Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L94-0084 - PARK PLACE PLAZA - LANDSCAPE DESIGN REVIEW
L94 -0084 PARKWAY PLACE DESIGN REVIEW City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 26, 1998 Tammy Rasmussen Earthworks Landscaping Services 938 N. 128th St. Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Replacement of trees at Park Place Plaza -17500 Southcenter Parkway Dear Tammy: To confirm our recent conversations and correspondence, the City of Tukwila approved the plan to replace the existing landscaping at Park Place, specifically to replace the existing trees and stumps with Serviceberry and a variety of Rhododendron and Rockrose. This replacement and replanting area is specifically at the main driveway entrance to the site. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 .• (206) 4313670 • Fax (206). 41313665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 30, 1998 Tammy Rasmussen Earthworks Landscape Services 938 N. 128th Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Proposed planting for Park Place Plaza, 17500 Southcenter Parkway Dear Ms. Rasmussen: Thank you for your July 15 letter with planting plan indicating a change from proposed Staghorn Sumac to Serviceberry. This plan is acceptable as the Serviceberry will be planted in an appropriate manner and will have a less invasive root system, given the location next to impervious surfaces. Sincerely, • Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670. Far (206) 431-3665 Earthwork, I..ANDSCA(E SERVICES INC, RECEIVED July 15, 1998 City of Tukwila 6300 S Center Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 JUL 2 0 1998 COMMUNITY DFVF] .QPMENT Attn: Jack Pace Planting Manager Dear Mr. Pace: Enclosed you will find a proposal for the renovation of the main entry corners along the east perimeter of Park Place Plaza located at 17500 S. Center Parkway in Tukwila, WA. Per our discussion on July 14, 1998, I have changed the Staghorn Sumacs to Serviceberries (Amelanchier x Grandiflora.) I have also added an additional Serviceberry to the north side to achieve balance in the two plantings. The Serviceberries will provide a showy display of flowers in the spring, along with nice fall color. Please review these changes for your consideration. If you should have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to give me a call. Thank you, Tammy Rasmussen Landscape Installation Supervisor 18025 938 N. 128th • Seattle, WA 98133 • Fax: (206) 363 -0527 • Phone (206) 363 -7700 • Pker-41wity of 7/4 JA1VIETOWN JAMESTOWN Two Paces West 770 805 -1000 Management Suite 1600 Fax: 770 805 -1001 Corporation 2727 Paces Perry Road Atlanta, Georgia 30339 USA March 19, 1998 Ms. Nora Gierloff Associate Planner City of Tukwila - Dept. Of Community Dev. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Park Place Shopping Center Dear Ms. Gierloff: A copy of your letter to Dan Coldwell, Earthworks Landscaping, was forwarded to me, and I wanted to let you know that Jamestown 16, L.P. purchased the Park Place Shopping Center from Park Place Partners in January, 1997. We appreciate the City's efforts to preserve trees and to maintain the natural beauty of Seattle, and we are certainly willing to do our part in this regard. It is correct that we have pruned some trees at the entrance, all in an effort to create sign visibility for the tenants of the shopping center. Our intent was never to harm the trees. However, the pine trees that are missing were either cut down because they were broken by the ice and wind damage Seattle incurred in 1997, or they were blown down and removed. We will effect a program to replace the missing and unhealthy trees as soon as possible. I know that there is a time frame in which to plant trees to assure and promote healthy growth; with your cooperation, we will rely on the expertise of our landscape contractors in this regard, as they will be required to warrant the trees. In replacement of these trees, would you consider working with us to modify the landscaping plan for the entry so the new trees can be located in an area other than directly in front of the shopping center sign? Our tenants rely very heavily on signage as a form of advertising, and the trees block the visibility of the sign. The center has been in operation for about two years now, and many of the customers complain to specific tenants they did not know some of the tenants are in the shopping. There is another landscape situation that I would also appreciate your cooperation and assistance with. There is an island in front of the trash bin between PETsMART and Linens N Things which totally precludes use of the trash bin. The island is located so close to the bin that the turning radius for the garbage trucks is impossible without running over the island. The island also creates a problem for delivery trucks simply trying to make the turn into the drive behind the RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ms. Nora Gierloff Page two March 19, 1998 '. shopping center. The island is constantly damaged by the trucks, and landscaping simply cannot survive in it. We would like to respectfully request your approval to remove the island, and in exchange, we will be happy to plant trees or additional landscaping, as you would determine, in another area of the shopping center to help maintain the required greenery. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the above, Ms. Gierloff. If you will let me know your position regarding a modification to the tree location plan and the island as soon as possible, we will begin work with our landscape contractors to return the landscaping to the equivalent of the originally approved plan. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. My telephone number is 770- 805 -1062. Very truly yours, KAY CHER Propert Administrator cc: Earthworks Landscape Services '03/02/98 10:32 FAX 1 206163 0527 9 Earth»ork, LANDSCAPE SERVICES. INC January 28. 1998 CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 2. Center Blvd. Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Attn: JACK PACE GARY SCHULZ Dear Sirs. EARTHWORKS f102 My name is Dan Caldwell, Sales Manager of Earthworks Landscape Services. My company now maintains PARK PLACE PLAZA at 17500 S. Canter Parkway - Tukwila. Wa. 98188. At the main entry corners along the east perimeter exist 8 +/- Pine trees. The Pine trees have existed there since the properties original planting. Due to poor maintenance and installation practices. the trees have become a problem. The guy wires were left around most of the trunks of these trees and at this point can not be removed. This has caused girdling and the eventual demise of the trees. In the mean time the Pine trees are very week at the junction of the wires creating a precarious public hazard in that the trunks could snap and fall. The trees are also top heavy with no lower branches for stability. We propose with the City of Tukwilas permission to remove the trees and stumps. In place of the trees we propose to revitalize the area with a more ornamental planting for curb appeal and better visibility for traffic. My client, of their own volition, in December of 1997 refurbished the landscaping throughout the property. Additional shrubs and trees were installed in the parking lot and against the buildings. This refurbishment along with the revitalization of the main entry should more than com- pensate for the removal of the Pines. Proposed plant material for the area are to include Rhodes. Azaleas and other flowering shrubs. In the event the City prefers a different planting scheme, please provide me with those re- quirements. Thank you for your consideration and prompt response to this request. Sincerely. DAN CALDWELL SALES MANAGER EARTHWORKS LANDSCAPE SERVICE 1 938 N. 129th • Seattle, WA 98133 • Fax (206) 363-0527 • Phone (206] 363.7700 (.. TURNER & ASSOCIATES January 3, 1996 Ms. Diana Painter Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE. Park Place Retail Center 17858 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA Dear Diana, 18420 24th Place N.E., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 0 1996 PERMIT CENTER In response to your letter of December 29, see the attached revised architectural drawings rev 1/3/96 and landscape drawings rev 1/2/96: S. side yard landscaping; Trees are being provided as requested, at 30' on center. A continuous rockery will be installed at the bottom of the slope for approximately 145', to provide a more gentle slope for planting. The height of the rockery is to be 2' -5" at it's tallest, tapering to 2' as it moves east. The top of the rockery will be a minimum of 2' from the edge of the parking stalls. The adjacent asphalt on the project side as well as on the Levitz side all slopes away from the rockery, assuring that storm water is not introduced into the rockery soils. The rockery will receive no surcharge of vehicle weight from the parking lot, as illustrated with a dashed line and note in sections A -A and B -B on the landscape drawing L -1. No guardrail is required at the edge of the rockery per Section 1712 of the 91 UBC, which excepts vertical offsets less than 30 ". North side yard landscaping; Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed. Site Furnishings & amenities; All trash receptacles, bike racks, and benches have been coordinated between the architectural and landscape drawing. Exterior building lighting and parking lot lighting tear sheets are being forwarded under separate cover. The fixtures are the same as the ones shown on the permit drawings, and have been delivered on the site. Wetland planting & SAO mitigation; The wetland buffer area shall have additional "on- site" topsoil installed to an approximate minimum depth of 9 ". Soil will meet the existing asphalt elevation and provide a more uniform slope down to the fabric fencing at the bottom of the slope. At the southern end of the wetl and buffer are, existing alder and underlying blackberry bushes will be removed. The area will be grubbed out and rough graded to provide Bollards; TSA has not agreed to reduce the number of bollard in front of their store. See the attached SK 88 for all on site bollard locations, both stainless steel types in front, and painted steel types at utility areas. Storefront entries; At this time, it appears that all but Linen n Things entry will be completed. Every effort will be expended to install the tenants door; however, due to long lead time, it may be necessary to bond around this one. We will keep you informed of our progress. If, at the time of the shell final inspection, the door has not been delivered, we propose securing the opening with a good grade of painted plywood. Lighting fixtures; Exterior building lighting and parking lot lighting tear sheets are being forwarded under separate cover. The fixtures are the same as the ones shown on the permit drawings, and have been delivered on the site. Sincerely, ward R. Turner, AIA encl.: SK- 71,78,79,80, all revised 1/3/96, L1 through L5 revised 1/2/96. cc: Roy Bennion, P3 Shawn Parsons, Landplan Steve Norman. WGC • a more gentle and uniform slope to the fabric fence as well. Moving north along the west property line„ the steepest area will receive 6" to 12" of on -site soils with the existing quarry spalls dispersed. More soil will then be added adjacent to the filter fabric to lessen the slope. The triangular area shall have an existing "ridge" portion flattened to provide a more gentle and uniform slope. Rough grading with "on- site" soils will provide uniform sloping throughout. Proposed plantings as shown on drawings shall be adjusted in the field as necessary to provide the best match between growing media, environment, and plantings. Total number of plants to remain the same; however, locations may vary. Monitoring plan; See sheet L4 & 5 Bonds; Work is to begin immediately, but may be affected by weather. City and owner will re- review level of completion at time of final inspection, and then decide whether to bond or not. Screening of loading areas; Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed. London plane trees; Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed. Aggregate planters; Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed. Pruning of evergreen trees at entry; Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed. Specialty paving; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71, 102, 104. The dark gray /green color is being used. Additional sidewalk area; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. Landscape and irrigation plans have been changed as well. Transom bar detail, C2; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. Vertical mullions, C1 & C2; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. The spacing was dictated by Office Max's vestibule. The need for symmetry between C 1 and C2 will require that Borders TI drawings be changed to meet the mullion spacing. Entry opening size; The change in opening size from 12' to .14' will not change the structure of the building. Clock; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. Colored renderings of the clock will be provided by Tubeart, the manufacturer, under separate cover. Bike racks; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. Landscape plans have been changed as well. ADA requirements; Architectural plans have been changed. See SK 71. 78, 79, 80. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 21, 1995 Mr. Shawn Parsons Landplan PS 600 Main Street, Suite D Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Park Place landscape plan revisions Dear Shawn: I've reviewed the 10 -26 -95 revision submittals for your formal landscape plan for Park Place, and left the marked -up drawings in a package at the job shack for you. I've issued a letter to Roy, authorizing him to start work on relocating the Linden trees prior to revisions for the overall landscape plan. Please make revisions as noted below and on the marked -up drawings, and re- submit as soon as possible. We need ten copies of all five sheets; four copies for Public Works, two copies for Building, and two copies for DCD. The following is a list of requested revisions and clarifications. They are requested to fulfill code requirements, BAR conditions, and modifications to conditions based on previous discussions. If you recall, the full landscape plan was reviewed before the BAR December 15, 1994. The project was subsequently reviewed before the BAR, but only specific issue areas were addressed. Certain significant changes in the landscape plan, such as removal of most of the cedar trees on the southern border and removal of the northernmost London Plane tree, were made after initial BAR approval and have never been reviewed by the BAR. Therefore, certain changes are requested to ensure that final landscaping more closely resembles the plan approved by the BAR. Sheet Li 1. Side yard landscaping. The code requires five feet of side yard landscaping (TMC 18.52.020). This is an unusual site due to the shared parking situation. I interpret the side yards to be the area between Levitz and Building A, and between the Park Place and Winners parking area. These two strips need to be fully planted. The plans indicate in notes that ivy is provided next to Levitz, and in the planting plans Pernettya shrubs are provided. Please provide both. I also suggest that deciduous trees also be added to the area in which the cedar hedge was removed. This will have the added benefit of providing additional screening for the loading dock on Building A, which is a requirement. 2. Screening of loading areas. The planting that screens the loading dock at Building D has been changed from your initial proposal, and appears to be inadequate to screen the loading dock. I have a note on your 7 -21 -95 submittal that this planting area was to be revised, and this is not reflected on your current plan. This planting needs to be reinforced for screening purposes. 3. London plane trees. We requested that two or more 3' to 3 1/2' caliper London plane trees be 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 added to the landscape plan to compensate for the London plane tree that was removed. We asked that these trees not merely be called out as one of the landscape island trees (letter dated 10- 24 -95). I understand, however, that even though one of your 'replacement' trees is in the place of what would be an ordinary landscape island tree, you feel that the larger caliper compensates for this. Call out larger caliper tree on all three 'replacement' trees. Put new London plane tree in landscape buffer area on L1 sheet as well as wetland buffer planting sheet. Show 'tree W' as being both pruned and moved in your notes and on the drawing. 4. Katsura trees. Call out Katsura trees as 14' - 16'. This is what we requested in design conditions, and also what you've provided in plant schedule in L5. 5. Linden tree replacement. The dead Linden tree along the street frontage should be replaced with a 4 1/21 caliper tree, rather than 3 1/2' as noted. This is based on the fact that we will be replacing any trees that do not survive along this frontage with 4 1/2' caliper trees. It may be that all ten of the Lindens will be relocated. See memo dated 12- 19 -95. 6. Aggregate planters. Please show location of all ten aggregate planters, on L1, L3 and L5 as appropriate. Also, I note that these planters are listed in the site amenities specifications list on L5. I had understood that these were to be used because they existed. Personally, I don't think they add much to the landscape scheme, and I am concerned that their placement will impede pedestrian flow and ADA passage requirements. My preference would be to eliminate these, but I understand that they've been part of the scheme all along. 7. Pruning of existing evergreens at entry. I have asked in the past that the existing evergreens at the main entry to the project not be radically 'pruned up.' On your pruning detail, it shows what I would consider a moderate pruning, but the note calls out that 25% of the tree will be removed. This is unacceptable. In addition, it is confusing to have apparently contradictory information in the notes vs. the drawing. Please modify. 8. Drawing conventions. Please show all trees to be replaced on the landscape plan as new trees, in addition to calling them out in your table. It makes the drawings easier to read. Thanks. Sheet L2 9. Protection barricade. The tree protection barricade detail should be crossed out or removed. This was never done, and since plans provide a record of the project, it shouldn't be on the drawing. 10. Relocation of Lindens detail. Add note, 'Reduction of berm height not to exceed 30'. 11. Deciduous tree pruning. Is this detail necessary? You've provided tree specific pruning diagrams for nearly all trees to be retained, to my knowledge. Also, the 'typical' pruning concept illustrated in this detail appears to contradict the pruning concept illustrated on the individual tree diagrams. In the drawings, the vertical growth is cut back and horizontal branching encouraged. On the tree - specific pruning diagrams, it appears as though the opposite concept is employed. Please clarify. 12. Evergreen tree pruning. See Note 7 above. Sheet L4 13. Bond estimate for wetland plantings. It is our preference that the wetland plantings be completed within the next six weeks, rather than providing a bond for the full amount and completing wetland plantings at a later date. If this is possible, the bond amount for the plantings will be reduced. Sheet L5 14. Retention of plantings in wetland area. All plant materials in the identified wetland buffer have been removed, in contradiction to goals stated on drawing. The area has been partially filled. It is difficult to tell, from work done on the site, whether or not you will be able to achieve your required 25' enhanced wetland buffer with planned curb line and parking area. The 25' enhanced wetland buffer is a code requirement. Please call Gary Schulz at 431 -3662 for further comments on the wetland planting details. 15. Site furnishings and amenities. Site furnishings and amenities will also appear on the drawing that Howard is preparing on the exterior architectural details and site design that is the responsibility of the shell architect. Litter containers. I haven't seen the tear sheet for this item. Please provide. Benches. Please provide tear sheet. Street planter. See Note 6. Poured -in -place concrete planters. Note says that these will be designed later. By whom? What are they going to look like? Specialty concrete. This may change. See letter dated 12- 20 -95. Bond estimates The bond estimate for replacing the Lindens is fine. Please check with Gary about the other bond estimates. Cash assignments must be in place before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. Let me know if you have any questions; 431 -3661. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Jack Pace Steve Lancaster Gary Schulz Roy Bennion Howard Turner City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION October 24, 1995 Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Dear Howard: This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved requested changes to Building B of the Parkway Place project (File L95 -0048) at their September 28, 1995 meeting. The BAR also adopted the findings contained in the Staff Report dated September 22, 1995. The appeal period for the BAR decision was fulfilled as of October 13, 1995. Since no appeal of the Board's decision was filed by that date, the decision is final. The BAR also approved the signage proposal as a part of their initial design review of Park Place (File L94- 0084), with the following changes: "The applicant [is] allowed an option of one sign which can be 30 feet high and set back 30 feet or it can be set back 35 feet and have a height of 35 feet, and perhaps placed in the median if that better meets the applicant's needs." The Planning Commission, in their review of the requested increase in size for certain wall signs (File 95- 0049), made the following determination: "Approval of wall signs A2, B, C1 and D. A reduction in size for wall sign Al is required to bring it in accordance with the code. A modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 is required to bring the sign in accordance with the code." Please call me if you have any questions. 1 Sincerely, na fainter Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 D PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present were Commissioners Neiss, Stetson, Malina, Meryhew, Flesher, and Livermore. Mr. Marvin was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter, Ann Siegenthaler, and Sylvia Schnug. MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 27,1995. MS. STETSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. There were no citizens' comments. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0049: Park Place Signage: Diana Painter presented the staff report. She noted the proposal is for increased sign area for five wall signs. They are also requesting approval for two pole signs. Two of the signs (Petsmart and Border's Books) exceed the sign area allowed per the Sign Code. Border's only exceeds the Code by one square foot. The applicant is proposing two pole signs on either side of the driveway, directly across from each other. Because these pole signs are so close together, and because they are identical, staff felt that would potentially clutter the streetscape. In conclusion, staff recommends approval of wall signs A2, B, C1 and D; a reduction in size for wall sign Al (Petsmart) to bring it in accordance with the Code; a modification in the design or reduction in size of sign C2 (Border's) is required to bring the sign in accordance with the Code. Additionally, staff recommends approval of the design of the proposed pole signs, and a reduction in the number of pole signs to one, or relocate one pole sign to the north half of the site. Mr. Malina asked how the square footage for the Petsmart sign was calculated. Ms. Painter stated that the applicant calculated the area for that sign on a computer. A polygon was drawn to determine the area. Howard Turner, Turner & Associates, 18420 24 Pl. NE., Seattle: He stated that exposed building face, facing the public way, would indicate the entire facade, regardless of its depth away from the street. In this case, that would include the loading area. Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 2 September 28, 1995 Jack Pace noted that with regard to the second pole sign, staff is not disagreeing with the applicant's right to have a second pole sign, they are concerned with having two freestanding pole signs that close together. Staff is suggesting moving them farther apart. Ms. Stetson asked what the rational is for putting the two pole signs that close together. Mr. Turner stated the signalized intersection is the main intersection for the center. It is where most of the people will be coming in. The setback requirement for the pole signs worked out the best at that location. Moving the sign further to the north would require decreasing the height of the pole sign because it would have to be closer to the right -of- way. The most open space to view these signs exists at the driveway. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Meryhew said he didn't understand how the loading dock area could be considered part of the building face on the Petsmart building. Mr. Livermore agreed that the rules are cut and dry and the sign cannot be greater than 6% of the building face. There isn't any flexibility in the Code to deviate from that. Ms. Stetson stated that the Sign Code is very clear and they need to follow it. With regard to the Border's sign, Mr. Neiss thought the Code should be followed as well even though the proposed sign only exceeds the Code by one square foot. There was a consensus by the Commission that the Code should be followed with regard to the Border's sign. With regard to the pole signs, Ms. Stetson thought they should just have one pole sign at the entrance, and if the second sign is desired, more information should brought back to the Commission. Mr. Malina indicated he would like to see the applicant be allowed both pole signs. MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L95 -0049: THE SIGNAGE FOR PARK PLACE BASED UPON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WALL SIGNS AS FOLLOWS: "APPROVAL OF WALL SIGNS A2, B, Cl AND D. A REDUCTION IN SIZE FOR WALL SIGN Al IS REQUIRED TO BRING IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. A MODIFICATION IN THE DESIGN OR REDUCTION IN SIZE OF SIGN C2 IS REQUIRED TO BRING THE SIGN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE." ''Planning Commission /BAR Minutes September 28, 1995 Page 3 WITH REGARD TO THE POLE SIGNS, THE APPLICANT BE ALLOWED AN OPTION OF ONE SIGN WHICH CAN BE 30 FEET HIGH AND SET BACK 30 FEET OR IT CAN BE SET BACK 35 FEET AND HAVE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, AND PERHAPS PLACED IN THE MEDIAN IF THAT BETTER MEETS THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1, WITH MR. MALINA OPPOSED. Mr. Neiss opened the public hearing for L95 -0048: Park Place Design Review. Diana Painter presented the staff report. The most recent design changes proposed by the applicant were significant enough to have them come back before the Board of Architectural Review. Staff had asked the applicant to have a pattern of narrow mullions that would create a finer scale texture and contrast in patterns between the openings of the windows and doorways and the larger openings of the colonnaded area. The applicant would like to bring the window patterns out beyond the area framed by the columns, underneath the sign, for Building B. Staff felt this was a violation of a rule set up with the applicant of maintaining some kind of unity within the overall variety. The applicant stated he had intended to ask for this wider opening at the review in June and it was an error on the drawings. It was intended to be reflected in the building permit drawings and staffs response was that it wasn't approved because it wasn't there and staff felt it was outside of the parameters they had established. Howard Turner, Architect, 18420 24 Pl. NE., Seattle: He stated he thought the wider glass was an improvement to the project. The glass breaks up monotony and adds variety. He added that he didn't feel represented a significant change to the design. The change is dictated by a real need on the part of the tenant. Mr. Flesher asked if the proposed glass was clear or tinted. Mr. Turner noted that the glass would be clear. Mr. Neiss closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Mr. Livermore stated he liked the additional glass. He added that they try and discourage monotony in design. Mr. Malina agreed. Mr. Flesher also agreed, and thanked staff for bringing this change to the Board's attention. Planning Commission /BAR Minutes Page 4 September 28, 1995 MR. LIVERMORE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN CHANGES AS PRESENTED UNDER L95 -0048, PRIMARILY ALLOWING ADDITIONAL WINDOWS FOR "LINENS AND THINGS ". MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. During the Director's report, Jack Pace reviewed design changes to the Southcenter Golf project and asked the Board if these changes could be approved administratively, or if they wanted the new proposal brought to them at a separate meeting to review as a part of design review. There was a consensus by the Board that this project, with its proposed changes, be brought back before them for review because the changes are significant. Ann Siegenthaler reviewed the City Council's changes to the Planning Commission's Draft Comprehensive Plan and Map. The Commission agreed to hold a special meeting on October 5, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. to further review these changes and begin drafting their comments regarding these changes to the Council. Mr. Neiss adjourned the meeting. Prepared By, Sylvia Schnug • TURNER & ASSOCIATES August 4; 1995 Ms Diana Painter Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE. Park Place Retail Center Tukwila, WA Response to comments Dear Diana, 18420 24th Place N.F., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 In response to your review letter of August 1, we have made changes to the drawings as follows: In response to your introductory paragraphs re tenant entries, on all Sheets with elevations and plans, the mullion spacing has been changed to between a range of 2' -2" (the narrowest condition, required by TSA at Bldg D) and 4' -0 ". Not all tenants have made their precise needs clear yet, but we agree to define the parameters as above for their mullion spacing. Several tenants are very specific at this time, such as at Buildings A and D. The treatment of the transoms at Buildings B and D have been made the same; now both are shown 12' high. On Sheet A0.1, All sheets in the Index affected by this round of comments have been revised to show a revision mark #5, dated August 2, 1995. On Sheet A 1.1, The plan has been changed to show the straight curb and revised parking islands, in the northeast corner, per your sketch faxed to me 7/19/95. A Legend has been added to clarify what is already shown in the Notes; existing planters shown with solid lines, existing planters to remain shown shaded, and proposed planters shown with dashed lines. We acknowledge your comment refering to the common drawing format of showing work to be removed in a dashed line; however, the format we are using helps to reinforce what landscaping is to be retained. It shows more clearly to the builders as they arrive on site what is existing, what is to be saved, and lightly overlays that info with what is to be in the future. On Sheet A 1.2, The plans have been changed to show the straight curb and revised parking islands, in the northeast corner, per your sketch faxed to me 7/19/95. On Sheet A1.3, The note "Not a part of building permit. Requires separate BAR approval and sign permit." has been added to Detail 14. On Sheet A2.1, No revisions required in your letter; however, you requested in subsequent meetings that square /round columns be detailed and referenced additionally on the plans, and they have been added on all plans, both full building (A2.1, A2.2, and A2.4) and partial (A 4.1, A4.3, &A4.5) On Sheet A2.2, Building B entry opening has been revised according to our discussions and faxes from yesterday. You requested in subsequent meetings that square /round columns be detailed and referenced additionally on the plans. See references to details detail 9 & 10/A4.5 for round and square column details. On Sheet A2.3, No revisions On Sheet A2.4, Columns at walkway shown square per revised BAR drawing A4 dated 12/9/94 and all subsequant submittals. Detail of square column has been added to sheet A4.3 for clarification. The generator pad at Bldg. D has been revised as discussed over the phone yesterday using faxed sketch #31.. On Sheet A3.1,Elevations of Building B are now shown as discussed with you and Jack Pace earlier this week, and as faxed to you yesterday on sketch #29. Note that the panels proposed for the wall area between the 44'- 6" and the previously designed 60' width are concrete per your discussion last week. Elevation of Building D has been revised to show vertical mullions as discussed, and revised generator enclosure per SK #31. On Sheet A3.2, No revisions. On Sheet A4.1, Detail 3, the reveal has been relocated to match the elevation. Detail 4; Entry Elevation Bldg. A - vertical scoring added to concrete panel in transom area, which aligns with existing panel joints, reveal line above moulding has been added, dimension string added to show consistancy with section on A4.2. Detail 5, vertical scoring added, as above, and detail title changed. On Sheet A4.2, Detail 1; Curved arch reveal relocated to match A4.1, revised to show door condition under moulding. Dimension string added to show consistancy with elevation on A4.1. On Sheet A4.3, Details 4 -8; Section cut lines 1 & 2 have been offset inorder to make consistant with sections on A4.4. Drawing references changed to A2.4 where applicable. Detail 4, Vertical mullions added to windows and transom. Detail 5, Vertical mullions added as above. Moulding added above transom. Detail 6, Elevations of Building B are now shown as discussed with you and Jack Pace earlier this week, and as faxed to you yesterday on sketch #29. On Sheet A4.4, Detail 1; Note "No transom glass at B" has been deleted. Moulding above transom has been added, along with reference to to similar detail on A5.2. Section changed to show door condition. Detail 2, No revisions, because offset section cuts on A4.3 corrects inconsistancy. On Sheet A4.5, Detail 3, Label changed to "Building C Entry Elevation ", reveal line added above moulding Landscape furnishings have been deleted from this elevation Section cut line 2 has been changed to an offset section which makes it consistant with the sections on A4.6. On Sheet A4.6, Detail 2, Revised to show door condition Offset section line on A4.5 brings drawing into accordance with elevation. On Sheet A4.7, No revisions. On Sheet A4.8, No revisions. On Sheet A4.9, No revisions. On Sheet A5.1, Detail 4 has been revised to conform with SK #31 as discussed yesterday over the phone. On Sheet A5.2, Note has been added regarding the similar condition for the moulding at Buildings B and D. On Sheet A5.3, No revisions On Sheet El, No revisions On Sheet E2, No revisions On Sheet Ll, A note has been added to the drawing indicating that the Landscape Architect will review the oaks along the entry drive in the fall to determine their health The plan has been changed to show the straight curb and revised parking islands, in the northeast corner, per your sketch faxed to me 7/19/95. A note was added about retaining existing trees in the northeast corner during the last round of comments in the planting schedule. Another has been added on the plan by the trees. The area around the loading dock of Building D has been revised to conform with SK #31, maintaining the screening of the loading dock. On Sheet L2, A detail showing how the existing Linden trees will be saved while allowing the berm to be altered has been added. On Sheet L3, The plan has been changed to show the straight curb and revised parking islands, in the northeast corner, per your sketch faxed to me 7/19/95. The area around the loading dock of Building D has been revised to conform with SK #31, maintaining the screening of the loading dock. On Sheet L4, A detail of the bicycle rack has been added. On Sheet L5, A note has been added. The bicycle rack detail has been referenced on this sheet. Sincerely, CPb (W/,- Howard R. Turner, AIA cc: Roy Bennion, Mike Sandorffy Steve Norman, WGC August 1, 1995 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 Re Building Permit Drawings - Park Place Dear Howard: fi67,4/Fzc> I have reviewed your building permit drawings submitted July 21, 1995 for consistency with Board of Architectural Review drawings, consistency with verbal agreements with you regarding BAR - approved design concepts, and internal consistency within the drawing set. As discussed with you on July 28 and July 31, 1995, the responsibility of DCD staff is to see that the building permit drawings reflect understandings and agreements made with the BAR. It is not our responsibility to interpret which drawings correctly reflect your intentions and which do not. We have no way of knowing what you plan to do when drawings are inconsistent from submission to submission, and details are inconsistent within any one drawing set, which has been the case in the last four submittals I have reviewed. The following is the overall design concept for the complex, as it has been interpreted in the Planning Division. This concept, approved by the BAR, is to be carried throughout building permit and construction documents, including tenant improvements. Further changes to the design concept, as you proposed on July 31, 1995, must go back through the public hearing process before the BAR. We have already had one public hearing on this project. We have returned to the Board twice to brief them on administrative changes. It is doubtful that we would be able to make further changes to the overall design concept without holding another public hearing. The overall design concept for the complex, as originally proposed by your office and client, is as follows. This is what you are being held to. The project is being treated, in design terms, as a retail complex, even though it consists of five separate structures. To accomplish this requires a degree of design hierarchy in the complex. This figures most prominently in the large scale and special treatment of the central pediment of the larger building. Consistency within the overall complex is achieved through the use of color, materials, detailing, and the neo- classical architectural style. Consistency is also achieved by wrapping the arcade around the building, through the use and spacing of the columns, and by articulating each major entry in a similar manner. Articulating each entry in a similar manner is something you requested, based on tenant needs, in your March 23, 1995 re- submittal to the BAR, and which was reiterated in your June 15, 1995 BAR drawings. I am assuming at this point that it is your intention to carry this out. The design of each tenant space must address the overall design motif of variation within a unified concept. It must have a certain amount of flexibility to accommodate individual tenant needs. In order for the complex to read as a whole, however, there must be a degree of similarity in the way each similar element is treated. In the case of the individual entries, this will consist of the following. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 The openings for the main entries of the five major tenant spaces will occur between the two main columns marking the entry ways for Buildings A, B and D. They will occur within the three archways marking each entry for Buildings C1 and C2. Vertical window mullions will repeat the spacing of the narrow door openings, approximately 3 1/2', in order to achieve a contrast between the rhythm of the fenestration and overall column spacing, and consistency between the various tenant spaces. The latter will also serve to minimize differences in fenestration patterns between the different tenant spaces. The treatment of the transom at Buildings B and D will be the same, either solid or windows. This will be articulated in a similar manner as the windows and doors below it, either by providing vertical mullions or articulating the dryvit with vertical scoring. In other words, Buildings B and D will be similar, and Buildings C1 and C2 will be similar. Building A will have elements in common with the other structures in the complex. Please make the changes and corrections noted below and re- submit your Building Permit drawing set to the Planning Division. Sheet A 0.1 Revise submission dates as necessary. Sheet A 1.1 Sheet A 1.2 Sheet A 1.3 Sheet A 2.1 Sheet A 2.2 Show straight curb and revised parking lot islands in northeast corner, as discussed July 28, 1995. Planters shown are new, and this is demolition plan. Show planters to be removed. Show straight curb and revised parking lot islands in northeast corner, as noted above. Note on drawings that pole sign must be approved by BAR. Sign shown is not approved. No comment. Opening on Building B must occur between columns; approximately 40' in width approved by BAR. Columns flanking entries of Building C are shown as square rather than round at the shaft. BAR approved round columns. Sheet A 2.3 No comment. Sheet A 2.4 Sheet A 3.1 Sheet A 3.2 Sheet A 4.1 Columns shown as square rather than round. Utility boxes at loading dock Building D to be revised per Howard, 7- 28 -95. Detail 1, East Elevation - wrong elevation shown for Building B. Revise transom as noted above. Building D - add vertical mullions as noted. No comment. Detail 3, Building A Section - correct location of scoreline. Detail 4, Entry Elevation Building A - add vertical scoring pattern to dryvit at transom. Section noted does not match section detail on A 4.2. Detail 5, Entry Elevation Building A - should be labeled Storefront Elevation. Add vertical scoring pattern to dryvit transom. Sheet A 4.2 Detail 1, Building A Section - does not correspond to section cut line on 4.1. Top 2 Sheet A 4.3 Sheet A 4.4 Sheet A 4.5 of molding on back wall appears to be in wrong location. Detail 4, Building D Entry Elevation - Add vertical mullions as discussed to windows and transom. Section 2 cut in wrong location; should be off -set section. Framing detail above transom not shown accurately on section. Detail 5, Building D Storefront Elevation - show vertical mullions. Add molding detail above transom as discussed. Detail 6, Building B Storefront Elevation - narrow opening to approximately 40' as discussed. Add vertical mullions to windows, add windows at transom, add molding detail above transom as discussed. Correct 2'38' -0' dimension to read 38' -0'. Reference 1/A2.2 incorrect. Detail 1, Building D Entry Section - Delete note, 'No transom glass at B;' framing detail above transom differs from that shown on elevation; add molding detail as discussed. Door shown at section cut line on elevation, window shown on section detail. See note on drawing. Detail 2, Building D Entry Section - doesn't match section cut line on A 4.3. Detail 3, Building C Roof Plan - should be labeled Entry Elevation. Section cut line 2 shown at wrong location. Landscape site furnishings shown are from previous submittal - don't reflect current plan. Sheet A 4.6 Detail 2, Building C Section - section shown does not match section cut line, as noted above. Sheet A 4.7 No comment. Sheet A 4.8 No comment. Sheet A 4.9 No comment. Sheet A 5.1 Detail 4, Loading Dock at Building D - location of utility vaults not determined. Future location may preclude screening of loading dock as required by BAR. Sheet A 5.2 Detail 5, Molding at Storefront - add note about additional location of this molding, as discussed July 28, 1995. Sheet A 5.3 No comment. Sheet El No comment. Sheet E2 No comment. Sheet L1 If it is necessary to replace any additional oaks along the entry drive, all oaks should be replaced so that the size of the trees is similar. Some of the oaks shown as retained are in poor health. Sheet L2 Show straight curb line and modified islands on northeast corner of site, as previously discussed. Add note about retaining existing trees in this location. Screening at loading dock D to be revised, see previous note. Add detail showing how existing Linden trees will be retained. 