The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 90-11-DR - TEXACO - REMODEL DESIGN REVIEW90-11-dr 13435 interurban avenue south denied texaco CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 The meeting was called to order by Jack Flesher, Chairman, at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Flesher, Hamilton, Haggerton, Malina, and Gomez. Representing the staff were Vernon Umetsu, Darren Wilson, and Sylvia Appleton. MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 14 AND APRIL 11, 1991. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. There were no citizens comments. 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel DESIGN REVIEW Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report and stated that this was a continuation of a public hearing which occurred on December 13, 1990. The Board had approved the landscaping and setbacks as proposed, but rejected the canopy design, and continued the entire project review to another meeting. After several continuances, Texaco has failed to meet the Board's deadline for submitting revisions for this meeting. They have decided not to withdraw their application. Staff recommends that the project be denied in total,' that is, the reduced setbacks, the non - conforming landscaping and the canopy based on the fact that they are all inter- related elements in project design. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO CANCEL ALL BOARD AND COMMISSION ACTIONS PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MR. GOMEZ SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 91 -1 -DR: Boeing Military Aircraft Center City of Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 25, 1991 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Darren Wilson presented the staff report. He stated that the applicant was requesting to expand an existing covered walkway. The project is before the B.A.R. because the covered walkways lie within 200 feet of the shoreline. The proposed walkway would connect the new and the old Oxbow Bridge. Staff presented the color chart which describes the CITY OF T UK WILA 620o SOUTHCENTIiR BOULEVARD, TUKII7LA, WAS /ILVCTUA' 98188 DATE: April 16, 1991 TO: Board of Architectural Review FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner RE: TEXACO REMODEL 90- 11 -DR: Status update BACKGROUND RECOMMENDATION cc: File Applicant MEMORANDUM !'llONE #1206).133.1800 Carr 1.. t'an!nserr, Alrryor On December 13, 1991, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) tabled review of this project until its February 28, 1991 meeting, to allow the applicant time to design a pitched -roof canopy. At the February hearing, Texaco (through the law firm Sampson Wilson & Combs) requested a continuance for at least 60 days. The BAR voted to continue the project hearing to April 25, 1991, provided that the applicant submit revised drawings by March 30, 1991. Texaco informed the planning staff by phone on March 25, 1991 that it does not wish to proceed with the project. Texaco is re- evaluating its decision to re- develop the site. Therefore, revised drawings were not submitted by the deadline given by the BAR. Due to the fact that the project has been continued for four months, and that Texaco's plans for the site are uncertain, staff recommends that the BAR make a final decision on the project. The recommended action is that the BAR deny the project as proposed. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 March 28, 1991 Ms. Sue Sampson Samspon Wilson & Combs 200 Old Milwaukee Substation 450 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Texaco Landscape: 90 -11 -DR Dear Ms. Sampson: In our phone discussion on March 25, 1991, you asked if the installation of new underground tanks would require Texaco to bring its non - conforming landscape into compliance with code. I have reviewed this issue again with the Department director. As the applicant has indicated previously, the underground tank installation would not involve any other site work or building alteration, and would not displace existing landscaping. Based on this information, the Department would not require that the landscape be brought into conformance with current width requirements. While no additional landscape area will be required, Texaco must ensure that the existing landscape complies with code standards for landscape maintenance /upkeep, and with previous Board of Architectural Review approvals. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Ann Siegen haler Assistant Planner cc: File Rick Beeler _\ i TO; JUGwi1/1 FROM: Wilms �s FAX #: - -1 3 0 FAX#: Q e-rttlwda- 7uku,ila PCP PHONE #: 4 3 1 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor DATE: 3 /Z$ /iI PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: - tea 1 1 CITY OF TUKWILA (i20) SUUTIIC'EA'TEIl NUULEI'AR!). TUKWILA. WASHINGTON !I8! .'4 March 28, 1991 Ms. Sue Sampson Samspon Wilson & Combs 200 Old Milwaukee Substation 450 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Texaco Remodel: 90 -11 -DR Dear Ms. Sampson: As we discussed by phone on March 25, 1991, the next hearing of the Texaco project is scheduled for April 25, 1991. The deadline given by the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) for re- submittal of canopy drawings is March 30, 1991. Bas3d on information you provided me, it is our understanding that Texaco does not intend to submit revised canopy drawings by this deadline. Due to the fact that your previous hearing was continued, the BAR is required to address the Texaco project at the April hearing. Texaco has two alternative responses: 1) to formally withdraw the request a continuance ril hearing staff will on the project. The ect and close out the BAR review would be application for the entire project; or 2) t to another date. Please note that at the A recommend that the BAR make a final decisi recommended action will be to deny the pro current file. Future work which require submitted as a new application. Please submit a letter to the BAR (in Division) stating your specific request application. If you would like the BAR to c recommend that a representative of Texaco be to explain the request. The hearing is sch p•m• If you have any questions regarding the hearing, please contact me at 431 -3670. Si �� Ann Siege haler Assistant Planner PHONE N (2Hi) •I3a• INO(' Cory l.. VanDuseu, Mayor care of the Planning egarding the project ntinue the project, we present at the hearing duled to begin at 8:00 exaco project or the March 8, 1991 Sincerely CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER !BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 Mr. Harry Schmidt H.E. Schmidt, Inc. 10335 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Dear Mr. Schmidt: Ann Siegentkfaler Assistant Planner TO: OA N SA JD ? ,U1J 6bN `Cp ,CD FAX #: 2 j FROM: GJ' DATE: 3. I..g /r" N� U1 l� 17C47 "s I ' FAX #: PHONE N: 43 I - 36 7 RE: Texaco Gas Station Remodel: 90 -11 -DR PHONE 11 (206) 433.1800 This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approved Texaco's request for a continuance of the above project on February 28, 1991. The BAR voted to continue the project hearing to April 25, 1991, provided that revised drawings are received no later than March 30, 1991. When you are ready to begin revised drawings, please contact me for a preliminary review of the design. If you have any questions regarding the BAR process or the drawings, I would be happy to provide additional information. cc: File Sampson Wilson & Combs Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor LOREN D. COMBS SUSAN R. SAMPSON DUNCAN C. WILSON Re: Texaco Gas Station Remodel Our File No. 90 -170 Dear Ms. Siegenthaler: SRS :mal cc: Mr. Mike Salmon Mr. Harry Schmidt SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S. A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE LAW CORPORATION 200 OLD MILWAUKEE SUBSTATION 450 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 PIERCE COUNTY (206) 863.4363 KING COUNTY (206) 235.4800 FAX (206) 235.4838 February 21, 1991 Ms. Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner THE CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Texaco requests that the Board of Architectural Review reschedule its consideration of Texaco's building permit application for a date at least 60 days after the February 28, 1991 hearing. You will recall that the issue pending before the BAR is approval of any plans that are submitted to place a pitched roof on the canopy of the station located on Interurban Avenue in the historical review district. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S. C /Oel/Yi Susan Rae Sampson FEB 25 1991 \ __!:::::-.... ,A ERIN RILEY LISA M. ROTH DAWN P. VYVYAN LAURIE J. NORNES CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 M E M O R A N D U M PHONE # (206) 433.1800 DATE: February 21, 1991 TO: Board of Architectural Review FROM: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner RE: TEXACO REMODEL 90- 11 -DR: Status update Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor On December 13, 1991, the Board of Architectural Review tabled review of this project until its February 28, 1991 meeting, to allow the applicant time to design a pitched -roof canopy. However, the applicant (through law firm Sampson Wilson & Combs) has requested a continuance of the February hearing, per the attached letter. As of mailing time, Texaco is not sure when it will be ready to proceed with re- design of the canopy, or if it will undertake any redevelopment of the site. LOREN D. COMBS SUSAN R. SAMPSON DUNCAN C. WILSON Ms. Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 South Center Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Ms. Siegenthaler: SRS:dmc cc: Mr. Mike Salmon Mr. Harry Schmidt SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S. A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE LAW CORPORATION 200 OLD MILWAUKEE SUBSTATION 450 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 PIERCE COUNTY (206) 863.4363 KING COUNTY (206) 235-4800 FAX (206) 235-4838 January 31, 1991 Re: Texaco Gas Station Remodel Our File No. 90 -170 Very Truly Yours, FEB 0 1 1991 ut't Y OF TUKiiVILA PLAN': .11N%3 nrPT. ERIN RILEY LISA M. ROTH DAWN P. VY \'YAN LAURIE J. NORNES SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S. Susan Rae Sampson As we discussed by telephone, I cannot yet say whether Texaco will approach the Board of Architectural Review with plans for a pitched roof. For that reason, I will appreciate your keeping your file on this matter open for the time being. I will contact you regarding setting this matter on a BAR agenda when further information is available. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 January 24, 1991 Ms. Sue Sampson Sampson Wilson & Combs, Inc. 200 Old Millwaukee Station 450 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 RE: Texaco Gas Station Remodel Dear Ms. Sampson: Your Board of Architectural Review (BAR) hearing for the Texaco Remodel project is scheduled for February 28, 1991. In our January 11th and 17th phone discussions, I asked that the revised drawings for the project be submitted by January 21, 1991. As you are aware, that deadline has not been met. However, as we discussed yesterday, we will accept the drawings up to January 28, 1991. Ten copies of the revised drawings of the canopy must be submitted by January 28, 1991 (next Monday). If you are not able to meet this deadline, the project will be re- scheduled for another BAR hearing. If you anticipate any difficulty in meeting the submittal deadline, please let me know as soon as possible. I would be happy to assist you if you have any questions. Sincerely Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner cc: file PHONE 11 (206) 433.1800 To Sue Sampson FAX #: _ 235 - 4838 DATE:. 1 /24/91 PAGES INCLUDING .. THIS PAGE: 431 -3665 431 -3670 ... 1 FROM Ann Siegenthaler FAX #: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (2061 433.1800 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 13, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON MULTI- FAMILY STANDARDS The workshop was called to order at 6:10 P.M. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton, Kirsop, Gomez, Flesher, Malina and Knudson. Representing the staff at the workshop were Rick Beeler, Vernon Umetsu and Sylvia Appleton. Vernon Umetsu reviewed the Multi - Family Standards draft. The Commissioners agreed to hold another workshop regarding this issue on January 31, 1990 at 6:00 P.M. The workshop was adjourned. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC MEETING The Board of Architectural Review public meeting was called to order at 8:00 P.M. Representing the staff were Vernon Umetsu, Ann Siegenthaler and Sylvia Appleton. MR. KIRSOP MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 1990 MEETING. MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She noted that the project was located in the Interurban Special Review District, in the Shoreline Management Area and within 300 feet of a residential area and thus requires B.A.R. approval. The applicant is also requesting approval for a non - conforming landscape and for a new canopy with a reduced setback. The applicant has made several improvements in the existing landscape which staff feels come close to addressing the required criteria. Staff feels their plan meets the criteria with one exception; staff feels trees are needed to screen the site from the residential area on the hill and to provide shading. In summary, staff concludes that the landscape does meet the criteria for approval of a non - conforming landscape with some added trees. With regard to their request for approval of a reduced setback, under the Interurban Special Review District the Board has the authority to grant a reduced setback if the project meets specific criteria. In general, the intent of the criteria is to create a Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor Planning Commission Page 2 December 13, 1990 more pedestrian friendly environment on the street and provide for some pedestrian amenities as a trade off for a building that is closer to the street. The staff feels that this canopy does not meet these criteria. It does not provide for a more desirable transition to the street. The project is auto - oriented in use, it doesn't have the kind of pedestrian amenities and access as required by the criteria, and it provides an abrupt transition to the street, more so than it would if it satisfied the standard setback. Therefore, staff feels that the criteria for the reduced criteria are not met and the canopy would have to meet that twenty foot setback. The final request of the applicant is for the overall design of the canopy. Staff is concerned with the structure's relationship to the site and its surroundings (Ann submitted photos of the site, Attachment G). The applicant's proposal for the canopy is not residential in character, therefore, the staff is concerned that there is not a consistency in architectural theme, nor harmony with neighboring uses, as required by the criteria. Staff feels the canopy does not meet the criteria under the B.A.R. guidelines. Appearing for the applicant were Sue Sampson, 450 Chadock Ave. S., Renton (Texaco Representative) and Harry Schmidt, 10335 Main Street, Bellevue (consulting engineer for Texaco). Mr. Schmidt noted that Texaco was required to put in sidewalks and curbs because the project is more than 25% of the assessed valuation of the facility. Texaco is willing to add the sidewalks and curbs; add the landscaping; and eliminate the signs from the canopy. Mr. Knudson asked what the circulation pattern in the back of the building consisted of. Mr. Schmidt noted that trucks could drive around the back, but for the most part, they turn around in the front. Ms. Sampson noted that the primary objective of this project is to replace old gas tanks with new ones, which is required by federal law. At the same time, Texaco would like to replace the canopy. The existing canopy is a shallow pitch with rock on it (Ms. Sampson handed out pictures of the site area). She went on to note that Texaco is willing to add landscaping which was requested of staff. They are also willing