27/95 BD & PONT 4/v/95 BD & PERIN REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 WV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 RV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 RSV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 tt REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 REV 7/18/95 4/10/95 BD & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 , RV. 7/18/95,2, 4/10/95 BD & PERMT REV, 6/8/95 A , REV. 7/18/95,1 4/51/95 BD & PERMT REV. 6/8/95 REV. 7/18/95 4/o/95 BD & PERMT REV. 6/8/95 A, RV. 7/18/95 4/10/95 BD & PERMT REV. 6/8/95 A. Rev. 7/18/95 4/io/95 BD & PERMIT REV. 6/8/95 .6, REV. 7/18/95 (4/7/95) 5/3/95 4/7/95 5/3/95 4/7/95 N3TN THS SET . . • • , • .. . • • , . . . • , , ••LI,••••••:"...•:.:::.••••.'..:.,;,,•::•:.,,•,:-,:•••••'.....,••••••,•.*:..•:,.....;-•,,',,,....•,:.;::.•.....i:•••;.:,:;;.•••;•'-•"•,::_•_,L.,..",•• '• A CONSULTANTS ARCHITECT TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 18420 24TH PL NE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98155 (206) 365-7431 FAX 365-7504 CONTACT: HOWARD R TURNER, AIA • STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHJTLER CONSULTING DICKERS, NC. 1300 114TH AVE SE SUTE 250 BELLVIE, WASPINGTCN 98004 (206) 450-4075 CONTACT: JOSEPH S1-11TLER CIVIL & SURVEY BUSH, ROED, AND 14TOICS 2009 MICR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98X12 206 323-4144 FAX 323-7135 ACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, FE. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LANDPLAN P.S. 600 MAN STREET, SUTE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 776-4932 FAX 7741803 CONTACT: SHAWN PARSONS, L.A.#307 TRAFFIC ENGINEER TRAFFIC PLANNING AND ENSIEERNG, NC. 2E11 112TH AVENLE NORTFEAST BELLEVLE, WASFINGTON 98004 (206) 455-5320 FAX 453-7180 CONTACT: MARK JACOBS, PE. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE P3/PARKWAY LLC. 800 5Tl1 AVE SURE 3700 SEATTLE, WASFINGTON 98104-3122 (206) 682-6868 FAX (206 ) 682-1040 CONTACT: ROY BENNON, ICI4AEL SANDORFFY, CRAIG KEPPLER SOILS ENGINEER GEO ENGNEERS, NC. 8410 154TH AVE NE REC•CNO, WASHINGTON 98009 (206) 861-6000 FAX (206) 861-6050 CONTACT: •AO< TUTTLE iBURT PSCFUNDER DEMOLITION RHNE, NC. 1124 EAST 112TH TACOAA. WASHINGTON 98445 (206) 838-0551 FAX (206) 531-9548 CONTACT: BLAYNE LEI'IOANO FIRE MARSHALL TUKWLA FRE DEPARTMENT ANDOVER PARK EAST, TUMLA WA. (206) 575-4404 CONTACT: /AKE ALDERSON RETAINING WALL DEM CONTRACTORS NC. 1124 EAST 112TH ST. TACOMA, WA. 98445 L28143.? 