HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-08-V - EDWARD MCHUGH ARCHITECT - HOMEWOOD SUITES SIGN CODE VARIANCE91-8-v 6925 southcenter boulevard homewood suites
Permit 91-08-V - EDWARD MCHUGH ARCHITECT - HOMEWOOD SUITES SIGN CODE VARIANCE
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
January 3,• 1992
Edward McHugh - Architects
2661 Bel -red Road # 202
Bellevue, WA 98008 -2200
Sincerely,
Assistant Planner
. NOTICE OF DECISION.
PHONE N (206) 433.1800 • Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Adjustment
File Number: 91 -8 -V; Homewood Suites
This is to confirm that the Board of Adjustment (BOA) denied
project's design as presented on January 2, 1992, since Criteria A,
B, D, & E were not met.
The BOA also adopted the findings and conclusions contained in
the Staff Report dated December 26, 1991.
The action of the Board of Adjustment in granting or denying a
variance, or in the resolution of an appeal from an administrative
interpretation, shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten
days from the date of the Board's action, an applicant or an
aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King
County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ
of mandamus.
r!
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUti WILA, II ASHINCTON 98188
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Prepared December 26, 1991
January 2, 1992
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Edward McHugh Architect; Homewood Suites
A variance from the Sign Code Section 19.32.180 Freeway
Interchange Businesses ( Permitted Signs -- Height and Area
Allowance) to increase the freestanding sign from 50 square
feet to 237.57 square feet per side and the height from 35 feet
to 43.75 feet .
6925 Southcenter Blvd.
3.12
Commercial •
C -2 Regional Retail
Darren Wilson
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
PHONE # (3061 433.1800 Go*. L. VanDusen, Mayor
Vicinity Map
Site Plan Map
Freestanding Sign Elevation
Side Elevation
Face Elevation
Color Renderings Submitted At Public Hearing
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment Page 2
VICINITY /Si'l't; INFORMATION
Project Description: To install a freestanding sign on the property of Homewood
Suites Hotel.
Existing Development: The site is under construction.
Surrounding Land Use: Adjacent to the site is a State Farm Office Building and Fort
Dent One & Two Office Buildings.
Terrain: The site is flat.
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
DECISION CRITERIA
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Access: The only entry to the property is an extension of Southcenter Boulevard
which is shared with adjacent property development. (See Attachment A)
The proposal is located in an area bordered by the Green River on two sides. This
site has received Board of Architectural Review approval on February 22, 1990 for
a hotel design (Homewood Suites). The signage was not included in the approval.
The applicant is requesting to install a freestanding sign 43.75 feet in height
and 237.57 square feet of signage. The Sign Code outright permits a sign of
35 feet in height and 50 square feet per side for a total of 100 square feet of
signage. This square footage is based upon the amount of linear street
frontage per section 19.32.140 (C) of the Tukwila Sign Code.
The Planning Commission can approve a 25 percent height and area increase
from the maximum allowed for freestanding signs, for freeway interchange
businesses.
The Board of Adjustment reviews the applications and make a decision based on the criteria
listed below. The burden of proof is upon the applicant that the variance request meets the
criteria.
A. The variance as approved shall not constitute a grant of special privilege which is inconsistent with the
intent of this sign code, nor which contravenes the limitation on use of property specified by the zoning
classification in which this property is located
Staffs Response:
No other sign variances have been granted in this area.
Applicant's Response:
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment Page 3
Applicant's Response:
"Granting of the requested variance will not result in a special privilege for this
applicant since the applicant is merely seeking rights which are comparable to others
in the vicinity, particularly other hotels. Visibility and easy identity are important for
any hotel and adequate signage is required in order to achieve this goal. The height
and area proposed for the Homewood Suites freestanding sign are necessary to
achieve a reasonable amount of visibility in order to assist guests, visitors, and
vendors in identifying the location in the most direct way possible. This is consistent
with the stated purpose of the Sign Code, referenced in Section 19.04.020, which is
to allow for visual communication which will enhance safety, while at the same time
minimizing potential street clutter and distraction."
The intent of the Sign Code, per TMC 19.04.020, is to establish standards and guide-
lines for the design of signs so that the streets of Tukwila appear orderly and safety
increased by minimizing clutter and distraction.
The Sign Code's maximum allowable square footage for any freestanding sign
is 100 square feet per side with a total of 200 square feet. The applicant's
request for a 237.57 square foot sign per side exceeds the maximum allowable
size of any freestanding sign within the City. The height and area restrictions
for freestanding signs as prescribed in Section 19.32.140 (C) may be increased
twenty -five percent for freeway interchange businesses as defined in Section
19.08.080 upon approval of the Planning Commission.
B. That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to
other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located.
"The subject property has a very unique location, as well as unusual shape and
configuration. The site has no street frontage and is separated from the nearest
streets, Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue by distances of approximately
320 feet and 800 feet, respectively. It is situated approximately 1000 feet from I - 405
and has office buildings and other structures in the intervening area, thereby reducing
Staff Report To The 91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Board of Adjustment Page 4
the visibility of the subject property from both the nearest public streets and
the interstate freeway. The subject property is located at the far southeastern
corner of a peninsula of land that is, for the most part, surrounded by the
Green River. Its unique characteristics distinguish the subject property from
most any other property in the general vicinity, particularly those properties
which are developed with hotel uses. Consequently, in order to attain the
same rights of other hotel users and property owners in the area, the
requested sign code variance is necessary to afford the applicant comparable
rights of visibility and identity."
Staff's Response:
There are no special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings of the subject property since all adjacent businesses are faced with
restricted visibility from Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue.
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located.
