Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L93-0005 - CITY OF TUKWILA - CENTRAL BUSINESS SIDEWALK DESIGN STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
l93-0005 CENTRAL BUSINESS SIDEWALK DESIGN STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director MEMORANDUM To: Ross Heller n Cameron From: Rick Bee Date: October 25, 1993 RE: C.B.D. Sidewalk Implementation Plan CENTRAL BUSINESS SIDEWALK DESIGN STUDY SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RECEIVE"_ OCT 2 5 1993 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS This memo is to formally document that Planning has reveiwed the CBD sidewalk implementation plan and generally concurs with the proposed plan as follows: 1. The design orientation including curbline sidewalks and street tree themes as presented at the joint Public Works /Planning meeting of 5/15/94, and reflected in the "Tukwila Street Tree Program" document of 5/14/93 is accepted. Planning agreed with the strong Public Works recommendation for curbline sidewalks based on the existing lack of area for sidewalks, the short planning and construction period, limited availability of funds and uncertainties as to where the street curb will ultimately be located after road improvements which have yet to be designed. 2. SEPA will be required for construction. This should be submitted once the construction impacts on specific properties are known. 3. The GMA Urban Centers process will review long -term sidewalk alternatives in addition to this short -term design. As a last minute note, Planning would appreciate reviewing the plantings proposed for "Street Trees At The Park" and "Pedestrian Link Trees." Most of these materials are shrub -like and have their major growth at the 2 -6 ft. level. This may create significant sight vision conflicts at driveways and "lurking areas" for criminals. Use of the alternatives which avoid this such as the Katsura Tree at the Park and Paperbark Maple along the Pedestrian Links should be emphasized. These alternatives also provide better pedestrian enclosure and micro - climate. Please contact Vernon Umetsu at x1684, if we can be of further help. file:sidwlk \approve A'? /1/1 Cn..flinnnfnn Rn..lnun..A C..ihn 441 /V) . T..Du tit n TA /nrAln Mnn /10100 . 11/11.1 491 9A'7/1 C..... /')/101 49 1 9AAr •••• :••• -••••• • 1•• • / . r Figure 1 Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Map MARCH 1989 EXISTING SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO 1989 VERY HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT MODERATE PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT • EXISTING SIGNALS • FUTURE SIGNALS PROJECT LIMITS 17 0 500 1000 1500 1 Central Business District Recommended Street Tree Planting Schedule 1994 CONSTRUCTION ' 995 CONSTRUCTION 1996 CONSTRUCTION 1997 CONSTRUCTION 1998 CONSTRUCTION EVITX: 1,11 rrnm+6111111111111MITIMWMI4l V.F.S•VVVICVC7. .?Jt! 1-11-11. I. ()Cr 1'93 _11.111M11 Figure 1 Central Business District Sidewalk Plan Map MARCH 1989 EXISTING SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO 1989 VERY MGM PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BULT emsmentemsli HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BUILT MODERATE PRIORITY SIDEWALKS TO BE BULT • EXISTING SIGNALS • FUTURE SIGNALS PROJECT LIMITS 0 500 1000 1500 wan MEIER MIN ORM MON Nod Central Business District Recommended Sidewalk Construction Schedule aria aria cr.z/ a 1 EXISTING AS OF 1993 1994 CONSTRUCTION 1995 CONSTRUCTION 1996 CONSTRUCTION 1997 THRU 1999 CONSTRUCTION R EC ::.' �; _. �,r a. , OCT 0 1 1993 C..:: „:Uwl iY €' . LOP---sNMENT . ' . i i 1 . .„... ,-,. • 4.....• • t.! . • • , . ‘,/, cv-„w...,._ eve:7e,- I 4-i-/- si.40t:e/,7-5 . , '-zie//494-7 6-7e 1/.. Ae-r-72'c9 - 73-6,2e. /94/...(/ lede-.6--e:a 1 , z-- /e6a:re /4)72.7/(7,-.e.e-J.e..//to - AE,e,t4'61‘ 26° - 4.Y77 3 - 7L6-7 , • i .4' 44,ep42€4 .64.5,,,e., ,5-46 - 49'07, • , ,,...., , (--45a-s ccex-) X.cit4.--//z -- - vz.,5e‘-4e 44 - 5723 i 7 6"...1:7.4/>/// -7,:---; . .i4e - 9e 70 1e, xl---..4e-, 4754- ,e'679,e___ -.6-.. 44- --7/-41eArin,e ) 87 - 7E,ss- i ! . . ! i . . 1 1 ' . , • . .... ...._ ..... . _..... • ___ . . . • ,„ „„ . „..„„„ /6 --(-7"6--/</DA A( c,C c-eD -rG _ N I g61.2;KiTrikbiti<1__ _ ?No tv _cocarxe Mr\ 11' TD&O 0 6 a. >woe 6-5 LuAiv\ia_'Tefk ,77-Jerei-frific) Veitivposc U4-? 6r FS C..) c. 0 /-1 PAY C P/lo tvc-3- _L,Lk t:j1 .i 3-5-0/7 rtihtru;k1.: P Lv 4 3 3 n 9 -c)/ -Pa/L-4, a-CA-CA*14,2 '51 orrigC, • I cAr MEMORANDUM To: Ross Heller, Public Works Department From: Vernon Umetsu, Planning Division Date: March 23, 1993 RE: Central Business District Sidewalk Design and Process Considerations. The purpose of this memo is to clarify Planning Division issues and recommendations which have been identified to date. It does not pretend to solve all the issues raised or dictate any specific design. I look forward to discussing these issues with you in our meeting tomorrow. The following Planning Division input is divided into Design, Considerations and Process Considerations. Planning's overall goals would be that: 1. A dense network of on and off - street pedestrian walks connect all portions of the CBD, 1. a streetscape which encourages pedestrian travel be created which works with each stage of Tukwila's C.B.D. development from today's suburban mix to tomorrow's vision, 2. the combination of built and planted materials provide a unifying theme for the variety of individual project designs and emphasize gateway intersections and pedestrian links, and 3. the project design help define a high quality Urban Center in Tukwila's C.B.D. area; distinguishing the Urban Center from the remaining low density urban environment (see Figure 1). These Planning goals implement the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee's adopted "Community Image" goals and policies (Attachment A), GMPC Urban Center policies adopted by the City Council (Attachment B), and Vision Tukwila