HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0037 - KING COUNTY - FOSTER LIBRARY SPECIAL PERMISSION,�:
L94 -0037
KING CO. LIBRARY SYS.
4060 S. 144 ST
SPECIAL PERMISSION
I.Nora Gierloff - GIS Users' Group News
Pagel-
From: "Dick Thomas" <dick @sammplat.wa.org>
To: "Central Puget Sound GIS Users" <cps- gis @u.washington.edu>
Date: 11/5/02 9:06AM
Subject: GIS Users' Group News
Joint King County - Central Puget Sound Users' Group GIS Day Celebration
The Central Puget Sound GIS Users' Group will join King County GIS in celebration of GIS Day 2002.
Join us at 12:30 on Wednesday, November 20th at the King County GIS Center, 201 S Jackson Street,
Suite 706, in Seattle. Note the change in the date and time for this month only.
King County's GIS Day event will run from 10:OOam to 3:OOpm on November 20th. Feel free to check
our web page for the latest GIS Day Agenda.
<http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/gisday2002.htm>
OR
<http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/gisday.htm>
For more information contact
Cheryl A. Wilder, Training Coordinator / GIS Data Sales
King County GIS Center - Client Services Group
"Putting GIS to Work in King County"
<http://www.metrokc.gov/gis>
Department of Natural Resources & Parks
201 S Jackson Street, Suite 706
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 263 -5220
FAX (206) 263 -3145
Cheryl.Wilder @METROKC.GOV
GIS Day Haiku
The King County GIS Center in Seattle, Washington announces its third annual GIS Day 'GIS Poetry
Contest.'
GIS Day in King County
Haiku Contest 20021
Brush off your poetry skills and enter the Official King County GIS Day Haiku Contest!
For rules, some examples to get you started, and a list of fabulous prizes, see:
<http://www.metrokc.gov/gis/gisday_haikucontest2002.htm>
-greg babinski
Job Opening City of Mercer Island
«ole0.bmp»
«olel.bmp»
«GIS Analyst.pdf»
Richard E. Thomas
GIS Coordinator
Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
1510 228th Ave SE
Sammamish, WA 98075
Voice: 425.392.4931 ext. 228
FAX: 425.391.5389
E -mail: dick @sammplat.wa.org
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W. Rants, Mayor
• Rick Beeler, Director
DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSIONBOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
MINUTES
JUNE 23, 1994
Mr. Clark called the meeting to order at 7:OOp.m. Members present were Messrs. Clark,
Meryhew, Neiss and Ms. Stetson. Messrs. Haggerton, Flesher and Malina were excused.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Denni Shefrin, Ann Siegenthaler and Sylvia Schnug
Case #L94 -0012
I. Attached vs. Detach Units in Single Family Zones
Denni Shefrin gave the staff report. There are two issues with this first provision. PRD units
need to be harmonious with the surrounding residential developments. Secondly, single family
units which are detached are more preferable than those which are attached. It also references
zero -lot -line development. At a typical zero -lot -line set -up you are actually having detached units
but they are built on the property line on alternating lot lines. It would be false to assume that the
zero -lot -line patterns automatically means they're attached. The Council's direction is whether or
not to approve attached units in single family zones.
Mr. Meryhew: This applies only to the PRD section, correct?
Ms. Shefrin: Yes. With one exception, there is one provision that talks about change to the
sensitive area regulations.
Mr. Clark: Could you not find any examples for the Council of a positive impact from attached
PRD housing? To my perspective that is an example of the negative impact of detached zero -lot-
line construction. You could meet the letter of it without the intent of it being harmonious.
Ms. Shefrin:
pattern.
You are bringing up a good point. This attempts to straighten out zero- lot -line
Mr. Meryhew: I don't like the restriction either. I'm not sure that down the road we want to
limit it to single family.
Ms. Shefrin: The bottom line here, when were talking about PRD's, something that's created,
it sets in motion the whole desire to try and retain unique geographic features.
Mr. Clark: I think the only people who are embracing the clustering concept are those who are
forced to focus on it. If you ask the general public we'd get a negative response.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Planning Commission /BAR Page 2
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
?: They are thinking about their immediate neighborhood, they're not thinking about the overall
city.
Ms. Stetson: What's wrong with attached? What's the difference between attached and duplex
for instance? This is not an example of detached zero -lot -line, this is appalling.
Ms. Shefrin: Do you feel that the language in the PRD is strong enough, are there other sorts
of objectives that are part of the PRD provision to get good design, to allow the kind of flexibility
that we're talking about?
Mr. Clark: I think that a tighter review of the architectural detailing of the product would achieve
a better result than this restriction.
Ms. Shefrin: The PRD allows that sort of critique as well. The BAR criteria is more specific
to commercial development.
Mr. Neiss: I think we need some flexibility. If you had the two attached on one lot line it gives
you a lot more room to do something creative with the surrounding area.
Mr. Clark: And preserve native vegetation.
?: I like the the way the code reads without the changes.
Ms. Shefrin: The way the code currently reads it doesn't require BAR review, but it does
require BAR guidelines be applied to the project.
Mr. Clark: The problem with viewing the PRD from the perspective of clustering is that if the
citizen's and the council don't see the value of clustering, what's the point of having that as a goal?
Is that the goal of the PRD?
Ms. Shefrin: Ultimately it is.
Mr. Pace: If you want to leave the wording as is, just strengthen the BAR guidelines.
Mr. Clark: Remember that if the overall goal is clustering, then the existing language
achieves a better result than the new proposed language.
II. Minimum Property Size
Second issue relates to minimum property size. In the Code PRD's are limited to one acre or
greater. The SAO requires that short plats and boundary line adjustments also meet • z
administrative PRD. This whole issue pertains to areas where there are sensitive areas.
?: I agree with the Council on this one to just delete it. •
Planning Commission% vAR
Minutes of 6 -23-94
Page 3
III. Density and Minimum Lot Size
The PRD allows a density transfer. Density transfer says that if you have sensitive areas on your
property the provision does not penalize for maximizing development. You have to recognize
that sensitive areas says you can't build in those areas and you have to provide a buffer. The
direction that Council gave was to omit the density transfer calculation all together and regulate
minimum lot size. They suggested a 15% reduction to lot areas and setbacks with a minimum lot
size of 6,120 square feet in area. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee is recommending minimum
lot sizes of 6,500 square feet in residential zones in lieu of 7,200.
Ms. Shefrin: So, do we look at regulating lot size and allow some variety or variance of
setbacks to accomplish the goal of preserving the sensitive areas and open spaces?
Mr. Neiss: I think there should be a minimum lot size, whether it's 15% or an actual square
footage.
Mr. Meryhew: I agree there should be a limit, it could be as small as 5,000 square feet.
Mr. Clark: If you have a high density, 5,000 square feet can look very big. That can support a lot
of design options, but I don't think we should go below 5,000.
Mr. Neiss: I'm not in total agreement with the idea of 5,000 square foot lots, but I stand alone on
that one.
Ms. Shefrin: If we start limiting lot areas there has to be some demonstration that a site can
support "X" number of lots with that minimum area.
Mr. Pace: As lot size gets larger, density transfer doesn't work.
?: The important thing is that we want to minimize the number of 5,000 square foot lots. We
want to vary them, try to go as large as possible, but in some cases we might want it to be 5,000
square feet.
Ms. Shefrin: The other option would be to leave density transfer in there and have a minimum
lot size of 5,000 square feet.
IV. Density Transfer to Developable Parts Of The Site
The Code states that no development is allowed in sensitive areas. The conflict is that this
provision excludes density transfer and the SAO says you can't develop on steep slopes, how do
we resolve that issue? The recommendation is that the development be confined to developable
portions in accordance with Chapter 18.45 of zoning code and sensitive areas regulations.
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 4
V. Board of Architectural Review
The way the Code says there are BAR guidelines, however, there are no guidelines for single
family or multi- family development. Also there is no statement that says that the Board of
Architectural Review must review PRD's. Council and Staff recommend that the entire section be
deleted.
?: All PRD's still have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission?
Ms. Shefrin: Yes.
Mr. Clark: We were just talking about more BAR review, and now you're saying no BAR review.
I feel we should delete the entire section.
Ms. Shefrin: But they still apply to guidelines. You as the Planning Commission use the same
BAR guidelines. You still have the authority to make recommendations on the architecture and
features provided on -site.
VI. Off -Site Perspectives
The intent here is to provide vegetative screening to lessen the visibility of new buildings to
properties located down - slope. The problem is, what is the definition of off -site? With Foster
View we made the determination that off -site is 10 feet away from the property. When you're
closer you might obtain something that provides a better screen. A problem with using off -site
perspectives is there is a tremendous amount of artistic license that can be taken by an individual,
and to what degree can an individual actually capture all the vegetation? The Council gave,us a
direction to use photomontages with future development over -laid.
Mr. Meryhew: Should we include the possibility of a computer generated photo instead of
restricting it to photomontage?
Ms. Shefrin: The most accurate version of the photomontage is computer generated but the
cost is significantly more than an artist's version.
Ms. Stetson: So is this a cost issue?
Mr. Meryhew: The cost is in direct proportion to the size of the PRD. I recommend approval
with addition that it could be computer generated photo montage.
Mr. Clark closed the Work Session and opened thePublic Hearing at 8:OOpm.
There were no citizen's comments.
MS. STETSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 1994. MR.
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Planning Commission( ..AR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 5
Case #'s L94 -0037, L93 -0089: L93 -0088., L94 -0041; Foster Library
Ms. Stetson stated stated for the record that she is currently a member of the Friends of Foster
Library and has been so for 15 years, and asked if anyone had objections to her hearing this
proposal.
There were no objections.
The staff report was presented by Ann Siegenthaler. The King County Library System and
Tukwila entered into a local agreement providing Tukwila with a replacement for the old Foster
Library. The new library will be located at the intersection of 144th and 42nd Avenue South.