Applicant's Response:
"The requested variance will not result in any adverse impact for any surrounding
property owner or user. The subject sign will be substantially separated by distance
and intervening development from the nearest public street frontage. Consequently,
there will be no resulting sign street clutter along street frontage nor will this result
in a distraction for motorists.
To the contrary, the proposed sign would enhance public safety and minimize
distractions by providing a clear communication to guests or vendors traveling to the
hotel site of its location and assist them in finding the most efficient way of
traveling to the site. This will reduce the amount of circuitous trips by motorists
who might otherwise be lost and having difficulty in finding the site. As a result of
the unique location and configuration of the site, the freestanding sign will not impair
the view or otherwise be an obstruction for any nearby owner."
1
i3
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment
Staff's Response:
Applicant's Response:
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Page 5
The size of the sign would be 237.57 square feet per side with a height of 43.75 feet.
The freestanding sign location will be approximately 70 feet from the City /County-
wide recreational trail. There will be visual impacts to the occupants of the hotel,
surrounding office buildings, and to the trail and park users. Views to the south of
Mt. Rainier will be impaired by the placement of the proposed sign.
Although the proposed sign is intended for a public service message, the type of
message is not relevant to the variance criteria. The proposed sign would exceed the
sign size of all freestanding signs permitted by the City's Sign Code.
D. That the special conditions and circumstances prompting the variance request do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
"The special circumstances pertaining to the subject property are natural conditions
relating to the location of the site and its configuration. Its substantial distance and
separation from the nearest public street is a condition that has not been created by
the applicant. The applicant is striving to overcome this situation by providing an
adequate sign to meet the needs of its customers, visitors and vendors. To do
otherwise would be a disservice to its patrons and invites."
Staff's Response:
There are no special circumstances since the applicant chose to locate a hotel off of
the principle arterial on a lot without street frontage.
E. That the variance as granted represents the least amount of deviation from prescribed regulations necessary
to accomplish the purpose for which the variance is sought and which is consistent with the stated intent
of this code.
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment
Applicant's Response:
Staff's Response:
Applicant's Response:
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Page 6
"The applicant has reviewed a number of alternatives with regard to the sign and its
height in order to achieve a reasonable amount of visibility and identity for the
proposed use of this location. At the same time, the applicant has sought to
minimize the area and height of the sign in order to comply as closely as possible
with the sign code regulations. However, at the proposed size the letters on the sign
- will be only approximately 24 inches high. We are advised by our client's sign
contractor that at 800 feet the letters on the proposed sign will be barely readable.
It will be even more difficult at 1,000 feet for motorists on I -405 to read the sign.
Therefore, if the proposed sign were to be further reduced to any significant extent,
it would not be effective in identifying the location of the property for hotel guests,
visitors and vendors. While a larger sign with greater height would be preferred by
the applicant, the sign has been reduced to the minimum necessary to achieve its
communication goals."
The variance request is for a sign approximately three - hundred percent larger
than allowed, and twenty -five percent taller than allowed without approval by
the Planning Commission. The intent of the sign code is not for the
freestanding sign to be completely visible from I -405. Even if the variance was
approved visibility from I -405 or Southcenter Boulevard would still be
questionable with any future developments.
F. That granting of the variance shall result in greater convenience to the public in identifying the business
location for which a sign code variance is sought.
"The proposed sign will facilitate hotel guests and the general public in
identifying the location of the Homewood Suites Hotel and will permit them
to arrive at the site in the most convenient way possible. A strict application
of the sign code regulations in this instance would be contrary to the public
convenience and interest in that the resulting sign would be not be reasonably
visible and would not result in effective communication of the location of the
subject property."
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment
Staff's Response:
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Page 7
The proposed size of 237.57 square feet per side and a height of 43.5 feet sign would
allow more visibility of the hotel's presence; however, physically locating the entrance
to the site will remain difficult for the public.
G. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a public nuisance or adversely affect public safety.
Applicant's Response:
"The subject property is substantially separate from the nearest public right -of -way.
Therefore, the size of the sign will not in any way impair traffic circulation. To the
contrary, by providing reasonable identity and effectively communicating the location
of the site, it will enhance traffic circulation by reducing circulations driving.
Additionally, the proposed freestanding sign will not obscure the views of the general
public nor any individual property owner. Furthermore, the sign will not result in any
clutter or distraction, or otherwise impact the environment in any significant manner.
The proposed sign will rather provide positive and beneficial impacts for the
aforementioned reasons."
Staff's Response:
The overall sign design is neat and orderly based on a preliminary review of the
proposed sign. The sign would not necessarily produce an unsafe distraction. The
sign's structure will be required to pass inspection as part of the permit process to
ensure safe construction.
CONCLUSIONS
A. The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the intent of the code.
The Sign Code outright permits the size of 50 square feet and the applicant is
requesting a freestanding sign of 237.57 square feet per side. Since the request far
exceeds the standards, it would not meet the intent of the Sign Code.
The granting of the variance would give Homewood Suites special privilege
relative to adjacent office buildings, due to its unique characteristics and needs.
Staff Report to the
Board of Adjustment Page 8
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
There has not been any sign code variances approved in the area for any businesses.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria A.
B. There are special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location and surrounding subject
property.
There are no special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria B
C. The granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements.
There will be visual impacts to the occupants of the hotel, surrounding office
buildings and to the users of the City /County -wide recreational trail due to the
location of the proposed freestanding sign.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria C.
D. The special conditions... are not the result of applicant's action.
The special condition of the site's obscurity results for the applicant's choice to locate
a hotel on the subject site and is therefore, result of the applicant's action.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria D.
