city of kirkland planning and building department …pdfs/design... · 2017-05-16 · replacement...

CITY OF KIRKLAND Planning and Building Department 123 Fifth Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033 425.587.3600 ~ www.kirklandwa.gov

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 15, 2017

To: Design Review Board

From: Scott Guter, Associate Planner

File No.: DRV15-01765 Subject: VILLAGE AT TOTEM LAKE – BUILDING C/D MODIFICATION TO DRB DECISION

I. MEETING GOALS

At the May 22, 2017 Design Review Board (DRB) meeting, the DRB should review the proposed project modifications and provide input to staff prior to staff’s decision on the modification request. See Section III below for a summary of the proposed changes.

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The subject property is located at 12632 120th Avenue NE. On April 5, 2016, the DRB approved with conditions, the Design Response Conference application for the Village at Totem Lake – Phase I project. Since the approval, various project components are currently at different stages, ranging from building permit review to actual construction.

On April 21, 2017, the applicant submitted a minor modification request to modify the DRB approved design for Building C/D which is currently at the building permit review stage (see Attachment 1). Pursuant to Kirkland Zoning Code (KZC) Section 142.50(1)(b) Planning Staff may consult with the DRB when making a decision on the proposed modifications. Due to the scope and nature of the proposed changes, staff would like input from Board. The changes are summarized in Section III below. Attachment 1 also contains the applicant’s description of the changes.

III. MODIFICATION CRITERIA

The Planning Official may approve the proposed modifications to the Design Review approval if it meets the criteria in Kirkland Zoning Code (KZC) Section 142.50. Attachment 1 contains the applicant’s response to the criteria. Below are the applicable criteria:

a. The need for the modification was not known and could not reasonably have been known before the D.R. approval was granted.

b. The modification is minor and will not, in any substantial way, change the proposed development or violate any requirement imposed by the Design Review Board. The Planning Official may consult with the Design Review Board in his/her decision.

c. The development that will result from the modification will be consistent with the design regulations, design guidelines, and Comprehensive Plan.

1

http://www.kirklandwa.gov/

Village at Totem Lake – Modification to DRB Decision File No. DRV15-01765

Staff is consulting with the DRB prior to making a decision on the requested modification. Following this consultation, staff will either approve or deny the requested modifications. Staff considers many of the proposed changes as minor and meeting the modification criteria but due to the nature and scope of some of the changes to Building C/D, staff would like to update and to obtain feedback from the DRB prior to making a decision.

The plans also show the proposed rooftop appurtenances which were not shown with the Phase I Design Response Conference application. These appurtenances are currently undergoing staff review for modification to the allowed height limit per KZC 115.120.

Building C/D Changes

The applicant has provided plans with the proposed changes together with the original approved plans for cross reference (see Attachment 1). Staff has provided with this memo a copy of the approved building materials palette to supplement the applicant’s modification drawings (see Attachment 2). Staff has separated the proposed changes into two categories: “No Staff Concerns” - items where staff is not seeking Board input; and “DRB Consult Requested” - items where staff is requesting input from the Board. Below is a summary of the proposed changes followed by staff analysis.

West Elevation (see Attachment 1, pages 4, 5, 14, 15, 20 & 21)

o Minor Improvements – No Staff Concerns

Above Ross Building

New window patterning above courtyard (Item 2).

Revised penthouse and overhang with updated window patterning (Item 3).

Revisions to the ground floor retail storefront rhythm and entry locations with revisions to the ground floor retail louvers and materials (Item 7).

o Minor Improvements – DRB Consult Requested

Above Ross Building

New cantilevered top four floors and associated residential window patterning and material palette (Item 1).

Garage screening under new cantilevered floors. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the details of screening elements. Changes to the material at the sills and walls (Item 6).

Unscreened parking garage under courtyard. Removal of screening material. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the material at the sills and walls. Use of painted concrete masonry units (CMUs) (Items 2 & 7).