Four separate approvals are needed:
1) Special Permission for the amount of parking;
2) Conditional Use Permit approval;
3) Design Review and approval of the library design; and
4) Special Permission for the design of signs (included as part of design
review)
Special Permission- Parking ..
Staff has concluded that the parking is comparable at this site to other library sites. Other libraries
have 26 stalls, this proposal is for 34 stalls. Foster Library includes a 55- person meeting room, •
other libraries have a 51 person meeting room. In Design Review, revisions to the parking lot
design will be discussed, such as saving large trees, which would reduce the parking stall number
down to 33 or 32. At this site there is also off - street parking available. Based on this, staff
concludes that parking will be adequate, and recommends approval of parking.
Conditional Use Permit
The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to look at potential impacts of unusual types of
projects. In this case the Foster Library is in a residential zone, a public facility,and requires a
Conditional Use Permit under the Zoning Code. Staff noted two concerns: aesthetic impacts to
the surrounding area and potential light spill -over into adjacent residences. Staff feels that further
evaluation is needed to determine the aesthetic impacts of how the building and landscaping is
going to look. To address light spill -over, additional screening and landscaping is needed around
the site. There is a concern that parking headlights from the parking lot and lights in the lot might
spill over to the adjacent homes. The details of how these are resolved were deferred from the
project SEPA review to the BAR Design Review. Given that all issues can be addressed, staff
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Special Permission -Sign Review
There are two signs proposed: a wall sign at the entrance and a monument sign at the southeast
corner. Staff identified three issues: 1) a concern about the size of the monument sign (as it is
currently proposed it exceeds the Sign Code limit per size); 2) it's not clear what materials and
colors are proposed for the signs and there is; 3) no indication of how the signs will be
Planning Commission /BAR Page 6
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
illuminated. The applicant has agreed that the Sign Code requirements will be met, will revise
plans to include details of color and materials, and the illumination will be integrated into the
architecture. Staff recommends approval of both signs, pending submittal and approval of
revised plans and drawings.
Design Review
Additional materials provided by the applicant were distributed. The public has been notified of
the project through notices being mailed out, signs posted at the site, articles in the Hazelnut and
a public information meeting. Public comments are included in the material handed out tonight.
This area has been identified as a focal point for the neighborhood. The project will be very
visible to the community and a high quality design is very important. The architect has revised the
original drawings to better address issues of quality and how it will fit into it's neighborhood
context. This is evident in the material board and the colored sketch (entered these into public
record). The top part of the building will be a dryvit, stucco type material but the majority of the
building will be brick.
Staff has identified 18 issues that were not well addressed by the applicant. For example, the
landscape plan has two different street trees proposed and there is not sufficient site lighting.
There was a question about whether there is convenient barrier free access to the main entrance.
On the building design, staff had concerns about how the building is detailed, such as the
downspout material, and patterns used on the facade were not repeated elsewhere. Since the staff
report was prepared, staff has met with the applicant to further discuss these concerns. The result
of that meeting is that the applicant has agreed to all the 18 items of concern and will work with
staff in making the refinements.
Mr. Clark: Which architect is representing the project?
Ms. Siegenthaler:
Reinvald.
Landscape architect is Jongejan, Gerrard, McNeal and the architect is Reed
Mr. Neiss: I would like some elaboration of what the relationship is of the building to the street.
Ms. Siegenthaler: The applicant explored several options of how the building could face the
street. It is my understanding that this was the best orientation of the building, given the program
and site requirements and design quality issues. The applicant was trying to balance the
orientation with some of the other concerns.
Mr. Neiss: How it co- habitats with Foster High School seems to be an issue.
Ms. Siegenthaler: There is a danger with this sort of orientation of the project appearing to
turn it's back to the neighborhood, so how the entry is treated becomes very important.
Planning Commission .._.AR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Ilmar Reinvald, Architect with Reed Reinvald:
Page 7
Since the library is a civic building it has several attributes. It needs to be simple without being
dull, a building where you are proud to take visitors, with a quality of uniqueness, and a sense of
order and serenity to be a good neighbor. It should be well lit and have gathering places inside
and outside. Fencing and plantings will be provided to address high school traffic going through
the site. We recognize the importance of the corner of 144th and 42nd, making that more
important than any other corner. The building is oriented as it is because it was felt the parking'
should be behind the building. The entry needed to address both the street for pedestrians arrivals
and the parking lot. It will be a cut out of a simple rectangle, 16 feet by 30 feet with a plaza in
front for civic events.
Mr. Neiss: On the drawing it appears that the window detail is different on the west wall. Will
those be equalized?
Mr. Reinvald: Yes for the sake of uniformity as well as a functional requirement.
Mr. Neiss: The south elevation, where you would be getting the most amount of natural light has
the least of windows.
Mr. Reinvald: The north side provides the most even light for reading. The library is organized
on the inside such that there is a public meeting room and public toilets on the south side.
Mr. Meryhew: Is there a book drop area from the outside?
Mr. Reinvald: It is next to the entry. The parking space closest to the entry will be a unload
only spot. Currently it is indicated as handicap parking but that will be revised.
Mr. Meryhew: I am also concerned that the parking lot will be a hangout for the high school
kids.
Nancy Smith, Associate Director, King County Library System:
We are looking at options because being so close to the high school we need to balance the need
to be a safe, good place for kids while not creating a "hang out." We don't have a good answer
at this time, but it is a big discussion point.
Mr. Clark: I would like the citizens to have an opportunity to look at the color board this evening
if you don't have any objections (passed around materials board to audience). It appears that
there is a mistake or did you intend this to be the top band color?
Mr. Reinvald: The sample below is more accurate than the drawing, but the colors are in the
right positions on the board.
Mr. Clark: I have noticed that the medallions have a variety of shapes.
Planning Commission /BAR Page 8
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Mr. Reinvald: We have a sample here with us tonight. The staff and I have discussed possibly
tapping into the City of Tukwila art program and having the medallions custom designed by local
artists to tell some kind of a story.
Mr. Clark: What is the depth of the relief?
Mr. Reinvald: A total of 18 inches. Staff has a concern about how far it sticks out, we will be
studying that further.
Mr. Clark: I feel that if it is an architectural detail, that it should be a prominent one.
Mr. Reinvald: We have been considering 24 inches, but I don't feel it should go out any more
than that. The height of the bottom stepof the cornice to the top of the parapet is about five feet.
Mr. Meryhew: Is this medallion sample the actual. size the medallions will be?
Mr. Reinvald: No, they will be approximately 24 X 24 inches.
Mr. Clark: What is the HVAC or heating system for this building?
Scott Waytashek: Project Architect, Reed Reinvald:
The heating system will be roof mounted in a mechanical well, hidden from the street view.
Mr. Meryhew: Will they be visible from the second floor of Foster High School?
Mr. Waytashek: No, I don't believe so.
Mr. Clark: That is a hot issue for the Planning Commission, not just for people on the street but
also for people who have to view this from adjacent structures. How high is the parapet?
Mr. Waytashek: 20 feet, and the units are below that. To see them they have to be at least 20
feet up. The parapet above the fmished roof is six feet where the mechanical well is located on
the roof. The three mechanical units are five feet high.
Mr. Neiss: How do you propose to address the safety issue at the location of the dumpster and
employee entrance?
Mr. Waytashel :: The library system has agreed to install some additional lighting.
Mr. Neiss: Has there been any discussion about doing a drive -by book drop?
Planning Commissionc.JAR
Minutes of 6 -23-94
Page 9
Ms. Smith: Those book drops are very popular with the public, but they are staff intensive to
empty them. Libraries are operated with limited numbers of staff, so by having them dumped
directly into the building eliminates more staff time and will keep the books drier and cleaner.
Mr. Meryhew: Is there a safety problem with an indoor book drop?
Mr. Reinvald: It is normal practice to make the inside of a book drop space either out of
concrete or many layers of gypsum wall board so it is explosion proof.
Mr. Clark: Does the library system have a recycling program and is the garbage area large enough
to support both garbage and recyclables?
Ms. Smith: We are building to accommodate a recyling program.
Mr. Reinvald: The garbage facility will be on a concrete base with a masonry stucco -like finish.
Mr. Meryhew: What will the hours of operation' be?
Ms. Smith: Open six days a week, closing at 9:OOpm three evenings and 6:OOpm the other three.
Mr. Meryhew: I am concerned that the lighting adequately addresses safety issues.
Mr. Waytashek: The parking lot will be adequately lit, at a higher level than most parking lots.
Currently there are no measures to close the parking lot during closed hours.
Mr. Meryhew: Will police monitor the area?
Ms. Smith: In other cities where we have experienced problems we have been able to work with
the police departments and we assume we can get that here also.
Mr. Neiss: With the building orientation the way it is, doesn't that block the visibility of the
parking lot from the street?
Mr. Waytashek: We think it will still be relatively visible from S. 144th Street.
Mr. Meryhew: What kind of fencing will used?
Mr. Waytashek: We are proposing a six foot wood fence on the west and north perimeter and six
foot tall dense plantings. That should eliminate the high school traffic cutting through there.
Mr. Clark: I was unaware of an elevation change which would necessitate a handicapped
accessible ramp.
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 10
Mr. Reinvald: 99% of the handicapped will be arriving by Metro van or personal car and will
use the appropriate parking spaces. There could be elderly which find it easier to access the
building by the ramp on 144th. The elevation change is approximately three feet.
Mr. Clark: I feel the entrance should be softer, not a triangular shape. It would be nice to
incorporate the art work as you suggested.
Ms. Siegenthaler: There are no immediate plans to incorporate art into the project but we will
provide the opportunity.