838-1402 FAX (208)874-6574 ACT: 616< LOVELAOE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER PATH ENIGNEERS 17928 BOTFELL-EVERETT HWY. SE SUTE H BOTFELL, Wk 98012 (206) 481-7735 FAX (206) 481-7692 ONTACT: OLFFORD DEARON - • .. . • CONTRACTOR W.G. CLARK CONSTRUCTION CO. SEATTLE, WA 98109 408 AURORA AVE N.- (206) 624-5244 Fagg) 682-7126 CONTACT: STEVE ITESTING AGENCY OTTO ROSENAU & ASSOCIATES MARTN LUTHER KING WAY SOUTH ‘, SEATTLE, WA. 98118 206 A7C2T5. -o4r6PS OTTO ROSENAU 723-2221 _ • CODE INDEX DIVISION OF SHELL / TI PERMIT RESPONSIBILITY ISSUE PREVIOUS PERMITS DEMO OF 9 STORY OFFICE SUBMITTED 1/25/95 RETAINING WALL PERMIT SUBMITTED 3/13/95 SENSMVE AREAS ORDNANCE SUBMTTED 3/13/95 UTLITES SUBMITTED 3/13/95 COMPLIANCE WITH BAR. ZONING LANDSCAPNG SITE LIGHTNG FRE DEPARTMENT PLAN CHECK SPRN(LER DESIGN ENERGY CODE STRUCTLRAL RACK PERMT SIGN PERMIT & BAR APPROVAL UBC ISSUES: CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 17 CHAPTER 22 CHAPTER 31 CHAPTER 32 CHAPTER 33 CHAPTER 38 GENERAL BULDNG CODE: 19911610 OCCUPANCY CLASS: 62 SPRINKLER CODE NEPA # 13 SPIRKLER DESIGN BY CONTRACTOR FRE CODE 1991 UFC ENERGY CODE: WA STATE ENERGY CODE 1994 AREA EliCe4SELLELLDI12613E9 CONSTRUCTION TYPE 611.216ELE2.1.12EralKA BASE SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE FROM SEPARATCN ON 3 SDES (59.-20 x .025)+1) ASE FROM •WRINKLERS • TOTAL = 8,000 x t975 x 3 atc B� ERQED.SEDISLELS12112.LDWAREA PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR BULDING AREA CONSTRUCTION TYPE ALLOWABLE BULDNG AREA BASE SQUARE FOOTAGE NCREASE FROM SEPARATCN CN ALL SDES TOTAL THS SHELL PERMIT 11111111%111 11111131151.11111 ■Ls11111.11 NA SSI-S56 NCLUDED 11 THS SET FOR REFERENCE ONLY LTR1-L5 REVSED 4/10/95 :REV. 6/6/95 Ctl-05.3 REVISED 4/7/95, PER0ITY COIAVENTS A1.0-A5.2 DATED 4/11/95 7/0/95 AtO-A13 DATED 4/10/95 REV. 7/18/95 • • L1-L5 REVISED 4/1/95 El DATED 4/10/95 (REV. 4/27/95. AtO-A5.2 DATED 4/10 96-. SHOP DRAWINGS NOT t4 THS SET !,5,2/A5.3 DATED 4192/95 & CALCS BY PATH DICKERS FOR a)A FEATED BLDG. S1-513 DATED 4/10/95 REV. 7/18/95 NA • NA A ALLOWABLE AREAS B2 OCCUPANCY SEC 17A GUARDRALS SOLS REPORT & ADDENDA HC ACCESS, SITE & EXTEROR OF BULDNG, AREAS OF REFUGE -; ROOF: SEC 3206(a)(1) EXCEPTION(1) NO SMOKE & I-EAT VENTNG ( OR CURTAN BOMDS REQURED FOR SHELL C.0 EXITING FROM BULDNG DELL ONLY, BASED ON PRELIMINARY ' • 11055045 29/5600 HIGH PLE STORAGE FOR EMPTY SI-ELL SEC 3804k:ILNO SPRINKLERS REQURED 14 NACCESSBLE ENTRY CANOPY ROOF ENCLOSURES • = 26,980 SF V R SPRNKLERED = 8,000 SF = t975 TIES =3 TIMES • = 47,400 SF = 126,649 SF = 10,000 SF V N, SPRNKLERED = 8,000 SF = UNMATED = UNLIVITED SF FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS (PENDING YARD EASEMENTS) 131,LIM_AULs_PRINKLERED EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS STRUCTURAL FRAME ROOF eUILDNG BCD v N SPRKELERED EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS FLOOR-CELNG FLOCRS STRUCTURAL FRAME ROOF • ZONING DES/CRATON FRONT YARD SETBACK SDE AND REAR SETBACKS =CM =20' =5' = NOT RATED = NOT RATED = NOT RATED, CLASS A = NOT RATED = NOT RATED = NOT RATED = NOT RATED, CLASS A A FUTURE TENANT WPROVRENT PERMTS (NOT N THS SET) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA RE-REVEW PER TI RE-REVEW PER 11 RE-REVEW PER 11 FOR "FEATED BLDG." TI STRUCTLRAL, F ANY 11 DESIGN 11 DESIGN NA NA NA TOLET ROOMS, NTERIOR BLDG., PER TI NA, RE-REVEW TI DWGS. PER STORAGE HEIGHT & FRE CODE RE-REVEW TI DWGS. PER WALLS & FIXTURES RE-REVIEW TI DWGS. PER STORAGE, WALLS & FIXTURES EGRESS BULDNG A 26,980 SF OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELNINARY 11 DESIGN RETAL 25,780 SF130. 8S9 OCCUPANTS STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 1200D/30B 4 OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD = 863 OCCUPANTS 3 EATS REQURED EXIT WDTH REQURED = 863 x 0.2 PROVIDED = 173 NCFES = 204 NCI-ES eULDING BCD TENANT 8 40.020 OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELIMINARY 11 DESIGN RETAL 34,020 SF/3EN 1134 OCCUPANTS STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 6,000 SF/300 20 OCCUPANTS TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD = TI54 OCCUPANTS 4 EXITS REQURED EXIT WIDTH REQURED = 1154 x 0.2 = 231 HONES PROVDED = 240 INCAS TENANT C1 23,402 136.649 SF OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELMNARY 11 DESIGN RETAL 20,402 SE/36 680 OCCUPANTS STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 3,000 SF/30010' OCCUPANTS 3TODaTATLSOCRECDDREUPANTD LOAD = 690 OCCUPANTS EXIT WDTH ). REQURED = 690 x 0.2 .= 138 NCI-ES TENANT C2 = 215' NO-ES / . PROVDED occRSOCTEOICLARPAupLANTGEANT84LOAD (FRST FLOOR310-17B7ASSFED ONIPRELVINARY TI DESIGN 17,177 SE/30: 5c3573 ocOCCLPcupAANTNTsS i OCCUPANT LOAD (SE°CMSCOND FLOOR) -SFB/A3SE7ON 7RECUPLIVINARANTSY TI DESIGN N RETAL 10,000 SF/30= 300 OCCUPANTS OCCUPANT LOAD REQURED LtS)TREFLOOR) 583 x 0.2 TOTAL RED (21.0 FLOOR) 300 x 03 = 300 OCCUPANTS = 90 NCrICIISS EXIT WIDTH PROVDED = 207 NI-ES C ' ' NCI-ES TENANT D 43,050 SF1'! OCCUPANT LOAD - BASED ON PRELMNARY 11 DESIGN TOTAL OCCIPANT LOAD 40,050 sESE//33(% ,b335 RETAL STORAGE & STOCKROOMS 4 EXITS REQURED ° P45 • . EXIT WDTH REQURED 1345 x 0.2 = 269 NICKS PROVDED = 324 INCFES MAXIAUM DISTANCE TO AN EXIT DOES NOT EXCEED 200' ACCORDANCE WITH NEPA. 101 SECTION 2.5-26 AND WC SECTION 3303 (0). VICINITY MAP GENERAL NOTES t ALL CCNSTRUCTEN IS TO CORFU TO LOCAL STATE NO WW1. 