Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L92-0084 - GREAT BEAR MOTOR INN - BLUE STAR MOTEL DESIGN REVIEWl92-0084 14420 pacific highway south l92-0085 l93-0040 boundary line adjustment great bear motor inn blue star motel City of Tukwila oogy John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared April 24, 1997 HEARING DATE: May 1, 1997 NOTIFICATION: Notice published in Seattle Times on April 18, 1997 APPLICANT: Great Bear Motor Inn/Total Art Corporation FILE NUMBER: L92 -0084 (BAR) S97 -022 (SIGN) REQUEST: Approval of a twenty (20) foot freestanding sign PREVIOUS ACTIONS: BAR approval of 34 -unit, three (3) story motel LOCATION: 14420 Pacific Hwy S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: NCC ZONING DISTRICT: NCC SEPA DETERMINATION: DNS RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF: Michael Jenkins, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed sign B. Site Plan C. November 18, 1993 BAR Minutes D. Colorboard - to be presented at meeting L- `7 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the L92 -0084 & S97 -022 Board of Architectural Review Great Bear Motor Inn FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION The applicant seeks approval from the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) for a Freestanding Sign at 14420 Pacific Hwy S. The sign is to accompany a 34 unit, 12,000 sq. ft. Motel at 14420 Pacific Hwy. S., approved by the BAR at a November 18, 1993 Public Hearing. The project was originally filed under the name `Blue Star' and has subsequently been changed to `Great Bear', while ownership has remained constant. At the time of their approval, the BAR required that all signage be brought back for their approval. On March 13, 1997, the requested approval of a Freestanding Sign under permit number S97 -022. Staff informed the applicant on March 17, 1997 that the proposed sign needed to be presented to the BAR. The proposed freestanding sign, included as Attachment A, is twenty (20) feet in height. The sign components include a fifteen (15) foot pole with a fifty (50) square foot sign area, measuring five (5) wide by ten (10) feet in length and is double- sided. Attachment B is the site plan indicating the proposed location for the freestanding sign. No other signage requests have been presented to staff. The site is zoned NCC, Neighborhood Commercial Center, and is located approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of 144th and Pacific Hwy South, across the street from Larry's Market. BACKGROUND Attachment C to this report are the minutes of the November 18, 1993 Public Hearing, where the project was approved. The approval of the sign is presented to the BAR not as a Public Hearing item but as a Public Meeting, as the original decision for the project required only that the signage be reviewed by this body. DECISION CRITERIA 1. TMC 18.60, Board of Architectural Review Hotel and Motel developments use criteria established in TMC 18.60.053, multi- family review guidelines. TMC 18.60.053 (4)(e) provides that: "Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. Materials shall be compatible with building, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings and structure proportions shall be to scale." As indicated in Attachment A, the name of the development is accentuated by the use of a Bear set against the backdrop of a Mountain. The sign will use a variety of colors in its Page 2 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L92 -0084 & S97 -022 Great Bear Motor Inn message. The words `Great Bear' are in red letters. The Mountain depiction will use both light and dark blue colors. The lettering `Motor Inn' is a goldenrod color set against a purple background, The sign area framing the `Great Bear' lettering is white to depict the sky. Aluminum is used for the sign frame and pole, a consistent material used throughout the development. A Colorboard will be presented at the time of the Public Meeting as Attachment D. 2. Sign Code, Title 19 There are three issues pertaining to this application to be assessed - Size and area of freestanding sign, the setback from property line and the potential for impacted visibility from sign location A. Size /Area of Freestanding Sign Under TMC 19.32.190 (C), Hotels and Motels are permitted freestanding signs pursuant to TMC 19.32.140(D). This section allows one (1) freestanding sign for each site, with the allowed sign area based on the length of the street frontage. As this site has less than 200 feet of street frontage, it is allowed sign area of fifty (50) sq. ft per side with a total of 100 sq. ft. for all sides (TMC 19.32.140 (D)(3). The proposed sign has a 50 sq. ft sign area on each side of the sign, for a total of 100 sq. ft. of sign area. B. Setback from property line TMC 19.32.070 requires that any freestanding sign "shall be setback from all property lines a distance at least equal to the overall height of the sign ". The proposed sign is 20 feet in height, from base to top of the sign. As indicated in the site plan (Attachment B), the leading edge of the sign is 11 feet from the west property line, 48 feet from the north property line and approximately 60 feet from the south property line. C. Sign location TMC 19.28.010 (9) indicates that "there shall be no signs or sign supports which shall obscure vision between the height of three (3) feet and ten (10) feet of the street or driveway grade allowed within 40 feet of the intersections of streets and/or driveways ". The width of the sign support is indicated on Attachment A as two feet. As indicated on the site plan (Attachment B), the proposed location of the sign is located in the `vision triangle' described above. 1. Sign Design, TMC 18.60 CONCLUSIONS Page 3 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L92 -0084 & S97 -022 Great Bear Motor Inn The signage appropriately reflects the name of the motel. The use of materials is consistent with other construction materials. The colors used for the sign message are varied and generally complement each other. The sign is appropriately scaled to the building. 2. Size /Area of Freestanding Sign The size and area of the sign are within requirements for number of signs and area of the message. 3. Setback from property line As proposed, the sign is 9 feet higher than allowed given its location and dimensions. 4. Sign Location The present location of the sign is within the `vision triangle' established in TMC 19.28.010 (9). RECOMMENDATION Approval of the sign as presented along with the requirement that the applicant revise their sign to meet setback requirements established in TMC 19.32.070 and that the sign be moved outside of the vision triangle as established in TMC 19.28.010(9). Upon presentation of a revised site plan addressing the conditions stated above, the signs may be approved administratively. Page 4 5' 10' 2' 15' RECEIVED MAR 13 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Disign by:Totsl Sign 529 -1212 ATTACHMENT A • 61 5 (21-107 1,°)) r / .''." \ / i I i f: -,r XX r -4 4 1 ' - C : — — • --- — — ------- — N,../.; i rit-1. ..: 0 . 1 r 14301 „I. i '1 -7 041 LN • LJJ t- o - ‘q I /1 c? RECEIVEb----- • MAR 1 3 1997 COMMUNITY • ATTACHMENT B DEVELOPMENT . — Vo 5 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1993 (ADOPTED 1- 27 -94) ? = Inaudible word or people Vern Meryhew called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Malina, Flesher, Knudson, Haggerton, and Clark. Mrs. Craft was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter and Sylvia Schnug., I'd like to suggest one change. Back on page 14, about the fourth paragraph from the bottom, where it says "in addition ". Fourth line up from there, second word in, where it says "inaudible ". I'd like to replace "inaudible" with "waiving any claims ". I'd like to also change "deep seeded" to "deep seated" throughout the minutes. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 10 -14 -93 AS AMENDED, MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L92 -0084: Blue Star Motel: Ms. Painter- This project appeared before you in June of this year. One of the major revisions was that the applicant turn the project over to the registered architect or engineer, and make some specific design changes and engineer changes to the project. Some of the specific recommendations that you made, in addition to having draw up plans, is that the on -site storm water detention system be revised and' the underground system installed. That has been done with a number of revisions to the site plan. One of the major changes that improves the appearance of the project to a great degree, is the change in the roof form. The roof was changed to be regular and it's no longer a massive detailing; it has a much more gradual and graceful appearance. Stepping down toward the west elevation on Highway 99 and stepping down toward the back of the site. Another suggestion we had is that additional landscaping be provided around the east end of the site. This will help screen this area from the multi family neighbors to the backside. The original handicap elevators have the housing that was apparent from the street. There were some kind of awkward roof form that we made suggestions on changing. As you can see, the public view is greatly improved with additions of windows and roof form. We ATTACHMENT C 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1993 were very pleased with the amount of original modulation that the architect and applicant were able to provide in the submittal. Colors were a bit more subtle, there is texture, and a contrast of materials. That, combined with additional modulation, both on the front and back side, and some additional detailing has improved the design. Page 2 Less discretionary items were provided in a greater level of detail than what was originally submitted. That was an enclosure for the trash collection and recycling area, which was a new requirement. In terms of the building design, we asked for more contrasting detailing on this public side to the building. This is the side facing parking. There is additional detailing on the back side. They put in some windows, and a greater modulation to the facade, a greater contrast in materials. This texture will emphasize the base of the building, and the roof forms add greater interest. The sign that you have in front of you is preliminary and to give an idea of placement and scale and type style that will be used in the final. In conclusion, we recommend approval of this project as submitted with one condition. The condition is that this landscape strip be 5' of full landscaping to serve as a buffer. There is a great difference between the site as the grating is proposed and the property to the east. Do you want to speak to that in more detail? Mr. Knudson -My question is that it's not a flow, it's a pump. So you're not going to change the structure and put in a storage tank and redirect the flow. It's a pump - so the pressure pumps it. Scott Miller- That's correct. Mr. Malina -One of things that was brought up at our last meeting was that the handicap entrance to the motel. Ms. Painter- The handicap access has been improved here. There was a ramp into this. In addition, there is a handicap elevator. When the project comes in for building permit, all those things will be looked at in far greater detail, although I did pass this by the Plans Checker to make sure. We've asked for a covered system. So, worse case scenario, if there is not capacity on 99, they would have to go to an on -site facility and they would have to revise the site plan. Scott Miller- My understanding is that they do have the capacity. The only question is how much capacity. The system will be the same. But how much storage will be into that system? Ms. Painter- My feeling is that the potential changes in that level of detail would affect the overall appearance and intent of the project. When they come in for a building permit, it comes into Planning, so we automatically see the project again. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1993 Mr. Meryhew - Do we know any more about the mechanical equipment? Last time, there was some questions as to whether there was going to be window air conditioners...I still don't see anything on this. Page 3 Ms. Painter- On the last submittal, they were going to have air conditioning units that were under the window. The architect stated those units would handle heating and cooling. Mr. Flesher - What is the setback of the street? Diana Painter- Approximately 30 feet. . Scott Miller, Architect, 10306 NE 10th, Suite 110, Bellevue. The only thing I would add - -we're trying to tone the building down a little bit. Instead of going from bring blues, I want to tone down the contrast of the building and have the signage a little less large. We've gone from three large signs, down to two, a little smaller signs. Then we worked on the modulation on the back and color and materials to help break up those surfaces. Mr. Meryhew - Closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Knudson -This looks like it has improved considerably. It looks better. Mr. Meryhew - Let's re -open the public hearing in order to get input from the applicant. Shawn Park, Representing the General Contractor. Address: 31205 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA. The main sign is about 20' high and is illuminated. So there is an electrical light bulb inside of the sign. My understanding is that the background of the sign will be blue, and the lettering will be orange. Mr. Clark said that he saw no linen area shown. Scott Miller - There is going to be a small scale washer /dryer in the closet and a little bit more linen storage built in. I do think they're going to have some type of service that will deal with some of their laundry on the larger loads. It was an error on our part, on the schematic part, to not include more linen storage, which we would do on the final plan. Mr. Clark -The recycling bins are at the other end of the building. I'm concerned that recycling is not being encouraged. In some Of the units, they've actually had a trash bin and a recycle bin. I don't know how they're going to handle it on this. Whether they're going to handle it on an individual basis, or on a per - floor basis. Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 1993 Mr. Haggerton- I'd like to go on record and say that my comfort level is about 1,000% better for this project now then it was the first time it came to us. Page 4 Mr. Meryhew - Closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPROVE L92 -0084- BLUE STAR MOTEL BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE SIGNAGE BE BROUGHT BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MR. MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L93- 0058 -The conditional use permit for Becker Trucking. Jack Pace- Before I give my presentation, we received a letter November 16 after the packet went out. At that time, you approved it with conditions. It was appealed to the City Council. The issues at the time of appeal were concerned with the use that would occur on the property, in fencing and the design issues. The applicant incorporated many of those conditions in the proposal. Some examples of the conditions that were proposed at the time were to limit hours of usage from 6 to 10 p.m. Our concern at the time was that this would be used for other things, i.e. storage, loading docks. The applicant's proposal is meant for employee parking or parking of trucks. The other concern at the time was traffic impact. Since then, a traffic study has been done. Public Works feels that this location of access is okay based upon the traffic study. The applicants also made improvements on landscaping. There was concern of erosion on the hillside. Landscaping was done to minimize this erosion. There seems to be a couple of key areas and concerns to the applicant and residents. The berming should minimize people coming in. Mr. Knudson- What was our recommendation before? We don't have some of those, conditions that were in your report. Mr. Pace - One of the conditions is access. The traffic study was a requirement, and has been done. The other condition was the storm drainage. That has been taken care of over the three years. The other condition was dealing with fencing. We were trying to look at ways to make this blend as much as possible into the residential neighborhood. The other issue is the concern with erosion of the hillside, which has been dealt with. This proposal specifically mentions that this is just for employee parking and truck operation -- basically a parking lot, and nothing more. Mr. Pace- In reviewing the criteria, there were a couple of areas that the staff was particularly concerned with. One of them dealt with the tradeoff - -is the berming sufficient, or should there be additional fencing? My understanding is that the applicant also has some comments on the fencing issues. Look at Page 7: the wording should be "..150% oflandscaping cost shall be paid..of the utility cost ". "....the landscaping shall be 'Quality Builder & General Contractor' GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. February 28, 1994 31205 PACIFIC HWY. S. SUITE (2ND FIR) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 TEL:(206) 946-6188 FAY4R06).Q,48-,12613\ MAR 0 3 1994 GuiviMUNI1 Y DEVELOPMENT Attn: Director of the Department of Community Development and City Attorney office City of Tukwila DCD/ Building Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Notice of Appeal (Ordinance No. 1889) ' Blue Star Motel 14440 Pacific Hwy. So, TukWila, WA Dear Director of the Department of Community Development and City Attorney: As a process of appeal to City of TUkwila Ordinehce No 1889, Goldco Development Inc . has prepated outline of PUilding permit approval work for Blue Star Motel (Case .No L92-0084). This project has mainly three attempt to get an approval from City of Tukwila. The outline is chronologically laid out. Goldco Developmen Inc. cc: Mr. Young Cho Scott Miller" Diana Painter / DCD NOTICE O F A P P E A L ORDINANCE NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: OWNER: ARCHITECT: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: CIVIL ENGINEER: CONTRACTOR: 1689 Blue Star Motel 14440 Pacific Hwy So., Tukwila Young Cho 14442 Pacific hwy So. Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 - 9930 Dale Curtis 916 so. 310th pl Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 0715 Atlas Consulting Engineers 18904 82nd N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Sprout Engineers 24066 NE 53rd P1. Redmond WA (206) 868 - 0917 Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 6188 Pre application meeting with City of Tukwila on September 6, 1990 Construction Document completed with civil plans on February 16, 1 991 Revision submitted to City of Tukwila on April 22, 1991 New Elevations were added on June 10, 1991 New Structural portion was added on July 30, 1991 .... .,.•.� NOTICE O F A P P E A L ORDINANCE NUMBER: 1889 PROJECT NAME: Blue Star Motel PROJECT LOCATION: 14440 Pacific Hwy So., Tukwila OWNER: Young Cho 14442 Pacific hwy So. Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 - 9930 PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 6188 DESIGNER: Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 6188 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Atlas Consulting Engineers 18904 82nd N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 CIVIL ENGINEER: Sprout Engineers 24066 NE 53rd P1. Redmond WA (206) 868 - 0917 CONTRACTOR: Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 6188 April 12, 1993 Goldco notified to the City of Tukwila involvement of Goldco Development Inc. as a project manager. Submitted revised plans. May 7, 1993 Contact the City of Tukwila by letter requesting for review result from last submittal. It has been 4 weeks since the City of Tukwila received the revision when they said they will get to Goldco with in two weeks. May 31, 1993 Submitted all the materials for Board of Architecture Review 3 June 24, 1993 July 15, 1993 8:00 P.M. Public Hearing (BAR) Conclusion - Postponed to July 15, 1993 8:00 P.M. Public Hearing (BAR) Conclusion - resubmit with revision N O T I C E O F A P P E A L ORDINANCE NUMBER: 1689 PROJECT NAME: Blue Star Motel PROJECT LOCATION: 14440 Pacific Hwy So., Tukwila OWNER: Young Cho 14442 Pacific hwy So. Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 - 9930 PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Gbldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 8188 ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: Scott Miller 455 -5549 10306 N.E. 10th St Ste 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Wilson & Associates Consulting Engineers 26621 S.E. 172nd St. Issaquah, WA 98027 (206) 392 - 8996 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER: Engineered Electrical Systems 612 Bellevue way NE #201 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 454 - 5440 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Heier Design Group 612 Bellevue way NE #200 Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 451 - 8001 CONTRACTOR: Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Hwy So. Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946 - 6188 Schedule to have another Public Hearing (BAR) November 18, 1994 Scott Miller as the project architect revised the design according to the City of Tukwila code and recommendation past two months 5 On november 18, 1993 Public hearing was held and it concluded with approval on the design proposal. It is ready to submit for a building permit. The city Council passed Ordinance No. 1679. January 24, 1994 request waiver on Ordinance No. 1679. SCOT t gatewood miller-- registered architect 10306 n.e. 10th street, suite 109, beilevue, washington 98004, (206) 455 -5549 1/24/94 City of Tukwila ICD/ Building Division 6300 Sout:hcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 v. re; Blue Star Motel, waiver request. Dear OCD/ Building bivision and City Clerks Pursuant to the city Council's meeting on January 24, 1994, where the council voted to ammend Ordinance 1679 to include a waiver request process, we hereby request a waiver from the six month moratorium on applications and building permits in the C2 zone for the Blue Star Motel project located at 144th Pacific Hwy. Si; Seattle, WA.(tax //0040000150 0). .i 0040000175 0 Plef1se advise. Siferely Scifott G Miller , architect (agent for Goldco Development) cc goldco cho file PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 18,1993 ? - Inaudible word or people Vern Meryhew called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Malina, Flesher, Knudson, Haggerton, and Clark. Mrs. Craft was excused. Representing the staff were -Jack Pace, Diana Painter and Sylvia Schnug. I'd like to suggest one change. Back on page 14, about the fourth paragraph from the bottom, where it says "in addition ". Fourth line up from there, second word in, where it says "inaudible ". I'd like to replace "inaudible" with "waiving any claims ". I'd like to also change "deep seeded" to "deep seated ". MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 10 -14 -93 AS AMENDED, MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L92 -0084: Blue Star Motel: Ms. Painter- This project appeared before you in June of this year. One of the major revisions was that the applicant can turn the project over to the registered architect or engineer, and make some specific design changes and engineer changes to the project. Some of the specific recommendations that you made in addition to having to draw up plans, is that the on -site storm water detention system be revised and the underground system installed. That has been done with a number of revisions to the site plan. One of the major changes that improves the appearance of a project to a great degree, in my opinion, is the change in the roof form. The roof was changed to be regular and it's no longer a massive detailing; it has a much more gradual and graceful appearance. Stepping down toward the west elevation on Highway 99 and stepping down toward the back of the site. Another suggestion we had is that additional landscaping be provided around the east end of the site. This will help screen this area from the multi family neighbors to the backside. The original handicap elevators have the housing that was apparent from the street. There were some kind of awkward roof form that we made suggestions on changing. As you can see, the public view is greatly improved with additions of windows and roof form. We were very pleased with the amount of original modulation that the architect and applicant were able to provide in the submittal. Colors were a bit more subtle, there is texture, and a contrast of materials. That, combined with additional modulation, both on the front and back side, and some additional detailing that we discussed with the architect that was here last, in fact has improved the design. Less discretionary items were provided in a greater level of detail than what was originally submitted. That was an enclosure for the trash collection and recycling area, which was a new requirement. In terms of the building design, we asked for more contrasting detailing on this public side to the building. This is the side facing parking. There is additional detailing on the back side. They put in some windows, and a greater modulation to the facade, a greater contrast in materials. This texture will emphasize the base of the building, and the roof forms add greater interest. The sign that you have in front of you is preliminary and to give an idea of placement and scale and type style that will be used in the final. In conclusion, we recommend approval of this project as submitted with one condition. The condition is that this landscape strip is 5' of full landscaping to serve as a buffer. As a matter of fact, it fills out a couple of feet from the grave. So it must be a retaining structure at that point? There is a great difference between the site as the grating is proposed and the property to the east. Do you want to speak to that in more detail? Mr. Knudson -My question is that it's not a flow, it's a pump. So you're not going to . change the structure and put in a storage tank and redirect the flow. It's' a pump - so the pressure pumps it. Scott Miller- That's correct. Mr. Malina -One of things that was brought up at our last meeting was that the handicap entrance to the motel was the staircase that was eliminated for easier access. Ms. Painter- The handicap access has been improved here. There was a ramp into this. In addition, there is a handicap elevator. When the project comes in for building permit, all those things will be looked at in far greater detail, although I did pass this by the Plans Checker to make sure. We've asked for a covered system. So, worse case scenario, if there is not capacity on 99, they would have to go to an on -site facility and they would have to revise the site plan. Scott Miller- My understanding is that they do have the capacity. The only question is how much capacity. The system will be the same. But how much storage will be into that system? Ms. Painter- My feeling is that the potential changes in that level of detail would affect the overall appearance and intent of the project. When they come in for a building permit, it automatically comes into Planning, so we automatically see the project again. 2 Mr. Meryhew - Do we know any more about the mechanical equipment on this thing? Last time, there was some questions as to whether there was going to be window air conditioners...I still don't see anything on this. Ms. Painter- On the last submittal, they were going to have air conditioning units that were under the window. The architect stated those units would handle heating and cooling. Mr. Flesher - What is the setback of the street? Diana Painter- Approximately 30 feet. Scott Miller, 10306 NE 10th, Suite 110, Bellevue. I am the architect on that project. The only thing I would add - -we're trying to tone the building down a little bit. Instead of going from bring blues, I want to tone down the contrast of the building and have the signage a little less large. We've gone from three large signs, down to two, a little smaller signs. Then we worked on the modulation on the back and color and materials to help break up those surfaces. Mr. Meryhew - Closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Knudson -This looks like it has improved considerably. It looks better. Mr. Meryhew - Let's reopen the public hearing in order to get input from the applicant. Shawn Park, I'm representing General Contractor. Address: 31205 Pacific Hwy S, Federal Way, WA. The main sign is about 20' high and is illuminated. So there is an electrical light bulb inside of the sign. My understanding is that the background of the sign will be blue, and the lettering will be orange. It's not concrete yet. Mr. Clark said that he saw no linen area shown. Scott Miller - There is going to be a small scale washer /dryer in the closet and a little bit more linen storage built in. I do think they're going to have some type of service that will deal with some of their laundry on the larger loads. It was an error on our part, on the schematic part, to not include more linen storage, which we would do on the final plan. Mr. Clark -The recycling bins are at the other end of the building. I'm concerned that recycling is not being encouraged. In some of the units, they've actually had a trash bin and a recycle bin. I don't know how they're going to handle it on this. Whether they're going to handle it on an individual basis, or on a per - floor basis. 3 Mr. Haggerton- I'd like to go on record a d say that my comfort level is about 1,000% better for this project now then it was th• first time it came to us. Mr. Meryhew - Closed the public hcarin = at 8:43 p.m. MR. KNUDSON MOVED TO APPR BASED ON STAFF'S FINDINGS, CO WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDIT BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING C SECONDED THE MOTION AND T APPROVED. L93- 0058 -The conditional use permit fo Jack Pace- Before I give my presentation packet went out. At that time, you app City Council. The issues at the time of a occur in the property, in fencing and the of those conditions in the proposal. Son proposed at the time were to limit hours time was that this would be used for othe applicant's proposal was that this is mear The other concern at the time was traffic done. Public Works feels that this locati The applicants also made improvements on the hillside. Landscaping was done t couple of key areas and concerns to the before you, you can see by the cross sect minimize people coming in. VE L92 -0084- BLUE STAR MOTEL CLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS AND ON THAT THE SIGNAGE BE BROUGHT MMISSION. MR. MERYHEW E MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY Becker Trucking. we received a letter November 16 after the oved it with conditions. It was appealed to the peal were concerned with the use that would iesign issues. The applicant incorporated many �e examples of the conditions that were �f usage from 6 to 10 p.m. Our concern at the r things, i.e. storage loading docks. The t for employee parking or parking of trucks. impact. Since then, a traffic study has been �n of access is okay based upon the traffic study. on landscaping. There was concern of erosion minimize this erosion. There seems to be a pplicant and residents. The proposal you have on and your detail, the berming should Mr. Knudson- What was our recommen . ation before? We don't have what some of those conditions that were in your report Mr. Pace - One is the conditions is acces been done. The other condition was the over the three years. The other conditio look at ways to make this blend as much The other issue is the concern with erosi This proposal specifically mentions that operation -- basically a parking lot, and n Mr. Pace- In reviewing the criteria, ther particularly concerned with. One of the sufficient, or should there be additional also has some comments on the fencing "..150% of landscaping cost shall be pai . The traffic study was a requirement, and has torm drainage. That has been taken care of was dealing with fencing. We were trying to as possible into the residential neighborhood. >n of the hillside, which has been dealt with. his is just for employee parking and truck thing more. were a couple of areas that the staff was dealt with the tradeoff - -is the berming encing? My understanding is that the applicant ssues. Look at Page 7: the wording should be ..of the utility cost ". "....the landscaping shall 4 • e • . 2 . ' • ;•:.