Mr. Reinvald: Regarding the harshness of the triangular entrance, the drawing in front of you
shows how the handicapped ramp and paving works, but in reality there is a great deal of planting
around there with the intention to soften. We had to make it triangular to conform with the
geometry of the building and to get the length required for the handicapped ramp.
Mr. Clark: The two circular columns at the entrance are metal. I don't think that would resist
vandalism.
Mr. Waytashek: It is actually structural steel pipe.
Mr. Neiss: Can you please elaborate on your plans to protect the existing trees in the parking lot
area?
Mr. Reinvald: There is a beautiful elm tree which we would like to preserve. At this stage of
the project we can't say exactly how many parking spaces we would lose, but we think it will be
only one.
Mr. Clark: How many parking stalls are at the current library site on Military Rd.?
Ms. Smith: That site is 6,000 square feet and has approximately 36 stalls.
Bob Ueller, 15220 40th Avenue South, Tukwila (citizen)
My house is about five blocks south of the proposed library. I think the library is much too small,.
it's not a significant improvement over the current library. There is only one other library that's
smaller. It doesn't seem to plan for population growth in Tukwila. The site does not allow for
any additions to be put on the building. Burien had a 15,000 square foot library and after 23 years
added on a square footage more than the proposed Tukwila library. Do you think this proposal
will satisfy Tukwila's needs for the next 20 years?
Allen Doerschel, Finance Director, City of Tukwila: •
The interlocal agreement was signed two years ago. That agreement established certain revenues
which are generated by the City which go to the library system. It called for a 5,000 -5,250 square
foot building to be built initially and to be expandable to 7,500 square feet. This lot is capable of
Planning Commission -BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
ti
Page 11
expanding to that size. The current library is 1,900 square fe t so this proposal is double that.
There is another branch in the City of Tukwila which is also ,900 square feet.
Ms. Smith: I was not working for the library system when th
beginning, there was some discussion about building a 10,
of the other branch. It was decided with the City that they
buildings. We don't believe that it will serve the entire citize
have certain tiers of sizes of libraries. Burien is the largest o
meant to serve as a primary resource center for people in thi
at building a third site, perhaps a remodel of an existing build
project began but I know at the
square foot library and getting rid
anted to retain the two separate '
of Tukwila as we would like. We
er than Kent and Federal Way. It is
area. At some point we might look
g.
David Livermoore, 13212 31st Avenue South, Tukwila (citi n):
I have seen improvements tonight from the initial design of e building. A concern I still have is
the wheelchair ramp. That is a sharp corner to push a chair . ound. I am also concerned that the
building is out by the road and the parking lot is hidden, I fe :1 it's a safety concern; I don't think
the police will see things. I think the building would have m i re impact if it could visually stand
alone rather than have the high school directly behind it.
Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th, Tukwila (citizen)
It is hard for the citizens to see the changes that have been
small pictures you have here tonight. We would have liked
close and personal and see the proposed design. I don't see
drawings, I don't want it to be an afterthought, it should be r
visible from two directions, if you're heading east and south.
during the open hours and some after hours, but it doesn't se
after hours. I am concerned that the size of the meeting roo
me that other changes to the interior have been made.
Mr. Waytashek: There have been changes to the interior fro
change has to do with the book shelving and entry lobby be
another area. The meeting room space has not been decreas
ade when we just have to look at the
o have had the opportunity to get up
y bike racks indicated in the
uired. The sign appears to only be
It is important to have lighting
m that the lights need to be as bright
has been decreased. It concerns
the schematic plan. Part of the
g reduced to add more space in
d it has just been reconfigured.
Ms. Smith: In order to get the number of books inside the bu lding that we need, there needs to be
a certain amount of stack floor space. That pushed the meet g room wall down some to get that
count.
Mr. Clark: What is the size of the meeting room?
Mr. Waytashek: I believe it is 400 square feet.
Mr. Neiss: Can you address the question about the visibility . f the sign, how visible is it from the
street?
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Mr. Waytashek: I think it will be very visible from three sides. There are large trees on the south-
west corner which will hide the driveway entrance to some degree. This is a neighborhood facility
and will become quite familiar to those who use it.
Page 12
Mr. Neiss: What about the bike racks and benches in the lawn?
Mr. Waytashek: We have not shown any of that at this point. The front entry court is quite large
and it is anticipated that seating will be provided. We need to further define that space before
those things are drawn in. Bike racks will be incorporated.
Ms. Siegenthaler: Staff had asked for benches to be provided. However, the applicant
expressed some safety and maintenance concerns.
Ms. Smith: Part of our concern about more outdoor seating revolves around the problem of
creating a hang -out place for kids. That creates more litter and more staff time to clean and
monitor. We hoped to see how the building begins to operate, then see what could be done to
provide seating. •
Mr. Meryhew: If the building is expanded in the future, will there continue to be adequate
parking?
Mr. Waytashek: The current expansion plans would be to the north of the facility which would
place a restriction on the parking because the site is small.
Mr. Clark: Why is the entry lobby so closed off?
Mr. Waytashek: It is designed that way so that at night the community room can be opened up
while the library can be closed off.
Ms. Carter: The citizens are also concerned that the building turns its back to the street. I
agree to put the entry at the corner of 42nd inviting the pedestrians in without walking all the way
around the building.
Ms. Stetson: That's what bothers me about this plan also. It seems like it would be easy to
turn the building 1/4 turn at the corner of 42nd. That would make better use of the plaza areas.
Dave Kistler, Head of Tukwila Library Board
I was on the architect selection committee. I have seen drawings during this process that were a
mirror image of the high school with a beautiful circular entry. After several discussions, we
determined that part of the problem of mirroring the high school was that the library needed its
own identity. There are many people that wanted a back door in the library.so you don't have to
walk around the building if you're coming up 44th.
Planning Commission/ LIAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 13
Mr. Neiss: Do you think it's realistic, given the prominence of Foster High School, that the library
will ever stand on its own?
Mr. Kistler: The actual library site is three feet higher and has a parapet. As long as the
materials are somewhat different and the lines are different it will stand on its own. Theplans that
had the corner entry made it seem part of the high school.
Ms. Smith: Operationally in a library we can't have two entrances because that would require high
staffing. We wanted the library to have its own identity as much as possible. It is a public facility.
Mr. Ueller:It would be nice to see on one of these charts, the number of square feet per 10,000
people that are to be served by the library. It would give us a statistic to determine if its size is
adequate or not.
Ms. Smith: In determining the structure in the bond issue, the system undertook a study of
projections of population densities. It comes down to our defined service areas as opposed to the
geographical and political entities.
Mr. Clark: Regardingthe access, it appears the radius's are a little too sharp on both of the
entrances. Has engineering reviewed this yet?
Al McDonald, 4246 S. 146th, Tukwila (citizen):
I have a concern about the invitational effect on the kids from school. I know there is uneasiness
about what the kids might do to the building, but they have to be invited and the atmosphere must
reflect that. From a senior citizen's view, the meeting space is very important.
Mr. Meryhew: Is the work room also available in the evening?
Ms. Smith: No, the work room is a place where materials are sorted to go back to shelves.
Mr. Clark closed the public hearing at 10:00pm.
Special Permission Parking
Mr. Clark: The only thing we wanted to incorporate in the motion is the desire to retain large
foliage. There appears to be no problem with the possible decrease of 1 -2 parking spaces.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0037 SPECIAL PERMISSION:
PARKING BASED ON STAFF'S CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
ACCEPT A DECREASE IN PARKING SPACES IF NECESSARY TO SAVE ELM
TREE. MR. NEISS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23-94
Page 14
Conditional Use Permit
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L93 -0089 BASED ON STAFF'S
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT. MR. NEISS SECONDED TILE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Design Review Criteria
Mr. Pace: (unable to hear comments)
Mr. Clark: Can you explain what is the problem with the traffic signal buttons?
Ms. Siegenthaler: They are an additional cost item that staff didn't feel was necessary.
Mr. Meryhew: I would like to remind you that you are across the street from a high school and
there's lots of foot traffic.
Mr. Clark: If the buttons were going to be effective they would need to be closer to the parking
lot. You could put a concrete strip with beater bars which would work just as well.
Mr. Meryhew: I would like to see something there to remind motorists that there is foot traffic,
some sort of traffic signaling device. The condition should say something like: "Traffic signaling
device shall be revised and moved closer using either buttons, bumps or humps." I liked the curve
and small planting island in the sidewalk, the way it was proposed ( #2). I would like to see such
details come back before the Planning Commission rather than go directly to the Planning
Director. I think we should strike item 2 and use the curve in the sidewalk. Items number 3, 4, 5,
13, 14, 15, 16; 17 should come back before the Planning Commission after changes are made for
final approval. On number 14, I think we need to go through items a. through j. and make a
decision as to what we want to do.
Ms. Siegenthaler: If you do that, kecj. in mind that this is a draft with different ideas that
could work. Once you start changing one item then you have to look at how that ,effects the rest
of the facade. If you make specific solutions then you set a chain of events in motion.
Mr. Clark: So we should just be considering these items as suggestions and staff and the applicant
will be working together to bring together all the ideas.
Ms. Stetson: We can indicate general areas of concern such as the east facade needs to be
more street friendly, perhaps with bigger windows.
Mr. Clark: On the north side I think we should drop the windows down so that it meets the
concrete base as it does on the east and south elevations. The door on the east wall is the ugly
duckling of the whole wall. Perhaps we can delete item 14 except for those two concerns.
Mr. Meryhew: I would like to leave 14 in and let them work out the details and come back to
us.
Planning Commission, JAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 15
Mr. Neiss: I suggest we accept 14 as it's stated and forget about the details a.through j. Let them
do their job and provide better detailing.
Mr. Meryhew: On item 18, I think we should change "such as" to "including bike racks... ".
Mr. Pace: Do you want these items to come back to you as a public meeting or asa hearing
instead?