Committee (Attachment C). Design Considerations Planning staff recommends three conceptual design options, depending upon the field situation encountered. These options and the conditions when they should be applied are shown in Figure 2, and summarized below: •Option 1, Existing Policies -- Basic 6 ft. wide, curbline sidewalk which would be acceptable outside the Urban Center. •Option 2, Traditional Downtown -- To be used when a building has been sited forward to the building setback line and reflects pedestrian oriented. design (e.g., display windows, quality materials and relief, seating planters, etc.). •Option 3, Suburban Downtown -- To be generally used. Curbline trees provide. separation and back of sidewalk hedge provides enclosure and buffering from parking areas. Additional items recommended for design consideration are listed below: • A. Major System Elements have been identified in Figure 2 and summarized below: 1. Special treatments for manor gateway intersections; including street crossing elements. A lower level of emphasis would be done for minor intersections. 2. Emphasis for river trail links (Figure 3). 3. Incorporation of pedestrian only linkages such as the Minkler connection between Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park East, a Treck Drive connection between Andover Park East and West, and a 168th St. connection from Southcenter Parkway to the Green River.. 4. In areas within the C.B.D., but outside Tukwila's Urban Center, a more basic approach to sidewalk design (i.e. Option 1) may be taken. B. Design Details 1. Selected trees species should be large stature deciduous such as found in the Seattle Street Tree Guide, as modified by Jerry Clark (Sea. Arborist) to delete the following trees: a. Sweetgum (previously listed in Guide as OK) -- Up- lifting. b. Locust (previously listed in Guide as OK) -- Frequent bug spraying required. Tree spacing should create a generally continuous canopy along the road which is sufficient to break up the affects of large paved areas. March 23, 1993 Pg. 3 Note: Have a meeting to review draft landscaping and planting plans with Clark, and Kent and Renton tree maintenance supervisors who do street tree maintenance. Clark has already agreed. 2. Plan for pedestrian oriented light standards to possibly replace the standard 30 ft. high, cobra -head fixtures within the Urban Center (e.g. provide conduit and boxes spaced for 15 -20 foot high standards such as are found in a C.B.D. special design district). 3. Accent pavers should be use to lend visual interest or define "edges," gateways, river trail links and other special areas. 4. Streetscape art (e.g., inset figures and impressed shapes into the sidewalk) should be used to help identify links to the river trail and other special spaces. 4. Construction costs for wider sidewalks may be voluntarily borne by adjacent property owners if City will designate this segment as an urban trail and assume responsibility for maintenance and liability. Note: The City is protected from liability on "recreation facilities" (i.e., urban trails) per RCW 4.24.220 -210. Process Considerations Several administrative endorsements on sidewalk design, and assurances of continued development feasibility need to be made prior to proceeding with significant additional work. These considerations are listed below: 1. Get concurrence from Ross (Rick and Jack already concur) 2. Set up a meeting between Planning and Public Works directors et.al. to agree on a strategy for amending the Sidewalk Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan in the future. (I do not believe any amendment is legally needed to implement the proposed designs.) 3. Get concurrence from the Mayor and Council on this revised design approach for the Urban Center portion of the C.B.D. This approach implements all City and County endorsed policies and vision statements, but it March 23, 1993 Pg. 4 is a substantially change from the Sidewalk Plan which should be legislatively approved. 4. Development could continue with wide sidewalks which reduced landscaping below standard minimums. Sidewalks can be counted paid for) voluntarily by upon redevelopment where have ordinarily applied. as landscaping if done (or property owner. This ceases sidewalk requirement would (Zoning Code 18.70.120) In the short -term, the Planning Commission is also authorized to accept less than the minimum required landscaping if the streetscape design will "... adequately enhance the premises appropriate to the use district and location of the site" (TMC 18.70.090). Staff would strongly recommend approval in such situations where well designed sidewalk /streetscape landscaping was voluntarily provided. We plan to recommend Urban Center sidewalks and landscaping like similar to a Traditional Downtown in the GMA plan, as the best way to implement resident "vision" statements. This should take care of the long -term impacts of wide sidewalks. I would be glad to help with this. I have already assembled a design presentation on the CBD "vision" which has been endorsed by the Mayor. This vision is the basis for the Traditional Downtown and Suburban Downtown design options. Figures 1. Central Business District and Urban Center Boundaries and Major Design Elements. 2. C.B.D. Sidewalk Options Attachments A. Tukwila Tommorrow Committee Urban Center Community Image Goals and Policies. B. GMPC Urban Center Policies. C. Vision Tukwila Committee Urban Center Vision Statements. cc: Pace /Beeler /Williams/ Bradshaw /Siegenthaler /Lauterbach. file:sidwlk \design C *-De• SI7,000A tz. Ce-noNeS CoKS "rev CT( of., 11.1 tri`i 0°S's -runCg. -1),.estchie-p Fog- az_Zi1c- 1b. 1NrtST Ct,j Nrb 0c,JS) 67-rc P T s 4, K_ -\\\ / \ 1 I I < " N 4 • • • ''• • ) _A/ \ ,•• ./ \ c • \ .Y.o■ 4 •-> /)VC N Z _SCA er8P1 •••)( •13.- Hcbc-e7 roe- cs- ft'n• 0 Pre ScJc P—hth4.. f,e-J•44.7r:o.44.<._._ s" reb pcfs2wAk7) fr - • - .■ ft C.