3 Sheet L3 Correct curb and island detail in northeast comer, per previous comments. Sheet L4 Add bike rack detail. Sheet L5 Add note about monitering to take place during planting of wetland buffer. As we have discussed, it is possible to retain the existing street trees along Southcenter Parkway and still lower the berm at that location by 1' - 1 1/2'. It is possible to accomplish this task and also retain the existing curb line by altering three islands within the parking lot, as shown in the sketch relayed to you July 19, 1995. Please show this solution on all drawings. I will draw up a letter of understanding with Roy to document how this will be accomplished. You can pick up your drawings at the 'Will Call' area. If you are still interested in making modifications to the design concept, as you indicated on July 31, 1995, the BAR is currently scheduling hearings in September. Let me know if you are would like to be placed on the schedule. If you have any problems with these comments, please feel free to set up a meeting with Jack Pace, Senior Planner, to discuss them. His number is 431 -3686. Sincerely, Mang) Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Michael Woodland Jack Pace Duane Griffin Bob Benedicto Roy Bennion City of Tukwila Department of Community Development July 25, 1995 Mr. Roy Bennion Park Place Partners 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Re Park Place Building Permit Review Dear Roy: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director / (-) This is to let you know, in advance, the cause of any potential delays in completing Planning Division review of this building permit. We scheduled our consultant to review the Park Place building permit drawings on behalf of the Division. This required coordinating both Howard's schedule and his. After spending about five hours reviewing the building permit set, our consultant informed us that it was the wrong set - it was not the set that had been submitted for Board of Architectural Review approval. We informed Howard, and waited for the right drawings to be submitted. We again scheduled our consultant to review them, I reviewed them as well, we met to discuss his findings, and I wrote a letter to Howard requesting revisions. This additional time would not have been necessary if the right drawings had been submitted in the first place. Due to the many revisions submitted by your architect, Duane requested that all drawings for the final building permit set be physically signed by both myself and Joanna in Public Works. I signed two sets of 23 drawings before my Friday, July 21st meeting with Howard so that when the revised drawings came in, they could be quickly reviewed, signed, and inserted in the original set. Because Howard brought in completely new sets, I will have to review the drawings again and physically sign 116 drawings. Howard had an appointment with me a 2 p.m. on Friday to go over these last revisions. He arrived at 4 p.m. If I did not have to review and sign off on the drawings again, and if he had not been two hours late, I could have forwarded the drawings to Public Works for their review Friday afternoon. As it is, I will have essentially reviewed or paid someone else to review the building permit drawing set four times. I will have 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 signed it twice. I scheduled time to do this last week. I do not have scheduled time to do this this week, although I will do my best to fit it in. I cannot speak for the schedule of any of the other divisions. We have worked closely with you and Howard over the last ten months in order to help expedite the planning and design process for this project. In return, we expect that you will attempt to understand our processes, limitations, and scheduling concerns. Sincerely, -107 Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Steve Lancaster Jack Pace Duane Griffin Howard Turner TURNER & ASSOCIATES July'21 '1995 Ms Diana Painter Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE. Park Place Tukwila, WA Response to comments 18420 24th Place N.E., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 C1.7V a') °E\IELOPtv?EN aEICrc,-r gbi/zat) Dear Diana, In response to yours of July 18 & 19, we have made changes to the drawings as follows: On Sheet A3.1, The east elevation has been corrected to show the 12' storefront on Building D for The Sports Authority On Sheet A 4.1, The illustrative drawings of the entry have been brought into accordance with the plans and sections. On Sheet A 4.5, the illustrative drawings of the entry have been brought into accordance with the plans, sections and thedesign changes from the 6/15/95 BAR meeting. On Sheet A4.6, detail references have been completed. On Sheet L -1, The apron inf front of Building A has been brought into accordance with the other site plans an d with the 6/16/95 BAR meeting, and the existing trees on the Parkway have been shown relocated instead of replaced. 5 Bicycle racks are shown located, for Building A on Sheet L -1, and for Building BCD on Sheet L -3. The specifications are on Sheet L -5 along with the other Site amenities. Sincerely, Howard R. Turner, AIA cc: Roy Bennion encl:Revised drawings _. �' City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Q ` va i,, _� ; Y f i u.: • p ' �'•. w ;���:: Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster. Director 1908 July 20, 1995 Mr. Roy Bennion Park Place Associates 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Roy: DES ICT-4 p 'EAT-6A) Enclosed is a handout that was prepared recently for a seminar that the City sponsored for developers and real estate people that outlines the permit process at the City. From our recent conversation, I thought it might be helpful to you. When the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approves a development through their design review process, they are simply giving permission for the project to proceed through the actual permit process. The BAR is, essentially, saying that the project meets design review criteria as established in the municipal code. The conditions of approval are established in conjunction with this design review process. These are outlined in the Notice of Decision, issued subsequent to design review. Subsequent reviews by the BAR, in your case, did not change the actual conditions of approval issued with your Notice of Decision, dated January 4, 1995. The actual work must proceed only with a permit. The Planning Division, Fire Department, Public Works and Building Division all review relevant permits for compliance with their own codes and agreements with the developer through the applicable processes. One of these processes is Design Review. I check building permits, land altering permits, and any other applicable permits against SEPA conditions and design review conditions. If I determine that the plans and specifications for the project fulfill these conditions and applicable codes, I sign off on the permit on behalf of the Planning Division. The actual work undertaken under the auspices of a permit must reflect the work described in the plans and specifications that are submitted and approved in conjunction with the permit. So, for example, you cannot remove street trees just because the BAR saw a drawing that showed some street trees being removed. This is not what the BAR approved in their official public review of the project, nor do you have a permit to carry this work out at this time. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 If you have any questions on the scope of work covered by any particular permit, please give me or the individual who issued the permit a call. Sincerely, c —E,? %(' Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Steve Lancaster Jack Pace Duane Griffin Ron Cameron Joanna Spencer Howard Turner Attachment July 19, 1995 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Mr. Roy Bennion Park Place Partners 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 Seattle, Washington 98155 p:41f Re Park Place Landscape Plan Dear Roy: As a follow -up to our conversation today, it has come to my attention that the replacement street trees specified on your landscape plans do not match the existing trees. The existing trees are Little Leaf Linden; your replacement trees are Red Sunset Maple. They are also shown incorrectly on your tree inventory. If any street trees are to be replaced along the frontage of the property, it is the City's policy to comply with the approved street tree plan, which specifies Red Oak (Quercus rubra) in this area. However, where established street trees are left undisturbed by development, they may be retained. There is approximately 1,000' of mature street trees along this frontage, including the Winners and Azteca frontage, and they make a dramatic frontage and appealing entry to the project. Plans approved by the BAR on December 15, 1995 for this project showed existing street trees to be retained along the entire frontage. Site plans that showed preliminary grading in this area did not indicate that the berm was to be lowered. Parking as proposed can be accommodated with minor changes in the curbs and islands at this location (see attached sketch). Improving sight lines for retail business is not sufficient justification to allow removal of mature street trees. In addition, this is not consistent with plans approved by the BAR at the public hearing for this project. Therefore, existing street trees will be retained. We would prefer that this be shown on the building permit plans. An alternative would be to submit a statement of intention to make the changes to retain existing street trees in a letter addressed to the Director of the Department of Community Development. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, alee Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Steve Lancaster Howard Turner Joanna Spencer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director -July 18,'1995 Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 Re Parkway Place Dear Howard: I have reviewed the most recent set of building permit drawings against the plans approved by the BAR on June 15, 1995 and have the following comments. When these revisions are made, I can sign off on the building permit set for the planning division. Sheet A 3.1 Detail 1, East Elevation Sheet A 4.1 Detail 1, A Entry (Front) Sheet A 4.5 Detail 1, C Entry Sheet A 4.6 Detail C Section Building B storefront elevation and Building D storefront elevation is reversed. Illustrative drawing of Building A entry doesn't reflect column spacing of revised plan /section. Illustrative drawing of Building C entry doesn't reflect design changes agreed to at 7/15/95 BAR meeting. Detail reference for reveal and molding detail (Sheet 5 ?) not specified, doesn't appear on sheets. Sheet L 1 Landscape Plan Apron detail on Building A does not appear on this plan. Sheet L 2 Details Need either quantity or spacing of ivy for wall planting specified. Needs to appear on plant schedule. Need a bike rack specified, with placement noted. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Joanna Spencer Duane Griffin Jack Pace • ,' City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 15, 1995 PROJECT: Parkway Place Retail Center 163,629 sq. ft. of retail space ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: December 15, 1994 PREVIOUS DIRECTOR'S REPORT: FILE NUMBER: March 23, 1995 L94 -0084 Design Review APPLICANT: Howard Turner/Turner and Associates Architects Michael Sandorffy /Park Place Partners, Developer LOCATION: 17501 South center Parkway SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Issued December 1, 1994 STAFF: Diana Painter 431 -3661 Michael Woodland, consultant ATTACHMENTS: Conditions of Approval dated January 4, 1995 6300 Southcenter Boulevarc, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 . Fax (206) 431-3665 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Project Description: This project involves the demolition of a nine story office building and the construction of a 163,629 sq.ft., mostly single story retail center consisting of five buildings. Four of the buildings will be located in one structure, located on the northern part of the site and between 220 and 375 feet west of Southcenter Parkway. The fifth building will be located in the southwest portion of the site. A retaining wall, approximately 600 feet long and up to 34 feet high, will contain the hillside behind the four building complex. Parking will accommodate 727 automobiles. Project Status: This project appeared before the Board of Architectural Review in December of 1994. At that time, the Board approved the project, subject to eleven Conditions of Approval (see attached). As a part of the Conditions of Approval, the Board extended to city staff the authority to administratively approve certain refinements to the design. Accordingly, staff has worked with the applicant on several aspects of the design. The Board on the progress of project design on March 23, 1995. This is the second briefing to the Board on the implementation of conditions. Demolition of the nine story office building on the site is nearly complete, although recycling and salvaging operations will continue for another few weeks. The City will be issuing permits for the next phase of work, which involves clearing for and construction of the retaining wall, within the next two weeks. Building permits for the structures and landscape design have been submitted. Any changes suggested by the Board of Architectural Review at the June 16th briefing will be incorporated in the building permit application. The following is a description of cumulative changes and refinements that have been made in project design since original project approval. Site Design All changes in the site design were reviewed by the Board in March. They are summarized below. The most significant change to the proposal is an increase in the number of tenants to five and a corresponding increase in the number of buildings. Building "C ", originally 42,000 sq. ft. in size, has been divided into two buildings, "Cl" and "C2" and now totals 53,000 sq. ft. This includes a 10,000 sq. ft. mezzanine that has been added to Building "C2 ". The arrangement of the buildings and parking areas has been slightly re- configured to accommodate the increase in tenants. Building "A" has been reduced in size by 4,920 sq. ft. Parking has been added along the front of Buildings "A ", "C1 ", and "C2 ". The total floor area of 2 the proposal has been increased by 9,329 sq. ft. and parking has been increased by 25 stalls. Pedestrian circulation remains the same. The location of the loading docks on Building "A" has been changed from the west facade of the building at the north end to the south facade of the building at the west end. Truck circulation has not been greatly altered. The loading dock will be screened from public view by the southeast corner of the building, the Levitz Furniture warehouse and landscaping. Building Design The facade and entry to Building "C" has been re- configured to accommodate two buildings. Originally, a central, arched portico stepped forward and housed a single entry. Under the revised plan, two entry porticos project forward and flank the central pediment and arch. Landscape planters and seating have been added under the archway and the pediment above has been detailed in a way that reinforces its central position. The overall design concept remains the same as that approved by the Board in December. Rooftop mechanical equipment will be set back far enough from the edge of the roof so that it will not be visible from the street or parking lot. Landscaping Landscaping has been added along the facades of the central buildings. As a result, the pedestrian walkways are buffered from parking and traffic. Seating has been added to the three planting areas in front of Buildings "Cl" and "C2 ". The planting area that was originally proposed for the far south corner of the site, near the wetland, is now used for parking. This was not a required landscape area under the original proposal. As required by code, a wetland buffer is provided between this area and the wetland. Landscape plantings in front of the building complex have been further augmented in lieu of plantings at the top of the retaining wall behind the complex. This change was made necessary by a change in construction technology for the wall which precluded the planting of vines at the top of the wall. It was also determined that the plantings at this location would not be highly visible, and that the shade of the building on the wall made a poor environment for planting at this location. Summary Staff has worked extensively with the applicants to develop areas of project design in which refinements were suggested in the original Conditions of Approval. The focus has been on architectural detailing, landscape design details along the facades of the buildings, and improved 3 site amenities, including the provision of seating areas and improved pedestrian circulation. The following summarizes previously approved conditions and the status of those conditions. 1. The retaining wall is constructed of concrete. Vines will be planted at the base, although in lieu of plantings at the top of the wall, landscaped areas have been increased at the building facade, where they are more visible and usable. 2. Staff has reviewed screening of trash areas. They are adequate and architecturally compatible with the overall design of the buildings. 3. Screening of all loading areas is adequate. Screening is accomplished through placement of the buildings and /or landscape plantings. 4. A crosswalk will be provided at Southcenter Parkway. 5. Final building colors will be the same as those originally proposed by the applicant. A color and materials board will be available at the June 16, 1995 briefing. 6. The exterior lighting scheme will be reviewed by staff in conjunction with review for building permits. 7. Staff has worked extensively with the applicant to add refinements to the architectural detailing for the project. Changes include additional fenestration at the entries, molding details on the central pediment, and an indirect neon strip delineating the central pediment. 8. The landscaping at the building facades contrasts with the formality of the landscape design in others areas of the site and the formal architectural treatment of the building. This is accomplished through the textures and shapes of the planting materials, choice of color in planting materials, and planting design. 9. Specimen trees in the main planting areas along the facade and at the terminus of the entry drive have been provided. 10. Significant trees have been saved where possible. Project design and code requirements have precluded saving much of the pre- existing landscaping on the site. 11. The existing London plane trees are intact and protected. 4 CHRONOLOGY OF PARKWAY PLACE PROJECT 6.9.94 Pre -app held on project. 9.15.94 Trip Generation Study conducted for project. 9.16.94 BAR drawings are submitted that are significantly different from pre -app drawings in building size, location, intrusion into sensitive areas, and massive retaining wall for hillside. Environmental Checklist submitted. 10.20.94 SEPA Checklist & design drawings routed internally for comment. 10.31.94 Request for exception to Tree Regulations requested by applicant in order to proceed with soils testing. Letter sent to applicant w/ list of changes required for BAR & SEPA submittal. 11.2.94 Exception from Tree Regulations are granted by DCD so that applicant can proceed w /tree clearing. Conditions attached regarding a replacement plan. Tree inventory submitted by applicant. Shannon & Wilson are hired by City to conduct peer review of geotechnical aspects of project. 11.4.94 DCD holds mtg w /applicant to discuss changes to plans & procedures for tree clearing. Clearing in preparation for soil testing begins. 11.9.94 DCD agrees to expedite the project by two months if the applicant will pay for a consultant review of DCD submittals. 11.10.94 Letter is received from applicant protesting application of Tree Regulations to project. Geotechnical Report submitted (GeoEngineers). Subsurface Investigation submitted (Envirobusiness, Inc.). Revised Environmental Checklist submitted (Howard Turner Assoc.). Letter regarding demolition submitted (RW Rhine). Midday Trip Generation Report submitted (TP &E) to augment 9.15.94 Trip Generation Study. Report on site conditions submitted (Bush, Roed & Hitchings). Sensitive Areas Study Report submitted (Talasaea). Tree Replacement Plan submitted (LandPlan PS). Proposed SEPA conditions are received from PW. Release & quitclaim deed from railroads received. 11.16.9 SEPA documents are sent to WSDOT for comment. 11.17.94 Revised Design Review application submitted by applicant. 1 David Livermore questioned the safety of the on street parking alternative. He asked if there were any studies that showed the relationship between accidents an,, street designs. Staff responded that it was a combination of things includin • umb r of turning movements from driveways and local access roads onto the street. Speed however is usually cited as the most critical factor and that they would request that the current limit of 45 miles per hour be reduced to 35 miles per hour. Tim O'Brien noted that the on street parking alternative would allow future conversion of the lane for transit use. Another member expressed a concern about long term use of on street parking for transit users. Staff then brought up the issue of the existing park and ride lot at the Church by the Side of the Road. Members mentioned that most people probably aren't aware of its existence since it doesn't look like a park and ride lot. There was a general discussion about whether to support bus pullouts or in- stream loading and unloading. There was recognition that designs that supported ridership would be favored since they were trying to support high ridership through not only street design but other pedestrian support such as friendly development design and street amenities. and Task Force then reviewed the aerial photographs looking at the site details from 152nd to 140th Street. Ron Cameron emphasized the high volume of pedestrians in the area. Then there was a discussion of pedestrian crossings. A member expressed concern over the short crossing times allowed at 144th. He felt that was a disincentive to use the crosswalk. Draft Mtg. Notes 99 Task Force November 14, 1995 Page 4 11.28.94 Application is reviewed for compliance w/ SAO & Tree Regulations by Gary Schulz; preliminary environmental review conducted by Gary Schulz. Review comments received from Shannon & Wilson, the city's peer review consultant, on geotechnical recommendations by the applicant's engineers, GeoEngineers. 14 issues areas identified. 12.1.94 MDNS issued on project; comment period to expire 12.15.94. City receives letter from WSDOT receiving initial approval on project. 12.2.94 Mtg is held w /architect to discuss design changes. 12.4.94 Letter is sent to applicant regarding noise levels that will be enforced on demolition & construction. 12.9.94 BAR plans are re- submitted that show 155,115 sq. ft. of retail space & 702 parking stalls. 12.15.94 Public Hearing is held on BAR submittal. 12.21.94 Admendments suggested to retaining wall design by applicant's engineers, GeoEngineers. 1.4.95 Notice of Decision on BAR approval sent to architect. 1.5.95 Supplemental review comments received from the City's peer review consultants, Shannon & Wilson, re: wall design issues. 1.10.95 Memo received from Public Works confirming that they will follow Shannon & Wilson's recommendations on wall.design; and addressing issues of storm drain location, WSDOT review, and truck access. 1.19.95 Pre -app is held for demolition portion of project. 1.27.95 Agreement is secured in meeting w/ PW, DCD & applicant's engineers to phase permits. Phases will be 1) demolition; 2) site work; 3) building. Conditions are: Building Permit for wall cannot be issued until SAO compliance, and Tree Permit issued, and Land Altering permit for hillside cannot be issued until Building Permit for wall is issued. Applicant is notified of results of meeting. 1.31.95 Architect requests permission to lower roof of northern tenant space, and use dryvit instead of concrete panels on just the northern -most tenant space. Ok to first, on condition that elevation submitted; no to latter request. Architect also requests permission for removal of parapet wall and scoring on back of building (west side). 2.10.95 Architect informed by letter of procedure for making changes on BAR approved drawings, ie that a written request must be made for a determination as to whether changes will be required to go back before the BAR. Confirmed that initial approval was given by Jack Pace for 'direction' of changes in latest submittal. 2.16.95 It is determined in interdepartmental meeting that application for demolition permit incomplete. 