Mr. Meryhew: I think all we need is a public meeting since we've had the hearing.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L93 -0088, DESIGN REVIEW, BASED ON
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS, ALONG WITH THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
ITEM 1- CHANGED TO READ AS FOLLOWS (OR SOMETHING SIMILAR
): "TRAFFIC SIGNALING DEVICE AT ENTRY DRIVE SHALL BE REDESIGNED
AND MOVED FURTHER FROM EXIT. DEVICES SHALL BE SOMETHING
SIMILAR TO BUTTONS, HUMPS OR BUMPS."
ITEM 2 - DELETED
ITEMS 3 -17 - ACCEPTED AS IS
ITEM 18 - TO BE REVISED TO READ, "PLANS SHALL BE REVISED TO INCLUDE
STREET FURNITURE INCLUDING BIKE RACKS, TRASH RECEPTACLES, ETC.,
WHICH IS APPROPRIATE TO A PUBLIC FACILITY AND INTEGRATED WITH THE
OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT.
ALL ITEMS EXCEPT 3, 4, 5,13,14,15,16,17 TO BE APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT FURTHER REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. ITEMS 3, 4, 5,13,14,15,16,17 TO HAVE FINAL
REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW IN A PUBLIC MEETING.
MR. NEISS SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Special Permission: Public Facility
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0041 SPECIAL PERMISSION: SIGN AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission /BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Mr. Clark called for a five minute break and then called the meeting back to order.
Page 16
Mr. CLark re- opened the public hearing at 10:55pm.
Case #L94 -0035: Proposed Revisions to PRD
Denni Shefrin provided the staff report. Prior to the opening of the public hearing there was a
workshop held to go over the six items that have been identified as potential changes necessary to
the PRD. .
Item 1 - Attached versus Detached Units in Single Family Zone
Recommendation from Planning Commission was that there would be no change to the existing
provision.
Mr. Meryhew: Didn't we ask that an example be included?
Ms. Shefrin: You did give staff direction to seek better architectural design criteria.
item 2 - Minimum Property Size
Recommendation from Planning Commission is that the entire section be deleted. The result of
that is to allow PRD's to occur as an option.
Item 3 - Related to Density and Minimum Lot Size
What was recommended was that the density transfer provision be retained but there be a
minimum lot area standard of 5,000 square feet. Staff is recommending that the wording on the
top of page 7 be revised to read, "(1) Lot Size. The minimum lot size shall be 5,000 square feet in
area and shall establish the maximum number of dwelling units permitted in the PRD." On page 8
where you see items A -D, that already exists in the Code. We put that in with the anticipation
that the Density Transfer may be omitted. You have chosen to keep that in.
Item 4 - Density Transfer to the Developable Parts of the Site
Recommended change occurs on page 9.
Item 5 - Board of Architectural Review
Recommendation was that the entire section be deleted.
Item 6 - Off -Site Perspectives
The proposed change is on the top of page 11 with the addition of "Photomontage or computer
generated perspectives, taken from the nearest downslope.... ".
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0035 AS READ BY DENNI SHEFRIN,
AND BY RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MS. STETSON
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Case #L94 -0036 and L93 -0091; Best Sign
Mr. Clark: Howard Turner is not present.
Planning Commission/ BAR
Minutes of 6 -23 -94
Page 17
Mr. Pace: He wants to increase the size to 225 square feet. Staff recommends approval of both
signs.
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L94 -0036 BASED ON STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. NEISS MOVED TO APPROVE L93 -0091 BASED ON STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Clark adjourned the meeting.
Prepared by,
Diane Medler
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will be holding a work
session at 7:00 p.m. and public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on June 23,1994 located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following:
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
I.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
II.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION 7:00 p.m.
L94 -0035
City of Tukwila
Amend TMC Chapter 18.46: Planned Residential Development (PRD).
City-Wide
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m.
L94 -0035
City of Tukwila
Amend TMC Chapter 18.46: Planned Residential Development (PRD).
City-Wide
PLANNING COMMISSION and BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 p.m.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L94 -0037: Foster Library Approval of Parking Provided
L93 -0089: Foster Library Conditional Use Permit
L93 -0088: Foster Library Design Review
Architects Reed Reinvald
To construct a 5,250 sq. ft. neighborhood library, including a 34 -stall parking lot,
landscaping, biofiltration swale, 6' wide curbside sidewalk and street trees.
4060 42nd Ave. S., Tukwila.
L94 -0036: "Best" Sign
Howard Turner
Planning Commission approval of an increased wall sign area from 150 sq. ft. to 225
sq. ft. per TMC 19.32.140., and Board of Architectural Review approval of project
signs per its conditions for file L93 -0091.
400 Strander Boulevard, Tukwila.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing.
Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Seattle Times
June 10 & 17, 1994
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
.
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
• John W. Rants, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO IRE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared 6/15/94
HEARING DATE:
PROJECT':
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN:
June 23, 1994
FOSTER LIB
Special Permissi
Conditional Use
Design Review
Special Permissi
Architects Reed
for King County
Y
n Pa.rking #L94-0037
ermit #L93-0089
L93-0088
n Sign #L94-0041
einvald,
ibrary Services
To construct a 5,250 square-foot
neighborhood lib ary, including a 34-stall
parking lot, land caping, biofiltration
swale, 6' wide si • ewalk and street trees.
4060 S. 144th St
Approximately 1
Single Family R
ZONING: R1-7.2, Single F
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION: Mitigated Dete
(MDNS) issued
STAFF:
(at 42nd Ave. So.)
15 acre
sidential
mily Residential
Ann Siegenthal -r
ation of Non-Significance
n 6/10/94
Rick Beeler, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, .6/15/94
Page 2
ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan/Landscape Plan
C. Building Elevations
D. Floor Plans
E. King County Library System Parking Summary
F. Staff Recommendations: Site Plan
G. Staff Recommendations: Building
H. Color Sketch (to be submitted at hearing)
I. Color Board (to be submitted at hearing)
J. Applicant's response to Conditional Use
K. Applicant's response to Design Review
L. Comment sheets from resident
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
A. Surrounding Land Uses
On the west and north, the site is bordered by single family residences (see
Attachment A). Also on the north is an apartment complex. Across 42nd Avenue
to the east is Foster High School. South of the site are single family residences and
the fire station.
B. Existing Development
The site previously was occupied by a single family home. It is vacant, basically flat,
with no distinguishing features.
C. Vegetation
The site was previously cleared and developed. It is now covered with grass and
bushes. There are some mature fruit and ornamental trees on site, some of which
will be incorporated into the library landscape plan.
D. Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 5,250 square -foot neighborhood library,
including a 34 -stall parking lot, landscaping, biofiltration swale, 6' wide curbside;
sidewalk and street trees (see Attachments B, C, D).
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 3
BACKGROUND
The community has been informed of the Foster Library project in several ways:
• Notice mailed to residents within 300 feet;
• Notice published in newspaper;
• Notice posted on site;
• Articles in February and June 1994 Hazelnut;
• Status update letters mailed to residents within 300 feet; and other
interested parties (6/8/94, 3/14/94, 1/26/94).
• Information meeting with Tukwila Library Board 2/1/94;
• Public information meeting 2/15/94.
Approximately 20 residents attended and the February public information meeting.
Many residents filled out comment sheets. Although residents reviewed the original
design, many of their comments are applicable to the new design. Public comment
sheets comprise Attachment L.
The project SEPA environmental review was completed 6/10/94. A Mitigated
Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) was issued with a condition that trees
proposed for retention must be adequately protected during construction. In
addition, the MDNS required the project to undergo Design Review, as follows:
"To more specifically address potential impacts and to ensure compatibility
with the surrounding neighborhood, the library design shall be further
refined through the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review processes.
The proposal shall include for Board of Architectural review the following
revisions:
a. To reduce light spillover into adjacent residential lots, the west and
north perimeter of the site shall have a solid decorative fence and /or
opaque landscape screening.
b. Given Tukwila policies regarding outdoor recreation, the proposal
shall provide quality outdoor areas for the public."
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 4
DECISION CRITERIA
Under the Zoning Code, a library must obtain Planning Commission approval for
the amount of parking provided (TMC 18.56.050). As a non - residential use in a
residential zone, the library must also obtain a Conditional Use Permit (TMC
18.12.050, under criteria in TMC 18.64.050). Approval by the Board of
Architectural Review (per TMC 18.60.050) was required in the SEPA
environmental decision. This same process of Conditional Use Permit and. Design
Review was required for Foster High School. The Sign. Code requires Planning
Commission approval of public facility signs in residential zones (TMC 19.32.080).
Given the above requirements, the applicant is requesting four approvals:
I. Special Permission for the amount parking provided;
II. Conditional Use Permit approval;
III. Design Review and approval of the library design; and . .
IV. Special Permission for the design of signs (included as part of Design
Review).
Accordingly, the staff report is divided into four parts: Special Permission Parking;.
Conditional Use Permit Criteria; Design Review Guidelines; and Special Permission
for Public Facility Sign. Review criteria for each of these approvals are shown
below in bold, followed by staff's summary. The applicant's written responses to
the criteria are given in Attachments J, K.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 5
I. SPECIAL PERMISSION: PARKING (TMC 18.56.050)
"The minimum number of off - street parking spaces for "public facilities, including
libraries...shall be determined by the Planning Commission" (TMC 18.56.050).
The applicant has provided parking information from other libraries which can be
compared with parking for Foster Library (see Attachment E). According to this
parking chart, 7 other libraries of similar size (5,000 -6,000 s.£) have an average of
26 parking stalls. Foster Library will have 34 stalls (see Attachment B). The
Meeting Room in these libraries has an average capacity of 51 people. In
comparison, the Foster Library Meeting Room has a 70- person capacity (see
Attachment D). It is likely that, at times of high use, some library patrons will park
off -site along 42nd Avenue or at Foster High School.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on information from the applicant, the amount of parking provided at Foster
Library is comparable to that provided at other libraries. Therefore, no additional
on -site parking is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As on -site parking is adequate, staff recommends approval of the amount of
parking provided in the proposal.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 6
II. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA (TMC 18.64.050)
1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the pubic welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the
proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is located.
