HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-10-DR - MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT - DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW15858 pacific highway south
bp 6403 bp 6663 b92-0427
Permit 91-10-DR - MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT - DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW
April 15, 1992
Mr. Rick Lenz
Merrick Lenz Architect
15446 Bel Red Road, Smite 410
Redmond, WA 98052
RE: Design Review file 91- 10 -DR: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Lenz:
In your letter of December 17, 1991,, Development agreed to
"comply fully" with the requirements of the Board of
Architectural Review (BAR). This BAR agreement was a critical
element in the resolution of illegal occupancy and construction
at the Dollar site. First, your BAR agreement was a condition of
approval of Dollar's Certificate of Occupancy. Second, because
of your commitment to BAR review the City postponed taking any
action on illegally constructed canopies.
To date, the City has not received Dollar's revised plans for
meeting BAR conditions. According to our Building Official (per
his letter to you 4/9/92), your permit application for canopies
has expired. Without the canopies, the scope of the Dollar
project has been reduced to a value below that which triggers BAR
review. Therefore, BAR approval is no longer required for the
remaining site improvements.
Based on the facts above, we have closed Dollar's BAR review
file. If Dollar intends in the future to construct canopies on
site, it will need to fully implement the $AR- approved plans.
Changes in the.approved plans or other substantial site
improvements may require new BAR application and review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Ann Siegen' haler
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
cc: File: .. ;91- 10- DR ;w,BP #6663, CL mwttf,� 444 T( -3f7
Gary Huff
Building Official
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
15446
BEL -RED RD,
SUITE 410
REDMOND
WASHINGTON
98052
(206) 881 -8117
4 r
April 15, 1992
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Development; File Number 91 -10 -DR
Dear Ann:
a. Planter is 10' wide as built.
b. The fence will be removed.
c. Additional tall shrubs will be added.
d. Three existing large fir trees will be preserved.
Per your letter of April 2, I would like to respond with the resolutions to incidental minor
changes that we discussed at our last meeting. As you requested, I am enclosing schematic
elevations showing how the revisions affect the building appearance. I understand this is for the
purpose of staff review and comment, but they do represent the changes you and I proposed.
1. West elevation: Modulation is provided by adding the metal to the lower portion of the
building.
2. East elevation: The doorway at the north end of this elevation will be abandoned, and
stair- stepping metal added at the north. In addition, the man door existing at the south
end of this will be covered with metal, but will remain operable. The existing metal and
concrete will be painted the same color of gray.
3. North elevation: Additional metal will be added that stair -steps at the center of this
elevation.
4. Colors: See Item 2.
5. Along Pacific Highway South:
-II
L 1R16 1992
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
April 15, 1992
Page 2
6. The fence will be removed.
7. Screening will be added to the portion of the existing fence that does not have
landscaping adjacent.
The lot line adjustment work is being done by Hart & Associates, and should be completed
around May 1. At that time, we will work with the City to complete the requirements for
permits for the canopies and this additional work required by the Board of Architectural Review.
If you have any further questions, I would be happy to review them with you.
Sincerely,
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT
Merrick D. Lentz, AIA
MDL: and
cc: Dollar Development
Duane Griffin, Building Official
April 9, 1992
Mr. Rick Lentz
Merrick Lentz Architect
15446 Bel -Red Road, Suite 410
Redmond, WA 98052
Re: Dollar Development Permit Application #91 -317
Mr. Lentz:
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
This letter is notification that Building Permit Application
#91 -317 has passed the expiration date and has been
cancelled. Please be advised that any further work on this
project will require a new permit application, new plans,
new fees, and a new plan check.
In addition you are hereby notified that the partial work,
started without benefit of an approved permit, is considered
non - complying and illegal construction and must be removed
within 60 days from the date of this letter. If it has not
been removed by that date,the matter will be turned over to
the city attorney for prosecution action under the
provisions of Tukwila Municipal Code, Section
16
Sincerely,
ne vri
Building Official
cc: Permit Coordinator
DCD Planning Division
John W. Rants, Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
April 2, 1992
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
Mr. Rick Lenz
Merrick Lenz Architect
15446 Bel Red. Road, Suite 410
Redmond, WA 98052
RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review
File Number: 91- 10 -DR: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
Dear Mr. Lenz:
This is to confirm that the Board of Architectural Review (BAR)
approved the above project as presented on 2/27/92, with
conditions as noted on Attachment A. The BAR also adopted,.in
part, the findings and conclusions contained in the Staff Report
dated 2/7/92.
Minor, incidental changes to the approved plans or design may be
administratively approved by the Director of Community
Development. However, please note that any significant changes
will require further review and approval by the BAR.
If you have any questions regarding this project or the BAR
decision, please feel free to write or call.
Sincerely
Ann Siegent,}faler
Assistant Planner
cc: File
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
Merrick Lenz Architect
Dollar Development - Notice of Decision BAR 2/27/92
ATTACHMENT . A
The Board of Architectural Review has approved the Dollar
Development project with the following conditions:
1. West (Pacific Hwy.) elevation:
Provide modulation by stepping aluminum siding and /or
emphasizing vertical columns.
2. East elevation:
Consolidate different areas of materials and de- emphasize
"patchiness," by repeating stepping in aluminum siding,
and /or extending some siding across the length of the
facade.
3. North elevation:
Provide modulation and connect disjointed ends by stepping
the aluminum siding, and /or emphasizing vertical columns.
4. Colors:
• Use a maximum of two shades of grey; use color range shown
in colorboard exhibit submitted by applicant.
5. Along Pacific Highway South:
A. The street -front planter shall be the
foot width.
B. Locate the fence to the inside of the
C. Add tall shrubs along the planter.
D. Preserve the three existing large fir
required ten -
landscaping.
trees.
6. Along South 160th:
Locate the fence to the inside of the landscaping; provided
that doing so does not create a safety problem as
determined by the Tukwila Public Works Department. [Note:
A subsequent site inspection has verified that the 18" drop
at the sidewalk, on which this condition was based, does
not exist.]
7. Along east (rear) property line:
Provide screening fence along either the entire length of
the property, OR, at applicant's option, only where
screening landscaping is not provided at the property line.
February 27, 1992
Gary D. Huff
Karr Tuttle Campbell
1201 Third Avenue
Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101 -3028
Re: Dollar Rent -A -Car
Dear Mr. Huff:
Very truly yours,
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
This is in response to your letter of February 26. My
recollection of our telephone conversations from last October is
different than as reflected in your letter. I certainly don't
recall any offer to submit a "letter to the Commission requesting
that they approve the plan as submitted...." Rather, I indicated
a willingness to inform the Board of Architectural Review that
certain circumstances unique to your client made it reasonable
for you to advise your client to occupy its premises without the
required certificate of occupancy, even though that premature
occupancy was illegal. I also recall conditioning,my offer on
your client's immediate cooperation with our Department of
Community Development because, as set forth in my letter of
October 29, 1991, we believed "that your client [was]
intentionally seeking to evade lawful Tukwila ordinances." We
expected from your client much more than we received.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
C
Michael R. Kenyon
City Attorney
MRK /cc
cc: Ann Siegenthaler
DOLLAR. 001
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433-1833
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
February 27, 1992
Staff indicated that it would.
Mr. Meryhew asked if the illuminated portion of the sign would be two lines of text, or if
it could be expanded to more than two lines.
Staff deferred that question to the applicant.
Kristine Whisler, South Central School District:
She thanked staff for their assistance and cooperation in this process and noted she would
answer any questions.
Mr. Malina asked if there would only be two lines of text with 9" letters as indicated in the
staff report, and whether this could be changed.
Ms. Whisler stated that the number of lines and size of the letters could be varied.
Marlo Jones, Scoreboard Sales & Service, Seattle:
Mr. Jones stated that two lines of text is the standard format for this size of sign.