E. Variance represents the least amount of deviation from code necessary
The variance request deviates from the intent of the Sign Code. The applicant's
analysis is flawed because it does not consider future development and admits that
the sign content will be barely readable to I -405 motorists.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria E.
F. Variance shall result in greater convenience to the public.
While the sign may include beneficial public visibility, locating the hotel will still be
difficult for the traveling public.
Based on this, staff concludes that the proposal does not meet Criteria F.
Staff Report To The
Board of Adjustment
91 -8 -V: Homewood Suites
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION
G. Variance will not constitute a public nuisance or adversely affect public safety.
The proposed size of the sign would not adversely affect the public safety or create
a public nuisance from the public right -of -way. However, the applicant should review
precautions for on site impacts. Until these measures are clearly demonstrated, staff
cannot adequately answer this criteria.
Since all concerns have not been adequately met, staff concludes that the proposal
does not meet Criteria G.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff has concluded that the applicant's
sign variance request does not meet all of the Criteria. Since all seven of the variance
criteria have not been met, the Planning Staff recommends that the variance request be
denied.
VICINITY MAP
Edward A WHc
Ared feels
(ss) rs - ifee
fit rF111M fry
rw pa/
Mww -. .
HOMIIOOD
MVO
mar am MIK
fi n.+
ear
mrairew
orpir
•1111M J
16 rrr
r1
w••
r r
• •■
1111••••
ash
r• rR
W•
SP1
STATE FARM INSURANCE
PARKING LOT
PROPOSED FREESTANDING
SIGN LOCATION
G REEN
IIIl111UIIII
FORT DENT #2
PARKING LOT
'� POI
rod.. —
rr ��s'•
r. JA —
W•
OW II.
Ho iUOOD
SUITES
SP2
43' -9"
I0' a I/2'
'A'
rOIIfTIIO RATE a 24' PIPE
Is 23'XIS'Rl'
■IMITE COPT
TEAL GREEN TAA►OLNCENT a.= omou o.
MOUNTING RATE ON SIGNS= •
Is 25'X23'Ill v'
CLEAR TIED /Ea SOWER.
ETL. PIPE IA33 OAO. Si
T4' 0.0.X = 373 AT I4.62S/IT.
ALLOWABLE SIGN HEIGHT 35'.
25 % INCREASE ALLOWABLE IN FREEWAY INTERCHANGE.
S I OS ELEVATION
MIMED ACCESS
00011 AT EACH SIDE.
DISCONNECT alTC/1
N UNTINO RATE 01 {lummox
IS 25 xzs - xl 1 / *•
OrLExIBLE FACES TILL ec PANAFLEY MATERIAL
SERIES 940 'HITE OR APPROVED EOUAL.
OFLEXISLE FACES SMALL SE DECORATED USING
3m TRANSLuDENY viNyL FILM ovT19SS
TEAL GREEN OR APPROvED*EOUAL.
°THE FILM TILL SE APPLIED AS SPECIFIED
ST THE FILM mAwFACTURER.
ONSE ;1J..1. SIZE PATTERN
OR APPROVED GRAPHICS FOR ACTUAL SIZES
AND LOCATION OF COPY.
FA t'c Ft ANATIMN
1 z 1.4"
NOV 04 1991
CI FY OF 1 u&vvILA
PLANNING DEPT
_ -
•
.PRESTON
THORGRIMSON
SHIDLER
GATES & ELLIS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SFATTT.II, WA
(206) 627.7580
Columbia Cu. Fu: (206) 623.7022
1st Intent.te Fu: (206) 622.5110
Dear Mr. Wilson:
SPOKANR,WA
(509) 624.2100
Fu: (509) 456 -0146
December 13, 1991
Mr. Darren Wilson
Assistant Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
TACOMA, WA
(206) 272.1500
Fu: (206)272.2913
ANCIIORACII, AK
(907) 2764969
Fu: (907)276.1365
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Re: Homewood Suites /Sign Code Variance
PORTLAND, OR
(507) 228.3200
Fu: (507)248.9085
1700 SECURITY PACIFIC PLAZA
777 -108TH AVENUE N.E.
BELLEVUE, \VA 98004 -5196
TELEPI IONE: (206) 453.0300
FACSIMILE: (206) 646.3081
/ Q7iT J A C 3 IN
PLANNING DEPT.
This letter is submitted in behalf of our client,
Homewood Suites, with regard to its application for a
variance from the City of Tukwila Sign Code. Please
consider this letter a supplement to the Sign Code Variance
Application dated November 30, 1991, prepared and submitted
by Edward McHugh, architect for the applicant.
In reviewing the aforementioned variance application,
please also consider the following with regard to the
compliance of this application with the variance criteria,
§ 19.12.060 of the Sign Code. This variance request
pertains to Section 19.32.140(C) of the Sign Code relates to
the proposed freestanding sign. Whereas this section of the
Code limits a freestanding sign to an area of 50 square feet
on one side and a maximum height of 35 feet, the proposed
Homewood Suites freestanding sign would include an area of
237.57 square feet and a height of 43.75 feet. Granting of
the requested variance is appropriate in this instance for
the following reasons:
1. No Special Privilege. Granting of the requested
variance will not result in a special privilege for this
applicant since the applicant is merely seeking rights which
are comparable to others in the vicinity, particularly other
hotels. Visibility and easy identity are important for any
hotel and adequate signage is required in order to achieve
this goal. The height and area proposed for the Homewood
Suites freestanding sign are necessary to achieve a
reasonable amount of visibility in order to assist guests,
visitors and vendors in identifying the location of the
hotel and assisting them in arriving at the site in the most
direct way possible. This is consistent with the stated
WASHINGTON, DC
(202) 628.1700
Fu: (202)331.1024
Mr. Darren Wilson
December 13, 1991
Page 2
purpose of the Sign Code, referenced in Section 19.04.020,
which is to allow for visual communication which will
enhance safety, while at the same time minimizing potential
street clutter and distraction.