111050 CCM N4 CROWNCES, 'CUM, BUT I437 MAT TO WC 90. MC 91. LPC 96 t 96 C. OSHA MERCANS 51111 IISABUTES ACT CF 1791-T11IE 486-07.1 -Sao HC STAIDARDS TIE CONTRACTOR 6 TO VERFY ALL =MOW MD REPCRT 68CREPANCES TO TW FROECT MANAGER FRCP TO CCNSTFLIMCN OR PIRCHASE OF MATERIALS. & ALL 01060.6 RELATE TO FACE OF, STUD AID/CR F COMERLIE CF COLLAR DO IDT SCALE DRAY6M CIAMSENS NE 167 NOCATED COPED WTH FROLECT 1.44ARGER 4. ALL CHANCES 70 11€ CONTRACT LUST HAVE PRIM Figai•CESMIDT PROPERL'41/4MR2ED BA. WI BE 5. ALL EXOADIENS' OR CLARFCAWNS 90L1D roAD 1180.09 K PRIECT WVER N 818180 G SEVEN tWC0 DAYS PRIM TO 50 CR BD MAY EC =WAFER 1 TEE FROECT MA/LW, LWER SEPARATE COVER. IS PART CF T)ESE =MCI 00:UTIENIS. ALL CONTRACTORS APE RESPO6BE FM HAM A THERMION INTERSTAIONG OF ALL MAIMS NO SPECFCATENS FAURE TO ACCUANT ONESELF BIN TIE CONTRACT DOCUAENTS CCES 807 RELEVE CONTRACTOR CI' RESPCNSELITY F68 PERFCRIANS WOK NO OXEN& CO MALL EE ALLOWED FCR FALLRE TO CO SO. 7. 11E CONTRACTOR SHALL IAANTAN TWINTECRITY OF DE BLOWS SECURTY AT ALL TIES MD SHALL TWE CAFE TO KEEP TIC BALM SEALED. B. 116 131.1.1:46 SHALL BE FRE SIMMERED TFROUGHOUT N0UDII3 ALL SOMT 480 AMC AREAS. 11E 09ED1 CONTRACTOR 6 RESPOBIE TO 13E93N A 6801614 0911180 9F 13 SOWARDS. SWI6E61 070 24 FOR 1.04TORN3 PIE'RaSE 10307 OF TIE 44:1 BLUM SPRIWER SYSIDA 6 TO BE DEWED P68 CRENARY MOW CROP 3 S1AIDANT6 WITH A WOW DOISITY OF AdZ7.i .- FAI 481. F W4&68 FRE 1ta. AE SP MOWS MALL W 9-0A71ED TO 11E MORA FRE MA 9559. MD FACTORY muium. PRERVATALLATIM 5 CCNTRACTCR TO COCRDNATE ACIMIES AID SCHEDULE WITH CCM:LIMN COIMACTCR ND RETAWG WALL CCNTRACTOR 61 048 MIL WE NO PAY FM, MD GENERAL COORACTCR COCRECIATE fOR SPECIAL ‘I'ClICILS AS SPECIII) N MC SEMEN 302(C) 480 368. CCNTRACTCR SHALL BE FESPONSBLE FCR AL ELECIRCAL JECHANCAL, 480 PLULEING POWS 0. PROVEE ao FRE Da106616 TO EE LOCATED POT \ FRE IMRSHAU. 1 11E ARCHTECT HAS REVIEWED TIE GEOTEONCAL REPCRT__, AID ThESE DOCLIENTS WE BASED ON THAT WORT. WITH ' TIE mars COASENT. .•- _.• _ . • ..