Above Storefronts

Garage screening above storefronts. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the details of screening elements. Changes to the material at the sills and walls. Fiber cement siding revised to painted CMU (Item 4).

2


Removal of sun shades from garage screening (see pages 14 & 15).

Addition of corner balconies to the residential floors (Item 5).

Replacement of red brick shown as “Dark Palette” between Sections G – K on pages 4 and 5 with painted CMU, see page 14, Item 6, where this area wraps around to the west facade.

General changes to the material palette.

Staff Analysis: The proposed ‘minor improvements’ that are supported by staff are reflective of minor alterations typically seen as a development’s design evolves with construction drawings. These changes are consistent with the general design principles approved by the Board.

In general, staff is in support of the new cantilevered residential floors. It does represent a new building mass that the Board should comment on. Staff is concerned that the increased unscreened parking garage area (see Attachment 1, page 5, Item 7) may be more visible to the general public. This concern also applies to the north façade. The DRB should discuss whether the location of these areas are mitigated by its orientation and distance from the Ross façade. Staff also seeks input on the use of new painted CMU and the general changes to the material palette.

South Elevation (see Attachment 1, pages 6, 7, 16 & 17)


New residential window patterning with added balconies (Items 1 & 5).

Revised penthouse and overhang with updated window patterning (Item 2).

Revisions to courtyards’ residential window patterning and added balconies (Items 4 & 6).

Revisions to the ground floor retail storefront rhythm and entry locations with updated ground floor retail louvers and materials. (Items 7 & 12).

Enhanced residential lobby (Item 9).


Removal of sun shades from garage screening (see pages 16 & 17).

Garage screening above storefronts. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the details of screening elements. Changes to the material at the sills and walls. Fiber cement siding revised to painted CMU (Items 8, 11 & 13).



3


Staff is asking for input on the proposed changes to the garage screening design throughout this façade, the use of painted CMU, and the general changes to the material palette.

East Elevation (see Attachment 1, pages 8, 9, & 16 – 19)


Addition of corner balconies to the residential floors (Item 1).

Revisions to residential window patterning and added balconies (Item 2).

Revised penthouse and window patterning (Item 3).

Revisions to the ground floor retail storefront additions, rhythm and entry locations with updated ground floor retail louvers and materials (Items 8 & 11).

Revised residential entry lobby (Item 10).


Removal of sun shades from garage screening (see pages 16 -19).

Garage screening above storefronts. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the details of screening elements. Changes to the window frame and material at the sills and walls. Fiber cement siding revised to painted CMU (Items 5 & 7).

Replacement of brick with integrally colored CMU (Item 6).

Garage screening above garage entry. Replacing a glass façade with fiber cement panel with punched window openings and screening (Item 9).



Staff is asking for input on the proposed changes to the garage screening design and the use of painted CMU, window frame details (at the parking garage levels), the use of integrally colored and panted CMU to replace brick, and the general changes to the material palette.

North Elevation (see Attachment 1, pages 10, 11, & 18-21)


Revised penthouse and overhang with updated window patterning (Item 1 & 5).

Revisions to residential window patterning (Item 2).


4


Removal of sun shades from garage screening (see pages 18 - 21).

The garage screening and ground floor window patterning east of the loading dock (Section 4).

Replacement of brick with integrally colored CMU (Item 3).

New cantilevered top four floors and associated residential window patterning and material palette (Item 4).

Revised brick to fiber cement panel (Item 6).

Garage screening above storefront. Revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the window frames and details of screening elements. Changes to the material at the sills and walls. Fiber cement siding revised to painted CMU (Item 7).

Revised loading docks and garage screening with changes to the entries and replacing brick with colored CMU (Item 8 & 9).

Unscreened parking garage revisions. Increase in the unscreened parking garage with revisions to the quantity and spacing of the parking garage openings. Changes to the material at the sills and walls. Use of painted concrete masonry units (CMUs) (Item 10).



Staff is asking for input on the proposed changes to the ground floor, the new cantilevered residential floors, the use of integrally colored and painted CMU, and the general changes to the material palette.