Mr. Malina clarified that they had already approved the sign, and this hearing was to
approve the colors and type of paint for the sign.
Mr. Haggerton asked what the operating hours of the sign would be.
Ms. Whisler stated that they had no plans for the sign operating after midnight.
Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT BASED ON THE STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY. MR.
KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION; MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Ann Siegenthaler presented the staff report. She clarified that with regard to page 10, item
number 5A, staff has made the recommendation that the landscaping along Pacific Hwy. S.
be widened to ten feet, however, a site verification shows that there is ten feet of
landscaping there currently although the drawings that the applicant has submitted show five
feet of landscaping. Therefore, condition 5A should be kept in the staff report, however,
the word "widened" removed, and change the sentence to read, "The planter shall be the
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
February 27, 1992
required ten -foot width ".
Staff stated that this project is a redevelopment of a supermarket site. The total dollar
valuation of the site improvements that the applicant is proposing exceeds the dollar value
threshold for design review. In this case, the permit applications for this project were
submitted separately. The first building permit application did not trigger design review.
Most of the work for that first permit has been completed. Now that subsequent
applications have been submitted, the applicant needs to comply with the design review
requirement.
With respect to the design of the project itself, staff is concerned that the project is located
in a very visible location and is located at one of the gateways to Tukwila. Staff is concerned
about achieving a level of quality that is acceptable to the community, but staff also
recognizes that this is a redevelopment of a previous use and that there are some limitations
as to major modifications. The recommendations in the staff report address two main issues:
the building design and the landscape plan. The areas of concern are that there are some
large areas of unfinished, unadorned aluminum siding, particularly on the west elevation that
give the project an industrial look. The second area of concern is that the east elevation,
has a "patchiness" to it given that there are isolated pieces of aluminum siding. There are
several different materials used on this elevation, as well as several different tones of gray
coloring.
Staff is suggesting horizontal modulation. This could be achieved by using a different band
of material, or a different color along the aluminum siding on the west facade. In addition,
staff is suggesting that the applicant place some vertical modulation in the facades by
emphasizing the columns or buttrices. The architect has stepped the aluminum siding on
the east elevation, but it is not repeated elsewhere in the project. Staff is suggesting that
the applicant repeat the stepping elsewhere on the project to reduce the isolated patch of
aluminum and add modulation. These suggestions are not intended to be substitutions for
the architect's suggestions, however they are intended to illustrate some ways that the
applicant could increase the modulation, create architectural interest in the facade, and
generally improve and refine the overall quality of the building.
With regard to the landscape treatment, the applicant has added a great deal of landscaping
to the site, however staff is mostly concerned with how the landscaping looks at Pacific Hwy.
S. and 160th. Staff is suggesting that the applicant put the landscaping along Pacific Hwy.
S. in front of the chainlink fence. Staff is also suggesting that tall shrubs be added to the
landscape to screen the fronts of cars along Pacific Hwy. S. Finally, staff is suggesting that
the applicant save some existing conifer trees. In summary, staff is trying to create a balance
between project feasibility and what is appropriate for the community.
Mr. Flesher asked how tall the shrubs would be that staff is recommending be added.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
February 27, 1992
Staff stated 3 -4 feet; enough to screen the fronts of cars. The spacing of these shrubs would
be based on the type of shrub chosen.
Mr. Malina asked if there would be any buffering between this project and the residence
next door.
Staff stated that the applicant has shrubs proposed for that area, as well as four, large trees
and their landscaping meets the minimum buffer requirement for a commercial zone.
Mr. Malina asked if the applicant is providing customer parking.
Staff said that the applicant is not providing customer parking because customers will arrive
to the site by van pool from the airport, rather than walking in off of the street. They have
also indicated that there may be room on the site to provide customer parking should it be
necessary.
Mr. Malina asked about traffic making a left hand turn, over a double, yellow line off of
160th into the project entrance.
Staff stated they had spoken with the Public Works and Police Departments about that issue
and were informed that if a double line is less than 18" wide, crossing over it for a left hand
turn is not illegal.
Mr. Malina said he was a little upset that much of this project had already been built.
Staff explained that most of the work that has been completed was completed under a City
building permit. The other work that has been started, has not been issued a permit.
Mr. Mauna asked if a certificate of occupancy had been issued.
Staff stated that the applicant is currently occupying the site and they have been issued a
certificate of occupancy based on the original permit. Staff went on to say that the Zoning
Code is ambiguous about design review requirements when it comes to a project which has
multiple building permits applied for at different times.
Mr. Clark asked if the chainlink fence has barbed wire or razor wire on top?
Staff stated that none was proposed, but there were vinyl slats proposed.
Mr. Clark asked if the fuel island has a spill containment system and does the asphalt slant
toward the coniferous trees.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
February 27, 1992
Saff said that they were unsure as to the spill containment system, but that the Fire
Department had approved the operation in its present location. Staff deferred the question
regarding the direction of the drainage to the applicant.
Mr. Clark asked if there was a commercial wash rack system or if it was a manual system
for washing the cars.
Staff deferred that question to the applicant.
Mr. Haggerton asked if the applicant's free - standing sign complied with the Sign Code.
Staff indicated that those signs were non - conforming. Those signs existed on the site prior
to the Sign Code being adopted, therefore those signs are legally non - conforming. This is
the case with many projects on Hwy. 99.
Merrick Lentz, Architect representing Dollar Development:
He stated that the original permit did not trigger design review and included landscaping,
building elevations, and locations of fences. It was the second permit for the exterior
canopies which brought the total valuation of the site over the value threshold. He went
on to say that staff was aware that more than one permit would be required and in
separating the permits, the applicant was not made aware of the design review threshold.
In response to Mr. Malina's question, Mr. Merrick stated that providing a buffer for the
adjacent residence was not given any consideration because it is not felt that the residence
above the auto shop would receive any more impacts from Dollar than it was already
experiencing from the auto repair shop. In addition, the residence is considered a non-
conforming use. With regard to customer parking, Dollar Development operates this facility
for the sole convenience of its airport guests, and customers arrive and depart from this site
by vans from the airport. He went on to say that Dollar Development also operates a rental
car facility at S. 176th Street and local customers would be referred to the 176th Street
facility. Mr. Merrick stated that it was their feeling that the building sets back far enough
from Pacific Hwy. S. so any impacts would be minor. In reviewing the staff
recommendations, it is the applicant's opinion that the west elevation is adequate in its
present condition. The galvanized steel siding material will maintain its current appearance
as long as the project is there. Vertical banding is not a natural part of the existing
elevation and would tend to focus improperly on the actual shape. The building roofline is
slender and does not present any meaningful enhancement opportunities. He stated that
they agreed that some additional modulation of the steel siding could be a benefit to the east
elevation of the building and would propose to mirror the treatment that is on the southeast
corner onto the northeast corner to achieve a balance. Also, they would agree with staff's
recommendation of repeating the stair stepping of aluminum on the east side. However,
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
February 27, 1992
they do not agree that hi- lighting or coloring of the buttrices would add anything of
significance to the building.
With regard to landscaping issues, the purpose of the fencing is to provide security for the
vehicle storage area and they would prefer to leave the fencing in front of the landscaping.
He stated that they had proposed to accentuate the landscaped areas and to screen the
fence in the area where landscaping is not immediately adjacent to the property line.
Adding screening beyond that area which does not have landscaping defeats the purpose of
the landscaping. An open mesh fence would provide a view of the planting behind it.
Bringing the screening too close to the street line would create a vision hazard for vehicles
leaving the site. Additional screening in the fence would not be necessary in those areas that
are backed up by landscaping.
Mr. Meryhew asked what the applicant's feeling was on the staff's recommendation of
keeping the three large trees and adding tall shrubs.
Mr. Merrick said that they had no problem with keeping the three trees, however they saw
no use in adding tall shrubs.
Mr. Flesher if a 25 foot high canopy was the minimum height needed.
