HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L95-0067 - PAVILION MALL - SOUTH LOT SPECIAL PERMISSIONL95 -0067
PAVILION MALL
SOUTH LOT
17794
SOUTHCENTER
Trammell Cam Compa ny
•
�.,nwrr .:•.- rr�n;. .- .;.+m.*.,nr,.,w:*r.+� r.r„
July 22, 1996
Steve Lancaster
Director, Dept. of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Tree Removal/Landscaping - Pavilion Mall South Parking Lot
Dear Steve:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us last Friday, July 19, 1996, to discuss the
Segale proposal to complete the landscaping and tree removal between the Pavilion South
Parking Lot and the Segale Business Park. As discussed, Segale representatives have
offered to remove the trees along the common property line and complete the installation
of irrigation and planting in accordance with the City of Tukwila BAR approved January
25, 1996.
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
206/762 -4750
206/763 -9871 Fax
In consideration that the proposed landscaping modifications are already depicted on the
plans currently under review by the city, you have indicated that a separate permit for this
work would not be required. However, you did acknowledge that a permit solely for the
installation of the irrigation system will be necessary.
We have conveyed the conclusions reached at our meeting to Segale and anticipate that
they will submit for the irrigation permit in the near future.
Thanks again for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY
Da a Startzel
DS /lw
RECEIVED
JUL 2 5 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
z
1 z.
w
JU
0 0;
w o,
ill =
u_
wO
gQ
12d
w
_.
z�
I-0�
Z ~.
D o'
0
o
w
--
LL- 0.
Z
ui
co,
O •
TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
INTER - OFFICE MEMO
TO: Case File # L95 -0058
Case File # L95 -0067
FROM: Steve Lancaster,�w
SUBJECT: Southlot Cooperative Parking Agreement and Southlot Design Approval
DATE: February 23, 1996
The cooperative parking agreement and design approval decisions made by the Planning
Commission/BAR on January 25, 1996 created a conflict with Sensitive Area Overlay buffer
requirements of the zoning code. Options identified for resolving this conflict were:
R
1. Reduce the 15 foot buffer requirement for the watercourse located near the property's
southwest corner to 10 feet, and construct a "key wall" immediately adjacent the watercourse.
This would require removal of most or all existing vegetation in the immediate buffer area,
and replanting to achieve an enhanced buffer.
2. Eliminate the proposed parking that extends south of the existing paved area in the vicinity of
the watercourse, and retain the existing vegetation within the watercourse buffer area. This
will result in the loss of approximately 15 parking spaces.
After reviewing the parking studies and other information regarding parking need associated
with this project, I have determined that Option 2 is the best course of action. On February 22 I
explained this situation to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting, and indicated the
solution I intended to implement. The Commission members present all indicated support for
this solution.
cc: Steve Crocker, Trammell Crow Company
Vern Umetsu, Associate Planner
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
SOUTHLOT.DOC
.. t. ... .. .. .. x,� �.�a:aaicet�iiLt`�i;�i�u: c::��- • <�;::b- .,..�.,'� =�%r. z.: i'Ei:a't, <..
"S.iY.Vi Islu:.tifLUnK- hw.'i+i,..a!W}5' tiutil�+l.Y:a'Snni- n.1G.ir' i.1.:'vSi[iayrLy;'i;�., 1 J , 8 '
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: January 30, 1996
RE: Background Research and Recommendations for South Lot
Development - #E95 -0028.
As a result of our meeting yesterday, I thought I do some research
and let you know what I found regarding the on -site watercourse.
There were no SEPA mitigation conditions related to replacing the.
watercourse. Apparently, the staff planner working on the first
submittal /SEPA chose not to include conditions because the SEPA
identified the impact and proposed conceptual mitigation. The
following is my reasoning of what occurred in the decision process
and interpretation of SAO.
1) A Pre - Application meeting was first held on 4/21/94. My
attached comments indicate two important items. First, I
cited TMC 18.45.080 d. as the way the watercourse could be
altered and replaced. Specifically, watercourses may be
dredged, filled, diverted , or rerouted with an approved
mitigation plan. Second, the conceptual mitigation for the
watercourse had been informally discussed and accepted prior
to the Pre -App. Currently, the mitigation pond will replace
a nearly equal segment of open watercourse, provide a buffer,
and incorporate water quality improvement features.
My interpretation of the "piping" issue is that the ordinance
allows for watercourse alteration or relocation if
appropriately mitigated. The exact words are dredging,
filling, diverting, and rerouting. Piping could be a
component of all of these alterations. The (1) General
section clearly states that rerouting may be allowed with the
permission of the Director and would be subject to standards
of this section. I assume this refers to the entire Section
(d) Watercourses.
The sections that have actions associated with watercourse
impacts or loss - (3), (4), (6), and (7) have mitigation
criteria except for (6) Piping. The "piping" section seems to
only refer to unavoidable impacts and limiting those impacts
to access purposes. There is no mitigation criteria accept
what could be incorporated into the piping structure.
Therefore, I feel the Council viewed the "piping" section as
an avoidable impact kept to a minimum that would not have
mitigation potential. I seem to recall during the initial
code deliberations the Council understood that rerouting or
SouthLot Memo
January 30, 1996
Page 2
diverting may be necessary on a site for use but would need to
be relocated as an open drainage with enhancement.
The second part of this memo includes my observation of what is now
being proposed and will need to be mitigated. If the applicant
avoids altering or piping any additional watercourse area, there is
no need for another mitigation. However, it appears to =me that 15
feet of buffer will need . to be maintained where . new ::parking is
proposed on the south. boundary. The reduction. ,to 10 feet of buffer
for that watercourse segment requires enhancement. Most of the
area where the new parking is being planned has fairly large cedar
trees. It does not appear to be appropriate to reduce the buffer
width and remove these trees. In addition, maps I reviewed today
show most of the watercourse corridor to be on the applicant's
site.
In summary, this project has been worked on since 1994. Two
different development scenarios have been proposed with many
meetings involving City staff. The applicant and consultants have
had more than adequate exposure to City code requirements, and
allowances have been granted. I know parking is an exact
requirement but cannot recommend unmitigated impacts unless allowed
by Code. I suggest an on -site visit with staff and possibly the
applicant's engineer. Based on a recent visit, it appears that are
there few trees inside the standard 15 foot buffer in the area
where more parking is planned. Please let me know what your
interpretation is on this situation.
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
ARE- A.PPLICA"t ION CHECKLIST
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING DIVISION — PERMIT CENTER
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3670
PRE - APPLICATION. FILE NO .PRE94- 012. :::PROJECT: .sou'CH.;LOT BUILDING
MEETING DATE: April 21 1994TIME: 2:30 SITE ADDRESS: S .1.80 ST & ' 57 AV S
ollowing.arnh ents: re?liased iaz ireliniinary ,ev e i . ;
1.• Additional.:infoh » ati n- may�beneeded': AtherspgulrementeregzilatiOn.5 nay77eed#obe.met..-
ENVIRONMENTAL
1) Watercourse #35 -3 crosses the site. This drainage is conveyed
in a pipe and becomes an open channel for approximately 120
feet. According to Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC
18.45) the on -site watercourse is rated Type 3 with a standard
buffer setback of 15 feet. The existing open channel was
likely created as part of the developed parking lot. Several
trees were planted around the watercourse as part of the
site's previous landscaping. However, there is no natural
watercourse buffer area.
Permitted uses related to sensitive areas are allowed by TMC
18.45.080 Sections (a), (b), & (h). TMC 18.45.080 (d)
specifies that watercourses may be rerouted, diverted, or
enhanced using mitigative measures. Alterations are permitted
by the DCD Director with an approved mitigation plan.
3) A land altering permit may need to be processed with the
Public Works Department. Depending on pond design, ie.
retaining walls, the proposed water quality /watercourse
mitigation facility may also need a building permit.
A Hydraulic Project Approval permit may be required by WA
State-Department of Wildlife.
WlaAlifWL ':L:Si +'.OU.Ca�tJS.YbaTt).`.l ',Ia.. •
.,.,._....w:..x. r•.+- i.,., -� _....!A.+ .;..+.s..K. . a.. w.4_ 4.:. 144 U: al ilt� . :.o'.r:i•,..al`i.Ylwu.�lti3ir<: �ti _,:.'Ordlu.s:x:�au::liLCU.u.Yr a.a'LL,- - bK01.2441.v4..1.at'44 441..II'Ei. <.S'y":t3�..i .7sf:G:i.a. .t6'.:s:a «::.�:�'.a ti.,:ti _.t•:WV..;ii;e'.`.fiul,+t �.�.
FIc.�
PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
MINUTES
JANUARY 25,1996
(Approved 3/28/96)
Chairman Marvin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were
Commissioners Marvin, Livermore, Stetson, Neiss, and Meryhew. Mr. Malina was
excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Vernon Umetsu, John Jimerson, and
Sylvia Schnug.
There were no citizen's comments on items not included on the agenda.
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 14,1995. MR.
LIVERMORE SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
L95 -0066: Good Guys
Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report. The applicant is proposing to increase the
wall sign size from 150 sq. ft. to 185 sq. ft. The applicant is allowed a sign of up to 355
sq. ft. per the Sign Code.
Dana Warren, Segale; P.O. Box 88050, Tukwila:
Mr. Warren stated that the proposed sign is smaller than the existing "Smith's" sign and
clarified that it is the center -most "Smith's" sign which is being replaced.
Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0066 AS PRESENTED, BASED UPON
STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
1,95= 0067: South: LaDevelopment
Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report. The proposal is for a cooperative parking
lot agreement, which would reduce the minimum required parking from 491 parking
spaces to 475 spaces. Mr. Umetsu clarified that the request shown on the cover page of
the staff report should have been corrected pursuant to staffs analysis as to what is
necessary in order to legally build the restaurant. That analysis is shown on page three.
The total new parking requirement is 845 spaces for the Pavilion Mall, and 150 spaces
for the proposed restaurant, equaling 995 spaces total. The site parking supply is shown
as being 450 spaces on the main lot of the Pavilion Mall and the South Lot is proposed at
476 spaces; with a total of 934 spaces. This is a 61 space reduction or 6.13% reduction
•
Planning Commission /BAR Minutes
January 25, 1996
Page 2
and that is what should be reflected on the request. The applicant concurs with staff's
analysis.
The parking study submitted by the applicant demonstrates the adequacy of parking
under existing conditions. Staff also reviewed the situation if the Mall were to have a
level of customer activity equal to what is typically seen in the Southcenter CBD. That
analysis concluded that the Mall provides 3.5 spaces per thousand gross square foot
area, which is among the highest parking ratios provided by retail developments in the
Southcenter area. Based upon that, staff 'reels there is adequate parking with the
cooperative parking agreement, even considering the new restaurant going in and
considering all operations would increase in customer activity in the future. Additional
pedestrian access would be required once that increased customer activity occurred.
Based on those findings and conclusions and the findings and conclusions of the
applicant's parking study, staff recommends approval of the proposed cooperative
parking agreement. The applicant will be leaving the stream on the southwest corner of
the property open, rather than culverting it, and as a result, two parking spaces may be
lost. The applicant has changed his request to reduce the parking load by 63 instead of
61 spaces.
Mr. Meryhew asked if the stream would be fenced.
Mr. Umetsu said it is not proposed to be fenced at this time, but could be if required.