2. Special Circumstances. The subject property has a
very unique location, as well as unusual shape and
configuration. The site has no street frontage and is
separated from the nearest streets, Southcenter Boulevard
and Interurban Ave. by distances of approximately 320 feet
and 800 feet, respectively. It is situated approximately
1000 feet from 1 -405 and has office buildings and other
structures in the intervening area, thereby reducing the
visibility of the subject property from both the nearest
public streets and the interstate freeway. The subject
property is located at the far southeastern corner of a
peninsula of land that is, for the most part, surrounded by
the Green River. Its unique characteristics distinguish the
subject property from most any other property in the general
vicinity, particularly those properties which are developed
with hotel uses. Consequently, in order to attain the same
rights of other hotel users and property owners in the area,
the requested sign code variance is necessary to afford the
applicant comparable rights of visibility and identity.
3. No Material Detriment. The requested variance
will not result in any adverse impact for any surrounding
property owner or user. The subject sign will be
substantially separated by distance and intervening
development from the nearest public street frontage.
Consequently, there will be no resulting sign clutter along
street frontage nor will this result in a distraction for
motorists. To the contrary, the proposed sign would enhance
public safety and minimize distractions by providing a clear
communication to guests or vendors traveling to the hotel
site of its location and assist them in finding the most
efficient way of traveling to the site. This will reduce
the amount of circuitous trips by motorists who might
otherwise be lost and having difficulty in finding the site.
As a result of the unique location and configuration of the
site, the freestanding sign will not impair the view or
otherwise be an obstruction for any nearby owner.
4. No Self- Imposed Special Circumstances. The
special circumstances pertaining to the subject property are
natural conditions relating to the location of the site and
its configuration. Its substantial distance and separation
from the nearest public street is a condition that has not
been created by the applicant. The applicant is striving to
Mr. Darren Wilson
December 13, 1991
Page 3
overcome this situation by providing an adequate sign to
meet the needs of its customers, visitors and vendors. To
do otherwise would be a disservice to its patrons and
invitees.
5. Minimum Variance Needed. The applicant has
reviewed a number of alternatives with regard to the sign
and its height in order to achieve a reasonable amount of
visibility and identity for the proposed use of this
location. At the same time, the applicant has sought to
minimize the area and height of the sign in order to comply
as closely as possible with the sign code regulations.
However, at the proposed size the letters on the sign will
be only approximately 24 inches high. We are advised by our
client's sign contractor that at 800 feet the letters on the
proposed sign will be barely readable. It will be even more
difficult at 1,000 feet for motorists on 1 -405 to read the
sign. Therefore, if the proposed sign were to be further
reduced to any significant extent, it would not be effective
in identifying the location of the property for hotel
guests, visitors and vendors. While a larger sign with
greater height would be preferred by the applicant, the sign
has been reduced to the minimum necessary to achieve its
communication goals.
6. Public Convenience. The proposed sign will
facilitate hotel guests and the general public in
identifying the location of the Homewood Suites Hotel and
will permit them to arrive at the site in the most
convenient way possible. A strict application of the sign
code regulations in this instance would be contrary to the
public convenience and interest in that the resulting sign
would not be reasonably visible and would not result in
effective communication of the location of the subject
property.
7. No Public Nuisance. The subject property is
substantially separated from the nearest public right -of-
way. Therefore, the size of the sign will not in any way
impair traffic circulation. To the contrary, by providing
reasonable identity and effectively communicating the
location of the site, it will enhance traffic circulation by
reducing circuitous driving. Additionally, the proposed
freestanding sign will not obscure the views of the general
public nor any individual property owner. Furthermore, the
sign will not result in any clutter or distraction, or
otherwise impact the environment in any significant manner.
The proposed sign will rather provide positive and
beneficial impacts for the aforementioned reasons.
Mr. Darren Wilson
December 13, 1991
Page 4
In summary, it is respectfully requested that the
proposed sign is the minimum necessary to achieve the
purpose of this sign and its need is a direct result of the
special circumstances applicable to this site. If the
variance were to be denied, the denial would be contrary to
the purpose and intent of the Sign Code and would deny this
property owner rights comparable to others in the vicinity.
It is, therefore, submitted that this application warrants
approval at the earliest possible date.
1i1h0346
1b12-12-91
12851 -00004
PRESTON THORGRIMSON
SHIDLER GATES & ELLIS
By
cc: Sam Friedman, Dimension De ''opment Co., Inc.
Edward A. McHugh
cL6I,
ohn L. Hendrickson
FROM: WSDOT DISTRIC" 01 TO:
• Amt.
1 171 -
Washington state
Department of Transportation
District 1
15325 S.E. 30th Place
Bellevue, Washington 08007.6568
(206) 562.4000
Mr. James Ford
Homewood Suites
Business Address
6925 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA
Mailing Address
10 West Trimble
San Jose, CA 95131
Dear Mr. Ford:
NDG /ng
1405087.DD MIS 9
2068839294 'NOU 19 1991. 11:35AM 0140 P.02
GEMEMEO
i ma 0 2 Well
kVNYItgAt
November 12, 1991
SR 405 MP 1 CS 1743
Permit No. 1405087
Thank you for your recent application for the Motorist
Information Sign program on sR 405 at Exit 1.
Unfortunately, we are unable to sign for your business.
Currently, you are under construction. We do not sign for a
business unless they are open for business. Also the City
of Tukwila does not allow follow thru signing which is
necessary at Interurban Ave. and Southcenter Blvd.