• - 0 llI blue star motel great bear motor inn elevations floor plans landscape plan MR CHO 14442 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98168 (206) 244-9930 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN WILSON & ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers 20721 8.E 172nd St, Issaquah WA W3027 MR CHO 14442. PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98166 (2061244.9930 DRAINAGE PLAN Mk WILSON ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director November 1'0, 1993 Mr. Scott Miller Scott Miller Architects 10306 NE 10th Suite 110 Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Blue Star Motel Dear Scott: Enclosed please find a copy of the staff report for this project. This report provides the background information for the Board of Architectural Review when they hold the public hearing on this project on November 18, 1993. I have also enclosed here copies of interdepartmental memos that address various technical issues on the project, as well as some code information that may be valuable to. you. See you on the 18th. Sincerely, , Or-WA tc)da Diana Painter Associate Planner Attachments: Letter to Dean Wilson from Diana Painter, 11 -10 -93 Memo from Bob Benedicto to Diana Painter, 11 -8 -93 Memo from Phil Fraser to Diana Painter, 11 -5 -93 Sign code regulations Parking code regulations Fire department comments, 10 -26 -93 Staff report GC/ 7 4.41.1 17/612 -1= &c01--C ,v cif; - El t ►ti,", ( 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director November 10, 1993 Mr. Dean Wilson Wilson & Associates 26621 SE 172 St. Issaquah, WA 98027 Subject: Blue Star Motel Dear Mr. Wilson: This is to follow up on our conversation of November 10, 1993. I understand that you will be following up on the inter - departmental memo from Phil Fraser dated November 5, 1993, regarding the storm water system and system connections for this project. As I mentioned to you on the telephone, I will be handling this particular requirement by stating in the staff report to the Board of Architectural Review that permits from the City cannot be issued until the necessary information and permission from WSDOT has been obtained (see attached). Please feel free to give me or Phil Fraser a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner Attachments: Preliminary staff report cc Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer, City of Tukwila Department of Public Works Scott Miller, Scott Miller Architects 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 217 /F5 l RECEIVED OCT 2 11993 COtV1MUNIT r DEVELOP tv1E Ni e 7�� /iee �i In 6'' ge a/ , l cis 60' oil ca5c) // - �/%5 Vz • 1 • ag 3 s 5 ('3a ,1) //. 5 / - c z s ea(' 4!'.,/N.1 /i, air /F//C / re G17I ./O c /5/ v , /D /02 it � S�, /`1 f , E- .Deal 5 / /i'/6-{t� 5 v= I, `l 1 X 10-5 -C-( 5 _ '(t , 5 o ) + 3,59) + (� - =1,1' —!a' 710 r &c Orb //_ ✓mod /1, '4 .4/ /i/ AN %'l' ; lo ,& al- ,,,4/ G ( f/- ILL 1 -1 _ /i)._If (,z,r 1,/94. , 9) t Z E�,6�9 ,:1ya3 / _ // .C1- ' = /,`/ /x /p "QL s 1-0-h0 ` - s 5 ,Q = /3 vvoo ,4/_ // Z (1+,o�24 60)f. J c1) 5 . ,oa-1 /9' 1 /e-efo / >ece5.5oh5 -r ileGP ssf r 3 -6 r / r; 4/.6 3Eni g P. 1 0 Lf \ 714e , / c -Fs taint is , ay C ; 1,072 /s Goulds WEDs39-1i Goulols WE t 5 R of e-V,.i;lale, n1' 'ED STATES ENT OF THE ARMY OF ENGINEERS 1579 111 SE ATTLE SOUTH) '•J 1.1' 1 rTLE l ) 11 Ml. 17'30" 1 640 000 FEET 054 )ES MOINES QUADRANGLE WASHINGTON —KING CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SEAr1LE PO O MI 556 122 .dh r godid .1,39 • T7wi` SEATTLE TACOMA • i. WILSON & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 26621 S.E. 172ND ST. ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 (206) 392 -8996 OR 392 -8947 Phil Fraser Senior Development Engineer City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Subject: Blue Star Hotel Development Dear Mr. Fraser (ECE VEE OCT 2 41993 CUIviMVI U N IT Y DEVELOPMENT 20 October 1993 This letter report is in conformance with Core Requirements 1 through 7. This report will address the Core Requirements 1 -7 as specified on Page 1.1.2 -1 of the 1990 Surface Water Design Manual. The results of the various studies for the Core Requirements will be summarized in order. Core Requirement #1: The property has been cleared for quite some time. The drainage pattern has not been modified but grading and the construction will reroute the drainage via the pressure line to the storm sewer serving Pacific Highway South. Core Requirement #2: The Off -Site Analysis Level I is included here as Appendix "A ". It contains a one page written description of the sub -basin drainage pattern and a section of the Des Moines 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, USGS 1973. Core Requirement #3: The site has been analyzed with respect to King County criteria for a storm with 100 year frequency and 24 hour duration. The calculations for this study are included herein as Exhibit "B ". It was found that the difference in peak runoff between the Pre - Development and Post - Development conditions amounts to 0.26 CFS. The difference is less than 0.5 CFS. Core Requirement #4: Runoff will sheet flow down the parking area to two type 1 catch basins and an inlet near-the east property line. The runoff will be directed to an underground detention tank and released through a three orifice tee to a duplex sump pump that will pump the released runoff to a catch basin on Pacific Highway South that is connected to the street storm sewer. The downspout discharge will be directed to the detention facility also. *IC�:daUi!: ::i �?;: 5: 1NG` A• Y�: AYO; u?. G,. I: �MSk +b:?.A.%�YUmx:+o+u�rer..w�.•.. Phil Fraser, 20 October 1993 Page 2 Core Requirement #5: A Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan has been prepared for the site. This is included herein and so named. Core Requirements #6 and #7. Neither of these requirements apply to this residential project. Mr. Fraser, should you have any comments, please call me directly. I will he pleased to discuss this project with. Thanking you in advance for your consideration of my client and your continued cooperation. Respectfully Submitted Wilson & Associates, Consulting Engineers Dean W. Wilson, P.E. Enclosures cc: Mr. Cho w/ Enclosures. EXHIBIT " OFF -SITE. ANALYSIS Level I Blue Star Motel The property is located in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, WM.; on an east facing slope. The property generally slopes down from west to east at 7%. The surrounding area forms a natural closed depression. An infiltration pond is used on the adjoining property to the east by Water District 125. An excerpt of the U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Des Moines, Washington is included herein. There is no off -site drainage contributing to drainage from the property. All of the property drains to the northeast corner and infiltrates in to the ground. STATES T OF THE ARMY ENGINEERS •9 Ill SE 'LE SOUTHJ `.G ATTLE P.0 8 MI 17'30" 1 640 000 FEET . 554 DES MOINES QUADRANGLE WASHINGTON -KING CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) .SEATTLE PO 9 MI 556 122' `." ' 1,11,1 • r. 3�� :—� Foster F,.., , colt Course Rive orf tr „st • I \I ,I 1 \}i: 64 Ilrel•1iJe'D�� l • 1 � —_ - -- VW AISTIM !..11.yerton. e a IVA r —11716 Jl Reservoir sh pgt Memor 00 SEATTLE TACOMA • JJU r:. aaw> 'Ra:..,,r,a•f.Gl.: ✓..:ra•i.,:,Y • .�ien4P,i/Gw44uun..ui..,...swa w•....«., w..... i.e./it 64 4) iCC Gc, 1_ ,-ti _ 5.3 X <)c Cj I • ,t` -? - rte,., �, Gold .t'.J•. S,.,/ 9 /2 of-2, S c o S'"G n Or'-z .os9 -0rC:+ 2.. co L,a u j- Sa /` / ,c/J L /f7 /..'. ifr'a 6' v+. i ,iK :l.`P.;..:1'ii:}:✓x.+"3uTdi� /24:- 4Y_ / S C . - A ✓ ice,- S (,. -f:3 Dc 4 1 ,S7'72 /1 - /7o Li J©. 712:...--/%1--/ Or- n L_CV/ -cr-cAc_ (� /.62 in ,•-11) • .S/ /97_ F a,, ca. o// G94./.•-)e, B/L. ti c /7•'0-4:7: Z . / 3 lfl r N+ GillA3lk:als:::.S,vAn:f,'�z'l ii:JL—r cEi2v:tia• real ,isf „ n:r c.•...ar„aw....,... r IJ J Z _9 3.¢ Z 7-67 r /00 c(TFY . sTORM OPTION: / `-' � TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION 'TrA: FREO(YFAR) DURATT0N(H0UR), PRFCTP(INCHES) .11*A.x************* S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ***'t*** 1*** itil'* tt***** 2-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2'00" TDTA) PRECIP. *11,*T11-** ;Tr7R: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FPR BASIN NO. / '�,86,0`98,8'18 PRINT-0\>T: /\PFA(ACRFS) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN .5 .5 86'0 .0 98'0 pI7AK-0(CFS) T'-PEAK(HRS) VOL/CU-FT) .1O 7.83 1632 TC(MINUTES) 8.2 'TER P:l[path]filmneme['extl FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 7pRDV 171.IFY STORM OPTION: '.S. TYPE-IA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION 'TcR: FREO(YFAR), DURATION(H0UQ), PPFCTP(INCHES) • ,24,2.q 4q+*************** S.C.S. TYPE-1A OTSTRI8UTION **34*************:'* m*3*1:* 10-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM **** 2'90" TOTAL PRECIP. 1***3ti ** /rrR: a‘PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV)' CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO� '�`86,O,98,R'18 .TA PRINT-OUT: ,:PEA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN '5 .5 86'0 .0 98'0 "r�K-0(rFq) .21 T-PEAK(HR�) V0L(CU-FT) 7.83 3033 TC(MIMUTES) 8.2 /rFR [d:l[path]fi]enamm['extl FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 4r)PRDV �r�TFY �T0RM OPTION: • C'5' TYPF-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION uTER� FREO(YEAR)` DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) 1�***T**T**3.****:,-** S.C.S. TYPF-1A DISTRIBUTION **T4*********1**x 1e* '41--**4:1-* 25—YEAR 24—HOUR STORM *.*** 3.40" TOTA1 PRECIP' 3-*.t*^//** •|TER: A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC 1 OR RASIN N0' ) s3`S6,O,q8,8.�8 • �T41 PRINT—OUT: 6R[A(ACRE6) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN 'S .5 86'0 .0 99'0 r'7AK-0(OFS) T—PEAk(HRS) V0L(CU—FT) 7.83 3866 TO(MINUTES) 8.2 vTF9 [d:l[p;:itb]filename['extl FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTrD HYDROGRAPH '.;5PRDV 'ECTFY STORM OPTION:' C.S. TYPE—IA RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION dTFP: FREO(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR), PAECIP(INCHES) `0.24,3'* 't'******* **t ** S'O'S' TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *************** '^f*tt** 1O0—YEAR 24—HOUR STORM **w* 3'90" TOTAi PRECIP. :4****/`*t - —_—_--' —_ A(PERV), CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), ON(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN N0' PRINT-OUT: ^PFA'ACRES1 PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) A CN A CN .5 .5 86'0 .0 98.0 6'� pFOK—o(CFS) T—PEAK(HRS) • V0L(CU—FT) .34 7.83 4723 ITER P:l[path]filename[_extl FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 40OPRnV SP '\FY '.TOR/ OPTION: . y / . T ' \ �` �� S'('�' TYPE- A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ()FAR), DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION **1:***3.**********4.4* YEAR 24-HOUR �TDRM ***,41 2'00" TOTAL PRECIP. *****1.X** o(PERY`` CN(PERV), A(lMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. DATA FRTNT-01'T: AREA(ACRES) '5 PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN .0 86.0 'S 98'0 PEAK-")(CFS T-PEAK(HR5) VOL/CU-FT) .29 7.67 3257 TC(MINUTES) 2.1 ENTER ['|:l[p' 'h]filenume['m:t] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: BS7PODV SPECIFY STORV OPTION; � TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YFAR}, DURATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) lD ?4,2.9 ___-__ **!,x**:t.4rr***t* S.C.S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION *******t************ 1*,1144;*I 1C YEAR 24-HOUR �TORM Az*:** 2'9O" TOTAL PRECIP' **4:**4*rT ENTER: o(PER��. CN(PEAV), A(IMPERV)' CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 DAT('; ARF:A(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN '5 .0 86'0 _ .5 98'0 PEAK-O'CFS) .44 T-PEA;(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) 7.67 4949 TC(MINUTE6) 2.1 ENTER [`|:][p+ih]fiiename['evt] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: BS\0.PO[/V flItY ' V'rC.TFY c.tORP .'i C,PTION: 1: TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FF:EQ( YEAR) , DURATION( HOUR) , PRECIP( INCHES ) 10,24,c'.9 1.14 s i r f. i ry:ir +: r :4!* : 4 j :'f: ., .0 . S . TYPE_ -1A DISTRIBUTION * * * * * * *:r. * * * * * * * * *:r•* : .1.1 r r t r a r , 10 YEAR 24 -HOUR ``.TORM ***If 2.90" TOTAL PRECIP . ******A:** EN't;l' <: , =.( F'ER'v) , CN( PERV) , A( IMPERV) , CN(IMPERV) , TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 DATA PRINT-OUT: (REA( r'C.REc ) G PEAK -Q(CFS .44 PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN .0 86.0 .5 98.0 T- PEAK(HRS) VOL( CU -FT ) 7.67 4949 TC(MINUTES) 2.1 ENTER : ] [pt� t h] f i .l enarne [ . ex t ] FOR STORAGE_ OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: BS1 OPODV .SPECIFY STORn OPTION: • TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTER: FREQ(YEAR), DURATION(HOUR)^ PRECIP(INCHES) 25.24`3'4 *Ai***i'x*A.*x,V**A:** �'C'S. TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION ******************** $*xT1 /1'i YEAR 24-HOUR .TORM **** 3'40" TOTAL PRECIP. *44***w*** ENTER: A(PERV)^ CN(PERV), A(IMPERV), CN(IMPERV), TC FOR BASIN NO. 1 '047,86,.483'98,2'13 DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS TC(MINUTES) CN A CN .5 .0 86.0 .5 98'0 2.1 PEAK-0(CFS) T-PEAK(HR5) VOL(CU-FT) .52 7.67 5897 ENTER [d:][p^|h]fLlename['ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: BS25P0DV SPECIFY STORM OPTION: 1 S.C.S. TYPE-1A RAINFALL DISTRIBUTION ENTFR: FRECKYFAR\, 0JRATION(HOUR), PRECIP(INCHES) *AC4-141-4***v+"***** TYPE-1A DISTRIBUTION -44*********)t:****�* V*`A13*44 100'YEAR 24-HOUR STORM *wit 3'90" TOTAL PRECIP. *******w* ENTER: A(PERV). CN(PEHV), A(IMPERV), CN/IMPERV1, TC'FOR BASIN NO. .047'86,.48:7?`'/��,2.�� DATA PRINT-OUT: AREA(ACRES) PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS A CN A CN .5 .0 86.0 .5 98'0 PEAK-0(CFS) T-PEAK(HRS) VOL(CU-FT) .60 7.67 6847 TC(MINUTE5) �'1 ENTER [d:l [pa/h]filoname['ext] FOR STORAGE OF COMPUTED HYDROGRAPH: 86100P0DV SUMMARY OF INPUT ITEMS 1) TYPE 0.= 1= ( i "F L. I T Y: TANK 2) TANK DI AMf: TER(f t ) , STORAGE DEPTH( f t) : 3) VERTICAL PERMEAFILITY(mi n/ in ): .00 4) IMiRY DESIGN HYDROGRAPH FILENAME: 5) PRIMARY RELEASE RATE(cfs): .34 6) NUMBER OF TEST HYDROGRAPHS : 4 TEST HYD 1 FILENAME:: BS1OOPODV TEST HYD 2 FILENAME: 8S?SPODV TEST HYD 's FILENAME: BSIOPODV TEST HYD /! FILENAME: E3S 'PODV 5.00, 5.00 BS100P0DV TARGET RELEASE( cfs ): TARGET RELEAEE(cfs ): TARGET RELEASE( cf:) : TARGET RELEASE( cfs ): .34 .27 .21 .10 7) NUMBER-OF-ORIFICES, RISER- HEAD(f t) , RISER- DIAM(i n ): 3, 5.00, 12 8) ITERATION !')T.SPLAY: YES E=NTER ITEM NUMBER TO BE REVISED (ENTER ZERO IF NO REVISIONS ARE REQUIRED): INITIial.. STORAGE VALUE FOR ITERATION PURPOSES: 2724 CU -FT BOTTOM. ORIFICE: ENTER Q- MAX(cfs ) 1.2 £ IA .= 1.41 INCHES MIDDLE ORIFICt= : ENTER Q -MAX( cfs) , HEIGHT(ft) DIA . = 7.12 INCHES TOE' ORIFICE: ENTER HEIGHT(ft. ) 4 DIA . = 1.:r1 INS• HES ITEP6,TTON COM; JTATTON BEGINS._ . TRI ( -;1 TANK-•i FNGTH q5.0 75.7 6 70.4 7 66.5 63.4 'a 61.0 12 1.3 14 15 16 1.7 56.1 S5 .0 54.1 53.3 52.0 STOR- AVAIL. 2224 2-?10 1.64 1(38 1485 1.382 1 305 1245 1196 1.102 1080 1061 1045 1031 1020 STOR -USED 1697 1518 1413 1332 1278 1229 1184 1148 1119 1058 1043 1029 1017 1008 1001 PK -STAGE 2.99 3.25 3.55 3.80 4.02 4.18 4.27 4.36 4.43 4.62 4.67 4.71 4.74 4.79 4.82 PK- OUTFLOW .14 .17 .21 .22 .24 .26 .27 .28 .29 .31. .31 .32 .32 .32. .33 19 r)1.1 1 003 991 4.88 .33 '2c, 50.8 997 987 4( .33 71 SO . 5 992 983 4./2 .33 ',0.-i 988 981 4.93 .33 50.2 984 979 4.95 .34 24 x',0.0 981 977 4.95 .34 2/F, 49.9 979 975 4.96 .34 2A 49 . �; 977 974 4.97 .34 27 49.7 '•176 973 4.97 .34 %1 `) . f :. 974 972 4.98 .34 29 19 . f 973 972 4.98 .34 'W. 49.5 972 971 4.99 .34 37 49.5 972 970 4.99 .34 32 /19.r, 971 970 4.99 .34 3' 49.5 971 970 4.99 .34 PERFORMANCE: INFLOW TARET- OUTFLOW ACTUAL- OUTFLOW PK -STAGE STORAGE DESIGN HYD: .60 .34 .34 4.99 970 DF`"',TGN HYD: .60 .34 .34 4.99 970 TE :,T HYD 1: .60 .34 .34 4.99 970 TEF.T HYD 2: .52 .27 .26 4.20 860 TEST HYD 3: .44 .21 .21 3.54 730 TE`.T HYD 4: .29 .10 .08 2.42 460 STRUCTURE DAT ;: R/D TANK (FLAT GRADE) RISER -HEAD TANK -DIAM STOR -DEPTH TANK- LENGTH STORAGE- VOLUME 00 FT 5.00 FT ...00 FT 49.5 FT 970 CU -FT TRTPLE ORIFIcF: RESTRICTOR: DIA(INCHES) HT(FEET) Q-MAX(CFS) BOTTOM ORIFICE: 1.41 .00 .120 MTI 'f0LE ORIFICE: 2.12 2.80 .180 TOP ORIFICE: 1.21 4.00 .040 R(UT TNf DATA: 1 ,,is / 1 ST E(dFT) DT CHRGE(CF f) STORAGE( GU -FT) p_AREA(E -FT �.0 04 / 50 ► 0 \05 \ 138 .3 .0 I O .� / 245.0 .0 .(1)n \ R01.U1', NCB C, ATA : f)T`'.CHARGE(CFS) STORAGF( CU--FT) PERM -A .00 .00 .0 .50 .04 50.5 .00 .05 138.3 1 .50 .07 245.0 •'' . 00 .08 362.7 ?.50 .08 485.5 ?..80 .09 559.6 .":..00 .15 608.4 1.50 . 