- Lo -j-Wrs cox twist 2eDe-s- ic A I eb ("Po f,e• , • C? 7-YPe- _iteb...v 62,0 P..m • 'T • • \ (, ' • ^ • 000 1,12: c-A-P 6f- 5-re ( a COUNCIL AGENDA :SYNOPSIS ITEM NO. InftIals Meeting Date Prepared Ma et:et/few Council review 1/25/93 RMC j / • CAS Nummber: q v 0114 . Agenda Item Title: INFORMATION. Original Agenda Date: JANUARY 25, 1993. CBD SIDEWALK, TREE ANdMALKWAY PLAN Original Sponsor: Council PUBLIC WORKS Timeline. • APRIL 5,.1993 ISTEA GRANT SUBMITTAL Sponsor's Summary: DEVELOPING A COMBINED PLAN THAT SAVES AS MANY EXISTING TREES AS ROSSIBLE WILL PROVIDE FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WHERE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS, AN AREA WIDE INTEGRATED TREE 'PLAN WITH TREES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SIDEWALKS, AND THE INFORMATION FOR AN ISTEA GRANT. Recommendations: Sponsor: DEVELOP NEW PLAN AND SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION. Committee: •SAME AS SPONSOR AND REVISE SIDEWAEKKORDINANCE. Administration: CONCUR. Cost Impact (if known): • Fund Source known): Meeting Date 1/02s-1 I ACtion Meeting Date Attachments 1/25/93 INFORMATION PAPER DATED JANUARY 21, 1993 1/25/93 SIDEWALK/TREE COST/FT CHART 1/25/93 LID VS. GRANT COST COMPARISON TABLE 1/25/93 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES (DATED JANUARY 19, 1993) C i t y of T u k w i l a For Mayor's Office Only Mayor I N F O R M A T I O N PAPER City • Admin Filed Department: PUBLIC WORKS For Your Information Date: January 21, 1993 X Response Requested Subject: CBD Sidewalk /Tree /Walkway Plan Immediate Response BACKGROUND 1992- Strander Sidewalk LID design work revealed many-problems, trees -..::L-"being-the primary issue. TC reviewed the first` alternatives, we went back to the drawing board developing additional alternatives and pursuing the idea of easement within the parking lots, further review of alternatives with our environmentalist and the Mayor, and further work and design to not affect trees. US West was given the same direction for their fiber optic installation - not to endanger trees. US West purchased additional easements to meet their sched- ule and subsequent agreement has been reached to replace damaged trees with similar size. Existing trees are of various types, some diseased, and all were planted when sidewalks were not a development requirement. A sig- nificant problem is removing branches to provide clearance for peds on a new sidewalk - especially a problem in the bermed areas. A new plan that is in harmony, sidewalk and trees, would be better. It could address the old railroad rights of way. ACTION TAKEN A cost /foot has been developed. Costs range from $23.50 /foot to $74.10 foot. Strander property owner meetings have been not pleased the owners, they'd much rather have sidewalks instead of trees. Tree requirements & LID costs haven't been discussed. ALTERNATIVES A new sidewalk and tree plan would be better for the trees, ped safety /travel, design costs, and aesthetically. ISTEA grants have been awarded for CBD sidewalk and tree enhancement projects. This alternative is proposed to provide an improved sidewalk and tree project, reduced costs, and not incurr the costs and time for fund - ing with LIDs. Project cost would be almost $100,000 less and costs to the City and City property owners would be over $1,000,000 less. Costs on the grant /LID and cost /ft charts are slightly different. RECOMMENDATION: Considering the problems we've experienced, substantial savings, and better plan potential it is recommended to pursue a sidewalk /tree enhancement grant instead of the LID approach. Attachments: Cost /foot table LID /Grant comparison chart. COST COMPARISON FOR TUKWILA CBD SIDEWALK PROJECT . }}:.. }}::h { { :y ? ?a'f i >ri'•}•ya: "•: ?: 'a't?? {. :• �<Y^% } {{?>.l{�..#. :, Y?aYu•} :v.: vvY .} ;.?. : : a};. :• �?.x.i:ys'�+{ rt•ok. r: { .£:M:{:.Y.•}:£?:f,? ,fiv•.::?: : :- £x�c�.Y. xr . :< { Nn � }. t •{ > }•rn.3,:•.G k.•,.:.a' C.n," .. J..v ua.a.. : ; }{{•...y tn, }, : nvn;.:.{' xi. {J,`F.!•. }+{•'? : i3' +{ i•; SRi:. N% J rG� • 4: :{':�. } •?:taa}vfii;„in; }?:xx , ?��:h ti:Y2fixrf� .. .:40£ W...:{ < : {OY?rvr,. .x.: ai; i: :{. <{# :•:• :lar:{:Y.n v . w; {:xlrla .;Y: ?'n• }Qvv...;: n):+,.•:2: D : ..:niY}�•:..ky.:Cu• •r:fo-.:YYwH ..v :f r ..nfv: tA n•• i ..va }1STEA•$ n PROJECT COSTS Construction Cost S1,104,204 Construction Cost $1,104,204 Design Engineering 232,200 Design Engineering 232,200 Construction Engineering 165,600 Construction Engineering • 165,600 LID Administration' 88,340 CITY LID Administration (Meetings) 8,000 • TOTAL PROJECT COST S1,598,344 TOTAL PROJECT COST S1,502,004 PROJECT FUNDING Tukwila Property Owners Cost (LID) Tukwila Property Owners Cost: 50.00 • (Const. & Const. Engr): S1269,804 ISTEA 80% Grant: 1201,603 City Cost (Design Engr. & Admin.)** 328,540 City Cost (Match ©20%): 300,401 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING S1,598,344 TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING 51,502,004 1• L.I.D. administration includes engineering costs for assessment rolls, public hearings, property owner meetings, required exhibits, legal descriptions and legal review fees. If bonds are sold to finance the project, there will also be costs for bond council, bond printing and additional legal fees. Design engineering and L.I.D. administration costs are assumed to be funded by the City, as specified in the Tukwila Sidewalk Ordinance. 17/1•97 Jot, No.I IOGp•m1 M/97=001 Transportation Committee January 19, 1993 Present: Dennis. Robertson, Chair; Joan Hernandez, Allan Ekberg Ross Earnst, Ron Cameron, Ted Freemire, Doug Micheau, Ross Heller (left 5:40), Lucy Lauterbach Agenda items: 1. CTR Agreement•with Metro Doug explained how Tukwila had been negotiating with .Metro for them to develop a Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) program for Tukwila.. The contract calls for them to write an ordinance and plan, notify all the affected employers, and . verify who should be involved in tide.. program:: CTR applies to -4y employer who has 100 or more employees arriving at one work site between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Tukwila may have as many as 30 sites. The city's getting state money to comply with CTR.