Steve Crocker, Tramell Crow, 5601 6th Ave. S., Seattle, Wa:
Mr. Crocker stated that they agreed with staffs recommendations and conclusions.
There were no citizen's comments.
Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing.
The Commissioners agreed that they think parking will be adequate.
Mr. Meryhew re- stated that he was concerned with fencing the stream.
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0067: COOPERATIVE PARKING
AGREEMENT BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. MS.
STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Umetsu clarified that is a reduction in the minimum required parking from 995 to
932 spaces.
..;.:a��1`i3li.'.Y'.3t�avLi:s ,hSi�V:S`PtyL'.t' %, � r�,��,,:SYr'ii��; "� •. �°+! �tFiiGil: 3l:: C:' a: t7a. 1f 1,. 3em. i{ 1tin; 1. �ti. FiC�fii:.li4Ili�sniuSA.t�.i:". "sf5
'7••`', "�:'xa "�'."*" tiiLtkti�t' — 'Ash; i:: : '::dk[Y
'-1
Planning Commission /BAR Minutes
January 25, 1996
L95 -0058: Pavilion Mall South Lot Development
Page 3
Mr. Umetsu presented the staff report. This proposal is for design approval of a 4.79
acre parking lot. The proposed design of the parking area is typified by a perimeter of
10 -15 feet of landscaping, with groundcover, shrubs, and large stature deciduous trees
every 40 feet. The applicant has proposed Flame Ash trees for the perimeter, but staff
has noted that the CBD Street Tree Plan requires Red Maples. Interior parking areas
have been broken up with Cherry Trees. Pedestrian access to the interior parking
spaces is provided by an eight -foot wide concrete walkway. The project is consistent
with BAR criteria with the following exceptions:
oo
No
w W,
J
CO LL
1. The Flame Ash Trees along Southcenter Pkwy. should be changed to Red ui O'
Maples. ga -`
2. All perimeter trees should be increased in size from the proposed 1 -1/2" caliper LL Q`.
to 2-1/2" caliper to be consistent with the level of initial design quality provided co v.
by other developments in the CBD. Z z
Site Lighting: 12:
n • o:
o f
'WU• J
- o:
iii N
Z'
U
F- _`
0 1-
a. A minimum of 1 ft. /candle at the property line.
b. Light poles shall not exceed the building height (approximately 20 ft.).
c. Light fixtures shall be shielded so that there is no direct off -site
illumination.
Mr. Livermore asked the size of the referenced bridge.
Mr. Umetsu said it must be a minimum of six-feet wide in order to satisfy.the CBD
Sidewalk Ordinance.
Mr. Marvin asked if the existing stand of trees will be removed and replaced.
Mr. Umetsu said they would be removed and replaced with shrubs and deciduous
trees.
Steve Crocker, Tramell Crow, 5601 6th Ave. S., Seattle, Wa:
Mr. Crocker stated he agreed with staffs recommendations and conclusions.
Mr. Livermore asked what he thought about fencing the stream.
Mr. Crocker said they didn't have a problem with fencing the stream.
Mr. Umetsu stated that because of the tightness of the stream to the parking area, they
would have to use a trellised system to screen the headlights from shining off -site.
Mr. Crocker said they may have to lower the light standards.
Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 4
January 25, 1996
Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Livermore said he didn't have a problem with the project as long as the stream was
fenced.
The other Commissioners concurred.
MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0058 BASED UPON THE
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF AND
ADDING ONE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION THAT THE STREAM ON
THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF THE SITE BE SCREENED ADEQUATELY THAT
NO CHILD CAN GET THROUGH. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Livermore disclosed that he was involved in indirect ex -parte communication
regarding the Les Schwab Tire project. He received a phone call from Arlin Collins of
C DA Architects. Mr. Livermore described their conversation for the record. He added
that he felt the conversation has not influenced him, and he can render a fair decision on
this application.
There were no objections by the applicant or the audience to have Mr. Livermore hear
and act on the Les Schwab proposal.
L96 -0001: Les Schwab Tire
John Jimerson presented the staff report. The project was approved on December 14,
1995. Since then, the applicant decided that the color scheme they had presented was
not appropriate and have requested this modification. Mr. Jimerson clarified that the
only change they were making was a change from the split -faced block to painting over
the blocks with a muted colonial red on the bottom band and an off -white almond color
in the middle. The applicant is not proposing to alter the approved landscape plan.
Staff felt the change in color would eliminated the texture and richness of the color. The
applicant has. agreed to add landscaping to soften the bays. The applicant has added
depth to the entry columns and on every other pylaster on the service bays. The
applicant has also provided a flower planter box around the base of the sign. It would
be approximately six feet by sixteen feet.
Mr. Livermore asked if the additional landscaping changes the ratio of parking.
Mr. Jimerson said it does not change the parking. These changes have provided a
design which is comparable to what was originally approved in terms of variety, detail
and visual interest. With these changes, staff recommends approval as amended.
w
6
JU
c� 00,
{
CO W =;
J H
w
o.
gQ
Do
z �
O
zF-
w
U �s
o �
w W;
H -..
LI 0.
iN;
V.
0
z ,.
Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 5
January 25, 1996
Amy Kosterlitz, Buck & Gordon, 1011 Western Ave., Seattle 98104:
Ms. Kosterlitz stated she wanted to lend support to the staff recommendation to
approve the revised project as consistent with the design review ordinance. The reason
for the revision was Les Schwab's need to have painted block with colors closer to their
traditional corporate image, rather than the natural split -face block originally approved.
Les Schwab has made a significant compromise from its traditional colors by muting
them. Ms. Kosterlitz then introduced Paul Casey, the project architect.
Paul Casey, 10116 36 Ave. Ct. SW., #109, Tacoma, WA 98499:
Mr. Casey presented a slide show which featured other Les Schwab stores throughout
the area. The two proposed colors are an almond for the primary exterior wall surface
and theijghter colonial red below and also used on the accent strip. The pilasters were
added to the eastern side of the building to add interest to that area. Planting has been
added to the street side of the building and to the parking lot. A block base has also
been added to the sign.
Mr. Meryhew asked if there was a significant cost increase to maintain an unpainted
versus painted surface.
Mr. Casey said there is a tendency for the unpainted block to stain. The best way to
protect block is to paint it. Mr. Casey added that the proposed colors are in harmony
with Home Depot's colors (he passed around a color wheel).
Mr. Marvin closed the public hearing.
Mr. Meryhew said he likes the previously approved colors better than these presented
this evening. However, Les Schwab has made a good effort to satisfy. Tukwila's
requirements.
Mr. Livermore said he also liked the previous submittal better, but this color scheme
does fit within the BAR criteria.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L96 -0001: LES SCHWAB, WITH STAFF'S
AMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. NEISS
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Marvin adjourned the meeting.
Prepared By,
Sylvia Schnug
..:Lti:�:v tie' �i�i�ss::. �:i�:u5�..u�:�,�ti'�_.:s:i::'?i: iii. JY�:; :ss�tJ2t +4:�J:ak+htt.571.:i�'•
J• U;
H of
• 0.
Cnw
Ili I
CO IL
w0
2
g a"
_°
w..
z 1—
LU
0 F-''
w w'
-O
u. z.
UN.
o 1.
z
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
_ __ _
.DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS :
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared January 17, 1996
January 25, 1996
L95 -0067
Trammell Crow Co.
Approve a cooperative
reduce the minimum r
o. wo parcels, fro e'
�s� spaces (6.13% re.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
tC%%1)
3
parkinggagreement to
'red parking spaces,
g parking spaces to
r
ion).
5901 S. 180th Street; Tukwila, WA. This is
the southeast corner of the Southcenter
Pkwy/S. 180th St. intersection.'
12.49 acres
(Pavilion Mall Main Lot = 7.7 acres)
(South Lot = 4.79 acres)
Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center
Mitigated Determination of Non - significance
issued on January 10, 1996 (E95- 0028).
Vernon Umetsu
A. Applicant Letter Requesting a
Cooperative Parking Agreement.
B. Parking Demand Study (Brown, 6/13/95.)
C. Schematic Parking Plan for Pavilion Mall
Main Lot and South Lot.
D. SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance. •
pia` ? ` /2 RD Pet-
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
.; �t.<( ei:+< tiS: uv' �: taTiii: Lri' i' ti�. a�.' i�i: fS'. tii�': S. iis�2s:: 1�'±'-: ti" u 'asi.,'e'aG�iisp�e�;�,d,nN..:• — -`�+Xi
�U
U O
Nom;
(ow
J �?
• iL
W 0.
2
g
vim`
= d.
�w
z H:
w W;
U 0
ON
W:
O;
z
z
r a s w a u e A i t i 2 5 : 1 ` eta
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 2
FINDINGS
1. Proiect Description: The applicant proposes a cooperative
parking agreement between the Pavilion Mall Main Lot and
its South Lot. This would reduce the minimum required
parking from 995 spaces to 934 spaces (i.e., 61 spaces or
6.13 %), as discussed below.
The South Lot is being redesigned to accommodate a 15,000
s.f. restaurant and a 476 space parking lot; in place of
the existing 503 parking space parking lot. The combined:
additional 150 space restaurant parking requirement and the
27 space reduction results in a parking supply which is 61
spaces less than the Zoning Code requirement.
The applicant asserts that the parking demand generated by
the mall and restaurants
and that cooperative
parking agreement - is`. "t ere fore" "appropriate .
2. Existing Development: The Pavilion Main Lot is developed
with a 265,000 s.f. mall and 498 space parking lot. The
South Lot is currently developed as a 503 space parking
lot. South Lot redevelopment is proposed as discussed
above and in Background.
8. Access: South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway provide
vehicular site access. Pedestrian circulation between the
Pavilion Main Lot and the South Lot is provided by a 6 ft.'
wide curbline sidewalks and a mid -block cross -walk.
taurants will be less than the proposed
supply ae<`'...
parking ( ) a a P
BACKGROUND
The Pavilion Mall was built with a portion of the required
parking provided on the South Lot, across S. 180th Street, per
conditional use permit 82 -20 -CUP. The parking standards for the
mall of 4 spaces per 1,000 gross leasable footage have remained
unchanged since construction.
This cooperative parking agreement application is associated
with Board of Architectural Review approval of the proposed
parking lot design (L95 -0058) and a SEPA Mitigated Determination
of Non - significance for the South Lot development (E95 -0028)
SEPA mitigating conditions will be revised to
include ".funding a mid -block pedestrian crossing signal, based on
determinations made by the City Engineer during the comment
period. The need for pedestrian crossing improvements are
discussed below.
..y1,Si: v : s3;iiw.y;,+ x ..].,Y;s :d'i•,ii.'• ∎•'
4
•z
J U,'
UO:
N p`
wI
J 1...;
N Lt..
wO
g J;
uj
= Cy;
1- o
• z
ON
;0 H
WW
—..
O
z'.
.0
,0�
•
z..