20 726.1 4.00 .24 832.8 4.50 .30 920.5 5.00 .34 971.1 5.10 .66 971.1 5.20 1.23 971.1 5.30 1.96 971.1 2.76 971 .1 5.50 3 .05 971.1 AVERAGE VERTIfAL PERMEABILITY: .0 MINUTES /INCH -A( SG -FT ) .0 .o .0 .0 .O .0 .0 .O .0 .0 .0 .0 .O .0 .0 .0 0 SPECIFY: F •- FILE, N - NEI4.JOB , P - PRINT IF/OF, R - REVISE, S - STOP 'la IWO ii stYwL ?Sit tr .4.Y E7 SSNanL 2 . gWaX eWAWAAW MOWXWV Kaaaawdt.ft n. ...,..w,...,.......,.......V.., City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Mr. Sean Park Goldco Development Inc. 31205 Pacific Highway South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Dear Mr. Park: John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director I am in receipt of your letter dated August 30, 1993. You are scheduled to present the Blue Star Motel project again on November 18, 1993 (please note; your letter said November 19th). Enclosed is a copy of the minutes from the July 15, 1993 meeting of the Board of Architectural Review, for your information. I am meeting with your architect tomorrow (Tuesday the 14th), and I will also give him a copy. Please give me call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diana Painter Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206)4313665 L.. 'Quality Builder & General Contractor' t GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT INC. 3 /799a Oi &„ e. Diana Painter Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Blue Star Motel 14442 Pacific Hwy. So. Dear Ms. Painter: 31205 PACIFIC HWY. S. SUITE K (2ND FLR.) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 TEL: (206) 946.8188 FAX: (206) 946.1788 WisttAb fi 99`3 On 26th of August, we are confirmed that you will have the motel project on 14442 Pacific highway So. for a public hearing on 19th of November. Also this project will be on the waiting list for october review as well. As above confirmation we are preparing for the BAR hearing. Our new architect is working on this project at this moment. Sincerely, Sean Park Goldco Development Inc. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 15, 1993 Mr. Meryhew called the work session to order at 6:05 p.m. Jack Pace said that they will be holding a work session on the Parks and Open Space Plan and a recommendation needs to be forwarded to the City Council. This document will provide a background for the Parks and Open Space portion of the Comprehensive Plan. This will be looked at again when the Planning Commission reviews the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Flesher asked how this can be a stand alone document when it will be part of the Comp Plan. Mr. Pace said that this document is trying to beat Federal and State requirements that we will be dealing with this year or next year. This is being reviewed by Parks and Planning to try and meet grant requirements and to serve as a six-year plan. After the first two years, there will probably be modifications made to the policies. Mr. Meryhew asked if this document was brand new. Mr. Williams said that this is the third version that he has been involved in. Mr. Meryhew said that one thing that bothered him, was that it seemed like the document was brand new. Mr. Williams thanked the Planning Commission for having the special meeting for the Parks and Open Space Plan. There are five or six reasons for developing the plan. The old Parks and Open Space Plan, 1985 through 1989, has expired and the City has no current, long range Park and Open Space Official Plan. Mr. Meryhew asked if there was an expiration date to the Plan. Mr. Williams said yes, six years. He added that there are approximately 22 projects outlined in the Plan. Secondly, the City has a responsibility to do financial planning. Parks projects are funded with general fund dollars. In August the Council will be receiving the new proposed six-year plan. Growth Management requires that the City look at what kind of 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 July 15, 1993 Mrs. Craft asked that the City take a look at the subtle areas as well. Mr. Flesher asked when was the last time the City put out a general survey. Mr. Williams said that there has never been a survey for citizens to respond solely to parks, recreation, open space use. It has always been part of a larger survey. Mr. Flesher said that we're saying we know what the citizens want, when we've never asked. He added that he would like to see an objective added that a survey be conducted every so often. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Haggerton said that might even enlighten the citizens as to what is available. Mr. Williams noted that the objective might be worded, "Conduct a community survey concerning park use and desires for park trails and open space every five years ". Mr. Meryhew called for a ten minute break before the public hearing started. Mr. Meryhew called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. With regard to the minutes of June 17, 1993, Mr. Meryhew noted that on page 3, the third paragraph, there may have more to that than what is in the minutes. Mr. Pace indicated that he had said the City has a public access easement so anything dealing with public access, the City has liability insurance covering that. MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 1993 AS MODIFIED; MRS. CRAFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L92 -0084: Blue Star Motel: Diana Painter presented the staff report. The proposal is for a three -story motel on Pacific Hwy. S. with 34 units with a corresponding number of parking spaces. It's among structures of similar scale and use. This project first came into the Planning Department in 1990. Since then the owner has had some change in personnel. It's a fairly straight - forward project. Staff has asked that the structure be stepped down in height from the street to the back of the site. Staff felt that stepping down the structure would soften the relationship of the structure to the surrounding buildings. This has brought up some Code questions which have not been resolved, such as handicap access, and Fire Code questions. Some of the things that have been requested over time have been deeper eaves, and more breaks to transition from one level to another. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 July 15, 1993 The applicants fulfill the requirements of the landscape Code. There are a number of areas in which the staff has some concerns. One of the concerns deals with the infiltration pond. There should be landscaping on the back side of the pond. Staff has some concerns with the views of the pond and safety question. It can be handled differently. Mr. Knudson asked how it could be handled differently. Ms. Painter said in terms of design, there are a number of different ways the pond can be handled. More landscaping could be added so that it appears more integrated with the overall site. Mr. Knudson said that he assumed that the reason for the pond is that there is no other place for the storm water to go. Mr. Malina asked how big the pond is. Ms. Painter said that it is approximately 105 feet long. Mr. Malina asked if the pond is adequate once the building is put on the lot. Ms. Painter said that the Engineering Department has indicated that the pond is of an adequate size. She said that the pond issue is not a major concern and that it could probably be worked out. Mr. Meryhew asked if there was a safety issue with the pond. Ms. Painter said that the drawings indicate that it is fenced. She added that the applicant has submitted a letter indicating that there would be additional lighting on the north side of the building. Mr. Haggerton asked if they received a copy of that letter. Ms. Painter said the letter arrived after the packets were mailed out. She added that the applicant has agreed to step down the building. Other issues which have not been addressed include staff's request for additional detailing to the building to add more of a contrast along the facades. Staff has also asked for more modulation along the north facade. Staff has also asked for longer, deeper eaves to make a more graceful transition and that was not done. There's a number of discrepancies in the drawings between the plans and the elevations. Staff came to the conclusion that the applicant would be better off hiring an architect to correct some of the details and re- submit it for the Commission's consideration. An earlier submittal by a registered architect was more along the lines of what the staff is looking for. Staff feels that the use of the accent color could be used more widely and a Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 July 15, 1993 contrast in finishes would give the applicant more of a contrast in the detailing. The appearance of the whole project could be improved if the signage were integrated better into the architecture. Mr. Flesher questioned that the staff asked for the building to be stepped back and now that the applicant has done that, staff has indicated that they like the first submittal better. He has been led into re- designing it and now that he has, there are more Code problems. Ms. Painter said that the Code questions could be resolved fairly easily. Mr. Flesher said that he wasn't sure the applicant understood what staff was looking for. He added that this project has been brought before the BAR when a number of issues haven't been resolved. There isn't a lot the BAR can do here. Jack Pace said that they've gone as far as they can go. Legally, staff has no right to sit on this project. This applicant wished to proceed and get the BAR's decision. Staff gives the BAR the facts as they have them for the BAR to make a decision. Mr. Flesher said that he wasn't being told what the changes need to be and he asked if the applicant has been told. Did they have a clear -cut outline of what they needed to make this Fire Code approved? Jack Pace said that the previous architect met with the Building Official and had a clear -cut understanding of building and Fire Code issues. There has been transitions and there have been follow -up meetings with new personnel explaining those issues. Mr. Flesher asked why the applicant was made to change the whole roof structure. Jack Pace stated that the change doesn't create more or less problems. There are cumulative problems with the site. The bigger issue is some basic design qualities for this project. For example, having this huge open pit for storm drainage, and having better treatment of the building facade. The back side of the building has no windows in it and there's minimal modulation. Give the BAR's past decisions, the BAR has required greater modulation. Staff's position is not to deny, or approve the project, but to tell the applicant to address certain points and come back to the BAR. Staff has gone as far as they can. Mr. Flesher said that he wasn't sure he was satisfied with the process. Ms. Painter said that this has been going on for a couple of years and there is just so much talking that they can do before action needs to be taken. Mr. Flesher said that he was talking about direction. The applicant has made changes that staff has asked for and now they are running into problems which they did not have on the original drawing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 July 15, 1993 Mr. Haggerton said that a copy of any letter pertinent to this packet should be given to the BAR prior to the meeting. Mr. Meryhew asked if the parking was standard and if there might be a problem with personnel parking. Ms. Painter said that it meets the required parking. Mr. Meryhew noted that the drawings indicate two different kinds of parking lots. Ms. Painter said that this was typical of the problems staff has had in reviewing the project. Staff felt it needed, a greater level of refinement. She indicated that one of the drawings was done by the civil engineer. Mr. Meryhew asked for more detail on the pond. Mr. Flesher asked if there was any standing water in the pond. Ms. Painter said that when she walked the site, the pond was mushy. The pond is designed to have water at times, and at other times, have no water. The drainage is coming down the main parking area and goes into a interceptor to be piped into the infiltration pond. Mr. Meryhew asked the height of the cyclone fencing. Mr. Knudson thought approximately five feet. Mrs. Craft asked what other City departments looked at this project. Ms. Painter said that the Fire, Police, Public Works, and the Building Departments reviewed the plans. She said that she asked Tom Kilburg of the Police Department if the landscaping and fencing would cause any surveillance problems. He indicated that the fence or landscaping should not cause a problem. The problems that exist in that neighborhood are from the apartment building further down the street and those would occur regardless of what happened on this site. Mr. Meryhew asked if there was a problems with the handicap access. Ms. Painter said that right now there is no handicapped access to the upper floors. With the new ADA regulations, there has to be access from one point to any other point in the building. These problems are not insurmountable. Mr. Malina asked if there was adequate screening of the dumpster areas. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 July 15, 1993 Ms. Painter said that the drawings indicate a screen wall. Mr. Malina asked if they would be providing an area for recycling. Ms. Painter said that was something else they would have to pin down during the permitting process. Mr. Meryhew asked if there would be any HVAC equipment that would extend above the roof. Ms. Painter said that was another area that staff had some concerns in. The only thing that is shown to appear the roof is the elevator housing. The applicant has not submitted an HVAC plan. Sean Park, Representing the General Contractor: Mr. Park said that this project has some history. When he began work on the project, there was a designer who completed the construction document before he received approval from the City. That design wasn't meeting all the Codes and City requirements so he was revising it. The owner felt he was taking too much time, so he was let go. The owner has said to just make this project simple and to look at the project as a business opportunity, therefore, he tried to fit as many units into the project as possible. The designer of the drawing is not here. There are some discrepancies in the drawings. Mr. Haggerton asked if the final drawing was done by a licensed architect. Mr. Park said he was not a licensed architect. The owner believed the only stamp he required would be from a structural engineer. Mr. Malina asked for more insight with regard to the pond. Mr. Park said that the water won't be there all the time. The pond is sufficient to handle a flood. He went on to say that he has a degree in architecture which is why he served as the middle person. Mr. Meryhew asked what type of fencing is along the graded area, and how is it fastened to the structure itself. Mr. Park said that the fence would be a wire fence and there would be some plantings 4' -5' high. Mr. Meryhew said that he has a concern with the fencing; that goes across the graded area. He feared that small children would be playing in that area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 July 15, 1993 Mr. Park said that the pond will be covered with a steel plate. Mr. Knudson said that there are other systems that can be used where they wouldn't have to have an open pond. He said that he was surprised to see an open pond in a commercial site. He added that the BAR typically doesn't even handle projects that are this inconsistent and he hoped that the applicant was just looking for some direction and not an approval. The project is close to being complete, but not there yet. He added that the BAR is trying to clean up that area. Mr. Flesher asked if they just stopped making drawings when they decided there was an impasse with staff and asked why there weren't any drawings for the HVAC. Mr. Malina asked if they were proposing air conditioning. Mr. Park said that they would have air conditioners for each unit. He added that the whole packet was put together in one week and that's why there were discrepancies. He stated that staff encouraged the applicant to wait another month. Mr. Haggerton said that they had to improve the new projects going in up there so that the whole environment is improved. Mr. Flesher said that he appreciates that anyone is trying to develop that site because it is a tough site to develop. He continued by asking if the first designer met all the City Codes. Mr. Park said no, he didn't meet all the codes, but he had a complete set of drawings. Diana Painter summarized staff's main points: staff would like to see greater modulation on the back side of the structure; the re- introduction of windows on the back side; a finer level of detail on some of the exterior features, for example, vertical slats on the balcony rather than the same stucco finish. For example, if the applicant were to use the same blue coloring that's on the roof to paint the trim of the windows. They would also have to meet all of the Codes and concerns of staff. The pond should be covered over and a different storm system used. Additional landscaping and a more attractive fence treatment to the back of the lot. And a sign proposal that is better integrated into the architecture of the building. Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing. Mr. Malina said that there are some concerns that keep coming up on this project: parking, handicapped access, code issues, lack of HVAC plans, etc. He added that the applicant is close and needs some direction from the BAR. Mr. Haggerton said that regardless of what kind of heating or air conditioning they have, it Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 July 15, 1993 has to be documented on a page in the package. There has to be an HVAC plan. Mr. Knudson said then maybe they should say that they need a complete set of plans showing the modulation on the back side, the windows on the back side. Mr. Meryhew said that he thought the addition of the windows was a good idea because it breaks up the structure. Mr. Knudson said that another item is to add finer detail on the facade of the face of the balcony. Going back to the original submittal would be adequate. Mr. Malina said that a licensed architect should be brought in to help them out. Mr. Haggerton said that not only for the BAR, but for the applicant's own protection, they should have the plans stamped by a licensed architect. Mr. Knudson said that he didn't really care, but if they are not getting anywhere, then somebody needs to step in and help them. Mr. Meryhew added that he didn't believe the BAR cared who prepares the drawings, as long as they are consistent, accurate and meet the requirements and Codes. Jack Pace said that it sounded like the BAR is hitting all the conclusions in the staff report as recommended changes. Mr. Meryhew said that those are some of the things, but they are not specific enough. Mr. Meryhew said that he thought the housing cap added some uniqueness to the building and he did not have a problem with that. Mr. Flesher said that he wanted to hear what the Fire Code issues are, what can be done, and if the applicant knows what has to be done. Mr. Pace said they have been notified of the Fire Code issues and they have not made the changes. Mr. Malina asked if there was consensus by the BAR to conclusion number 1 in the staff report. The BAR agreed to delete the rest of the sentence after the words, "...including fire code requirements..." The BAR agreed by consensus to accept conclusion number 2 in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 July 15, 1993 The BAR agreed by consensus to add a sentence to the end of conclusion number 3 that says, "The infiltration pond will be fully covered." With regard to the fifth paragraph of conclusion number 4 of the staff report, Mr. Flesher said he didn't agree with that conclusion. Ms. Painter said that she was just noting that greater use of the accent color could be used. Mr. Flesher said that he didn't feel it was their place to say that. Mr. Meryhew said that maybe they could add the words, "...it is suggested that greater use could be made..." Mr. Flesher said that he agreed with all of the "recommendations," but had a problem with the statement leading up to the "recommendations." Mr. Malina said that they need to address the letter that has been submitted by the applicant regarding the lighting. He asked if the additional lighting is needed if the applicant adds the windows. Ms. Painter said she didn't know if they needed that much. Mr. Malina suggested requiring the applicant to submit a complete lighting plan. Mr. Knudson said it almost looks like the "conclusions" and "recommendations" sections of the staff report should have been switched. Ms. Painter asked what the BAR concluded with regard to the windows on the north facade of the building. Mr. Meryhew said that they said that greater modulation and windows are needed on the north facade, similar to the drawings submitted before them. Mr. Malina said that he was interested in hearing what the Police Department has to say about the additional lighting. MR. KNUDSON MOVED FOR A CONTINUANCE AND RESUBMIITAL OF L92 -0084: BLUE STAR MOTEL BASED UPON THE BAR'S PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE APPLICANT: "RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE'; "RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA"; "LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT"; AND "BUILDING DESIGN" IN THEIR ENTIRETY; WITH AN ITEM #3 ELIMINATING THE INFILTRATION POND AND ADDING A FULLY COVERED DETENTION POND AS APPROVED BY THE . Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 July 15, 1993 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND A COMPLETE SET OF PLANS SHOWING THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND LIGHTING STAMPED BY A LICENSED ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER. MR. MAUNA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. L93 -0052: Parks and Open Space Plan Don Williams discussed, for the benefit of the citizens in the audience, the reasoning for the Parks and Open Space Plan. Nadine Morgan, 5190 S. 166 Street, Tukwila, WA: Ms. Morgan said that she was here as a representative of the Duwamish Valley Neighborhood Preservation Coalition. Her group is a housing organization, however, they are also concerned with the total aspects of quality of life in the neighborhoods. They have been studying a property on the corner of 42 Ave S and S 115 St, which consists of over 4 acres. This group is proposing the purchase, by the City through Open Space, of a park called Beaver Bend Park. They believe it would be difficult for the City to find a parcel like this in the future that is this large and has as much wildlife habitat on it. They are interested in bringing it to the City's attention because June 25th was the deadline for nominations to be submitted to the City for open space funds. This property would be an excellent low impact, rest park to tie into the Green River Trail system. Another reason this is a good site is because there is a demand by bicyclists for commuter trails. Ms. Morgan said that they are still planning on meeting with the Parks Commission and attending Council meetings. Mr. Knudson asked how it ties in with the trail. Ms. Morgan said that currently, 42 Av S and S 115 St has a wide shoulder on it. The roads follow the river. Mr. Knudson asked if there were homes on the property Ms. Morgan said that there were three homes on the southern portion of this parcel. They are in the process of trying to purchase the homes and rehabilitate them for affordable housing. That, however, is not part of this proposal. There is also a Class 3 wetland on the north side. Mr. Knudson asked how much of the property is proposed for the park. Ms. Morgan said the total area is over four acres and the home sites occupy approximately one acre, therefore, the park would be approximately three acres. 'Quality Builder & General Contractor' GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. Diana Painter Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Blue Star Motel 14442 Pacific Hwy. So. 31205 PACIFIC HWY. S. SUITE K (2ND FLR.) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 TEL: (206) 948.6188 FAX: (206) 946.1768 TATIAWRZIV Dear Ms. Painter, This letter is concerning the north elevation on. Blue star motel. The appearance of a north side of building has been modified several times to give friendly look to a vicinity residences. The electric search lights just below the cave will enhances the modulation on a north elevation. It is indicated on the drawing, enclosed with this letter. The more detail electrical layout will be drawn on the construction documents. It is one of our ideas to make the north side of motel to have more pleasing appearance. Sincerely, aaldco Development Inc. RECEIVED JUN 2 21993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT —" 77.1.r."5-17,7 11 1, • 1 urn ! I 1 INTEAmil.maw. ELEVATIONS ooLoco rEvttorttEmt w. Anctitiantotia nivisints. ..."1"rilrie:411Ftr::681;f"1" **at ii:,3likt,*",:ak YAtt. • axrue,•.e- �ee:.xxx.Majwravw i., nm. et t.,... u..:...........-.+.:«., x...,,. .«.wr,...,»...,..�.o.�«.r.o.+.� City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT Prepared June 17, 1993 for BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DATE OF ORIGINAL HEARING: June 24, 1993 DATE OF CONTINUATION: November 18, 1993 FILE NUMBER: L92 -0084 APPLICANT: Sean Park/Goldco Development REQUEST: Design Review of revised submittal for 37 -unit, 3 -story, wood -framed motel PREVIOUS ACTIONS: Board of Architectural Review recommended continuation at their June 24, 1993 hearing RECOMMENDATION: Approval, with conditions STAFF: Diana Painter, 431 -3661 ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan Building Elevations Floor Plans Landscape Plan Erosion Control Plan Drainage Plan Materials Board - to be provided at meetin ni 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, . Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 41313665 Staff Report to the L92-0084: Blue Star Board of Architectural Review Page 2 FINDINGS BACKGROUND The Board of Architectural Review recommended continuation and re-submittal of this project at their June 24, 1993 hearing. The Board made a number of recommendations to the applicant to guide him in revising the project at that time. These are summarized as follows (for reference, see page 13 of the June 24, 1993 minutes): • Prepare appropriate responses to staff recommendations with respect to "relationship of structure to site"; "relationship of structure and site to adjoining area"; "landscape and site treatment"; and 'building design". • Eliminate open infiltration pond and design covered detention system with hook-up to city storm water system as part of project. • Vietilfre!cJiltfo:nitileteeietivt plane that shows mechanical equipment and lighting, prepared by a licensed architect or engineer. DISCUSSION The following specific changes have been made in response to the attached staff report, minutes of the June 24, 1993 hearing (see p. 11 of minutes for summary of comments), and informal discussion with staff. Relationship ofltnicta49111P;4 • The relationship of the structure to the site, which is expressed by stepping down the structure one story from the west to east side of the site, has been improved by the addition of AtifeetiiiiiitchJOAlieSitiWand atiiititegiatertit- itransition ofloof,,forms': Relationship of structure anksig:ttradjoiningarea VAdditionilAiiiftapingt has been provided, as requested, to screen the site from developments to the east. • The appearance of theWidiebiliiiblietielideof the building, which fronts on Pacific Highway South, is improved by a steeper pitch to thelroot more graceful roof forms, increased Finitoddlatiiiii to the form of the building, additional detailing provided byiiiiiindOiiiiiiiillitn*:andlicjing, and other details. Ulaidagnpe and site treatment: Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L92 -0084: Blue Star Page 3 * Additional landscaping has been provided on the east side of the lot, to screen it from developments to the east. * `Trasi" collection:Atid4ecyeling'areieis screened. * lnteriorsite:lighting is provided and is pedestrian in scale. * Parking, both vehicular and handicap, must be revised to meet City of Tukwila code requirements. This can be done when project is submitted for building permits. * The: open' infiltrate oifpond basbeen::eliminated, and a covered storm drainage system provided which redirects the drainage flow to Pacific Highway South. The applicant will have to demonstrate adequate capacity in the public system and agency (WSDOT) approval in order to obtain City of Tukwila permits. s'el :nildii g ;design= * Additionat jexture and interest on the building facades is provided by additionaVdetailing '(for example, balcony railings, columns, moldings, etc.), contrast in siding; materials ands colors, and additional, windows; and :window' mullions. * A steeper roof pitch, deeper', eaves and additional' gable; details' are provided for a more graceful appearance to the building form and transition between various parts of the structure. * ,Softer- colors and a more'subtle contrast between the various siding materials and other building and roof materials are proposed as a part of this submittal, enhancing the appearance of the structure. * Modifications to the parking scheme, particularly with respect to the handicapped stalls, will be provided when the project is submitted for building permits. * Greater vertical modulation, contrast in colors and materials, the addition of windows, and a more interesting roof treatment is provided on the „`northi facade: of this structure to increase the visual interest on this facade. A lighting scheme for this facade will be prepared when the project is submitted for building permits, and will be subject to administrative approval. * The =signage.'proposal reflects to a greater degree the architectural style and details of the proposal, in contrast to the previous submittal. * Any required mechanical equipment visible on the exterior of the structure will be fully screened. This will be subject to administrative approval when the project is submitted for building permits. * The tentry;tas, -been; emphasized with the addition of an exterior entry detail and the changed location of the door. * Note: The structure is defined as four stories according to the Uniform Building Code. This means that the entire structure will have to be sprinldered. Ux:Allii6ISZ;P: 5,1; • :,Yia t. �N:; rrha. �. a..:..+,...+........ .�......._._.�........�........ m..�..r.nrn .,.vrwn.wsnl vrcw in. ro.+• �. �. .w.......�...+._........, »..... aexr, unxrrez�r .:3^z:�rrTR:r,�;irss.,11 Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Blue Star Page 4 Board of Architectural Review CONCLUSIONS This project was first submitted to City of Tukwila staff over three years ago in a pre - application review. Since that time, substantial progress has been made by the applicant to design a project that reflects City of Tukwila design guidelines and other City regulations governing development. Most recently, the applicant hired a registered architect to complete the current submittal. The architect has responded to all concerns voiced by the Department of Community Development, Department of Public Works, and the Board of Architectural Review. In addition, he has added a number of design features that substantially improve the appearance of the project, and will enhance its contribution to the streetscape in this area of the City. RECOMMENDATIONS The proposal is recommended for approval with one condition by the Board of Architectural Review. In addition, the applicant will need to make revisions to meet City of Tukwila code and ordinance requirements, as noted in this report. CONDITION The landscaped strip on the east property line must be planted for the entire five feet of the strip (in other words, a portion of the strip cannot be used for a vehicle overhang area). At maturity, it must provide an opaque screen at least six feet in height to screen the project from the multi- family neighborhood to the east. f tBK r - A/vte .._1i TRAMM City of Tukwila Department of Community Development John W. Rants, Mayor Rick Beeler, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 17, 1993 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATIONS: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: June 24, 1993 L92 -0084 Sean Park/Goldco Development Inc. Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 34- unit, 3 -story, wood framed motel 14404 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA. Approximately one half acre. Commercial C -2 - Regional Retail Business Determination of Nonsignificance issued June 10, 1993 Continuance of project; re- submittal to BAR Diana Painter, 431 -3661 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Vicinity map Parcel map Site plan Elevations Floor plans Landscape plan Civil engineering drawing - 1 of 3 Civil engineering drawing - 2 of 3 Civil engineering drawing - 3 of 3 Proposed sign - 1 Proposed sign - 2 Materials Board (handed out at hearing) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Board of Architectural Review Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT VICINITY /SI1'h INFORMATION Project description: The applicant proposes constructing a 34- unit, 3 -story, wood framed motel. Site description: The site is currently vacant. It is slightly L- shaped, extending from Pacific Highway South east and encompassing two lots for a total of 22,963 square feet. The site slopes from an elevation of about 300 feet on the west end to 286 feet on the east. There is no vegetation, other than grass and clover, on the site. Surrounding land use: Pacific Highway South forms the west boundary of the site; across the street is the new Larry's Market. North of the site on the west end is a one story residential structure with two( +) units. Beyond that is a one story commercial structure housing "Fantasy Express ". North of the site on the east end is a one story residence and outbuilding, whose driveway extends through the site. A large, fenced yard with a fiberglass storage shed is directly east of the site. Beyond that are the fenced yards of several multi- family structures. South of the site on the west side is the blank facade of the two story Moonrise Inn and a billboard. South of the site on the east end is the two story Pacific Court apartment building. Site development: The proposed motel is to be sited along the north side of the site, leaving the south and east sides to accommodate parking, circulation and service areas. The north, south and west edges of the site are to be landscaped. Concrete retaining walls extend along the north and east boundaries, and a cyclone fences encompasses the infiltration pond on the east edge of the site. Access and circulation: Access to the site is from Pacific Highway South. The circulation area within the site is T- shaped, to accommodate turning and exiting from the site. Thirty five parking stalls are provided, including two handicap stalls. A sidewalk is proposed parallel to Pacific Highway South which is compatible with proposed street improvements for the highway. Signs: Three signs are proposed for the motel; one freestanding sign at the west property line and two signs at the cornice line of the motel, one facing north and one facing south. The proposed signs consist of white lettering on a dark blue background, displaying the name and logo of the motel. The signs fall within the parameters of the Tukwila sign code. Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Board of Architectural Review Page 3 BACKGROUND Project history: This project was originally presented to the Department of Community Development in 1990. A pre- application conference was held on September 6, 1990. At that time, recommendations to the applicant included significant design revisions to the structure and site, among other comments. The project was formally submitted to the Department of Community Development in October 1992, under the name of the project engineer rather than the original architect. The Design Review Application which is presented here was submitted at that time. The project was again reviewed by City staff, and comments were relayed to the applicant regarding design revisions to the site and structure, among other issues. Department of Community Development staff met again to discuss the project with the current applicant, Mr. Sean Park of Goldco Development, in May of 1993, shortly after he took over as project manager and general contractor. Certain design revisions were recommended by staff at that time. This submittal, prepared by Goldco Development, reflects only some of the recommendations that have been made in previous meetings with planning staff. DECISION CRITERIA In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold, followed by the applicant's and staff's response. Review Guidelines 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. 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 its site. Applicant's Response: A. The streetscape is fully landscaped to the building/parking, this to have annual, evergreens and deciduous trees next to sidewalk. B. Service area and dumpster is in rear /parking screened with evergreen shrubs and islands. C. The side of this three story building is recessed into the ground to lower the Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Board of Architectural Review Page 4 impact of the 35 foot max. height. Staff's Response: A. Site design and landscaping on the west boundary of the site provides for sidewalk and streetscape improvements consistent with the proposed street improvements for Pacific Highway South. Groundcover, shrubs and a total of three hawthorne trees are provided between the separated sidewalk parallel to the street and the front of the building. The structure is set back an average of 20 feet from the front property line and 31 1/2 feet from the face of the curb. B. The parking lot is screened from the motel to the south with a five foot landscaped strip which features large evergreen shrubs alternating with shore pine trees, and an evergreen ground cover. Parking is screened from Pacific Highway South with the plantings discussed above, as well as a change in grade. The parking lot features islands planted with ground cover and ash trees. The parking and service area is not screened from view of the multifamily units to the east of the site. The dumpster for the project is screened with a fence. C. The three story structure steps down one story as the grade slopes downward toward the east boundary of the site. This allows the structure to follow the topography of the site to the extent possible. It also has the effect of lowering the profile of the building as viewed from the multifamily structures across the bordering yards. 2. 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 established 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 Applicant's Response: A. The street side is modulated both in depth and height and has a hip roof. Stucco and soft colors. B. Landscape transition affects all sides of adjoining properties. C. This [structure] is consistent with the local 3 story motels. D. Pedestrian and vehicular [circulation is] are designed for efficiency. E. One way vehicular traffic onto Hwy 99 and no cross traffic helps the circulation by not crossing Hwy 99. Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Page 5 Board of Architectural Review Staffs Response: A. The structure is consistent in scale and massing with structures typical of the area, which are primarily small-to- medium scale commercial buildings and two story apartment buildings. Architectural detailing and materials that comprise the texture and lines of the proposed structure are similar to those of older structures in the vicinity. B. Landscape transitions to the public street and motel to the south are provided as outlined above. Landscaping on the north side of the site consists of a five foot strip of small deciduous trees, evergreen shrubs, and ground cover. This landscaping, along with a five foot gravel strip and a retaining wall, provides the transition between the north building face and the neighboring property. A landscaped transition on the eastern boundary of the site is not provided, as the infiltration pond occupies this area. Lack of landscaping, as well as the cyclone fence is consistent, however, with site treatment of properties to the east. C. Proposal is not a public building. D. A two foot wide sidewalk is provided along the south side of the structure from some of the parking areas to the motel office. The turning area extending to the north within the site is adequate for turning and service to the trash collection area. Handicap access from the parking area to the structure needs to be provided. E. Minimum curb cuts and a 'right -turn only' when exiting the site makes on -site circulation as compatible as possible with street circulation. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment 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 axes, 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 unsightly, 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 Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Board of Architectural Review Page 6 design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Applicant's Response: A. The slight slope helps in lowering the building at one end into the ground. B. All grades are the lowest as per civil design. C. The landscape design treatment provides enhancement of the building, by wrapping the site in landscaping. D. To help the landscaping the site will have fences, curbs, sidewalks. E. The site uses islands and "a grasscrete" area. F. The optional service area for the dumpster has a 6 st. wd. [sic] slated fence screen wall with planting around it. G. This has been addressed by using fences and shrubs. H. The lighting is tasked design. Wall washers /parking lot lights are both direct layouts and not bright. Staff's Response: A. The building is stepped down one story from the west to the east side of the site, consist with the change of grade. B. The change in grade throughout the site is gradual, and does not pose any safety problems. Handicap access to the structure needs modification. C. Landscape treatment softens the appearance of the facade and screens the site from neighboring properties, with the exception of properties to the east. Other criteria does not apply here. D. Landscaped areas are protected by curbs, sidewalks, and the use of planters. E. All exterior areas are landscaped, included four islands in the parking area, with the exception of the pond area on the east border of the site. F. The trash collection area is screened with a fence and evergreen landscaping. The infiltration pond is landscaped only on the northern edge, and is fenced with a cyclone fence. G. Gravel and rockeries are added to the landscaped strip on the north boundary of the site in areas where there is little sunlight and a planned drainage area. The east boundary of the infiltration pond is not landscaped. A cyclone fence surrounds the pond. H. Site lighting is adequate and compatible in design with other design features of the project. It does not pose a hazard or distraction to passing motorists. 4. Building Design 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 permanent neighboring developments. Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Page 7 Board of Architectural Review 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. Fixtures, 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. Applicant's Response: A. Building is lowered into the ground towards the street side to help in cut and fill and lower the impact of height with the surroundings. B. This design is better and the neighboring developments are old and of poor color and design. C. The building materials are for a 50 year life span with maintenance. The modulation of the building and roof design brings good proportions. D. See color board and rendering, the components are harmonious in color and as noted the trim is bright. E. No mechanical equipment other than room air conditioning units are in view. F. All building lighting is surface mounted and anodized to match color of building. Parking light standards are light brown aluminum . G. The Hwy 99 side or street side and the main side (south) is well modulated and accented texture and color. This is accented with the east end of the building being shaped for cover parking and building shapes. The north side is textured with different materials and colors. Staff's Response: A. The quality of the architectural design is consistent with the majority of neighboring structures. B. The structure is compatible in scale with surrounding structures. Most of the structures in the area are one and two stories in height. This proposed structure averages three stories, but is set into the site so as to minimize its height. C. Building components have standard proportions and are consistent with one another. Building materials and components appear to have a similar life span. D. Colors proposed for the structure are subtle - soft white with beige trim - and compatible with one another. A bright dark blue accent is used for the roof and signage. E. The housing for the elevator extends beyond the roofline of the proposed structure. This .may not be necessary. Rooftop mechanical equipment above K Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Page 8 Board of Architectural Review the laundry room which would be visible from Pacific Highway South is not shown on the drawings. F. Exterior lighting is compatible in color, design and scale with other details of the structure as proposed. G. The building is stepped down one story from the west side of the site to the east side to lessen the impact of the structure as viewed from the east, and provide a break in the building form. Variety on the south elevation, which will not be highly visible from a public street, is provided with the use of balconies, exterior stair wells and the extension that houses the motel office. The north facade, which will be visible at the east end from 144th Street, is slightly modulated to provide visual relief to this blank wall. The west facade, which is the primary facade viewed from Pacific Highway South, is broken up by a lowered roof form over a portion of the building, some variety in the building form, contrasting trim, and the provision of windows on the facade. CONCLUSIONS Relationship of Structure to Site: The structure relates well to the site in that it is stepped down one story from the west to east boundary of the site, following the topography. This adaption to the site has caused several functional and code complications, however, including fire code requirements and handicap accessibility requirements, which must be resolved. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: The structure is compatible in scale, form, materials and detailing with other structures in the area. Landscaping provides screening between the project and neighboring properties, with the exception of the properties to the east, and a transition from the structure to the Pacific Coast Highway. The apparently arbitrary modulation of the west facade, change in height of various building elements, shallow roof forms, utilitarian detailing and fenestration, non- integrated mechanical units, and non - integrated signage is a lost opportunity, in terms of design, to present a 'public face' that is a positive advertisement for the business and contribution to the streetscape. Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Page 9 Board of Architectural Review 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: The natural topography of the site is preserved to the extent possible, and allows the parking and service areas to be screened from the street, as well as contributing privacy to the units. Landscape treatment provides screening on the north, south and west edges of the site, and consists primarily of evergreen trees, shrubs and groundcover. The east edge of the site is not screened with fencing or landscaping, and allows full view of the nfiltration pond and.steel parking deck from neighboring properties, as well as a ;tant view of the motel units from the multifamily units to the east. 4. Building Design: eva o e( 64,r r & L L eat- edg-e lo h.