HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2022-09-22 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
AND
BOARD OF ARCHECTITURAL REVIEW (BAR)
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 22, 2022 - 6:30 PM
To Participate in the Virtual Meeting at 6:30 pm:
By Phone: Dial +1 253-292-9750, Access 779 253 241#
Online: To join this meeting virtually please click on Planning Commission on the 9/22/22 calendar
date on the events page located at https://www.tukwilawa.gov/events/
To attend in-person, please join us by 6:15 pm:
Tukwila Justice Center, 15005 Tukwila International Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188
FOR TECHNICAL SUPPORT DURING THE MEETING YOU MAY CALL 1-206-433-7155
I. Call to order
II. Attendance
III. Equity and Social Justice Commission (ESJC) Presentation - Perri Doll
IV. Adopt 8/25/22 Minutes
V. Acknowledge Written General Public Comment Received (if any)
PUBLIC HEARING
VI. CASE NUMBER: L22-0048
PURPOSE: Major Design Review for a new 121,156-square-foot warehouse.
LOCATION: 5910 S 180th St, Tukwila, WA 98188 (Parcel No. 3523049061)
VII. Director’s report
VIII. Adjourn
CHAIR KAREN SIMMONS; VICE-CHAIR APNEET SIDHU, COMMISSIONERS
LOUSIE STRANDER, DENNIS MARTINEZ, SHARON MANN, ALEXANDRIA
TEAGUE, AND MARTIN PROBST
Equity and Social Justice Commission (ESJC)
Prepared and presented by ESJC Commissioner Perri Doll, MPS
In collaboration with:
Equity and Social Justice Commission
Niesha Fort-Brooks, Community Engagement Manager 1
Mission
The Commission advises policymakers, advocating and promoting for initiatives
that dismantle systemic racial, gender and economic inequities, to create and
strengthen a sense of belonging for all community members.
2
History
●The Commission was founded by the late Joan Hernandez former City of
Tukwila Councilmember.
●In 1989, the Council passed Ordinance 1828, establishing an Equity and
Diversity Commission and setting forth its purpose and scope of duties.
●October 2018 saw the Commission’s name changed to the Equity and Social
Justice Commission.
●The Equity and Social Justice Commission developed a new mission
statement in 2021.
3
Purpose (By-Laws)
The objective of the Commission shall be: Tukwila Municipal Code 2.29.010
●To promote understanding that accepts, celebrates and appreciates diversity within the
community.
●To serve as a resource for the community by providing information and educational
forums that will facilitate a better understanding and awareness of social justice and
human rights.
○Ex: Annual Juneteenth Commemoration
●To provide recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding opportunities to
increase equity and social justice awareness and promote social justice programs.
4
Equity Definition
Resolution 1921 Equity Policy, December 2017
Equity Definition: Eliminating systemic barriers and providing fair access to
programs, services and opportunities to achieve social, civic and economic justice
within the City of Tukwila.
5
Goals of Equity Policy
1. Our City workforce reflects our community.
2. Community outreach and engagement is relevant, intentional, inclusive,
consistent and ongoing.
3. All residents and visitors receive equitable delivery of City services.
4. City government is committed to equity in the decision-making process.
5. Equity serves as a core value for all long-term plans moving forward.
6. The City will build capacity around equity within City government and the
broader community
6
Opportunities for Collaboration
Recommendations:
●Translation into top-3 languages besides English (Vietnamese, Spanish and
Somali)
●Closed captions for deaf and hard-of-hearing community
●Participation in equity training led by the city
City-Wide Planning (examples are, but are not limited to…):
●Comprehensive Plan
●Economic Development Plan
7
ESJC Meetings
●First Thursday of every month at 5:30pm
●Meetings are held at the City of Tukwila Justice Center:
○15005 Tukwila International Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98168
8
When you seek feedback from the ESJC
●City-wide departments, boards, and commissions are encouraged to bring
policies, programs, or services to the ESJC
●Be prepared with the data - do your homework and bring it to us
●Be specific about desired feedback
●Keep an open mind - the ESJC’s mission is to ensure that there are equitable
outcomes for everyone
●Refer to the City’s Equity Policy, Resolution 1921
9
Each individual’s unique set of talents and perspectives is necessary for
this work. Thank you for contributing yours!