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
DECISION CRITERIA
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 3
The applicant is requesting a 61 space reduction of the minimum
required parking per TMC 18.56.070. This request has been
reviewed based on two criteria:
1. "When two or more uses occupy the same building or when two
or more buildings or uses cooperatively share an off- street
parking facility, the total requirements for off- street
parking and loading facilities shall be at least the sum of
the requirements of the greater of the uses at any time
or as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
ZONING CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT
The Zoning Code's parking requirement and proposed parking
supply is presented below:
1. Existing Pavilion Mall
211,082 @ 4spc /1,000 ft. gross leasable area= 845 spcs
2. New South Lot Restaurants
15,000 @ 1 spc /100 gross square feet
Total New Parking Requirement
SITE PARKING SUPPLY (See
Pavilion Main Lot
South Lot
Total Proposed Spaces
= 458 spaces
= 476 spaces
= 934 spaces
= 150 spcs
= 995 spcs
The calculated parking requirement (995 spaces) is 61 spaces
greater than the proposed parking supply (934 spaces). The
cooperative parking agreement for a 61 space reduction
(6.13%) would represent this difference.
This 61 space, 6.13% reduction, is greater than the 16 space
reduction requested by the applicant (.4tiactunervE •
However, the staff analysis has used the ....appl cant's data to
establish the minimum parking reduction needed to accomplish
his goals. The applicant has concurred with the staff
analysis of needed reduction and will confirm this at the
public hearing.
w
ma 2
�U .
.0.0,
' m w.
w =:
w0
J
1.1 a
•
H =.
z�.:
moo:
. zt-
DO:
0 H.
.w W'.
•
H V'
O;
iii z;
U.2i.
O ~'
z
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 4
TWO OR MORE BUILDINGS SHARE THE SAME OFF- STREET PARKING
FACILITY.
The Pavilion Mall has been granted approval to use a portion
of the South Lot parking lot as an off -site parking facility
per conditional use permit 82 -20 -CUP. Further development of
this lot with 15,000 square feet of restaurant and its use of
the parking spaces not committed to the mall, would make this
a shared parking facility.
PROVISION OF PARKING EQUAL TO THE GREATER OF THE USES
The entire Pavilion Mall is "the greater of the uses." In
this case, the Mall requirement of 845 spaces is less than
the 934 spaces being proposed (see table above).
4
2. Has the applicant provided sufficient parking "deemed to be
necessary ".
APPLICANT SUBMITTED MATERIALS
The applicant has submitted a parking study to present the
current market demand for parking and projected restaurant
parking demand (Attachment `8). The study was conducted over
the Memorial Day weekend; "where parking demand is near its
peak. The following findings were made:
i. Main Lot parking was heavily
the day and was occasionally
ii. At no time was the South Lot
cars (less than 30),
used during a good part of
completely occupied,
occupied by more than a few
iii. Signage in the Main Lot, directing customers to the
South Lot overflow parking, does not change customer
parking choice toward the South Lot. This is the case
even when the Main Lot is over 90% occupied, and
iv. The restaurant is estimated to generate a maximum
parking demand for 258 spaces (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1987).
The maximum parking demand for all uses, under current market
conditions which can be inferred from the study, is:
Pavilion Mall (458 + 30 =)
Proposed Restaurants
Total
488 spaces
258
746 spaces
z.
Ui
oo;
(00:
t W ~'
J f
N u-
w o:
ur .
z
•w
. uj:
,U cr.
;O N;
w
1- .
z: •
• 0 -'
O~
z
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 5
This demand is 188 spaces less than the proposed supply of 934
parking spaces.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Staff has made periodic visits to the South Lot during the
December shopping season. The to be relatively unused, in a
manner generally consistent with the applicant's parking
study findings.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
1
Parking demand due to mall operations depends upon the
customer activity at the facility.
Data from the applicant's parking study shows that the
current level of customer activity is being supported by only
the parking in the Main Lot, but that this lot is currently
full during peak periods. The a current parking demand is
1.72 spaces per gross square footage (g.s.f.) 1. All further
increases in peak period customer activity would be
accommodated in the South Lot.
Significant increases in mall parking demand at the South. Lot
should be anticipated, since typical retail developments in
the area will often generate parking demand in excess of 2.5
spaces per 1,000 gross square footage. Peak parking in the
area approaches 4.39 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f., at the
Southcenter Mall during the Christmas season. In general,
developments with 3.5 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f. seldom
experience over 90% occupancy of parking spaces.
The Pavilion Mall has about 265,000 g.s.f. and currently has
961 parking spaces. This is 3.63 spaces per 1,000 gross
square footage. The proposed cooperative parking agreement
between the mall and restaurant would result in 3.50 spaces
per gross square footage.
1Gross square footage is used in this analysis in order to
allow a comparison with other area developments. It should not
be confused with "gross leasable area," which is the basis for
the Zoning Code parking requirement. Gross square footage is the
gross leasable area plus all common and general facility areas.
i .aiu; Jltiii " -c a'•.Lte ruu •F:G •t .e;'_- i.'y_� .nr..,.. n.L .wt6:'li1J.S!(kAtr�ui�fLG•• •
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 6
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES
The City Engineer has determined that additional use of the
South Lot by Pavilion customers which generates a parking
demand of 2.5 to 3.5 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f., would require a
signalized mid -block crossing. This facility and an estimate
of fair share cost will be incorporated into the SEPA
Mitigated Determination of Non - significance.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Staff concurs that the mall's current level of activity and
maximum estimate of restaurant parking demand demonstrates a
sufficient parking supply.
2. A reasonable projection of future increased customer activity at
the mall could be accommodated by the proposed parking spaces.
3. An increase in mall customer activity /parking demand, will
result in significantly increased use of the South Lot parking
area. This,: in turn, would require an enhanced pedestrian
linkage between the two parcels. Such an enhanced linkage would
include signalizing the existing mid -block crossing as will be
specified in the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends approval of the cooperative parking
agreement which would reduce the minimum required parking from 961
spaces to 934 spaces (6.13 %).
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared January 17, 1996
January 25, 1996
L95 -0067
Trammell Crow Co.
Approve a cooperative parking agreement to
reduce the minimum required parking spaces,
on two parcels, from 491 parking spaces to
475 spaces (6.13% reduction).
5901 S. 180th Street; Tukwila, WA. This is
the southeast corner of the Southcenter
Pkwy /S. 180th St. intersection.
12.49 acres
(Pavilion Mali Main Lot = 7.7 acres)
(South Lot = 4.79 acres)
Tukwila Urban Center
Tukwila Urban Center
Mitigated Determination of Non - significance
issued on January 10, 1996 (E95- 0028).
Vernon Umetsu
A.
B.
C.
D.
Applicant Letter Requesting a
Cooperative Parking Agreement.
Parking Demand Study (Brown, 6/13/95)
Schematic Parking Plan for Pavilion Mall
Main Lot and South Lot.
SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 2
FINDINGS
1. Project Description: The applicant proposes a cooperative
parking agreement between the Pavilion Mall Main Lot and
its South Lot. This would reduce the minimum required
parking from 995 spaces to 934 spaces (i.e., 61 spaces or
6.13 %)., as discussed below.
The South Lot is being redesigned to accommodate a 15,000
s.f. restaurant and a 476 space parking lot; in place of
the existing 503 parking space parking lot. The combined:
additional 150 space restaurant parking requirement and the
27 space reduction results in a parking supply which is 61
spaces less than the Zoning Code requirement.
The applicant asserts that the parking demand generated by
the mall and restaurants will be less than the proposed
parking supply i# >`ai and that a cooperative
parking agreement is therefore appropriate.
2. Existing Development: The Pavilion Main Lot is developed
with a 265,000 s.f. mall and 498 space parking lot. The
South Lot is currently developed as a 503 space parking
lot. South Lot redevelopment is proposed as discussed
above and in Background.
8. Access: South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway provide
vehicular site access. Pedestrian circulation between the
Pavilion Main Lot and the South Lot is provided by a 6 ft.
wide curbline sidewalks and a mid -block cross -walk.
BACKGROUND
The Pavilion Mall was built with a portion of the required
parking provided on the South Lot, across S. 180th Street, per
conditional use permit 82 -20 -CUP. The parking standards for the
mall of 4 spaces per 1,000 gross leasable footage have remained
unchanged since construction.
This cooperative parking agreement application is associated
with Board of Architectural Review approval of the proposed
parking lot design (L95 -0058) and a SEPA Mitigated Determination
of Non - significance for the South Lot development (E95 -0028)
to. SEPA mitigating conditions will be revised to
include "funding a mid -block pedestrian crossing signal, based on
determinations made by the City Engineer during the comment
period. The need for pedestrian crossing improvements are
discussed below.
rseminszsecoseteksvammotens
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
DECISION CRITERIA
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 3
The applicant is requesting a 61 space reduction of the minimum
required parking per TMC 18.56.070. This request has been
reviewed based on two criteria:
1. "When two or more uses occupy the same building or when two
or more buildings or uses cooperatively share an off - street
parking facility, the total requirements for off - street
parking and loading facilities shall be at least the sum of
the requirements of the greater of the uses at any one time
or as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
ZONING CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT
The Zoning Code's parking requirement and proposed parking
supply is presented below:
1. Existing Pavilion Mall
211,082 @ 4spc /1,000 ft. gross leasable area= 845 spcs
2. New South Lot Restaurants
15,000 @ 1 spc /100 gross square feet
Total New Parking Requirement
SITE PARKING SUPPLY (See
Pavilion Main Lot
South Lot
= 458 spaces
= 476 spaces
= 150 spcs
= 995 spcs
Total Proposed Spaces = 934 spaces
The calculated parking requirement (995 spaces) is 61 spaces
greater than the proposed parking supply (934 spaces). The
cooperative parking agreement for a 61 space reduction
(6.13 %) would represent this difference.
This 61 space, 6.13% reduction, is greater than the 16 space
reduction requested by the applicant (Attachment A) .
However, the staff analysis has used the' applicant's data to
establish the minimum parking reduction needed to accomplish
his goals. The applicant has concurred with the staff
analysis of needed reduction and will confirm this at the
public hearing.
rTh
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 4
TWO OR MORE BUILDINGS SHARE THE SAME OFF - STREET PARKING
FACILITY.
The Pavilion Mall has been granted approval to use a portion
of the South Lot parking lot as an off -site parking facility
per conditional use permit 82 -20 -CUP. Further development of
this lot with 15,000 square feet of restaurant and its use of
the parking spaces not committed to the mall, would make this
a shared parking facility.
PROVISION OF PARKING EQUAL TO THE GREATER OF THE USES
The entire Pavilion Mall is "the greater of the uses." In
this case, the Mall requirement of 845 spaces is less than
the 934 spaces being proposed (see table above).
2. Has the applicant provided sufficient parking "deemed to be
necessary ".
APPLICANT SUBMITTED MATERIALS
The applicant has submitted a parking study to present the
current market demand for parking and projected restaurant
parking demand ($Mt "). The study was conducted over
the Memorial Day weekend, wfiere parking demand is near its
peak. The following findings were made:
i. Main Lot parking was heavily used during a good part of
the day and was occasionally completely occupied,
ii. At no time was the South Lot occupied by more than a few
cars (less than 30),
iii. Signage in the Main Lot, directing customers to the
South Lot overflow parking, does not change customer
parking choice toward the South Lot. This is the case
even when the Main Lot is over 90% occupied, and
iv. The restaurant is estimated to generate a maximum
parking demand for 258 spaces (Institute of
Transportation Engineers, 1987).
The maximum parking demand for all uses, under current market
conditions which can be inferred from the study, is:
Pavilion Mall (458 + 30 =) 488 spaces
Proposed Restaurants 258
Total 746 spaces
z
6
•J Ci
UO;
o,•
Ww
CO LL'
• W O;
u-Q;
9.a
Fw •
s •
•z �.