Your application fee of $75.00 will be refunded and should
follow this letter shortly.
If you have any questions, please call me at 562-4230.
�v V►�` Sincerely,
Nancy D. Guinn
Outdoor Advertising
/4:4 �t4 q t) .1j4.4.4.4u.
Imo Mhntson
story o1 Transportation
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKH'ILA, WASHINGTON 98188
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
JULY 18, 1991
PHONE N (2061 433.1800 Gary L. VanDuscn. Mayor
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Nesheim. Members present were
Mr. Nesheim, Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Goe, Mrs. Regel, and Mrs. Altmayer.
MR. GOE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TILE JUNE 6, 1991 MEETING.
MRS. ALTMAYER SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Goe suggested that staff present the Director's report while waiting for the applicant
for Lavender's Restaurant.
Jack Pace stated that there will not be a meeting in the month of August, but there will be
one on the first Thursday in September.
Mr. Nesheim opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
91 -02 -APP: Lumin -Art Sign Co.
Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She clarified that this project was an appeal
of an interpretation of the Sign Code rather than a variance request. Ms. Siegenthaler noted
that there was a correction to the staff report on page 2, second to the last paragraph; the
signs are 18' each, not 36' each. The appellant applied for two signs for Lavender's
Restaurant, however, the Sign Code currently allows only one sign per hotel restaurants.
Consequently the sign permit application was denied. The issue before the Board of
Adjustment is, does the Sign Code allow hotel restaurants two signs or only one sign? The
staff has concluded that only one sign was allowed, based on regulation in the current Sign
Code. Not only will this decision apply to Lavender's Restaurant, but it will apply to all
hotel restaurants in the City.
The intent of the Code is to minimize clutter. Staff is concerned that allowing additional
signage for hotel restaurants would increase the total number of signs at hotel complexes
throughout the city. Increasing the number of signs over what is allowed now would not be
consistent with the Sign Code.
Board of Adjustment Page 2
Minutes
Typically under the Sign Code now, restaurants in commercial zones are allowed two signs.
However, the Sign Code handles restaurants in hotels separately from other types of
restaurants. The Sign Code has a separate section that addresses the requirements for
restaurants within hotels. Therefore, the number of signs that are allowed for restaurants
in the Commercial/Industrial zone does not apply.
Under the section for hotel restaurant signs, a hotel is allowed four signs and when a hotel
has a restaurant operation located within the hotel, the hotel shall be permitted one
additional sign...which identifies only the restaurant name." The size of the sign is the same
as for other signs (per Table 1).
In summary, the issue is whether staff's interpretation is an accurate one. Staff has
concluded that one additional sign is allowed at the hotel complex for the restaurant. So,
the question is whether this section allow two signs for the restaurant or just one.
Mr. Goe asked if the hotel could advertise Lavender's Restaurant through the reader board.
Staff stated that they could since that would be considered a temporary sign.
Mr. Lockhart asked if there was a restriction on the height of the sign for the canopy.
Staff stated that the restrictions for the sign on the canopy are that it may not exceed square
footage allowed; and the sign cannot project above the height of the canopy.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy, by extension, became part of the face of the wall of the hotel.
Staff stated that it does in terms of the calculation of the square footage allowed for the
sign.
Mr. Goe asked if the canopy facia sits above the first floor of the hotel.
Staff noted that it is located below the second floor (i.e. at the first floor).
Ms. Altmayer asked if there are any restrictions on changes to trees and plants on the
premises that would preclude removing anything for better signage visibility.
Staff stated that the landscape requirements do not specify a certain type of plant for the
landscape plan. It does specify minimum widths of landscaping. There is nothing in the
Zoning Code which would prevent them from removing trees to provide better visibility.
Clifford Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.
He stated that their contention is that the regulations in Section 19.32.140(A), which refer
Board of Adjustment Page 3
Minutes
to the Table, state that each business shall be permitted one exposed building faced
mounted sign. One additional exposed building faced mounted sign can be permitted for
each business that is not identified on any free standing sign, provided two conditions are
met 1) they have more than one exterior public entrance and 2) there is no more than one
sign per business on any exposed building face.
Lavender's has more than one public entrance, exclusive of warehouse doors, and there is
no more than one sign on any exposed building face. In addition, the conditions of the site
are such that the signs that are proposed are directly opposite each other, and cannot be
seen together at any one time. The applicant's reasoning is that both sides of the canopy
can be considered a building face. Mr. Mihm went on to say that in reference to the section
that refers to Table 1, it was Lumin -Art's understanding that the preceding paragraphs and
two conditions listed were a definition of use and that's why they proposed two signs.
With regard to the issue of clutter, the position of the hotel is that a sign on each elevation
would not be feasible, since the west elevation faces the river, the south elevation faces the
back of the building, and the east elevation is blocked by the building the hotel rooms are
in. Therefore, the north elevation, including the canopy, would be the only place for a sign
for the hotel and the restaurant. Because the total square footage of these signs is so far
below the allowable square footage for the premises, two signs would not be considered
clutter or have a negative impact.
The main point is that the Sign Code specifically (under signs for the restaurant), refers to
Table 1 (Chapter 19.32.140) and its conditions, and these conditions would allow for a
second sign.
Mr. Goe asked for clarification since the proposed sign is inconsistent with Section
19.32.190(B) by reading, "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Mihm stated that Lavender's business name is "Lavender's Restaurant and Lounge ".
Mr. Lockhart asked if they had ever considered just having one sign.
Mr. Mihm stated that after reviewing the Sign Code they were under the impression that
they met the conditions for having two signs.