• ' TI NOTES t TI PMAT SUBATTALS TO FOLLOW 2. TENANT FEEDS MICR VAITTM APPROVAL FROM LMELOFID TO 80148 ON ROCF • 1" mat) a turocn STATE Of 10 f NJUION SYMBOLS LEGEND 111). Os 10-A13 .CAL I-A2 STOOGE I=1 T.CIS 99-0" COLUMN LINE NDICATOR KEYNOTE NDICATOR WALL SECTION. INDICATOR BLDG. ELEV: INDICATOR DETAL INDICATOR ELEVATION INDICATOR DETAL INDICATOR ROOM NAME & NUMBER DOOR NUMBER COLOR NDICATOR HEIGHT/ELEV. NDICATOR PLAN ELEV. MARKER' WALL PARTITION TYPE 0 00 0) IjJ Z 0 w C) j u) .4- N _ j 0 N < 00 (/) • REVISIONS 5 15/95 A PRELIM. ENTRY REVISIONS 7/18/95 A, FINAL BAR & POST BID REV. 7/18/95 A ADDENDA 1, 2 & 3 7/18/95 A, FNAL PLANNING COIAVENTS PtirICErrae q"P 1'1(15 COVER SHEET 4/27/95 BOARD WENT. corms O GUARDRAL WERT FEOU R 4NT - -{�.9C gG OR c 1�T14 001FRETE SLAB E-Er ClA}PLE(N110.) • e • T-C" i G1w (N1c u ) a CURB PANTED W/ FRE LATE WCE PLANTER CCL.ECTCR CRAM PPE. Cai cr TO ARAd1AN BEHND RETANNC WALL �REALTAIINING WALL /BLDG. SECTION C.GCD -`m DUMPSTER PLANS & FRONT ELEVATIONS SCALE r = 10' —o" REF: DUvPSTERGCD NOT V' am tl 'i L 8 80)':1 ® T ®.I @: ( O I to 0 0 0 0 APPREfS, 17585 SOUTH ENTER PARKWAY_ Ili IMO MOOR FCR TO E RE ICE[ •% 11. I R —_ 9(si_ 4 C) 4 A NEW. RETAIL 26,980 8 NEW RETAIL 40,020 Cl NEW RETAIL 23,402 C2 NEW RETAIL 30,177 D NEW RETAIL 43,050 TOTAL NEW 163,629 E•-:• EXISTING AZTECA. RESTAURANT 17555 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY F EXISTING WINNERS RESTAURANT 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY G EXISTING LEVITZ FURNITURE 17601 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY H EXISTING ETHAN ALLEN FUNITURE 17333 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY PAVING PLAN SCALE: r v 20O' -0" REF: 1 —A1.2 yip attW BUJ= / / • _ ,Cy • • / i Iry _ / APPRCX LCCATDN— • _\ • � / "r \ /'-- /' _--- • 9CNALDiD NTEREECTICN • /: • —. • ()SCALE: PLAN 2 SCALE: r= 40' —o" y i p 1 1 ill p i l i vi y i q i q i i i i ip i p q: i i i q i i p y i i i i i i i i p 1 p o i l III' i1 PARKING ANALYSIS REQUIRED 163,629 SF ® 4/1000 a 655 STALLS PROVIDED STANDARDS =( 465? COMPACTS v 246? HANDICAPS s� 16 ) TOTAL im 727 STALLS SITE PLAN DIMENSIONS SCALE T' = 200' -0" REF: 1 —Al2 TUR 18420 2 SEATRJ SITE PARK JOa FLE: DRAWN CFECM DATE SCALE: REVI 6/1/95 7/1B/9 7/16/9 SHEE 4 2 3/4' 11' ) =gags TOEGUARORAL 1EIGWT REQILIQTT - L C SEC T7R W ASL can7HC�NETE SUB 2'-0• DIti Ri(N1C) RE!T-,ga+TMae;,RDAat1 } ` PANTED *)/ FTE LAW MOWS; 1-0' MX RANTER ▪ V „ .COLLECTOR BRAN PPE . RETAINING WALL /BLDG. SECTION SCALE: 1/16 " 4-0" REF: RETBDSEC.GCD ■ . "5 140 CO CO NOTES ODUMPSTER PLANS & FRONT ELEVATIONS SCALE: r = 10' -0" REF: OJ FSTER.GCD g��9]d . 4�33.3�.�.