. •
. z �;
• D p;
ww
1---
• O:
.z�
• - =`
017'i
•
z
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 5
This demand is 188 spaces less than the proposed supply of 934
parking spaces.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF EXISTING PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Staff has made periodic visits to the South Lot during the
December shopping season. The to be relatively unused, in a
manner generally consistent with the applicant's parking
study findings.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF FUTURE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Parking demand due to mall operations depends upon the
customer activity at the facility.
Data from the applicant's parking study shows that the
current level of customer activity is being supported by only
the parking in the Main Lot, but that this lot is currently
full during peak periods. The a current parking demand is
1.72 spaces per gross square footage (g.s.f.) . All further
increases in peak period customer activity would be
accommodated in the South Lot.
Significant increases in mall parking demand at the South Lot
should be anticipated, since typical retail developments in
the area will often generate parking demand in excess of 2.5
spaces per 1,000 gross square footage. Peak parking in the
area approaches 4.39 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f., at the
Southcenter Mall during the Christmas season. In general,
developments with 3.5 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f. seldom
experience over 90% occupancy of parking spaces.
The Pavilion Mall has about 265,000 g.s.f. and currently has
961 parking spaces. This is 3.63 spaces per 1,000 gross
square footage. The proposed cooperative parking agreement
between the mall and restaurant would result in 3.50 spaces
per gross square footage.
'Gross square footage is used in this analysis in order to
allow a comparison with other area developments. It should not
be confused with "gross leasable area," which is the basis for
the Zoning Code parking requirement. Gross square footage is the
gross leasable area plus all common and general facility areas.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L95 -0067: South Lot Cooperative
Parking Agreement
Page 6
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES
The City Engineer has determined that additional use of the
South Lot by Pavilion customers which generates a parking
demand of 2.5 to 3.5 spaces per 1,000 g.s.f., would require a
signalized mid -block crossing. This facility and an estimate
of fair share cost will be incorporated into the SEPA
Mitigated Determination of Non - significance.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Staff concurs that the mall's current level of activity and
maximum estimate of restaurant parking demand demonstrates a
sufficient parking supply.
2. A reasonable projection of future increased customer activity at
the mall could be accommodated by the proposed parking spaces.
3. An increase in mall customer activity /parking demand, will
result in significantly increased use of the South Lot parking
area. This, in turn, would require an enhanced pedestrian
linkage between the two parcels. Such an enhanced linkage would
include signalizing the existing mid -block crossing as will be
specified in the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non-
Significance.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends approval of the cooperative parking
agreement which would reduce the minimum required parking from 961
spaces to 934 spaces (6.13 %).
I
I
"Skid .La.. A.A. u ■I.
A F F I D A V I T
%Notice of Public Hearing
Q Notice of Public Meeting.
0 Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
Q Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
fl Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
Q Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
Q Noticeof Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
0 Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignif icance
0 Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
0 Notice of Action
Official Notice
1] Other
0 Other
0
was mailed to each of the following addresses on
Name of Project
File Number
n41.*MrePPI'IMPZIPPIM,
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
PUBLIC NOTICE
City of Tukwila
Steve Lancaster, Director
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on January 25, 1996, in the
City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
I. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
II. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L95 -0066: Good Guys
Dana Warren
Approval to increase wall sign area from 150 s.f. to 180 s.f.
per TMC 19.32.140(A).
300 Andover Park West, Tukwila.
L95 -0067: Pavilion Mall /South Lot Development
Cooperative Parking Agreement
Trammell Crow Co.
Approval of a cooperative parking agreement which would
reduce the minimum required parking from 491 spaces to
475 spaces (3.3 %).
5901 S. 180th Street, Tukwila.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
NEW BUSINESS
III. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
OLD BUSINESS
IV. CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L95 -0058: Pavilion Mall /South Lot Development
Cooperative Parking Agreement
Trammel Crow Co.
Design approval of a revised parking lot plan to allow
construction of two restaurants and relocate a portion of a
stream.
5901 S. 180th Street, Tukwila.
L95 -0051: Les Schwab Tire
Paul Casey
Approval of a revised design for a 13,222 square foot retail
tire store with 40 parking spaces.
6810 S. 180th Street, Tukwila.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 41313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
October 13, 1995
Board of Architectural Review
CITY OF TUKWILA
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila WA 98188
RE: South Lot Development
Parking Lot Calculations
To Whom It May Concem:
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
2061762•4750
2061763•9871 Fax
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the following assumptions and calculations as they relate to the attached
submittal.
Assumptions (verified by actual count):
Existing parking on Pavilion Mall site
Parking to be provided at South Lot
Proposed restaurants
503 spaces
491 spaces
15,000 square feet
Code requirement of four (4) parking spaces per 1000 square feet for both Pavilion Mall and South Lot
Development:
211,082 square feet GLA at Pavilion
211082 sf/1,000 sfx 4 844 spaces
Less Existing Parking (503) spaces
Remaining South Lot Spaces 341 spaces
Adding code requirement often (10) stalls per 1000 square feet for the proposed restaurants:
15,000 sf/1000 sf x 10 = 150 spaces
Required spaces
Required Restaurant Spaces
Total Required Spaces
Please call me if you have any questions at (206) 762-4750.
Sincerely,
S ve Crocker
Construction Manager
SC:am
Attachment
" ■••■, L., .■ • i4d/s1110./..4.1.11'llae.Z.t:,.....•,.....15T.L.121it'lilika,435:.11,..r..1da..i,„&ii,.....da:.4.
341 spaces
150 spaces
491 spaces
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEC 0 8 1995
PERMIT CENTER
• • , • • • , "'•
� ---�15 - D31
ramrnell Cm , ompany
December 8, 1995
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Development of Pavilion Mall South Lot
Request for Cooperative Parking Agreement
Dear Vernon:
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
206/762 -4750
206/763 -9871 Fax
The purpose of this letter is to request a Cooperative Parking Agreement for the proposed
development site at the South Lot of Pavilion Mall. We are requesting this agreement because
of the parking spaces used by the addition of an internal pedestrian walkway, additional
landscaping, and satisfying Sensitive Area requirements.
For your review, I have attached a copy of a letter previously submitted to you on October 13,
1995. Calculations in that letter support a total parking space requirement in the South Lot of
491 spaces. Those calculations also assume a future 15,000 square foot restaurant building on
the South Lot and an existing 211,082 square foot gross lease area at Pavilion Mall. Our revised
site plan, adding the pedestrian crosswalk, reduces the parking count from 491 to 475 spaces.
The 16 space difference results in a 3.3% overlap.
I have also attached a traffic study recently completed by Christopher Brown & Associates.
They : study concludes, even with maximum parking use at the Pavilion Mall, that the South
parking lot remains virtually empty.
I am available at your convenience to discuss this cooperative parking agreement request. Please
call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TRAM
OW COMPANY
Crocker
nstruction Manager
SC /cb
cc:
Scott Grainger
Paul Roggenkamp
George Williams
•
.a,.Lnri un. .a.f.:�V.= f!:VwK✓W'i� \:.'tYr...
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEC 0 8 1995
PERMIT CENTEi
-
ya; u' �znrs�i� :r:"vlti6.siva'znrasw:,;.�x.� 4::a, 44. tle. Lawn .s7cr` %.�lifh_-- '""�.�'m`�o-t��v
•
sorr;
Christopher brown Associates�
879 Rainier Avenue N.. cSuit.c A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 7724188 Fax 772 -4321
Mr. Steve Crocker, Construction Manager
Trammell Crow Company
5601 Sixth Avenue S.
Seattle, WA 98108
Re:
June 13, 1995
Parking Demand Study
Pavilion Mall & Overflow Site
S. 180th /Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila
Dear Mr. Crocker:
In accordance with your request we are enclosing our study for
the referenced site. Briefly, the focus of this work was to
identify the maximum amount of parking taking place at the
Pavilion Mall and on its adjacent "overflow" parking area
located on the south side of S. 180th Street during the heaviest
parking demand day of the week.
Over the average week of the average month the heavy parking
demand takes place on a Saturday. In the instant case we also
addressed parking over the Memorial Day holiday. The Saturday
data still exceed that holiday demand data.
Of course, since this study was not over the Thanksgiving day to
Christmas period, that holiday shopping season is not reflected
in the results. In any case, that season does not lead to
suitable design criteria so it is only useful for academic
purposes.
w�
CO w.
9
CO w
w 0'
J
w Q.
�w
z�
0
z
j
O • N;
0
F-
LU w
Hi
w
O;
ul
From the study we have just done we would say that the Pavilion
Mall appears to be successful. Its parking lot, at times, was
totally full with no empty stalls available. Conversely, the
near -by overflow lot was virtually empty. A few cars are there
but they are of little consequence in terms of their individual
contributions. Indeed, as we have noted, most of that lots
parking is from bicyclists and, curiously, government cars. It
is fair to say that some employees may be parking there but
their number is no more than a dozen, at best. It is more like
ten (10).
Going a bit further from this morning's conversation and taking.,�1ECEIVED
Ci i Y QF TUKWILA
DEC 08MIS
..•..:t:iT CENTER
Traffic Engineers Transportation Planners
4 Mr. Steve Crocker, Construction Manager
June 13, 1995
page 2
4.
the two potential restaurants, at this overflow site, we have
made some preliminary if not broad based estimates of their
potential peak parking demands (based on ITE data for two kinds
of restaurants).
Not knowing the full size of the site, vis a vis total usable
square footage versus restaurant size and potential future
parking layout (less wet lands and landscaping areas etc.) we
can not really make an assessment as to whether or not both
restaurants at 7,250 gsf can fit into the site with their
maximum parking needs while still allowing for some overflow
parking use from the mall. Nevertheless, from this study it
seems that two restaurants can fit into the site, naturally
subject to both scale and definition of type.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
Yours truly,
• • • • • '''•••■LIili, "• 4, •
Christopher Brown 0 Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Denton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188 Fax 772 -4321 �.
THE PAVILION MALL
a
Parking Study
with a
Review of Parking Usage at the Overflow Lot
June 13, 1995
'Prank Engineers CS Transportation Planners
n
u0 Gj 4t :; :;`
S 1vT'.
•
THE PAVILION MALL
Parking Study
with a
Review of Parking Usage at the Overflow Lot
Table of Contents
Introduction
Purpose
Location
Main Parking Lot Zones
Parking Supply
Parking Study
Results & Comments
Potential Restaurant Usage
Conclusion
List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
List of Tables
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Vicinity Map
Parking Study Areas
Key to Parking Zones
Main Parking Lot Capacity by Zone
Main Parking Lot Demand by
Time of Day
Overflow Parking Lot Demand by
Time of Day
Estimated Restaurant Peak
Parking Demand
1.
1.
1.
3.
6.
6.
10.
11.
12.