Perry Wahl, representing Lavender's Restaurant and the Holiday Inn Hotel, 11244 Pacific
Hwy South:
He stated that Lavender's is having a problem getting exposure from Pacific Hwy. S., and
they were unable to put up a free - standing sign. By putting a sign on each side of the
canopy, a bigger portion of the Pacific Hwy. S. traffic will be able to see it.
Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Page 4
Ms. Altmayer asked how far the flag poles were from the canopy.
Mr. Wahl stated they were approximately 10 inches out from the canopy face.
Ms. Altmayer asked if they had a separate entrance to the restaurant.
Mr. Wahl stated that there was an entrance from the south parking lot and pool area. He
went on to say that there were two separate entrances.
Mr. Nesheim stated that Staff is allowed a rebuttal.
Ann Siegenthaler stated that there are some alternatives that may be possible as far as
signage. However, the issue isn't what the specific site conditions are or what the hardship
may be to the owner; these are not applicable to the decision that is before the Board
because this is an appeal rather than a variance. The applicant may want to come back
before the Board at a later time for a variance request. At this time the question is what
does the Sign Code say about hotel restaurant signs.
The Sign Code treats hotels and hotel restaurants separately. Therefore, the sign quota for
the hotel is not transferable to the restaurant. The Sign Code specifically allows four signs
per hotel with one additional sign for a restaurant. Section 19.32.190(B) refers to a previous
section which addresses signage in commercial zones, however, it is referring to a very
specific part of that section which outlines the size requirements only.
Mr. Nesheim stated that there was no -one speaking in opposition to the project and offered
the appellant the opportunity for a rebuttal.
Mr. Mihm, representing Lumin -Art Sign Co.:
He stated that the question seems to be with regard to Section 19.32.140(A) referred to in
Section 19.32.190(B)) which identifies Table 1, and whether the preceding paragraph applies
to Table 1. Their understanding was that Table l's parameters and use were outlined in the
preceding paragraph.
Mr. Nesheim closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. and the meeting was recessed until 8:20
p.m.
Ms. Altmayer asked Mr. Mihm to repeat his rebuttal before the recess.
Mr. Nesheim reminded Mr. Mihm to keep his response limited to the question asked by Ms.
Altmayer since the public hearing had already been closed.
Board of Adjustment Page 5
Minutes
Mr. Mihin stated that the point was that Section 19.32.140(A) referred to Table 1 and the
preceding paragraph is the definition of usage for Table 1 and sets the parameters in which
Table l's square footage is applied.
Mr. Goe stated that he felt that an ordinance with more specificity would take precedent
and Section 19.32.190 deals with that specificity in terms of hotels and Section 19.32.190(B)
deals specifically with hotel restaurants. Section 19.32.190(B) deals with the one additional
exposed building face mounted sign that is allowed because the restaurant is in the hotel and
specifically refers to Table 1 only for the size of the sign. That specificity will override
anything of a more general nature. In addition, the reference to Table 1 is for the sizing of
the sign only, therefore the section of the ordinance that is more general than the one being
dealt with, (which is hotel restaurants) doesn't apply.
He went on to say that on that very issue is hinging the decision of the DCD, and appellant
challenge as to whether or not the table is to be referred to only, or whether the entire
section is referred to. The Section by reference gets to the table which is referred to for the
area of the sign only, not for number of signs.
Ms. Altmayer stated that the issue is the intent of the Sign Code, and the intent is to reduce
clutter and to improve signage within the City. Based on that, the decision of the DCD
should stand.
Mr. Goe stated that the Sign Code deals with the hotel manager's concern for recognition
of the restaurant and; the Sign Code deals with that issue with specificity, although not clear
specificity.
Mr. Goe moved that the Board uphold the decision of the DCD based on the testimony and
the re- reading of the Sign Code. Mr. Lockhart seconded the motion; motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Nesheim adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sylvia Appleton, Recording Secretary
43
HO
i-
\III \ \'S **)
•A•
FRONT ELEVAT ION
mots. im
INS L ON 2. - '1/E
MITE copy
TEAL MEN INANSrUCENT
lOUNTINO PLATE ON StON50X
IS 76 Ai•
MOAN TIED NEON O ER.
W�TTI�, POPE 1AS3 ORD. .
El
0.0.11 .376 AT M. •RT.
$AOC moue.
ALLOWABLE SIGN HEIGHT 35'.
25 % INCREASE ALLOWABLE IN FREEWAY INTERCHANGE.
LAMP DIFFUSER
(12- REO'D)
TSIDE SIGNBOX (REF.)
400 WATT DELUXE
WHITE MERCURY VAPER
W /.70 SOCKET
1 F('TRTCAI
I" c 1' -0"
SIGNBOX NOT SHOWN
FOR CLARITY
STEEL ANGLE
OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
1
2" x 4" JUNCTION BOX
& COVER (TYP.)
STEEL ANGLE LAMP
HOLDER I/4" x
2" x 2"
(TYP)
•
JEFFERSON BALLAST
259 -2332
(MERCURY VAPOR)
(6- REO'0)
SEE SHT. a OF
S FOR SECTION
JEFFERSON TRANSFORMER
725 - 151 -t00 (7500 VOLT)
30 M.A. N.P.F.
(e- RE0'0.)
ELECTRICAL INFORMATION
TOTAL AMPS. (60) 4(20) Al. P CIRCUIT
STATE FARM INSURANCE
PARKING LOT
PROPOSED FREESTANDING
SIGN LOCATION
GR EEN
FORT DENT 112
PARKING LOT
Omni A NM*
krehleals
Ur/ W
ii Onf
Yaws •8M0• I:
Mew
11.reqr
✓ r
✓ r
• ■•
W
r.
ID1 ITOOD
MITES
a..