2 area. He explained that they had done 3 scenarios: Existing Plan Land Use Tukwila Tomorrow Land Use A Most Traffic Impact Land Use Scenario They started with traffic trips generated by the regional planning agency the Puget Sound CXuncil of Governments an• included the land use assumptions in the surrounding cities. iron=to- theassumm •«• at 509 w• uld be completed south of 188th to 1-5. Mug-- 1„ of. From the traffic forecasting, s = = = • {icluded that the current number of lanes and the configuration would o�dea e delays of more than 45 seconds at any intersection al ng the highway. eV( ► .. In addition, the consultant had done aftorigin and destination study that looked at where traffic was coming from and going to. They did this study during the course of one day and the three peak intervals - morning, noon and late afternoon. They found that 10% of northbound traffic and 18% of southbound traffic goes through the area from 152nd past 130th without stopping or turning off. Robin then proceeded to a discussion of preliminary alternatives for alignments and channelization. He mentioned that they ad looked at alternatives that would minimize impacts on existing businesses and tri4 o preserve parking wherever possible. One of the first questions was why the outside lanes on the new designs are wider. Staff responded that the State has a requirement of wider lanes adjacent to curbs. Draft Mtg. Notes 99 Task Force November 14, 1995 Page 3 2.21.95 Architect submits revised site plans & elevations for administrative review that show parking in front of all buildings, an additional 10,000 sq. ft. of floor space, an additional 28 parking stalls, revised footprint and loading dock for Building A, lower parapet for west elevation, widening of entry at Building C, and revised shape of Buildng A. Changes necessitate changes to facades. 2.22.95 It is determined in interdepartmental meeting that there are still questions on demo permits & SEPA compliance. 3.1.95 It is determined in interdepartmental meeting that there are still questions on demo permits & SEPA compliance. 3.2.95 Results of 3.1 meeting are conveyed in writing to applicant. 3.8.95 Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 3.15.95 Revised landscape plans, tree replacement plans, and SAO compliance plans are submitted (L1 -L5 & LTR1 & LTR2). Irrigation specs submitted. Addendum to geotech report submitted (dated 3.6.95); addresses fill. materials; demolition procedures; re- routing of 48' storm drain; retaining wall excavation; soil work for building foundation. Shoring calculations for wall submitted (CT Engineering). Retaining wall permit application is filed with Building Dept. Civil Engineering plans submitted for retaining wall permit (12 sheets), including landscape plans, SAO compliance plans & tree replacement plans (L1 -L5 & LTR 1 & LTR 2), and wall construction (SS1 - SS6). Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 3.16.95 Applicant re- submitts BAR drawings, including landscape plans, for administrative approval, following up on comments received 2.28.1995 from staff regarding most recent submittal. See 2.21.95 for changes. 3.20.95 Retaining wall permit application is forwarded to City's consultant for structural review. 3.22.95 Interdepartmental status mtg on project. Storm drainage report recieved (Bush, Roed & Hitchings, dated 3.13.95). 3.23.95 Planning Commission is briefed on changes to BAR drawings that were approved administratively. See 2.21.95. 3.29.95 Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 3.30.95 Interdepartmental meeting is held; 60' no -build easements need to be secured around building. 3.31.95 P.O. authorizing Shannon & Wilson to re- evaluate retaining wall drawings (SS1-SS6) is issued. 3 There was tomcomt_eed- agkeL, e- discussioron -the size of the Tukwila Resource Center Sign. A member (kb C61-61 mentioned tllai it was oversized because Tim O'Brien insistedn his lease that the sign framework i I4 not be removed. Tim stated that was not the case and would not care if the sign was removed altogether. of feel t e A member said that he had heard a number of times that the Council di n y were getting the consensus of the group when individuals of the Task Fo ce came before them. Members who ha one before the Council said that they 5bk t y said ���� when they were speaking for the Task Force and said when they were speaking as an individual. Dwight McLean stated that if sk d to represent the group he felt he could represent the group faithfully even if he disagreed personally. It was felt that if they were to have representativeJgive recommendations in the future, signatures of the members should be attached to any written submittal. Ellen Gengler asked the group if they should consider taping the meetings in case there were future issues of misunderstands g? Vern Mery = w thought that the current system. tm- ,� - _ - Ca 'feG{ 071 a5 ellire Si it was working well. David Liverthore then ' entioned hat the ouncil had also entionedQ�1ra/lc/�' d lei ceeli cA, V that the meeting notes were not helpful to the Council and that a summary of Task Force decisions would be most helpful. Moi Brads aw said tat based upon st discussion , an agenda was prepared th t foc sed on a Counci 's regulatory rec mmendations. Two draft atrices of uses an dev lopme t standar that were dra of the City ouncil's w rk on the Planni Co missio 's recom ended Zoning C de changes w re passed ut. She en we t ov a map of the co mercial areas as efined in the uncil's D ft Comp an. Robin Tishmack then described the traffic forecasting to the year 2020 done for the study Draft Mtg. Notes 99 Task Force November 14, 1995 Page 2 New retaining wall drawings shows a different treatment of wall landscaping than required in BAR conditions. 4.4.95 Letter is sent to applicant confirming discussion on design changes that are required /recommended on 3.16.95 submittal. Issues are: screening of loading dock (BAR condition), right hand turn lane out of site, crosswalk at entrance drive (BAR condition), planter & sidewalk at Building C (BAR condition), 60' no-build easement (budding code issue). 4.5.95 It is determined in interdepartmental mtg. that demo permit can be issued. 4.12.95 A strategy on wall landscaping to replace it with landscaping in a more public part of the site is agreed on within DCD. Building Permit applications for Buildings A & BCD are submitted. Soils Reports Structural Calculations included. 4.19.95 Changes are requested by City's structural engineering consultant on building permit applications. Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 4.24.95 Review of SAO compliance & Tree Replacement Plan completed by DCD; minor revisions are suggested to specs. 4.25.95 Rooftop mechanical plans (HVAC -1) & elevations changes (A4.5A & A4.1A) submitted for DCD's consideration. After internal discussion, changes to elevations are denied as not in keeping with overall design concept. 4.27.95 Letter sent to applicant denying requested design changes. 4.28.95 Applicant requests meeting w/ DCD to discuss denial of design changes. Decision is reversed and changes granted, with the understanding that further emphasis on middle bay would be made in landscaping and building detailing to offset other proposed changes to individual buildings. 5.3.95 Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 5.4.95 Shannon & Wilson submits comments on retaining wall design (transmitted to DCD 5.12.95) 5.5.95 Mtg is held w/ applicant to discuss types of changes which could accomplish goal of keeping project in alignment w /original design concept approved by the BAR, and still allow for design changes requested 4.25 as a result of tenant requirements. Applicant agrees to verbal conditions. All changes that require structural review are agreed to at this time, so applicant can proceed with building permit. Changes that are- to -be- determined (designed) include materials, finishes and details only, and will not require structural review. This is a concession to project schedule. 5.9.95 Second review of building permit conducted by City's structural consultants reveals no 4 Please review this quick rendition of last night and insert your comments I will be mailing this Draft out tomorrow. I need your comments by 9am tomorrow. Thanks. DRAFT MEETING NOTES 99 TASK FORCE 6 - 9 P.M. Monday 13 November 1995 Conference Room #5 Minolta Building These notes are being circulated to all who attended the meeting (see the attached sign up sheet.) Additions or corrections are requested. To make any changes to this version, please call Moira Bradshaw at 431 -3651 by Tuesday. November 21, 1995. A final version will then be available for distribution. The meeting began with a discussion of whet a otels and motels should be permitted or conditional in the Regional Commercial Zone. Most members recalled that they remembered discussing and agreeing to having them conditional throughout most of the highway area, and the City Council unfortunately had chosen to go with two separate districts between 154th and 137th. ✓D Moira Bradshaw then asked if they wanted to vote on the issue. Dwight McLean was in favor of allowing hotels and motels as permitted in the RC zones as currently proposed. The other4members in attendance favored having them conditionally permitted. David Livermore discussed the joint meeting with the City Council on October 30th that he and Dwight McLean attended. He said they represented opposite viewpoints primarily on the hote j/motel issue but that overall it was a good format. He felt like they -wn re havinga-productive dialogue with the Council. He said that he asked for direction from the Council and they said they were interested in getting feedback on the street design and signage. additional concerns. 5.22.95 Responses to review comments by Shannon & Wilson on retaining wall submitted by DBM CM, applicant's contractors (received 5.23.95). 5.23.95 Retaining wall plans re- submitted for comment (SS1-SS6). 5.24.95 Responses to review comments by Shannon & Wilson on retaining wall are submitted by applicant's engineers, GeoEngineers (received 5.26.95). Interdepartmental status mtg on project. 5.30.95 Responses to review comments by Shannon & Wilson on retaining wall are submitted by DBM CM, as well as revised drawings SS1 -SS6 (received 5.31.95). 6.2.95 Mtg is held w /applicant to discuss changes to BAR that will be conveyed to Planning Commission; changes on SAO compliance & tree permit drawings (from Gary Schulz's 4.25.95 letter); aspects of retaining wall design that will be reviewed by DCD (ie vine treatment); & landscape design. No changes were made by applicant to building design, as required in 5.5.95 mtg. Architect responds that changes have not been authorized. Applicant authorizes changes for BAR submittal on 6.7.95 and review on 6.15.95. Response from Shannon & Wilson on 5.22.95 & 5.24.95 geotechnical submittals, received 6.5.95. 6.7.95 In interdepartmental meeting it is determined that Shannon & Wilson reviewed wrong wall permit drawing set, and that applicant will have to pay for new review because previous review unauthorized. It is conveyed to applicant that final comments from Shannon & Wilson will have to be received before wall permit can be issued, as well as other associated permits. Applicant requests permission for further testing in hillside without land altering permit. 6.8.95 Applicant submits revised drawings for Building Permit. Permit Nos. PRE 94 -020 L94 -0084 L94-0085 B95 -0077 B95 -0111 B95 -0110 Pre -App Design Review SEPA Review Building Permit for wall Building Permit Buildings BCD. Building Permit Building A Task 9: Staff Support for Plan Review a. Slide show. MAKERS and Perteet will prepare and present a slide show of roadway projects and development conditions that illustrate projected results of this plan. b. Public involvement. The MAKERS team will support City staff in project meetings with the Task Force, Technical Advisory Committee, Real Estate Panel, City Council, and conduct a public presentation of project recommendations. III. Develop Implementation Strategies and Final Plan The implementation strategies are the key to this project. This phase of the project will provide the City with a list of the actions and essential tools required to achieve the community's vision. This list will augment and detail the strategies suggested in Task 8. These actions will be designed to both secure the goals and mitigate the impacts of the plan. The implementation strategies will provide the additional details necessary to realize implementation of the preferred alternative as discussed in the draft of the Revitalization Plan and with any modifications as may be necessary upon direction of City due to public input. The implementation strategies, together with documentation prepared for other tasks in this Phase II study, will be combined to constitute the Highway 99 Revitalization Plan that will guide revitalization and redevelopment of the 99 corridor (see Attachment A for outline of Final Plan). Task 10: Land Use and Urban Design Element 10/26/95 The MAKERS team will finalize the land use and urban design element for the corridor by providing the regulatory language, including design guidelines, necessary for implementation of the plan. Final regulations, standards and guidelines will be tested to determine their success in achieving other project objectives, including market feasibility, by performing selected site analyses. a. Urban design concept. MAKERS will illustrate an overall urban design concept for the study area, identifying additional streetscape improvements if necessary, identifying opportunities for art work, making recommendations for the development of focal points and special features in selected areas, and public spaces or parks that may be developed in the future as supported by redevelopment. 7 Status of Park Place Permits - 2 -1 -96 Previous updates - 1 -4 -96, 11- 30 -95, 11 -15 -95 Changes from previous update Outstanding permits /actions in DCD Planning permits /actions: PRE94 -020 L94 -0084 L94 -0085 L95 -0016 L95 -0036 L95 -0048 L95 -0049 Pre -app held on 6- 30 -94. BAR for project approved with conditions 12- 15 -94. Revisions to BAR plans reviewed by BAR 3- 23 -95. Revisions to BAR plans reviewed by BAR 6- 15 -95. SEPA, MDNS issued 12 -1 -94. Exception from tree regulations for soils testing granted 11 -2 -94. Applicant notified of violations to exemption agreement for clearing 11 -4 -94. Tree removal permit for wall construction applied for 3- 15 -95, approved 6- 16 -95. Tree replacement plan for SAO approved 6- 16 -95. Exemption from tree regulations for removal of hazardous trees granted 10- 19 -95. BAR for revised storefront entry approved 9- 28 -95. Special permission sign, approved with modifications 9- 28 -95. Applicant notified of violations to BAR conditions for landscaping 10- 24 -95. vfson fo langsca . .......:...................:.:. ... :Pik. Building permits /actions: B95 -0027 B95 -0077 B95 -0110 695 -0111 LISS .r:..evs�ars<cl? Building demolition permit submitted 1- 25 -95, issued 5 -2 -95. Retaining wall construction permit submitted 3- 15 -95, issued 6- 26 -95. Building A shell permit submitted 4- 12 -95, issued 8- 18 -95. Building BCD shell permit submitted 4- 12 -95, issued 8- 18 -95. .... ............................... A.Petsmart B95 -0289 M95 -0170 m 965<ptNiltedfr €DC.D >`: #:x'2496 Building permit submitted 9 -1 -95; DCD request for clarification 10- 24-95; request for corrections to HVAC screening 11 -8 -95; approved 11- 21 -95. HVAC permit submitted 10- 16 -95; DCD hold for HVAC screening; approved 11 -21- 95. D.Sports Authority B95 -0291 Building permit submitted 9 -1 -95; DCD request for clarification 10- 23 -95; DCD request for additional clarification re: HVAC screening 11- 14 -95; approved 11- 22 -95. M95 -0173 HVAC permit submitted 10- 19 -95; DCD hold tor HVAC screening; approved 11 -22- 95. C1.Office Max B95 -0338 M95 -0192 M95 -0207 Building permit submitted 10 -3 -95, DCD request for clarification & HVAC screening 11 -15- 95; approved 11- 29 -95. HVAC permit submitted 11- 29 -95; approved 11- 29 -95. Mechanical permit submitted 12- 11 -95; approved 1 -4-96. C2.Borders B95 -0384 Building permit submitted 11 -9 -95; approved 1 -4 -96. M95 -0207 Mechanical permit submitted 12- 11 -95; approved 1 -4 -96. Bilnen'n'Things B95 -0419 Building permit submitted 12- 18 -95; approved 1- 25 -96. M95 -0214 Mechanical permit submitted 12- 18 -95; approved 1- 24 -96. M95 -0207 Mechanical permit submitted 12- 11 -95; approved 1 -4 -96. Sign permits /actions: S95 -096 Pole sign and clock submitted 12 -8 -95; pole sign approved returned for more information (see planning actions). E .0003 > <> < St. r durst::: rmlt>far::: ote'sr g n subnntted 1 «2.96 lssu ed< t' 6 S95 -080 Sports Authority sign submitted 10- 19 -95, approved 10- 24 -95. rifprse a...,. martsE n:;em1:s..bted:Dr6»9! s' '895 i19D' < <' ;< tsrctaft. i n:subr i . in DCD 12- 28 -95; clock 1ifttl triS S95 -096 S95 -099 S95 -100 Office Max submitted 12- 11 -95; approved 12- 28 -95. Borders wall sign submitted 12- 22 -95; approved 1 -8 -96. Borders 2nd wall sign submitted 12- 22 -95; denied 1 -8 -96. revisF To: From: Subject: Date: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Board of Architectural Review Jack Pace Parkway Place Revisions March 23, 1995 When the Board of Architectural Review approved this project on December 15, 1994, they gave DCD staff the authority to administratively approve certain refinements to the design (see attached "Conditions of Approval "). Accordingly, staff has worked with the applicant in several areas. The following is a description of changes that have been made, for your information. Site design: 1. The major change in the proposal, which has driven changes to the site design, is an increase in tenants from a total of four to a total of five in two buildings. This has resulted in an overall increase of 8,466 square feet of floor area in the development. It has resulted in an increase of 28 parking stalls. 2. The location of the loading docks on Building A has been changed from the northwest corner of the building to the southeast corner of the building. Overall truck circulation has not been significantly altered. This loading dock will be partially screened from public view by the corner of Building A, the Levitz Furniture warehouse, and landscaping. 3. The site (buildings and parking areas) has been slightly reconfigured due to the change in tenants. Building A is smaller than originally proposed, and Building C, which was originally 42,000 square feet, now serves two tenants (one with a mezzanine) and totals 53,000 square feet. Parking has been added in front of Buildings A and C, so that all tenant spaces now have parking directly in front. Pedestrian circulation on the site remains the same. Building design: 1. The additional tenant space in Building C has necessitated a reconfiguration of the entries. There are now two entries that flank the middle archway, rather than one 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 entry appearing within the archway. The overall design.concept, however, remains similar to what was approved by the Board. The middle archway is now detailed in a way that repeats design motifs from the cornice, and landscape planters and a seating area occurs under the archway. Landscaping: 1. Additional landscaping has been added along the facades of the buildings, per Item 8 of the Conditions of Approval. As a result, the pedestrian wallldng along the building facade is under the arcade, rather than under the arcade and next to the driveway. Staff will make the suggestion that landscapin not preclude access from the parking area to the sidewalk. 2. The planting area that was originally proposed in the far south corner of the site is now used for parking. It was not, however, a required landscaped area. A wetland buffer will be provided west of this area, as required by code, to buffer the existing wetland. Attachments: 12 -15 -94 design drawings 12 -15 -94 Conditions of Approval cc: Howard Turner Turner & Associates Roy Bennion Park Place Associates MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for this project is appropriate, as no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment can be foreseen as a result of this project. The following mitigation measures are required as a part of this project: 1. New easements must be provided and recorded for storm, water and sewer lines that are for public or mutual use. New easements must be provided for all utilities that are relocated in conjunction with this project. New easements must include abandonment of existing easements where applicable. 2. The peer review consultant retained by the City, Shannon & Wilson, reviewed the geotechnical report for the project. Specific recommendations by Shannon & Wilson with respect to wall design for hillside stability will be followed in conjunction with applicable permits. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of a tied -back soldier pile wall, three -foot minimum freeboard, and concrete facing over wood lagging on the wall (verbal recommendation from Paul Grant, 11- 29 -94). 3. The conditions established by the City Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schulz, and documented in his letter of November 28, 1994, will be followed with respect to implementation of the City tree regulations (TMC 18.54) and Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) in conjunction with applicable permits. 4. Storm water drainage will be accommodated per recommendation of the City Department of Public Works. 5. The transit stop and shelter adjacent to the project must be retained. 6. The ability to comply with City noise and nuisance ordinances (TMC 8.22 and 8.28) must be demonstrated for planned grading, demolition, crushing and construction activities. 7. The ability to comply with City ordinances governing asbestos removal must demonstrated for planned asbestos removal. 8. It must be demonstrated that construction of the new 48" storm sewer will not undermine the stability of the retaining wall in conjunction with applicable permits. 5 PARKING ANALYSIS REQUIRED 155,115 SF CO 4.5/1000 = 698 STALLS PROVIDED STANDARDS = 484 COMPACTS = 202 (29%) HANDICAPS = 16 = 702 STALLS TOTAL ---.-,-:Tri, --T" ORETAti• WALL ELEVATION . • OisM F CYQ i G t EV TOOO �f'4�' f °ro's"'"y :r.. `1 ' 1ti `\ • ( ,1 t 11 ,sj •11 it `'\it 0- `o` 4 4 4 4 4¶ 4 4 Qom\ .. ..► t i •\ i • \ • • • G. -L` I 1--.-1----.::- '_= I _�1T_.: 1 1 -u --_t�_-1 1-- 1 1 1 -t __ .::__-1) I 1' I- I 1 \1 1\ \-.- r1-4- --r----t--r---N.--1-•- 1�la '. t` J U1 /L J--1, T I I • I.. r „_T- - \i 1 .I', 1 1 1 L./Ca :— `- I-1 I I --1---I--+--1----- 1 1 .1� I I I /! 1 1 I 1 1 1 I <7'1- - 1 1 1 I 1-- 1 1 - 1 Imo' 1 � I - -- -- -- -- -"=1-- • • A 'W RETAIL 29,998 z.� W RETAIL 40,045 • • NEW RETAIL 42,045 D NEW RETAIL 43,027 TOTAL NEW 155,115 • • • \ E EXISTING AZTECA RESTAURANT F EXISTING WINNERS RESTAURANT G EXISTING LEVITZ FURNITURE H EXISTING HERITAGE FUNITURE • • • • MAL F(SCFYTQN ass. ra.V•os. V• ss -o- ave �•* A.iFs.zrmn:"±: y"•�. o..vsA>•rta.•c: r.. ima.<..s.a c..s roc. n.:a.r "xt;t%a, s xoo .a�rt.c sivrt ast.t •s•a _IfaurtrmL .q yrtwayy =Xs TA WSJ rt14. qVx m.U.r [wo rrt rc oP ,x tw 4•m••.x rf 1-10-�1h SSW M}f�ao.'O.im.M1. sns. ,I c•Iw. ua lv e..uiw.sn... r.im •>a.v N•4 STY LA./ .14 La MSS .1A1PHi PARKWAY PLACE RETAIL CENTER 17501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA. ATTACHMENT B ,arcs 20•C - C-2 ROOM. RIA& PARKWAY PLACE TURNER AND ASSOCIATES ARCNItCIS SITE PLAN PAWS/AS RACE. TUMIA ni be�. cc/a r:10 REVISIONS SNEIT Al C��E.LI PPA[ o ate. MOTES g.+.cfia w 1 w . pEww..'W( S . Shrel1�Cf CVO( tE� .BS's. IwS.nits, CS . ESOM0 '.'affil[ C,C TURNER ANO ASSOCIATES sayeacnncn NM 0..s... •..m.a.r SHEET A2 ATTACHMENT C GanNiVATCaN 0LESJ.givATION hill 01,61)-1 0avalL,EVA V.C......4.1.151SO oft14.51) EAST ELEMILO , • • / / JJ t)ENLARG,4.0 SCIEWALK PAIN •-4 NOTE 0 bh• 11,.....41-Zt0.10.r01%) 0 TN UPI EED) Di . arm.