Staff is also asking for input on the garage screening design and window frame details (at the parking garage levels). Staff is concerned that the increased unscreened parking garage area (see Attachment 1, page 11, Item 10) may be more visible to the general public. This concern also applies to the west façade. The DRB should discuss whether the location of these areas are mitigated by its orientation and distance from the Ross façade.

IV. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS FOR DRB CONSIDERATION

A. Are the new residential cantilevered floors proposed at the North façade consistent with the general design approved by the Board (see Attachment 1, page 5, Item 1 (West Elevation), and page 11, Item 4 (North Elevation))?

B. Are the proposed changes to the garage openings in regards to screening, scale, quantity, and spacing consistent with the general design approved by the Board (see Attachment 1, page 5, Items 4, 6, & 9 (West Elevation), page 7, Items 3, 8, 10, 11, & 13 (South Elevation), page 9, Items 4 – 7, & 9 (East Elevation), page 11, Items 2, 4, 7, & 9 (North Elevation))?

C. Are the changes to the unscreened parking garage above and behind the Ross Building acceptable (see Attachment 1, page 5, Item 7 (West Elevation), and page 11, Item 10 (North Elevation))?

5


D. Is the use of integrally colored CMU an acceptable replacement for brick (see Attachment 1, page 5, between Sections G – K (West Elevation), page 9, Item 6 (East Elevation, page 11, Item 3 (North Elevation))?

E. Is the use of fiber cement panel an acceptable replacement for brick (see Attachment 1, page 11, Item 6)?

F. Should the sunshades be retained?

G. Are the general changes to the material palette consistent with the general design approved by the Board?

V. ATTACHMENTS

1. Modifications Plan Set with Summary & Response to Criteria

2. DRB Approved Building Materials

CC: Applicant & Parties of Record List in File No. DRV15-01765 (Village at Totem Lake – Phase I)

6

THE VILLAGE AT TOTEM LAKE

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON

CenterCal Properties, LLC • Developer GBO Architects Inc. • Architect

SUBMITTAL DATE: 3/28/16 RESUBMISSION DATE: 4/21/17

DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL: DRVlS-01765 MINOR MODIFICATION SUBMITTAL

GBD Atchitecls Incorporated 1120 NW Couch St. Surte 300 R>rtland, OR 97209 Tel. (503) 224·9656 www.gb<larclu1ecls.com

7

CEHTERCAL PROPERTIES, U_C _ _[_TH_E_VIUAGEATTOTEM LAKE

PLANNING MINOR MODIFICATION SUBMITTAL SUMMARY The following mcmor3.ndum is a summary of the revisions made to Totem Lake Building C since the submitted design review p'l.ckage w-as approved by

the Design Review Board on April4, 2016. 1he sum•nary will note that c hanges made to the project and address the criteria for modification as noted

in KZC 142.50.1:

a. The need for the modification was nor known and could not reasonably have been known before the D.R. approval was g ranced;

b. The modification is minor and will not, in any substantial way, change the proposed development or violate any requirement imposed by

the Design Review Boord. The Planning Official may consult with the Design Review Board in his/her decision; and

c. The development that will result from the modification will be consistem wit h the desig n regulations, design guidelines, and

Comprehensive Plan.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES The attached design review package includes a comparison, by elevation and perSpective, of the previously approved design and the current design as

submicted for permit. 1hese changes include:

1. Revisions co the ground floor retail storefront rhythm and entry Locations {pages 5, 7, 9);

2. More prominence given to the retail corners on the south elevation, using the same palette of materials as in the previous design (pages 7, 9);

3. Revisions to the ground floor retail louvers amd materials (pages 5, 7, 9, 11);

4. Revisions to the parking garage openings and screening, including:

a. Qyantity and spacing of openings (pages 5, 7, 9, 11)

b. Details of screening elements (page 13)

c. Changes to materials at sills and impoct walls (pages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13)

5. Revisions to the top three residential Aoor window patterning (pages S, 7, 9, 13);

6. Addition of corner balconies to the residential Aoors (poges 5, 7, 9);

7. More prominence given to retail entry lobby (page 7);

8. Revised residential lobby entry (page 9);

9. Revised appearance and configur"ion of the loading area (page 13);

10. Cantilever at the top four floors above the loading area (north west corner) (pages 9, 13);

11. Change of materials at the parking level exterior facades overlooking the roof of the adjacen t Ross building (pages 5, 13).

