06-104979FILE
CITY OF
.: Federal
October 2, 2006
Albert A. de Santis
BCRA
2106 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98402
CITY HALL
33325 8th Avenue South
y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
(253) 835-7000
www.cityoffederalway.com
Re: File # 06-104979-AD; ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
Rhapsody Building (formerly approved as West Campus Medical), 33455 6 h Avenue South
Dear Mr. de Santis:
Isaac Conlen; one of the City'.s planners; reviewed the West Campus Medical Building (File #05-100807).
The Process III application for the site (Parcel #926500-0340) was approved earlier this year. He received
a letter from you (dated August 22, 2006) and a site plan, which described a revised proposal for the site
and building. N1r. Conlen is now indisposed with special planning projects; therefore, the letter was
directed to Andy Bergsagel to prepare a response.
We have reviewed the approved project and the revised proposal. Unfortunately, the City cannot allow you
to resubmit plans for the revised proposal as a revision to the Process III approval which was previously
granted. You will need to apply for a new Process III review. However, we will consider waiving the
preapplication process, if you request it in writing. Also, there may be reports and SEPA information that
you will be able to use again. We do appreciate your efforts to provide a two-story building rather than a
one-story building, in order to make more efficient use of the land.
FWCC Section 22-460 addresses subsequent modifications for Process III' approvals as follows: "If a
specific use or site configuration for the subject property Was approved under this article... the applicant is
not required to apply for and obtain approval through this article for a subsequent change in use or site
configuration unless: (1) There is a change in use and this chapter establishes different or more rigorous
standards for the new use than for the existing use; or (2) The Director of Community Development
Services determines that there will be substantial changes in the impacts on the neighborhood or the City
as a result of the change."
There are several factors that may be considered when determining if a proposed modification is major or
minor, as follows:
• Changes to land use. Your proposal seems to be the same or a less intensive land use category.
• Increase in density, square footage, number of units, or lots. The proposal calls for doubling the
square footage from 20,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet, which is a major change.
• Changes in location or number of access points. One of the two driveways has been shifted slightly,
which is only a minor change, unless it is in conflict with the approved sight distance, etc.
Mr. de Santis
October 2, 2006
Page 2
• Reduction in the amount of landscaping, or buffering, open space, or public areas. The building and
parking lots are entirely different in shape and arrangement a major change which would require a
new landscape plan, etc.
• Change in the amount ofparking. You are proposing more parking. The approval was for 71 spaces.
You now propose 152 spaces. This is a substantial change.
• Change to size or location of utilities, easements, or pedestrian connections. The approved proposal
showed a building placed near the street corner, with parking behind. Pedestrian connections would be
substantially different.
• Substantial changes to the approved architectural design. The proposed building as shown on the site
plan is quite different and would require new review per the Community Design Guidelines.
• Additional impacts to sensitive areas, significant trees, or the environment: It appears that you are
maintaining the approved wetland buffer. However, it is not clear how the significant_ tree count would
change, due to the large number of trees on the site. New significant tree analysis would be required.
A new SEPA review will be required, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
I hope this letter has helped to explain why the City would need to require a new Process III review. As
you can see, a large amount of staff review time is involved, and the revised proposal is not the same as
what was proposed in the public notice. Since you have already analyzed the site in detail, a new Process
III application might go faster than last time, though.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Andy Bergsagel, Planner, at 253-835-2644, or
andy.bergsagel@cityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely,
Kathy Mc lung
Director of Community Development Services
c File #05-100807-00-UP
Sarady Long, Traffic Analyst
Sean Wells, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
Andy Bergsagel, Associate Planner
Isaac Conlen, Senior Planner
Fax to: Al de Santis at BCRA, 253-627-4395
06-104979
Page 2
August 22, 2006 F,
�^
Mr. Issac Conlen, j
City of Federal Way City Hall
33530 15t Way South
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
Subject: West Campus Office Resubmittal (formerly West Campus Medical Arts)
For Rhapsody. Partners
Dear Mr. Conel n
Thank you for your review of the West Campus Office Building Resubmittal. Below is the required
Architectural Narrative for the City of Federal Way Master Land Use Process III - resubmittal, as
discussed in our 7/24/06 meeting.