�. .1' CO CO 10 tl cel II ee- A 6(s) 6 (s) 59'-4• 40'-0' 112' -0' cv 0' 0 0 FEE WITRANT CO."TNO FEE HYDRANT TRANSFORMER _,l85R 0, SPACE (5) REC RED RASED PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK UON, SE 5-A13 FIRE LANE Nq PARIQA6 LMR60165 PER CEO(' FEE LANE RD PA16070 SLN • 50' OC PER CCOE STEP SON STAND PARNNO STALL - 6.5W mama G ALL011W WAPACT PAWN3 STALL • War 043 OVDBMN3 ALLOWED) WFSTRUCTEN STORAGE & TRAIER AREA PAM - � ROCK, ASPHALT AREA; 3' UDR n CRUSHED R50( 2 ASPHALT ASPHALT OVERLAY OVER E ISTN3 • ASPHALT PANG ALTERNATE BM; ASPHALT OVERLAY PAVND OVER DOSING DRIVEWAY USING &CPC EASD,ENT TO BE ABANDOFFD PAR CF CHAN LW GATES W/ TETSDN 11 ES 6' STEEL PPE AT CATE INCE SCE. SEE 3 /AL3 WNC ETE SLAB SLOPE TO DRAN, SEE SSA. 11/A13 8'-0• NO1 TLT-UP CONCRETE PNEL B' FOCH CHAN LW FENCE „���Y��� 6. TWO( 4000 P9 CONCRETE. WRH ID62 -W2.1) \ W, J W29 W.WM NO A FEAW 1000NA FMK _ ' 17585 ;ISOUTH¢ENTERi PARKWAY_ ; .; I -.. &�.: • I 410. e• • ADDKESS: II T 17501 5OUTNGENTl p PARKW)NY e9) T>W -e• —50 -11 2S-4' s'D1 o8 3& TE56e EASEMENT FOR TO BE PEC EGRESS Y %k i %4 (g _ 4 O)� 4 A NEW RETAIL B NEW RETAIL C1 NEW RETAIL C2 NEW RETAIL D • NEW RETAIL TOTAL NEW 26,980 40,020 23,402 30,177 43,050 163,629 r EXISTING AZTECA RESTAURANT F EXISTING WINNERS RESTAURANT G EXISTING LEVITZ FURNITURE H EXISTING ETHAN ALLEN FUNITURE 17555 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 17401 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 17601 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY 17333 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY APPROK LOCATIONS ' �/ SfOR' / / / XX ' i' —. �' i i i•i i• — NROAO ETC i' ./ �'' 413s� i ' i'� Ti -P • � 'H'IQi • i • TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 18420 24th RACE NE SEATTLE, WAEHNGTGN 98155 ARCHITECTS 10 e -v TELE (206) 365 -7431 SITE PLAN FAX (206) 365 -7504 PARK PLACE — TUKWILA, WA JOB: PARK PLACE FLE PPA1 -2.GCD DRAWN BY: SDH,TGE CHECKED BY: HRT REGISTERED ARCHITECT DATE 4/27/95 ' , (STATE OP WNSNN3TOM SCALE: r = 4O'-0" REVISIONS S RAM° NTFNSCTICN 6/1/95 A PRELM ENTRY REV. 7/18/95 ® FNAL BAR & POST BD REV. 7/18/95 A ADDENDA 1, 2 k 3 •• i .i RECEI \ /ED rOSITE PLAN , SCALE: 1"= 4o' -o" PARKING ANALYSIS REQUIRED 163,629 SF O 4/1000 on 655 STALLS PROVIDED STANDARDS COMPACTS HANDICAPS [PPSITE7] REF: PAVING PLAN SCALE r - 200' -0• REF: 1-Al2 4655 s� 246 } 16 TOTAL a 727 {STALLS P 2' "S• 'DEVELOPMENT SHEET 111 111 111 III 111 111 III 111 III 111 111 111 g1 1(1 11, 111 qi III 111 111 111 111 111 111 ( I I I L. I I I ,I I I I .,I I I I �I..I I L�I I ,a \;.1./SCALE: PLAN DIMENSIONS 1 SCALE r = 200' -0" REF: 1 -A1.2 • BUILDING B ENTRY PERSPECTIVE (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: NONE B ENTRY PERSPECTIVE (APPROVED-8/2/95) SCALE: NONE BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1/Br4-cr 2-3 /4 bL. ENTRY DC016 LOCATION AY VARY 44.