I welcome your questions and opportunities for collaboration
10
CITY OF TUKWILA
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (BAR)
PUBLIC HEARING
AND
PLANNING COMMISSION (PC)
MINUTES
Date: August 25, 2022
Time: 6:30 PM
Location: Virtual meeting via Microsoft Teams - Public, in-person attendance was an option at the
Tukwila Justice Center, 15005 Tukwila International Blvd, Tukwila, WA 98188
Chair Simmons called the meeting to order and asked staff to go over the meeting protocols.
Protocols: Nora Gierloff, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), Director, Department
of Community Development (DCD) explained the protocols for the virtual meeting and
the public hearing.
Roll Call
Present: Chair Simmons, Vice-Chair Sidhu, Commissioner Strander, Commissioner Teague,
Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Probst
Excused
Absence: Commissioner Mann
Staff: Director Nora Gierloff, AICP, DCD; Development Supervisor Max Baker, AICP,
DCD; Associate Planner Breyden Jager, DCD; and Long-Range Planning Manager
Nancy Eklund, AICP, DCD
Adopt
Minutes: Commissioner Strander made a motion to adopt the June 23 minutes and
Commissioner Martinez seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Probst made a motion to adopt the July 28 minutes, Commissioner
Strander seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
General Public Comments
No public comments were submitted.
Public Hearing
Chair Simmons opened the public hearing for:
11
BAR/PC Meeting
8/25/22
Page 2
CASE NUMBER: L22-0032
PURPOSE: Major Design Review for a new seven-story mixed-use residential and commercial
building.
LOCATION: 130 Andover Park E (Parcel No. 0223100040).
Chair Simmons swore in persons wishing to speak.
Public Hearing – Public Comments
No public comments were submitted and no one, aside from the applicant, offered testimony.
Breyden Jager asked the BAR the appearance of fairness questions and there were no disclosures.
Breyden Jager, Associate Planner, DCD, gave the staff presentation on the proposed project. He
provided an overview of the review process, gave background information for the site and project, and
decision criteria for the requested residential parking variance, residential open space variance, and major
design review. Details of the proposed project: The project proposes to redevelop a 1.85-acre lot located
at 130 Andover Park East. The proposal includes a seven-story, 373,045 sq. ft., mixed-use apartment
building, to include 285 dwelling units and 313 parking spaces. The proposal included a request for a
parking variance for a two percent reduction in required residential parking and an open space variance
for an 18 percent reduction in required residential open space.
Commissioner Strander asked for additional information about the SPU water easement and the
existing parking that is provided there.
Max Baker, Development Supervisor, DCD, requested that the applicant address that question during
their presentation.
Commissioner Strander asked whether a parking study was completed for the project.
Max Baker, Development Supervisor, DCD, clarified that a parking study for the area was completed
under the EIS completed for the Tukwila Urban Center, and that traffic impacts are not related to the
design review scope.
Staff answered additional clarifying questions for the Commission.
Staff’s Recommendation
Staff recommended approval with five conditions.
Applicant presentation
Chad Lorentz, Principal, Urbal Architecture, gave a presentation which provided an explanation of the
design for the building’s top, the site constraints for the open space , and required commercial parking
for the bank.
Devon Green, Design Professional, Urbal Architecture noted that employee spaces for the bank use
could be located within the parking garage.
12
BAR/PC Meeting
8/25/22
Page 3
The applicant and staff answered several additional questions for the Commission regarding parking for
the bank use, commercial and residential open space, and the building’s “top”.
Public Testimony
There was no public testimony.
Chair Simmons closed the public hearing.
Deliberations
The commissioners expressed satisfaction with the applicant’s updated proposal for a residential open
space deficiency of six percent and agreed that the applicant’s proposed design for the building’s top was
acceptable. The BAR noted that the proposed project was well-designed and thanked the applicant for
their effort in working with staff to meet the design criteria.
Motion
Commissioner Sidhu moved to approve case number L22-0032, based on the findings and
recommendations contained in the staff report, excluding recommended conditions 2, 5 and 6.
Commissioner Martinez seconded the motion. Motion passed.
Commissioner Sidhu moved to amend the original motion to add an additional condition that states
that the requested residential open space reduction shall be revised from an 18% deviation (18,306 sq.
ft. total provided) to a 6% deviation (20,991 sq. ft. total provided), as presented by the applicant at the
public hearing on Thursday, August 25th, 2022 before the BAR. Commissioner Martinez seconded the
motion. Motion passed.