12 . Additional height is requested at a screened mechanical area and at a stair and e levator overrun at the roof.

APRIL2~ GBO ARCHITECTS -~-

COMPLIANCE WITH KZC 142.50.1 AND WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ORB APPROVAL The design changes proposed to Building Care consistent with the approved design submitted to the DRB and approved

o n April 25, 2016, including the conditions of "pproval, but the proposed modifications could not have been known at the

time ofDRB presentation for a number of marke,..drivcn reasons, and represent the normal eV>Olution of a building design

through the design development process and through detailing and constructability review.

At the time of approval, the upper three residential floors had been designed based on an anticipated unit mix and counr

rhar has since changed because of additional marker analysis, and as a response ro competing projects. ll1e unit rype,

siz.e, and mix drove new unit layouts and a denser unit count, which had direct impacts on fenestration patterns, material

e..xpressions, balcony count and locations, and, at the north west corner, b uilding massing. Ho,•oever, these changes

were addressed with in the context of the materials and massing approved by the DRB, as is evident in the anached

illustrated packet. Where the building design varies most from the approved design, at the northwest comer massing and

materials, we believe the proposed design is more successful than the approved design, and is in keeping with the overall

design approach; it is expressed as its own .. block" or *building" with its own language and materials and mass, to bring

differentiation and ide miry to a distinct wing of the building.

C h anges at rhe ground floor retail facades are a refinemem of the facades previously presented . These changes h ave been

driven by efforts to bring in retail tenantsand demise the spaces, and the fas:ade, to strike a balance between maintaining

the identity and fu~ade d ivision of the overall building and reserving some flexibility for a retail tenant to "brand" their

own fa~ade with their identity. In other words, tenants will not always demise their spaces according to the materials

and massing ofrhe distinct fa~ade divisions, so the design reflnenlents proposed have explored ways to bridge a store from

identity between two of the distinct "buildings". This is most evident on the south fa~ade. The current design incorporates

ventilation louvers into to the ground level fucadcs much more dearly than the approved DRB design did; the input

received from the mechanical engineer who was not part of the design team at the time of the DRB submission drove the

current lot.1ver configuration.

Changes to the parking levels include changes to screen detailing and some of the materials, but have maintained an

appearance consistent with the -approved design. These changes were driven by practic-al considerations of materi-al

detailing and constructability~ and the requirements of an engineered masonry "'impact wall" at the sills. A comparison

of the screen changes are shown on pages 12 and 13 of the attached packet. As is evident in the proposed changes, the

condition of approval to maintain garage screening on the east, south, and west facades, and to shield headlights and

lighting from the exterior is still being met, and the garage openings are a natural evolution from the design originally

presented.

At the first four le\·els at the northeast corner ""building .. , the aesthetic of a pt1nched-opening brick warehouse is m'3.intained

but we are now showing an alternate material, an integrally colored concrete masonry unit in a 4'"x16" module, with a

variegated color blend to give the appearance of brick. Using this block type is appropriate since the majority of wall at this

location is parking garage, which requires an engineered impact wall, and the choice of product matches the aesthetic of

brick veneer without requiring a brick ver'leer wall to be built. 1he material chal\ge was made after reviewil\g the d etailing

of the wall at this location, and to keep the red brick aesthetic introduced in the residential Aoors on the west f.1s:ade but

differentiate the northeast corner llwarehouse building" from the more refined residential block o n the upper floors a t the

west side .