SP2
HOMEWOOD SUITES
ROPER COMPANY
PREPARED BY:
CUMMINGS, INCORPORATED
200th Avenue South
Nashville, Tennessee 37202
•
State Farm
,Insurance
Home
S
(Southw
of Pr
r
*'.;....�...4:... 0
Vacant Parce
( Future Developm
VIEW 2: NE CORNER, INTERURBAN AVENUE & SOUTHCENTER BLVD_
VIEW 1 _ I405 EXIT /J1 WESTBOUND
•• ■
•1.
- •
VIEW 2:
a.
IV‘k 14,
41
'4.11•
it4Aq
State Farm
Insurance
1
•
Home -
.• 4 .1. - •
" +•• i t , " •
" • (Southw . 4- •
of Ph- P
Vacant Parce
I(Future Developrn
r
• ftrA.,
1 .•
NE CORNER, INTERURBAN AVENUE & SOUTHCENTER BLVD_
• f. :.�i i fi•+ P1b •
gee
State Farm Insurance
VIEW 3
Proposed Freestanding
Sign Location\
_tom .
.
Homewood Suites
FROM INTERURBAN AVENUE BRIDGE OVER GREEN RIVER
1405 Westbound Exhibit #1
.Interurban Avenue Bridge
1405 Westbound
(Over 1,000 Feet Distance) State Farm
VIEW 4: FROM PROPOSED FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATION
Reviz pIGN COI1c, VARIANCE
EAR?
DEC p 2 1980 0 sour
FOR ST*
CI Y u i v ..: t -l1
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELO PMENT
1. SIGN CODE SECTION (TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19) FROM WHICH YOU
ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE; 19.32.140(c)
2. • DESCRIBE THE VARIANCE ACTION WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING:
INCREASE IN FREESTANDING SIGN AREA,
3. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection)
6925 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
Quarter: NW /SW Section: 24 Township: 23N R ange: 4E
4. APPLICANT:* Name. EDWARD MCHUGH - ARCHITECT
Address. 2661 BEL -RED ROAD #202
(206) 883 -1200
Signature:— Date:
* The applicant is the person hom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
5. PROPERTY
OWNER
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
rater Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431-3680
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
Name: Homewood Suites (FTRC Hotel Partners L.P.)
Address: P. O. Box 795 Natchitouches, LA 71457 -0795
Phone. (318) 352 -8238
By DI ENSIGN D L O MENT
I /WE,[si ature(s)1 , 8 7' 4%0 i .. — T AsUPcTt.-
swear that I /we are a owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved
in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this
application are true and correct to the
best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: / // /
SIGN CODE VARIANCE r LICATION
obstructions.
C
7. DOES YOUR REQUEST MEET THE VARIANCE CRITERIA?
Pegs 2
6. WHY IS THIS VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED? The maximum sign area and size
allowable for a freestanding sign under the sign code does not give liomewuud Suites
the minimum visibility necessary to serve its purpose.
Homewood Suites location has extreme, unique characteristics including: no street
frontage. Extreme distances from which our sign must be identified and view
The Board of Adjustment will base its decision on the specific criteria shown in bold
below. You are solely responsible for justifying why your property should not have to
satisfy the same development standards which all other properties/ projects must meet.
The Board must decide that your variance request meets all seven criteria. Be specific; a
"yes" or "true" is not a sufficient response. Additional sheets should be attached if
needed.
The Planning Staff has provided some examples to help you respond to each criteria.
Please feel free to use or ignore these as you see fit. The Board will make a decision based
on the bold criteria, not staff examples.
A. The variance as approved shall not constitute a grant of special privilege which
is inconsistent with the intent of this sign code, nor which contravenes the
limitation on use of property specified by the zoning classification in which this
property is located.
Example: Explain how your requested variance would not give you a special privilege in
your use of the property in relation to the requirements imposed on adjacent and
neighboring properties and on properties with the same zone classification.
RESPONSE: Homewood Suites hotel is not in competition with our surrounding properties.
Our office building neighbors depend less on identity and signage. These
neighboring office buildings and vacant lots are beween our property and also
interurban avenue.
Homewood Suites, which depends on good signing and identification will
complement our neighbors since we are providing convenient lodging for clients,
vendors and customers who visit them from out of town.
B. That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the
size, shape, topography, location, location or surroundings of the subject property
to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the
vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located.
SIGN CODE VARIANCE PLICATION
freestanding sign standards.
C
Page 3
Example: Does a special property characteristic such as size, shape or topography, com-
bined with the zoning code requirement, prevent you from using your property in
the manner of adjacent properties or other like -zoned properties?
Special circumstances should not be due to: 1) actions by past or present property owners
or leasing property before knowing Code restrictions; or 2) actions which have already
been compensated for (i.e., the State condemns a portion of land for 1 -5 construction and
compensates the owner for the diminished value of the remaining parcel.
RESPONSE. The surrounding office buildings enjoy greater sign areas due to their
street frontage. These office buildings obstruct views of our facility.
Unfortunately our project is on a peninsula created by the Green River and
the only access to our project is long, dead end (easement) road, which starts
at the termination of Southcenter Blvd. So, in spite of our large lot size and
perimeter dimensions under the sign ordinance we are only allowed the minimum
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone
in which the subject property is located.
Example: Would granting your request cause any harm, injury, or interference with uses
of adjacent and neighboring properties? (Consider traffic, views, light, aesthetic
impacts, etc.)
RESPONSE. Homewood Suites, with adequate sign area and size would not in any
way harm the adjacent properties and would not impair or block views of
any adjacent properties.
SIGN CODE VARIANCE / _ 'LICATION Page 4
D. That the special conditions and circumstances prompting the variance request do
not result from the actions of the applicant.