( In addition to the items discussed in #2 (above), there are seal ardas pkn g am to building design in which the appearance of the structure could be improved considerably, contributing to both the neighborhood and the business itself. Many of'1 these comments were brought up by staff in previous reviews of the project, and are not addressed or are addressed in a very minimal way in this submittal. Several of the comments also relate to building code issues, and will have to be addressed when the project is submitted for building permits. * The way in which the building has been stepped down on the site results in the structure being defined under the building code as four stories. Please note that this will have implications for the required type of construction. * Building details that provide greater texture and interest on the building facade are requested, as mentioned in previous meetings. An example might be vertical wood slats on the balcony railings, rather than using the same material as the building facade, and /or contrasting wood trim. * A steeper pitch to the roof and deeper eaves were suggested as a way to create a more graceful transition between the various levels of the structure, as well as create more visual interest on the facade from the shadows this would create, and an appearance of greater stability to the structure. * ' Although the subtlety of the off -white and beige color scheme, and contrast created by the bright, dark blue roof is desirable, greater use could be made of the contrasting blue accent color to lend variety to the facade and detailing of the structure. L G a/i7 Y * Modifications to the accessibility of the parking area and structure for the handicapped were requested; these have been provided in part. The entire structure, not just the first floor, needs to be accessible. The motel office Staff Report to the L92 -0084: Sean Park Page 10 Board of Architectural Review needs to be accessible from the parking area. Greater modulation on the north facade of the structure was requested. The modulation provided is minimal, and does not achieve the desired affect. In addition, the exterior patterning and interior day - lighting created by windows in the back of the units was considered a desirable feature in the original submittal. These windows were removed. * Signage attached to the facades needs to be integrated with the architectural treatment. DG 5 0---- All mechanical equipment must be shown, as well as screening provided for the mechanical equipment. Assurances must be m de as to the on-going maintenance of the infiltration pond. /'l// /'rtj /frG%fr pe ) MAP? e)l-i12,ECOMMENDATIONS �?1' It is recommended that this project be re- submitted to the BAR when the above issues are addressed. It is also recommended that the applicant retain a registered architect to prepare the submittal. This is due to the following: * Inconsistencies between the plans and elevations for the structure * Inconsistencies between individual plan drawings * Discrepancies between civil drawings and other submittals * Discrepancies in labeling from drawing to drawing, and code issues. Adietroe7 t�� Ld'i k,74(7rtidesi k.u.1.) I fruurrEm-y-r-117-Th r" \ I I \ - ;.. r •••• t:..! ......(4 7 ;?. I! I R-1-7.2 .:!113411;7,'...-2'..iif 7•1"- -! I L!..r.)!■9 !!:., ..) .; .4;‘:11; si u_L__1_111 E.-- Et' .1 r......11■) C-2 ,„ t.• ...:-.•• „. , „ .1 ....... r ... .... r".:0”, • R.2 FT, .••_•••• •••• r•77 ••• R-3 C4 R-1 • `41 T"11-1•21=j . • I ' 1 L___ -72 r •i RM14 33: ..... .w... L ji.7.211 • • IL:I • : • • mH.. ..pr2/ — 2.0.1 . . ,:,t ...-1 i , • i .-7ir.R-2I....,R-lr..7,•2 ..!;11:.....i..Rf.177.21.. ii1:il...j. ILI ' 11" ' '.... 1 J Li 1... ' ......:_. ,..._ ii...,. ... ., . ...,.1.2. ..i._1_..1...._L_A_ 3.4-14..:771, i T. i ; : ! 1 : i_.:1 1.1 F.41.1 i , ' i ...mi.:, IR.1-7.2 .1 ill r-'1,0-1-7.2 I if1-2-.1 i_i i 1..-1- t L il 1 11 1 i . , 4.i....,_ ,. ....._i—..i._.L_ L_L____Li -, ! ' I-111-i 1 1[ !.R-1-7.2.`VI i.-1-11 - --• ■.....i...I.J.0.....i..1 • •-• . ..• . ' • ' ''. " R 1 7 2" 'II I R-1-7 '2 f•-- _ tr, . . • • i • , 1 ! : , • I..., , i i ,, i , -1:14;37;1_ j_Ai L i i 1 I I ; • ' . V• 2/?! 1 V:i 1 i R.1.7,21..■ CI .1, ..-rnt. ; 6,,r.....1.....i lin' 2. • • •':''''•'•" •-j. i -.'"--" 1 ' 1 : i---.4... • ' ! , 1 i -1, . 1 1.4(..-...:4•1!•/Y 4.41 '. . ! '44-"--; `••••' .1 ' R -1 -7.2;,..;.....1...!R -11.2 •• - • . ._- f• ,r,14,, h.' '...•:5/ ts) -• .,-,x.; •• 1.71 , 1 R, 3. 1.-'''!"-IIrRH.1',72 .; 1 ! I ; 1 I ; • ..(-1 4441 , . . , . t .0......:4 . ,--1 1 ..1 • i !--1 HP.019 1 1 L.. —, • " r 1.....C.2 i, J1 1...1 • I I ./ • V • ••• 4. R.1.7.2 • 73 RMIFI MaZ RMH.- iF1-3 ATTACHMENT 4 f• • • • :‘ • • . ; • .. L., ,..fi•• • -...... ...... --....... ..... I •••••rrerr•••rrW..44......i,.. rt•••!•T .7.- • I \-••••••••C•2 .,.....,. ...... .,1 IR-1- 1 7.2 1 • • RMH 11.1 JtRl 2\ R.m1-11." [IF .... .... ... 1. —I 1-:1:1I 791 _1 ___----- • , 1 1 '• 1••' ' ' IR-1.-.7.2 L t•••• -I Fir 1" , • R-1- • ....... tVi="sc •••• 1 • -1 ," _ 1 \‘‘. • RECEIVED OCT 2 71992 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 23--4 3V' 9 ,- 7.r87- 35 -33E /93.36 - „ //4.59 78.77 „ 10 °`L 11 X7' 12 0 N p/ /6'8 Z a 1,�Ipt3 Ntis k �� h z R O 4 i4c, N R /J 7.35.33w Csuitg) 7z1154 QED NW -75-01326,22�44TH 4,4 ,. .. 60 I66.B 13 0 1,4 a 1ri fRgeo ';1 N 9 y11 Q AA I • /09.85 .,,� 1 -23.74 N 78,5F-71 01 I kV. N, 40 N 0 i b f /lllir 'ir// /, lP 1 'AI " q D qo 9e-0,63 a N zt0• 14 4 28 27 23 64.4 -' 1 �1 9co42 c o37/ n' 8 15'o 9 ATTACHMENT B ST. • 4z ILI IittiVitiC 10 4-0 & 6166 , 11 12 13 9 019 v BLUE TAR MOTEL 111111ArlinklINE!* ;11' SITE PLAN GoAvco,)glrLii0Eptitv„,Ts,,07. a •00 ••■0111,10 11M.V• a. 66•0.1.• (206 94(1 81138 ATTACHMENT C BLUE STAR MOTEL. ElPJ1 ifl3'�tCY.'GIl;C ::Yxyrranra:rlt� , ELEVATIONS GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT INC. AflCNIITECTUNE DIVISION. •.0 (toe) 94N -6159 •, ATTAE H111AFWT n . • , num: 11111111 UM LMulu E sAMI E GOLOCO DEVELOPMENT INC. FLOOR PLANS ARCHITECTURE DIVISION "'"":•;;:.=!" " (200) ;Te - Tthr ATTACHMENT E pw • snow' Pa • ' g3Vao odoaplol 91196 UO PP '•$Ua.$ SUVIDO9fV Po MIN NM bM Th.a101-1 ildjs grricitT hrIi1Nd-1J V ATTACHMENT F .°)•..31(.4fE) Nn • I — Dr,In .43a1.4 1 g ATTACHMENT G ATTACHMENT H T23N R4E M. SURFACE MON. E M- 43, KING C o b 0 :_ i T i m N N _ EheW Crecoce Ow ,k, m N ` ieV" 1 • j r O W J U N a z U . ce W W 2 1.A.J J F—d oce 2 W CC La ce W F = J m In _. Jcj N N U >7 MIS latot ATTACHMENT 1 f ..• error naw \O ATTACHMENT. K . LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS BLUE STAR MOTEL TU KWI LA, WA W it Lew T"" „ e. r..x�. t+w �,r� 'E* ..i commuNiTy DEVELQPM N't ......... -::,-.• ew-•. v^ �s., �,.. �. n<. r» r•:..; rnr ..•.wr,..w..�;.,..,•_,.,c..:•r; �.rrso -a..a . SECTION 02920 PAGE 1 SOIL PREPARATION PART ONE - GENERAL 1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Furnish labor, equipment, materials and supplies and perform operations required to import and amend soil for planting. PART TWO- MATERIALS 2.01 EXTERIOR PLANTING SOIL FOR LAWN AND PLANTING AREAS: A. General: Planting soil mix will consist of 1 part sandy loam topsoil and 1 part organic material thoroughly mixed on or off site. B. pH: Soil shall have a pH range of 6.0 to 6.5 with dolomite lime added as necessary to attain this range. C. Fertilizers: 1. Shall be Lilly Miller Pro Ornamental. D. Organic Matter: 1. Shall be 'Steerco' or approved similar product. PART THREE - EXECUTION 3.01 GENERAL: Planting areas shall be free from construction fill or debris such as concrete, bricks, large rocks, stones, etc. to a depth not Tess than twelve inches (12 "). All weeds shall be removed from the site. 3.02 APPLICATION OF SOIL MIX TO PLANTING BEDS: A. Protection: The Contractor is responsible for locating and protecting all utility lines and other underground obstructions in the construction area. The Contractor shall incur the cost to repair or replace any utilities or underground obstructions damaged as a result of the Contractors negligence. B. Application, Apply to all turf and shrub areas: 1. Apply 3" of prepared topsoil over subgrade, allowing room for layer of mulch. 2. Add Fertilizer at 7 lbs. per 1,000 sq. ft.. C. Tilling: After applying the fertilizer to the planting areas, thoroughly 1111 the introduced planting soil mix into the existing sub -soil to a depth of 6 ". SECTION 02950 PAGE 1 TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS PART ONE - DESCRIPTION 1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, services, and supplies and perform operations required to install and establish the specified plant materials. 1.03 QUALITY ASSURANCE: A. Standards: 1. General: Plants and planting materials shall meet or exceed the specifications of Federal, State and county laws requiring inspection for plant disease and insect control. 2. American Standard for Nursery Stock: Quality and size shall conform to the most recent edition of the "American Standard for Nursery Stock" published by the American Association of Nurserymen. 1.04 SUBMITTALS: 1.05 ORDERING OF PLANT MATERIAL: 1.06 SUBSTITUTIONS: A. General: 1. Substitutions for plant materials will not be permitted unless authorized in writing by the owner or the appointed representative. 1.08 PRODUCT HANDLING: A. Plant Materials: 1. When shipped, pack to provide protection against climate, breakage, or drying. 2. Do not handle individual plants by trunk, limbs, or foliage but only by box, ball, or container. 3. Install plants immediately upon delivery to the project site. It there is unavoidable delay, cover rootballs with moist soil or mulch. Provide for daily irrigation if necessary. 4. Immediately remove from the site all plants which are not true to name or do not comply with the specifications. 1.09 PLANTING SEASON LIMITS: A. General: 1. Boxed, balled, or container material may be installed in Spring, Fall, or when weather conditions are consistent with good horticultural practices unless otherwise approved by the owner or appointed representative. SECTION 02950 PAGE 2 : TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS B. Air Temperature: Do not install plant materials during freezing weather or when ground is frozen. 1.10 PROTECTION: A. The Contractor shall confine work to the areas designated on the drawings or as instructed by the owner. 1.11 CLEAN UP: Keep work areas clean, neat and orderly at all times. Keep paved areas clean during planting and maintenance operations. Clean up and remove debris and excess material from the entire work site before the final acceptance. 1.12 FINAL ACCEPTANCE A. General: Work under this section will be accepted by the owner or the appointed representative upon satisfactory completion, including maintenance but exclusive of replacement of plant materials under the guarantee period. Upon final acceptance, the Owner will assume responsibility for maintenance of the work. B. Inspections: 1. Make requests for inspection after planting operations have been completed. Such inspection is for the purpose of establishing the guarantee period. 2. Submit written requests for inspections to Owner at least 7 days prior to the anticipated inspection date. SECTION 02950 PAGE 3 . r1.['.... r...,. s... r.... sas.. a... 01,4r...:...`. �fr4:%..." t. tti: ....:r,T.::;C.5:i�_:'T.�1.Iv. -. ..h:C ':,;.!�'X.i r.... t. r.^.cx:..... 5::x::Y.F {1� 3.'.X ti!i';�t �.1.'.t]! �: ?Ybi:..'..:•.L nyv<: 112..^] �v��,. ��ro. 4e`.. Y: 4YmrP.•: nt�s4za.+ nr. >.nwwY,.!:Yk+a:+H.x'tvnnsi.?•�n rCFt:.gL':TR TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS 1.13 GUARANTEE: A. The Contractor shall furnish the Owner with a written guarantee. B. The guarantee form is to be on the Contractor's letterhead and shall contain the following information: Guarantee for Planting We hereby guarantee that: 1. All plants installed under this contract will be healthy and in flourishing condition of active growth one year from the date of Final Acceptance. 2. We will replace, without cost to the owner, and as soon as weather conditions permit, all dead plants and all plants not In a vigorous, thriving condition, during the end of the warranty period. Plants shall be free of dead or dying branch tips, and shall bear foliage of normal density, size and color. Replacements shall closely match adjacent specimens of the same species and shall be subject to all requirements of the specifications. 3. This guarantee does not include damage or loss due to caused by fires, floods, freezing rains, lightning storms, winds over 75mph, or winter kill caused by extreme cold and severe winter conditions not typical of the project site. Protect: Location(s): Signed: Address: Phone: Date of final acceptance: 1.14 FINAL INSPECTION: A final inspection will be held in the presence of the Contractor and the Owner at the end of the one year period. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Owner 10 days before the anticipated meeting. v SECTION 02950 PAGE 4 TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS PART TWO - MATERIALS 2.01 PLANTS: A. General: Plants shall be nursery grown in accordance with good horticultural practices under climatic conditions similar to or more severe than the conditions of the project site. B. Plant Health: Plants must be sound, healthy and vigorous, well branched and densely foliated when in leaf. They shall be free of disease, insect pests, eggs, or larvae, and shall have healthy, well developed root systems. They shall be free from physical damage or any adverse conditions that would prevent thriving growth. C. Plant Size: 1. Plants shall be true to the species and variety and shall conform to sizes specified except as approved in writing by the Owner. 2. If larger plants are substituted, the containers shall be increased In proportion to the size of the plant. 3. Plant dimensions shall be measured when their branches are In their normal position. 4. Caliper measurement will be taken at the point on the trunk 6" above the natural ground line for trees up to 4" in caliper and at a point 12" above the natural ground line for trees above 4" in caliper. 5. The measurements specified are the minimum size acceptable and are the measurements after pruning, where pruning is required. D. Container Grown Plants: Shall have grown in the container in which delivered for at least six months, but not over two years. E. Balled and Burlapped Plants: Firm natural balls of soil in sizes shown in the American Standard Nursery Stock; wrapped firmly with natural fiber burlap or approved material; bound carefully with twine, cord, or wire mesh. 2.02 DAMAGED PLANTS: A. General: 1. Plants shall not be pruned before delivery. 2. Trees which have damaged, crooked, or multiple leaders shall be rejected unless otherwise specified. 3. Trees with abrasions of the bark, sun scalds, disfiguring knots, or fresh cut limbs over 3/4" which have not completely callused, shall not be planted. 2.03 PLANT LIST: A. General: Provide the individual plant species as shown on the drawings. SECTION 02950 PAGE 5 TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS B. Quantities: Provide the Mix of individual plant species according to the total quantities shown on the drawings, schedules or as required to cover the designated area, which ever is greater. 2.04 PLANTING SOIL: Planting soil Is specified In section 02920 soil preparation. 2.05 Mulch: Fine bark with a particle size of 5/8" or Tess In any dimension, containing no substances that would be detrimental to plant life. 2.09 STAKING AND GUYING MATERIALS: A. Plastic Chain Lock Tree Ties B. Stakes: 2x2" By 8' Fir stake, stained dark brown. PART THREE - EXECUTION 3.01 PLANTING SOIL: The placement of planting soil is specified in section 02920 Soil Preparation. 3.02 TREE, SHRUB, VINE, AND GROUNDCOVER INSTALLATION A. Set all trees, shrubs, vines and groundcover according to spacing on Planting Plans. If ground position is more than two (2) feet form the plan position, consult with Owner or appointed representative before proceeding. Stake position of trees for approval by Owner prior to planting. B. Small shrubs and groundcovers shall not be planted closer than 18" form a curb or sidewalk. Larger shrubs shall not be planted closer than 2.5' from a sidewalk, curb, fence, or wall. B. Dig pits for trees, shrubs and groundcover as Indicated in "Tree Planting Detail" and "Groundcover & Shrub Planting Detail" herein and consistent with good horticultural practice. The inside surfaces of all planting pits are to be rough, not smooth. D. A water dam shall be placed around the outside of the planting hole approximately 2" above grade to hold water for deep percolation. All plants shall be thoroughly watered within 12 hours of planting. SECTION 02950 PAGE 6 TREES, SHRUBS, VINES, AND GROUNDCOVERS E. Stake all trees using three stakes per tree. Stake low and loose to allow some tree movement. F. Provide all exterior planting areas with a uniform two (2) inch layer of mulch material over a properly cleaned and graded surface. Keep mulch 6" from tree trunks and 3 -4" from shrubs. Finished grade of mulch shall be 1/2 " below curbs or sidewalks. Remove all plant tags after planting. 3.07 PROTECTION A. The Contractor is responsible for identifying and locating all utility lines, irrigation lines, and other underground obstructions. Where obstructions conflict with planting plans, alternate planting locations may be selected by the owner or the appointed representative. B. AU planting materials shall be properly protected against harm from wind, unusual weather and the public by the Contractor until Final Acceptance. Maintenance of all the planted areas shall include. but is not limited to, watering, weeding, and pruning as well as replacement of any plants which appear to be in distress. Tree stakes shall be kept secure at all times. 