A similar change was made at the loading dock area on the northwest comer, adjacent to the Ross building. At this

location the design departs from a continuation of the brick warehouse at the northeast corner,. and becomes its own

self-contained buiding that picks up the grays from the other palettes around the building. Here. too, we are using the

8

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, U_C __ TH_ E_VIlliGE AT TOTEM LIKE

integrally colored block, bur in a gray blend. lr is rhc most appropriate material for this service location. which will sec more

wear and abuse than would be appropriate for a brick veneer.

The north and west parkinggange facades that overlook the Ross roof are now shown as alight gray painted CMU block,

as is appropriate for usc in a service arc~\. These elevations arc not rC'adily visible from the parking areas in front of Ross, nor

are they readily accessed by the public, and a simplified opening parrern and construction felt more suited to this location~

this is the true "'back ofhouse,. locarion oft h e building, and the changes ro material stop where the residential floors starr

at the 5th floor. The changes proposed will simplify the construction of these walls and would maintain the aesthetic

appearance that was approved in the ORB package. Building a brick veneer wall over a CMU wall above rhe adjoining

property's roof was impmcrical, as was carrying down the fiber cement panels ro rhe Ross roof and the serVice alley as

shown in the original north elevation, page 10. It took the recent collaboration with the general contractor to come to this

conclusion, so it would not have been re-alized at the time of the original approval.

Finally, the additional heighr required by the rooftop appurtences is a resulr ofrhe residenrial marker and derailed

mechanical design rharwould not have been undertaken at rhe rime ofrheDRB S\lbminal. 1Jle proposed mechanical

scn:cning surrounds a rooftop boiler system for a central building hot water system that was not known at the time of early

design, and the addition of a roof-level stop for the elevator and one of the srairs was driven by market needs for a "pet

relief area" for use by the residential tenants. These clements came to the forefront during the normal process of design

development.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1l1e proposed changes shown in the minor mod package were driven by rhe naturnl progression of design development of

a project, as details arc developed and program is refined. 1l1c proposed changes arc minor, and have been incorporated

into the overall building design concepts, materials, and patterns that were approved by the DRB. All of the design

guidelines have continued to be met, and the additional height is being requested through a height modification for rooftop

appurrances, but once approved, is acknowledged as acccprable within the Zoning Code and the site CMP. We respectfully

request that all proposed changes be approved.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNOTATED ELEVATION COMPARISONS West Elevation

South Elevation

East Elevation

North Elevation

PARKING SCREEN COMPARISONS Parking Screen Strategies

RENDERED VIEW COMPARISONS

Entry view from Totem Lake Blvd

View from development across 120th

View driving South along 120th

View from Ross parking lot

GBD ARCIITECTS -~-

pages4-5

6-7

8-9

10-11

pages 12-13

pages 14-15

16-17

18-19

20-21

9

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VILLIGOTTOTEM LAKE GBO ARCIITECTS

UGHT PAlfTTE

j 0' 16' ll' BUILDING C- WEST ELEVATION

I ~

WEST ELEVATION - ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

10

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, U_C_~TH_E VI lUGE ATTOTEM LAKE

ltem1 . REVISED TOSINGL£ COLOR FIBER CEMENT Moui11g rho11gt- 10p .four jloorttonti/('Vmd 8'-0"

BUILDING C- WEST ELEVATION

ltem2.

WEST ELEVATION - MINOR MODIFICATION

II.J.lu Uiflii!j ijlrf\i}fli, Item 3.

I NEW WINDOW PATTERNING ltem4.

Item?. BRIC! REVISED TO PAINTED CMU

REVISED PENTHOUSE AND OVERHAriG

IBER CEMENT SIOING REVISED TO PAINTED CMU /It sills oftypitol pnni11g gorogtsmms.