Planning Commission Continuance
Chair Simmons opened the continuance for:
PC Deliberations continuance from the 7/25/22 public hearing RE: Proposed changes to TMC 18.80,
18.82, 18.84
Nora Gierloff notified Commissioners Sidhu and Martinez that they had the option to participate in the
discussion and vote even though they had missed the public hearing because it was a legislative item
and there had been no public testimony. They both opted to recuse themselves from the issue. That left
four Commissioners participating, meaning that any motion would need to be unanimous to pass.
Nora Gierloff gave some background on the proposed ordinance which would allow the Council the
option to determine the review process for future amendments to the Zoning Code rather than always
requiring two public hearings and a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Strander asked whether the housekeeping ordinance that the PC reviewed earlier in
the year would have come to them if this ordinance had been in effect. Ms. Gierloff replied that the
Council would have had the flexibility to determine which items warranted policy recommendations.
Commissioner Strander then asked for an example of an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment
13
BAR/PC Meeting
8/25/22
Page 4
that could be considered outside of the annual docketing process. Ms. Gierloff replied that she had
never seen one, but we did need to allow for the possibility. The proposed language limiting the
determination of what applications might qualify for treatment as an emergency to staff was suggested
by the City Attorney due to staff seeing them months before Council review. Commissioner Strander
then asked clarifying questions about other code sections.
Commissioner Probst asked whether staff had received any additional comments, requests, or
direction from the PC on this topic since the last meeting. Ms. Gierloff replied that they had not.
Commissioner Teague explored adding language to 18.82.030 A giving more guidance to the Council
about what type of amendments would be appropriate for different levels of review. Ms. Gierloff
suggested differentiating between administrative, procedural, substantive, and policy amendments. The
motion did not receive a second.
Commissioner Strander expressed her concern that the proposed changes would reduce opportunities
for public and PC input. There was general discussion and questioning by the PC. Ms. Gierloff outlined
the range of PC options this evening as:
1. Recommending denial of the ordinance as written.
2. Continue this to the September meeting and hold another public hearing in order to bring back
additional Commissioners into the discussion.
3. Continue working to craft language to address the concerns expressed and send that amended
language on to the Council.
4. Move the ordinance forward, giving staff general direction to develop more specific language
about process for different types of amendments. That would be reviewed by the City Attorney
before being sent to Council.
5. Recommend approval of the ordinance.
There was general discussion, with various Commissioners expressing support for each of the options
but there was not consensus on whether or how to amend the ordinance.
Motion
Commissioner Strander made a motion not to adopt the Ordinance and Commissioner Simmons
seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Director’s Report
None
Commissioner Martinez suggested that the Commission take a tour of recent projects.
Motion to adjourn by Simmons, seconded by Martinez, passed unanimously.
Submitted by: Nora Gierloff and Breyden Jager
14
BAR Staff Report 1
STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
PREPARED September 12, 2022
FILE NUMBER: L22-0048
APPLICANT: Andrew Love, AHBL
REQUESTS: Design Review approval for construction of a 121,156 square foot warehouse building
with associated office space on an approximately 5.98-acre site along with associated
site improvements.
ASSOCIATED PERMITS: None
LOCATION: 5910 S 180th Street, Tukwila, WA 98188
APN 3523049061
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATION: Tukwila Urban Center: Work-Place (TUC-WP)
SEPA
DETERMINATIONS: Part of SEPA Planned Action in the Tukwila Urban Center
STAFF: Isaac Gloor, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. Site and Landscaping Plan
B. Applicant’s Response to the Design Criteria
C. Proposed Building Elevations
D. Corridor Standards Sheets
15
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 2
FINDINGS
VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION
Project Description
This project is to construct a 121,156 square foot warehouse building with associated office space on an
approximately 5.98-acre site along with associated site improvements. The project will also establish new public
streets at unimproved portions of Triland Drive and an unnamed Workplace Corridor on the west side of the
parcel.
Figure 1. Proposed building footprint
16
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 3
Existing Site Conditions
The existing building on site, a multi-screen cinema operated by Regal Theatres, is proposed to be demolished.
The parcel also contains a large surface parking lot and associated landscaping, as well as several access roads.
Figure 2. Existing Site
Surrounding Land Uses
The site is bordered by South 180th Street to the South. Triland Drive borders the site to the northeast. The
remainder of the parcel is surrounded by private property which is zoned Tukwila Urban Center – Work-Place to
the north and east and Tukwila Urban Center – Commercial Corridor to the west. The surrounding areas are
industrial and commercial in nature, including warehouses to the east and north and auto oriented retail and
restaurant uses to the west.