3.08 CLEAN UP All areas are to be kept clean during progress work and until completion. Water, dirt and rubbish are to be kept off of all paved areas. Remove surplus materials and rubbish from planting beds. rake beds neatly to an even, fine grade around all plants and wash clean all paved areas. Leave project in first quality condition. 3.09 MAINTENANCE: A. Maintain all planted areas until plants are•well established and exhibit vigorous growth. B. Maintenance shall include protection, watering and fertilizing, weeding, adjusting plants, as needed. 310 FINAL ACCEPTANCE A. Final acceptance of all landscaping work described in this section, with the exclusion of possible replacements of plant materials under the Guarantee, shall be made by the Owner or the appointed representative to determine completion for the Contract work. This inspection shall be made upon written request to the Owner no less than 7 days prior to the anticipated date of inspection. "END OF SECTION 02950" O t:A > ..:._. E SPROU u9 ENGINEERS a division of SILUER ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Job No. 9305 -016 May 26, 1993. Blue Star Motel Hydrological Rnalysis C' Report Narratiue: This is a 0.52 acre parcel that is presently graded with a sparse crushed rock and soil surface. The site has a consistent 7% slope downward to the east. The surrounding area forms a natural closed depression. The east property line is shared by the Water District No. 125 maintenance yard, which utilized an infiltration system to remove storm runoff. We are also proposing storm water runoff removal by an infiltration pond. We have designed a pond because of a (30" ground to water table) water table which would restrict the use of a buried infiltration tank. The infiltration pond is located along the east property line and requires the construction of a retaining wall to retain runoff within the pond an this property. The berm is constructed with a concrete wall and .fill placed along the UaI -Due Sewer District easement. This fill is require to build the side slope up to the top of the berm elevation of 287'. The pond prouides 6,550 cubic feet of storage, this results in the 100% storage of the 100 year event storm, with the added safety factor of not allowing for any infiltration. The runoff from the paned area is routed uia surface drainage to the pond. R concrete retaining wall and swale will be constructed along the edge of the pauement at the top slope of the pond. This will restrict runoff from eroding the side slope of the pond by routing the runoff to the south end where it can enter along a rip -rap pad. There is another rip - rap pad at the roof drain discharge point (north end of pond). The infiltration pond design and associated hydrograph analysis is in accordance with King County 1990 Surface Water Manual and The City of Tukwila Storm Water requirements. PERCOLRTION TEST : Job : 9305 -816 Soil logs Perc. Test Date tested: 2 -2 -91 Test Hole # Depth Sprout Engineers 24066 N.E. 53rd Place Redmond, Wash. 98053 (206)- 455 -8454 (206) -941 -2750 Description 0 - 10" 10 - 30" 30 - Percolation Rates: Fine loamy sand w /grauel Gravelly coarse loamy sand Water The test was conducted according to King County procedures. The drop in water surface in the 6" dia. hole was measured ouer a 30 min period. The weather conditions were wet, it had been raining all week, and the soil was saturated. The water surface dropped 5.1 inches during this period, the average time per inch is 5.8 min. /inch. This infiltration rate is multiplied by a safety factor of 2 yielding 11.6 min. /inch. This is used in the "Water Works" hydrograph program used in the following calculations. The results of the program are attached for your reuiew. The required storage volume with proper infiltration is 652 cubic feet. With a maximum eleuation of 268.25 the storage volume of the infiltration pond is 6636 cubic feet, as stated earlier, this is sufficient storage to hold the 180 year event storm with no provision for infiltration. Rs a comparison, the 100 year deueloped storm was routed thru a detention system. The release rate from the detention system was deriued from the infiltration rate (11.6 m /in). This rate was conuerted into feet per second, multiplied by the 1280 square feet pond area. This yields 0.153 c.f.s., which was input as the release rate for the system. ISOPOLUIIIRLS: 2 yr. 24 hr precipitation event - 2.0 in. rainfall 10 yr. 24 hr precipitation euent - 2.9 in. rainfall 25 yr. 24 hr precipitation euent - 3.4 in. rainfall 180 yr. 24hr precipitation euent - 3.9 in. rainfall G ('Oi 1)('( ) 'Quality Builder & General Contractor' GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. Ann Siegenthaler City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Blue Star Motel (Second Revision) Dear, Ms Siegenthaler, 31205 PACIFIC HWY. S. SUITE K (2ND FLR.) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 TEL: (206) 946-6188 FAX: (206) 946-1768 May 7, 1993 .. We (Goldco Development Inc.) are submitting a second revision of Blue Star Motel. When this project came to Goldco, we did extensive study of its surrounding area. As its result we come with a structure that will enhance quality of its neighbors. If City of Tukwila feels differ on that we would like to know as soon as possible. It has been already four weeks since the first revision submittal(April 12, 1993) to your department. Please review our new proposal design as soon as you can and let us know the result within 15 days. If you have any questions or require more information please contact to above number. Sincerely, Sean Park / project coordinator John W. Kim / Pre dent cc: filed IAN 101990 v 4„.. �PMENT 'Quality Builder & General Contractor' GOLDCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. Ann Siegenthaler Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 981SS 31205 PACIFIC HWY. S. SUITE K (2ND FLR.) FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 TEL: (208) 948.8188 FAX: (208) 948 -1788 1 v A i 3!�'� .tpr.i1.,.12, ..199,.3 OF V Re: Blue Star ,Motel, 14442 Pacific Hwy. So. Dear Ms. Siegenthaler, This Letter is concerning a revision of Blue Star Motel in 14442 Pacific Hwy. So.. The architect who submitted the first plan is no long working on this project. As beginning of April, the Goldco Development Inc. took charge of Blue Star motel project. It covers from a designing stage to end of construction. It includes architectural design to satisfy the City of Tukwila standard. Again we are informing you that Goldco Development will act as a representative for the owner. If there is any requisitions or questions in planning stages, please contact nie at (206) 946 -6188. Sincerely, Goldco Development Inc. Approved by, . „.,,, - v41LA, ,4y =.� .C"t of T ;, �,�� ; City f ukwila John W. Rants, Mayor SUS .11/ r�� -, l;���./ Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 1908 December 21,•199.2 Mr. Mosen Abdi, PE Atlas Consulting Engineers 18904 82nd Avenue NE Bothell, WA 98011 RE: Project: #L92 -0084, Blue Star Motel, 14440 Pacific Hwy. S. Dear Mr. Abdi: I am writing to you as applicant for the above described proposal. Please be advised that staff is unable at this time to place your proposal on the January 24, 1993, Board of Architectural Review, calendar. Additional information or modification of your submital is required before staff can complete the project review and forward a recommendation to the Board. The following comments summarize the issues that must be resolved prior to further review of the proposal. SEPA ISSUES: No SEPA issues or mitigating measures were identified for the proposal, therefore, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) will be issued the last week of December.. DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES: In reviewing the files of the September 6, 1990 pre - application meeting, it appears that the design issues identified at that time were not completely incorporated into your current submittal. I refer you to items #13 and #14 of the Planning Division's land use checklist (please refer to attached copy). As designed the proposed building provides some visual interest adjacent to Pacific Highway S. However, of specific concern to staff is the impact of the remaining three facades, especially, the effect of the solid wall along the northern facade. Further, the long linear effect of the roofline along the internal southern facade should be broken up, for example, with the addition of parapets or covered stair wells. It is unlikely that staff would recommended approval of the project as proposed. In order to be placed on the agenda for the February 28, 1993, Board of Architectural Review hearing, please submit four copies of revised plans including revised elevations that more 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 Blue Star Motel page 2 accurately reflect the design criteria established by the City by. January 15, 1993. I suggest that you schedule a meeting with me prior to this date so that we can further discuss these issues. I look forward to your response and will gladly meet with you at your earliest convenience. S'ncerely aA.� pfr Carol Proud, Planner cc: Rick Beeler, Director DCD Ron Cameron, City Engineer enc. C. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director 1V19 92 Mr. Mosen Abdi, PE Atlas Consulting Engineers 18904 82nd Avenue NE Bothell, WA 98011 RE: Project: #L92 -0084, Blue Star Motel, 14440 Pacific Hwy. S. Dear Mr. Abdi: I am writing to you as applicant for the above described proposal. Please be advised that staff is unable at this time to place your proposal on the January 24, 1993, Board of Architectural Review, calendar. Additional information or modification of your submital is required before staff can complete the project review and forward a recommendation to the Board. The following comments summarize the issues that must be resolved prior to further review of the proposal. SEPA ISSUES: No SEPA issues or mitigating measures were identified for the proposal, therefore, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) will be issued the last week of December. DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES: In reviewing the files of the September 6, 1990 pre - application meeting, it appears that the design issues identified at that time were not completely incorporated into your current submittal. I refer you to items #13 and #14 of the Planning Division's land use checklist (please refer to attached copy). As designed the proposed building provides some visual interest adjacent to Pacific Highway S. However, of specific concern to staff is the impact of the remaining three facades, especially, the effect of the solid wall along the northern facade. Further, the long linear effect of the roofline along the internal southern facade should be broken up, for example, with the addition of parapets or covered stair wells. It is unlikely that staff would recommended approval of the project as proposed. In order to be placed on the agenda for the February 28, 1993, Board of Architectural Review hearing, please submit four copies of revised plans including revised elevations that more 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director ly reflect the design criteria established by the City by ry 15, 1993. I suggest that you schedule a meeting with me prior to this date so that we can further discuss these issues. I look forward to your response and will gladly meet with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely,, Carol Proud, Planner cc: Rick Beeler, Director DCD Ron Cameron, City Engineer enc. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 BOARD OF ARC I7rF_C T URAL REVIEW DESIC1` - IEVIEW RECE PPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA UCH 2 3 1992 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 COMMUm ' npv,Ft OPMF 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: 32 unit wood frame /3 story motel 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub- division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 14400 Pacific Hwy. So Seattle Wa. South of 144th st. Quarter: NW Section: 22 Township: 23 Range: 04 (This information may be found on your tax statement) CUM- f-viM - ea 09 ) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Address. 18904 82nd Ave_ NE Rot-hP1 1 ,wa. 98011 Phone. • Signature: /i t.. - Date: oct 22 92 * 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. u• -i .•• • •. •. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: OWNER Address: Phone: To A) ILL C.4- 6O I 4442 re- 1 i cJ f {kJ S SY' Lek}- ? t, I /WE,[sig:nature(s)] tic swear that I /we are the o Os or contract purchasers) of the property involved in this application and tha foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: f� i3OARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLIG 'ON • CRITERIA 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 criterion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE 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: p_ ThP street ape is fully landscaped to the building /parking, this this to have annual/evergreens and deciduous trees next to sidewalk B. Service area and dumpster is in rear /parking screened with ever- green shrubs and islands. C_ ThP sir7P side of this three story building is recessed into th ground to lower the impact of the 35' max. height. 2. 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 established 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.The street side is modulated both in depth and height and has a hip roof.Stucco and soft colors. B. Landscape transition affects all sides of adjoining properties.C. The is consistent with the local 3 story motels.D. Pedestrian and vehicular are designed for efficiency. E.One way vehicular traffic onto HWY 99 and not cross traffic helps the circulation by not crossing Hwy 99. DOfaRD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICI ' 1N Page 3 3. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT 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 encour- aged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accom- plished 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 land- scape. 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. The slight slope helps in lowering the building at one end into the ground_ B. All grades are the lowest as per civil design. C. The land - ec-apP design treatment provides enhancement of the building,by wrapping the site in landscaping.D. To help the landscaping the site will have fence's,curbs,sidewalks. E. The site uses islands and "a grasscrete" nrPa_P_The optional service area for the dumpster has a 6ft,wd. slated fence screen wall with planting around it. G. This has beenaddressed by using fences and shrubs.H. The lighting is tasked designed.Wall washers /parking lot lights are both direct layouts and notbright. 4. BUILDING DESIGN 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 permanent neighboring de- velopments. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICr -z )N Page 4 iMu C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good pro- portions 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. Fixtures, standards and all ex- posed 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. Building is lowered into the ground towards the street side to help in cut & fill and lower the impact of height with the Snrrrninrli nga, B. This design is hetter and the nei ghhori ncj rlevlopm' nts are-old—and of poor color and design.C. The building materials are for a 51 year life, span with maintenance. The modulation of the building and roof design brings to good proportions.. D. see color board and rendering,the components are harmonious in color and as noted the trim is bright. E. No mechanical eguipment other the ••n • . • • 1. • . • . - ii • . - • _ • _ . • • color of building parking light standards are light brown alum [; The HWY 99 side or street side and the main sine (, 1a„th) is well 11•• -. . . • -I -. .• • • . -. end of h . 1 • • - S . •-• • - . _ . . • .11• • • ■ • ast shapes. The North side is texured with different materials R rolnrs. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architec- tural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: