Planning 2014-02-27 Minutes - Board of Architectural Review - Autozone

Browse Search

BAR Public Hearing Minutes February 27, 2014 Ms. Dhaliwal provided information on the review process and the surrounding development around the site. Any new development along Tukwila International Blvd. is subject to Design Review and there is a separate design manual for development along the Blvd. The Board must make their decision on the project based on the design criteria listed in the design manual. She explained that the new proposed structure is located in the north east corner of the site, where there is an existing structure and a billboard, both of which are proposed to be removed. She provided information about the proposed site plan, building design, landscaping and signs for the project. There is an existing non-conforming sign on the site that is required to be brought into compliance at the time the property goes through Design Review. Staff recommends approval of the project with four conditions as listed in the staff report dated, February 14, 2014 TESTIMONY: Jason Hubbell , for the applicant, stated the applicant is not in agreement with the staff’s recommended condition number four, regarding removal of the sign on the site. He expressed that the existing sign is very critical to the business’s operation. The applicant asked the Board to allow the existing Appliance Distributor’s sign to remain in place and instead remove the sign on the property at the corner of Tukwila th International Blvd. and South 148 Street since the applicant also owns the property on the corner. Tim O’Brien for the applicant, said regarding the Appliance Distributors sign the goal is to separate the lot by a short plat. He said the Appliance Distributor’s sign will not be on the Autozone site. They believe that the Autozone is a separate entity from the Appliance Distributors. He commented that they hope the project is offering a lot more benefits for the businesses and customers and will greatly improve the area overall. Mitch Bramlitt , for the applicant, said they think this is a quality project along the corridor and hopefully there will be new development and new growth along the corridor. Commissioner Maestas asked the applicant if they are in agreement with the other three conditions. They responded that they are in agreement. Ms. Dhaliwal provided additional explanation regarding the Sign Code. She said that under the Sign Code the property is considered one premise if it is owned and managed by the same entity, and the sign code regulations are applied per premise. When the site is subject to Design Review any existing free-standing signs lose their non-conforming status and they have to come into compliance. Staff and the applicant addressed several clarifying questions for the Commission. Extensive discussion followed. Commissioner McLeod asked if the BAR have any say on what happens with the sign. Staff stated regardless of the Board’s decision the applicant would still have to comply with the Sign Code. Ms. Gierloff stated that the Board could strike condition number four. She also explained that the Commission could make a decision on the Design Review based on the application as presented. She said the sign issue is not something the Board needs to resolve at this time. Mr. Hubbell addressed additional questions. At the request of Commissioner Hunter the applicant stated that they could look at adding some more greenery in the parking area. There was no further testimony. Page 2 of 3