•Recommend to consent agenda that Council authorize the mayor to sign agreement with Metro to develop CTR program and ordinance. 1 • 2.CTR Ordinance The agreement calls for Metro to have Tukwila's ordinance and plan by January. They have finished our ordinance, which is supposed to be adopted this month. Metro worked with Tukwila staff to develop the ordinance. The ordinance will require major employers reduce vehicle miles travel by employees go down at least 15% by January, 1995. Forward ordinance to first available public hearing and COW. 3.Metro Transit Zone Request Metro has asked for five new transit zone stops and one transit stop move. There have been a few problems with Metro just putting stops and zones in without consulting the City first. Staff proposed and the committee supported requiring a street use permit that Metro could use once a year to designate their stops. After looking at the six new stops, the committee decided they :needed more information, including where there are stops now, and how much trouble these new stops would cause. Defer decision on new stops for two weeks; reschedule. 4. Crostick /Strander Easement The city had, done a couple of surveys that came our differently than the Crostick survey, which showed the city had built a sidewalk on their private property. The property is on the corner of Interurban and 52nd, with the sidewalk being on 52nd. The agreement between the city as Crostick /Strander is for them to give . the city an easement. for the sidewalk, and for the city to build them a driveway on Interurban. The driveway won't allow left turns. Move agreement to consent agenda for Mayor's signature authorization. 5. S. 124th /50th Ave. S. Project A project at this Allentown site . began two years ago, and ran into trouble with a 4" water line, some sloughing, and the stop sign there. The total amount of the project was $397,332.96.Recommend project acceptance and release the retainage at a consent agenda. 6.Strander /Southcenter•Parkway ROW The city plans to improve the strander /Southcenter Parkway intersection, and needs more space on the southeast side of the intersection. However, the property owner there is pleased enough about the improvement that he's agreed to donate the needed right • of way. Recommend authorizing the mayor to sign agreement accepting the ROW at a consent agenda. ��. 7. CBD Sidewalk and trees When staff tried to put a new sidewalk on Strander between APE and SR 181 they were stymied by some cld trees on the south side of the street. It's estimated that going around trees with sidewalks would cost over $1.5 million, with possibly up to 30% of the cost being saved by taking old trees out and replacing them with new trees. The committee discussed two issues: whether to take the current big trees out, and how to fund a sidewalk /tree plan. On the first issue, all three agreed the city could cut the trees now there.•The staff proposed applying for an ISTEA grant to pay the business' part of the sidewalk plan. Without the grant business would pay $1.3 million; with the.. grant' they-would pay_- nothing; the City's portion would 'go from .$a28,000 to $300; 000. _ ' Dennis thought maybe the City should share more in the benefit of the grant, rather than the businesses getting a free ride. Joan and Allan disagreed. There was much discussion about whether to wait until next November to hear about the grant, or to proceed now so we don't waste time getting sidewalks in. The compromise was to do a design report and tree plan now, submit for a grant in April, hear by November, and if, we don't get the grant, to proceed with a sidewalk LID as originally planned. Refer issue to COW. 8. Reroofing Projects Both the community center and the fire station #51 need new roofs, and they were both sent out for bid. The fire bid was reasonable, for $58,757, but the Community center $62,000 bid was deemed not reasonable. The fire station reroof will be done. Award bid for fire station. 9. Macadam Speed Limit Reduction The committee okayed lowering the • speed limit per the Finance and Safety Committee's recommendation, though they modified it to end at the north end at 42nd Ave. rather than go all the way down the hill. Lower speed limit. 10. Citizen request to .close street to trucks In response to Ms McManus' request to stop Burlington Northern trucks on 56th, staff pointed out the rendering works and a sawdust company still need access. The agreement was to put a sign on the east end of 56th allowing rendering works traffic only. Staff will also look to see if the BN trailer parking around there is legal or shouldn't be allowed. One sign put up to discourage BN trucks. 11. SKATBD Report Dennis reported on that day's SKTBd meeting, which didn't go too well. There weren't too many elected officials, and not much agreement. People will talk to their .Councils about whether they'll support RTP. Renton wants a commuter rail branch to Renton. Dennis wanted Steve L. and Wally to send a map and brief letter to SKTBd members about what Tukwila's position is. Ross disagreed when the maps and. letter should go out, saying it should wait for the technical committee. The•maps will be simple, colored and clear. Lucy will prePare maps and work with Steve and Wally on letter and packet. ikk CBD SIDEWALK PROJECT. DESIGN REPORT SCOPE OF WORK 1. PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT A. COORDINATION 1. Coordinate with the City to expedite the preparation of the Design Report and related exhibits. B. FIELD SURVEY AND BASE MAPS 1. Provide field review to reference right -of -way and roadway locations in accordance with base mapping. 