The proposal provides an amenity to the neighborhood. The site plan, building
design and landscaping reduce potential impacts. For example, substantial
landscaping has been added, and a biofiltration swale will improve the quality of
stormwater runoff (see Attachments B, C, D).
2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are
required in the district it will occupy.
The library building has a lower height and greater setback than required in the
Single Family Residential zone The proposal includes landscaping buffers of 10 -foot
width or more, even though no landscaping is required.
3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the
surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
building and site design.
The new library would generate approximately 250 (125 in, 125 out) vehicle trips
to roads in the project area. This is probably more traffic than the existing library,
but less than what the high school generates. Vehicles will use two driveways into
the site, which will be marked with pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks are included in
the proposal. The existing four -way stop at 144th Street and 42nd Avenue will
remain. Tukwila Fire and Public Works Departments have approved the proposed
traffic and circulation patterns.
The building and main entrance are located as far as possible from residences.
Where single family residences abut the site, there will be wide landscape buffers.
Noise will be minimized by the library's limited hours, typically from 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. These characteristics help reduce potential
impacts.
However, as a non - residential use, the library has the potential to affect adjacent
residential areas. Landscape screening and fencing are not provided along all
edges. Residents have expressed concern about potential light spillover and glare.
To address this, the project's SEPA decision required improvements in perimeter
screening, through landscaping and /or a decorative opaque fence. Approval of
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 7
details was deferred to the Board of Architectural Review. In addition, the project
has the potential to affect the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. This will
require a more detailed evaluation. The Design Review process provides an
opportunity to address screening and aesthetic issues in detail. Design Review was
required as a condition of the project's MDNS.
4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
Tukwila's current Comprehensive Plan includes policies intended to protect
residential areas from non - residential uses. With some refinements in landscape
screening and building design, the proposal can be consistent with these policies
(see Criteria #3, above).
5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts
which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
The proposed site plan, building design and landscaping reduce most, but not all,
potential impacts (see Criteria #3, above).
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare....
The site plan, building design and landscaping have been designed to reduce
impacts to the neighborhood, and to provide an amenity. Therefore, the proposal
will not be injurious to the public welfare or its surroundings.
2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are
required in the district...
The proposal meets and exceeds the standards of the single - family residential zone.
3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the
surrounding land uses...
Traffic and pedestrian circulation have been adequately addressed. The proposed
building design, site plan, landscaping and screening, have the potential to be
compatible with the surrounding area. The specific way in which potential impacts
are addressed can be resolved through the Design Review process.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 8
4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed library is generally consistent with existing Comprehensive Plan
policies which require protection of single family residential areas.
5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts
which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
As noted under Criteria #3, the plans do not satisfy all aesthetic and landscape
screening concerns. This can be addressed through approval of refinements in the
Design Review process.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Due to the fact that, with additional refinements to be approved through Design
Review, the project generally meets the criteria, staff recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 9
III. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA (TMC 18.60.050)
1. Relationship of Structure to Site.
The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and
to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement.
Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the
visual impact of large paved areas.
The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site.
In the site plan, the building is located close the street corner and oriented to the
west (see Attachment B). This has several advantages. A corner location gives
visual prominence to the relatively small building. This is especially important next
to the large high school. Another advantage is that the building helps to screen the
parking lot. Locating the building away from residential areas may also help reduce
potential conflicts. The orientation of the main entrance allows combined access
for both cars and pedestrians. The plan also accommodates the typical motorist
use of the book drop at the main entrance.
For this building orientation to be successful, the "rear" facades along the streets
and the entry must be carefully designed. Otherwise, the library could appear to
"turn its back" on the neighborhood, instead of being inviting.
The applicant has emphasized the main entrance with a portico (porch) and entry
plaza. A wide entry walk with sitting wall at South 144th Street helps to provide
a memorable arrival to the library. Building facades have been revised to include
windows and details which help make the building more inviting to the
neighborhood (see Attachment C).
2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area.
Harmony in texture, line and masses is encouraged.
Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
Compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in
terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be
encouraged.
The library site is surrounded by a variety of uses. To fit its context, the library
design must relate to single and multiple -family residences of various ages and
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 10
styles, and to the "civic monument" scale of the adjacent high school. The applicant
has chosen a theme for the building which includes references to features in the
high school building, such as columns and portico (see Attachment H). At the
same time, the library has a height and scale which is more residential in character
(see Attachment C). Durable exterior materials in earth tones are proposed, which
are compatible with the subdued character of nearby residences (see
Attachment I).
The landscape plan provides buffers next to residences, while the "public" sides of
the building are more formal and open. Access is from the north or south via two
driveways and entry walks. Sidewalks are provided. However, the library entry is
handicapped accessible only from the remote north walkway.
3. Landscape and Site Treatment.
Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development,
they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced.
Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety
and provide an inviting and stable appearance.
Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and
important axes, and provide shade.
In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is
encouraged.
Screening of service yards and other places which tend to be unsightly should be
accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening
should be effective in winter and summer.
In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls,
and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used.
Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining
landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible
with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in
design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
Quality public buildings, especially a community library, have two distinguishing
characteristics. First, they take advantage of opportunities for lively outdoor public
spaces and public artwork. Both the City Council and Arts Commission have
expressed enthusiasm for such spaces in the new library. Second, they provide a
main entry which is visually strong and provides a memorable "procession" to the
library from the street.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 11
Public spaces and main entry:
The Foster Library proposal provides one main outdoor gathering area,
incorporated into the entrance. There are 3 to 4 areas which can accommodate
future artwork. The proposal emphasizes the main entry through wide entry steps
and sitting wall leading to an entry plaza. As a place for both gathering and for
artwork, the entry design adds appeal to the project.
Detailing:
As noted by the applicant, the landscape plan responds to the architecture and site
plan in several ways. However, relationships between some elements are not clear.
For example, the oblique angle shape of the entry plaza does not appear to relate
to any angle in the portico or the steps. The diagonal row of poplar trees is bold
and visually interesting. Yet, the diagonal does not have a visible counterpart in
building design. This is also true of the diagonal in the entry steps. Planters at the
entry have interesting shapes, but it is not clear if they include retaining walls which
follow grade changes.
Many of the details which clarify design intent or add quality to a design are not
evident in the plans. For example, details of the sitting wall would indicate whether
it functions as an inviting area (with appropriate height, width, etc. for sitting).
Contrasting paving materials or colors in the entry steps and entry plaza would add
emphasis to the entry. As noted earlier, the main entry is not convenient to
handicapped patrons approaching from the west. In other locations, it is not clear
what type of plants are proposed. The landscape plan lists several different,
dissimilar plants for the same symbol (e.g. daylilies and holly). As noted in Section
II, Conditional Use Permit, it is not clear whether adequate screening (with
landscaping or fencing) is provided along all residential areas.
Additional issues in the landscape plan:
• Several existing trees are proposed to be saved. Although the large elm
is to be 'retained, it is likely to have most of its roots damaged by parking
lot construction. Usually, adequate tree protection involves protection of
at least the area under a tree's canopy. The planter around the elm's base
is 8 feet wide.
• While the dumpster /transformer area is screened, the configuration of the
wall and lack of lighting next to the staff entry raise safety, concerns.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 12
• A street light is located in the middle of the entry walk (near the street
intersection).
• A "biofiltration swale sign" (presumably for interpretive purposes) is
located in an area which is not very visible or accessible.
• As the application drawings are not intended for construction, no irrigation
is proposed yet.
Site lighting:
Light standards (total of 5) are proposed along entry drives and in the parking lot.
It is not clear if this is adequate to safely light the area. No lighting is proposed to
accent the building, walkways, or landscape features.
4. Building Design.
▪ Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality
of design and relationship to surroundings.
Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring
developments.
• Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, should have good
proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary, parts
shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure.
Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
• Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be
screened from view.
• Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and
all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design.
Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety
of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
Two characteristics of high quality buildings are 1) high quality materials, and 2)
attention to details. Quality materials are especially important for a small-scale
building like the library, where the relationship with the user is more intimate and
details are seen close up. Details also become important when a building, such as
the proposed library, has a simple shape with little exterior modulation.
Exterior materials:
Foster Library's exterior will have a combination of several materials (see
Attachment I). Brick veneer and stucco -like Dryvit will predominate. The overall
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 13
colors will be warm, earth tones. Accent features such as columns, doors, and
windows will be finished in metal painted a contrasting color. "Medallions" (large
tiles stamped with a design) are used as accents on two facades.
Detailing:
The applicant has explored ways to incorporate interesting patterns into the library
exterior. For example, downspouts and columns have been added which provide
vertical modulation. On the east facade, windows and medallions are arranged in
rhythmic patterns. The medallions themselves could become sculpted artwork. In
addition, windows have been added wherever possible. This provides modulation
in an otherwise box -like structure, and makes the building more inviting from the
street. Windows also enhance nighttime appeal of the site and building. The large
window which wraps around the SE corner is a distinctive feature of the library.
In concept, such features have the potential to give the building variety and
warmth. However, the proposal has such variety that each facade is very different
than any other. Some features and patterns are repeated nowhere else. For
example, the pattern of medallions on the east facade is not repeated elsewhere;
some doors have medallions overhead, while others do not. The large windows at
the north and SE corner are different from each other, and have a very different
style than other windows. The shape of the large window is on the west facade is
not found elsewhere.