2.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
12.
n;iJ.:...i,;>i. t) .�%u :a:1aa(�i.�i.a:i�ri�ra'+%..:.n ✓. • ii.eut 110Z, a >u...a.r�u:uluur:
Christopher Brown C4 Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
. (206) 772 -1188
�xa+:v:1r•:K i.il i�35�' x" isya.i .'efi:.:3:3t�.:vssr,::ya�::.',Lw :
THE PAVILION MALL
A Parking Study
with a
Review of Parking Usage at the Overflow Lot
Introduction
An separate parking lot was built on the south side of S. 180th
Street east of Southcenter Parkway for the purpose of providing
additional parking to the Pavilion Mall. As an ancillary lot,
a pedestrian linkage across S. 180th Street close to the main
entrance of the Pavilion Mall was also built. Signage within
the main Pavilion Mall parking area directs motorists to this
"overflow" parking facility. .�
This lot, while used by a few employees and by other users who
may or may not be shoppers has never been used to any
significant degree. Accordingly, to provide a reasonable
economic justification it is proposed to use a portion of this
site for two, high quality, sit down restaurants of about 7,500
gross square feet, each.
Before converting a portion of the "overflow" parking lot to a
new use, however, it is appropriate to consider how the main
Pavilion Mall parking area functions in concert with this
ancillary parking lot.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the current vehicular
parking demand associated with the existing Pavilion Mall and
its "overflow" or ancillary parking lot.
Location
The location of the Pavilion Mall and the "overflow" parking
lot, on each side of S. 180th Street east of Southcenter
Parkway, in the south part of the City of Tukwila, is shown on
Figure 1, the Vicinity Map.
-1-
Christopher Brown g Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
f 1 M1•
buscr
I_ ?
it S
Etl
f-
�''!
rr •
/at
t 1..a 4Y f"1
jt{ E
• TI
;11
S IM 1;1 tT I t
IMINIERNIF ♦ IS . T
MEM
s
PC
1 Pi
'•i h,11 l 1
••••••—•-•,,.••
)1:I1.1.
t(+
SEATTLE
181tm4TZ M!
AlMORT
CIE
FIGURE I
Vicinity Map
-2
Christopher grown Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. quite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
z •
= 1-,
▪ W`
J U.
O 0:
W =•
J �
• LL:
W 0
gQ.
Z
1— 0
W H-
M p.
U
N!.
W W
1--
LL Z.
• H =
0
z
In addition, since this study looks at current parking demands,
the two principal or respective parking areas associated with
the Pavilion Mall are shown in slightly greater detail on
Figure 2 of page 4.
Of interest, Figure 2 also indicates the general relationship
of the Pavilion Mall which is essentially located at the south
end of the larger Parkway Plaza shopping facility. Like most
malls, the parking area directly in front of the building tends
to be used by its customers. In addition, no significant
pedestrian linkages exist between the Pavilion Mall and Parkway
Plaza. In any case, no pedestrian traffic was observed passing
between these two shopping sectors.
While the Pavilion Mall tends to focus on apparel and related
kinds of sales, the Parkway Plaza facility tends to a different
type of retail focus. Also, in the immediate vicinity of the
Pavilion Mall there are no quality sit -down or family style
restaurants which are found in the Parkway Plaza sector.
Figure 2, in addition to describing the location of the main
parking area for the Pavilion Mall with its overflow lot to the
south of S. 180th Street, also depicts the style of parking
which is can be described, in general, as 60 degree angle
parking served by 2 -way aisles. Also shown on this figure, to
increase parking density, are some 90 degree parking stalls-.
These are provided along the west side building frontage and in
a small paring bay at the north end of the mall.
Main Parking Lot Zones
In order to assess current parking demands, the main parking
area was divided into "parking zones ". These are shown on
Figure 3. For the most part these "parking zones" tend to be
the individual rows of parking stalls, the exception being the
aggregated lot on the north side of the mall building.
Of note, the "overflow" parking lot located on the south side
of S. 180th Street is so lightly or sparely used that it was
not considered appropriate or useful to sub - divide its
different parking areas. Regardless of day -of- the -week or
time -of -day, it has such little parking demand that no value
can be derived from any segregation.of its total data.
Christopher Brown Associates
879 12ainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Denton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
M^ kRMMN�."T��MSS�Swt'kiMVtaw+Mtt. .: ii;:d::':'aaittif �`I3'`�iti4i:
Overflow Parking Area
180th St
c 17Rth St_
Pavilion Mall Parking Area
(Main Study Area)
gg F
IHIni n�nuu�tnu�f!
1
4
1
FIGURE 2
Parking Study Areas
-4-
in+s+�(i”/”.AID=
C555550ft
t
Lt
.
Christopher Brown Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
w�
JUG
Uo;
0
•
u.'
w o�
g a'
z 17:
o:
:z
: W UJ
moo:. .
UU; .
,;O H
=U.
U N
Current "Overflow" Parking Site
or
Future Site for Development
S. 180th Street
\r \ \
\‘ti\Ws.\
1\\\\\\\! \\11\
i\\‘‘ \N\\\\\\\
,r
S. 178th St.
1 \` 11
■a
z
a
5
ti ` \ \\ \•
\ \ \\ \ \\ \ \\
\ \\ \tip\
- \ \` \ \ \\\\\
11 ' . 4 1
FIGURE 3
Key to Parking Zones
-5-
1
T
0111111.r■
Christopher brown C4 Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
i 1-
w
fig: •
0 0.
CO CV
J W
}O
Jrr
:
W <
_ a.
1-=
z p:
o
111 uj
W tut
uiz
Wu
O~
z
Parking Supply
Referring to Figure 3, the main parking area has the following
capacity, as shown in Table I.
TABLE I
Main Parking Lot Capacity by Zone
Parking Capacity Parking Capacity
Zone (Stalls) Zone (Stalls)
1. 49 11. 21
2. 16 12. 23
3. 14 13. 23
4. 17 14. 21
5. 17 15. 20
6. 18 16. 23
7. 19 17. 36
8. 20 18. 23
9.. 21 19. 32
10. 21 20. 24
Total parking supply 458 stalls,
The parking supply noted in Table I includes 8 handicap parking
stalls.
Directly behind the Bon Marche ancillary furniture store, along
its east wall, are 13 parking stalls and a dumpster. These are
not used in this parking study since they are not visibly
connected or otherwise related to the site. Parking along the
south wall (zone 15) is assumed to be related to the site.
The south or "overflow" parking • lot was counted in the field.
It has 503 marked or visible parking stalls.
Parking Study•
The parking study was conducted over two, peak shopping days so
that the worst case parking loads could be measured. These
Christopher Brown g Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
OC w
CO-
0 O
w 0'
CJ!
w w:.
0 �
O
z
days were Memorial Day (Monday, May 29th) and the following
Saturday, June 3rd, 1995.
Note: The manager at the Nordstrom Place 2 store in the
Pavilion Mall indicated, from his experience, that the
following Saturday, June 3rd, would be higher than the Memorial
Day in terms of sales and thus for maximum parking demands.
The method used for data collection was the "periodic parking
check ". By this method an observer checks the number of
vehicles accumulated on site in each of the parking zones.
This was done in fifteen (15) minute intervals from 10:00 A.M.
to 5:30 PM. It documents the total parking accumulation for
each discrete time interval of the day.
The field observations noted in Table II on the next page
provide a clear indication of the maximum parking demand in the
main parking area serving the Pavilion Mall. In addition,
noting the surplus parking that is available for each of these
time intervals in concert with the adjacent "percent occupied"
statistic, the degree of congestion can be inferred. For
example, as a rule of thumb, a parking lot is considered to be
well used if 90 percent of the stalls are occupied at any
particular time. Similarly, if over 98 percent of the stalls
are used, there is very little surplus parking and the main
mall lot can be considered congested since there is little
opportunity for parking other than by circulating around the
aisles and waiting for someone to pull out of a stall.
On May 29th, Memorial Day, the maximum loading in the main
parking lot serving the Pavilion Mall was at 2:45 PM when 357
cars were observed. This is 78 percent of the lots capacity.
Even at that time, it was not considered congested. This level
of demand also was noted at 1:00 o'clock.
In general, on this day it was fairly active from 11:45 AM to
about 3 :30 PM when seventy or more percent of the stalls were
occupied.
Conversely, on Saturday June 3rd peak shopping started at about
11:15 AM and continued unabated until 5:30 PM or just before
closing time. In the interval from 2:00 PM to about 3:15 PM it
was totally full, namely 100 percent occupied.
While Table III gives demand in the overflow lot, it is not
clear from the size of its demand whether or not it serves in
this capacity. On Saturday when the main lot was congested it
gained less than a dozen vehicles.
-7-
Vt%J:� ".wce
Christopher brown 0 Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
.:wur <d cf N.unv;AahiznNeUl. .. '..tiiS.alaaKzte^' "iMxri?.Y 7,L'ti keiag a.:okso..7e ifN2Fi; ursaF�%rt.:;:
. z
UO; .
w
J
•wO;
_: •
zI.
.1-O.
.z
uji
gyp' •
OO:
W°
•
•V yi
O
z
TABLE II
Main Parking Lot Demand by Time of Day
Time Volume Surplus Percent Volume Surplus Percent
Occupied Occupied
May 29th June 3rd
10:00 129 329 28 177 281 39
10:15 138 320 30 189 269 41
10:30 173 285 38 235 223 51
10:45 207 251 45 281 177 61
11:00 241 217 53 295 163 64
11:15 251 207 55 323 135 71
11:30 283 175 62 338 120 74
11:45 320 138 70 362 96 79
12:00 345 113 75 379 79 83
12:15 346 112 76 382 76 83
12:30 352 106 77 394 64 86
12:45 352 106 77 400 58 87
1:00 356 102 78 420 38 92
1:15 331 127 72 431 27 94
1:30 351 107 77 438 20 96
1:45 331 127 72 445 13 97
2:00 330 128 72 456 2 100
2:15 344 114 75 455 3 99
2:30 354 104 77 458 0 100
2:45 357 101 78 457 1 100
3:00 338 120 74 456 2 100
3:15 334 124 73 448 10 98
3:30 323 135 71 455 3 99
3:45 .289 169 63 447 11 98
4:00 297 161 65 441 17 96
4:15 270 188 59 418 40 91
4:30 255 203 56 380 78 83
4:45 236 222 52 380 78 83
5:00 219 239 48 368 90 80
5:15 200 258 44 342 116 75
5:30 186 272. 41 321 137 70
5:45 172 286 38 294 164 64
Christopher Brown g Associates
879 I2ainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
TABLE III
Overflow Parking Lot Demand by Time of Day
Time Volume Surplus Percent Volume Surplus Percent
Occupied
May 29th
Occupied
June 3rd
10:00 16 487 3 16 487 3
10:15 15 488 3 16 487 3
10:30 16 487 3 17 486 3
10:45 15 488 3 20 483 4
11:00 16 487 3 23 480 5
11:15 18 485 4 26 477 5
11:30 16 487 3 25 , 478 5
11:45 18 485 4 26 477 5
12:00 20 483 4 28 475 6
12:15 20 483 4 27 476 5
12:30 20 483 4 26 477 5
12:45 21 482 4 27 476 5
-9
1:00 21 482 4 26 477 5
1:15 20 483 4 25 478 5
1:30. 21 482 4 27 476 . 5
1:45 21 482 4 27 476 5
2:00 18 485 4 28 475 6
2:15 20 .483 4 29 474 6
2:30 19 484 . 4 30 473 6
2:45 18 485 4 23 480 5
3:00 18 485 4 25 478 5
3:15 18 485 4 25 478 5
3:30 18 485. 4 25 478 5
3:45 16 487 3 23 480 5
4:00 15 488 3 21 482 4
4:15 15 488 3 20 483 4
4:30 15 488 3 19 484 4
4:45 16 487 3 19 484 4
5:00 16 487 3 22 481 4
5:15 16 487 3 19 484 4
5:30 15 488. 3 18 485 4
5:45 15 488 3. 16 487 3
Christopher brown Ci Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
UO;..