Mr. Lentz stated that one gas island canopy was 25 feet high, and the others are not that
high.
Mr. Malina asked if the car wash system was manual or automated and if there is run -off.
Mr. Lentz said that it is a self - contained unit, it recycles the water and it is automatic. Any
run -off would not affect the three trees.
Barry Metsker, Construction Consultant for project:
Mr. Metsker stated that staff's recommendation of moving the fencing along 160th St. would
create a safety hazard because there is an elevation difference of approximately 18" between
the sidewalk and the swale area. Also, adding screening to this area would not be
appropriate since it is a bio- filtration swale area.
Staff stated that the bio - filtration swale does not prevent the addition of some shrubbery.
There is opportunity for some landscaping along Pacific Hwy. S., which' is the area staff is
most concerned with.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
February 27, 1992
Doris Kassan, Dollar Development:
Ms. Kassan invited the Planning Commission to visit the site and went on to say that the site
is very much improved compared to its' previous condition.
Mr. Knudson responded that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to preserve the
"Gateway" aspect to Tukwila and to not only evaluate this particular site, but how this site
will affect the neighborhood.
Mr. Meryhew stated that one of the main concerns of Tukwila citizens is the beautification
of the Gateway areas.
Mr. Malina closed the public hearing at 9:40 p.m.
Mr. Clark stated that he agreed that the site has been improved and that it was unfortunate
that all the issues were not worked out between staff and the applicant.
Mr. Malina stated that there were a number of issues which need to be addressed. He said
that he thought the modulation of the building could be enhanced, the landscaping needs
to be looked at further and he recommended that customer parking be added on site.
With regard to staff's recommendations in the staff report:
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 1A; MR. FLESHER
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO OMIT REOMMENDATIONS 1B AND 2B; MR.
MERYHEW SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF
5 -1 WITH MR. KNUDSON OPPOSED.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 2A; MR. HAGGERTON
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 3A; MR. FLESHER
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 4A WITH THE
PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT USE THEIR PROPOSED COLOR SCHEME; MR.
CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
February 27, 1992
MR MERYHEW MOVED TO OMIT RECOMMENDATION 4B; MR. KNUDSON
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION PASSED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1 WITH MR.
CLARK OPPOSED.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5A, BUT TO CHANGE
THE WORDING TO READ, "THE PLANTER SHALL BE THE REQUIRED 10 -FOOT
WIDTH."; MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5B; MR. KNUDSON
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5 -1
WITH MR. MERYHEW OPPOSED.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5C; MR. CLARK
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 5D; MR. KNUDSON
SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 6 IF THERE ARE NO
SAFETY ISSUES ONCE REVIEWED BY PUBLIC WORKS; MR. MERYHEW SECONDED
THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION 7 WITH THE WORDING
CHANGED TO: "PROVIDE SCREENING FENCE ALONG LENGTH OF PROPERTY
WHERE NO LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED." MR. HAGGERTON SECONDED THE
MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION ( #8) WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE CUSTOMER PARKING ON SITE. THERE WAS NO SECOND TO
THE MOTION AND THE MOTION DIED.
MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE 91- 10 -DR: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT BASED ON
THE STAFF'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
MODIFICATIONS. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Malina called for a five minute break at 10:25 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:30 p.m.
HEARING DATE: February 27, 1992
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
ZONING: • C -2 (Regional Commercial)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial
SEPA
DETERMINATION: Not required
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
STAFF REPORT to the BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared 2/7/92
91- 10 -DR: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
Merrick Lenz Architects
Convert existing supermarket site into rental car operation.
Construction will include gas pump canopy, entry canopy, new siding
and paint for existing building, and parking lot re- paving. The
applicant also requests approval of non - conforming landscaping.
Dollar Rent -a -Car
15858 Pacific Highway South
Ann Siegenthaler
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant's agreement to B.A.R.
C. Site plan & landscaping plan
D. Building elevations
E. Canopy elevations
F. Color board (to be submitted at hearing)
G. Staff recommendations (drawings)
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
John W. Rants, Mayor
Staff Report to B.A.R. 91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 2
VICINITY/SI1'E INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
1. Project Description
The applicant proposes to covert a former supermarket site into a rental car
operation, which involves renovation of a 26,260 s.f. existing building.
Approximately 3/4 of the building interior will be used for parking of rental
cars, 1/4 for service bay and offices. Exterior building changes include new
siding and paint, the addition of an entry canopy, a car wash operation, and gas
pump island /canopy. Site improvements include re- surfacing and re- striping of
the existing parking lot. The applicant also requests approval of non-
conforming landscaping.
2. Surrounding Land Uses
The project is surrounded by commercial uses. It is adjacent to the city limits
on Pacific Highway South, and near the on -ramp to SR 518. The Lewis &
Clark Theater parking lot abuts the site. Multi - family residences across South
160th street face the project's main entry (See Attachment A).
3. Vegetation
There are three large conifer trees at the northwest corner of the site.
Otherwise, the site has no significant vegetation or landscaping.
The Dollar Rent -a -Car project is a re- development of a former supermarket, built
under King County jurisdiction. When annexed to Tukwila, the site became non-
conforming to code requirements for the landscape buffers. B.A.R approval is
required for the non - conforming landscape.
Under the Zoning Code, a renovation project is subject to Design Review if its value
exceeds 10% of the existing development's value (TMC 18.60.030). Design Review was
not required for Dollar's first building permit application for landscape, parking and
building improvements. Design Review was triggered when the applicant applied for
a second permit for canopies, since the total value of all work proposed exceeded the
Design Review threshold. As a result, most of the work under the first permit has
been completed. A building permit for canopies has not been issued.
The City Attorney has affirmed the Design Review requirement, and has on file a
letter from the applicant agreeing to abide by the Board's decision (see
Attachment B).
Staff Report to B.A.R. 9140 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 3
DECISION CRITERIA
Board review criteria are shown below in bold, along with staff's summary of relevant
facts.
A. TMC 18.60.050: General Review Guidelines
1. Relationship of Structure to Site.
The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to
provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement.
Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual
impact of large paved areas.
The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site.
Applicant's Response:
"The canopy structures provide a transition in scale from the street to the existing
building. Landscaping at the interior of the lot, plus perimeter landscaping and
fencing, both for security and screening, is used to moderate any impact of the existing
paved area. The location of the canopies support (1) the identity of the building
entrance in a prominent position on the building, and (2) the secondary use as a gas
pump shelter in a secondary location west of the building, and out of the main
circulation corridor of the site."
Staff's Response:
• Streetscape transition: See discussion below, under #2, "Relationship of Site
to Adjoining Area."
• Service areas: located toward the back of the site, and screened by the
proposed landscaping.
• Height and scale: Site plan is similar to the former supermarket use. The
large building on site has the same size and scale as it had when previously
used for a supermarket.
2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area.
Harmony in texture, line and masses is encouraged.
Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided.
Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood
character.
Compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities
in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged.
Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged.
Staff Report to B.A.R.
Page 4
Applicant's Response:
"The existing building is appropriate in its setting, and the canopies harmonize with the
unique building design of this and the Lewis & Clark Recreation Center. Although the
immediately surrounding area are lacking in landscaping, a landscaping transition is
provided at the perimeter. Traffic flow has been carefully determined to minimize
circulation conflicts while accomplishing the required purpose of the facility. Traffic
flow from and onto public streets has been specifically controlled by signage and use."
Staff's Response:
91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
• Project is re- development of existing site and buildings; therefore, line and
massing are similar to previous use.
• Perimeter landscape and sidewalks (along Pacific Hwy. and 160th) provide
transition.
• Vehicles access the site from two driveways on 160th.
• Customers arrive by van pool; therefore, there is no customer parking nor
pedestrian circulation.
3. Landscape and Site Treatment.
Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they
should be recognized, preserved and enhanced.
Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and
provide an inviting and stable appearance.
Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important
axes, and provide shade.
In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic,
mitigating steps should be taken.
Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is
encouraged.
Screening of service yards and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished
by the use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be
effective in winter and summer.
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.
Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape.
Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building
and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive
brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided.
Refer to discussion under "Nonconforming Landscape" in Section B. below.
Staff Report to B.A.R. 91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 5
4. Building Design.
Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality its design and
relationship to surroundings.
Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments.
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.
Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent.
Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from
view.
Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed
accessories should be harmonious with building design.
Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form
and siting should be used to provide visual interest.
Applicant's Response:
"The existing building is unique in its design, and 'visually accentuates the use of bow
trusses in its exterior appearance. The placement of natural finish steel siding enhances
the existing lines of the building, and the use of curving transitions of the material to the
building further compliments this design. The design of the canopies was selected to
further accentuate the lines of this building. While the purpose of both canopies is to
provide shade and protection from the elements, the sweeping, flowing design is as unique
as the building: Building colors of two tones of gray provide a subtle harmony with the
natural finish steel, and a blue accent is provided at the roofline. Exterior lighting was
selected to blend with the site and avoid conflicting visually with the building."
Staff's Response:
• Building is very visible from Pacific Highway So. and South 160th.
• East (rear) side is visible to residents and motorists along South 160th, and
patrons of the Lewis & Clark Theater.
• Curved building roof is a major element in the project's design theme.
• Exterior changes: new portions of aluminum siding and new paint (Attachment D).
• Gas pump canopy and entry canopy have corrugated metal pipe supports, with a
corrugated aluminum roof in undulating, curved shape (see Attachment E).
• Color scheme: very subdued; trim will be light grey with some blue; buttresses
will be painted a darker grey (see Attachment F).
5. Miscellaneous Structures & Street Furniture.
Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the
architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with
buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and
surroundings, and proportions should be to scale.
Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the
guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings.
Applicant's Response:
Staff's Response:
B. TMC 18.70.090: Nonconforming landscape areas
Applicant's Response:
Staff's response:
Staff Report to B.A.R. 91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 6
"Because the use of this site is strictly vehicular, a bus stop shelter is the only other
structure provided. A strong delineation is made between pedestrian and vehicular
circulation to provide safety to pedestrian traffic and security to the property. No other
accessory structures are planned."
• No street furniture or similar structures are proposed (bus shelter replaces shelter
removed for construction).
1. The landscape plan substantially conforms to Zoning Code requirements.
2. The existing and proposed additional landscaping and screening materials together will
adequately screen or buffer possible use incompatibilities; soften the barren appearance of
parking or storage areas; and adequately enhance the premises appropriate to the use district
and location of the site.
"The existing condition of this site prior to this use was entirely pavement, with no
landscaping. Perimeter planting has been placed along the public sidewalks, and in the lot
interior, and is planned for the interior perimeter lot lines. Planting beds on the north side
of the building will be enhanced, even though they are screened by an existing site -
obscuring fence. The area east of the building will be used for vehicle storage, and the 5-
foot landscaped area is omitted in this area. To mitigate, site - obscuring screening will be
installed in the existing fence on the property line, and landscaping is added at the
northeast corner and southeast portion of the perimeter to maintain the equivalent area
of planting. This allows planting to be placed in prominent areas providing visual
enhancement and effective screening, and still allow for safe vehicular circulation and use
of the site as required to support the intended use."
Conformance with Zoning Code:
• Pacific Highway South landscape strip is 5 feet deep vs. required 10 feet (see
Attachment C).
Staff Report to B.A.R. 91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 7
• Landscape at east (rear) meets required 5 foot width, but does not extend full length
of property line as required. 95 feet of landscaping missing.
• Landscape along north meets required 5 foot width, but does not extend entire length
of property line. 75 feet of landscaping missing.
Adequate enhancement of premises:
• Project will be highly visible from Pacific Highway South, to both motorists and
pedestrians using the adjacent bus shelter.
• Project located at one of the "gateways" to Tukwila.
• Given the surrounding commercial uses, the proposal does not create any use
incompatibilities which need screening.
• Proposed landscape: shade trees (Norway maple), low and tall shrubs and
groundcover of ivy and lawn (see Attachment C).
• Chain link fence located at sidewalk, in front of landscaping.
• Pacific Highway landscape does not include shrubs to screen fronts of vehicles.
• Parking area at east (rear) of site visible to motorists entering the Lewis & Clark
Theater site. Landscaping here would displace essential parking.
• Gap in landscaping along the north side is due to the proximity of the existing building
to the property line. Chain link fence with slats helps to screen:
• Landscaping has been added in interior and east (rear) pockets to compensate
for areas with missing landscape.
• One to three existing conifer trees approximately 12 "48" in diameter will be
removed for two parking stalls.
A. General Review Criteria
1. Relationship of Structure to Site.
CONCLUSIONS
• Relationship of structures to the site is appropriate, given the former and proposed
uses.
• Service areas appropriately located and screened to minimize their impact..
• Parking lot landscaping moderates the large expanse of pavement.
• Circulation patterns appropriately designed.
Staff Report to B.A.R.
Page 8
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment.
4. Building Design.
5. Miscellaneous Structures & Street Furniture.
91- 10 -DR: Dollar. Development
2. Relationship of Structure & Site to Adjoining Area.
• Given that project uses existing site and structures, applicant's attempts to harmonize
new structures with existing building and site plan are appropriate.
• Proposed circulation is appropriate to use and location.
• Landscape transition: see discussion under "Nonconforming Landscape" in
Section B. below.
See conclusions under "Nonconforming Landscape" in Section B. below.
Facades:
• Given high visibility, most important facades are Pacific Hwy So. & 160th.
• Re- development of existing site limits opportunities for major modifications.
• Modifications in the way materials are used would add to the quality of the site
without detracting from project feasibility.
• Large scale building facades and use of unfinished corrugated aluminum gives
industrial appearance inappropriate for commercial "gateway" area.
• Not adequate vertical modulation or modulation in aluminum siding, e.g. elevation
facing Pacific Hwy. South.
• Use of disjointed pieces of aluminum siding creates "patchiness" on facades, e.g. east
elevation and north elevation (see Attachment D).
• Blue fascia on building roof too narrow to be effective.
Colors:
• Siding, buttresses, walls, doors and fence all slightly different tones of grey/beige.
Result is too monochromatic, looks like colors unintentionally
mismatched.
• Decreasing the number of similar -value colors, would help alleviate "patchiness" of
colors.
• As site is auto - oriented, provision of street furniture would not materially enhance
the project.
Staff Report .to B.A.R. 91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
Page 9
B. Nonconforming landscape areas
• The project landscape does not substantially conform to code.
• Pacific Highway So. landscape needs to be widened to ten feet to improve streetscape:
Displaced parking stalls could be relocated to rear (east) of building.
• Chain link fence located at the property line diminishes the effect of streetscape
,Iandscaping; inappropriate for pedestrian areas.
• Pacific Highway South landscape needs shrubs to adequately screen the parking lot.
• Screening fence at the east (rear) property line would be appropriate, given constraints
of parking needs.
• Proposed screening fence at north property line is appropriate for screening this area,
given that the building interferes with landscaping space.
• Due to high visibility and, lack of large trees in the area, saving the large conifers along
Pacific Highway South would greatly add to project's appearance.
• The proposal is a considerable improvement relative to previous conditions and
surrounding properties.
Given that project is a re- development of an existing site, opportunities for major site changes
are limited. The project will be very visible to the community; yet major changes would
severely impact project feasibility. Therefore, the Planning Staff's recommendations reflect a
balance between an appropriate aesthetic for the community and the applicant's needs. The
staff recommends that the project and non - conforming landscape be approved, with the
conditions listed below (see Attachment G).