Use of the site for warehouse storage and office are both permitted in the TUC-WP zoning district.
17
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 4
DESIGN REVIEW
This project is subject to a public hearing by the Board of Architectural Review under Tukwila Municipal Code
(TMC) Section 18.28.030(D)(1)(c)(1) as it is located within the Tukwila Urban Center and is a new non-residential
structure greater than 25,000 square feet in size. The applicable design review criteria for this project are listed
under TMC Section 18.60.050 (B) Commercial and Light Industrial Design Review Criteria. Projects within the
Work-Place zoning district, although located within the Tukwila Urban Center, are not subject to the Southcenter
Design Manual when they do not contain dwelling units. The Design Review Criteria are organized into five
sections covering Relationship of Structure to Site, Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area,
Landscaping and Site Treatment, Building Design, and Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture.
This project is also subject to the District Based Standards of the Tukwila Urban Center as found at TMC Table 18-
3 and the Corridor Based Standards of the Tukwila Urban Center as found at TMC Tables 25 and 27. The parcel
borders South 180th Street, a designated Commercial Corridor, and Triland Drive, a designated Workplace
Corridor. Additionally, the site contains and borders an unnamed access road and alley that extends between
South 180th Street and Minkler Boulevard that is designated a Workplace Corridor.
Figure 3. Corridor Map. Approximate site shown with orange star.
18
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 5
Design Review Criteria
In the following discussion the Design Review criterion is shown below in italics, followed by staff’s comments.
District Based Standards
TMC 18.28.070: Maximum Building Height: 45 feet
The structure is proposed to be 40.5 feet.
TMC 18.28.080: Maximum Block Face Length: 900 feet
The block face lengths will each be less than 900 feet.
TMC 18.28.100 Side and Rear Setbacks
The proposed structure is set back 15 feet or more from all property lines, which exceeds the minimum
setback requirements for the Workplace District.
TMC 18.28.110 Side and Rear Landscaping Requirements
No landscaping is required in the district based standards in the side and rear yards, however, the
project proposes to provide landscaping on all sides of the property.
New Streets (TMC 18.28.140)
The project proposes to create new streets on portions of Triland Drive and the unnamed Workplace Corridor
to the west of the parcel. These new streets will aid mobility and reduce block sizes in the area, as well as
provide pedestrian features that will increase safety for vulnerable users.
TMC 18.28.140(2): New Streets Standards
The project proposes to provide new streets at Triland Drive and the unnamed Workplace corridor that
comply with all standards of the corridor type. Possible right of way dedication is proposed for those
portions of the streets which are currently on private property. No proposed streets end in dead ends,
and they will allow for future extensions should other nearby properties redevelop. All new street
requirements will be met.
Corridor Based Standards
As shown in figure 3, Triland Drive and the unnamed access road on the west portion of the property are both
considered Workplace Corridors. South 180th Street is considered a Commercial Corridor. See attachment D
for the Corridor Standards sheets.
19
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 6
Public Frontage Standards
The project is proposed to provide 15 feet of plantings in the public frontage, with a 6 foot sidewalk and
street trees in a continuous strip. The project complies with the design standards.
TMC 18.28.160-190: Building Orientation/Placement and Landscaping
The project proposes 15-foot setbacks and 15 feet of streetscapes and complies with the design
standards.
TMC 18.28.200: Architectural Design Standards
The proposed building provides façade articulation via cut outs and inset areas on all sides of the
building at various intervals which do not exceed 22 feet. Ground level transparency will be greater than
20% on all corridor facades, exceeding the light industrial requirement of 20% on both corridor types.
Figure 4: Proposed Articulation
Commercial and Light Industrial Review Criteria (TMC 18.60.050)
1. Relationship of Structure to Site
a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for
adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement.
The proposed building is sited close to South 180th Street will occupy a larger portion of the lot
and will provide a frontage to S 180th Street, Triland Drive, and the unnamed Workplace Corridor
to the west of less than 100 feet. The currently existing Regal Cinema is set back more than 350
feet from South 180th Street. All new frontages will provide landscaped planter strips and
pedestrian facilities. These pedestrian pathways will create the unnamed Workplace Corridor’s
first pedestrian infrastructure, and will allow for pedestrian movement on the south, west, and
north sides of the parcel. Total landscaping areas exceed that of code requirements. Five total
20
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 7
access points are proposed, 2 on each frontage except for South 180th Street, which will have
only one entrance in the same location as the current access point for the Regal Cinema.
b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of
large paved areas.