001
coup
u.
w�
u- Q: .
w;.
_.
z�;.
tu
Dp
p Ni
C
.wuj`
1-- V IL. Pi
O.
o
4
Results & Comments
First, on both days the weather was warm and sunny; there were
no adverse weather conditions to inhibit typical shopping
patterns. Of course, the Memorial Day sales were underway but
these did not seem to be influential judging from the parking
demands noted above .
Second, there was no major construction or other road activity
that might otherwise interfere with average weekend shopping.
Thus, there is no reason to assume the data was adversely
skewed by those kinds of considerations. Fundamentally, it can
be concluded that the data is representative of typical peak,
non - Christmas type shopping.
Third, in the overflow parking lot on June. 3rd it was noted
that at 11:00 o'clock nine of the cars had bike racks and that
these were parking in that lot not to go shopping but, rather,
to use the City of Tukwila bike trail system. At noon (12:00
o'clock) this number increased to.the maximum observed value of.
ten (10). In essence, in the south or overflow lot nearly a
third of the parked cars are related to recreational (bicycle)
activities, not to shopping.
Fourth, in this overflow lot when recreational activity was
taking place it was noted that eight (8) vehicles had
government license plates. Probably, they were not shopping
either.
Considering the above observatioins, it seems that employee or
shopping related parking in the overflow lot is about a dozen
vehicles.
Continuing, while the parking accumulation study considered a
typical non - Christmas holiday shopping day and a normal or
average Saturday, being in late spring or early summer the
parking demands would be typical for setting average design
standards. Considering average conditions, then, several
conclusions can be made. These are noted below.
-10-
1. The main parking lot serving the Pavilion Mall is
very well used and on a typical Saturday is at full
capacity for a good part of the day.
2. The Pavilion Mall main parking area is at capacity
Christopher Brown g Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. 6uite A -201
Renton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
Z
w
0 0`
to 0
u,w
co Li_
0,
gJ,
w a.
p
_°
1. w,
1- a
z H,
U O.
!CO, O
H:
IL O
U Z. N
z
e
on Saturday from about 1:00 to 5:00 o'clock when
over 90 percent of the parking stalls are occupied.
3. When the Pavilion Mall main parking area is at the
90 percent parking utilization level, the overflow
parking area remains unused.
4. The overflow parking area appears to be used
primarily by three different classes of automobile
owners. These are:
i. recreation (bicycle) groups (10 maximum).
ii. government employees (8 maximum).
iii. store employees.
mow;
c.� s
U O'
�a
, W U/
J
co w
w O;
g1
IL Q.
5. The overflow parking area is never more than six (6)
percent occupied and this is for no more than about
an hour on a peak Saturday (Table III). z O
6. As an overflow parking area with signage in the main > >'
Pavilion mall lot directing or advising motorists of U
this availability, it does not seem to be used for p
that purpose. wtu
V'
O:
W _
O
z
Potential Restaurant Usage
Recognizing that the overflow parking lot site is little used
by Pavilion Mall shoppers and, as a consequence, may serve as
the location for two quality sit -down type of restaurants or
some equivalent, their peak parking needs can be estimated to
determine if that kind of use on this site would induce any
significant parking impacts.
Assuming that each restaurant has some 7,500 gsf leasable area,
then the additional parking needs can be estimated on the basis
of some general traffic engineering parameters. This is best
reviewed using information published by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers in the publication Parking Generation
(2nd Edition, (1987). For the ITE Land Use Code 831, Quality
Restaurant and Land Use Code 835, Family Restaurant the future
peak parking needs are as follows.
-11—
Christopher Brown Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
Renton, WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
TABLE IV
Estimated Restaurant Peak Parking Demand
Site Usage
Weekday Saturday
Quality Sit Down Restaurant
One 7.25 ksf Facility
Two 7.25 ksf Facilities
92 stalls
184 stalls
Family Restaurant
One 7.25 ksf Facility
Two 7.25 ksf Facilities
129 stalls
258 stalls
70 stalls N.A.
140 stalls N.A.
Combination Quality Sit Down & Family Restaurants
7.25 ksf Quality Restaurant 92 stalls 129 stalls
7.25 ksf Family Restaurant 70 stalls N.A.
Total, Two- Restaurants 162 stalls N.A.
Based upon the maximum demand for peak parking, as measured by
traffic engineering standards for the "quality" restaurant, the
worst case will be on a Saturday when 258 stalls are required.
(Note that the Saturday data for a family-restaurant is not
published and so no assessment can be made at this time for
that class. Its peak parking demand may be higher than found
with the quality restaurant.)
The Pavilion Mall peak Saturday parking demand at this site is
not significant although some parking should be set aside for
mall employees. Perhaps 20 stalls may be appropriate for this
group of users.
If the two restaurants can be sited along with parking for at
least 258 visitors and, say, 20 mall employees, there should be
no significant conflict.
Conclusion
The peak parking demand at the Pavilion Mall takes place on a
Saturday from about 1:00 to 5:00 o'clock when over 90 percent
of the parking stalls are occupied. Excess demand for parking
-12-
Lu.irn> s.• �:arau.m.:sS�.F..r.
Christopher brown C4 Associates
879 I2ainier Avenue N.. Suite A -201
I2enton. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
by .mall patrons does not take place at the overflow parking
site. Rather, apart from a few mall employees, this site is
used by an entirely different group who are not associated with
the owners or developers of the site.
Since the overflow parking site is not used for mall patrons to
any significant degree, it could be converted to a better or
more appropriate use.
If two restaurants are to be sited, both scale and restaurant
classification may need to be explored in some detail so that
competing goals can be accommodated.
At the moment, it is clear the overflow parking lot originally
designed for Pavilion Mall patrons does not serve a significant
or compelling purpose insofar as the Pavilion Mall is
concerned. It is scantily used. This is in direct contrast to
the mall parking lot that experiences 100 percent occupancy for
nearly a full hour on a Saturday.
-13
s.'•:LtiL+.:u'%`' +:.. '1jev�titiiaGl.S1�:ti+trC� ..:.:'iblf�si..ti: +3�:..U3?.s.
Christopher brown Cif Associates
879 Rainier Avenue N., Suite A -201
Renton.. WA 98055 -1380
(206) 772 -1188
\\\ " "\\ \\ \\ " "` 1. III 11 II
/cif ;; / 1"2/��/,/00; 1 I 1 I I 11
IMF
te
I
/ A
..1111 I1 1.01 EMI 1111111111
11VW
-NHA►" �.oT
PA-2k./A(c
458 secs.
S 180th STREET
/ISM -?COCK cuss- c-AI.K
1111 LUJ 1111 LU..1111 L1111 n,
Il l 111 l lfll lI''5oOTh' goy
1 'Des(Cnr Pe
IT I ?kg_ D6vGnf L ?s -axis I II I I I I I 111
sr lib 1 1 IIII1�1 IT
coMPALi tai- C ?2%)
WwcP 11 1 1 1 I�
76 recs .11 1 1 1 I
I I 1 .1 1 1
fi
X11111111111111 111111111 [11111[[1111F1111 I1111111111111.1.1_,�
: 2��ri m�+ i�rY' iJ 44L12iYAs 'Y.Ei�}�ytG ?11Rb'y.".�1.
uj
U'
Uo
Nom:.
W
co
LL j;
o
z F-,
w w'.
D;
o~
WW
IIU
l..Z
U 0;.
O
Z
1
' ' CITY OF TIKWILA r°�t
MITIGATED TERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFT. +Nt E (MDMS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO, ONE STORY RESTAURANTS WITH
A TOTAL OF 15.000 S. F . , REVISION OF AN EXISTING
500 SPACE PARKING LOT, AND RELOCATION OF. A STREAM.
PROPONENT: 77.,/lMM62..C.- C/Zow Co •
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INs_ LUD.I:N'
ADDRESS: -:.
r.
PARCEL NO: '352?34= °90?4, 'O; '
SEC'TWNfRN;• :24.' ,. ,. �.
LEAD AGE
"7T�REET'ADDRE'a'a, IF ANY:
41
•
11711117:111:>•
i`, �.
`A
AGENCY :,:,'/7 CITY, OF TLIP.WILA, _:; ,.- FIL.E NO' :;', E9;5 -0028
t 4,! ri �`It 5+:: J 4` . • ..,. ', �'., . 1,; ':. ?;' .. �, 4 'S; . '%�
n y, l \, Si g\ t' ! ,, '',
The City has.f,'determ 1'ned that the; La opose does riot 'gave' L,rob'ab\1 e
i gn i t 1 cac, tdVersre impact o,rll ;t\t�r-fe' env i r i5nment . An er►`v, 1 T`G_mkr ht s1 j�Ttii n1L#C c t
srtatemant'r�('EI'�r').'?1: i'1oft r`eul.!'1`1 ed tn'1 W 4' .21x_.0. 0(2 t t', '�r1'ti:
r 1 r'` � � � r �G -4, 1• ,�a � j L' �.,�h' �. \ � \ �'`•) I f I j`.:; ..
deci ionrJ's�;;d:. m.a'deJ:�t {ter r'e'v.,i'r-•yrl at11a "rc;o•mpyl.eted envir ,nm
3•' : '. „\ „ . C L. i7 t :3 `1 C ZI'C C �: �L j, ; t
and oth4r`;� �iintornlati:on on t:T'1 °e••..1n,•it'1 the ped agencv. Tiii: 'int'orm��;ta.ion
i_ avail1a;b1e'"��t'o;,•{?th pub),.;i?,c'z•on re:{ t:t. :;The'';= :conditions to s. ''',
Determiraat•iori are +.attached.".,/ '''. -, .i ;`wKi "' F ,,.:- <<' + v:• f'r
IV.; ,;, ,,,. %.._. "."'__,,' 'II '?:; -� iy'•',�,'`:jr,Jl 1 II, •, t�.. l' l ■'r, tr�,,t, •
i,S j �� t . ),� _ ';,. 1 ^r.rs 1 S '+• !,1. � —44') ` .�s' �S j' Jt
4,Y' 1 vr:',i _ra i3 ..,,�, M1' -sh,J :. `, t� i p� »...' "�l i;..,, k�r •3
T h i s D 1 �ri,.:� . u ad under e r• x.1`9,' �\1%1'': -, 4 0 (2`) ` 't./ Qo ini»e ` , �` i
r G� ',7,;:-::7- ' ��- , ; . n:t sr must �, t L .c s.u.L,ni:- t t;�;ci; L y
.JA _ X25 ° "d �(Q /' 11Th`e''F' e rid'�. c�,genc.v xi 11 not ac:t on t! i sr?li
i} ro poc;a'1'\.ttor' 15 da:r:: f=r''o.m the date b, "1 ... �' �,
ill' "' a 1.1 Mlti� - ,;_.,,. ,* . . ,. r' . �;
aS t.i ., k ,--'',1 ..
`l:. ' 14. ')', ' ; ,I,;rte' �.. „ j..'/'t•....r„... ;?''
t : f ; ;1�
Steve La'r�G`'e:rt \e r' '` =Fe:= ;p.ori» i b 1 e ��rtt 1 c1 ��'1� A= ),DL�t'e•. -" ,." „•,. (:su s
City of TJ wi lfra. (20'6) 4' 1 -36L�0 r , ni , -, :lq
t r ,a ,,, ti }. fig „,1.