to grant an easement of over 4 feet to enhance plantings, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. The site is neighbored by the Metro Park and Ride. The new, proposed canopy is 2 feet less of an encroachment than the old one, Planning Commission Page 3 December 13, 1990 however, the width will be increased. The roof will be replaced with a flat roof. The architectural review criteria for the Special Review District, permit a ten foot setback if two criteria are met: if the project is deemed to be pedestrian oriented and whether the scale, configuration and design provide a more desirable and compatible relationship with the street and the pedestrian circulation system than would a standard setback. In 1984, the prior owner constructed the canopy under the condition that the owner install a sidewalk from the Park and Ride to the site; therefore it is a pedestrian oriented use. It should then still be a pedestrian oriented use. Regarding scale, configuration and design and its relationship to the street; the extended canopy will keep pedestrians covered between the convenience store and the sidewalk. A concern has been raised from the staff that the proposed site is inconsistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood. After driving up and down Interurban Ave., Ms. Sampson found a few old, wooden framed structures, older homes, a "Seven- Eleven" store, and many attractive, commercial buildings. What is not seen are individual, single - family residences. There is a two -block strip of apartment complexes which are around a curve in Interurban so they are not seen from the Texaco site. The residences that can be related to the site are remote and . up on a hillside (Ms. Sampson handed out photographs of the area). The existing canopy has a clearance of 12 feet, while the proposed canopy will have a clearance height of 14 feet. Ann Siegenthaler clarified that the reason the canopy is two feet back from the existing canopy is that is the maximum setback the Board can approve for this project. With respect to the residential character of the area, this is a site bordered by residential uses. In 1984 this site went through the B.A.R. and it was concluded that a pitched roof was appropriate for both the canopy and the convenience store. With respect to the pedestrian amenities and how it relates to the requirements for reduced setback, the issue is: does this structure give pedestrians a more friendly streetscape than it would if it were setback twenty feet? The staff feels that it does not. Mr. Malina asked if the addition of the window was considered a remodel. He went on to note his disapproval for convenience stores which do not offer restroom facilities to its customers. Mr. Schmidt noted that there was not room in the convenience store to put a public restroom. Ann said that the addition of the window itself would not be considered a remodel. Planning Commission Page 4 December 13, 1990 Vernon Umetsu said that if the proposal is denied as a setback, then the structure which it is tied to becomes a non- conforming structure and is subject to the non - conforming structure portions of the zoning code. The removal of the tanks and the canopy would push it over the 51% rule, which would then require that the entire site be brought up to the zoning code. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Hamilton noted that aesthetics would be if the pitched roof was changed to a flat roof. Mr. Malina agreed with Mr. Hamilton and wondered if a pedestrian oriented facility should provide public restrooms. MR. HAMILTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING. AND SETBACK AS PROPOSED, BUT REJECT THE CANOPY DESIGN AS PROPOSED. THE CANOPY DESIGN WILL BE CONTINUED TO 'ANOTHER B.A.R. MEETING :" MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED 6 -1, WITH MR. FLESHER OPPOSED. b ftf 'E NEXT H'F & / JN ?s There was a consensus by the Planning Commission that there is sufficient pedestrian orientation and this conclusion is consistent with past action. 90- 15 -DR: TONY ROMA Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report. He noted that the applicant has agreed with all the recommendations of staff from the staff report. This site is the old Plush Pippin site. Burlington Northern railroad track runs through the northern section of the site. The restaurant area is approximately 6,100 feet. Staff recommends replacing the sloping metal roof with parapet and accents similar to remaining building treatment, changing the awning colors to look less busy, and replacing acrylic awning with material to match other awnings used on the building. The applicant agrees with these recommendations, as well as others listed in the staff report. Mike Hoveland, Hoveland- Thomas Architects, Federal Way appeared for the applicant. He clarified that the two windows which do not have awnings, don't have them because they would project into the easement, which they are not allowed to do. Mr. Malina asked if the light fixtures on the restaurant were gas lamps. Mr. Hazard, Puyallup, WA: He noted that the lights on the Tacoma restaurant were gas, but these will not be. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: A. B. C. D. E. F. Commercial C-2 R E V I S E D PHONE # (206) 433.1800 STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCIHTECTURAL REVIEW Prepared November 30, 1990 December 13, 1990 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. To construct a new steel canopy and a gas pump island, replace four underground fuel tanks, and add perimeter landscaping and sidewalk improvements. 13435 Interurban Avenue South Approximately .6 acre (27,670 square feet) DNS issued on October 29, 1990. Site Plan Landscape Plan Building Elevations Color Board (to be submitted at meeting) Applicant's Response to General Criteria Staff Recommendations Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 2 VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION FINDINGS 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel 1. Project Description The applicant proposes to replace the existing canopy with a 40' x 50' canopy /new gas pump island and replace four underground fuel tanks with upgraded tanks. The proposal includes additional landscaping, a new sidewalk and planting strip. As part of the building permit process, the applicant will be required to provide a 4-4 1/2' sidewalk easement and to incorporate a biofiltration swale for on -site runoff detention. 2. Existing Development Currently on site there is a convenience store, a 54' x 26' steel canopy over pump islands, and a single pump island for commercial fuel. 3. Surrounding Land Uses On the north, west and south is a Metro Park and Ride lot, with residential areas beyond to the west. Interurban Avenue borders the east side of the site. 4. Terrain The site is fairly flat, with a maximum slope of about two percent. 5. Vegetation The site was previously landscaped. The existing trees are somewhat stunted; shrub & groundcover infill has been inadequate, leaving large bare areas. 6. Access Currently access is via two driveways off of Interurban Avenue. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 3 BACKGROUND 90.11 -DR: Texaco Remodel B.A.R. review of this project was originally scheduled for November 8, 1990. The applicant requested a continuance of that hearing, to allow time to address outstanding design issues. Since that time, the landscape proposal has been revised (see Attachment B). Prior to the November hearing, the applicant raised some legal issues. The applicant has been invited to discuss and clarify these issues, but has not responded. The project is located in the Interurban Special Review District. The site is also in the Shorelines Area, with the Duwamish River 125' (approx.) to the west. In 1984, the Board of Architectural Review approved Gull Industries' remodel of a gas station on this site into the existing gas station/convenience store. Under the Zoning Code, the current proposal is required to have a 20' setback, 10' front landscaping and 5' side landscaping. However, the proposal is for a canopy with a 10' setback, and 4' of front yard landscaping. Under the Interurban Special Review District guidelines, the setback could be reduced up to 50 percent. Under these guidelines, the landscape width could also be reduced up to 20 percent; however, the proposed landscape does not meet this minimum width, Since the applicant is requesting approval for 1) a setback reduction and 2) a non - conforming landscape; and 3) since the project is located within the shoreline area and Interurban Review District, design review for the Texaco proposal requires three separate evaluations: 1) whether the new canopy meets the Interurban Special Review District guidelines for adjusted setback requirements; 2) whether the landscape complies with the Zoning Code's "Non- conforming Landscape Areas ;" and 3) whether the canopy design meets the B.A.R. General Review Criteria. Accordingly, the staff report is divided into three parts: Interurban Special Review District Guidelines, Nonconforming Landscape Areas, and General Review Criteria. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 4 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel 1. INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT (TMC 18.60.060) DECISION CRITERIA Guidelines for B.A.R. review are given below, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. Special Guidelines for Authorization of Development Incentives - A reduction in the standard setback requirements (up to 50%), when the development substantially conforms to the following guidelines: 1. The development is pedestrian oriented either in its intended use or design. The use of the site for a gas station/convenience store is an auto - oriented use, with site circulation and access designed for the motorist. The new canopy is not designed for pedestrian use, nor are significant pedestrian amenities incorporated into the design (see Attachments A, B. C). 2. The scale, configuration or design provides a more desirable relationship with the street and pedestrian circulation system than the standard setback requirements. Due to the width of the canopy's auto aisles, the canopy is pushed into the standard setback and an auto aisle replaces the standard landscaping. The canopy is 7' from the sidewalk, and over 17' tall. The design of the canopy does not incorporate any pedestrian- oriented features which would enhance the streetscape. However, the street -side landscape proposed helps to reduce the scale of the canopy and softens the streetscape transition. CONCLUSIONS 1) The development is pedestrian oriented. The development is not pedestrian - oriented in use or design. 2) The design provides a more desirable relationship....than the standard setback. The design results in a tall structure very close to the street and in a reduced landscape buffer. Consequently, the design creates a more auto - dominated streetscape than the standard setback. The project does not provide a more desirable relationship with the street or pedestrian circulation than the standard setback. Since the proposal does not meet the Interurban guidelines for a reduced setback, the canopy must meet the standard setback of 20 feet. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel Based upon the fact that the proposed canopy design does not meet the criteria for approval of an adjusted setback, the Planning Staff recommends the request for a reduced setback be denied. Staff recommends that the new canopy be re- designed to meet the standard 20 feet setback (see Attachment F). 2. NONCONFORMING LANDSCAPE AREAS (TMC 18.70.090) DECISION CRITERIA Guidelines for B.A.R. review are given below, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. 1. The landscape plan substantially conforms to Zoning Code requirements. While the current proposal meets code requirements for both side yards, it provides only 4' of the required 10' landscaping in the front yard (see Attachment B). The street -side planting strip is located off the property . 2. The existing and proposed additional landscaping and screening materials together will: a. Adequately screen or buffer possible use incompatibilities. The back portion of the lot is visible to the surrounding residential area. Currently, there is no landscaping in this area. A new 5' landscape planter is proposed along the rear property line, and will incorporate screening shrubs. No trees are proposed for the rear area. b. Soften the barren appearance of parking or storage areas. The site has a somewhat barren appearance due to the abundance of paved areas, underdeveloped trees, and bare areas in planters. A storage shed and dumpster are not adequately screened from Interurban Avenue. Under the current proposal, the site would be surrounded by landscaping which will help to screen paved areas from adjacent properties. However, the proposal does not include trees along the rear of the site, nor enhancing existing planters with new shade trees. Parking areas would not be screened, therefore, from residential areas on the hill beyond the site. The dumpster area is to be screened by an 8' fence. No interior landscaping is proposed. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 6 CONCLUSIONS 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel c. Adequately enhance the premises appropriate to the use district and location of the site. The landscape plan for the site includes widening the landscape planter at the south edge by 5'. This landscaping is 5' wider than the required 5 feet. In addition, the existing landscape would be enhanced with screening shrubs, groundcover to fill in bare areas, shade trees along Interurban, and accent conifers along the south edge. A 5' planter strip (off the property) and 6' sidewalk would be added along Interurban, to match the existing street improvements in the area. All landscaped areas would be irrigated. 1. The landscape substantially conforms to the Zoning Code. The landscape plan does not substantially conform to Zoning Code requirements, since it provides less than 1/2 of the required front yard landscaping. Since it does not substantially conform to code, the landscape must meet other design criteria (as given in 2. below). 2. The landscape will screen use incompatibilities, soften the appearance of parking or storage areas, and enhance the site appropriately for its location. The proposed development includes substantial improvements to the existing landscape. The new landscape would help soften the impact of paved areas and enhance the site's overall appearance. If new shade trees were added to the side and rear planters, the site would be adequately screened from nearby residential areas. The new perimeter landscaping helps to balance out the lack of landscaping in the interior of the site. Since the proposed landsc along Interurban is not as wide as required, the landscape is not as substantial as that of other properties along Interurban. The landscape does not reflect the importance of Interurban Avenue as a special district or major traffic corridor. However, the proposed landscape in general does meet the design criteria for approval of a non - conforming landscape. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 7 Since the proposal meets the criteria for approval of a nonconforming landscape, the Planning Staff recommends approval of the landscape with the following conditions (see also Attachment F): 1. Shade trees shall be added to the rear planter, and to the side planters as necessary to replace existing underdeveloped trees. 2. All existing and new plants used in the landscape shall be in good physical condition and health. Trees shall be a minimum of 2" in caliper. Groundcover plantings shall provide 90% coverage of bare areas in 3 years after planting. 3. GENERAL REVIEW GUIDELINES (TMC 18.60.050) DECISION CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel Guidelines for B.A.R. review are given below, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. While the height of the canopy provides clearance for trucks, its scale and proposed architectural style are incompatible with the existing convenience store. The existing store has beige wood siding and a pitched roof. Because the canopy is close to the street, with a narrow landscape buffer, there is an abrupt transition to the streetscape (see Attachments A, B). However, proposed shrubs and trees along the street help to moderate this transition. 