2. Provide site review to reference tree locations in relationship to existing curbs and driveways. 3. Provide 1' =150' digital base mapping of project area with the following information shown: Street right -of -way with centerline identified, property lines at street right -of -way, existing recorded easements referenced on assessor maps, existing curb lines, tree locations, and major structures which will affect sidewalk placement. Project areas within the coverage of the existing CBD aerial photography will be mapped with topographic features. 4. Review data provided by the City which includes the 1987 sidewalk plan, assessor maps, utility maps, plats, and records of survey within the project area. C. SIDEWALK PLAN EXHIBIT 1. Analyze field and aerial data to establish new sidewalk location, tree removal requirements and necessary retaining walls, using approved decision tree matrix. 2. Provide 1 " =150' plots for sidewalk and tree development meetings, with the following depicted information on each of the four required plots: a. Rights -of -way, streets; property lines, existing trees. b. Rights -of -way, streets, property lines, trees which will remain. c. Rights -of -way, streets, property lines, new sidewalks and new trees. d. Rights -of -way, streets, property lines, new trees which will be added along existing sidewalks. D. TREE PLAN EXHIBITS 1. Meet with staff representing Department's of Community Development and Public Works to establish landscape design criteria for use in developing three tree planting themes that provide "harmony and consistency within the CBD. 2. Develop the three tree planting themes which address the requirements of providing landscaping which will blend with and enhance existing landscaping. 3. Meet with staff representing Department of Community Development and Public Works to review the three developed landscaping themes, and identify the final theme to be submitted to the Council for their timely review and approval. 4. Finalize selected landscaping theme exhibit for Council presentation, along with planting requirements (spacing, etc.), capital cost, estimated cost per year for short term and long term maintenance (pruning, spraying, etc.) and estimated life expectancy. E. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN 1. Analyze continuity of pedestrian circulation within study area, provide recommendations for improving continuity including right- of -way or easements, and complete a needs assessment for three identified pedestrian signal improvements located at (a) Southcenter Parkway and Minkler, (b) Southcenter Parkway and South 168th Street and, (c) Andover Park West and Minkler Blvd. 2. Evaluate pedestrian corridor and circulation needs within a) Minkler Blvd. corridor from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway, b) South 168th Street corridor from Andover Park West to Southcenter Parkway and c) Trek Drive corridor from Andover Park West to existing Trek Drive. 3. Utilize existing sidewalk design criteria for developing the design for new pedestrian pathways within railroad right -of -way.. F. SIDEWALK AND TREE CONSTRAINTS 1. Reference right -of -way and easement areas necessary to construct new standard sidewalks (with trees) and pedestrian pathways, as identified in Section E -1. 2. Prepare right -of- way /easement location plans for identified new property takes. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS • 1. Where existing parking Tots will be Impacted by the addition of new sidewalks and landscaping, provide feasibility and cost estimates for modifying parking areas, without eliminating parking stalls wherever possible. DESIGN REPORT 1. Prepare detail sheets and V=50' plan sheets for sidewalk and landscaping improvements, to be used as half sized exhibits in the • Design Report. 2. Prepare Design Report which compiles study data, makes recommendations and estimates costs for sidewalk, pathway and signal improvements. 3. Submit five draft copies of Design Report to the City for review. 4. Attend meeting to discuss City review comments and desired changes. 5. Make agreed upon changes and submit twenty copies of the final Design Report to the City. Y3 /93:SKUD Job No. 110605 -101 -2 Revised 2/23/93 • CBD SIDEWAL PROJECT ESTIMATED DESIGN REPORT FEE Bl -- 2 2 4 $ 80 B2 2 8 32 -- -- Miscellaneous $100 Wage $ 10 83 4 24 16 128 — B4 2 8 24 -- — 01 4 4 32 8 — ' C2 2 4 . -- 4O -- ��pr�dV��|�n $1,500 Miscellaneous $lCO [}l 4 4 -- -- -- Landscape Arch. ([)1-[J4} $6.600 D2 2 6 -- 2 D3 4 4 -- -- — D4 2 4 8 16 — • El 17 8 28 12 — E2 • -- 1 8 2 — E3 -- 1 8 8 — Fl — 2 20 -- — F2 -- 2 4 16 — Gl 2 4 24 8 — Hl -- -- 16 32 -- Reproduction $lOO H2 4 8 24 8 8 H3 -- 1 -- -- 6 Reproduction $200 H4 4 4 -- -- — ^ H5 2 16 16 80 . 8 Reproduction $300 Subtotal 63 127 270 322 26 CBD Sidewalk Project Page. Two Labor: Principal 63 Hrs @ 831.25 81,968.75 Project Manager 127 Hrs @ 825.64 83256.28 Project Engineer 270 Hrs @ $ 19.94 $5,383.80 Technician 322 Hrs @ 816.75 $5,393.50 Clerical 26 Hrs @ 810.00 $ 260.00 Total Direct Labor $ 16,262.33 Overhead @ 160% Subtotal Profit @15% TOTAL LABOR COST 826.019.73 842,282.06 S 6.342.31 $48,624.37 Direct Costs: Subconsultants = $6,600.00 (Thomas L. Berger Associates) Mileage = $ 50.00 Reproduction = 82,100.00 Miscellaneous = S 200.00 Subtotal = 88,950.00 Markup at 15% = 81,342.50 TOTAL DIRECT COST: $10.292.50 TOTAL ESTIMATED DESIGN FEE = $58.916.87 Y3 /93:SKCBDDes1 Revised 2/23/93 street tree program City of Tukwila CBD SIDEWALK PROJECT / STREET TREES GCI GARDNER CONSULTANTS, INC. 12720 GAIEWAYID111VE, SUITE 201 SEAFILE. WASHING-I UN 9816E3 1206) 242-9575 1'AX12061242-9617 The Berger Partnership, P.S. 2021 Minor East Seattle, Washington 98102 (206) 325-6877 (206) 323-6867 (Fax) Landscape Architecture Site Planning Dace: 14 May 1993 CITY OF TUKWILA - STREET TREE PROGRAM INTRODUCTION Street trees are an essential element in the enhancement of the City's