6300 o u t h;Se•ra t e r Bo u 1 e °v�a r d i. .i ,. »� ,�,'.
Tukwila, WA'. 31 8 uy far► .1 4) �� N: r;: ii ' •-.1
Vi"'". :} jtF ! `` ter: jtf �> =j,� �x,P
You may appe;al`' th�i determination to the City Clerk at CS "�tv'YHall. 6200
':,outhc.enter Loul`e.ri'ti• d. • Tuk:wi la t' ,WP; 9C1;ta3 no later t.h:n 10 days from the
above signature da' `�..:�; ` ;# ;. ... l =' i^ • _r
t;e:���v wr�itterr�lapp��;�, ��,t' %�`ting the ��''t,,r;i�� of the appeal
''ti • � � .vi i,'' � � ' ' per,.... .r'
for s,pecitic. factual •Ob_j,e.c:t..i_on:. You" °:'.n iy be r e •0'7,ed" to bear some of
the expense: for an appe #a! „,.t `� • ;',., ';:w.,:.. _•�,�
Copies of the procedures. for SEPP appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
Jv
0 0.
U Q
, w W,
CD
W 0:
J
co d:
= W
zF
F- 0;
z H,
CU ilk
3 Q'
U
052:
uj
F=-
9-- F- U :
z
UN
z ... -.
Mitigation Conditions for
E95 -0028 (Pavilion South Lot Development)
January 10, 1996
A "no protest" agreement to participate in providing a fair share
of all utilities, between the property owner and the City of
Tukwila, shall be executed prior to issuance of a building
permit. The owner retains the right to protest the amount of
assessment, but not the agreement to participate in funding
utility provision.
Ab(r(0'f'4C._ CO &Co co r o TC p 2 c a).)
D(( OS-, r?��
Mitigation Conditions for
E95 -0028 (Pavilion South Lot Development)
January 10, 1996
A "no protest" agreement to participate in providing a fair share
of all utilities, between the property owner and the City of
Tukwila, shall be executed prior to issuance of a building
permit. The owner retains the right to protest the amount of
assessment, but not the agreement to participate in funding
utility provision.
AbrT(c,AI/4 s ?'"o 6' in pv2y c cD).
TA Se car Pv3 4,1 c.. CJ/..<s ' 7 c'vk.t tic 69\c-r5j
o w • eau wA-a 2'S, I F7 c.
(7z /PC
4'-_,o6e)
'.F{�•.:.; ti::...iilri c:+'. ,.trrulK;wav:3.:1 -..ti
7�,Kaa� ..
Trammell Crov ot11j)a11`'
December 8, 1995
Mr. Vernon Umetsu
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6300 Southcenter Blvd
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: Development of Pavilion Mall South Lot
Request for Cooperative Parking Agreement
Dear Vernon:
L-Oo1
1
v1;,:".am.-.IV:7,—,ry.. cV!1'.T'!.'.' MRI•VI. .1,1 :?1.:mi•;+ y'n,-i u,...:
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
206/762 -4750
206/763 -9871 Fax
The purpose of this letter is to request a Cooperative Parking Agreement for the proposed
development site at the South Lot of Pavilion Mall. We are requesting this agreement because
of the parking spaces used by the addition of an internal pedestrian walkway, iiiditional
landscaping, and satisfying Sensitive Area requirements.
For your review, I have attached a copy of a letter previously submitted to you on October 13,
1995. Calculations in that letter support a total parking space requirement in the South Lot of
491 spaces. Those calculations also assume a future 15,000 square foot restaurant building on
the South Lot and an existing 211,082 square foot gross lease area at Pavilion Mall. Our revised
site plan, adding the pedestrian crosswalk, reduces the parking count from 491 to 475 spaces.
The 16 space difference results in a 3.3% overlap.
I have also attached a traffic study recently completed by Christopher Brown & Associates.
They study concludes, even with maximum parking use at the Pavilion Mall, that the South
parking lot remains virtually empty.
I am available at your convenience to discuss this cooperative parking agreement request. Please
call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
TRAM OW COMPANY
Crocker
nstruction Manager
SC /cb
cc:
Scott Grainger
Paul Roggenkamp
George Williams
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEC 0 8 1995
PERMIT CENTER
z
Wiz.
re w2:
6
JU'
00
N0,
CO W.
CO a.
uuo
z �.
z▪ �:
U• a
o N
o�
w w.
u. o.
uiz
U=
o f'
z
r
Trammell Cro ompany
. • ..,., ...... <,: 144 . iM,..,.c,:vy.a:.VSS�Y.4:..;lS ,bir{.�..1 +:. ^ar',�i.... .t... .:au: a...�.:.,..:,r.....�..
October 13, 1995
Board of Architectural Review
CITY OF TUKWILA
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila WA 98188
5601 Sixth Avenue South
P.O. Box 80326
Seattle, Washington 98108
2061762-4750
2061763.9871 Fax
RE: South Lot Development
Parking Lot Calculations
To Whom It May Concem:
The purpose of this letter is to transmit the following assumptions and calculations as they relate to the attached
submittal.
Assumptions (verified by actual count):
Existing parking on Pavilion Mall site
Parking to be provided at South Lot
Proposed restaurants
503 spaces
491 spaces
15,000 square feet
Code requirement of four (4) parking spaces per 1000 square feet for both Pavilion Mall and South Lot.
Development:
211,082 square feet GLA at Pavilion
211082 sf/1,000 sf x 4
Less Existing Parking
Remaining South Lot Spaces
844 spaces
(503) spaces
341 spaces
Adding code requirement often (10) stalls per 1000 square feet for the proposed restaurants:
15,000 sf71000 sf x 10 = 150 spaces
Required spaces
Required Restaurant Spaces
Total Required Spaces
Please call me if you have any questions at (206) 762 -4750.
Sincerely,
ROW COMPANY
ve Crocker
Construction Manager
SC:am
Attachment
iu71r4'.s ^�bcvi°f. ::t¢n:�lJivp;
341 spaces
150 spaces
491 spaces
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEC 081995
PERMIT CENTER
w .+r :.,1wi+ tat ..i.a..e:�i..i..Nr<;:.,t�Y..1 �w�u'tLU3�::r:•Y: W:.` i. Yi1Y.;. ae§: i' sr�aiitv"±• lG-::. iC. °�.ra'ttut�"�tclaAL',:- ,T.aiu.0 G r�,�;«r,i+t.ufci�. <; . -
v
•
N$�
CAW.
•
.
u_ ‹.
:caps
HW
•z F.
�,.
Dpi:
:JO Ht.
inu
I-- V i •
• Z
Uy .
X95 -t�0�7
mm Drawing#
3smm Drawin
•
eieurit
, .
•
• •
. . •
•
• • :,'IREE ROOT
' ,: • BARRIER
•
• •
ti“ Lo; metrieoitcip
Ream 1408e TIE
27t2 GA WIRES PER TIE •
pRESTAINED FIR STAKES
. .
„ .
2" MIN. MULCH
ROOT CROON AT TOP '
.• OF MOUND 6" ABOVE
SURROUNDING GRADE
•
FINISH GRADE
PLANTING SOIL
FERTILIZER •
EXISTING SUOGRADE
'ROLL TOP 14 BURLAP •
DOWN SIDE OF ROOTBALL
itOoo GATE
--EXIST:' CROSSWALK
NEW PYLON SIGN
77 I -""', =•:,,,' --1-3::::-...1..:.2
_..s,"0.14-, =1410' • .. - • • • • •
r .:,e4.,..C.t*Iti .0g0.7fett,o,,,c,/„&tiV2,:i.e.,•,,.. -CC F1.4.k, 0,,,,e_illttgic,Ncre,..,,te. .ti, .A........,,'.0;1186kili. tor., •-•,...1. , -1 ,-, 0 c •
47%..`448i tt:1 WIO :•:•P: iti.f6-Igi f.6.8-R, t•■•:•• 1.4.7cilii telt( .1w )A ,,_ . , ,,,,,,,akrikvita.,:v2r406,,vir,,,,,,vo.,,tv,trir,,_ ,•,4)a
v-4.1.-147" ::....I.i 'NU*" "Or • —,a tosai..- -, iso or '/P6,- • titiXss'•474e, ''Pe••,-- - ' • ‘, - ler 'II l'" Pc'"I'A /44.51*1 QfgOi I''
- .--:, A7::1..:.: . • ', . .'41411/1 ':. . 1411W/40FINKilliOr: -. ••• 41111107, -•-:-, . .7. ..::. *itiOr- ,,\ ,:,..'.": \.‘ , • 4"....... :7=7'-11'.4. ' ' " ... '. ' u u ' . ..., - •
• • ' ".111 • .• . ...t. •, .M1W • NNW
DECIDUOUSTREE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE '
' ROLL. TOP I/3
' • CF EURLAP DOLLS
SIDE OF ROOTBALL
6* MIN.
PREPARED PLATING
MIX 4 FERTILIZER
EXISTING SUBGRADE'
SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL
. NOT TO SCALE.
15" l.. REINFORCED
RUBBER HOSE TIE
U.I/ 2-12 GA WIRES PER TIE
n, --STAINED FIR STAKES
2" MIN. MULCH
ROO T CRCALN AT TOP
OF MOUND 6" ABOVE •
SURROUNDNG GRADE
6" BERM
ROLL TOP 15 BURLAP
SIDE OF ROOTEIALL
PLANTING SOIL 4
FERTILIZER
• Io1N.
6" MIN.
I.-6" MIN.
1/
IR
a
s
s
.
CCCCICCCCCCC
cc.c/cccc
33b03333333,0
b'
3 3
3300333330
e
•
EXISTING SUeGRADE
CONIFEROUS TREE DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME
NEW PARKING LOT LIGHTS
=SEM 41111.M•rarein aril in 11,6111•41•11■ 11.11.10 MC MOM .111.T•;. .■
•■•••• ••••• ----.----
,Inemiczzoneserwritonmeaaxrataziains niarresainaccurmffiturn axe::
MOW WI .1•••••• w
. EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN
30
COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE QUANT. SPACING SPECIFICATIONS
ACER RUBRUM 'BOWHALL'
0 — CHAMAECYPARIS LAWSONIANA
BOWHALL MAPLE
PORT ORFORD CEDAR
FRAXINUS OXYCARPA 'RAyWOOD RAYWOOD ASH .
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA
MAGNOLIA KOBUS
PRUNUS SERRULATA 'MT. Fine.
.• EXISTING CEDARS TQ REMAIN •
AMERICAN SWEETGUM
KOBUS MAGNOLIA
CHERRY
MT. FUJI
' • ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVALURSI . KINNIKINNICK
I.„ • CATHARANTHUS ROSEUS • MADAGASCAR PERIWINKLE 4" POTS
HEDERA HEUXYBALTICA' BALTIC ENGLISH ' IVY . 4 POTS
WARR
1-1/2" CAL.
6' HT,
1-1/2" CAL
1-1/2" CAL.
1-1/2 CAL.
I-1/r CAL.
, 35'
10'
- 40'
- • • - 20'
SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME ' COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE
SHRUBS : .
.
..
.._„.