-4 1/2' • 1/2' tv 2s-et 40.4-o• -cr BUILDING B ENTRY PLAN (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1/13=1.-0" • • 11!11110.0,1111,1',,d i 1 0 L. # , , # 0 # # # __, 0 - •N== •N== 0 0 ,-- , \_, _d# _ • • _ _• • • . .----7 00 -0- • • e # • ,, ,o. •-• • e IP ....._ . 6d-Cf , ' J. BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1/Br4-cr 2-3 /4 bL. ENTRY DC016 LOCATION AY VARY 44.-4 1/2' • 1/2' tv 2s-et 40.4-o• -cr BUILDING B ENTRY PLAN (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1/13=1.-0" • • 11!11110.0,1111,1',,d BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (APPROVED-8/2/95) SCALE: 1/8"4-0* . • •. • , • ..• .„ • . • ' i 1 1 1 1 # • 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 \_, _ 0 __/___ -0- • • • • _J •-• • e IP rm- BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (APPROVED-8/2/95) SCALE: 1/8"4-0* . • •. • , • ..• .„ • . • ' 1 BUILDING B‘ ENTRY PERSPECTIVE (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE NONE 2 BUILDING B ENTRY PERSPECTIVE (APPROVED - 8/2/95) 2 SCALE NONE BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1 /B"4-0" • MIRE DOORS LOGTON AY VARY 44' -4 1/2 AIL f. U • 41' -131/Y L I I 1 • / • / / / ,_1.; r r r r • / / r r BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (PROPOSED REVISION) SCALE: 1 /B"4-0" • MIRE DOORS LOGTON AY VARY 44' -4 1/2 AIL f. U • 41' -131/Y 5 BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (APPROVED - 8/2/95) 5 ■szyscALE: 1 /B" =f-0" )BUUIILDIN GB ENTRY PLAN (PROPOSED REVISION) 1 1 1 1 i1IPN'I''I 2 I I I I 141 I 111 '.I Itll•{1IIIIIIIIhI 111 1 "111;1 PARK PLACE TURNER AND ASSOCIATES, 19420 24th PLACE NE. ARCHITECTS SEATTLE, WASHNGTON 98155 TELE: (20S) 365 -7431 FAX (206) 365 -7504 ELEVATIONS PARK PLACE, ,TUKWILA JOB: PARK PLACE FLE PP- BAR \PPA4 DRAWN BY: SDH, TGE CHECKED BY: HRT DATE B \2995 SCALE: VARES REVISIONS 1,L�+C1V 6765 h7�OMMUNI I Y Vtt.trrinCN f SHEET L I I 1 • / / # ,_1.; # • / / / / TT • r 0 r• • , 0 A# ,' % • r • rr=, L J= 5 BUILDING B ENTRY ELEVATION (APPROVED - 8/2/95) 5 ■szyscALE: 1 /B" =f-0" )BUUIILDIN GB ENTRY PLAN (PROPOSED REVISION) 1 1 1 1 i1IPN'I''I 2 I I I I 141 I 111 '.I Itll•{1IIIIIIIIhI 111 1 "111;1 PARK PLACE TURNER AND ASSOCIATES, 19420 24th PLACE NE. ARCHITECTS SEATTLE, WASHNGTON 98155 TELE: (20S) 365 -7431 FAX (206) 365 -7504 ELEVATIONS PARK PLACE, ,TUKWILA JOB: PARK PLACE FLE PP- BAR \PPA4 DRAWN BY: SDH, TGE CHECKED BY: HRT DATE B \2995 SCALE: VARES REVISIONS 1,L�+C1V 6765 h7�OMMUNI I Y Vtt.trrinCN f SHEET