GBO ARCIITECTS

OOinONAl HEIGHT AT ElEVATOR OVERIWN

--""'M$-

--~

.--"i:~

..... loolol~:·--11':~

54'

Item 8. l!!m!Jl!mlm!!mlll••••t-J Item 9 . IJlm!lll]!lmm!llliiiJ:mi!!l·~

11

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VILLIGOTTOTEM LAKE

BlASS flEBIWlW PAI.fTT[

BUILDING C-SOUTH ELEVATION

RETAIL PALETTE I

SOUTH ELEVATION - ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

COORIYARO PALETTE

_/&£A!!.~'.$

_!!~

0' IS' ll'

GBO ARCIITECTS

12

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VllliGl IT TOTEM LIKE GBD ARCIITECTS -~-

Item 1. ltem3. Item 5. REVISED WIIIOOW ANO MATERIAL PATTERNING

I ltem6. Item 2. ~·lmillmllil!!l!lmllll!lm,I·Z!iii:l:rll-, Item 4. -ll1EIIIIIm!m'lm!lllmimlll••---, COftNERBALCONIES

BUILDING C -SOUTH ELEVATION 54'

Item 12. ~mmmitmllm!llill••~ Item?. UPOATEO RETAIL STOREFRONTS I At sills oftypirnl pa'*i"g:aragt smms.

Item 11 .

FISER C£1AHIT SIDING REVISED TO PAIIITEO CMU

Item s. IJmJIImlmmm:l!,G·lllilmli!ll--_j FIBER CEMHIT SIDING REVISED TO PAINTED CMU FIBER CEMEIII SIDING R£VISEO TO PAINIEDCMU Item 13. At sills oftypirulparkinggaragt serum. At sills of typiwl parJ:.ing garngr .Jctum. Atsillsoftytiral parkinggamgt struns.

SOUTH ELEVATION - MINOR MODIFICATION

13

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VllliGl IT TOTEM LIKE GBO ARCIITECTS

&LASS EY£JifNI PAL£rn COURTYARD PALEill

BUILDING C/0 -fAST ELEVATION 0' 16' 31 54'

OARKPALmE

EAST ELEVATION - ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

14

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VllliGl IT TOTEM LIKE

Item 1.

ltem 2. REVISED WINDOW AND MATERIAl PATIERtliNG

Item 3. REVIS EO PEHTili!USt: AND WINDOWS Updt~JrdwindfXIJ pt1tUrning and diminnuJ ~nthoust uthat~.

ltem4.· lEW WINDOW AND MATERIALPATTIRNING

BUILDING C/D -EAST ELEVATION ~[!l. m!itmJlll!m!!IIm! •• ltem 9 • ..._ __ Item 7. • .,. .r . I ,,. P ·' d ~ d

urttns. I nlt,d~typu11 ptmanggnrogtHrum. unwt Ofl<ningtatwinuowsan garage

Item 8.· 0 RE PROMINENT COil HER STOREFRONT Item 10. · 1 Item 1.

EAST ELEVATION - MINOR MODIFICATION

GBD ARCIITECTS -~-

ltem5 . ....Jl.._ At1ills oftypital parking garage ltrttm.

ltem6.· RICK REPLACED \'11TH INTEGRAllY COLOREDCMU

PllATED RETAlSTUREFRONTS

Rt(/ l!ric~ updaud to on intergrollytolomi rtd 4' . .J6'CMU'

--l~~

64'

APRIL21,201~

• RLd Mountoi n Estatt Bri~ CM U

15

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VILLIGOTTOTEM LAKE - GBOARCIITECTS APRIL21,2017=-

BUILDING C/ 0 ·NORTH ELEVATION 0' 16' 32'

NORTH ELEVATION - ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

16

CENTERCAL PROPERTIES, UC THE VllliGl IT TOTEM LIKE

Item 1. w Updatal 'fdndow patltrning and tliminattd pmthouJt Jtlhnrl..

Item 2. !lm'll\l!!.lm!!mlllm!lllll•l-----,

BUILDING C/0 -NORTH ELEVATION

Item 7. At sills of typiral parking garage Krttns.

NORTH ELEVATION MINOR MODIFICATION

.----Item 3.

4.

ltem 8.

ltem 9.