(c) --- COTONEASTER LACTEUS PARNEY COTONEASTER •
0 — DAPHNE ODORA • ' , ' • . WINTER DAPHNE
QUANT. SPACING, SPECIFICATIONS
0 — DEUTZIA GRAOILIS ' DEUTZIA •
. . 0 — OSMAREA DURKWOODII ' OSMAREA
PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS 'OTTO LUYKEN' OTTO LUYKEN LAUREL.
- , VARIES.
.•.
'• ',...VINCA MINOR •. : . . DWARF PERIWINKLE '.• e. BoTs
-; SKIMMIA JAPONICA ' • NOTES • •
• ' JAPANESE SKIMMIA. •
5 G.C., 18" MIN.
5 G.C., 18" MIN.
5 G.C., 18" MIN,
5 G.C., 18" MIN.
5 G.C., 18" MIN.
5 G.C., 18 MIN.
5'
5'
4'
FULL & uSHY
FULL & BUSHY
FULL & BUSHY
FULL & BUSHY
FULL & BUSHY
FULL & BUSHY
. . . . . . .
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE QUANTITY OF PLANT MATERIALS INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLANS OR ON PLANT SCHEDULES, V,MICHEVER IS GREATER.
2: • PRIOR TO STARTING ANY .EXCAVATION .WORK CALL.7DIALDIG* TO ,VERIFY LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. NOTIFY 'LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY UNFOReEEN
. " UTILITIES AND ,DISCREPANCIES. : ,' : .. : .: . ,., ' ' - . ' ,* :' : • ' • '
' '. •
3 ' LAYOUT of PLANTING Bios, 'TREES, .SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PLANTS SHALL BE APPROVED By LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.; , •
I •
• ' .• 1 ' ; I , • . .., '.• 4 .‘#-L, NEWLY PLANTED TREES SHAU: BE SET BACK MINIMUM; OF THREE, (3,') FEET FROM FACE OF CURB. , •
:- 187 O.C. .. . mIN. 3-30 " ONO . RUNNERS 5.'••'•FoiLowNo BisTAII:KnoB OF TREES AND SI4RUBS; ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS AND PARKING LOT ISLANDS SHALL RECEIVE MINIMUM OF TWO (2")' OF MULCH.
. .
, . „ , , . ,, , , ., %., • " •
6:, '. REFER TO ,,THIS. SHEET FOR LANDSOAPE: DETAILS. •;.,,-: - ' ' , , : . . ,` ; :• : .. , : • ;: . .• : ,, • .,. , ' ..
TOPSOIL IN :AU,' GROUND Covifi'Atiti SHRUB BEDS,: AND ■ MIN. 4" . APPRovib TOPSOIL IN SEEDED. LAWN AREAS. .1 .4 : •
n :L/Chri'■ TAU TA •OVIIAIIJ izeiinve Mt WitC.TATUIP.V.4171.41A1 TI-II Iter AC WORK THAT tc NOT Clint!. TfN Drumm • . • ••• • . •
. • I.. TING IRCES '. TO BE R€MOVED IN : NEW !PAVED! AREAS SHALL..,„ HAVE THEIR ROOTS REMOVED COMPLETELY : EXISTING TREES TO I3E;REMOVED IN NEW
' 1, • SHALL HAVEThEIJ TRUNK srumis:Oackirlo DOWN. TO tr: OELOW F1NISHED oBADE.: " •'
' 11111111111111 11 111 1-111•11.11PIIIIII1011111111I1 II' .1gr1ip1 '', I 1.',I6, 1 ill 1 I 1;d4g3- ..4:, 61
1111 1 1 \ ":);
(::11Cit) 11rtr• . or61 1II ul1l
111111 1111 11111lillliiii111111111111llilli lIlli111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111i
• „ • FIE0givED,
• .• tl • ;-,•.CITY,opyuKwi,
. 'CrItnrICATE'N/1 bEC i?,17•190
• •'!: •
■••,• • •■•• t,•.°
' • MO' celycg,
• •V)gitk.
,V.-k=11.i`7•NV.•
7,41;1'1;1:7 1.".11:7i
;•,,
'4,S1,1;■/ .4 'o■
,z,r‘
kniv:"."1,4e1;74:Will•T'r'& •
1411
• ',1:2,P 4T,
NEW
PARK s . • ' '1 • "
\
-.....,:,,cc9ccpbcc-.pccecccccccdc
\
Li
' ' ' , i ' .5,, • P . . " 5 3 ( 3 .3 : 3 6 ' 3 6 3 3 3 3 .... 3 ; 3 3 3 3 6 3 3 3 3 3
...\ \
,PARKII
. .
G LOT. LICH)
,ZiAW:1,4■44`;
• I 71, " • ' ;- ,i11-77.,i‘f,E141 , v4; , ANh.
7.4 4. -1. ,..V.11,,111.....771- Th7Vittril'Zi5gC9 -
111111111111111111p1.1111111111111111111111:13111111111111111,1‘11,1„1.1111111111,151111111111111N1
817..1 1 .g t o l 01
1)17. 01F. ,1?: f:17. 7. • i, r fil 8 41 1 1 I,
111111:111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
'
„,„. „„ ; • :LT.::
. _
. .
.
_
,PARKII
. .
G LOT. LICH)
,ZiAW:1,4■44`;
• I 71, " • ' ;- ,i11-77.,i‘f,E141 , v4; , ANh.
7.4 4. -1. ,..V.11,,111.....771- Th7Vittril'Zi5gC9 -
111111111111111111p1.1111111111111111111111:13111111111111111,1‘11,1„1.1111111111,151111111111111N1
817..1 1 .g t o l 01
1)17. 01F. ,1?: f:17. 7. • i, r fil 8 41 1 1 I,
111111:111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
'
„,„. „„ ; • :LT.::
7.1fr 41.5
h
•
7-71,
4- . ,
^so ,f,"'••),"..'" f T. je*'".• ).■
T
TOMTIT..
mei came was
r 7 15tRIZP
-1.+Nu'Irtillt1111,11V
, .
cesium:4*W' beresperSibie tat if!kul .
to anat. arvIval. .1ha Ca Ittaatfr. raapanalois roe ail pIlM. ono
aatarlale JtII Ow fowl accaraarin or Vs patina:, Galatia*, Mill y4 lCS dssd arra* all plant astartaia to tart alive andhealitNtirc.6.6„.• patted or"orn
Viarafti:11".PlaiateAsata1=:raar "t
Id.II aa an. taplaawara by tb arartiramarlial driTat darlaa
ear raw aaranaif!!!!!..p.uen.,. :
11.1i 7111-1ftlirufw"El
'F.111!'ll • ' Oise.* 0) d. . souse
OentratesCi.Oisti 400 erwrivesetstdesigre
•
5 -.3 man ro
I VINE
---4=3 man rockb
1 FIR \
3 Split rail
wood fence
1 CEDAR
- 3 man rocks
I FIR •
3:1 Slope
(typical)
3 CEDAR
I0 WILLOW
•
.., 1
I II
2 A.St*N
I vINE MAPLE
3 ASPEN
3:1 Slope
• I
3 man roc024.i.
VINE _
CEDAR .11
,4 mon rocks/ /
I ASPEN
. _ • I VINE MA1=LE
I FIR •
,, GMAT 0.101
•041 WOG TO .1.114..
no PIMA TOM 10
TOP G *GPI TO POW
PPTIMI.NP 1110.
24• Mt
ITTITIT.T10.1.1.411111......P7,00111.1.1. SOO In all. ,. aleialre
ON::
(•6•10"0?- ' .:.: --....,. ,,,,,,,,, , : • .''.' ': ' ''.•:: , .:,', ,, • . . . - ::.
ILaiailif a iaiiil at tansy iiiiii.r)34"iiwi rOderei OTT Wi4r1aPt. •
..• Musa falai sailat-Iligartaaap'illi oak lagrat.thait,tha ealara!alava-
'..-f,rft*O-"Iii)•'!". •"• Flyt",..N''.' • •:','-'1 ., "...• i-. ',`... r'' ' ... , : . .
.4.41:rourairoaa;inli*ilsiseissi*'esiste:sireiesS:sosiest **we .., .-
• 2 I
• w10
• tiarlE litrE it7ACINS 4d4NTITr
plinata . ' ••• Wasteritibad Cedar 4'-6! • :
paulugagu'r:nalrizfira:fee..,, ,j,:rac4Ilieriagcbir :-;!;;": • 7O-!2,102 O.C. 42
. . .
Populue AremuloIdes : P • P &kJt1 el.P11111 6 8 0 -12' aa g
""*.' Circle**. ' . Vine Maple PP" • 4,, 6, 10 12 O.G. . 6
111. • •":*: P •• thIIow • •lIps• or pot. 24" O.C. 10
4104 are a satiOriakakupsnakme Mr.hoci:or propagation and.carriOt be used dUrIng the May
'•■• ankh
•; •
Pacific Ninebark , 2 CsAL. o.c.
- Tall orogen Grape 3 GAL 0.0.
3 GkAL. 0.0.
radine landddidendrOn 4!-;4•• O.c.
FIceser'ing currant 3 dAL. • 4! O.G.
t.loOtkli Rd.* 2 GAL. 3 0.0.
Red Osier. Dogwood P 5 GAL. 4 O.G.
13
42
10
•
sword Fern 2 GAL. 24-30" 0.0. 64
51
•
Lady Fern 2GAL. 24-30" O.G.
9119/11GENT/ACtiATIc.5.
, . beirpt4, adtitia I4ardstam !Bulrush sprles/clumps 24" O.C.
ca-roicot*Pta siotbip 6aldri4; root .tOck„ 24'!- 30" O.C.
46
'41,pargianlut ' • pir4144.:1 ;24"-3O" 0.0.
32 .
Typhi : Caitatl • • Winer. 24.;30 .! do.
NOTE: ,
ALL TREES REMOVED DURING TI-4 ELIMINATION OF THE • CENTRAL STREAM :FEATURE HAVE BEENREfLACED
IN AC.CORDANCE WITH THE TUKWILA TREE:ORDINANCE
IS.S4.130 TABLE A..
TREES REMOVED FROM
ORIGINAL STREAM FEATURE:
• "I Redwood
9 •Wore•chestnut
4 E3I rch •
I Maplelmult1 trunk)
Total: 21 Tres*
REPI•ACEtIENT TREES' IN
1E04 STREAM. FE ATUFAE:
,
Red Cedar
4 Douglae, Fir
!OualZne Aepen
2. • .151r, '
5 Vine Maple: •
1ot WI IIOw
Total: 39, Tram
IN
1itii11111011111
111111M
111111111111101MEMMI111111111
II1 •
7.411 311=-111
.t1
-1F.511a11=11.=11,11=-11Z•11#111#11-11-...11,
11:=111=11-11r-7.11,-111:=11=.11 11,-,11-.11-41 =-111.71I
) MIN. 4" ANY D bI 11L1
SPLITCf0tt741Ls 1
64. rIr1.4emIT
MORTISE CEDAR POSTS
12 CONCRETE FOOTING
•
SPLIT RAIL FENCE
NOT TO SCALE
•
0 20 40 60
SCAL_E:
111111111111111111.11111111111111111111111i1111 1111111111111,I 1,1111111111110 11 ( •11111111111151
I . . 2 1 I d
1 NT
.11111ilipiaidot;1'01,Ifinililltilinii„I„11,11,1:4,11o1;114110T„11111,11,11,14„111,fil,„,10111.1,,i
PERMIT c