West Campus
ARCHITECTURAL NARRATIVE
In studying the viability of this project, Rhapsody Partners determined the need to change the scale
of development on this parcel. This results in a change from a 20,000 sf single story to a 40,000 sf
two story office building and the associated differences of their required parking. Additionally, the
redesign will locate the building to the rear of the site with parking to the front, thereby allowing
visual access to the main entry from the right of way, as desired by the Federal Way design
guidelines. It is felt this size and type of building will be better suited to the neighboring types of
buildings and therefore will 'fit' this neighborhood better than it's predecessor.
The office building is conceived as a two story building shell to be subdivided into tenant
improvement suites. Accessory spaces will include toilet and lobby spaces with required stairs and
elevator. Detached garbage and recycling facilities are located west of the office building, which is
proposed to have similar materials and character as the office building.
The construction type is proposed to be Type V, utilizing an appropriate construction system, similar
to surrounding office buildings, likely accommodating mechanical equipment in recessed rooftop
areas. The exterior finish materials are may include masonry veneer, metal siding, and glazed
aluminum entry storefront and window systems. The roof is proposed to be metal roofing at the
entry and low slope roofing elsewhere.
The elevation of the building will be an arrangement of the exterior finish materials in a modern
composition with careful attention to color and texture. The paving and landscaping shall enhance
these rhythms and textures to create an appropriate entry space, sequence, and scale.
The'tri-fold' shaped footprint of the building, is proposed to address the existing lot configuration;
wrapping the wetland buffer, and express the central entry which will be highly visible from the
street approach along 6tt Avenue South, in the vicinity of South 335th Street. The building layout not
only creates visual interest and inherent modulation as viewed from the street, but also creates an
identifiable entry plaza which will be linked to the surrounding required sidewalks with pedestrian
BCRA.
-
�I�'., ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND USE PLANNING • INTERIOR DESIGN • GRAPHIC DESIGN
access. The building design is proposed to modulate exterior walls with recesses and entry plaza
area and varied fenestration to break-up the walls into appropriate wall proportions.
The proposed color pallet being considered for the exterior materials include natural tones for the
masonry, accented by the natural patinas of the metallic finish materials and exposed concrete.
Deeply saturated natural hues are also being considered to be used for accents and features. Focus
will be to blend, highlight, and compliment colors with the available colors for exposed concrete,
masonry veneer, metal siding and glass. The inherent natures of each shall be utilized for their
innate aesthetics; the reflective and glowing (in the evening) nature of glass, the ability of masonry
to be textural under the glancing light, the smoothness and rich coloration available in metal siding
which will contrast and therefore emphasize the character of the other materials.
The proposed finish floor elevation is estimated to be +312.00,, At this elevation the building's
southeast corner will be close to the finish grade of the adjacent parking lot drive along the south
property line. The maximum building height proposed is approximately 3W-0" above finish floor
elevation.
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE
The Landscaping is proposed in the resubmittal will not change significantly except as it pertains to
modulation and the different areas of development. The design will still retain all of the trees in the
wetland buffer, which equates to more than the 25% retention of identified significant trees on site.
Elsewhere significant trees will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis for retention. New landscape
will propose, in most cases, drought tolerant material.
CIVIL NARRATIVE
The civil improvements planned for the West Campus Office Building will remain unchanged in the
resubmittal. It will maintain the same strategies for site grading, storm drainage, water system, and
sanitary sewer. The site grading and storm drainage design will still take advantage of the regional
storm water detention provided for the West Campus Storm Drainage detention system. This
system was designed by Quadrant Corporation and services the entire area.
This site's storm water drains to Lake 3, immediately adjacent to the project site. Ultimately this
storm drainage finds its way to Lake #1 through an existing pipe network. The requirement for an
on -site detention system was waived because of the provision for detention immediately
downstream of the site. This approach was approved by Mr. Kevin Peterson of The City of Federal
Way.
Water quality is being provided through a proposed bio-swale which discharges to an existing storm
drainage pipe running to Lake #3. The site grading is designed not only to direct on -site runoff to
this water quality system but also to minimize site grading.
The site water system, as shown, has been preliminarily approved by Lakehaven Utility District and
the Federal Way Fire Marshal. The Sanitary Sewer system will involve connecting to the existing
side sewer connection near the south-east corner of the site.
West Campus Offices-Resubmittal 07/28/06
The approval to maintain right of way improvements consistent with the Windermere Real Estate
site is included for your reference.