Parking areas are proposed for the east, west, and south parts of the property. These parking
areas were distributed around multiple sides of the building to break up the visual impact. All
parking areas will be 1 stall deep and will be fronted by landscaping strips and trees to reduce
their visual prominence. The loading dock will be located on the east side of the property to
reduce visibility from any designated corridors or rights of way.
c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site.
The proposed building will have a maximum height of 40.5 feet, which is line with surrounding
structures and is below the maximum building height permitted in the TUC-WP zone of 45 feet.
The proposed building will meet all setback requirements.
2. Relationship of Structure to Site to Adjoining Area.
a. Harmony of texture, lines, and masses in encouraged.
The proposed building will feature a harmonious combination of different textures, including
concrete tilt panels, metal details and canopies, and wood strips. The construction materials are
in line with other developments in the TUC-WP zone.
b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
Landscaping is proposed on all facades, including the east façade which borders an existing
furniture store / warehouse building.
c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character.
Not applicable – there are no public buildings proposed for this project.
d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety,
efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
Proposed pedestrian pathways along the west and north sides of the property provide for the
first time a safe pedestrian route along those designated corridors. The loading dock will be
gated and fenced for safety and security.
e. Compatibility of on-site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged.
All entrances to the site have proposed improvements that will increase the compatibility of on-
site and street vehicle circulation. The project meets required driveway spacing distances.
21
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 8
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment.
a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should
be recognized, preserved, and enhanced.
The site is almost entirely flat, with no major ecological features. The existing site is entirely
paved save for landscaped areas, which is not proposed to be changed. However, landscaped
areas will exceed that of code requirements.
b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety, and provide
an inviting and stable appearance.
The site is predominately flat, which will promote safety for vehicles and pedestrians accessing
the site.
c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis,
and provide shade.
The proposed landscaping includes a continuous row of trees along all designated corridors, as
well as trees and shrubs within the parking lot itself, enhancing the design of the site.
d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps
should be taken.
Curbs have been designed around landscape areas adjacent to the parking lot to protect them
from injury by pedestrian or motor traffic.
e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged.
Trees and shrubs are proposed throughout the parking lot area while leaving the area proposed
for truck traffic and parking room for maneuvering and circulation.
f. Screening of service yards and other places that tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use
of walls, fencing, planting, or combination.
Trash enclosures and mechanical units will be screened with hedge screens and painted concrete
panels to match the building.
g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of
wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used.
Landscaping is proposed wherever possible on the site while still promoting site circulation and
functionality.
h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and
22
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 9
adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant
colors should be avoided.
Exterior lighting proposed for the site has been designed to provide adequate lighting to the site
without being excessively bright or brilliant colors. The proposed lighting is also designed to
shield light from spilling onto adjacent properties and direct light downward.
4. Building Design
a. Architectural style is not restricted; evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design
and relationship to its surroundings.
The proposed building will include design elements such as windows and reveal lines to provide
interest to the façade. Metal canopies are proposed to provide shadows on the building that will
provide additional depth to the elevation. Accent colors are proposed at entrances to add
interest and a focal point. The style of the building is appropriate for structures within the TUC-
WP zone and for use as a warehouse and office facility and is consistent with its neighbors.
b. Buildings should be appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments.
The scale of the building is matches those of nearby buildings in the TUC-WP zone, which are
largely other warehouse uses.
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.
The proposed building is rectangular mirroring the shape of the site itself, with pedestrian doors
located on the west side of the building. The doors and windows are in proportion to the rest of
the building.
d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
The proposed building colors are neutral white and gray with blue horizontal stripes and glazing
as an accent color near corners on the south and west facades.
e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground, or buildings should be screened
from view.
Mechanical equipment is proposed to be screened from view.
f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed
accessories should be harmonious with building design.
23
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 10
Exterior lighting is proposed along the building to align with the horizontal blue stripe in
harmony with the building design. The proposed lighting will have consistent height and spacing
around the structure.
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.
Architectural detail is proposed that will provide visual interest to the proposed building
including color scheme, and large windows.
Figure 5. Proposed West Elevation showing color and windows
5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural
concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be
appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be
to scale.
No street furniture is proposed.
b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines
applicable to site, landscape, and buildings.