BRICK &PLACED WITH INTEGRALLY COLORED CMU Rtd hridt updaud to an iJJtugrolly rolot?d rtd 4·xJ6.CMu•

REVISED TO SINGU COLOR fiBER CEMENT Mtmi"g rhange · tfJp four jlf)()rscnmilt·wurl s·-o·

REVIS£0 LOADING DOCKS

BRICK REPLACED WITH INTEGRALLY COLORED CMU Dark bride updattd to an inltrgmfl), rolorrd pay4·x16•CMU ..

Item 5. ~I!M,\f.£[email protected];ihilinl~1iij;Ufj,];i([UIM

ltem 6.

Rroi.wd from all gloss Jmadl' I<J fihl'r t('ffltlfl p.mtls nmiJWnthd optning1.

Ell BRICK REVISfO TO fiBER CEMENT PANEl 'Rrd'fotadr 'xunded to East.

GBO ARCIITECTS APRIL21,201~

• Rtd A-fountain £11au Brik CMU

17

CENTERCAL PROI'fRTIES, UC THE VllUGl ATTOTEM LAKE

PARKING SCREEN: METAL MESH AT WHITE BRICK PARKING SCREEN: PERF PANEL AT WHITE BRICK

PARKING GARAGE SCREEN STRATEGIES - ORIGINAL SUBMISSION

- GBOARCIITECTS APRIL21,201~

PARKING SCREEN: FRAMED OPENINGS AND SOLID STEEL HEADLIGHT SCREEN AT REO BRICK

18

CENTERCAL PROI'fRTIES, UC THE VllUGl ATTOTEM LAKE - GBOARCIITECTS APRIL21,201~

PARKING SCREEN: METAL MESH AT WHITE BRICK PARKING SCREEN: METAL MESH AT WHITE BRICK PARKING SCREEN: METAL MESH AT RED PAINTED CMU

PARKING GARAGE SCREEN STRATEGIES - MINOR MODIFICATION

19

CEHTERCALPROPERTIES, uc I THEVILLAGEATTOTEM LAKE GBD AJICHITECTS APRIL21, 2017--

ENTRY VIEW FROM TOTEM LAKE BLVD. (VIEW 1)

20

CENTERCAL PROI'fRTIES, UC THE VllliGl IT TOTEM LIKE GBO ARCIITECTS APRIL21,201~

G,•rogt "'" m holt< bcm updattJ, plwr If< P"K' 12 for nn.:v:1t Jrnxn.

ENTRY VIEW FROM TOTEM LAKE BLVD. (VIEW 1)

21


VIEW FROM DEVELOPMENT ACROSS 120TH (VIEW 2)

22


VIEW FROM DEVELOPMENT ACROSS 120TH (VIEW 2)

23


Site approach from Hasp ita/ Hill

VIEW DRIVING SOUTH ALONG 120TH (VIEW 3)

24


VIEW DRIVING SOUTH ALONG 120TH (VIEW 3)

25


VIEW FROM ROSS PARKING LOT (VIEW 4)

26


VIEW FROM ROSS PARKING LOT (VIEW 4)

27

CEHTERCAL PROPERTIES, uc I THEVIUAGEATTOTEM LAKE -~GBO_ARCHITECTS APRIL2~

7his page intentionally left blank

28

THE VILLAGE AT TOTEM LAKECENTERCAL PROPERTIES, LLC GBD ARCHITECTS MAR. 2016 17

LIGHT PALETTE DARK PALETTE COURTYARD PALETTE

GLASS EYEBROW PALETTE RETAIL PALETTE 1 RETAIL PALETTE 2

metal panel

glazed brick

cementitious lap siding

wood windows at storefront

red brick and black accents

light ironspot brick

brushed metal black accents

cementitious lap siding

metal panel

accent color

silver-gray brick

silver-gray trim and accent metal panel louvers

brushed metal dark accents

metal panel trim

wood soffit

glass and metal at balcony

EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS

ATTACHMENT 2 FILE DRV15-01765

APPROVED PLAN SET

29

city of kirkland planning and building department …pdfs/design... · 2017-05-16 · replacement...

Documents