•
A. General Review Criteria:
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the project has some deficiencies, modifications in the use of building materials
and colors would provide an acceptable level of design quality.
1. West (Pacific Hwy.) elevation:
A. Provide modulation by stepping aluminum siding and /or emphasizing vertical columns
B. Give more definition to building roof line by adding wider fascia or cornice.
Staff Report to B.A.R.
Page 10
2. East elevation:
A. Consolidate different areas of materials, de- emphasize "patchiness" by repeating
stepping in aluminum siding, and /or extending some siding across the length of the
facade.
B. Give more definition to building roof line by adding wider fascia or cornice.
3. North elevation:
A. Provide modulation and connect disjointed ends by stepping the aluminum siding,
and /or emphasizing vertical columns.
4. Colors:
A. Use a maximum of two shades of grey.
B. Use more blue accent to emphasize major design elements.
B. Nonconforming Landscape:
Although some portions of required landscaping are missing, the area of greatest
concern is Pacific Highway South. Given the constraints which limit landscaping
opportunities, staff is recommending that the applicant focus available resources on
Pacific Highway South.
5. Along Pacific Highway South:
A. Widen the planter to the required ten -foot width.
B. Locate the fence to the inside of the landscaping.
C. Add tall shrubs along the planter.
D. Preserve the three existing large fir trees.
6. Along South 160th:
Locate the fence to the inside of the landscaping.
7. Along east (rear) property line:
Provide screening fence along entire length of property.
91- 10 -DR: Dollar Development
,
285
\
4 Sir' 4
001 so i ill7S
XI I 14 *:::.
••
• N
Of . ,.. w ri
z wi-u
2: I
rn
,, ...
II
i
,x
6'1 ...,'
07:Fir
F1'
Z.
mi . co
(0
lir
0 k TIO
.3
02 ; ....On
I , u z4:1' 4
trl +
0 g T sQ 0L-. Q
- , _iv:. , -7 2 jr- = • - z
-• !:1
C \I
_ • II
•
J -
(Dm ..
'c
oc a 1 ti z
I's
r
1
--92
r0•s.92 •N:
II
0■112
wrY?
0 92 t•C
'ct
C2 SW
n- 5 9,' 1
.
/rill o
. stri 1111 CV a
gpve 1 a
-.IsE/2,- 0 bTiZ -
o. ru 1 az 1 01
io•al
1
•
.,. e ,:,, 1
. -..., — 1 1
- 1 1
,•, RZE
, a ; 1.2iirrs ''';'. 01 1 0 i
0. S12
9 ' 0
—
Z.
mi . co
(0
lir
0 k TIO
:::.
201 1 21...r.,
1:1E4 2f
-.e.:7: - -71-,--- .,/
9f ii •
C \I
_ • II
•
,„•,„
0./ i• 0
"
i
. (C
- 01$'512
Z lz i Z a j
CT a ..>1
4-1 1.•
en I t
— t I
fti
"'
. 1 C ti t 1
0" '
0■112
• 001£ 1
•
.
ii °In"
W'
u :
‘
1 Egn if
1
1 I
I i
.f.a3 Lip 1
= e i I I 1
E-1 ::.
COI
e: H
:;h1437
n
. 1 .-- -:1 :; - -, 5e .•• c•J. 31 ,..1
• ;
• ' ' t , . dt ,- As 3 J. v i s D .
• .,.
......... ,p 1
.
c f, ...a.--•-----s,W.i..:;.:..:....,..
:...‘ I
* C•1
*
• *
• ...
• '$ !I 41..
:0
.•;
„ . o. •
C
1 4 .1 • 1
-.,„•
•..: ..
,., .
,.
_
5,.**#*,*. - A - ,,,,,, jig _
, .4 ,
:. . . : •
,:,..,..„....
-- ..);-(1'"
n ,I./,'
. it. 0 1 /./ I 00.,
./.
.::
i ./ /
/
(NI
„ .,/ •{ /'
.. c..)
e rc
...•
\•1\,‘
,
- if
• A
a
•
075.re
c0
N
ZE IC
01117
ZE.
£0?
5
CI I
Qfr s
tfl
01112
I Oi
•
0
oft£
0 •
SI
1 •Ts ,
?, RH 21 t-_-d 1r)
t .... ..S7 j_61W1..r" •., re) D .2
4.s = 7 , 04 ro xr °,144"--'7 1 1. . CI iV t ( 0 2 1 ...4.17
E3 1if
RI j 6
'II
in I
1 tg
1 -,,-- IT
Erg ----- -='-‘'''
:L. i
* ! r- !
,, El I —
cc) 1
.:.
et Trt 1 01 70/ of:09 1
Eth
tcn :el frOct
_:.
7_ r_ =H.= _ — 0 vli
- 0,512
- • OITI7
01
sfr
Hi
07 ObT9 E.
J
• •—• • --• • ----- •
15446
BEL•RED RD.
SUITE 410
(206) 881 -8117
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT
December 17, 1991
Dear Ann:
Sincerely,
REDMOND
WASHINGTON
98052 cAwrjnYVKw2Ln.LTR
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Development - Design
Review Application
As you are aware, Dollar Development is applying for Design Review
for the approval to construct two canopies on the site, and to
approve the exterior building treatment and site plan with land-
scaping improvements.
Dollar Development intends to comply fully with the findings of the
Board of Architectural Review. However, they do not waive their
right for lawful appeal, should such action be deemed necessary.
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT
Merrick D. Lentz, AIA
MDL:md
cc: James Cassan
Dollar Development
Ml@ G ILD_
DEC 181991
r`ITV f1 '. ~'1111%Alil A
ATTACHMENT B
r
I As 1 55
I41 I
/1MM..., P.lOw51
Kf•TM
51 .01 * -
ot>crlw
a 1 T
VICINITY MAP
•010.1
If t
FFQUccr NOT.' -
41
•tLr •4 1504 •I' (VIN.)
••15 14b•r - 110 /.V.ING)
01•5••• 00 • - 4 CL (Rdet0)
•44wy CV* ' - 1165 ft ll. I 11
*W4J *Or 0.4115 - Sl.CL (....1/1/.
.42TC tr •••.4
04 > ••• C410414. se AT MOs' ••••Y
1 CK 0.00 I4n11.Y, *54 row ". Wei ION; 1 /...I pi
CIO•.*• 11•1.0•41,1.•••40•4 • .10*10.1 N /.(X•CI IAV.0
(.04401 L4CIE 145. WC)
1010
AC/uTT 4. 0 .rn, (
.10. W, (R W 1.14..4(; I(pw(pt/0(^ •
IM /11.51!. N INS.t. 50/.0
610.0.411 U. SW
..0100 41 >M/1:
155 1lSr. Mtet
011054-14 6.O.5r (O.r111e)
1 d • 1w5wo Nr* .1.06104 i, M OW. .
.e ft 4.e.Wfl to
410 N
- - -
n
d) m d
11 I F ,
n '
I
,
50. I1..l1 '91Tssr
•ewtt.8( (1/.•'(•4 •
4 MI Mel IMM/C0 • 11. OTC 15.e .47r R 00D
I•0'1NN; .1 >0ret 001Lt/4>. N6 140
111••.4.; 011."4, n FIn1..� .4 W+•J.
.L SUT(5 Att. 1.141N4 0 MILL /40W .040.1 /O
M 11.1(0.00401.. 61•114 0 014YT 6 011.1551.6411 -
w*114 011•145 224 /O % O,AIO.( VLO1L
•0.4444 n 5110• nr l 1.1 8011 O*
•••r K y.Dw 05 0 I•nNC 00*5 y.01.1; Sr
n1141 O'4CM I. 40+10.' N0 nn+n +p. 1* tcnn.l41
h .4[900 0 (111 0..47 , nt 5.V. 4501 µCPL 511*
•(nnmt 4Y.nW 4 10,105 010..•1.1*? te .1.0 .00
00 1K .6(L tl 054 NYICRPO■I
./wSweri 0: •S••L 1(14.450
1 4.