Entry portico:
One of the key features of the library is the entry portico (see Attachment C). As
previously discussed, the entry steps and plaza help provide a meaningful outdoor
space and "sense of arrival." The entry portico is an integral part of this important
area. The portico is formed by the cornice, supported by two columns. Its roofline
is flush with the building. The columns used in portico do not match each other,
nor the column at the SE corner, and are not used in other areas.
Cornice:
Another distinctive element of the building is its cornice. The cornice has multiple
layers, which create visual depth in the facades, and a solid cap for the building.
The cornice is unusual in that it does not extend around the entire building. It
stops and starts in a different way on each facade. In places, the cornice appears
to be "supported" by narrow rain downspouts.
Staff Report to Planning Commission /B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 14
Building lighting:
An important community building, used and visible after sundown, can continue to
provide architectural appeal through an imaginative lighting design. However, the
proposal does not take advantage of this opportunity.
5. Miscellaneous Structures & Street Furniture.
Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the
architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and
surroundings, and proportions should be to scale.
Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet
the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings.
The library proposal includes one bench at the entry, along with a sitting wall. Bike
racks, trash receptacles or other street furniture are not indicated.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Relationship of Structure to Site.
Proposed landscaping and sidewalks generally provide an appropriate transition to
the street, and screening of service areas. The height and scale of the building are
appropriate for the site. However, the entry does not have enough visibility or
refinement to counteract the building's inward orientation. This could be
accomplished with refinements in the entry plaza and portico (see Landscape
Criteria and Building Design Criteria). Refinements in windows and details will
help the building appear more inviting to the neighborhood (see Building Design
Criteria).
2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area.
The building generally fits its neighborhood setting. However, additional landscape
screening is needed next to residences (see Landscape Criteria). Vehicular &
pedestrian circulation is generally logical and safe, although convenient barrier -free
access is needed (see Landscape Criteria). In addition, two minor revisions would
be appropriate: a) there appears to be no need for both scored concrete and
traffic buttons at the driveways; and 2) the curve in the north sidewalk appears odd
and unnecessary.
Staff Report to Planning Commission /B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 15
3. Landscape and Site Treatment.
The applicant has provided, in general, a quality landscape plan. However, the
plan needs additional refinement to clarify design intent, to strengthen underlying
concepts, and to resolve unfinished details. The main areas needing refinement are
noted below.
Public space and entry:
The proposal provides the beginnings of a high quality "people place." The entry
steps and sitting wall have the potential to provide an amenity for patrons, and
create an appealing processional experience from the street to the library. With
more emphasis, the entry plaza could become a memorable focal point. To achieve
its potential, the entry area needs more detailing and refinements. These are noted
below and shown in Attachment F.
Detailing:
The entry plaza needs to be re- designed with a size and shape which is better
related to the portico, steps, and other site features. This could include sharpening
the plaza's angle to 90 degrees, or matching the diagonal in the row of poplars,
enlarging the plaza, and /or changing the shape of the portico (see Attachment G).
Refinements in the entry plaza should include the landscape planters. The grades
of the entry planters need refinement to better relate to the entry plaza and
portico. In addition, contrasting paving at the entry plaza would help emphasize
the area more inviting. Contrasting colors or banding could be used to tie the plaza
to the steps or the cap of sitting wall. The sitting wall concept is very appealing;
however, it needs to be detailed to function well as a sitting wall. The wall should
be an appropriate height (approx. 18 ") and have a wide enough cap for sitting.
Proposed walkways are generally safe and attractive. However, the entry plaza/walk
should be re- designed to incorporate barrier -free access.
As the planting plan is not specific, it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding
quality and aesthetic effects. Plans should clarify which plant species will be used
where (e.g. whether street trees will be ash, maple or both).
Solid perimeter fencing and /or opaque landscape screening are needed to address
potential light spillover to residential areas to the north and west. For a community
building surrounded by residential uses, fencing should be of decorative material
and quality construction (i.e. not chain link).
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 16
Other landscape plan refinements:
• To help ensure the survival of the large elm, the surrounding planter
should be enlarged. This could result in 1 -2 fewer parking stalls for the
project. However, a 32 -33 stall parking area would be consistent with
parking provided at similar libraries.
• The dumpster /transformer area wall and landscaping should be re-
examined for alternatives which increase safety. The area should include
adequate lighting.
• The street light located in the middle of the entry walk will interfere with
pedestrian circulation. It also visually interrupts the nicely- designed street
corner. It should be relocated to the nearby landscape planter or other
more logical place.
• The "biofiltration swale sign" is an appealing idea, which could get lost in
its present location. The sign would be more effective if moved closer to
the entrance or edge of parking lot.
• Irrigation of all areas, including street planting strips, is necessary to
ensure plant survival. Irrigation plans should be submitted for approval
with building permits.
Site lighting:
Lighting does not appear to be adequate for safety. It is also not designed to
enhance site features. For example, lighting standards are not of an attractive style
and scale for walkways. The plan misses other opportunities; for example, the row .
of poplars or the sitting wall could be dramatically lighted.
4. Building Design.
Foster Library will be an important and highly visible building in the community for
years to come. Recognizing this, the applicant has revised the design several times
to improve its quality. For example, the new design has an appropriate relationship
to Foster High School, and has a residential scale which fits the larger
neighborhood context. Exterior materials have a durability and richness suited to
a civic structure. The geometrical shapes of windows and other elements have the
potential to create a bold and interesting building. The revised design begins to
address the need for a quality civic project. However, refinements are needed.
{
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 17
Detailing:
The proposed building does not have a level of refinement appropriate for this type
of facility, with appropriate scale, detailing, and internal consistency between
architectural elements. For example, rain gutter downspouts are too small for
important vertical elements, and appear to be "dangling" from the cornice. The
downspouts do not appear to use quality materials. Medallions and windows are
not well - framed. As a result, their potentially interesting patterns tend to get lost.
Lack of internal consistency gives the building an overall appearance of disharmony.
For example, the large windows at the north and SE corner do not relate to each
other, and have a very different style than other windows. The medallions are not
used consistently. The west and south facades appear to be unrelated. To address
these issues, the applicant needs to fine -tune the building details. Areas which need
special attention are noted below, and shown in Attachment G.
• Downspouts should be re- designed as an integral part of the architecture,
with a better match to other vertical elements of the building. Possible
solutions: enlarge and cover with pilasters /columns; use accent colors;
wrap the base of the building around the downspouts.
• The transition between medallions, windows and vertical elements should
be detailed to better define their edges and patterns. Possible solutions:
add frames; add contrasting materials; deep insets to create shadows.
• Repetition of patterns or similar elements should be used to provide more
internal consistency between architectural elements. Possible solutions:
repeat the medallion pattern; use downspouts or columns on other
facades; extending the cornice around the entire building.
• Refinements in the windows would also make the building more
harmonious. Possible solutions: extend the north window to the building
base like the SE window; use a unit size and shape similar to that used in
other windows.
Entry portico:
The entry portico is weak. It does not have sufficient visual weight or interest to
serve as the focal point for the main entrance. It is not very visible from the north
or east. In addition, the lack of refinement in details, such as columns, detracts
from the portico. Possible solutions: enlarge the portico to the west for greater
visibility and an entrance "gate" effect; refine columns to better match downspouts,
each other, and other vertical elements of the building.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 18
Cornice:
The cornice helps the top of the building appear finished and anchored. However,
the thickness of the cornice and the way it is attached to downspouts makes it
appear out of proportion. The cornice also ends abruptly, which gives it the
appearance of being "tacked -on" to the building. Possible solutions: reduce the
thickness or layers of the cornice; strengthen other elements such as downspouts;
wrap the edges back into the building; add columns or other vertical "grounding"
element; extend the cornice across the length of the facade.
Building lighting:
Without an exterior lighting proposal, the building at night may appear drab, or
even inhospitable. As this facility will be used and highly visible at night, an
attractive lighting scheme should be integrated into the architectural design. For
example, lighting could be used to highlight "medallions," columns or the cornice.
5. Miscellaneous Structures & Street Furniture.
The project should include provisions for bike racks and trash receptacles.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Foster Library proposal be approved with conditions.
Refinements should be subject to final Board approval at a later hearing, or the
Board could direct the applicant to submit refinements to staff for administrative
approval.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Landscape & Site Treatment: (See Attachments F, G)
1. Traffic buttons at entry drives shall be deleted.
2. The curve and small planting island in the north sidewalk shall be deleted.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 19
3. The entry area shall re- designed to complement the portico and better
relate to the building and other site features.
The applicant shall consider:
a. Changing the shape of entry plaza;
b. Enlarging the size of entry plaza;
c. Adjusting grades of planters; and
d. Using contrasting materials or colors in paving and walls.
4. The sitting wall shall be refined to ensure an appealing and functional
seating area, with an appropriate height and a cap wide enough for sitting.
5. The entry plaza/walk shall be re- designed to incorporate convenient
barrier -free access, which is architecturally integrated with the entry plaza.
6. The west and north perimeter of the site shall have a solid fence of
decorative material and quality construction and /or opaque landscape
screening. Chain link or unadorned board fencing is not acceptable.
7. The landscape plan shall be revised to clarify which plant species will be
used in which locations and re- submitted for approval. Selected plants
shall be biologically and aesthetically appropriate for their chosen location.
8. The applicant shall ensure that the large elm to be retained is adequately
protected.
a. The applicant shall consider enlarging the planter around the
Large existing elm by 1 stall on each side.
9. The dumpster /transformer area wall and landscaping shall be designed to
provide for both screening and for employee safety, and shall include
adequate lighting.
10. The street light located in the middle of the entry walk shall be relocated
to so as not to interfere with pedestrians crossing the street or entering the.
building.
11. The biofiltration swale sign shall be relocated for better visibility by library
patrons.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 20
12. All areas, including street planting strips, shall have automatic irrigation,
with irrigation plans submitted with building permit applications.
