The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit L95-0062 - UNCLE STUARTS GOLF - DESIGN REVIEWL95 -0062 UNCLE STUARTS GOLF, INC. S. 160TH AND PAC. HWY S (EXPIRED) DESIGN REVIEW City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John W. Rants, Mayor September 12, 1996 Jim Roberts Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc. 9010 NE 41st Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range /Batting Cages L95 -0061 (Conditional Use Permit) L95 -0062 (Design Review) E95 -0032 (Environmental Review) B95 -0412 (Building Permit) Steve Lancaster, Director Dear Jim: D U !. c� Os yo: CO Ilk :W =; E :CO u. co _ cy . zF-. Do N! O E-' WW: v cn` o This is to follow up on my letter of July 18,1996. At that time . we indicated you must pay the $1,000 EIS fee or else the above referenced applications will expire. You paid by check on August 2, '1996, however, on August 12, 1996, the City received notice that the check was returned due to non - sufficient funds. This is to inform you that because the EIS fee was not paid by the August 2, 1996 deadline, those applications have now expired. If you wish to proceed with the project, you will be required to submit new applications, fees and comply with current regulations. This expiration is a Type 1 decision and is "not subject to administrative appeal and may be appealed only to Superior Court pursuant to RCW ch. 36.70(C)" (see Section 18.108.010(B) TMC). If you have any questions on this action, you can contact John Jimerson at 431 -3663. Steve Lancaster DCD Director SL:JJ C:'.sepa\stuex2.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 DUMPSTER SCREEN DUMPSTER 36' 9 HANORAI_ SARR0R ON WALL CATCH PENCE Al' WALL • SHARED PARKING 0 1ST F F.F. ELEV GRASS PROPOSED 6• SEWER UNE PARKING LOT LWYT (TYPICAL) COVERED TEES 36 E SURFACE 2110 FLOOR COVERED TEES F.F. ELEV. 340 LANDS C (PPE STRIP . 4' SIDEWALK CLUBHOUSE RESTROOMS. CONCESSIONS .1500060 FT. SEE ELEATIONS SHEETS 2 EXISTING FIRE HYDRA RETAINING WALL, 6 HANDICAPPED SPACES 5% RAMP 00 LANDSCAPE PLI STAIRS 1 BRACE 11 BRACES 11 SPACES EXTENDED BURIED.SEWER LINE FABRIC FENCE WITH POLES TOP OF FENCE ELEV. 434 310-. 30e 545.44. 315 —� ,822 a EXISTING GRADE � -320- - -OOYD //� r I I \ = 2``_ \ \ ` 324,_____ �\ / 1/ . I I �^ �\ --33 IA � \ \ \ \ —33. — -- \ \ \ \ \ x-33 I X26' \ \ , __ 3 1 � I I 330 I/ // / i / / / / 32a TURF PRACTICE RANGE MAINTENANCE FACILITY SEE ELEVATIONS SHEET 4 24'324' BATTING CAGES PUTTING GREEN SCALE: 1'= 30' -044 24' SEWER EXISTING COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN FABRIC FENCE WITH POLES TOP OF FENCE ELEV. 434 LOCATION MAP UNCLE STUARTS GOLF INC. ox74cn JIM ROBERTS (206)M20060 4610 N.L 416767. BELLEVUL WA NOM 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER A .SIDEWALK FIRE HYDRANT 60' R.O.W. VALUE SEWER DISTRICT LATER DISTRICT 125 SITE DATA GROSS LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MAIN STRUCTURE ROOF AREA MAINTENANCE FACILITY BATTING CAGE AREA PAVEMENT (PARKING, SIDEWALKS) LANDSCAPE/TURF TOTAL NEW PARKING SPACES REGULAR COMPACT HANICAPPED H NICAPPED -VAN SCUME 333,359 31,364 7,900 676 5,957 16,931 301,994 6.93 29 23 7.65 NOTE: PRACTICE RANGE WNL SHANE PARKING PATH ADJACENT COMPLEX AUGUST 29, 1895 4411.8 RURAL ROAD Ind FLOOR TEMPE, AZ 63044 USA S.R.O. PROPERTIES FAX : (602) 730.1530316 �P HI 'pc GOLF PRACTICE RANGE 1 OF 4 315' ±40 1ST LEVEL COVERED TEES METAL RAILING .'.AND PICKETS 4' SPACING • SECOND TIER - 4' WIDE SAFETY NET GOLF TEE STATION � ,,, ` ' SECTION "46. aird11111111111� 'III1II'III1'II�Bih11fl1ie�o :. SCALE: 1/4' =1"-0' STAIRS TO SECOND TIER ENTER FIRST LEVEL TEES 1 UPPER LEVEL SECURITY 4' NET 4\ SAFETY ZONE �� iiilliiiiiIiiiiIIIiiii N11111 IIIIII 111 IIIIIII IIIIIIIIII COVERED OSSERINTION DECK WITH TABLES AND CHAIRS PRO SHOP / CONCESSIONS. 6' GOLF TEES S' SEATING 4' WALKWAY PLAN VIEW OF CLUB - HOUSE SCALE:1 /4' =1' -0' STAIRS TO SECOND LEVEL TEE STATION METAL ROOF OBSERVATION AND CONCESSION PATIO WITH TABLES ABOVE. CMU BLOCK WITH \ PLASTER AND PAINT EXISTING PARKING LOT GRADE — PROSHOP CONCESSIONS WASHROOMS ,WEST ELEVATION AT PARKING LOT SCALE: 1/4•=1' -0' x40' COUNTER FOOD PREPARATION r= p1 LTEE MATS 1 _1 SEATING ICVq ENTER 1ST LEVEL TEES SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4' =1'40' RETAINING WALL AT ENTRY COUNTER — MERCHANDISE OFFICE AG ASHROOM WASHROOM ENTRY x40' ACCESS FROM PARKING L9oo&g uu -..-. - - - •burl• UNCLE STUART'S GOLF INC. w1.cT: JIM ROBERTS (21)61 4824060 pW N 11ST.T. MIMI , WA ppl MR: • S. R.O. PROPERTIES GOLF PRACTICE RANGE iwWdua. C:. u: i�J�11v��..-•' dii: Y. Fffi' itiNJSG33Gi111 :d".,;J'Ii:N1i+isY:.tlr� IIII.CRIIR,II. RI>III 401 X RUR t6. SP0;Ar6J01J IAS.I. Pi/O.V: l>dn MO • OA 'gum !A1': IACJJ >JO.,,JY 2 OF 4 METAL ROOF METAL RAIL* G AND PICKETS WITH 4' SPACING • PRO SHOP / CONCESSIONS e —•" • ifitild11111110111 ii�o�■��'!