I.,rtl. ML
UCL0.
.14..•..•(• AO".
19..1 1-5 D
/- 14>tslLlws __ O1'll0
L . 1k41Wtr IMRE ALM PI.AtwNnloeS
•••1 .11..104 COR. wfCL•1 *0../u
•
0 k :nrct /
row,0l•1I4. mu.? n11
.0000111
• PIOw■N 00C•000 0.0•n• *1[10011* 414
p R•SI/OOr.0t01 1.C• E. 44
..•. 6.S.IM.w 1'.11 .5001* •011• 12U+0wt
tort tfl040 n 1vn..5 001.1 w:
M)Cw100 41 ....MO N14>. P).+ l(14*C
1.114 1152.0.14 50//1110 514 ifY0 MJr.
IJ01N4 OMJ WC •51. • •••• - C.• + 4' OwY. v�L
1
H1i!!f�
- foal( .2'0.5. "16
(11.7 .t'(M. '+
e9�
SITE PLAN & LANDSCAPING
L'.W CwJ We
t/•5L /n.0. -r: ••
9A(/c1t.C*
t+ .f1 0.3.4 1.•e
4.•00. 004 awe
eI.0LOInly MCA CntLULAIICN=
0.41 *. *11[.•...11 NL•4 Int .1 - 5L - 6OTy.
411* .51411 106. 044 50.13)l
(56 %10 • 112'1 V•Ri• 0..4 nun.,
• yen •V'
nal2•443.0 NY 1.0115
y7.uU1. T(.tOw •1CIt11K 1^R YL4.
s•.t14..0951 • 0. r5.'ev 54
1 /11 *0I_ 11[4).•51 Yl*
10.11.01 hre 0/ +X.1 L444 rr
YNSL
••L1 16•• :•
'cY/KL
•524
4/0 .1, 1 .1 _•
M/SJNNC 150
Ir4 •6.6(00.mn 9 1.41.
tTN.
1lI1V.5. I.. 16 •r
•1••1•.
r
•• K / 41 (1 1'
n 3 ......
t
1�1•: I I Ill! ulll ill
..
Illi rll..�.. M!
■r>r
JI
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION'
EAST ELEVATION
.; Iii.1lll.1d11l! Il:ill �
•
�..
V,*
� , 1111111111111"
11 91111 ui a�
111 1 : 1
.• it it
i I.
i! 11 I l • ' , ,II , 114.
�IIIII ®�►iq�
01lIII 'I
O1IINUL'1 rIlmumuu Ill11C1WIli IAIIIITII ll J 1!lIIIIIIn ■
;w +_':.
•.sl •
..t....
l7IIAI SY
_2
4
W
I•u
•
III
1
I I
11
11
PLAN VIEW GAS CANOPY:
•.•
GAS CANOPY ELEVATION
r J "T
1 1
j
11../n-.
FRONT CANOPY ELEVATION'
01
1
0
0
2
v
Or. Or .I•• 71
f.— 11'.1 =•
�.. JC
. .... 3
. 3
DOLLAR RENT-A-CAR
ATTACHMENT F
EXTERIOR COLORS
A. Body: Parker 5440W
"Mountain Fog"
B. Trim: Parker 5442M
, "Dolphin"
C. Siding: Natural Finish Steel
D. Fascia: Parker 5055A
"Blue Chip"
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION'
EAST ELEVATION
MEMO
TO: Ann Siegenthaler
FROM: Ken Nelsen, Plan Examiner Building Division \L/
RE: Dollar Development boundary line adjustment.
DATE: January 23, 1992
I have received the attached letter from Merrick Lentz dated
January 21, 1992. He has designated the J & L building to a of a
"Five -1 HR." construction type per the 1988 UBC.
Based on the construction type redesignation above and the
information from Mr. Merrick's January 10, 1992 letter, I can
recommend that the proposed lot line 10 feet from the J & L
building is acceptable per the UBC.
In addition to reaffirm the proposed lot line adjustment will allow
the construction of both Dollar canopies. Dollar must submit the
site plan revision for their building permit application in the
procedural manner. The canopy application will not be approved
until the lot line adjustment is approved.
15446
BEL -RED RD.
SUITE 410
.E;',NTZ ARCHITECT
January 21, 1992
Mr. Ken Nelson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Development Permit Application #91 -317
Dear Ken:
This permit application covered the installation of two exterior canopies at the Dollar Rent -A -Car facility
located at 15858 Pacific Highway South. This application has been rejected due to setbacks narrower
than necessary to allow the total building area shown.
In order to provide adequate setbacks for the addition of the canopies, Dollar Development is negotiating
with the owner of the J & L Auto property to purchase a portion of property adjacent to one of the
canopies. The completion of this transaction will result in an application for lot line adjustment.
The current negotiations place the potential new lot line parallel to and 10' east of the existing J & L
Auto Building. The building can be classified as a type V -1 hr. building, which requires one -hour
construction for walls within 20' of the property line, and protected openings if closer than 10'. Since
the walls of the existing building are brick, this should satisfy the one -hour requirement. The procedure
for this application will be as follows:
• A B.A.R. hearing will be held to determine compliance of the project with city design standards.
• Upon approval of the B.A.R., the property purchase will be consummated, and the lot line
adjustment application will be made. No building revisions should be needed for the lot line
adjustment to be approved as submitted.
• Upon the approval of the lot line adjustment, the permit application for the canopies will be
resubmitted with the revisions necessary to permit their reconsideration.
Please let me know your reaction to this letter.
Sincerely,
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT
REDMOND
WASHINGTON
98052
(206) 881- 8117 Merrick D. Lentz, AIA
MDL:md
C
RRInNVA ecvYCMAIMI ILULV S•allnwYn131.ar11•uNfIwrwSVIII MewTMINIMTMICIVKIWP.R
JAN 2 2 1992
•4
art OF 1
PLRNN{NG DrPl.
plan
•
11-101/NITS rRpEA
,, R-"\127 of :- 05 AYPL.
s 4 rr - w\ ' \\
EES
•
sic 6
.
■
iA
Z ._
' 00 CAN17. `. 1
J NeR 4K , • 4
PUMP 1:%L.NID.
•
I �t�r
•
r '
•
1
• Ni'; itJ(1 & -;�-
I n/z
CA2 WA'
EC1 x tt Zoe TNT P0c e rirl rnXT (6 t )
r Cpeiri LINK ;
O
15446
BEL -RED RD.
SUITE 410
(206) 881 -8117
• •,,T,2^R1^'.TC.1RtY1 111• M^G IMIZIP1lliYY ..411IOII
ARCHITECT
December 17, 1991
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
Assistant Planner
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.,
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Development
Review Application
Dear Ann:
As you are aware, Dollar Development is applying for Design Review
for the approval to construct two canopies on the site, and to
approve the exterior building treatment and site plan with land-
scaping improvements.
Dollar Development intends to comply fully with the findings of the
Board of Architectural Review. However, they do not waive their
right for lawful appeal, should such action be deemed necessary.
Sincerely,
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT
Merrick D. Lentz, AIA
MDL:md
cc:
REDMOND
WASHINGTON
98052 C:\WPSI\TUICWILIS.LTfR
James Cassan
Dollar Development
Suite 100
- Design
ENOWE
DEC 181991
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Mr. Michael R. Kenyon
City Attorney
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Rent -A -Car
Dear Mr. Kenyon:
KAR R•TUTT L E• CAM P B E LL
:1 1'r ..i.nm ,'n•ire (: rpurotinn
1 2111 I hir,I :venue. Buhr 2 41111. R.•attl.'.11:1 +hiu"
li•lepluntr 12u41 _23•I: 113. 14u• :imilr l _8161 h1 '•;11 "'
11ell,er •
11 8ellr�ur (:.•ulcr. Suite II IIII. 111.11181
'f 4eplmne 12u61 151.M33. 1
Phase reply b. Je;
Gary D. Huff November 7,
1 assume that you are aware of the letter forwarded yesterday
by Ann Siegenthaler. We are in the process of complying with her
requests. However, Ann's letter was silent as to your promise to
write the Board of Architectural Review, explaining the unusual
facts herein and asking that they approve the plan as submitted.