13. A site lighting plan shall be submitted for approval, which provides safe,
attractive, pedestrian -scale lighting for walkways, and which complements
landscaping. Plan shall include details of standards and fixtures.
Building Design: (see Attachments F, G)
14. The building design shall be revised to provide better detailing and
internal consistency between architectural elements.
The applicant shall consider:
a. Defining window shapes with heavier frames or mullions /muntins:
b. Framing medallions;
c. Enlarging and covering downspouts to appear as columns
pilasters /columns;
d. Use of accent colors in downspouts and columns;
e. Wrapping the base of the building around the downspouts.
f. Changes in the size and shape of the large windows at the north
and SE corner, and relationship to other windows;
g. Extending the north window to the building base (like the SE
window);
h. Repetition of medallion pattern on other facades;
i. Consistent use of medallions on all facades; and
j. Adding downspouts or columns on the north or south facades.
15. The entry portico shall be re- designed to provide sufficient visual weight,
architectural interest and detailing appropriate to an important public
entrance.
The applicant shall consider:
a. Enlarging the portico to the west, to the edge of the sidewalk;
b. Enlarging the portico to the south, to the edge of the steps and
planters; and
c. Refining support columns to be more similar to each other, the
downspouts, and to other vertical elements of the building.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 21
16. The cornice shall be re- designed so that it is well - integrated with each,
facade, has an appropriate scale for the building, and has a balanced
relationship with other architectural elements.
The applicant shall consider:
a. Extending the cornice around the entire building;
b. Reducing the thickness or number of layers in the cornice;
c. Strengthening related vertical elements (downspouts or columns);
and
d. Providing a finished edge where the cornice meets other planes
and elements.
17. An architectural lighting plan shall be prepared which complements
building architecture and details, with minimal impacts to adjacent
residential areas.
a. The applicant shall consider using lighting to highlight
"medallions," columns or the cornice.
Street Furniture and Site Details:
18. Plans shall be revised to include street furniture, such as bike racks, trash
receptacles, etc., which is appropriate to a public facility and integrated
with the overall architectural concept.
Staff Report to Planning Commission/B.A.R.
Foster Library, 6/15/94
Page 22
IV. SPECIAL PERMISSION: PUBLIC FACILITY SIGN (TMC 19.32.080)
Single Family Zones: Home Occupation, Church, Approved Conditional Use and
Public Facility Signs.
(C) Public facilities may have one sign for each street upon which the property
fronts; signs shall be located in the setback area or upon the face of the building.
Total area of sign or signs shall not exceed 60 square feet per face; maximum
height above ground when in setback area shall not exceed sixteen feet; minimum
setback shall be eight feet; and base of sign shall be located in a landscaped
area...Illuminated signs shall use indirect, concealed sources, or backlighted letters
on an opaque background. All signs in Subsection 19.32.080 (C) must be approved
by the Planning Commission.
A freestanding monument sign is proposed (see Attachment B). It is 62.5 s.f. in
area, and 7.58 feet in height. This exceeds the 60 s.f. allowed by code. The sign
will be located in landscaping at the street corner. While it appears classical in its
shape and lettering style, there is no indication of materials or colors, or method
of illumination. A wall sign is also proposed on the south wall of the entry. It
appears to be approximately 9 s.f. in area. It is not clear from the application what
materials, colors, or illumination will be used for the wall sign.
CONCLUSIONS:
The freestanding sign has an appropriate location, but its classical -style design is not
consistent with the bold architecture of the revised building. The sign should be re-
designed to incorporate elements similar to those found in the building. In the re-
design, the sign area will need to be reduced to 60 s.f. to meet code. To evaluate
the project's overall plan for signs, more information is needed regarding sign
materials, colors and illumination.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Proposed signs shall not exceed 60 s.f.; and plans shall be revised to ensure that
sign design is consistent with the building's architectural theme, and shall include
details on size, materials, colors and illumination.
:T
!ACT
I0
'4 •
7.
Proposal for
NEW FOSTER LIBRARY
•-•
13
-14-1,711
ST
6
AD
\ \ 1 1
\\ I 1 ,.i.
\\ U0 13
0 0 h 1 -3.tg A
A.:74'.' „
" 1 I
6
... -
.30
fJU1VCTION .57 1k;
•
7,4 1_5
`.010.55 AC
ej
."
5 0.9 C 0 A 4",'
/0
(f)
;141ST Sfl',tj
/ex
1
sE-A1-1- 'E
1, L.P1 E
, 001
/00
/(01() 7 1
.1
141
_1▪ .0.80 AC
-:1
3 4
• /et!:
HUBNER BROS.
1. (1 AC.
140
14021
16 D Mb'
37 111
lzosj 36 14
c 3 , 26 35 ts11.2d5
CY' 21 34 14
P:111)
• 1411 12
.0;
10 1 11Fi'")
t'spc 1 :3."9'.)
/V.WOLS AVE)
60
ELMER ROWLEY
1.0Z
317.9d
28 33 plit
29 32
31
14771:
..1.; S./ .7
14135
11.279
/vs
. Z 4 Al.
it e88 mesa til tr1.7 76
9 71.273 . '73 1..
A
74// ' 7/ .`4,1 ,3 , /l0:04
.. .r
37 //a.774
\ \
14U5
'
1
1
I II
11
'
1
1
Cl>
•
OZZ
0
1.15 A
10 0
/0
7 /
0
SITE
a • •
:I 221
7/3.94
• 10
ATTACHMENT A
X
1 111 ifi
ef
tV.
1 11 I;
OVICAr4a
).
3 -.ULL
AE*11'
1:h
u. • 001113. 3
1V3I•131A10 C111\7'111130 • NIVfaoNof
1
H1(10S 311N3AV pm,
11 1! dill
z
S
8
ceD
0
or.
=--Eff-E-0======m=
1•1111111111111111111111111111M
MININI111111111111111
1111.1.1.4==ffil
Numell111Wil
L-1 NM
IMINIMMINIMME it
arm
1311131
imum11111
klIPLII
M r
ql 8
0
C\1
ATTACHMENT D
PARKING.XLS
Page 1
E ED
MAR 0 4 1994
C0 V1MUNITY
ATTACHMENT E DEVELOPMENT
KING COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM
SUMMARY OF PARKING PROVIDED
MARCH
4, 1994
Year
Library
Mtg. Rm.
Parking
Sq.Ft. Per
Library
Built
Sq. Ft.
Capacity
Spaces
Space
Bellevue
1967
18,500
100
93
199
Federal Way 320th
1969
10,800
64
73
148
Burien
1970
15,000
99
69
217
Kingsgate
1972
10,235
49
48
213
Kent
1973
15,000
99
19
789
Redmond
1975
13,888
100
47
295
Shoreline
1975
15,000
100
68
221
Fairwood
1986
15,000
80
83
181
Des Moines
1987
10,000
49
53
189
Federal Way Regional
1991
25,432
175
145
Kent Regional
1991
22,500
105
214
Woodinville
1993
15,000
113
133
Covington
1993
15,000
139
108
Burien
1993
20,448
, 91
225
Shoreline
1993
20,954
95
221
Total 10,000 sq.ft. +
242,757
1,271
191
Bothell
1968
8,300
99
46
180
Mercer Island
1968
8,700
75
36
242
Newport Way
1970
8,200
50
43
191
Skyway
1970
5,100
50
24
213
Boullevard Park
1971
6,536
49
29
225
Valley View
1982
6,400
49
35
183
Issaquah
1982
8,000
26
26
308
White Center
1976
6,370
24
24
265
Vashon
I
1984
6,196
33
33
188
Algona /Pacific
1994
5,250
68
21
250
Richmond Beach
?
5,250
86
21
250
Total 10,000 -
74,302
338
220
Grand Totals
317,059
1,609
197
Page 1
E ED
MAR 0 4 1994
C0 V1MUNITY
ATTACHMENT E DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT F
I,..0-4
-I 11211fr)
...=1:',0
- r-....
la.1 •
4 =,
•■•
1.4
ATTACHMENT G •
L94-0037
KING CO. LIBRARY SYS.
4060 S. 144 ST
SPECIAL PERMISSION
Vg,itti.O.itkRi.114k-*`3`i OW' -ArAPIN .411 "A`
11111111111T1)1111111111111111111114111111111111111111111111111111,,,,
0 16 11.45 ,NCH 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MADE IN GI-RMANY 1 7
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW
- GERMANY-
OE,s, LZ GZ v CZ Z2 LZ OZ 61. 91.