2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area. The proposed painted steel canopy is similar to other service station canopies /pump islands. However, the construction material and paint scheme are inconsistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. See discussion for Nonconforming Landscaping. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 8 4. Building Design. 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel The proposed canopy is simple and functional in design, with little detailing. The design elements which make up the canopy are harmonious; however, the design contrasts sharply with the adjacent residential -style convenience store and nearby residential area. The canopy is approximately 17' high, of painted steel, and has a flat roof supported by columns (see Attachment C). The canopy sides would be painted black, with a deep red spanner panel between dark grey columns (shown in Attachment D, Color Board). The canopy would be lighted with downward - directed fixtures. 5. Miscellaneous Structures & Street Furniture. Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. The height, scale and style of the proposed structure are not consistent with the adjoining convenience store. While the new sidewalk and street plantings improve the existing streetscape, design of the canopy itself does not provide a desirable visual transition with Interurban. 2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area. The materials, colors and details of the proposed canopy are not harmonious nor consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character.' A pitched roof and alternate construction material would visually "tie in" the canopy with its surroundings. 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. See discussion under "Nonconforming Landscape." 4. Building Design. While the quality and style of the proposed canopy are consistent with other gas stations /pump islands in the area, the canopy is not visually compatible with surrounding uses. Staff Report to B.A.R. Page 9 RECOMMENDATIONS 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Remodel Since the applicant's proposal does not meet the criteria for a reduced setback, the Planning Staff recommends that the project be re- designed. If the applicant proceeds with a re- design, Staff would recommend approval of the canopy with the following condition: (see also Attachment F): The canopy shall be re- designed with a pitched roof and a construction material appropriate to the character of surrounding uses and neighborhood character. site plan Landscape Specification • Ae1M friagmle pe Notes g r D Planting Legend Exist. Tree Min. B' hi. sight obscuring t.rKa a a.ep.t.1. _ 15 n.M and bn04.73'oc 15 7-ra c. 7 gr. cont 14 It, 10 s b sty. Z-ra c. Save 6 Roteti rogation .rwln ei be M1eaed ve 6n.. •Mr 61e4.0 b arAnv a approval • Taws b .ntca ntn..On1 eee. Planting Details VL'tati 14.0r Releve . ' 2YL R rt. Le.s.w cer TK r♦ y reee[)e/tLw YFM e!0! tan env. 0. r1v - °Deciduous Tree Planting O Evsrgreen Tree Planting S. �a . 5 • •C Met. 11.VcVr b SM rub Planting �C 14 v. COI!, Svtr3 MANN* 11001“. Interurban Ave. LANDSCAPE PLAN , 1 11 ••■• irbIMB 0 5 10 20 30 Scale: 1"= 10' -0` Th /1 b Ctele.AT. MO MI F o r *kyr. t L.0.1T *say aos Wily C 4 =w i tkrx. c4 TS <-- gscr.. say 5ouVeAbi E./Et/Awn! CSOUTI eteux (1•10g2F0 r M ON n \\fi \: 3 ;onn Cati TL tKwLA PLANNING DEPT._ Osumi, crlopf =WO mos n11111 OWIMIrmimeir LOS CA ettC 1341s5 Ornatiabl .054.11404 1 1.42e7S3-Z .,_.. ioet M Ja: •'• L 1YA r�4riJ� KK +it sitservroomia Motor) 0 1,3 iivawrIP1 11111111~1111. 014 •• O3I El re ld Ar+�tr�,r Adarv'2 — i ce. 3 a ___r _AId. ». 'IS'j_ 4 r`+ tiara r , Lr� 4' I , rl-1 0 1 (Wham 1� N 1) (4. tai l43 i t traivn319 icvarl.iot 1 1 *wok l • Texaco No. 34 Black Texaco No. 31 Red .... -r..: of. .7tlttk:il((.�1 NG DEPT. 3 x lNI ANOPY FASCIA Texaco No. 33 Dark Gray Texaco No.1 White Texaco No. 32 Light Gray (EXI CANOPY /C.OLUMNS (EXISTING STORE TRIM CANOPY CEILING } y RE • DESIGN REVIEW APP rocs Reference 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: /QEPLACE EXIST /NG C/0 s i amcc- T,W S AN9 sT c €L tVhP /salve C4&lcy° Y 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) / 3 y.3 S' /Or C u(G4A N 4 veld u E sou rN Quarter: /.b4.,/ Section: /Y Township: 23 /'J Range: Y G' (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: // t, ScHM/OT (Foil TEMco I4Ff/NINc ,wd ,$(/47 v4 _ /NC Address: /U 3.3J ANA /#j ST- f 456Lit IN F k)/). %'W/ Phone: ca 77o Signature: 4. PROPERTY OWNER 2/ * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. Phone: ?Z:7 — 0 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP knowledge and belief. Date: JUL 25 1990 CITY OF Name: TEXACO Aerhtl/MG /MO M4/V(( 7W /1✓C Address: /V n t Al IF .7 P771 01 AMMAN) (VA. e rralte.0 5 .1■A I /WE,Csignature(s)] swear that w a e e •w er s or on r.v" purc ser s o; the property involved n this application and th he foregoi g statements and answers contained in this application are true correct to the best of my /our Date: 7 / / C and ATTACHMENT E - Applicant's Response to Criteria 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision - making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: (A) die C# ( SC of /nlso FP cj e - A► r 5Mc f ) ,Xo1i �. � ANO 6uiLSIii( } A NE4, w'u. 0 A Gam.. r (dEI 1r/ ok,EW -u,t A 5iPEOI llc /Ac..c'NG /N 7 (uitiWJ ( ) PAG i i''c A►Q0 SCg EEO f46- Witt_ 6c: uUv14ti6c50 6) roe OF NEB CA' /44 6E&i as w€0 70 4E it &Cek CXI sTvNG wc0 /N6 RILGC 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the estab- lished neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE: (A)fr() eAbet,IFK.TY AC Sue" UM /9C40 Q N 3 sieves tt)1T /i A imAlesc ot,i "</c 4 kat Leer AXE ExiSS's v c Aiv i Ects 40oN G 7 ,4J L7tl AND 5ouTl4 (P1CO /Gtry t.hvg 6ctrA0 co r T N /',$ [11NDsc4eiNG . (c) cox) veVieNc 6 stroctE ult. i Arc Ott g - 00 cl41'v c €D /3J Al ct ,WO taco!& (b) (s() 10Ew s 06(A )LIc1 AMC OrCIyr w y S (4) ht. gE MY/Auk 4oe NG CjTi,t FQ NT 1 Gf; Tb L' JE ue° kJI'I'IJ G"/1ST /'V ow uctA 7`1 AND SouTN 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT DESIGN -REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. 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. 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 adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: A LC G F f r(c € x t ST /'J c t1wc S cal niG (4/ L t_ G1-CM /4/1‘ I /CACC, N Al4/I /riot f A y Pr- ST'e4 W/cL ISM=` i1NTv 1 6C I WFei4 Y'4 AAt.J ceK6 'NO S/OC tJ C/< L iJ' ALoPJG /N TCMJf sSAN YAi Is mi sen /rcX uCy i47# d( ? / /)L k-I4cI LlC 4T /"i X ?uazE 5 0pJ `G rr c 4,14MEi)TM C ea-GI S eAt n red GNU ;' / '� /S (' .c f6s (gT c Fly t/C 1 / -fkzSr ,L/GAt75 * /N f'L/)Cc= , TI4Cet€ ,4 NO ,Exmircet L/0-17 S AK,0040 MOST/NC ItUll,011VC TOE col)tild � or /cf . 667 C Fe W ir You lu , :stile-co d `M'ET/lL /?4(./0c: U( /TS wNicfr wl( &toii Sire rY T - E iteceSfr4 Fs/Ise/A% 8. BUILDING DESIGN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per - ma ent neighboring developments. 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. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix- tures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: (A)s(6),c-Ae.)5 cAc( f J6 711r FXUT ANC 4Z. /AeATIr7,L. ;STYLE coi.lV 6t CNC 576A E &Ice/Nv t< CEP t . Fv 2 '7'K r 4A O) Don) o f A W paVtowi i L) (c Tgr T 4 cyJ( 10�W STe icruatv wit-L i 7 /hr L4)I -1,c1I /M 5 Aid f1/416 Tllc cotPowt1/40 ' L s w. (v) E-xt,3 1-N6 401(401c U /(k UCII T c <c=Y, jell/ c4&i y coLu1ws wiLL ac= n<er ce/c/NG c )It-( W44 /T6 F 1 5c A wi(( 6c- 6C4c 1c ki 11 t) "Rol . (') »O AJE f1 e cf4AuiCt)( t= v Wmc' i w I U 4 ,2I)E (f SCC /TtM 7 4aSovC. ( ) T /I4 Mow) T uNY cr= /ES I GKJ 6J/ CII iDtJ Ex'STS W ELL de tv Ll M1N/ATE 0 o I /4 7"/(r /0'KOOUc'i4A./ or A p/I%eKfyt/T uT YET f//rMoNJav s � Tree-' op MCI] irECTuZ T I.I47 ,kitty CAN O, INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 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 pro- portions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: 7/ C. CIA LA- �S� (J0 /r ISc LL A &Uu S 571V eroozeS c, 5 i 71 C Ft) 4.14 i TU 12 The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 05 eGt6 VOM E : MTS (AR Li_ /44V 6 /JO Efr-1Cr oN Trot N /9 - u N , - ri Q s c r T'L/E` , 144 51 Ai C,E '1Y* r/ &)I - 6 e uN 9 a cAou Ivo AA1 i' T #1 c cAM / Y 15 c.'' R.0 fLA LING / Ai '6 sT i I ( C#YV 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. o A ?fa c46c.0 6 ! !