RESPONSE: Nothing due to the actions of the owners, or owners representatives,
of this project has caused a result that requires us to request this variance
from the sign code. Our variance request is a direct result of the nature
and location of our property in relationship to the surrounding area.
E. That the variance as granted represents the least amount of deviation from pre-
scribed regulations necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the variance is
sought and which is consistent with the stated intent of this code.
Example: Describe other alternatives for signage of your business. Why were these alter-
natives rejected? The purpose of the Code is to establish standards for signs so that
the streets of Tukwila appear orderly and safety is increased by minimizing Butter
and distraction.
RESPONSE: All hotels and hospitality businesses depend heavily on good and easy
visibility and adequate signing for their survival especially when located a
great distance away from nearby arterials, freeways and offramps as we are.
Homewood Suites proposed freestanding sign area in our experience is of
the minimum dimensions necessary to be identified. Anything less would be
inadequate to serve its purpose.
SIGN CODE VARIANCE ' ?LICATION
Page 5
F. That granting of the variance shall result in greater convenience to the public in
identifying the business location for which a sign code variance is sought.
RESPONSE: By providing signs in compliance with the sign code, the public
would have more difficulty in locating Homewood Suites. Our sign would
be barely visible, could not be read, and guests could have a hard time
finding our facility.
Our proposed sign size would greatly lessen the probability of guests
unnecessarily driving around looking for us, thereby conserving energy
and not adding to the traffic congestion.
G. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a public nuisance or ad-
versely affect the public safety.
Example: Would granting the variance result in a sign which interferes with traffic and
street improvements, signage and traffic flows?
RESPONSE:
Due to the distance from any arterial and due to the distance away
from other surrounding buildings our sign will not be interfering or block
views of other signs, properties or traffic signals, etc.
The above prepared by Ed McHugh.
• , • '
•."
. •••
••
SCALE :1" .= 100.0'
PHOTOGRAPH
VIEW 3
STATE FARM INSURANCE CO.
OFFICE BUILDING/SERVICE CENTER
•• PHOTOGRAPH'
MEW - 4
4 (.1' EGOESS AND "
•••,, •• • • • •,..,••,••• • 4.1.;.,"`..? •;• '
• - •
•••;•, •••■•••' •!•. r „ ••••••
, ..1" ,-, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1!PPIIIIIIITNI,OPITIT-1 1 V
• ' -16 - 1:11 ...,!!!!!......i.;12A
IFAHIS, NOFITEDIR,OctIME JLSS
CLE(NO _26,IIII,S4101C
.1EZIti. • 5,0E00 li G W.L NV ,
liatrilfif1111
a •
4 4•4 5 . ,V4
• • - • :•;•., •TV.411 4
••,,e4J3.
• „ ;
. ' . , • „." „,
• %"' i'•••••';'•,:•:.',":4,:j•'.1" • ••••' ' • ,
' , . , " •-• ;
TRIG MAP .lS:.FOR THE 'PURPOSE ;OF
ASSISTING', IN LOCATING::' OUR %!
PROPERTY: AND' IS NOT'GUARANTEED
TO 9NOW' ACCURATE :MEASUREMENTS
ASHINGTON TECHNICAL CENTER voL
This mop is W°sed•en aswrvey rroonded under
, DETENTION' '
• BASIN
DEPT. OF . ASSESSMENTS
o „,,, po \
/t . /\ \ \ • •
, sti 4' ..." _ r. ‘ is' . st' , ';i,
i. c.)7 la..1.
G A K: 4 1 ' S i R
0,,.
1NTE .,
. , VOL. 14/46 \ i
9; ix'? o grlIli
•■•AcANKED MAY 5, MIS byre:v.1714 Tia<r±1 . , .
\ .'
4. • Por.
R s
W.HITE. -,-GREEN ' RIVER
te Rly:.: 0 :0: 4 7 .r stere i : . 1---„
ir-.5.,. e t4,0.1E5 19i (11•" -5 • 9° -1°)
4 1'. \ t ..".-............. ..... .....
0 .10
\ \ / '--- - I R O
. 0 \ 0 '17 0 , t 11 4,6
i• 1,0 / of".
a.,,,
t; I.
\
?' 1 1.6` ) 4A1/4
,,P
..,t,
,,,:
• ,.....;
.
v
434,
SE:
4 1' dro ..-
f :',4 4-1 P. ; ,■
< • / 4
.'
494 `..,71,...4:•• 1 9 ‘_ <41
*"......:: . 43.19
*4
4'410* •
'.u..
THIS MAR:IS FOR :TNE• PURPOSE OF.
IM LOCATING youR
,.. AND IS NOT GUARANTEED • :
• TO SNOW ACCURATE • MEASUREMENTS •
. „ . ,
• •
!./. !II ill III 111110
3L jsrn
C ° ININ.IN F ATVWVU
L • _
milatmaninnilllimninniffillimmintmmutimillogp,,,,,uoinimiltap
,
69ossee1st mantra
\1: S • 156TH
' Rewohlus•Hmanfr To ury trumeness,,014
1
v/
a Mitt ' 4410.5
5 et t
?
It \ . maa 05.8 fi • . AC • 7 — 01 0 1
lit
$.04.1N. Il. ms.890, .... 7 0 4w
V.. 5 , s 8 .2' 1 ' it? ,,, 1.easio e j 1
f ' 16 , 4r .Y • ‘,.
,
..--i- - At ': * i * 3,
4 1 . h
il eg• C-.. ' 1
I a i,o9-aei - ,0 t : 1 -Y e 1 : 3
, i
00. .
w
t... I" 555 AC. t Or 81
0 9C$ li 1 •
0 r..;
,
•