�! IIl 11 I 1 111 1 I I r . OPEN TEES "EAST ELEVATION PROSHOP PRACTICE TEES SCALE 1/4' =1' -0" COVERED OBSERVATION DECK PRO SHOP / CONCESSIONS •. • NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/4• =1' -0• COVERED TEES (10) .OPEN TEES 1ST LEVEL TEES NYLON BALL NET COVERED TEES SYCAMORE, SWEET GUM AND FLOWERING ACCENT TREE FLOWERING EVERGREEN SHRUBS INTERMITTENTLY FLOWERING ACCENT TREE TURF DRAINAGE AND RETENTION AREA +/— 100' FROM GRAD GREEN TARGET GOLF FENCE AND R.O.W. AT S. 158TH STREET SCALE: 1/4' =1'•0' Lf6cr.*. 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER PREPARED fOR: UNCLE STUART GOLF INC. CONTACT: JIM ROBERTS PHONE: (101) 4124040 30' R.O.W. '4' SIDEWALK SOUTH 158TH STREET S.R.O. PROPERTIES AUGUST 29. 1995 GOLF PRACTICE RANGE 44//.t RURAL ROAD 2nd FLOOR TE11P4 AZ 85044 USA PHONE: (602)730- 1536 �LL/P,S' FAX: (602)730- 1530 3 OF4 >c..„.»w...>- .rrx..u_.. s.....a..:e...>�w....,+w - • - ....- ....,:...w�.......�.:a: -- :x..:., .:r,:w.a:,u.�c.....*•::tle e�:aa's�.:::,y.... "'':, • 24 S' EMPLOYEE DOOR WEST ELEVATION OFFICE WINDOW 11.100 METAL ROLLER EQUIPMENT DOOR NORTH ELEVATION MAINTENANCE BUILDING SCALE: 1/4"=V-O• 9s .10.111111IIl it � 1 �,,1l : •:�C 1 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING S.R.O." PROPERTIES AUGUST 29:1995 GOLF PRACTICE RANGE MUIM[UIgC • UNCLE STUART'S GOLF INC. COMM JIM ROBERTS (706) M74010 IM I111II I f tl. NlltUR.1Y 1IY1 rv.uolOR III1 S AURAL R1A1O lid FLOOR TFJ/IL: AE VIII 11.4,1. PHON'ENIOl/ -l.Ul { Milllpp MX: WI) 111 -ISM 64114.4.".:i 40F4 December 1, 1995 Mr. Jim Roberts • Uncle Stuart's Golf Inc. 9010 N.E. 41st St. Bellevue, WA 98004 Ref: SRO Golf Facility Application Jim: In response to your call today, you will find enclosed a copy of Laurel Estates "response" to your Environmental Checklist for your information and review. As I indicated to you, our write -up was submitted to Steve Lancaster and the City of Tukwila on Tuesday, November 28, 1995. As you will see, we have requested additional information on your application, including a full Environmental Impact Study. We feel that the significant, and numerous, issues and concerns with regard to the site, warrant a thorough analysis, particularly taking into account the proposed usage. Additionally, the property values and safety of Laurel Estates Home- owners are of paramount concern to us. After you have reviewed the enclosed document, and following a determination from the City of Tukwila on your Checklist, please call me and I will set up a meeting with the Homeowners as you have requested. I can be reached at 232 -3510 (work) or 431 -3134 (home). Thank you for you call today, Jim. Sincerely, Carol A. Huber Committee Chairperson, Representing Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Condominium Association 3810 S. 158th #C -5 Seattle, WA 98188 cc: Steve Lancaster, City of Tukwila RECEIVED DEC 0 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor July 18, 1996 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Jim Roberts Uncle Stuarts Golf Inc. 9010 NE 41st Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Uncle Stuarts Golf Driving Range /Batting Cages L95 -0061 (Conditional Use Permit) L95 -0062 (Design Review) E95 -0032 (Environmental Review) B95 -0412 (Building Permit) Dear Mr. Roberts: As you know, for the above referenced projects to proceed you must first complete the environmental review process, including preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). We sent you a letter last January explaining the process for preparing the EIS, including the fact that the process would not begin until :you submit the $1,000 administrative processing fee. It has been almost six months since the SEPA determination was made and we still have not received the $1,000 fee. The purpose of this letter is to inform you ,that if we do not receive the fee by August 2, 1996, all of the above . referenced applications will become void and any vested rights you may have had with them will be lost. If you wish to keep the process moving, then you need to submit the fee by August 2nd. In addition, you need to submit the qualifications 'of one additional consulting firm, or the addendum to the qualifications of Adams and Clark as you discussed previously with John Jimerson. Don't hesitate to call me at 431 -3670 if you have any questions. Sincerely, L—Sqtr-c- Steve Lancaster DCD Director SL:JJ C:\sepa\stuexp.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • • • NN •.11. IWWIIW 31.117• • • OLIO. 1 L. / / / / / 1/7 / • / 44/ / •77•14•111•11 U.St 6r- 51to LPrA aseADINidi 40% 44.0266 EXce801 (6% CAL IN. 111••1•••4•t iN.•4 114•34•11•11 413.44. sprirsor SOUTH I 80 t h STREET N • • 417.411. • •• 4.1•111.11. 143.47. 1 1•11.41•11' 414P641) EXcelleth 41r *'II RCN' , ‘ ; N.F. N \., lillir- \ N 3 \ N.-- Iti \ \ ■ • 1‘ '%:4 \\ wersetre ... NGVEveC-st 0, 1469 6v jes $ $qcl 1 &,rate : sM= •o• 1.54=00te ? • Am . " •" r•s0• • MIL -. WLA " RLS VA 54% .e... 1 w '^w NOV. E,1989 RECEIVED OCT 2 5 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. i1...a...��i�> ins •!.1 ".5.r'.%vss�_...+:r7.titx` 4 7. �.; iA, �, .,;x.y$'.'nCC�:•i.il�`::- Si.i"e �'*.ifC %�V.((k; »hl .::^:::".>Sst' 's`.5,ZZ'i.�; wh'i4r� i�, rdtr% �Y1. lxi`, � +'a °i'4fv>. "cs',?�!!r'.::r'dh^• . � 4. J'.y'V,,r. <::tki: January 4, 1996 JAN 0 5 1996 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director CeOrviiVIONrry City of Tukwila DE.VELOPME.NT Community Development Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Ref: File #PRE95 -024 - Building Permit Application Filed 12/11/95 for "Fence Poles /Netting" Project: SRO Golf Facility Dear Mr. Lancaster: The Homeowners of Laurel Estates Condominium Association respectfully request that the City of Tukwila Planning Department decline the above mentioned Building Permit Application submitted on December 11, 1995, by Uncle Stuart's Golf, Inc. It appears that the application was submitted prematurely in an attempt to have the project considered /grandfathered under the prior zoning height designation of 115 feet, following the December 4, 1995 approval of the amended zoning codes. It is our contention that the application presented is totally inadequate for review and consideration purposes as relates to the project in question. We base our opinion on the following primary factors: 1. It appears that for purposes of the required Soil Report, the Applicant submitted a 10 -year old "Geotechnical Engineering Study" prepared for a "Proposed Theater Addition" to the existent Lewis and Clark Cinemas building. Granted it is possible that the report "might" (but not necessarily) indicate some homogeneity of soils in the area. However, for purposes of considering the proposed development, the report is totally irrelevant and provides absolutely no information allowing for the city's consideration of the netting /pole structure. A study of the particular site, including subsurface soils analysis and drainage capabilities would appear to be not only basic, but integral to any consideration of the feasibility of the project -- without such a study, the application has no fundamental basis for consideration. 2. Specific drainage and water retention discussions were not provided; these would appear to be critical considering the nature (large area of turf) of the proposed development. • Z, :U0 CO o, w w; w O; u_ z� U 0;. • ;11J Ili LL-' ~; O. wz O ~ January 4, 1996 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 3. The lack of a relevant Soils Report has made it impossible for the consulting engineers (D'Amato Conversano, Inc.) to make any specific recommendations regarding necessary foundations. 4. The City's Application includes the statement that "Plans must adhere to the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code and must be referenced on the plans ". Based on a cursory review, the application appears to "fall short" of this requirement. Current codes require structures to meet specific guidelines with regard to wind tolerance and seismic disturbances. With regard to wind tolerance, it appears that UBC codes for the Puget Sound area require structures to be able to withstand "Minimum Basic Wind Speeds" of 90 -100 miles per hour. The November 9, 1995 materials estimate provided to the Applicant by Redden Marine specifically notes that "the poles used for this estimate are engineered considerate of five factors....(including) wind speed 70 mph ". The proposed structure thus appears to fall short of current UBC code requirements. With regard to seismic disturbances, which presumably would be covered in a soils study, it again appears that the UBC has specific building requirements in as much as the entire Puget Sound is in a high seismic activity area. The Application does not address this matter at all. 5. The application submitted addresses only the "Fence Poles /Netting" portion of the proposed development in as much as it was submitted in an effort to be considered under the deadline for prior zoning height designations. In our opinion, it would seem that the pole /netting structure is basically an extension of the club house /golf driving station building, and as such should not be considered separately. The siting and elevation of the proposed 2 -story building needs to be considered conjointly with pole /netting structure elevations and siting -- the development needs to be viewed as a "whole ", particularly for purposes of lighting impacts, noise impacts, drainage requirements and public safety (i.e., ball containment). �C.� -� . -: �:•�::• is hivk�'�".,I�uu� ` u:. iG %:!:sLn.al._4.�rw�.,�.iwa�.nw.. c��..,:�. �rsippga®6[f - - �w mc J0, v 0: 0 t±11 W: , CD IL W O: u.¢ =a uj Z �. oi. ur U� = V° U- ~O z: wcl) z January 4, 1996 Mr. Steve Lancaster, Director Tukwila Community Development Department Page 3 of 3 6. City requirements for building permit application submittal also require "a completed utility permit application form ". Applicant did not submit the required form. Presumably this would include water drainage requirements, watering system design and lighting information - -- all of which are pertinent to consideration of the application submitted. In sum, it appears that the major portion of the information submitted is either incomplete, irrelevant, and /or misrepresentative of the project to be considered. Consequently, in view of this, and as supported by the primary reasons outlined above, we believe that denial of the Applicant's Building Permit Application (as submitted on December 11, 1995) by the City's Planning Department is fully warranted and justified. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. Sincerely, ems/ Carol A. Huber, Committee Chairperson, Representing Homeowners & Residents of Laurel Estates Association 3810 S. 158th, #C -5 Seattle, WA 98188 cc: John W. Rants, Mayor John. McFarland, City Administrator Linda Cohen, City Attorney Jack Pace, Senior Planner John Jimerson, Associate Planner Phil Frasier, Senior Engineer Phil Snyder, Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Au) BOARD OF ARCHIr1TURAL REVIEW DESIGNk'EVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT j Dace 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 APPLICATION GENERAL Application Form Design Review Fee — $900.00 Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Fee — $225.00 PLANS 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. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads. C. Lot size and impervious (paved and building areas) surface calculations. D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area in excess of 15 %. F Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions, anal- driveways. • . RECEIVED F. Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will beOCT 2 13 1995 saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and spacing. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rew U;. 00, co co w; co u.' w 0' =a. i z f-, zo'. w w • uy ,CI I- • u1 Us O; • Z` v N;. O z BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIC;ON CHECKLIST Page 2 G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and how water and sewer is available. H. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking . calculations. 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. 24. Location and elevations of exterior lighting for buildings and parking areas. M. Location and elevations of dumpster screens. N. Color and material sample board for exterior building and accessory structure colors and material. t1 `". Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which accurately represent your proposed project. P. One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each drawing reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most printing companies can make PMT's). PUBLIC NOTICE A mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ") 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. • . RECEIVED OCT 2 1995 COMM U N n-Y DEVELOPMENI • 0` (owi • w Q' CC- . o. ww •,moo` • ;off';. w • • Z- 1.3 N' • BOARD OF ARCHICTURAL REVIEW DESIGN EEVIEW 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:L1 r 0 6 2 Cross - Reference Files: Receipt Numbefx 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Construction of a 62 station Golf Driving Range, Baseball Batting Cage Area, and supportive facilities. 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) South 160th St. and Pacific HWY South. (Due East of Lewis And Clark Movie Theater, Quarter: SW Section: 22 Township: 23North Range: 4 East (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Signature * Th to Name: Uncle Stuart's Golf.Inc. (Jim Roberts) Address: ,9010 N.E. 41st Bellevue, Wash. 98004 hQ9ne: 06 462 8060 Date: ep 9 'r icant is the per whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and m all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Sterling Realty Organization Co. OWNER Address: 777 108th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, Wash. 98004 Phone: 206 .,44 8125 i d(1306,4jr/(S I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we a the owner(s) or purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contairked in this application are true and correct to the /— ' R E E g V 0.....4....) best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: l(2 i'( S OCT 'l r '1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEP\['T • BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW • •bESIGN REVIEW APPLIC ThION Page 2 CRITERIA The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: A. Existing landscape to the North, East, and West, and new landscape to the South will compliment the project. B. The parking and service areas will be landscaped, and will enhance the existing Movie Theater and Bowling Alley. C. The scale of the building blends well with the site. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. D. . Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE :. A. The project is well designed and will be a compliment to the are B. The landscape blends well with the surrounding character of the site. C. The building will be consistent with, and will complement the established neiborhood. D &E. The parking is clustered near the entry of the building with excellent on site and street circulat•ion.:- OCT 2 1995 COMMUNITY 1DEVEL.OPMEN1 • ..DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT • A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. . .B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important . axis, and provide shade. z D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. - 2 E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encour- c.) 0; aged. co W F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be w O, effective in winter and summer. 2 G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and u_ Q; pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. N d H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining land- Z = E- scape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the i z O building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive w w; brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. 2 o RESPONSE: 4°'- AB The topographic character and site grading blend with the development w v_. and the character of the site. O, iii z UN • C)Dj%The landscape treatment reinforces the character. of the development. 0 F The service areas have been screened with fences and /or plantings. G. N/A H. The parking and bldg. lighting are designed as down lighting to reduce glare. 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its desig{t and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanenFAIGE1Wa & velopments. OCT 2 1,3 1995 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1 DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all ex- Z posed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Z Ix 11: G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of 1g detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. 00: cow, A$B The bldg design is a low profile structure.. N w O. u_ '; C. See submitted elevations. N d W. D. Selected colors reflected the natural character of the site. LU al; E. Mechanical ecquipmentiis ground located and screened. v o, w . F. Downllighting is planned, and will be harmonious with the building c: design. Z': G. The bldg, while long and narrow, has good architectural form and cwjN' interest. 0 1"` RESPONSE: 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: A. No accessory bdlg. are planned. B. Exterior lighting of pedestrian areas will be in harmony with the site and the development. OCT 2 3 1905 COMMUNITY OEVELOPME ; rr DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appearance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitali ze on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people - oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. - 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. The site is not in the Interurban Special Review District 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. N/A 3. • The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circu- lation. N/A 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. N/A 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental im- pacts. N/A 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. N/A is ner RECEIVE') OCT 2 5 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT --- ..,,,.. ttaft Za a DMl�„FUmn+rd+fKCA".Fl.'2�.�VJ1 ine;? iA MVAII4YURMS1.^4WW'RM.054" 1174210RIR.ISrstiW4�7'a"ni:F:1' y 5•.. ,. awi U O J =F w:0 J u. < CO 3 = a; I- W z` III ill Z F—; V0 0 H° u. ,W Wi 0 V N' 0h z