\i111\1111\iMIU
111111414 1111111
LL
01-
9
•
. ,
•
, IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
,CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
)THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
91
MULTI FAMILY HOUSING
EXISTING ThEEE;::�
TO REMAIN
SHED
w
U
2
w
LIGHT STANDARD
TRAFFIC BUTTONS
SCORED' CONCRETE
5.1 FC
N
LIGHT STANDARD
6.1 FC \ rt, /�
•
RKING STALLS
TRANSFORMER
TRASH ENCLOSURE
STAFF ENTRY
LIBRARY BUILDING
ENTPY
RTICO
TURE
288
- BOOK DROP
PUBLIC ENTRY
EMERGENCY EXIT
0
W
W
N
PLANT SCHEDULE
SYMBOL BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME
TREES:
SHRUBS:
EVERGREEN
PINUS NIGRA /AUSTRIAN BLACK PINE
DECIDUOUS
ACER RUBRUM'ARMSTRONG' /ARMSTRONG RED MAPLE
FRAXINUS OXYCARPA'RAYWOOD' / RAYWOOD ASH
FLOWERING ACCENT
— CERCIDIPHYLLUM JAPONICUM / KATSURA TREE
- PRUNUS SP. / FLOWERING CHERRY
- PYRUS CALLERYANA / FLOWERING PEAR
- AZALEA
CISTUS HYBRIDUS / ROCKROSE
HEMEROCALLE HYBRIDS / DAYLILY
ILEX CRENATA'COMPACTA' / JAPANESE HOLLY
KALMIA LATIFOLIA / MOUNTAIN LAUREL
LAVENDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA / ENGLISH LAVENDER
NANDINA DOMESTICA'HARBOUR DWARF./ NO COMMON NAME
NARCISSUS / DAFFODIL
RHODODENDRON SP. / NO COMMON NAME
TAXUS BACCATA 'ERECTA' / YEW
TERNSTROEMIA GYMNANTHERA / NO COMMON NAME
- VIBURNUM OPULUS'NANUM'1 DWARF CRANBERRY BUSH
BUFFER EDGE/ BIOFILTRATION SWALE PLANTING:
CORNUS STOLONIFERA / RED TWIG DOGWOOD
IRIS PSEUDACORUS 1 YELLOW IRIS
JUNCUS SPP. / SOFT RUSH
POPULUS CANADENSIS'SIOUXLAND' / CAROLINA POPLAR
' - TYPHA LATIFOLIA 1 COMMON CATTAIL
GROUNDCOVERS:
- ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA -URSI 'MASSACHUSETTS' /
KINNIKINNICK
- CORNUS KOUSA / KOUSA DOGWOOD
COTONEASTER DAMMERI'CORAL BEAUTY' / BEARBERRY
LAWN - SEEDED
LITHODORA DIFFUSA / LITHODORA
- THYMUS PRAECOX ARCTICUS 1 MOTHER -OF -THYME
FC FOOT CANDLE LIGHT LEVEL '
.;�
SCORED CONCRETE..
TRAFFIC BUTTONS
SOUTH 1 44th STREET -
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANTING PLAN
.. J.. ....�.. ,�... . ... .......M ..�..�.... rn • c. c- ��,, .. ......:..:........._- .- .-'-..- - ..cz., .,ia s::w'r i.,i.:r::..::d'.:,.:::i..ai n.....,. �,aFrtC �:x _r .'. ., _... .:. nr.I • .. •sn�.h .rn ,Cl, r:.riJ7 {•�i,' ,. ;•. .. �.,
IIIII I11IIIIIII1I IIIII111111IlIjI 11 111110111111111111111111111IIIIII11111It11111I111111111IIIIIl1111I1111111III11111I1I11111' I1III1111111111IIIII111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111lllll111111
0 I6TH5INCH 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAUCIN.r.,.Y 12
0
10'
20'
40'
80'
SCALE: 1 ".20' -0"
NORTH
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW
O€ 6Z b6 LZ 9C SZ vc CZ Zd lZ
41111 uiml 110111111410114111111114.1111161111A11111 nn
• .ht,. T"nu"(M:.,: ^�.,".4c'r -,€
Oz 6l eL
41144 0I.I
LL 91 SIIl �l El Z ll cx I6 e a 9 S YI E Z t "" 0
Illiggh �nlllI�l 141!1111!41,4lls 1IIIll 111 -1811 �l1UU�.!,uillulll1.01 1-1Ul, IUIJlIll�l�ll�I�i1I) ul��ulll411111�4�g01l4il4niluii0II (JI......
•
LIGHT STANDARD
_cara c UNf irca_TY F s1DNh
o.
• �L-; X11 r y.
I -8
SIDC ELEVATION
MONUMENT.SIGN
END ELEVATION'
•
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT•
0-1
ra-1
r:4
z
U
W
W
V
z
Incorporated P.S.
•
Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
Planning
23 103rd Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, WA. 98004
208.454' 5723
MATS Of
WASHINGTON
REGIST0im
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CERTIFICATE NO. 44
33 7 REGIST ED
ARC. ECT
1
ILMAR EINVALD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Revisions:
Job no.
93- 829...,,.....
Date:
MAY ...13, 1994
Approved by:
MB.......... ...............................
Drawn by:
AMS_. ...._......_ ...................
Scale:
1 "._..._20''.... -0 ".- - -._..
Project name:
F,.O.S'T E,•F__.._..._
r.1.E4E4E4,� LIBRARY--- -_ -...
K.ING— COON ---Y
LIBRARY SYSTEM
W
Sheet title:
DEVELOPMENT
PLANTING.
_
PLAN. .._....._._._.- .__.........._..
Sheet no.
RECEIVE[ L-21
MAY 161994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
111
111
III
El
'BREAK ROOM
1
to
WORK ROOM
STUD
CCB
MAIN
ESK
(I
II`` ENTRY IW LOBBY
OFF10' 8
E
1 11
STACKS / READING
0
0 0
El
�IllBX-
WCRk1OOM
MAIN IESK
0
IL
ICE
J
BOOK
OROY
0
____'0
--- --0
109
MEETING ROOM
ME
NG
ROmM
/
ikE/
FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 1/8 " =1' -0"
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
Scale: 1/8 " =1' -0"
DRAVW CADD
CHECKED
APPROVED
KEYNOTES.
REVISI M
PROJECT TITLE,
ARCHIMECTS
REED
IIINVALD
20 North 1" Strat;t
Yscomo, Vkshir,goon 986J33
(205) 572-3933
fax (2C8) 572-16,45
CONSULTANT.
SHEET TITLE,
RECEIVED FLOOR PLAN &
REFLECTED CEILING
I *, 161994 PLAN
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
SCALE,
DATE.
PROJECT ND
SHEET N0.
AS INDICATED
14 MAY 1994
93021.00
A2
Yy�y r' i :;;$•.; x:Jart"yyv�y,t; "e 15�/`' �i,'.rtr'Tix :t 3�:� r.
t''Y;iaki:
L1s i.s
....�fc,�`.,,., .; ai{ t .�z3;.f..,r3,s,4- ��i�..;.;.:.�. ,.:• ��.,.,n�.J�.� ., u�. t, �.,. 1._ 4. 1�. ��. �t: ��' ��" n�' s��,, �, d. u:,° e',,'" �. nT�: I�����v5�_ S�r; .,'!= �.a'�5`�":,•��:i1:.�3.r�.r ���4�'�f;�,,.`?.�,..,
111' 1I11111J11111111 1111111111111111 '1111111111111111111111I11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111j111I1111111111111I1111 11111111111111111111111 11111111111
0 ➢TNSINCN 1 ? 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...NO P.... 12
FLEXIBLE RULER - 302AWo.w.,....—
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
"THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
OE 6Z 8C LB 9c SZ VC £Z Z6
T�IIIIIIIIIIIIII 111 11 I1111�111111111�IIIII1111�111111II�III1111
•
^
a,
PAINTED METAL COPING
f— ACRYLLIC FINISH STUCCO
BUILDING SIGNAGE
BRICK SET IN RUNNING
BOND
ACRYLLIC FINISH STUCCO
COLUMN
111
4L,n . A&,TBi%aY..
NORTH ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8 " =1' -0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8 " =1' -0"
8" DIAMETER DOWNSPOUT
BRICK SET IN RUNNING
BOND
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN
ALUMINUM WINDOWS
PAINTED MTL. DOOR &
FRAME
— STAINED CONCRETE
BASE
PAINTED MTL. COPING
— ACRYLLIC FINISH STUCCO
Ms
DOWNSPOUT BEYOND
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
ACRYLLIC FINISH STUCCO
COLUMN
STAINED CONCRETE BASE
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN —,,,
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT
PAINTED MTL DOOR &
FRAME
ACRYLLIC FINISH STUCCO
COLUMN
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8" =1'-0"
PAINTED MTL COPING
OVERFLOW SCUPPER
ACRYWC FINISH STUCCO
BRICK SET IN RUNNING
BOND
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN
ALUMINUM WINDOWS
CAST STONE MEDALLIONS
8" DIAMETER DOWNSPOUT
STAINED CONCRETE BASE
8" DIAMETER DOWNSPOUT
CAST STONE MEDAWON
PAINTED MTL DOOR &
FRAME
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN
WINDOWS
�'
'�, r'%BtM +c. tk, � Dr,a,. ts7t' 1. .,�. �,,.� ����%iL�c.'i'd:°�is...Y,. AS�'�'. .�..�, ., s.,��.tws �,e�S+at`.IK3er��a,rn �w.�...�5� +.�'�, it�K'"�Pfkr .a. i- .•C.;gk""r �',l`'�Yil� u.� ty;�'ty �,.. .,.-;...
11lllllllll11 111llllllill11 11111 1111ll1 1 11lll1llllll1 111 111 111 111 111l111111111111' 111''' 11I' I' I' I' I1I111l1ll1111l1lllll1I1l1l1l1l1l111l1I1l1111 111 1111lllllllll1l11111111 '111 11
p °' "°' "`" 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NA CIN°f°MM.Y 17
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW ".. :]$,! v£ ez ee Lz ec GE vc Ez CC Iz Oz el 9I a 9i GI vL El aI OL e e a s s I v e zI w
lindIIIII III I N IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111 IIIIIIII II I� I I II I III . I, � 1 II � l 141 1611400 ..
: Li . � .ti 441i : .1 lAI 1.141, : ' t C :1'�' ✓•' S
WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 1/8"=1'-0"
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT!'
PAINTED MTL COPING
ACRYWC FINISH STUCCO
PAINTED THERMALLY BROKEN
ALUMINUM STROEFRONT
ACRYWC FINSH STUCCO
COLUMN
BRICK SET IN RUNNING
BOND
STAINED CONCRETE BASE
RECEIVED
MAY 1 61994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
REVISIONS.
PROJECT TITLE.
ARCH l 1
REIED
REINVA [„ DD
2C1 North 1" Street
rEccrn , Washington 9E403
Phone: (205) 572-36S3
'Fax: (206) 572 -1445
CONSULTANT.
SHEET TITLE.
ELEVATIONS
SCALE.
BATE.
PROJECT NO
SHEET NO
AS INDICATED
9 MAY 1994
93021.00