END OF NARRATIVE
If you have any questions regarding the response to your comments please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Albert A. de Santis,
Architects BCRA
Attachments
Cc: Michael Hill, Rhapsody Partners
Bob Katica, Principal BCRA
West Campus Offices-Resubmittal 07/28/06
HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation and Civil Engineering
RMMED
BC;RA
August 17, 2006
Mr. Al deSantis
BCRA Architects
21,06 Pacific Avenue, Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98402
Subject: Rhapsody Project - Trip Generation
Dear Mr. deSantis:
This site was originally analyzed as a 19,660 medical -dental building which was analyzed
under the Dunham Medical TIA dated February 2005. The Psi peak hour for the project
was estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition at 73 PM peak hour
trips. Attached to this letter is the trip generation calculations from this original analysis:
The latest proposal for the site indicates the building will now consist of 40,000 square
feet of general office use. Using ITE data, the PM peak hour for this configuration is 60
�PM peak hour trips. The calculations for this current proposal is also -attached.
Please call if further information is required.
Sincerely,
A"f- . 4xc;��K
Greggry B. Heath, P.E.
2214 Tacoma Road • Puyallup, WA 98371 • (253) 770-1401 • Fax (253) 770-1473
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation PC-,PD$r- uS
For 40 Th-.Gr.Sq.Ft. of General Office Building
August 17, 2006
Average
Standard
-Adjustment
Driveway
Rate
Deviation
Factor
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume
11.01
6.13
1.00
440
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
1.36
0.00
1.00
54
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
0.19
0.00
1.00
8
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total
1.55
1.39
1.00
62
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter
0.25
0.00
1.0.0
10
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
1.24
0.00
1.00
50
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
1.49
1.37
1.00
60
AM Pk tir, Generator, Enter
1.36
0.00
1.00
54
Am Pk Hr, Generator, Exit
0.19
0.00
1.00
8
Am Pk Hr, Generator, Total
1.55
1.39
1.00
62
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter
0.25
0.00
1.00
10
PM Pk Hr,. Generator, Exit
1.24
0.00
1.00
50
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total
1.49
1.37
1.00
60
Saturday.2-Way Volume
2.37
2.08
1.00
95
Saturday Peak Hour Enter
0.22
0.00
1.00
9
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
0.19
0.00
1.00
8
Saturday Peak Hour Total
0.41
0.68
1.00
16
Sunday 2-Way Volume
0.98
1.29
1.00
39
Sunday Peak Hour Enter
0.08
0.00
1.00
3
Sunday Peak Hour Exit
0.06
0.00
1.00
2
Sunday Peak Hour Total
0.14
0.38
1.00
6
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of: Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
vA u J14-,h- ram.." t CA�_
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
`n A - l � 4 " � -1
For 19.66 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Medical -Dental Office Building
February 10, 2005
Average
Standard
Adjustment
Driveway
Rate
Deviation
Factor
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume
36.13
10.18
1.00
710
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
1.96
0.00
1_.00
39
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
0.52
0.00
1.00
10
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total
2.46
1.94
1.00
49
4-6-PM Peak Hour Enter
1.00
0.00
1.00
20
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
2.72
0.00
1.00
53
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
3.72
2.50
1.00
73
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter
2.39
0.00
1.00
47
Am Pk Hr, Generator, Exit
1.23
0.00
1.00
24
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total
3.62
2.38
1.00
71
PM Pk Hr, Generator,. Enter
1.78
0.00
1.00
35
Pm Pk Rr, Generator, Exit
2.67
0.00
1.00
52
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total
4.45
2.50
1.00
87
Saturday 2-Way Volume
8.96
9.17
1.0,0
176
Saturday Peak hour Enter
2.07
0.00
1.00
41
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
1.56
0.00
1.OD
31
Saturday Peak Hour Total
3.63
1.93
1.00
71
Sunday 2-Way Volume
1.55
1.80
1.00
30
Sunday Peak Hour Enter
0.21
0.00
1.00
4
Sunday Peak Hour Exit
0.19
0.00
1.00
4
Sunday Peak Hour Total
0.40
0.00.
1.00
8
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
. •►EST CAMPUS RHAPSODY sITEPUN
OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
f+ ■S,�e Flc�.ul,�r�o�W�„I„c,an sum r aHone:asi se,.�, r r.c as,I cx�.,n r e+.,ai:orrice®racHrtec,sewncara r www..a�wrecrsecnnca. ■ �-�y�LLy�" e0 �„_--..� .. ;:r,:. r