physical and aesthetic character. Trees contribute in many ways. They add beauty, color, shade, screening, and shelter to what can otherwise be a harsh environment. They absorb air pollutants and carbon dioxide while generating oxygen. They can provide a sense of place and identity and serve as unifying elements. Proper tree selection, planting, and maintenance are critical to the success of an urban street tree program. LOCATION This street tree planting program includes the area defined by Tukwila Parkway, Southcenter Parkway, South 180th Street, and the Green River. EXISTING STREET TREES The over 1400 existing street trees in the project area consist of an assortment of tree types with little continuit. These trees are in various states of vitality and levels of appropriateness. Expansion of the sidewalk program will dictate the removal of a number of existing trees. Upon the determination of the final street tree planting theme, trees will be individually evaluated for preservation, reuse, or removal. THE TASK This project is to develop a tree planting theme that will provide "harmony and consistency" within the central business district. THE PROCESS • Meet with representatives of City departments: Public Works, Planning, and Parks. • Gather input on land use, tree selection, existing conditions, and maintenance concerns • Determine critical elements, ranked in order of importance. • Complete conceptual mapping of anticipated land uses for the next 20 years, the base organizing concept for the street tree program. • Review and evaluate street tree planting concept options. • Develop plans that address /provide the following critical elements: • Acknowledgment of community gateways by providing high impact plantings at key locations • Specialized high interest plantings at heavy use pedestrian and automobile intersections • Hierarchical street planting to give each street its own character while also addressing adjacent land use appropriately, i.e. parks, riparian edges • Down -sized tree plantings for pedestrian corridors that will also extend a spine of indigenous plantings into the urban center. Using this process, three tree planting schemes were developed based on alternative tree selection. Following review of the three alternative schemes by Public Works, Planning, and Parks, one final scheme will be selected and presented to the City Council for review and approval. In addition to the planting scheme, the following items have been developed: • Tree selection criteria • Planting requirements and typical planting conditions • Capital costs • Estimated cost per year for short term and long term maintenance. L L L TUKWILA STREET TREE PROJECT Acer circinatum / Vine Maple 0 0 0 as LL Flower Winter Fruit Broad Habit Narrow Habit Ornamental Scale • • Acer griseum / Paperbark Maple • • • Acer rubrum / Red Maple • • Aesculus hippocastanum / Common Horsechestnut • I • • Amelanchier alnifolia / Serviceberry • • • Amelanchier laevis / Serviceberry • • • Cedrus deodara / Deodar Cedar I • Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura • • Cercis canadensis / Eastern Redbud • • • Cladrastis lutea / Yellowood • • Cornus Kousa / Kousa Dogwood • • • Crataegus x lavallei / Carriere Hawthorn • • • Crataegus phaenopyrum / Washington Thorn • • • Fagus sylvatica / European Beech • • Fraxinus oxycarpa / Flame Ash • • Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Marshall' / Green Ash • • Ginko biloba / Maidenhair Tree • • Liquidambar styraciflua / Sweet Gum • • Liriodendron tulipifera / Tulip Tree • • • Magnolia kobus / Kobus Magnolia • • Malus 'Snowdrift' / Crabapple • • • Prunus yedoensis / Yoshino Flowering Cherry • • Pyrus calleriana / Flowering Pear • • Quercus robur / English Oak • Quercus rubra / Northern Red Oak • • Sequoladendron giganteum / Giant Sequoia • Thuja plicata / Western Red Cedar • TUKWILA STREET TREE PROGRAM GATEWAYS Evergreen Trees 1. Sequoiadendron giganteum /Giant Sequoia 2. Cedrus deodara/Deodar Cedar 3. Thuja plicata/Western Red Cedar Deciduous Trees 1. Cornus kousa/Kousa Dogwood 2. Cercis canadensis/Eastern Redbud 3. Acer circinatum /Vine Maple 4. Cercidiphyllum japonicum/Katsura Tree 5. Prunus yedoensis /Yoshino Flowering Cherry MAIN STREET (NW side of Southcenter Parkway) 1. Fraxinus oxycarpa/Flarne Ash 2. Fagus sylvatica/European Beech 3. Aesculus hippocastanum/Horsechestnut MAIN STREET (Southcenter Parkway) 1. Quercus rubra/Red Oak 2. Liriodendron tulipifera/Tulip Tree 3. Fraxinus oxycarpa/Flarne Ash NODES: 1. Magnolia kobus/Kobus Magnolia 2. Crataegus phaenopyrum/Washington Thorn 3. Malus 'Snowdrift' /Crabapple MAIN STREET (Andover West) 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata'Marshall' /Marshall Ash 2. Quercus robur/English Oak 3. Liriodendron tulipifera/Tulip Tree NODES: 1. Crataegus lavallei/Lavalle Hawthorn 2. Cornus kousa/Kousa Dogwood 3. Pyrus calleryana 'Bradford' /Bradford Pear MAIN STREET (Andover East) 1. Liriodendron tulipifera/Tulip Tree 2. Quercus rubra/Red Oak 3. Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata 'Marshall' /Marshall Ash NODES: 1. Pyrus calleryana'Bradford'/Bradford Pear 2. Prunus yedoensis /Yoshino Flowering Cherry 3. Strax japonicus /Japanese Snowbell SECONDARY STREETS 1. Acer rubrum /Red Maple 2. Ginkgo biloba/Maidenhair Tree 3. Liquidambar styraciflua/Sweet Gum wraeu�:.wanaxtxrNUt�v xatt can ±rawnoeuex p:�¢i lnn siwa�w :vxwarxvewr+uwueuertmmma�w+nrie _ __ .w...w *.Ilt uvw wuroa•awr xn+. u.. n .aas.w..r.wymnsarrw.wwrim..caetny C L L L $ TREET TREES AT THE PARK 1. Cladrastis lutea/Yellowwood 2. Cercidiphyllum japonicum/Katsura Tree • 3. Amelanchier laevis /Serviceberry PEDESTRIAN LINK TREES 1. Acer circinatum/Vine Maple 2. Acer griseum/Paperbark Maple 3. Amelanchier alnifolia/Serviceberry tK(?r)ti5,,,w.J'11ii,WW.:14aSf'tt. :11,1" Mil, Pm* F: FU,': ro• �t:. 1i�S: tta: iL:.l Y ::ul:vewa:r.