� 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. 71-1646 &)/L( gC. J0 ellAaG1 /Kt oN si'Tr c,RcuLA - " ,eart SINCE THE exiST/tv 444ANcc;MEtu 7 !IRAKS k16LL 1 N Tig "S XESOE Cr 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. A(Of 7Y /S swaoupeol ley mtrrKu eA k Atm R /OL 010 T llit'ec. 5l DL= s MO A S - ,<eCr v N F oT'M E /C 7 , 5 T o$ WILL 30 uN Cfr I E 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. 7ijr tjlio pui(0 :o or TI4E 7 /L66,4ce/wA/r P a c o Je cr rs T o w,Z.T uALCY 64-1 1-110 7 PosS16141 i • m F 50/C co/TA/kink/AT F(/0/ GASOL) u ( SOU -LS c( LEAKS, 7M13 /s ty TIcuLOA RLY /Mfoar/P1 r 1 r 7 t, cA(35 of li Atop( lrlre ra 7Her 6gGSVAlveif . 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. 1M146 V IPJi (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 /.s , 41 AL (ate S N l•1 .04401 um* t w � wr w' r 1r �..• vw r' r v- rr' �: 11 1✓ - var'vw 1 I"aRaIPzent boOAo askT, oAc Nos ler Mir _rte rims. ��. Slops to train towards in C.B. PROVIDE SHADE TREES '� RE- DESIGN CANOPY Planting Legend OWL IMINGILLGOW SSIC sus. = viwems awn OM r cal. � IhrmalisION rourir .rarr T aw SIM= ( ' .l r,. m WWI= S Polyp= Ira• Vb u.r tam. • • v �...w, rwr,.rf fsd raw. • P.m' OM WOW/ 11 Om LON% • • �aUswaairal w.Ia C� Irrloam saa `� atria � s 3-. r ■•rrr ^ 7 VV. elm 1 a'rr am tram ` r+,rrrr b.a SW law r« . t . 1 EaYa TIM Savo /o' STANDARD 20' SETBACK Ilia. r t uyu obaeunp isms • a.pair. \ / 0. Interurban Ave. LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 5 10 20 30 40 Scale: r= 10'•0' //•14.90 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 26, 1990 Mr. Loren Combs Sampson, Wilson & Combs, Inc. 200 Old Milwaukee Substation 450 Shattuck Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Combs: Sincerely, Ann Sieg thaler Assistant Planner cc: File City Attorney PIIONE # 1206) 433.1800 RE: Texaco Gas Station Remodel - B.A.R. /Design Review Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor VIA F A X -} (.Oyu f - ki c pi, On November 8, 1990, the Board of Architectural Review granted your request for a continuance of the hearing for the Texaco project. You stated by phone that the reasons for your request were to provide additional time for the following: 1) for your client to make design revisions, and 2) for a review of legal issues related to the City's design review process. The Texaco hearing has been rescheduled for December 13, 1990. The applicant has submitted final drawing revisions for that hearing, and the new information will be forwarded to the Board this week. Since you have not contacted the City regarding any legal issues, we assume that these have been resolved. Should you have any . other concerns or questions, please let me know immediately. I can be reached at 431 -3685. Planning Commission /BAR November 8, 1990 Mr. Haggerton closed the public hearing at 8:15 P.M. Page 2 MR. GOMEZ MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. MR. KIRSOP SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. V 90- 11 -DR: Texaco Jack Pace reported that the applicant had requested continuation to the December 13th meeting. The staff recommends approval of the request for continuation under the condition that the applicant submit any revisions by November 19, 1990 at 5:00 P.M. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION TO DECEMBER 13, 1990 SUBJECT TO STAFF'S CONDITIONS. MR. HAMILTON SECONDED THE MOTION; THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 90- 12 -DR: Fort Dent Three Jack Pace reviewed the staff report. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the property lines. Fort Dent II is in the process of being constructed. Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III will be mirror images of each other, but flipped in different directions. There were two general areas looked at in the staff report: 1) the general criteria for design review and; 2) Interurban Special Review. One area of concern was the building design. As mentioned earlier, the two buildings are mirror images of each other and, the applicant has rotated the buildings from the earlier drawings. There is no sidewalk connecting Fort Dent II and Fort Dent III. Additional landscaping is needed to break up the parking areas and to provide larger massing of landscaping along the river. One of staff's greatest concerns is that the current proposal has few elements which are sensitive to the natural amenities of the river environment. This proposal offers less uniqueness as opposed to the earlier submitted drawings. In conclusion, staff would recommend denial of this particular request due to the similarity of the two buildings, and the lack of sensitivity to the natural amenities of the river. Staff is suggesting denial of this request to allow time for the applicant and the staff to work up better solutions. The landscaping and existing access can be easily dealt with, there are more fundamental issues given the general design review criteria and the Interurban review criteria. Mr. Knudson noted that the similarity of the two buildings may be due to the applicant's development theme. Jack noted that there were other ways of achieving this, such as moving the building (Fort Dent III) in different directions. When looking at the beginning model of Fort Dent II and III, and the current proposal, the quality is not the same. LOREN D. COMBS SUSAN R. SAMPSON DUNCAN C. WILSON TELEFAXED TO: 431 -3665 LDC:dmc Re: Our Client: B.A.R. No.: Subject: cc: Mr. Harry Schmidt Mr. Ken Gerl SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE LAW CORPORATION 200 OLD MILWAUKEE SUBSTATION 450 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 PIERCE COUNTY (206) 863 KING CouNrY (206) 235-4800 FAx(206)235.4838 November 8, 1990 Ms. Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 90 -11 -DR Request for Continuance Dear Ms. Siegenthaler: Pursuant to our discussions, on behalf of my client, I respectfully request that the Board of Architectural Review continue this matter to its December, 1990 meeting in order to give the applicant adequate time to meet with the City staff and address proposed revisions contained in your staff report and to also allow adequate time for me to meet with your City Attorney and resolve certain legal issues affecting this application. As we discussed, you would be willing to meet with us on a staff level. I have checked with the consulting engineer and November 14, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. would be an acceptable meeting time. Based upon that time schedule the consulting engineer can present to you revised drawings no later than November 19, 1990. In the meantime, I will contact your City Attorney to resolve the legal issues. . KELLMAN IE ). NORNES LISA ROTH LOREN D, COMES SUSAN R. SAMPSON DUNCAN C. WILSON LDC:dmc NOV 08 '90 17 05 LO D COMBS INC PSA P.2 /2 TELEPAXED TO 431 -3665 Ms. Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner Department of Community Development CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Our Client: Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. H.A.R. No.: 90 -11 -DR Subject: Request for Continuance Dear Ms. Siegenthaler: Pursuant to our discussions, on behalf of my client, I respectfully request that the Board of Architectural Review continue this matter to its December, 1990 meeting in order to give the applicant adequate time to meet with the City staff and address proposed revisions contained in your staff report and to also allow adequate time for me to meet with your City Attorney and resolve certain legal issues affecting this application. As we discussed, you would be willing to meet with us on a staff level. I have checked with the consulting engineer and November 14, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. would be an acceptable meeting time. Based upon that time schedule the consulting engineer can present to you revised drawings no later than November 19, 1990. In the meantime, I will contact your City Attorney to resolve the legal issues. cc: Mr. Harry Schmidt Mr. Ken Gerl SAMPSON WILSON & COMBS, INC., P.S. A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE LAW CORPORATION 200 OLD MILWAUKEE SUBSTATION 450 SHATTUCK AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 PteaCS COUNTY (206) 863.4363 KING COUNTY (206) 235.4800 FAX (206) 235.4838 November 8, 1990 DONALD A. KEr.L AN LAURIE 1. NORNES LISA ROTH " NOV 81990 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ASAP NOV 08 '90 17:05 LO TO: .. DATE: D COMBS INC PSA SAMPSON W a:SON & COMBS, 4'K.., P.S. FACSIMILE NUMBER:: 235-4433S 5;) Tai.a transmission corssists• at pages including this traaszi tta.1. sheet.. i MM. MAIWAIRMISMUNO No Owrnelorn+I- Masi 14~00101 nasuernamindoes wags r P. 1/2 Fleas* call the above number IL, you. do not receive all pages... It you, . have any question* rsgasding this traassi.asiost, please contact at our office Down A. Coma Last 1. Mae Ow* M. arum. Yastmr.Ooos. ITTUMNM . N OV 81990 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. •' 4: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTERBOULEVARD, TUIi{i'JL,l, WASHINGTON 98188 October 9, 1990 Mr. Harry Schmidt H.E. Schmidt, Inc. 10335 Main Street Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: Texaco Gas Station Remodel Dear Mr. Schmidt: PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Cary L. Vanlhiscn, Mayor This is to summarize our discussion today regarding the Texaco remodel application for design review. The Board of Architectural Review (BAR) does not have the authority to approve an application which does not meet Zoning Code requirements. As we discussed, the Texaco design review application submitted on July 25, 1990 does not meet Tukwila Zoning Code requirements. First, the proposed canopy has an 8' setback, when a 20' setback is required or a 10' setback with approval by the BAR. Second, the landscape width is less than required along Interurban and the south edge, and does not meet the reduced width (of 8' and 4', respectively) allowable with BAR approval. In addition, no landscape plan is included, when a landscape plan which "substantially conforms" to code is required. For these reasons, we cannot forward this application to the BAR for review on October 25th as scheduled. If you would like to be re- scheduled for another BAR hearing, the application would first need to be revised to a) show the minimum requirement of a 10' setback, and b) include a landscape plan which meets the 8' and 4' width requirements, or which reduces the degree of non - conformance of the existing landscape. To be re- scheduled for the November 8, 1990 hearing, these revisions must be submitted by October 19, 1990. To achieve BAR approval of reduced setback and landscape requirements, the project must meet special review standards for Interurban Avenue. These standards require the design to be pedestrian- oriented and to provide a more desirable relationship to streetscape than the standard landscape. Mr. Harry Schmidt Texaco Remodel 10/9/90 Page 2 Sincerely, „ Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner If you wish to apply for a variance to these minimum zoning requirements, you must submit a Zoning Variance application for review by the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The BOA meets the first Thursday of each month, with applications due the first Thursday of the previous month. A complete application received by November 1, 1990 could be scheduled for review at the December 6th hearing. I hope this clarifies the status of your application, and some of the options available to you through the City's permit review process. If you have any questions regarding this, I would be happy to provide additional information. cc: file encl: Interuban Special Review Guidelines (TMC 18.60.060) Non - conforming landscapes (TMC 18.70.090) Zoning Code variance application qb-11--DR • 6 10-11- DR P W 1 — R BAR o N I 126 F BRASS MON. ELEC BOXES n � J / OCB J 11 CB BT SD W INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH 12" AR' LIGHT CMP 0 q UTIL. POLE W /LIGHT 0 2 -GAS COVERS —I WV PLANTER W /SPRI BT 127 GAS ISLAND CANOP W SPRINKLER 1 E 16.50 S GAS ()COVER IS 48°13 ' 02 E bl 3 It GE 18.97 1E 15.70 r BT G RAS MON. El CB 0 Job Address 113435. I tecurba Ave_ s_ Tenant /Owner Gull Ind. Date of Issuance 3-02-/-3.5- LEI Attached Description of work Remodel Legal Description Property Owner Date Address 3404 4th Ave. S. Phone Gull Ind. B -2 Seattle, WA 98134 624 -5900 Engineer /Architect 9 -20 Address 5220 Roosevelt Way N.E. Phone John Serkland Seattle, WA 98105 523 -5519 Contractor 4f Address PO Box 24687 Phone Gull Oil Co. Seattle, WA 98124 624 -5900 Authorized Agent License No. Value of Work CLO1 GULLOC 1658S 75,000 Fire Protection Use Zone Type of Ikpp}-- Prccepttd -B.y oo Sprinklers In Detectors C -2 Construction V -N Issued By: /, INSPECTION RECORD - 433 -1845 Type Insp. Date Notes Setback Date Rec. 4 1st Fl. Rebar B -2 48 P.C. Footing 9 -20 3279 2nd Fl. Fdtn. Bldg. Slab 4f la7 V Frame Demo. Bond Wall Bd. Total Tot. 2440 R -2 Tot. 48 _Total 591.00 Dept. Approvals Req'd Insp. Date Planning 'Div. Health Dept. Public Works Dept. Plumbing Electrical Cert. o occupancy Size of Unit or Building Uses Sq.Ft. Occ. Occ. Load Fees Amt. Date Rec. 4 1st Fl. Retail 1440 B -2 48 P.C. 233.00 9 -20 3279 2nd Fl. Storage 1000 Bldg. 358.00 4f la7 V Demo. Bond Total Tot. 2440 R -2 Tot. 48 _Total 591.00 CITY OF B PERMIT TUKWIILA THIS RMIT MUST BE P STED CONSPICUOUSLY ON BUILDING Special Conditions Approved for Issuance By NOTICE THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC- TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER S ATE R LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCT! OR THE PEJ FOF OF CONSTRUCTION. o Oontractoror r , ure uthorized Agent PERMIT NUMBER 3066/ Control Number 84 -161 FINAL APPROVALS: Fire Dept. Date Bldg. Official Date THESE PREMISES SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL ALL APPROVALS HAVE BEEN SIGNED. CPS No. I . A , ..;$11;A „„FrA 04 '.. • is• • A.. . - • • „ - Y4 • ••• tz. . } - , 40;j! 8cg. , 4,4;4 , 11.4:vnizq AfinW. '■WPAizsg2PkAfr."131102 AreoriPTAW [ PAi' lrg.,"40,5. PalligidtrAriESPON- rirr4' WIMP:RrAdligral 1 - -ay • • : • trk4ALIG, Wale. elf 4rt, , ; (13.24 "hi-iv 1111111101 1 -11-111111111111 Ili 14 :I 111[11'111•11:0111.11.1' .`e g m' , " '4" , • •e .A■ii■riO41 wAs.,„rt.4.)5F0,44432::., 4 .40.441 , • . tir..301 74;•. • -.414•.-,1) , , . H1 11111 'I 1111111 1111111 MINI 1.1.11111. 1 I NOTICE: IF 71IIS NICROFIL1ED DRAWING IS LESS • CLEAR THAI( THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. 0 . dit JL:oa.. eat • avtp.".14, ;I.E..r:s ,..4x)r.s; • 1w1 riarin4 ?At. v FP-4E4.1. ' : - p4E. 'AN/ I,/4 1-s6re0 1 14, - TrairJ5kir 5 t4 .1. 4 e , :39 \ 11111 30 40 KV 110 WO •1 !IJII-121/•161 4 TYP& v Ni F%1ILVILICi 1:41.46b ex iferit.141 (2Emova.) gew irTkil— r4e4.11461 44€* 2 4 Gs 1Q-n: t4 86 IIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111,111111111111111 - . titan Othiti '-z-Mir-'•.-14411tu— • 9. C • 17 Wass.s. L4: I /.4 Lielr estop° 1766 &t1 fl,traiL4.11 - 14ereigvAtt, • 9eA4 _II &VALI 441 p Luk1 - 4.14' r . .. 2' 04. Nest %NEWS. estitlicelt0) ifo 0 - 514.1tritrits. - 'he:haat. -..14r1S■teroa. Z 4ILL. • 4°64.4417 -4E C 4e - L - A/ •' eN - T 1 ' -i • ‘4) 4"kfl • •• Mai 01.441W+5 ilat:Ak.rtS; qi Lira ed 5. ts.1.1. FiEvl FL1-41141 S'4■A atwet 4. guihrt1,11, * veFerr A-6.1.7 "(nr.-tv.:• tal.. 1101.1n • 1 LiVie.. A 11 5. ft.I.L. 6605 tV Lfe..c.e.tyg. S mu; i.