« wax( • ....MD C0005 5 •SINfltTCtflO P115.104 5.0EP O . Spy, PH, COOVC • . 0K5C3..5.10l5 COC. PARKWAY PLACE TWINER AND ASSOCIATES A5001ICTS moms use ELEVATIONS PARKWAY KAM. ?LIPKA 1.4 .o.ti 1101190011 EMIT A2S ATTACHMENT D L... so s• .... pp..; ' t- 01,61)-1 0avalL,EVA V.C......4.1.151SO oft14.51) EAST ELEMILO , • • / / JJ t)ENLARG,4.0 SCIEWALK PAIN •-4 NOTE 0 bh• 11,.....41-Zt0.10.r01%) 0 TN UPI EED) Di . arm.« wax( • ....MD C0005 5 •SINfltTCtflO P115.104 5.0EP O . Spy, PH, COOVC • . 0K5C3..5.10l5 COC. PARKWAY PLACE TWINER AND ASSOCIATES A5001ICTS moms use ELEVATIONS PARKWAY KAM. ?LIPKA 1.4 .o.ti 1101190011 EMIT A2S ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT E 1 f 01S5j. FJVATCN 4, c� 4 � m... (:)22TH•€T�VATGN o.... 4 4T ON SQUTHLEVATC 4, OE0.A.IgD EAST ELEVATCN - BLIOW A 0E%, . EAST ELEVATCN - allots 89 p NOTES Q rtiINSS) Qr Y.-11041 m.on somnN anal • . K[.Ir.. Ino. Ea KvuK P • • MDCIC (MOOS IcuA1w PVC. n • S&s. na. anaart Ct • 10= •ZPIGAIE NDC PARKWAY PLACE TEMNES AND ASSOCIATES `Yurobe... .. AACMIECT! .0 P.I,rw. ... ao►.r ELEVATIONS PARKWAY PLACE. EOMEA R.( ▪ o• no YS +'9ti` IEYIVONS SNLET A3S ATTACHMENT' F L WPM PAEL LOWER PANEL PROVOS (2) CO SF FA(S EACH SCE 501J01 SCA; SCUP, FACE; LEPER PAWL TENANT C LOVER PAEL TENANT 0 NOUN FACE: IPPER PAEL TENANT A LOA(R PAEL TENANT 9 PORN SCH SOUTH PACE; IPPER PAM. TENANT B LOAiR PAIWL TENANT A ACTON FACE: IPF B PAA TENANT 0 LOWER PATEL TENANT C I - 1 OffEESTArDnUC SY3U PROVOS (2) SETtS. c.AVrra NAL TON O NTRY OF : _ OW — OETyANIS WALL SECUTION /`/ u ®CTOI A o..,.... un u..�aN ll yf..4 to. 1-4.1 Io.�.. vc.t.UA TA,vim... u =TT TiCN B o-w•.w...n..c .•' l Q51.ttoETAL - ELENA CV. I v u OSECTONrC Vf-r Ii PARKWAY PLACE TURNER AND ASSOCIATES NO.EICIS Taw. /YD. M.A. SITE ILAN PAACCAT FLA(. TIAO.LA ..U. .® Olaf,>a 14.1 .j.M REVISIONS -n.91 a SHEET A4 ATTACHMENT G AREA CALCULATIONS 1. Existing Sini Ansa Tot* S.M..* 500. Am. Tote. hion.S•Arl.ft Sky* Landeeme 44.4 TOTAL EAIST.W.; CANOPY — AI 4l4 41.1 0. 040P00.d Action An. go 00 Aeenoftel hem Senseuft Slope Ate& Aft. 10 00 Remo* hem leen.Seesenne S.nn• Aft. TOTAL AREA TOSE ILLATOVED 676.0.0.1. 153.347 0.1. -ALIO • I. 262.1541. 25.752 0.1. —5105 cl. 75.157 cc Total Provided Canopy Onoo onvo•vo tanAccapno 105.562 If 000104 .100.0,1044.4 fteeftuonl —121.4% of Iwo. Owl NY PLAITTNG @ RETAINING WALL ellsin0•1111PLAATIKSellORAZ 0 0 0 0 — • — ••••••••••••••••.• 00 • c • v4 leeTOPOOM ftAeft e womar.".411,•• • lig' • INAS' 11.....40eana Arc.s.e.ssee•• •••••••1•••• PARK VAY PLACE TIAMEIL 4140 ASSOCIATES •••••••.• ••.1. cunI nae-ve .ft (301 ne...nse t• 21.2,1 - .•••••••••••• 6.0+ 7:0 SIT PL AN Tslt Penni-nen. eAlftICACIL (*TAR TREE PRICANG GLIDE REvISIONS SHCET L-1 • 2 ATTACHMENT K I : II. 1! ; . !' I ; 1! I I 11 ! f April 27, 1995 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Re Parkway Place Dear Howard: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director I reviewed your design revisions that were submitted on April 25, 1995 with Jack Pace. Our decision on the changes in facade treatment for Buildings A and C was that the changes were not in keeping with the design concept approved by the Board of Architectural Review. The requests are therefore denied. We did agree that the placement of mechanical equipment on Building A appeared to be acceptable. Our decision on facade changes is based on the fact that the Board of Architectural Review approved a design concept for the buildings in which the entry porticoes for tenant spaces relieved the overall length of the building by providing a sense of hierarchy, rhythm and variety to the facade. The cumulative changes that have been made and are suggested for the facade are counter to this concept. In addition, because a strongly symmetrical design motif has been chosen for the buildings, it is not appropriate to begin to introduce asymmetrical elements within the overall design concept that have an 'arbitrary' appearance and are not in keeping with the overall design concept. Jack agreed with me that, except for informing signage designers of code requirements and advising them about the process of sign approval for this project, it was not appropriate to review sign permits for individual tenants at this time. Sign proposals will be reviewed at one time, when the submittal is made to take the signage proposals back to the Board of Architectural Review. Sincerely, Diana Painter, AICP 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 cc Roy Bennion Michael Woodland Jack Pace .. -. , April 4, 1995 City of Tukwvila Department of Community Development John W. Rants, Mayor Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th-Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Re: Parkway Place Dear Howard: Steve Lancaster, Director This is to follow up on our conversation last week on design issues identified .on the most recent Board of Architectural Review (BAR) drawings (March 16, 1995) for Parkway Place (see fax dated 3- 23 -95). 1. Screening of loading dock From our conversation about the loading dock on Building -A, it appears as though this will_ not be a .problem and screening of the dock as viewed from the public street will be adequate. I agree with you in saying that removal of the landscaping should be checked 'on the ground' before the contractor proceeds.. 2. - Right hand turn lane (exit lane southbound onto .Southcenter Parkway) You said you'd check into the possibility of opening up the 'back'- of-the bus turn -out so that it could also function as a merge lane for the right hand turns out of the site. 3. Crosswalk at entrance. drive . This is a BAR, condition, and needs to be provided. 4. Central plant & 'sidewalk apron at Building C We think it would be an improvement here to pull the planting area back from the sidewalk so that pedestrian could pass from the parking area to the sidewalk without either walking in traffic or trampling the landscaping (see sketch). It might also be an improvement to raise this bed slightly to keep people from wallcing . over the corner of it. . 5. 60' no -build easement • .. • I understand you discussed this with Duane. Ifyouu change the location and design . of the' trash collection area, we need to see this to make sure -it- still meets requirements for screening.. .. .. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 :. Please note that all agreed-to - changes should appear on the appropriate drawings. We'll send, minutes of .the Planning Commission meeting in which.the most recent changes to the BAR submittal were discussed to you when they're ready..' We are currently reviewing civil engineering drawings, the tree permit drawings, landscape drawings, etc.;- and will forward comments when this review is complete. Sincerely, Diana Painter-. Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Duane Griffin — Ron Cameron • Michael Woodland Joanna Spencer Jack Pace Attachments bUILUINU LU • SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REF: 1/A2.2 PILASTER . BUILDING C SIDEWALK PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REF: 1/A2.2 I z x' GL- ;o at so d oto k ''` ,� mutat. p°� vu-- /1� .tyvw i /.lSo W ivutimiliY&AGe pabUto. Pc( late (in fitStvvid -2koro PLASTEI -i -1.1-1 - oPOW Landscape Architecture March 14, 1995 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 ATTN: Diana Painter, DCD Associate Planner RE: Park Place Retail Center Dear Ms. Painter: s- 00(e, De-514--m' ,ez RECEIVED - CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER Enclosed you'll find five (5) landscape development drawings and two (2) landscape tree replacement plans for your review. A description of each drawing is provided to clarify any questions about design intent. D Sheet L -1, Landscape Plan, is a comprehensive plan illustrating plant type, size and location. The site's existing parking lot trees were retained where feasible; unfortunately, the city's requirement of re- paving and re- configuration of the parking lot has eliminated some trees. The store frontage . has been softened with the additional landscape area incorporating Alaska Weeping Cedar and Birch trees with rhododendrons underlying the tree canopy. A more formal and bold statement has been created with the addition of ten (10) concrete (4'x4'x31/2') planters. These planters are to be installed with four (4) "Coral Beauty" cotoneaster and one (1) columnar flower cherry. All the plant material sized adjacent the building has been increased above industry standards to provide a more immediate effect. The site's southern boundary has been adjusted to enhance security by thinning out the existing cedar hedge. Pedestrian access has been added between the subject property and Levitz furniture. Additional landscape buffering has also been provided between the restaurant at the site's northeast corner and the subject property. 6 o 0 Main Street Suite D, Edmonds, Washington 9 8 0 2 0 (206) 776-4932 (Fax) 774 -7803 Page 2 - City of Tukwila, Diana Painter re Park Place Retail Center - 3 -14 -95 Sheet L -2, Landscape Details Sheet, has been provided for construction purposes and clarification for city review of proposed action. Besides standard planting details, pruning of both deciduous and evergreen trees are provided. A wood headerboard detail and tree protection barricade detail have been provided as well. Note two other site specific details have been provided; existing concrete planter detail and replacement tree planting detail. Sheet L -3, Irrigation Plan, and Sheet L -4, Irrigation Details, have been included for verification of plant watering. Sheet L -5, Enlarged Plans (Landscape), has been drafted to clarify both the store frontage landscape and the wetland buffer planting. Both the buffer width and site - specific planting considerations have been addressed in this enlarged plan. Comments and concerns of Gary Schultz have been addressed in this plan. The next two drawings, LTR -1 and LTR -2, are plans generated to comply with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO, #1599) and the Interim Tree Ordinance ( #1715). Sheet LTR -1 deals with the tree removal of existing trees during the year of 1994. Sheet LTR -2 involves itself with the proposed tree removal required for the new retail center development. Sheet LTR -1, Landscape Tree Replacement Plan -1994, is a response to the geotechnical work on the site. An approximate 15' wide bench adjacent the site's developed west area had been cleared to enable soil boring equipment to provide needed testing. This linear strip recorded existing type, size, and location of removed trees. The city's planning staff had determined that the geotechnical work involved an area too small to apply the canopy method. Therefore, the caliper method for tree replacement was applied. Specifically, a graph has been supplied on the LTR -1 sheet showing type, size category, and quantity of existing trees and resultant tree count. Sheet LTR -2, Landscape Tree Replacement Plan -1995, has been developed to comply with the proposed tree removal in the "Sensitive Slope" areas and has employed the tree canopy method as its methodology. The area of tree removal has,been calculated at 25,752 s.f. The resultant tree requirement is 82 trees (314 trees/tree canopy removed). The "Tree Canopy" method has been used because the site meets the minimum canopy cover of at least 20 %. (Actual calculations: 140,265 s.f. previous west slope area is 20.72% of the total site area; 676,948 s.f.) Both plans are to install two- to four -year old seedlings for forest enhancement planting in an upland area near the site's overall southwest corner. Note this was as per Gary Schultz, Urban Environmentalist's memorandum comments dated November 28, 1994. Page 3 - City of Tukwila, Diana Painter re Park Place Retail Center 3 -14 -95 I hope that this letter clarifies the information communicated on the plans. If you should have any additional questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, T. Shawn Parsons, R.L.A. #307 Principal Landscape Architect cc: Roy Bennion, Park Place Partners Howard Turner, Turner & Associates • fCKa !a'Yi.a..-. W v 0 N a L k LANDSCAPING TR OBLDG. C - ENTRY 1 SCALE: f'=30'-0' LANDSCAPNG NTR LANDSCAPING PROJECT: PARKPLACE DATE: 2/8/95 TURNER & ASSOCIATES SCALE: 1" = 3D'-0" TO: DIANA PAN7ER FAX: 431-3665 18420 24th Place N.E. Seattle WA 98155 ARCHITECTS TEL: (206) 365-7431 FAX: (206) 365-7504 SKETCH 1 001 Turner & Associates 2063657504 0 • • / P.01 «0 -.00Z - «l 91VDS S6 /£/Z :31114 ,!:.1Z4n;r l£PL 59£ (90Z) $'OSL 59£ (90Z) SID311HDIN AVA012IVd 1131N3D HIf1QS LOSLL 3DVld )I21dd W k Nr Z0 �atid T0'd b0SZS9£903 NOnNO 21dV1 8bEEZ89E ©S 50!055W 8 .+au 1ny L tdOlgA3CB , r„n nAl Uo c66t Nvr A 13 0 El rani Zs :80 966t11.t /td City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director February 10; 1995. Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 Re Parkway Place Dear Howard: This is to follow up on our conversation on Thursday, February 9, 1995. I spoke with Jack Pace about reviewing changes from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved design for Parkway Place. He said the appropriate procedure is to write a letter detailing changes from the approved design and reasons for the changes, submit it along with revised drawings, and DCD will make a determination as to whether the changes are significant enough to require a review by the Board. This is to keep the process efficient for you and us, and to allow us to review the impact of incremental changes against the approved design at one point in time. As we discussed yesterday, we can either review all changes when the drawings come in for building permit - which we do as a matter of course - or you can make all your changes at the level of detail of the BAR drawings, submit them with a written request for review as mentioned above, and we will review them before you submit for building permits. Please leave adequate time for this review. In general, Jack thought you were going in the right direction in your most recent revision of the building facade. Please note that, according to BAR conditions, we need to review the landscape plan revisions and discuss them before building permit drawings are submitted. We also need to review detailing on the facade. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Roy Bennion Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director NOTICE OF DECISION January 4, 199, Mr. Howard Turner Turner & Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, Washington 98155 Dear Howard: This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved the Parkway Place project (File L94 -0084) at their December 15, 1994 meeting with the conditions noted in the attachment. The BAR also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report dated December 9, 1994. Any changes to the specific design approved by the BAR will require further BAR approval. Minor, incidental changes may be administratively approved by the Director of Community Development. The appeal period for the BAR decision was fulfilled as of January 1, 1995. Since no appeal of the Board's decision was filed by that date, the decision is final. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner cc Mr. Michael Sandorffy Mr. Roy Bennion 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 41313665 ATTACHMENT A Conditions of Approval Site design: 1. SEPA conditions stipulate that the retaining wall be concrete in whole or in part, for long -term maintenance purposes. Design details of this wall will undergo peer review and staff approval, including the use of materials, finishes, landscape treatment, and any safety features that might be required. Final wall design will include ivy plantings to eventually cover the entire wall. 2. Staff will review the screening of trash and recycling areas prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that this area is adequate in size, and screened in a manner that complements the overall design of the project. 3. Staff will review the screening at the loading area in the northwest corner of the site to ensure that it is adequately screened, and does not pose a safety hazard for pedestrians. 4. For safety and circulation purposes, a crosswalk shall be installed across the main entrance drive at Southcenter Parkway. Building design: 5. Final building colors will be as shown on the detail drawing A2. Detailed sign design will be brought before the Planning Commission for final approval. 6. The exterior lighting scheme will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that lighting is adequate for safety purposes, does not interfere with other businesses in the vicinity, and complements architectural and site design. 7. Staff will review architectural detailing of the building prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure that the materials support the overall architectural concept. This may include, but is not limited to, the detialing of the finishes of the columns, the planter areas of the building facade, materials of window mullions, and finishes. Landscaping: 8. Given the large scale of the buildings and portico elements, as well as the formal architectural vocabulary that has been employed, a more formal and bold statement might be made in the landscaped areas along the building facades so that these planters are not undermined by the architecture. Suggestions include the use of more formal - appearing plant materials, hardscape, and site and /or pedestrian amenities. 9. In order to ensure that plant materials present a sufficiently strong element against the building facade, and that there is a clear focal point at the end of the entry drive. specimen trees of a substantial size (15' is recommended) are recommended for the planters flanking the primary entrance of the main building complex. 10. It is recommended that an attempt be made to save significant trees on the site for use as specimen trees in the landscape scheme. 11. To ensure the survival of the existing London plane trees flanking the secondary access drive just south of the Azteca restaurant, a protection barrier consisting of six (6) foot high chain link fence should encircle each tree five (5) feet outside of the dripline during construction. This is in place of the protective tree barrier shown on landscape drawings. w AVM>121Vd EXISTING HERITAGE FUNITURE ZIIA31 DNIISIX3 3 ilh1INbl3 Sb3NNIM DNIISIX3 iNV2ifV1S32J m EXISTING AZTECA RESTAURANT M3N 1V1Ol z z z m m m m 70 A A 70 m rn m rn -� -I -I -1 >>>> PPP F A A 4a N co N O r0 o o 0 0 N A A c0 v yr vn 0o / n, • / \ \ / \ / '\ \ / '\ \ / \ \ 11118111 \ / Ul 0 2131N3DH1f1OS AVMN21Vd I /. I' 1 p. I I / 1 11 1 ..1.n....1. 11 1 1 -1- - 1:; '_L--1,..:...--I--b_ 1 IT i 1 1 (1 1 IW'.1 1 k 1 -- + - - H - -I - - -I-kt- - I 1 1 I I� 1 1 1 It : 1 1 1 1 4' r; �I 1 1 1 70 m O 0 O A ✓ o cg cg N y D T O D +� 70 in • O co O • -I 0 D r Sl1VJS ZOL = SdVDIQNVH II a SIDVdWOD ( %6Z) ZOZ = S11VIS 869 = SISA1VNV DNINHVd \ I � 1 , 1 13 , I I µ a .. II r-- --- 1_I • I I :l _._ 1 1l■ I I +1 I' • ( \WJJ� 11111111 • WI I I I • 1 Y W Iil - e- ��y - -Lj� Y I \1 w\I 1V 1_L11 1 �,� �1 1 I 7. 111 1' :.\ • \ ■ 11•1 1\ i\ 1 11, 1 I 11 1, 1 1 2 ilk A m g el h M t 4 1 c A 0 3DVld AVMXMVd seQ 1.-2 T 1 t A A9 9. p Al a 11 g le Ai 5 yJi t1 MryJ g i a) AVMN21dd rn r n rn Z m (V� V 1 0 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA. =n m m X X Z Z nn m --1 N 31Jl1INf13 3JV111J3H 311f11IN11f13 -n m S1I3NNIM DNI1SIX3 1NV1Jf1V1S311 1NV1If1V1S311 VD3IZV DNI1SIX3 M3N 1VIO1 0 Y. • > 2 Z Z m m m m A A A A m m m m -I-1 -i > > > > r^F 1=F A A A N N 0 tD O O N A A t0 V to to Co 11 ,\ • • /mil WWI l —I 0 D 1 Sl1VIS ZOL = SdVJIONVH SIJVdWO7 O3OIAOMd SOSVONVIS N A N SLI•SSI O3MIrIb31I N T S11V1S 969 = 0001 /S3' SISA1VNV DNIN iVd 1 1 1 1 1 \;". \Jam% = =3 5 „ie rtlx? a5 a^=• 1 11\ i a q$anry ra�air5�,s 1 1 11 AM4tNkiittePP v 1 \111 C,x..M It ri .i. —it u — -.• — _• S I: i; <$ A E x,BIEY ,,; 4'ii95u 1, m `' 9 2 B 4 A M li 1 R to M aN Ss .,> a PARKWAY PLACE e. -I t t N FI 0 N r r �� 9g' ti A$11 b gg t4gig6Sl ¢ ;1 d I C n A F S I: i; tilr 1- .th CINITY MAP wo _ REET MAP H �.� 1�1 • �Y- h-� —O —o —o — o —o — o —o —0 — 0 iV �� 6 gala t ELEVATIONS PNMNAY PLACE. TUMLA 8i !� i g PARKWAY PLACE I �2t O � �a OP O � O # 0 O al 7 o �� a� 3 II 0 �,6, �i BIZ i -0 -o - 0 -o -0 -0 -0 1' -0 -0 -0 - 0 -0 -0 - 0 N bF ° ELEVATIONS PARIfAAT RACE. TUIMLA V �� PARKWAY PLACE O ��& A, O 111 O si O 1,1 O N .x. 0 al �e 0 a R t Y g 1 rn P 2 C NO m 1 R MN 1 11„ , „, EEEV ATWNS PARTWAY PLACE. TU•U R 11 CR + Q M - PARKWAY PLACE V "It § 19e €& � T 4g Og •r ,; ?� ri 13 ( -o -O —O EEEV ATWNS PARTWAY PLACE. TU•U R 11 CR + Q M . PARKWAY PLACE V "It § 19e €& T 4g Og 9v ,; ?� ri 13 QA p H C I - —J -0 { 1 I ill is Ek i =J i° i0i. ELEVATIONS PARKWAY PALE, T{NWLA i g i i M g is 1 (TURNER AND ASSOCIATES( ti �1 I . i O I 4�g �I�xA 0 e p O 4 # g 4! mow ri g A� 0 at 1 ii, ,,, . II__ I II —0 3= -0 w- --0 -0 3= W i i i° i0i. ELEVATIONS PARKWAY PALE, T{NWLA i g i i M g is 1 (TURNER AND ASSOCIATES( (PARKWAY PLACE 1 " O I 4�g �I�xA 0 e p O 4 # g 4! ri g A� 0 at 1 © ae �� 0 4 gg 5$y 0 t 9s RAC 3 I: g M' RIA 4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrururrrrrurrrrrrrrrrrurrrrrrrwr i z it tip • son 4 213 P —0 —0 11 11 no >m m> on �^ 4 1• x •`tje (1 ill zt •• r € C�3p��� n'm:Ill s F t M w 1 aN > o > PARKWAY PLACE, a 4> 4 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrururrrrrurrrrrrrrrrrurrrrrrrwr i z it tip • son 4 213 P —0 —0 11 11 no >m m> on �^ 4 1• x El $ r € C�3p��� n'm:Ill s F t M w 1 aN > o > PARKWAY PLACE, a N.I'3.�41:.ia • !lir / )1 IN3WH3VJ_LV 1 1N3WH3VllV a009)0choloi lot i"1 flit!! pits . prisii . ! 11! 11111: t fiita 1 f ri It I NI I I tr I 1 I. 114 1 1 \ .it Nil l• ti. 1 ; 0 t ' \ 1 :1 ' *if?! • Ar 4n. ■ „*.,„. '"4, , ... J ....: 4..77. ...74.....lir -/..‘.. s, .t,07:f.Z.:..":•:-.72:::..),I.,.... ... ..Tr A... op op -Xj.. \ 1.; '''.4 ;-A.:---6--. r,•,t4g.'";:-- .1.- • -- - --,....--„..._:•----,:-.........77:711.1:-.1;./11,1-7.7,. ,..,..„—,.....).7-4-,.,;f:..;,..s,,,...1,!----,-, , .5 •i„ .....-. . • F,k ..,,;. \-. - --. ----m- - . -1-....Z.--. .. ---... • ■•-■•-•.---,-...,,..7•41/. -.' laRa....:•=■; - / ".■%ii 0 ” '........."." ''''.. • , ,', t i .-.„ \,..„ .!'l-k,•` ir,,,,, . It -- - • -- '=. - •-•-.2-,/00. / , i .. , ..1•,: •0:r. • ..Ar / . ,,:. ' , A. I' ...: , .e.t ;:••••12%00 \. ' .....,:.41. . . ....- a \ ‘): 1 • • • r -"?..i.." \ \ \ •••••••/.1,. ../ t: ',.Z...,1::' i .lik,-,* 4,...• ---""fiS , ....n. --. -- . 7 .4=7.7. ';‘..1'. ...I.Ii„ k■.- c... , N.6° \,\\),„,..,, , 11.0.r.--oi. e. \ % /.. ../..-- ,./ ., .L.. 4.q1.\'''''''' 0 0C. ..(4) tt- , 10 `Z ..4411 ■•••. AK oft. .D6 I 1 ,.. ti. .1 1, ■••• \ ', .e. W G... VI. ...1 re:11 ' N 1 \ C.': .., h, • 1itc,==4,..=nt.,==4,11,1‘ , li I s.e..): il NI <„,,7 irip,Nr•Sti"F.!nrzr!... 1,.• l'':''''.1,1 hl "‘• .". S1 . '14 • '0 \ Er .1tt ,„. \i 1 •NAi,.l A . ."-. ' - t; ".. . -.... . • \ • 6 , .., , .., 1,A __.. A . u • 1 , , 1,,. , 1 Ix f,. 1. • I ( 'I, • ; 14. 1,1 0 % 4 2 • k irditti III it it tt ,,, illi :gill: qi 1;1 it Pi !lilt!! 'II 1 Vii\\ ql Pt ii 4‘ 4.„ th i; ki ,iii I' \f; IP 191111 f Pill, i *a LS' A i 12 S11VOOSSV ONV 73N7fU t N ' ■ : 1, ; • . \ ''':,/ , It • ,...”4.1 "OW., .1' '". ..=.. I kt.-4 s .. 1-74-""'—' — 1 1 k •:- 1, ..0., If 1-- .1 • , • - • ......,.. ..--':.,1 z' \‘‘ s 1%••••• ' • .......•c•-•• t.. = . ,..'.............1/...,..i ' ...-•' N. k., i 1 ,•,! .,....,,,..... .---':*---- 1.--..''' 11 ;"- l'41._•?.., . II 1 .:,- • ;•.•:•. ,,,,A?