-- ,.,c�rc:- :....a.. r. :∎• ,...t4 raw+su..w.w u:11.... aatta KY.4721K ..sr rrsa∎ u..t. erir scm •erb.P.,tatr�a.1116.14,,W);117k ALVI?c SX7fiatEIMVA. ('. t• A r 7 V • ..s • t • /t < :,u)ij■-- illil1i:4/i / ;.1lll►=-1(!li= IfI 1111_ Existing 6' -0" New Sidewalk 4' 4' min. width Existing Condition Roadway new tree planting Typical Section at Sidewalk . �. u,... n...... �, w. wsm�ut: w�zxacweaarw :n:,�ti:a:.u..,on•ar:•,:: -v a.ti.ro. aauivnaaiwz ,vx3a.".rawc...:, Accent Shrubs - — Small Ornamental Trees Large Street Trees Typical intersection Planting • Plastic Safety Cap -• Lbcate tree 2' -0" min. from sidewalk. s A 5/8" Rebar (Locate on traffic side of tree - height not to extend above lowest branches) -- Tree Ties (3): Use reinforced wire hose, heavy 1" wide webbing or perforated vinyl tie material - allow room for growth. Remove wire and burlap from top 1/3 of rootball. Top of root crown level with top of mulch layer. Undisturbed subgrade Plant tablets -- --- Drive rebar 1' -O" min. into undisturbed soil. -- - - 2 times rootball width or 4' -0" min. - 2" layer mulch Backfill (2/3 native, 1/3 humus) 1F Perforated PVC watering tubes @ opposing sides of rootball: 6" dia. with removable cap. Roughen edges of planting hole Finish grade Note: Soil cover on major surface roots should not exceed 1 -1/2" Tree Planting /Staking Detail •Vr TUKWILA STEET TREE PROGRAM PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE GUIDE The most critical component of this program - a planting and maintenance guide to insure proper installation and long -term care. PLANTING Planting pits for trees should be 2 times the diameter of the rootball of the tree. Sidewalls of the planting pit should be rough, not smooth, to facilitate growth of new roots into native soil. A means of delivering moisture to the root system, a perforated PVC pipe is to be placed in the tree pit adjacent to the rootball. (See planting detail) Upon completion of excavation of the tree pit, the soil removed from the pit can be mixed with a 1/3 volume of composted organic material and this soil then can be used to backfill the pit. Actual planting should occur in the following steps: 1. Place the tree approximately 2" above its normal growing position. If the tree was mechanically harvested, insure that its major surface roots are no more that 1-1/2" below finish grade. 2. Cut twine and remove wire baskets. Current practice is to remove the burlap, if the burlap is the treated variety. Untreated burlap can remain on the rootball, but must be folded down. 3. Place transplanter and plant tab fertilizers around rootball along with the polymers per manufacturer's recommendation. 4. Backfill with amended native soil to within 5" of finish grade. 5. Fill hole with water and allow to settle. 6. Backfill with amended native soil to finish grade. (Finish grade of plantings should afford positive drainage away from trunk.) Staking of the trees should occur immediately after planting, being careful to avoid the roots when driving stakes. Wire from the stake to the tree should be tight but not taut, giving the tree at least some ability to flex under high winds. Stakes and wires are generally removed after the first year of growth is complete. TUKWILA STREET TREE PROGRAM MAINTENANCE In general, 5 major categories of maintenance should be addressed for the street trees. 1. Watering: For the first two years, the trees should be thoroughly soaked about once a week coinciding with the dry season (approximately 5 gallons /week). The deeper the watering, the deeper the roots will penetrate, making the trees less likely to heave paving and more resistant to drought. For the third year, the trees should receive the same deep watering, only on a once every 2 week basis coinciding with the dry season. A perforated vertical watering pipe (see detail) is a device that can aid in delivering moisture deep in the root zone. 2. Weeds: Weeds compete for nutrient and water; thus the bases of trees should be kept as weed free as possible. It is advisable to create a circular soil cut -out in the adjacent turf around the tree base to further reduce the amount of competition for moisture and nutrient. 3. Fertilizer: A balanced slow release starter fertilizer should be applied around the rootball upon installation. A top dressing of granular form 14 -14 -14 can be applied every ten years as the tree matures. 4. Pruning: Should be accomplished once, immediately upon installation to generally thin the overall tree by approximately 15% to 20 %. Thereafter, pruning should occur during the third year to remove suckers, crossovers and dead branches. Pruning after the third year should be limited to damage branches. 5. Pest Control: Trees should receive an annual inspection for pest infestation. Tent caterpillar, Scale and Aphid colonies should be treated by a licensed exterminator. Generally, routine preventative spraying is not recommended; measures should be more corrective in nature. 1::Vzte 4 0,45o:A.»K:,:J^ %::4•5,t1 :;;Cb.X. :14.•;Cti414:V t. 'Si" F.�S' • Y. HF4CC411•RA a?:Y:*.f1Fkx &ktr..xrc�aa TUKWILA STREET TREE PROGRAM ESTIMATE OF CAPITAL COSTS - May 1993. Unit Total for Description Cost Unit . Quantity Project SITE PREPARATION* Removal of existing trees (40% to 60 %) $75 EA 840 $63,000 Relocate existing trees (Limited cal. /20 %) $325 EA 280 $91,000 TREE PLANTING (Materials & Labor) 2' to 2 1/2" Caliper Trees $375 EA 3000 $1,125,000 1 1/2" to 2" Caliper Trees $250 EA 400 $100,000 Total $1,379,000 Tree planting costs include the following; Delivery, backhoe, labor, soil, polymers, watering tubes, rebar staking, mulch, warrantee and P & O. *Assumptions: Tree planting is in unpaved area and does not require relocation of utilities or special drainage work. Based on installation quantity of 50 trees min. _I1-4.1.MMIZIPfi3RaMVO; I!.'.�cli•! < Y�f.: l.•.. �L` �s ':F:'.i- :f:AC +wf.p�'. *wxicUrN. iu <I V.- :+4.�.u4.Me.�xmr.f.. ^u:x ................._.,..... e......... w.-.,.....: wai..+ msra�nvx,.- zn.�,.v.n.,.