-PA ' i4.1t4..korc.try Lif4.1.15e0 1V Nheier: Pd•5 91:takt rheekr.: vate • • ' 1 understand that the Plan Check approvals subject to errors and attVans and approval plans does not et,lh: tho violottpn of any • adopted c7.2%: Evedtaato. RCC4i cf Contrac; copy of C,.);74 plat.: 61C.:1,1.-L. WK I 4rrE. ry:44 ei,v61- we ptiwi LeVt...ri LI.5 5 MA ei-Edis:r1d14 4 geFi-ec-Te./1 GMILUKIrol 4 ..se.G.Tioklas. eLe.arzit.4_ pLA,i4 • L s); 14401-U Y. ',rm. f: 1 rim-um vt.m.I +.114712.4kr- eadwriaLl arevez. er-e..varal4*". coul.irea_ c46.4 4. rat-rb.H..4 • o 32 1111111111111111111111 f tt ,: • • - •-: - ' • • • ' • . '• • • ••• . • e#4,.wtsto • - 2. x4 e4/1.44* Tor ir • GlitlsOC71. 1 = 1 _ M .,1 le lift**. Deciduous Tree Planting' GENERAL CONDITIONS ' INSTALLATION SPECIFICATION INSTAL. SPECS. ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS ASPHALT 6 CONCRETE SPECS. U.G. PIPING & ELECTRICAL D.W. TANK INSTALLATION INSTALL NEW sn GUARD POSTS : 1NSTALL.NE MODEL 660 LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS s a) TOTAL AREA OF LOT = 27,670 sq. ft. b) SIZE OF EXISTING BUILDING = 2,280 sq. ft. e) SIZE OF NEW CANOPY = 2,000 sq. ft. d) ON SITE PLANTING AREAS = 2,000 sq. ft. L. leal-4 JvI (I) et.lt.1,.. .4; •c•o, .INSTALL 4" P.V.C. DRAIN LINE FROM CANOPy. COLUMNS TO EXIST CATCH BASIN AS -SHOWN, • , REMOVE EXISTING COOLER & INSTA 4 4 NEW INSULATED GLASS WINDOW TO MATCH EX(STING.,'. REMOVELEXAT.0 503(40' STEEL :CANOPY PER'ELIVATION7 TO BE -DONE- BY . SERVICE UNDER SEPARATE CONTRACT 70 TEXACO. I , • . • • • • e.P To E71i1).Pinl& L--1T • 1s"--t; ( c./• .1 !) c/CiP. 2g.cr)i•L'4.S,•• (,) PARKING CALCULATIONS a) FLOOR AREA OF CONVENIENCE STORE = 2,280 sq. ft • b) PARKING STALLS 'REQUIRED = 6 c) PARKING STALLS PROVIDED = 11 04:44?..2 4 )0 1 • REMOVE. EXISTING 'ISLANDS'S DISPENSERS ( DELIVER TO ACME PUMP.PoR • SALVAGE BY OWNER 4'x : 16' CONC. " DOGRONE 1 ' ISLANDS (2 aw 3 - -P.RODUCT DISPENSER a 2' 4 PROD,UCT DISpENSER.) •• REPLACE DRIVE SLABS WITH NEW, REINFORCED W/ 6x6x 6 go WWM Vlbumum davidil 1 David Viblimum PotantIllUridlcosa " lArtoplIght1/ • Potentilla • , • GROUNDCOVERS KinnIkInnick / Bearbeny f REMOVE (I) 4,00ci,(1)0,000 (2) 12,000 GALLON TANKS. INSTALL (4), NEW 10,000 GALLON DOUBLE-WALL FIBERGLASS 'TANKS AT 4'-0"BURY, -INCLUDING NEW: D.W. FIBERGLASS PRODUCT LINES 70 qEW DISPENSERS & TO EXIST. elsPgNs RS 0 ikeei ISLAND, .D.W. FIBERGLASS VENT LINESPE.'41. VEECTRIte4ER STANDARD PLANS. fro:C9 otiped 4, (a) SAW CUT SLAB 6 PATCH SHADE AREA W/ A.C. PAVING PER SPECI FICAT IC NS . ii.:•f:1( Ct. v o4T.. PUMP, VENT, TANKEAUGINE VAPOR RECOVERY. , FILL . ANNULAR PROBE (trr) INSTALL:OBSERVATION TEST WELLS (4 TOTAL) INSTALL NEW 45'x 39 6" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. 113" Ht., full & bushy, 3.0` 0.C., triangular spadng, B & B. 12 Ht., full & bushy, 2 O.C. triangular spadng, B ao. LEGAL DESCR I PT ION: . • • . . . • • „ , • , THAT -1PORTION OF THE STEPHEN ;FOSTER DONATION CLAIllif • •. , • : SECT ION 14, TOWNSH I 1 NORTH,,,RANGE14 MERIDIAN, KING.1COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE PART ICULARy. DESCRIBED : S • , • • • , 4" pots, Min., (3) 12 runners, 18 0.C. tflanCluis, spadng. starting r from planter's rdge. Plant under all planiin‘. I . , coMMENC NG: AT THE POINT OF CURVATURE MONUMENT AT STATION. 51, AND: OF :.• . SECONDARY ; STATE HIGHWAY INTERURBAN '''.AVENUE);. THENCE NORTH 1.48,DEGREE5,:, , I 14 M flUTES • 191.SECONDS:: WEST.: ALONG ::,THE 'CENTER LINE OF:1 SA 010.0.1Ay41:.; , • " FEET it1TNENCE;SOLITH; 32 DEGREES 06 MI NOTES :41 :SECONDS' WEST, FEET-s,10 THE ' • souTif4EsTERVC.LINE,ovspoo;HtoowAy ANDImE:TRuE1P9INtOr'43EGINNINi3i,!:THENCE',,:... , CONT tNU1N3 SOUTH 32 DEGREES 06 M I NUTES ".4 SECONDS WEST; ' FEET (.THENCE' • .NORTH4 DEGREES :14:MINUTES 19 SECONDS : WEST,1223: 90- FEET ; THENCE rY NoRTH4f DEGREES :45;; MINUTES 41'. SECONDS EAST,: ',130 , FEET, TO SA I D1 SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN SECONDARY'. STATE HIGHWAY 211;"" THENCE . ..SOUTH . /16 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 191SECONDS , EAST ALONG: I D SOUTHWEST MARGIN, 20480 FEET TO THE: TRUE POINT0F BEGINNING. , .INSTALL' NEW UTILITY VAULT +MODELS 660 SA 401L/WATER' SEPARATOR 6(4"• LINE CAP EXISTING LINE. GENERAL NOTE.: • I. ALL GASOLINE PUMPS TO BE 11/2" HORSE POWER INSTEAD OF 3/4 H.P. AS LISTED IN'SPECIFICATIONS. VICINITY MAP ADDEC):.SIDEWALKS1,61CURI3S SEPARATORS, & WINDOW NOTE C .,1‘;•1 , •,.. 1 • _.• . MARK AIAO: . • • . f. A . . : 20 . • . • - . •'• • • •:.•"''•• • " • N. T. S. LANDSCAPE NOTES mum ;cob Condition. 1. -itispeetion-- All plant material and finish grades are pproval of:thepiner r and/or replace i t e asas d oy r ac omit" auk 2. 'Protection Se/Wand protect all surrounding work. Ownotplant until'all other construction operations have berwcompleted. • • • 3. .11epale!=-,Dering"the course of work. repair any damage to PV,ringi llghtintli,and structures to satisfaction of Owner, nwedditional cost. • • 4. Preparation fgr•Planting Rototill 6" of new topsoil int existing{goll We minion: depth of 12" in all new planting Remove .all rocks and foreign objectrovar 2" In diameter. clam'soll add peat noss.at the rate of 6•cu. ft./100 uq. and rototill until incorporated into soil: ' • Gnat/Atli/Maintenance Guarantee all plant material for a period of one year from date of final acceptance of the job Owner.' Maintain all planting areas until final acceptance o . ', entire 'Ob. • - • ' A 1. Plant Materials -- Plants shall be Washington Credo No. 1. sis accordancwwith AA M standards. hellthr. wigoroUa.'free from al • _disease, pest or injury. Oo not prune or top,pcior Uo dell ---- ,-,-.it......:-.8 •rr,s,fnatc.t.. bal1 .d,a114..burimm104:: ootie.JadiFl contalner. .Substitutiorm are strongly disccatead. ' • ' . . . S.: ftpaoll •- Screened sandy loan. subject to approval by Owner. • '.3. Planting Ilackfil4.(for all Plant Material) 1r iSt existing soil. . . SOS new-tot 251 repasts(' steer manure. Nix thoroughly. ' 4. Which -- 1-1/4" minus fir or hemlock brat, max. 20% fine.. S. Fertiliser -- igrifore tabs; 4 per tree, 2 par shrub. 1.Pet grcendcover gym 4 ou. transplanter per tree. 2 os. per shrub. 6. HerbIcide pre-emergent • herbicide to all saluting and new planting areas at manufacturer'. recommended rate (Cesar= or . approved). installation , • L. Tries -- Arrange trees an ult. in proposed locations for approval by Owner. : excavate pit as par {atoll. All trees and supports to stand yertical. 2. Shrubs -- excavatn shrub pits to 6* below and minimum twice the • maths'/Altimeter. Add fertiliser prior 6 backfilling. lake care to water thoroughly and prevent root damage. Plant shrubs . at spacing indicated ln straight, evenly spaced rows. Mulch all ' planting mreas to • minimum 2' compacted depth. 3. Groundcevir -- excavate pits .in. 1* &stow and twice the rootball diameter {approx. lel.' {atilt thoroughly and take care' to lnsure that root crown is at proper grade after mulching. Mulch-all , ,groundcovor areas ao a minimum 2' compacted depth. • Clean ID 411 litter...soil on walks, clippings, sec.. end leave site in a spotless condition. ROMOVII flag labels from plant aster's's. • , k • to :;•.• . •Q., Atatigm= 111111111111111111111111 I 111111 111111111111111111111 11111111. 11 1 1 1 L111.4.1111111p_1111.11111111111111.111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111 ••• • 0 •.. • 1 2 9 10 . & CLEAR1HAN THIS NOTICE, it IS' DUE TQ :oz eau ..az . i r • . TR 'ITY. 1 11 • : . . , n , y • 14 4 4t1). naA ', e. " . . . . . , . . . . , . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . , • .. • ....... • • . . ., '.......,,, .• , ........,. :.' ..... k • , .. - ..... : , -,.. k..,. .,-.. ,.........,Ls. .... . .'..,,...,,..,,,,...., ,:......,.. ,'...-".;•..,.., :,... ,,,,,,:::. ,..,.,,,,• ;•:,.• •;,..::: ki,;..."...4.:::•;..k,. . . " • • { fi 9 111(1 1! 1 ! _Y ? A:4 , d 44 Cl xa. . a!r + 7 4 `4( "sS�b9klii ., L9I�ly w *i� ram '. �i.:. wg YIY' O s. �!Ii�rF X t ,,, i!� �5537KS` i li' Iri flrrf►' ilrrh�th" ri( inliTli ►iiu�niltiifiiilirli'I'itttt T ' i ►`► i i �► ►�► iii i�lNi tlfi�ili'n(iulu'fl►i`iliii .1: 4•V v _ • •ry �Y r ?Ly. xr . w ' " ^i ce. . iv C' {� °;.Y w � � � Yr� mt. tt Std • , " 6-'7 t".07,',A. • , ' • : . . • . , • .. . • . .. • • • • ' " • - Nife ,,,ttutt; 44 '.rtee4