•■,: • 4f///;..r.:.., • .1g.f1131:1( '12,1:ii://....1::::.\E:..'' 11 \--.I.........-':It.' 11 • \ ` i• ... ......., .1 II 1 ..'11.` j .11111 / ,-.-7-: .111 1 1)11 111 I 1I /,------...77--_:; 411 i ALL: !III \ •11.111111/1;12.- .1. 1 '1,11 11 t1 11 :11111 0 11:1 .:'• ...1111 14 i 111 S 1 111 11 i. 11 :" I 1:1, 1 l'it LI 1 1 11N1 1 1 I:I I : . '11 11 111111 \ k.I.%-.7;:-. A 1 I \ \ ‘ \ • \'',' :1 \ \.":::::::::::,=. ,, \ ‘ , \,■;::::-.,::::;,--5,....:?.....- ■::., , •' ■ ,,/,‘,....----...--...---, ''' . • / ''441.4111111190 14 il 1 ;Ilk 11 i 1 ii "N • . . n i P § 33Vld AVMJI21Vd At O lal CIA L — r.- —o —0 —o --0 -o -0 —0 —0 —0 —0 — 0 } @mQ?�e�o, p R 3 a��SirPM 4 q 7 < I y g II y li d- I 1 (TURNER AND ASSOCIATES( (PARKWAY PLACEI A� �9� a a (yAG [Yf,:u Qp U�.JI �$oy�Qy ; ��^� 9 Q rf, Ii 0g 1,1 ti Y e�J �7 0e E 663 y r : m FIR J FAR 7••7 I/ r.� rr •t rr 12 ci..) i a gian !! e 1ELEVATIONS P/A(WAY PIXE. TIXM A R I il i t IF a J PARKWAY PLACE u� "e d a O i48 10 a 0 g P L_-1 0 " 11 O 4 L © 6 i O " 21 O li 111111W .. 0 1.11 rr •t rr 12 ci..) i a gian !! e 1ELEVATIONS P/A(WAY PIXE. TIXM A R I il i t IF a 1 `TURNER AND ASSOCIATES` PARKWAY PLACE u� "e d a O i48 10 a 0 g P 0 li 0 " 11 O 4 L © 6 i O " 21 O li 0 • --o ..---- —0 SI� 3 3-r —o —0 —0 —0 --0 3T = w CA T I is ?j Ei F�tlI $3i�il ; ELEVATIONS PAWPAW PLACE. TU(M'LA ii i t PARKWAY PLACE 1/151 O � � °� 1 O �' O $O O' "1 aO3 4 +J L -] a0 ti ! O y° 11 g ( a ,'i D P L • --o ..---- —0 SI� 3 3-r —o —0 —0 —0 --0 3T = w CA Ei F�tlI $3i�il ; ELEVATIONS PAWPAW PLACE. TU(M'LA d i 1 e / 1 M !TURNER AND ASSOCIATES1 PARKWAY PLACE 1/151 O � � °� 1 O �' O $O O' "1 aO3 4 +J a0 ti ! O y° 11 g ( a 1 ;; a a 4Ii 1 ; i ft --o mftuulalf 6 T > ill • ,.... ,. �3q0 1 • - t if B 1 -- - - -- ., •r 0 Q i ;; a a 4Ii 1 ; i ft --o mftuulalf 6 T > ti �3q0 1 • SITE PLAN PAfdCWAY PLACE, TIXWLA t if B 1 ITURNER AND ASSOCIATESI (PARKWAY PLACE1 L i1 11E1'1 ,1111 itfif 1E11i Ii Ii4(t +iifl(tf Eljltl� ,f E11 t� 1 EII f11 i (1 I(iFl�l� �� 11111 ilir 1 `ffE11111 11 f!111111 t ;; ! r �l >a 7 1Y 1:11 1 i t 1 1 .t ; . i :.a 14.7" .i 1 I E I ` I 1 111 t`E; 111 j }[I 1111 1lE'1 1 1 4444 rfotk. !Ce \ \ .. \ Ars 0 • 0 . 0 tl�IlR19 ,p ia�1!` - f111 '1q4A.yl i .�.' 11 1 trios gyp I p �_ •� 0 41 1 m N r a tw._JfO R DOa. $.00U G •oPbo./ 131il i 1.1 i1�111�� i 1 .if• 1111i1i} I}! 1 } 11 t 1 l • }1111 1 iii • 3 i % 1 9 f I i 111 {;{Ills I ?alYill; 1 {1= I ■• .9r ■ 1 5 I ?_ / / /`.. //% •) f) 11� (1, / \ \ \\I\ l a I j l �.11:111 Pl % �•• _ 11:1711://::::.:11.:‘. 1 Iq� /_�_,T ! _ 11)t�;111) 11 j I / �__: 11 1111/'1 _ —% 11` r11 1 / /ice 1 1 /1111j1� %�' � 42%%a xtX11 jl 11 1 1.1111 111,1111 II I 1 II 111 }II (1 111 11 111 ti j 1a0 11 re x II 1I 11I 1 II 1. li 1 1 1'11 1 11 111 + I2 1 1 1 i I I I 11 11111 I 1 R1 1 1 1 IOW' 1 �� � 11 `∎ '- \ 1 \Illj 1111\`; =. 1 I\ I\ \ \1 \ \\,\ :r \1\ \ .. I1 X1 \\ \ ? m 8 7,612 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared December 9, 1994 HEARING DATE: December 15, 1994 FILE NUMBER: L94 -0084 Design Review APPLICANT: Howard Turner / Turner and Associates Architects Michael Sandorffy / Park Place Partners, Developer REQUEST: Demolition of a 216,000 sq. ft. office building and construction of a 154,300 sq. ft. retail center LOCATION: 17501 Southcenter Parkway ACREAGE: 676,948 sq.ft. (15.54 acres) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: C -2 Regional Retail Business SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued December 1, 1994 RECOMMENDATION: . Approval with conditions STAFF: Diana Painter (431 -3661) Michael Woodland, consultant 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Perspective sketch (to be presented at hearing) B. Site Plan (A1) C. Elevations (A2) D. Signage Concept (A2S) E. Elevations (A3) F. Signage Concept (A3S) G. Sections and Details (A4) H. Pervious Areas (C1) I. Grading and Drainage Plan (C2) J. Utility Phasing Plan (C3) K. Landscape Plan (L1) L. Tree Inventory (L2) M. Site Survey 0. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) Board of Architectural Review VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 3 FINDINGS Project description: The project involves the demolition of a nine story, 216,000 sq. ft. office building and the construction of a 154,300 sq. ft., single story retail center, consisting of four retail spaces housed in two separate buildings. The two structures are located adjacent to one another, separated by a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) drainage easement and surface parking. They are sited on the western half of the site in roughly the same location as the to- be- demolished office building, and set back from Southcenter Parkway between 220 and 375 feet. The structures will be about 26 feet high with entry porticos that extend as much as 16 feet higher. A retaining wall approximately 750 feet long and up to 36 feet high will contain the hillside behind the buildings. Parking will accommodate 702 automobiles; 484 standard size, 202 compacts and 16 handicap stalls. Site description: The site is located in the southwest corner of Tukwila's commercial area. It is west of Southcenter Parkway and north of South 178th Street. The western edge of the property borders on the steep forested slope that rises to Interstate 5. The majority of the site is relatively flat and is at a slightly higher elevation than Southcenter Parkway. This portion is completely covered by parking and landscaped islands that served the office building. The remainder of the property (approximately four acres) is thickly vegetated and extends part way up the steep I -5 hillside. Surrounding land use: The site is framed on the north and south by two restaurants located relatively close to the street in the northeast and southeast corners of the property. These businesses are on segregated parcels but they will share parking and access with the finished project. To the north is a furniture retailer, Heritage Furniture, and to the south is a furniture warehouse and retail outlet, Levitz Furniture. Across Southcenter Parkway from the site is Parkway Plaza, a retail complex housing a variety of stores and restaurants. Access and circulation: The main access drive to the development is off Southcenter Parkway. This drive also served the office building, and is signalized where it meets the Parkway. Two secondary entrances serve the site at the north and south. Truck and fire access will occur at these points and continue to the back of the site and around the buildings in a circular loop. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review BACKGROUND L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 4 The nine -story office building that currently exists on the site was vacated when Boeing moved their offices from this location. Apparently, the owner has not been able to find a suitable office tenant for the building. In addition, the building would require expensive upgrades if new tenants were found to meet current energy codes. Retail is being proposed as more suitable use for this site given the local market. DECISION CRITERIA In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown in bold, followed by the applicant's response and the staff's summary of relevant facts. Review Guidelines (1) Relationship of Structure to Site a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Applicant's Response: "This site has wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree plantings. Additional plantings at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping. Existing and new sidewalks provide the desired pedestrian movement. "The parking areas are well designed, moderating their visual impact. The most southeastern portion of the parking is filled with the substantial, 20- year -old established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 45 feet from an existing or new landscaping planter. "Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas behind the building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All five of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the buildings from the street. All of the loading docks are directly against the building. "This buildings are set on a large, well landscaped site up against a hillside. The 32 to 48 foot high buildings will seem modest in relationship to the hillside. Because of Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 5 its scale, the proposed buildings will fit in well with their neighbors. The existing building which they replace is actually out of scale will the surrounding area. Staffs Response: A. Transitions The irregular shape of this site makes it difficult to achieve a regular orientation to the street with the proposed structures. The largest building is at a slight angle to the parkway and is set back 220 feet at the closest point and 375 feet at furthest point. The facade of the main building complex includes three entry porticos that face the Parkway. A four acre parking lot is located between this building and the street. Building A is separate from the main complex because of a WSDOT drainage easement. Its facade and entry portico also faces in the direction of the street although it is partially obscured sidewalk by the Levitz building and associated landscape. Transition between the project's parking area and Southcenter Parkway is accomplished with a 10 to 15 foot wide mature planting strip containing maples, spaced at about 30 feet, with juniper as a low ground cover. Pedestrian connections between the project and the public streets is accomplished with sidewalks along the access drive that connect to sidewalks along the street. Much of the existing landscape in the parking area is replaced in conjunction with the new development. The size and location of the new buildings force the removal of some of the landscaping. Other landscaping must be replaced in conjunction with bringing the parking lot in conformance with city codes. Approximately twenty -five percent (25 %) of the existing landscaping will be retained, primarily along the main access drive and Southcenter Parkway. B. Parking areas The site is at a slightly higher elevation than Southcenter Parkway, approximately 3 -4' above the sidewalk. This increases physical separation between street and site but also mitigates the visual impact of parked automobiles. The entry drive completely divides the parking into two areas, breaking up the overall visual impact of the lot. Other parking areas are located at the sides of the building, further breaking up the parking areas. The four acres of parking in front of the main building complex contains 75 to 85 trees including perimeter plantings. Most of the parking stalls are within 45 feet of a planting island. There is approximately one tree for every seven Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 6 Board of Architectural Review and a half (7 1/2) parking stalls within the parking areas. The truck loading bays are located, for the most part, behind the buildings and so cannot be viewed from the street or main parking areas. The trash and recycling area is located at the back of the site between the two buildings. These are to be screened with concrete walls and cyclone fencing. C. Building scale The facade of the main building complex is 605 feet long and 26 feet high along the main body of the building. The facade is punctuated by three entry porticos, the tallest of which is 46 feet high and 100 feet wide. Building A is 205 feet wide and 26 feet high, with a central portico 35 feet high and 70 feet wide. The buildings are much larger than the two adjacent restaurants but their scale is similar to the Levitz building to the south and the retail complex across Southcenter Parkway. They are placed back further from the street than other retail complexes in this area, and so may appear smaller than if they were closer to the street. But they may appear large in relationship to the site due to the site configuration and context. Lot coverage for the level portion of the site is approximately 33 %, which is typical of retail developments in this area. To accommodate parking, circulation, and a larger building footprint, the main building complex is pushed back about 45 feet into the steep forested slope that confines the site to the west. The resulting excavation is supported by a retaining wall approximately 720 feet long and ranging in height from 5 to 34 feet. The wall is composed of steel soldier piles, spaced approximately seven (7) feet apart, infilled with concrete lagging (as required by the SEPA Determination). At the top it extends 3' -6" above the grade. At the foot, as well as at the top, a one foot wide planting bed containing ivy will eventually cover much of the wall's face. A sectional drawing through the site indicates that, from the sidewalk along the west side of Southcenter Parkway, the retaining wall would not be visible above the building. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area a. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 7 e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Applicant's Response: "The proposed structure is similar in mass, scale and building/street relationships to its neighbors to the north, east, and south. All the buildings in the immediate and near vicinity are single story buildings of similar use. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the north and south along Southcenter Parkway. "Existing landscaped buffers to the west, north, and east are to be preserved and /or enhanced, while existing access and cross parking easements will be maintained. The level of the proposed and preserved landscaping exceeds that of the adjoining sites. "Truck entry to the site is restricted to the north and south driveways and the perimeter roadway. Trucks will travel along the perimeter to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the rear of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front. Retail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around the retail entries of the building, and will use the driveways and sidewalks closest to the center signalized driveway. "Three existing driveways onto the site already provide safe access to the site and were designed for greater traffic loads that those being now considered. No change is requested. Staff's Response: A. Harmony in relationships In most respects the project is similar to development on surrounding properties to the south and east. Development to the north along the west side of Southcenter Parkway is comprised of smaller businesses, with buildings that are smaller in scale than this project and related more closely to the street. B. Landscape transitions The project re -uses existing landscaping where possible (approximately three quarters of existing landscaping will be removed). Where new landscape is introduced, the same or compatible materials are used in most instances. These materials are, however, quite different in style from those used in neighboring properties along the east side of Southcenter Parkway at Parkway Plaza, to the north, and at Levitz Furniture to the south. In other words, there is not a great deal of consistency in landscaping between projects in this area. Staff Report to the L940084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 8 C. Public buildings Not applicable. D. Pedestrian circulation Pedestrian access from the street occurs on both sides of main entry drive and at the north restaurant building on the south side of the building. There is no defined pedestrian route along the secondary entrances at the north and south ends of the site. Raised and striped cross walks will connect the main building complex to sidewalks at the entry drive and at the north restaurant building. A crosswalk/path also connects Building A to the main building complex. There is no indication of crosswalk across the main entry drive at the signalized intersection with Southcenter Parkway. Pedestrian circulation also occurs along three sides of both the main building complex and Building A. An eight (8) foot deep (5 foot clear) arcade stretches along the front of both buildings and extends 50 feet back along the buildings' sides. Within the arcade are columns, 2' -6" square and spaced 25' to 40' apart, depending on location. Where the arcade leaves off at the buildings' sides, a 42" sidewalk continues to the rear of the structure. A three (3) foot wide planting strip separates the side walk from the facade on the sides. E. Access to street The entry drive to the site occurs at a signaled intersection across from access to Parkway Plaza. The other two entries to the site are not signalized. Left turn movements of trucks across heavy traffic may be difficult at these secondary entrances. (3) Landvacrpe and Site Theatmant a. Where crating topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a developmaut, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote slaty and provide an inviting and stable appearance. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, straight= vistas and important axes, and provide shade. d. In locations where plants will be susceptibk to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating staff should be taken. e. Where building sites Wait planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged f. Scanning of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by we of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summa. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 9 g. In arras where general planting will not prosper, other nwteniak such as fey c s, walk, and pavings of wood, brick, shone, or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fors should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and remained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Applicant's Response: "The building area site is mostly flat. Every effort is being made to preserve the existing mature landscaping and planters, and hence the existing topography on that portion nearest the street. "The hillside behind the buildings is being altered to accommodate the site need for parking and landscaping. Care is being taken to minimize the impact on the soils and existing landscaping by following and exceeding all applicable codes. Enhancement above and beyond the requirement is being volunteered both further up the hillside and on the flat building area in the form of tree replacement and landscaping. "There already exists an established sidewalk and landscaping system on site. The new buildings are designed with covered walkways, and new sidewalks are being added to connect the existing to the new. "The existing mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These plantings are a continuation of the landscaping which extends all along Southcenter Parkway. The existing tree -lined center entry drive is being extended west towards the proposed building, creating a strong axis. "Cast -in -place concrete sidewalks and curbs protect all new and existing landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the parking lot areas to the buildings, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. "The five full -sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year- around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are placed behind the building and screened by enclosures and landscaping. "Planters are provided along all required buffers. "Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entries. The north, south, and east sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 10 Board of Architectural Review All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. States Response: A. Site characteristics The steep wooded hillside behind the site creates a dramatic natural backdrop;: for the project and provides a forested 'edge' along the Southcenter Parkway corridor, as well as the entire Green River valley. Site work for this project will involve cutting into the slope and clearing over an acre (approximately 1 1/4 acres, measured horizontally) of forested hillside just west of the main building complex. This is to accommodate a larger building footprint, parking, and circulation. As seen from across the street, the proposed structures will, for the most part, obscure this cut. This action falls under the jurisdiction of the city's Sensitive Areas Ordinance governing steep slopes (TMC 18.45), and its tree regulations (Ordinance #1715). Accordingly, the applicant has agreed to abide by city codes and recommendations regarding work in the hillside, and will be developing a Tree Replacement Plan to mitigate the impact of trees that are removed in conjunction with this project. Much of the required tree replacement, which compensates for 50 mature trees removed in conjunction with clearing for soil boring, will take place in an approximately 12,500 sq. ft. plateau in the southwest corner of the site. This is a relatively 'bare' area on the forested hillside that the applicant is proposing for reforestation. A Type II wetland has been delineated at the southern corner of the site. In accordance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) and City recommendations, a 25 foot vegetated buffer will be provided to separate this wetland from project parking areas. Delineation of this area and development of an appropriate planting plan will be done in accordance with City staff recommendations. A rated watercourse exists at the northwest corner of the site. This will not be impacted by the project. B. Finished grades Grades on the developed portion of the site are relatively flat and should not cause safety problems. Raised and striped crosswalks should contribute to pedestrian safety on the site. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 11 Board of Architectural Review C. Landscape design The landscaped entry drive creates a strong axis running east to west in the center of the site. Rather than focusing on the middle and most significant entrance portico of the main building complex, however, it leads to an blank spot in the building facade. In order to provide a visual terminus at this point, the applicant has proposed a landscaped area 25 feet by 40 feet planted with Alaska yellow cedar, weeping birch, bamboo and rhododendron. This planter is located within the sidewalk area south of the main entry to the building. A similar planter is provided to the north of the entry for symmetry. Altogether there are four of these planting areas, approximately 1,300 square foot each, located along the facade of the main building. Two of these flank the primary entrance portico, as mentioned, and the other two are placed at either end of the facade. There are much smaller, but otherwise similar areas at either end of the facade of Building A. Along the sides of the buildings is a five foot wide planting strip separating the sidewalk from the building, starting at 50 feet from the facade to the back of the buildings. These will be planted with Leyland Cypress and vine maple trees, and will provide visual relief along this facade. The London plane trees (Sycamore) in the parking lot are placed without reference to the building facade. This is due in part to the fact that part of the parking area is being 're- used,' and part of the parking area is new; the site is irregular; an easement exists which bisects the site; the site is further broken up by placement of the new buildings; cooperative parking and circulation must be retained with the neighboring restaurants; and a circular service route is planned for the site. As viewed from the perimeter drive, down the length of the main facade, the London plane trees will eventually create a strong pattern on one side. They will eventually provide good shade. City codes require five (5)feet of perimeter landscaping along the sides of the property. This has not been included where it would interfere with interior circulation or cooperative parking and circulation with neighboring properties. The perimeter landscaping between this site and Levitz Furniture is being retained. Approximately twenty -five percent (25 %) of the existing, mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees on the site are being preserved. Unfortunately, due to the size and placement of new buildings, some of the healthiest and most attractive existing landscape features will be removed. Other trees in the parking areas will be removed in order to bring the parking area up to code. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 12 Trees to be retained include about 14 red maples along Southcenter Parkway, nine oak trees along the main entry drive, about nine London plane trees _. within the parking areas, several Western red cedar in the northwest corner of the site, and the red cedar 'hedge' between Levitz and this project. Landscaping in the parking lot is augmented with new London plane trees and groundcover, and the entry drive is augmented with new oaks. Western red cedar is planted against the retaining wall in four locations, and the wetland buffer area will be planted with appropriate materials. D. Protection of landscaping Although details have not been provided, the applicant has stated that cast -in- place concrete sidewalks and curbs will protect landscaping. E. Landscaping in paved areas Landscaping is provided in paved areas along the facade of the buildings to provide additional visual interest along the facade in areas that are otherwise relatively plain. F. Screening A trash and recycling area is located at the back of the site between Building A and the main building complex. It is screened by an eight (8) foot concrete wall with wire mesh gates. The design and materials of these elements is not clear from drawings that have been provided. There are four truck loading spaces located behind the buildings and a fifth at the northwest corner of the main building complex. Screening of this fifth space is accomplished with two 6' -8' Douglas fir. This may be insufficient for screening purposes. G. Hardscape features Landscaping is the primary material used in the site to provide visual interest and variety. H. Lighting Lighting fixtures in the parking area are relocated standards from the existing site. These are round poles with inverted cone - shaped fixtures in two sizes - 40 foot high and 14 foot high. The shorter poles will be centered on parking rows adjacent to the front facades. The taller poles will also be centered on the parking but generally light the perimeter and central portions of the lot. There are three other types of lighting fixtures for the site, all of which are associated with the buildings. 175W metal halide under canopy lights are Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 13 spaced at 20 feet in the soffit of the arcaded walkways that surround the buildings on three sides. 100W metal halide flood lights on 12 foot square poles are focused on the front facades of both the main building complex, and Building A. Up -lights recessed into the sidewalk are focused on the columns at the entry porticos. (4) Building Deign a. Architectural styk is not restricted, evaluation of a probed should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. b.' • Buildings should be to appropriate wale and be in harmony with pamanast neighboring developments. c. Building eompanahts - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building oa►nponents and ancillary puts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the strudure. d. Colas should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. e. Mechanical equipmast or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be sarened from view. f. Exterior lighting should be put of the architectural concept Filatures, standards and all eapased accessories should be harmonious wills building design. g. Monotony of design in single or mullipk buildings pros should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest Applicant's Response: "The proposed building is the best looking, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its neoclassical entries will connect it to some of the designs in Southcenter Mall. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. "The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types. "The main retail areas will have well- proportioned portal components. Windows are being provided to provide a more inviting appearance. The proposed columns will lend the design a strength and sense of permanence. "The building will be primarily painted a warm off -white color. Bright color accents will be introduced at the entries by way of the tenant signage and details, including different stucco patterning and ceramic tiles. "Mechanical equipment on the roof will be held back away from the edge of the building. For views from the east, south and north, due to the higher position of the building and it's roof relative to the street, the units, which will be no more than 6.5' high, and the screening effect of the front and entry parapets and roofs, the units will not be visible from the street or adjacent lots. There is no view from the west. "Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 14 mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the painted finish. "The two proposed buildings create a varied yet unified composition on the site. The entries to the four retail stores are similar yet all slightly different. Staff's Response: A. Architectural design This is a concrete tilt -up panel building similar in scale and stylistic treatment to many other retail structures in Tukwila's commercial area. The style of the building entry porticos are neoclassical in inspiration, and proportioned in such as way as to partially mediate the scale of the building at the point of entry. The entry porticos are generally well designed. The choice of concrete and synthetic plaster - finished panels (dryvit) as building materials is consistent with both the building type, the masonry based style, and current building practices in the area. B. Relationship to other buildings In most respects the project is similar in scale to development on surrounding properties to the south and east. It is significantly larger, however, than the two restaurant buildings on Southcenter Parkway that flank the property. The development pattern north of the site along the west side of Southcenter Parkway is much smaller in scale. The scale of the body of the building and entry porticos is consistent, however, with the automobile orientation of this environment. C. Building components The bays at each end of the main building complex are not symmetrical, columns are irregularly placed along the building facade, and tilt -up panels that form the backdrop to the arcade are also irregular in size. This does not serve to emphasize the formal and symmetrical architectural motifs that have been chosen for the structure, and makes the location of building entries and points of emphasis appear arbitrary. It also does not support the 'sense of permanence' that the applicant states is a feature of the building, as it makes the building appear as though it is designed for the current tenant rather than the life of the structure. Building components are appropriate to the type of structure and concrete tilt - up method of construction. The entry porticos on the main building complex are well composed and proportioned. The porticos provide focal points along the length of the 600 foot facade of the main building, but otherwise this facade is relatively plain. Little detail is provided to mediate between the scale of the portico and the size of a person. A richer palette of elements at Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 15 a finer level of detail would improve this condition. The arcaded walkways that surround the buildings on three sides are an important amenity in the Pacific Northwest climate. However, the proportions of the space are very shallow. The five (5) foot clear passageway is minimal. Greater depth would provide better protection, allow for greater flexibility in the use of the space, and improve the experience of walking in the arcade. D. Building colors Colors are consistent with the lower key hues of the Pacific Northwest region in general and the Tukwila area in particular. This is especially important given the dramatic backdrop of the I -5 hillside. The applicant has proposed a monochromatic palette of off - whites to warm beige for the body of the building. The main body of the building is the lightest color, while the area under the arcade is a slightly darker beige. This will emphasize the horizontal modulation of the structure and the arcade as an architectural element. Darker neutral colors and accent colors are reserved for building details such as columns, and the porticos. The manner in which these colors are applied to the buildings tends to counter the three dimensional effect of the building's facade. Darker colors are used on the entry porticos - the projecting planes - while lighter colors are used on the main body of the buildings. Assuming colors of darker value appear to recede when adjacent to colors of lighter value, this color treatment will tend to flatten the appearance of the facade. This is undesirable here where the distances of the structures from the street already has a tendency to homogenize details. Care should be taken that the color scheme for the porticos provides a neutral backdrop for the various colors and styles displayed in the signage, which will differ for each of the four retail spaces. E. Mechanical equipment A sectional drawing through the site indicates that mechanical equipment, if set 50 feet back from the front of the building, would not be seen from the sidewalk along the west side of Southcenter Parkway. No screening is provided. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 16 F. Exterior lighting With the exception of the under - canopy lights located in the soffit of the building walkways, lighting is spaced according to parking needs and is unrelated to the architecture. The fixtures are modern and utilitarian in character. G. Variety in design Variety is presented in these two buildings in the sense that the facades of the structures are broken up with four entry porticos. Design motifs used in these porticos are similar, in that they all use a neoclassical vocabulary, yet vary slightly from one to another. The proposed color scheme will also provide for both unity and variety in its application. (5) Variety and visual interest along the facade will also be provided by the planting areas, although planting materials chosen are generally delicate and not in keeping with the rather formal treatment and large scale of the architecture.' Variety is not provided in the details of the structure. The great distances involved, the long expanse of unbroken concrete wall, the monumental forms _ all contribute to a monotony of design at the pedestrian level. This could be - mediated by additional transparency (fenestration), and more complex and a finer level of detail and /or use of colors and materials on the building in appropriate areas. Mi ceiwwous amasses asses and street furniture a. litiscelkuwous structures and street furniture should be & igned to be put 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 wale. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous swamis and sbaet furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and building Applicant's Response: "Not applicable. Staff's Response: A. Miscellaneous structures Signage proposed for the project includes two freestanding signs (one for each building), each 200 sq. ft. in size, placed along Southcenter Parkway at the entry drive; and 500 sq. ft. tenant signs placed above the entry porticos and at the ends of the buildings (see Attachments D and F). Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 17 No site furnishings or seating areas are proposed in conjunction with this project. These could be used to create more variety and formality in design of the focal areas (planters) at the facade of the building, in addition to being convenient for customers. A Metro transit shelter exists along Southcenter Parkway in the southwest corner of the site. This will be retained. B. Lighting fixtures Pedestrian scale and larger lighting fixtures in the parking areas will be re- used from the existing project. These are compatible in design, however, with the current proposal. CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: This is a large project on a large, irregularly - shaped site. Given the size of the structures, the relationship of structure to site is reasonably well handled. The relationship of the main building to the street is determined by the fact that the applicant wishes to retain the existing parking area. The relationship of Building A to the street is determined by the existence of a WSDOT drainage easement that bisects the site between the main building complex and Building A. These factors, the building program, and associated parking requirements leaves little flexibility in site design. Because of the length of the main building complex, the irregular site, and the proximity of neighboring buildings, and the fact that the main building is 'backed' into the hill, both structures will appear to fit tightly into the site. The landscaping, entry drive, and elevations will soften impact of four acres of parking. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: Although the development is of a more substantial scale than properties to the north, it is similar in many respects to development to the south and across Southcenter Parkway. It may appear to overwhelm the smaller structures in front of it. Pedestrian movements on -site could be improved with a clearly defined crosswalk across the entry drive at Southcenter Parkway and additional walkways along the secondary entry drives. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: The retaining wall behind main building complex is a significant built component of the site. It is to be 750 feet long, up to 36 feet high, and will require the clearing of approximately one and a quarter (1 1/4) acres (measured horizontally) of forest. Approval and the design of this wall may establish precedent for similar treatments of the valley wall, which establishes a green 'edge' Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 18 and is a significant landmark in many part of the City. The Planning Commission is currently in the process of reviewing draft Comprehensive Plan policies for the City, one of which supports preservation of the City's forested hillsides. The City has hired a peer review consultant to review the engineering design of this wall, and SEPA conditions establish that the wall must be constructed or finished in concrete for long -term maintenance purposes. Final design and construction methods have not been established. Through the Board of Architectural Review, it is proposed that staff be involved in reviewing the final design of this wall for aesthetic purposes. The wetland buffer, as proposed, falls short of the requirements of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The diversity of plant material in the buffer's landscape is limited and should be increased. The Trce Replacement Plan, required in conjunction with the City's tree regulations, will be developed as part of the tree permit application. Plantings for the project are, for the most part, consistent or compatible with existing and nearby plant materials, although the formality of the architectural design for the project is not supported by the landscape scheme. A significant amount (about 75 %) of the existing, mature landscaping will be removed. Further efforts to save significant trees are encouraged. 4. Building Design: This building type and land use (large -scale retail) typically results in a large, horizontal building that is difficult to design for visual interest at the scale of both the automobile and pedestrian, yet retain a cohesive and attractive design. Given these constraints and the difficulty of this site, there is little flexibility available in the overall design of this building complex. Making the entry porticos taller and the arcaded walkway deeper would enhance these structures, although this may not be a possibility given other constraints on the development. Further emphasizing the modulation of the structures through color choices would enhance the project. In addition, corrections to the slight asymmetry of the structure would contribute to the design of the project. The architectural motifs are appropriate in this setting, and consistent throughout the project. The porticos provide focal points, visual interest, and variety to the facades. This is complemented by the landscaped planters. The pedestrian arcade and subtle variety in color between the arcade and overall body of the building provides a backdrop, further emphasizing the porticos. The lack of variety in building details and materials at the pedestrian scale (in addition to the size of the building), detracts from the proposal. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L94 -0084: Parkway Place Page 19 RECOMMENDATIONS Approval of this project is recommended, with the following conditions: Site design: 1. SEPA conditions stipulate that the retaining wall be concrete in whole or in part, for long -term maintenance purposes. The design details of this wall will be reviewed by staff, including use of materials, finishes, landscape treatment, and any safety features that might be required, to ensure that the design minimizes the visual impact of the wall. 2. Staff will review the screening of trash and recycling areas prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that this area is adequate in size, and screened in a manner that complements the overall design of the project. 3. Staff will review the screening at the loading area in the northwest corner of the site to ensure that it is adequately screened, and does not pose a safety hazard for pedestrians. 4. For safety and circulation purposes, a crosswalk shall be installed across the main entrance drive at Southcenter Parkway. 5. To complete pedestrian connections from the site to other desirable destinations, the possibility of connecting sidewallcs and crosswalks on site to public sidewalks at the northwest and southwest corners of the site will be explored at the time of building permit. Building Design: 6. It is recommended that the slight asymmetry of the front facade of the main building complex be corrected. The size of the middle bays between the porticos on the main building complex should be equal, and the length of the outside bays of the building should be equal. The spacing of columns should be regular along the main body of the buildings, and the relationship of infill panels to each other, to the columns, and to other architectural features of the project should be consistent and /or create a definable pattern. 7. Final building colors will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the colors enhance the • overall design of the project and are compatible with proposed signage. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 20 8. The exterior lighting scheme will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of the building permit to ensure that lighting is adequate for safety purposes, does not interfere with other businesses in the vicinity, and complements architectural and site design. 9. Staff will review architectural detailing of the building prior to issuance of a building . . permit to ensure that the design, colors and materials support the overall . ._ architectural concept. This may include, but is not limited to, the detailing and finishes of the columns, the planter areas at the building facade, color and materials of window mullions, design and placement of reveals, and finishes, including color and texture of dryvit and any tile or other details. Landscaping: 10. Given the large scale of the buildings and portico elements, as well as the formal architectural vocabulary that has been employed, a more formal and bold statement might be made in the landscaped areas along the building facades so that these planters are not undermined by the architecture. Suggestions include the use of more formal- appearing plant materials, hardscape, and site and /or pedestrian amenities. 11. In order to ensure that plant materials present a sufficiently strong element against the building facade, and that there is a clear focal point at the end of the entry.drive, specimen trees of a substantial size (15' is recommended) are recommended for the planters flanking the primary entrance of main building complex. 12. It is recommended that an attempt is made to save significant trees on the site for use as specimen trees in the landscape scheme. 13. To ensure the survival of the existing London plane trees flanking the secondary access drive just south of the Azteca restaurant, a protection barrier consisting of six (6) foot high chain link fence should encircle each tree five (5) feet outside of the dripline during construction. This is in place of the protective tree barrier shown on landscape drawings. CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires that wetland buffers be adequate to ensure protection of the designated wetland areas. This may result in the loss of up to 16 parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site, and other modifications to the site and landscape plan, and will be determined prior to issuance of a building permit.. Staff Report to the L94 -0084: Parkway Place Board of Architectural Review Page 21 2. Application of the City's tree regulations requires that tree replacement for trees removed in sensitive areas be done in a manner approved by the Director of Community Development. This will be accomplished in conjunction with submittal of a final Tree Replacement Plan and issuance of a Tree Permit. 3. The State Environmental Policy Act, as well as the City Sensitive Areas Ordinance, ensure that the design of the retaining wall be done in a manner that protects the health, safety and welfare of the public and mitigate impacts to the environment. This will be done in conjunction with appropriate permits. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John W. Rants, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 15, 1994; 7:00 p.m. CITY HALL COUNCIL CIIAMBERS; 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. Rick Beeler, Director I. CALL TO ORDER II. ATTENDANCE III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: IV. V. VI. CITIZENS' COMMENTS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: VII. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: November 17, 1994 At this time you are invited to comment on items which are not included on the agenda. Elect Chair and Vice Chair for 1995. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L94 -0090: Sunshine Ridge - Planned Residential Development Lyle Kussman Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for approval of a planned residential development application for a 28 -unit condominium with 59 parking spaces. Residences will be in 2, 3, and 5 -story structures. 15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING L94 -0078: Sunshine Ridge - Design Review Lyle Kussman Board of Architectural Review approval of the design of the 28 -unit condominium with 59 parking spaces. Residences will be in 2, 3, and 5 -story structures. 15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila. L94 -0084: Parkway Place Parkway Place Partners Demolition of a 9 -story, 216,000 sq. ft. office building and construction of a 150,000 sq. ft. retail space. 17501 Southcenter Pkwy., Tukwila. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Agenda Page 2 VIII. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC MEETING L94 -0074: Showalter Middle School South Central School District As part of the design review approval for the proposed remodel of Showalter Middle School, the Board requested two conditions be met and brought back before the board for review and approval. 4628 S. 144 St., Showalter Middle School. IX. DIRECTOR'S REPORT X. ADJOURN Turner & Associates 2063657504 REVISED City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Parkway Place Retail Center 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. This site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: This site has wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree plantings. Additional plantings at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping. Existing and new sidewalks provide the desired pedestrian movement.. B. Parking and service area should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: The parking areas are well designed, moderating their visual impact, The most southeastern portion of the parking is filled with the substantial, 20 -year -old established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 45 feet from an existing or new landscaping planter. Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas behind the building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All five of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the buildings from the street. All of the loading docks are directly against the building . P. 04 Turner & Associates City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2063657504 P.05 C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This buildings are set on a large, well landscaped site up against a hillside. The 32 to 48 foot high buildings will seem modest in relationship to the hillside. Because of its scale, the proposed buildings will fit in well with their neighbors. 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The proposed structure is similar in mass, scale and building/street relationships to its neighbors to the north, east, and south. All the buildings in the immediate and near vicinity are single story buildings of similar use. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the north and south along Southcenter Parkway. B. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided Response: Existing landscaped buffers to the west, north, east, and south are to be preserved and enhanced, while existing access and cross parking easements will be maintained. , City of Tukwila Design Review Application Turner & Associates \_ 2063657504 P.06 C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Truck entry to the site is restricted to the north and south driveways and the perimeter roadway. Trucks will travel along the perimeter to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the rear of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front. Retail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around the retail entries of the building, and will use the driveways and sidewalks closest to the center signalized driveway . E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: Three existing driveways onto the site already provide safe access to the site. No change is requested. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. Response: The building area site is mostly flat. Every effort is being made to preserve the existing mature landscaping and planters, and hence the existing topography on that portion nearest the street. Turner & Associates City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2063657504 The hillside behind the buildings is being altered to accomodate the site need for parking and landscaping. Care is being taken to minimize the impact on the soils and existing landscaping by following and exceeding all applicable codes. Enhancement above and beyond the requirement is being volunteered both further up the hillside and on the flat building area in the form of tree replacement and landscaping. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: There already exists an established sidewalk and landscaping system on site. The new buildings are designed with covered walkways on three sides, and new sidewalks are being added to connect the existing to the new. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. Response: The existing mature, 20-year-old groundcover and trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These plantings are a continuation of then landscaping which extends all along Southcenter Parkway. The existing tree lined center entry drive is being extended west towards the proposed building, creating a strong axis. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Cast -in -place concrete sidewalks and curbs protect all new and existing landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the parking lot areas . to the buildings, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. P.07 Turner & Associates City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2063657504 E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: NA F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: The five full -sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year - around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are placed behind the building and screened by enclosures and landscaping. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls , and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Response: Planters are provided along all required buffers. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and retrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entries. The north, south, and east sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. P. 08 Turner & Associates City of Tukwila Design Review Application 4. BUILDING DESIGN 2063657504 A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. Response: The proposed building is the best looking, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its neoclassical entries will connect it to some of the designs in Southcenter Mall. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. Response: The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types. C. Building components—such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets — should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. Response: The main retail areas will have well - proportioned portal components. Windows are being provided to provide a more inviting appearance. The proposed columns will lend the design a strength and sense of permanence. P. 09 Turner & Associates 2063657504 P.10 City of Tukwila Design Review Application D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: The building will be primarily painted a warm off-white color. Bright color accents will be introduced at the entries by way of the tenant signage and details, including different stucco patterning and ceramic tiles. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. Response: Mechanical equipment on the roof will be held back away from the edge of the building. For views from the east, south and north, due to the higher position of the building and it's roof relative to the street, the units, which will be no more than 6.5' high, and the screening effect of the front and entry parapets and roofs, the units will not be visible from the street or adjacent lots. There is no view from the west. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Response: Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the painted finish. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: The two proposed buildings create a varied yet unified composition on the site. The entries to the four retail stores are similar yet all slightly different. Turner & Associates City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2063657504 (�,; S. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. Response: Not applicable. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings. Response: Not Applicable: Howard R. Turner, AIA November 17, 1994 P.11 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development November 9, 1994 Mr. Michael Sandorffy Park Place Partners 800 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 Seattle, Washington 98104 • John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director Re Parkway Place Dear Mr. Sandorffy: Please submit a check for consultant services, payable to the City of Tukwila, for the Parkway Place project. - As we discussed, the City is willing to expedite this project. Due . to current staff shortages, we have hired a consultant to review the project for us. His estimated fee is $9.680.00. Any unused funds will be returned to you. Sincerely, ck Pace Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • : Tukwila, Washington '98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax. (206) 431 -3665 RECEIVEt9 ARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIC, 4 REVIEW G SEP 1 6 1994 APPLICATION CUavitvi CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: e - Lt Or-Ck C CRUZ utOiN'o ,cam sr- I aw -c PA_TC ' j (al ,SL 5P PSTA1 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 15 u 1 ` TIA.C&LR V czi ANPAf Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: 1 9L Signature: Date: * The app cant is the person whom the staff will contact regard' g the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: OWNER Address: Phone: I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: Turner Associates 2063657504 BOARD OE ARCHITECTURAL. H Vttw DESIGN ,REVIEW APPLICATION P.e1 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3680 s:Kefereince ]'gYhp;,. • :Y+;,'•. •.. .: :.w >. .:or,.,>...... ...7.. Y „ii'>,x,r..G.•'a.!.G. '.�rx i.x., .. J4Y•rv. .k+.. Y+•,H.$}':Yy i•Uk "A.M:,'ii }'aJ},•r•ah } }Y�:J:v <:}l. �Y rt0:ni: .}:m.•M.1. v}} r�,.• %.Y.n .:>';4r�>R•,'J,;�Y! }•{�}� NY•. M ^� ,4{i,v:v.}'••::,:]n:d: ina.^. n• �Y•'.:.i :i ^•>Y „' %J:S... , «i:xN i:]:Y);+ •<.at•Rw.. • 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: Address: Phone: - Signature: Date: * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 61fibi iaMesi F'Nbtntce PAP EQsAL 4, PROPERTY Name: ey : SMu ooeFF' M MT(5gN 6 FHDLER !N u EsrM euT Co RPoR rictu its OWNER : /NVlhicnhae9 � .i1 n i SU •neral rtrer. :�do fy si 3Address: eed f ti Avenue Su 7 ea.# -(e, 9E wA 104- Phone: 0206) (024— /444 I /WE,[signature(s)) �«�L z e e swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contr ct purchasers of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Parkway Place Retail Center 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. This site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: This site has wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree plantings. Additional plantings and at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping, existing and new sidewalks provide the desired transition. Y7)/' pe-e14q)77 • ei/i/ 4.0n0-7,=./ w p 1)7? . Ef t 21, w1 Acufr- .7t) be 42su /191/06611 ovide1 ob 1 /4. --754 B. Parking a service area shouldibe located, designed and screened,to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: The parking areas are well designed, moderating their visual impact. The most eastern and visible half of the parking is filled with the substantial, 20- year -old established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 45 feet from an existing or new landscaping•planter. Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas behind the building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All eight of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the buildings from the street. All of the loading docks are directly against the building City of Tukwila Design Review Application C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This building is set on a large, well landscaped site up against a hillside. The 35 foot buildings will seem modest in relationship to the hillside. Because of its scale, it will fit in well with the neighboring buildings. 'Vv r w. %:1 1-J (f34A- S�L4 fruai G ; '' /.1,1) dr -8y` ,�- /mil ri��i ,if.r.7`.z�A -.1 idazi) 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The proposed structure is similar in mass, scale and building/street relationships to its neighbors to the north, east, and south. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the north and south along Southcenter Parkway. B. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided Response: Existing landscaped buffers to the north, east, and south are to be preserved and enhanced, while existing access and cross parking easements will be maintained. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable City of Tukwila Design Review Applica1,on D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Truck entry to the site is restricted to the north and south driveways and the perimeter roadway. Trucks will travel along the perimeter to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the rear of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front. Retail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around the retail entries of the building, and will use the driveways and sidewalks closest to the center signalized driveway . E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: Three existing driveways onto the site already provide safe access to the site. No change is requested. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. Response: The building area site is mostly flat. Every effort is being made to preserve the existing mature landscaping and planters, and hence the existing topography on that portion nearest the street. B. Grades of walks, parking . spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: There already exists an established sidewalk and landscaping system on site. The new buildings are designed with covered walkway, and new sidewalks are being added to connect the existing ttrtie new. aetra-r-e- City of Tukwila Design Review Application C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. Response: The existing mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These plantings are a continuation of ther landscaping which extends all along Southcenter Parkway. The existing tree lined center entry drive is being extended west towards the proposed building, creating a strong axis. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Cast -in -place concrete sidewalks and curbs protect all new and existing landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the parking lot areas to the buildings, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. kPA 1, E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: J 6 I Ihtiti A /4-4,6440.( reA ie j a'zi NA /v7T bf;rr"'Sr'z' / / „m !o ,97,- 4,7 h2 ) — -# . ,97,- 4 --r-01. 1.4-04S 4-072 '-`5 F. Screening of' service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: The eight full -sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year- around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are recessed into the building or screened by enclosures and landscaping. City of Tukwila , Design Review Application G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls , and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Response: Planters are provided along all required buffers. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and retrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entries. The north, south, and east sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. Ntt,A 4frov klil) 114-kAt, 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. Response: bivt4 1/41,t) AD tit The proposed building is the best loo ing, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its neoclassical entries will connect it to some of the designs in Southcenter Mall. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. "t L at-d B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. Response: The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types, though not as nice as this one. -, • City of Tukwila Design Review Applica1,on C. Building components —such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets -- should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. Response: The main retail areas will have well - proportioned portal components. Windows are being provided to provide a more inviting appearance. The proposed columns will lend the design a strength and sense of permanence. ga r4-c. Fl,t,«. t I ? D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: The building will be primarily painted white,. Bright color accents will be introduced at the entries by way of the pint signage. g 'At) t TL CD( /acct e, -tor prvjite-+s VA- m_a., 6 f ,�k4' �.)1�- c� w E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. ay �; �� �,(. w -r h•i ISLat. Cod 4` -bciA Response: =y A c►■-: « Mechanical equipment on the roof will be held back away from the 6c. edge of the L6\A" �7 " building. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Response: Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the painted finish. ,c,ei b4. City of Tukwila ( Design Review Applical�on G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: Although similar, none of the adjacent buildings are of the same painted finish or neoclassical design ti ? 14.0k- ttaz v 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. Response: Not applicable. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings. Response: Not Applicable: kAwarr5.,) Howard R. Turner, AIA September 15, 1994 <t v•I , s> . : 1 .....: / ii 1 = 1 III h_ • %; tn''' u, cc 41 tn win '` TURNER AND ASSDd ARCHTTE i .1 i g g g 5 ce x cn _ 'Ilk. 111 _ ..- --- -- -- — ... _ : r- • 7, • saa ■ \ ..., -.., / was .-E,4 4=1 s SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ STATE SLOPE & DRAINAGE EASMENTS PARKING ANALYSIS % — 1 %ice SOSO it 7 i iy PARKWAY TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 4rAtwcur YCNTICTS nLL pr r- ft.* 1,..r la- net" ISITE PLAN PM WAY PLACE, TOM A 4 i "tIL aOaE9 W 1 L. 3 1 ,Ii11 li �g` 1 \ �ttO�Y�p�: �_. aci ' II \ 1 b•:F�pi 1. \ 111 \I !1 g \ 1 11` ` Iii15518° p�pdo" 1 � / }: � :1° ;cc : +�a�F� J 1 \\t \ Q eat y�b6c�g;0- 1 \11 \ 11 EiLvYE „i 211iaiiii D `JSQ ..1/77P77-7Z7 C 77 1 754 STALLS N N {\ N C, en on 11 II II 1.6 N yy W Z REQUIRED 167,500 PROVIDED = 754 STALLS J 1- 0 1- p 1 / SEM -simmot ii \ III !MOM *-4t: N').\000000 -o `1 • \\\ \1 \ I- t1\ c)))))))))4 l 1. i\-;!t\ \ 7 {/ 1 1 ,1 �����a \ 1,a , \ \ iY .. W { 1 \ , ,dC\I \ \ \• \ 1.1 u1 ` \ i)i17;1 1/ 1.272Zi1 ” ,� \1\ 1 \ \\ \1\ \ \ 1 ; \ \\\ i (-\i\ \ \,I\, \ \ \1\ 1 \ 1 1 \ \\\ ` 1.J \1 \1 t \\ \ , ,\\ 1 .1 • Ai " 1 \ \\ fun • ?1 v - h• /4'• / / y // / / / // / //A O O O O 0 0 O 0 InOOO `f v v 4 Nr J < < < W W W W W OC CC OC OL U! W W W W Z Z Z Z <mc.io TOTAL NEW 1 1 AZTE PARKWAY SOUTHCETER E N 1- W HERITAGE FUNITURE 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z u'_ F._ N N N N X X X X W W W W W W 1 V PARKWAY i, 1 • , .„,1‘..y..........-.'"-----“.""i , ..ff . .II" I .. Yi 1 .. i i a .. k ■ ,2..,,.;;:.. ../... , /.L l- •"--: 1 I .. _. _: ., _ .. . . t,11,..i. ii '., • .. „ ‘. , ,/......', t111.• ..,,,,;/::7.19;,,R, , ,.t •■--.":. , • , • re',....1:1` , j„,„,,,,, •......w• .rd,“■., 1: ....,...1..„,,,, i i„ L, \ . .....'tY-. 0. '['-...€"-:1-.--.*-..\ .:1 '''<':;.'7 ..,,,Mii■••• \ ' 1 t: .. . ,.. r 1:111: i 4t....,•••., " t,''''.■....4.. - ..'f1-7r'l'7"'.-.'"'''''-* ■• ' .'"1-. ..,44.f..r ' ,- J : - Peon.. , • • , ■•• 1 I 1" 4.2 ;7,7 7 ■•••••■ • \ Lk 1 • • ',. ;4 ( . „,„ .1111 I,•■•■•■ •••••■••• ?.1 1 • I I v = 3"•:: I' 13. ,..-• ,.-.-...-c-. , :.t .a -f..;,.._..., ,- r,--,-e-...".'". . " „ `,. , , ' i`i .'0 1, _1, - k ,•:;-_ -i,,1,, , .4 .., . \ -■•-, • 1 ,*-' •. c. .:—•••••,•• ; -;.' ,.,r;,,-,•• rr-•-■•1••••"••1..• - ,.."'. ,I i;..\..1,1-, -1 ' 11 -.,11 , • ; i ..„,,,5,7::,-1'..,/ / \ K ''`..... , \ .L.., :;s7.: •-.,,...> ::::::. :A ‘• -.• • '• . - V • 3/4 ,. i 1 ■ s. \N,. • \ --- • • • la ■ I” ' ,• 4. ' \.' ‘t, fk- , ,,, ,. - .-s.-• - . k ,--1.: :k• \". \.........1.,...(.,...7.‘.,,‘ • .q. ... i ,,,,, • - •,...1 _-t ,- ..ii i l , :;, -,.!.. ,• , .°`'..>,4i -' . , • .. , .. :.... ,..„ ' / ., . • Z ... , " , ,.1:-(:..._,..;; .. - , •.) - L_ . .. ,.. i; . , \ i'I t .i, IA t 'i\ ,i . • W - f..-. . , ,.-' _ - .• . ..,...._,._-1-=_'_mr,_-i3,,'.' ,., .-- -• .-t; =.,f -.e 7. ....7.k-2-.-. __. / .:; .1,, ,■ .„. . - k ,4 ii s - , 47 2, . , . o 1 s. .•, • ; ; 1 , •. ., I/ 9 \ • ' •••••• .. ro „ ..,...1 .r., --,- \ . 1 it,i. ..: '.: • - - ';,.'i.;;.-,7-,, \,\1,5, - ••• •"...----•--;•---,•-•,,„ ...., ,1.-.---4.-1' - 1 ., . • N'-_,:: ., • ... --i., / ,t,.-. , - ,,,..., . , _ ..,__ _ .1,, „rei,......_-_:_.,,,V,.... A ., ...-:,,:,::::7-7•'4"-'7 . I l'''t \-*; . -7.-••.r...--,sus7.7.„7:,.,... _.,..„:„...,.., , . ,.,....-......„ •1 y---...:.,:....; ..,„. ' . : . 1 111../ ti,.. . ,L 2.•1!...::::..g!'rfilifi..,?..../.1.1.. • . ,.. . 'Sr ...:/.. ( 4i: .,.. i. 71 • 4:1 ;., 1 i 1 .... , 1...7X .0 .. ...`; . '‘ ill !•I • ....." ....‘ .1. A /0••■■•■• C. A 1 \.. - , ,••••••1 . . .ii ' :4,,' i 1 ,.,...t.....„.:74;,..s.N.:144:. ;;;3:11'.1:•••1 6—,:!..7 --CC) CO. r•• • ‘., -s •; 1h1"•-• i • ... j. j 1 N . ..%:•_. ..'", . y ., 0) i ' ,..1.‘ ' .... , • ..... , N.. • s' 1 i ._. , ...ff .---..---.-7--.-7,-..;-0-::'---.!--'" ..7; ..,,LA" ‘ .... . - ,.. • . .,/ ': ■ . "'' 1 i '.l . ".'.•'%s.".'7 ;•:i •— 'll 4 -.., "- .V■4. - yorr.".0t.r (9 ,,,.- . ,,.,4,,,,., %.,.; ;_ 7.__."-_-•_- • •.i• , „t. , ___„..4. , -.Lt',‘ .`.... - ..0 . s.t. . _.. . J• . ,. .,.......r...".e:. , .”.,„k.„....„i . 1 \ 3 %N. • 1 ... Z.V.:: • • ,` 44••=-4'...•;' - ‘kr. it .."-... -.."-1*1 ..--- • „ ...,... it ....x.r...,..-..t -.11 .r , ta ,,,,,,„ ..r...., •• \ ...,,,,, „,./..”, •TX. \ i \ ..-',A3....•..;;Pw.;••"•"■••••7^';•,i;;;;;•^. '.;..".1#0•••••••••• .." ' ' • /.1,......./ 01,0. •• ••• ' 1 \'\\..‘ .. •••••••3., 0:::::::::::'...". .. •■•■■ dir;r7.:: \44.v....7.1..7..7.:: •••••..2-” •. , i , -..." 1 I.\ 1 E/ ' i. \ ,'■ t --q. S \\ 1 ' .." ‘d, ...... V \ ....2.,L,......\ \\F VI!, ...i.!-- \ ', ••••• • \ \ \‘‘\ ' • c■I; Vt. 14;.I \-* 11ilis 11% i S 1 ; il i eta. 1 y lv �rj'.•∎• -lo ' 7p $ 3; z ■ 1 • Z 1!! ~i i PARKWAY PLACE litI 5 1 SITE PLAN 11411AI I1N1, 111•WI Ian ow= ' I t N �� it fl _ It 1 I; ! /// , / c�igJ //i \ / / {; /// fi/////-77;‘;,// \ \ 1 \ \l‘ ." \\ \ \ \.\`. \ \ \ \� \ \ \\I'' \ \\`. \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \�\� it 11 I '\ 11 1 1. 4\7V7\77\- 1D1 1 1 1 i\ ! i r 1 i� '1l1' }! a !1)4 (1 !lIItiI PPl I' 1 j • a <. 8 O{ a Q i s I 1 1 1 1 j it 1 lit F i( ? / // _' 11 1 1 / - '////, �/ // �. 1 ,1 i 1;1 'it 1 \� II11,1, "I ,1 qp \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \. \ 1 i C i `•\ 1 1 1111} I 1 1 1 /// // /// /iii • /// 1 \ \, 1 /, 4 0