+.wv..,•..,..w.... fir. ww..,,.' s�xvw. n�aza�ncs+ Atnbt° S:'= SYG`.,;•• r.,.'£: 1:Ln;�,••;r.'•+r,�,•i�i2GiG°. "; ICA. TUKWILA STREET TREE PROGRAM ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR YEAR 1 Labor ACTIVITY Quantity Unit Hours Frequency Straighten/Tighten Wires (yr 1) 1 EA 0.25 1 0.25 Pruning (Winter) 1 EA 0.3 1 0.30 Watering (Summer) 1 EA 0.25 25 6.25 Insect & Disease control (as needed) 1 EA 0.2 1 0.20 TOTAL HOURS 7.00 Projected Labor Costs 7.00 Hours X $25.00 $175.00 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR YEAR 2 ACTIVITY Labor Quantity Unit Hours Frequency Remove stakes Watering (Summer) Insect & Disease control TOTAL HOURS Projected Labor Costs 1 EA 0.5 . 1 0.50 1 EA 0.25 25 6.25 1 EA 0.2 1 0.20 6.95 6.95 Hours X $25.00 $173.75 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR YEAR 3 Watering (Summer) 1 EA 0.25 16 4.00 Mulch 1 EA 0.15 1 0.15 Insect & Disease control (As needed) 1 EA 0.25 1 0.25 TOTAL HOURS 4.40 Projected Labor Costs 4.40 Hours X $25.00 $110.00 ESTIMATED MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR YEAR 4+ Leaf clean -up Fertilize (Every 10th yr = 10 % /yr) Management Pruning (Every 5 years) Insect & Disease control (As needed) 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA 0.3 0.1 0.25 0.2 TOTAL HOURS Projected Labor Costs 0.85 Hours X $25.00 Not included: Materials, Mobilization, Equipment, Disposal 1 0.30 1 0.10 1 0.25 1 0.20 0.85 $21.25 ( Gateway Sketch 'evised CBD Sidewalk Project liminary Project Cost Estimate ,posed Design Solution Replace each removed tree with two new trees trees; avg. utilities: SW behind curb Street Location 770 $18,095 2,640 $62,040 es to remain within 4' of SW with wide Pavers 990 $24,602 2,200 $54,670 1,220 $30,317 lees less than 4" dia.; Remove 1 Replace 440 $12,320 160 $4,480 1,370 $32,195 750 $18,638 U 0 0 650 180 $15,275 $4,230 3680 $86,480 570 $13,395 6,960 $163,560 320 350 $7,952 $8,698 890 $22,117 6,720 $166,994 600 $16,800 gees greater than 4" dia.; Remove 1 Replace trees; Regrade and Reseed 370 $18,685 270 $90,585 1,730 $58,042 80 $4,040 710 $23,821 900 $45,450 450 $22,725 190 $6,375 80 $2,684 2,980 $181,507 'mite SW to back of parking curb ?; Regrade and Reseed 1,280 $39,254 220 $7,381 1,500 $46,635 gees less than 4" dia.; Remove i Replace; Regrade and Reseed 320 $12,176 730 $27, 777 1,050 $39,953 Trees greater than 4" dia.; Remove i Replace; Regrade and Reseed 170 $10,294 1,170 $70,844 280 $16,954 130 $7,872 90 $5,450 150 $9,083 1,990 $120,497 es to remain; Conc. Retaining Wall or ;kery required; SW 4' min. 210 $15,561 1,810 $134,121 390 $28,899 220 .$16,302 500 $37,050 3,130 $231,933 3,540 $202,318 11,720 $451,228 1,610 $59,216 3,410 $111,950 1,320 $38,480 530 $12,928 5,360 1,690 $180,805 $47,279 29,180 $1,104,204 $232,200 $165,600 Total Lineal Feet Total Construction Estimated Design Engineering Estimated Construction Engineering $1,502,004 Total Estimated Project Cost Unit Cost Revised CBD Sidewalk Project Preliminary Project Cost Estimate Existing Condition Flat Berm Proposed Design Solution * Replace each removed tree with two new trees 0 Li o. e4 L U Street Location 0 03 $23.50/L. F. 824.85/L. F. $28.00/L. F. $50. 50/L. F. $33.55/L.F. $33.55/L F. $38.05 /L. F. 860. 55/L. F. $74. 10. /L.F. A No trees; avg. utilities: SW behind curb 770 $18,095 B Trees to remain within 4' of SW with 3' wide Pavers 990 $24,602 C * Trees less than 4" dia.; Remove and Replace 440 $12,320 2,640 $62,040 2,200 $54,670 160 $4,480 1,370 650 180 $32,195 815,275 $4,230 3680 $86,480 570 $13,395 6,960 $163,560 1,220 $30,317 750 320 350 $18,638 $7,952 $8,698 890 $22,117 6,720 $166,994 D * Trees greater than 4" dia.; Remove and Replace 370 $18,685 No trees; Regrade and Reseed 270 $90,585 1,730 858,042 80 84,040 710 $23, 821 900 $45,450 190 $6,375 600 $16,800 1- 450 $22,725 80 $2,684 2,980 8181,507 Reroute SW to back of parking curb or ?; Regrade and Reseed 1,280 $39,254 220 $7,381 1,500 $46,635 * Trees less than 4" dia.; Remove and Replace; Regrade and Reseed 320 $12,176 730 827,777 1,050 839,953 * Trees greater than 4" dia.; Remove and Replace; Regrade and Reseed 170 $10,294 1,170 $70,844 280 $16,954 130 $7,872 90 $5,450 150 $9,083 1,990 8120,497 Trees to remain; Conc. Retaining Wall or Rockery required; SW 4' min. 210 $15,561 1,810 8134,121 3,540 $202,318 11,720 $451,228 390 828,899 1,610 $59,216 220 816,302 500 837,050 3,130 8231,933 3,410 $111,950 1,320 838,480 530 $12,928 5,360 1,690 $180,805 $47,279 29,180 $1,104,204 Total Lineal Feet Total Construction $232,200 Estimated Design Engine $165,600 Estimated Construction E $1,502,004 Total Estimated Project 4 4 A vv ..Le5 STREET EJD 7 ,cr A v a czri.o 2 CE T C0 -.E0 E 0 0 D Till-1 !I3 VP, a 0 3 lJ 0 H I 3 c6 E 1 00 V • v1V A v r0 ff SECONDARY STREET 3 .• ` \r7-'A a a 0 1- 3 "qv • * 0 0 0 00 0 0 z • 11 0 ; 0 10 0 0 w • • z 1 21, 0 0 rLci c • • si • ctsv • PARK a a 0 0 a a 5 w MAIN STREE SECONDARY STR v R • je - • - 4' 0 IT E. L.9J 1E TRT5 tJLED JNOI)E a a ral C:1 aELL-910- C9-1 Lai tgc0,Lg.,Lc4L a AE A 1,41■,-*•cy WPM • . PEDESTRIAN LINK — N N0115741- 0R. r 0 11* 0 0 / // 0 • AV. 5. • V'• • a D / I L 0 • ! N • 5 BL P 0 E a c E 11 A CI:0 C1 C.6Y; RETT:1 ri A A A •• 17 V V V le 0 0 D ana • 0 0 0 f idr/N-fimAs" Vi V V VV.- ER o Ej II- SECONDARY 00 0 STREET-5 0 0 T 0 '7 v ; l C 1 7:144 A • • • Uri,3 7V NTERISTATE 5 0 0 a 0 ClCi a a a 4."‘ItA. itt e M 0 a a 0 0 a 0 IPA MAIN STREET co rth-t0 reT1 Pio -r L 19.112)11- ; ! El et I O I GATEWAY 0 • Lt • rig 1r== • • 0 0 0• a OvER I4( Ilf116 E 1"Or. a -t3 ! 1-.7 tazi_4 NODE 1 E _ c• r • {2 1 12 _1bl. ;r a a /1 4 0 4 ,E - ■/ .■ a a L 0 a wI eo PARK a 5 N V i*t 7 C _ PEDESTRIAN LI N 4DuSTRY 0 a 5 4 0 5. a 1 LJ\At\ n 1— MAIN STREET SECONDARY STREET 0 ■ , r4 • 0 T 016e • _ t Liti E- -} . • a . 651; v. 5. L , Li v • 11 jULL :1 j ; / 0 i . , C r1 N z1 . 1 U T A N- 7 C CN T G:•±7:aTenR 7t.42 e rAs.•h■•• •1, T A • S1 , 4 TaOLTI1O H . wO P y . S Partnip SM 11,101/7 MT I ICO3