No street furniture is proposed.
continued next page
24
L22-0048 Staff Report
Board of Architectural Design Review
September 22, 2022
BAR Staff Report 11
CONCLUSIONS
1) The proposed use of the building for warehouse and office is a permitted use in the TUC-WP zone.
Parcels to the north and east are also zoned TUC-WP.
2) The proposed development is consistent in design with surrounding development and will enhance both
the pedestrian and vehicular circulation around the site through new pedestrian pathways and
improved vehicular pathways.
3) Site landscaping that is proposed is functional to the site, promoting safety and enhancing the natural
amenities of the site.
4) The proposed building design provides architectural interest through color and is harmonious in scale
and design with nearby development.
5) The proposed development will provide for improved and new public streets that meet the standards of
City requirements for corridors in the Urban Center and increase mobility and safety for all users. New
streets will be brought up to standards for the corridors as established at TMC 18.28, and currently
private streets are proposed to be dedicated as public rights-of-way in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with no conditions.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Figure 18‐27: Workplace Corridor Standards
Workplace Corridor
Intent: To provide safe and supportive pedestrian facilities along
streets serving truck loading and parking access for primarily
warehouse/distribution uses in the southern part of the Southcenter
area.
APPLIED TO:
Existing Streets:Minkler Blvd (Southcenter Pkwy
to APW, Costco Dr), Upland Dr, Midland Dr,
Triland Dr, N./W. between Costco Dr and S. 180th
St, Andover Park W. (Minkler to S. 180th St),
Andover Park E. (Trek to S. 180th St), Sperry Dr
New Streets: As indicated on Corridor Type Map
Note: This is a summary of key corridor standards. See 18.28.120 to 2.10 for supplemental details.
THROUGHFARE CROSS‐SECTION (See 18.28.140)
Existing street No change
New street See new cross‐section
PUBLIC FRONTAGE STANDARDS (See 18.28.150)
Total required
width
15 ft
Sidewalk width
minimum
6 ft
Landscaping Street trees in a continuous landscaped
strip 9 ft wide located at back of curb.
Also see 18.28.240 General
Landscaping.
Street tree spacing 30‐50 ft, depending on species.
Lighting Vehicular‐scale street lighting.
BUILDING ORIENTATION/PLACEMENT &
LANDSCAPING (See 18.28.160 ‐ .190)
Building orientation to street Not required
Front yard setback minimum 15 ft
On‐site surface parking locations Front, side or rear of
building
Front yard landscaping minimum
(waived if Public Frontage Improvements
are built to standard)
15 ft of streetscape
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Façade articulation increment
Non‐residential maximum 140 ft
Residential maximum 30 ft
Major vertical modulation maximum 280 ft
Ground level transparency
Warehouse/light industrial buildings
minimum
20%
Commercial‐use minimum 50%
Public frontage
New thoroughfare cross‐section
Facade articulation and ground level transparency
39
Figure 18‐25: Commercial Corridor Standards
Commercial Corridor
Intent: To provide safe and supportive pedestrian facilities, greater capacity for vehicles,
and attractive streetscapes along heavily travelled roadways serving auto‐oriented
commercial uses.
APPLIED TO:
Existing Streets: Tukwila
Pkwy, Southcenter Pkwy, S.
180th St, West Valley Hwy
New Streets: As Indicated on
Corridor Type Map
Note: This is a summary of key corridor standards. See 18.28.120 to .210 for supplemental details.
THOROUGHFARE CROSS‐SECTION (See 18.28.140)
Existing street No change
New street See new cross‐section
PUBLIC FRONTAGE STANDARDS (See 18.28.150)
Total required
width
15 ft
Sidewalk width
minimum
6 ft
Landscaping Street trees in a continuous
landscaped strip 9 ft wide located at
back of curb. Also see 18.28.240
General Landscaping.
Street tree spacing 20‐30 ft, depending on species.
Lighting Vehicular‐scale decorative street
lighting.
BUILDING ORIENTATION/PLACEMENT &
LANDSCAPING (See 18.28.160 ‐ .190)
Building orientation to streets Not required
Front yard setback minimum 15 ft
On‐site surface parking locations Front, side or rear
of building
Front yard landscaping minimum
(waived if Public Frontage
Improvements are built to standard)
15 ft of Streetscape
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS
Façade articulation increment
Commercial/mixed‐use maximum 50 ft
Residential maximum 30 ft
Major vertical modulation maximum 200 ft
Ground level transparency
Commercial‐use minimum 50%
Public frontage
Facade articulation and ground level transparency
40