This representation on your part is very important to our client.
We are also awaiting any comment from you on the form of the
release forwarded you last week.
GDH:ln /
cc: Ann Siegenthalef
James Cassan
Rick Lentz
c/00221 .001
Sincerely,
(Y&C111 (C1)
NOV 0 81991
CITY OF TUKvv►LA
PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
November 5, 1991
Mr. Gary Huff
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
PHONE 11 (206) 433.1800
RE: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT- -15858 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila
Building Permit #6663
Dear Mr. Huff:
Thank you for working with the Planning staff to resolve our
concerns regarding the Dollar Development project. The purpose of
this letter is to clarify what Planning needs for final approval of
Permit #6663, which is necessary for a Certificate of Occupancy.
To obtain final approval from Planning, Dollar Development must meet
several requirements related to 1) landscape deficiencies to be
corrected; and 2) preparation for Design Review. The outstanding
items which must be completed are noted below.
Landscape deficiencies
Landscape planters must comply with Zoning Code minimum widths per
TMC 18.52.020, and must extend along the entire length of the
property line. To meet these code requirements, Dollar must make
the following revisions in its project:
1. The rear (east) planter must be widened to the required 5
foot width, and planted as shown on the approved plan.
2. The landscape plan must be revised to show plantings in
the existing planters between building buttresses (at the
north side). These plantings must be installed.
3. The new 5 -foot wide landscaping proposed at the northwest
corner must be installed.
3. The asphalt base layer must be removed within all
landscape planters.
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Gary Huff
Dollar Development, 11/5/91
Page 2
If Dollar decides to pursue a boundary line adjustment, the above
items must be completed, except for the north landscape, which can
be resolved as follows:
a) Revise the landscape plan to show the proposed
north property line and required landscaping;
and
b) include the cost of this landscaping in the
landscaping cash assignment (see below).
Cash assignment
In lieu of immediate completion of landscape deficiencies, Dollar
Development may submit a cash assignment for 150% of the cost of
completion of the remaining landscape improvements. The cash
assignment must include:
1. An accurate, detailed cost estimate from contractor(s) for
all remaining work necessary to correct deficiencies noted
in Items 1 through 4 above. This includes the cost of
removing the concrete slab at the east planter, and the
cost of any landscaping deficiencies at the north property
line. The cash assignment must include plantings for the
full landscape widths as required by code, until otherwise
approved by the Board of Architectural Review.
2. A Developer's Project Warranty Request form (attached).
Design Review
Under TMC
required.
building,
in excess
18.60.030, Design Review of the Dollar Development site is
This review will include all exterior improvements to the
structures, and site improvements which have a total value
of $33,800.
In addition, if Dollar is unable to meet the minimum landscape width
requirements, it will be required to obtain approval for a
non - conforming landscape from the Board of Architectural Review (per
TMC 18.70.090). Please be aware that, in the past, the Board has
required landscaping in excess of minimum code requirements.
To address the design review issue, Dollar must submit the
following:
Mr. Gary Huff
Dollar Development, 11/5/91
Page 3
Sincerely
Ann Siegenthal r
Assistant Planner
cc: Duane Griffin
City Attorney
Project file
1. A letter of agreement for review of the project by the
Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The agreement
should also include compliance with the Board's
requirements within a year after the Board's final
decision. (However, this does not mean that Dollar
forfeits its rights to appeal under TMC 18.90.020).
2. A Design Review Application, submitted with the above
letter. No SEPA review is required.
Please respond with the required revisions, cash assignment, letter
of agreement and applications by November 12, 1991. Once Dollar has
met the above requirements for final approval of Permit #6663, we
can focus on preparation for Design Review and completion of the
Boundary Line Adjustment.
Again, thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.
Should you have any questions, please let me know immediately.
CASH ASSIGNMENT
SHALL BE REFUNDED
BY MAILING TO:
(please print)
devel / authoriz by Cliystaffj
. �.., �,[ o.•• �, �.[...[..... v.,. �[ M�, R�, �[. �[[.. r. �,[.. nv,., r,. �, �.., r,,. n.w,„..[w[[[,..,.[[.. �., �,[,. P,... w...[ �.... x. �[,,,,.[ rr.,[., � .,.,,,,<.,.n,.�.�,�,.,,.,M.n.�, . .�[,.,.,..,..[[
NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT ADDRESS: 15858 Pacific Hwy. So. , Tukwila, WA
NAME: ,
ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED (REFERENCE
PLANS/DOCUMENTS WHERE ITEMS ARE DESCRIBED):
As the owner, or authorized agent of the owner, I hereby submit cash or cash equivalent in the amount of
$ ($150% of value to complete work described above) and attach supporting
documentation for value of work. I will have this work carried out and call for a final inspection by this date:
( 02 / 29 / 92 ), or risk having the City use these funds to carry out the work with their own contractor or
in -house manpower. If I fail to carry out the work, I hereby authorize the City to go onto the property to carry out
completion of the above deficiencies. I further agree to complete all work listed above prior to requesting inspection and
release of these funds.
SIGNED:
. CTION 2., (to i,e.:cvmple..ted by:.Crlt
SIGNED:
THIS FUND IS AUTHORIZED TO BE ACCEPTED.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
AMOUNT:
0 CASH Q CASH EQUIVALENT
DEPOSITED THIS DATE:
CITY RECEIPT NO.
RECEIVED BY:
w rwy. r. v ,.w.ww•v.r•xq�nw••Mfl!.w.rr•,�r
t! cl �vM... .�.,\..`.v..w•.wK..:n x•\.:M:x(..`C!l•:n[.
!�rxOY•ONf[([<•M \. . . •.0' .n.. •..
.[ox!:v.� <[.:•�oca»co n.•� ww+xwoo-x'<:mr ...� or.<[axv�ri�c[[r%w. -< • •. • '
/. [[......:n•.....•: ...>:.(!•.:.; :y:'
m CO <; tet • 9:VO: >: >.:::<:;: >;:
3.,.Lt ..b .. pl8 d.b:tievel
72 HOUR NOTIFICATION FOR
INSPECTION AND RELEASE OF FUNDS
DEVELOPERS REPRESENTATIVE:
CHECKED BY:
re tail <tir >ciry
CITY/STATE/ZIP
TITLE:
Upon completion through Section 2, Finance personnel shall
send copies to: — Developer
— Finance Department
— Permit Coordinator, DCD
k;i y Or K tfv ll a
DEVELOPER'S PROJECT WARRANTY
REQUEST FORM
DATE:
PERMIT NO.: 6663
TEL. NO.
All work identified in Section 1 of this form has now been completed
and returned to department which authorized warranty. I hereby
request inspection and release of my cash/cash equivalent.
DATE:
I have reviewed the above work and found it acceptable and therefore
authorize the release of the above cash assignment.
AUTHORIZED BY: DEPARTMENT:
>e' am ple • ted'
AMOUNT:
�S[AOU•VA'i. \•fn:!: V< yF[ KNr'T ri' i' 000'M9..COVX.tot.x.0t!0.0%.�to. .v.Myt ' XIX: '[[N(('gGO.V(�•AV.>: aYRW60VM%OS•
CASH EQUIVALENT — LETTER AUTHORIZING RELEASE
RELEASED THIS DATE:
CASH CITY CHECK NO.
RELEASED BY:
, FINANCE DEPT.
Upon completion of entire form, Finance personnel shall
send copies to: — Developer
— Finance Department
c — Permit Coordinator, DCD
%11390
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKH'ILA, WASHINGTON 98188
November 4, 1991
Mr. Laurin Korth
J & L Auto
15850 Pacific Highway South
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT -- Boundary Line Adjustment
Dear Mr. Korth:
We have completed a preliminary review of your Boundary Line
Adjustment (BLA) proposal. Prior to submitting your BLA
application for approval, revisions should be made as noted below.
Building setbacks
1.
The building
J & L Auto t
south side.
conform to
approximately
cannot be mov
the rear. Ho
to as much
construction
setback may
requirements
3. To determine
need to prov'
Chapter 5.
work with ou
Results sho
Division (43
4. Your plan
structures
property.
structures
dimensions.
(per TMC 18.50.020, Table 1):
PHONE # (2061 433.1800 Gan L. VanDusen, Mayor
Issues
setback (from proposed property line to the
wilding) must be at least 10 feet on the
The existing setback on the south does not
this code requirement, as it is only
8 feet. Therefore, the south property line
ed any closer to the J & L building.
2. The east (rear) property line must be at least 10 feet
from any str cture--- including the mobile structure in
ever, this 10 -foot setback may be increased
as 20 feet, depending upon the type of
used in the J & L building. This increased
e required in order to meet Building Code
what the exact setback should be, you will
de an analysis of building setbacks per UBC
ollar Development's architect may wish to
Building Division regarding this analysis.
ld be submitted to Ken Nelsen, Building
- 3677).
ust show the location of all existing
n J & L Auto's property and the Dollar
Existing setback dimensions from these
s ould be shown, along with proposed setback
Mr. Laurin Korth
BLA, 11/4/91
Page 2
5. Your plan must show the mobile structure currently
located at the back of J & L Auto, with a note that it
will be removed prior to approval of the BLA. Check with
Ken Nelsen in our Building Division (431 -3677) regarding
any permits necessary for removal of the mobile unit.
Parking requirement:
J & L is required to have 7 parking stalls (per TMC
18.56.050). To ensure that the J & L building will have
adequate parking, your plans must show the location and
number of parking stalls on site which will serve the
building.
In your configuration of lot lines, you may wish to leave
room for additional parking and access, should the need
arise in the future.
Based upon discussions with you and with Dollar Development, it is
apparent that one of the purposes of this BLA is to provide Dollar
the space required to construct canopies. Although not a required
part of your BLA application, we recommend that Dollar submit a
calculation of allowable area of building per UBC Chapter 5. This
way, we can ensure that Dollar's proposed canopies are allowed
under the Building Code.
Should you have any questions regarding this information, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
Ann Siegentr3`ialer
Assistant Planner
cc: Mr. Rick Lenz, Merrick Lenz Architects
Mr. Gary Huff, Karr Tuttle Campbell
Project file
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Occupancy issue:
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
M E M O R A N D U M
John McFarland, City Administrator
----'''
Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner
DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT permit applications
November 1, 1991
This memo is in response to your request for background information
on permit activity for the Dollar Development site at 15858 Pacific
Highway South.
Dollar has submitted three permit applications; as follows:
Permit Work Appl. date
#6403 Interior offices
#6663 More interior work, site
.improvements, landscaping
#91 -317 Canopies
11/8/90
4/11/91
7/29/91
Permit issue
1/18/91
7/1/91
-- pending --
Application for Permit #6403'was in response to a Stop Work Order,
posted by Building upon discovery that work had been initiated
without a permit.
The two most recent applications for site improvements and canopies
are the current "problem" permits. The "chronology of problems" is
given below.
The permit at issue is #6663, for interior work, site improvements,
and landscaping.
Dollar has yet to complete work on #6663, and no Certificate of
Occupancy has been issued. In spite of this, Dollar has occupied the
building.
On 9/25/91, when Ann and Greg Villanueva of Public Works inspected
the site, the building was clearly occupied. Prior to leaving the
site, Ann and Greg made it clear to both the general contractor and
architect that occupancy was not acceptable, that we do not issue
Memo John McFarland Page 2
Dollar Development, 11/1/91
temporary C of O's, that many outstanding items must be completed
prior to occupancy. This was reported to Building.
On 9/25/91, Ann informed the general contractor and architect of
deficiencies in the site work which needed to be corrected.
Deficiencies included a landscape which did not meet minimum code
requirements. The architect said corrections would be made.
Exception: Architect said that the demolished bus stop would not be
replaced; Ann stated that no Planning approval would occur without
bus stop replacement.
On 10/01/91, when Ann and Rick inspected the site, it was clear that
the building was occupied. This was reported to Building.
During site inspection on 10/01/91, Ann noted that landscape
deficiencies were not corrected. In addition, landscape planters
were paved over; bus stop was not replaced. Ann talked with Dollar
attorney, reviewed deficiencies to be corrected prior to Planning
approval.
On 10/02/91, Ann talked with architect regarding deficiencies to be
corrected.
On 10/02/91, Ann "fax'd" written list to attorney of deficiencies to
be corrected. Ann also explained what would be needed for a cash
assignment, as an alternative to immediate correction of
deficiencies.
On 10/04/91, Ann received complaint from resident regarding the
removal of the bus stop. Ann assured her Dollar would replace it.
On 10/04/91, architect sent letter to Ann, basically stating that
landscape deficiencies would not be corrected, that bus stop would
not be installed. Architect sent letter to Greg, basically refusing
to make corrections Greg had requested.
On 10/04/91, architect proposed a cash assignment of.$1800 for
outstanding site improvements. However, this amount did not include
correction of deficiencies as earlier discussed, nor was it supported
by the requested detailed cost estimate.
On 10/07/91, landscape contractor stated to Ann that his contract
with Dollar did not include items listed on approved permit drawings.
Based on his information, one planter still did not meet minimum code
width, and had pavement under the dirt. Ann reiterated the need for
compliance with permit drawings and code.
On 10/09/91, Ann reviewed with architect deficiencies which needed to
be corrected to comply with permit drawings and Zoning Code.
Architect agreed to re -do cash assignment and correct deficiencies,
Memo John McFarland Page 3
Dollar Development, 11/1/91
and would discuss bus stop with owner.
On 10/14/91, Ann inspected site:
1. Landscape deficiencies were not corrected; bus stop was
installed.
2. Canopy was built without a permit -- reported this to Building;
Stop Work Order posted.
3. Site was clearly "open for business." This was reported to
Building.
On 10/16/91, Ann and Jack from Planning, and Duane and Ken from
Building met with Dollar owner and architect.
1. Discussed ways to resolve the illegal occupancy issue, such
as cash assignment, splitting up permit. No resolution,
as we found no means to meet Planning requirements.
2. Canopy -- Dollar stated that they didn't know this was a
problem (something like, since it doesn't have a
complete roof, it's not a structure...).
3. Discussed what is involved in Design Review.
4. Discussed ways landscape could be brought up to code, possible
future waiver by Board of Architectural Review (BAR).
On 10/18/91, Planning received a letter from Dollar owner Cassan,
thanking us for our cooperation.
On 10/18/91, Ann received letter from architect listing proposed
revisions to landscape plan, and proposing a cash assignment of $3750
(without supporting documentation).
On 10/22/91, Planning and Building met with City Attorney to discuss
ways to resolve occupancy issue without waiving Planning
requirements. Kenyon would follow up with Dollar's attorney;
discussed with the attorney by phone.
On 10/29/91, Kenyon relayed alternatives to Dollar's attorney via
letter. Requested immediate submittal of a cash assignment for the
landscape deficiencies, hold harmless agreement, and BAR application.
On 10/29/91 and 10/31/91, Ann talked with adjacent property owner and
his attorney regarding a land transaction with Dollar. Property
owner had signed agreement of sale with Dollar, without going through
the proper legal process for transfer of land. If Dollar acquires
land, it may be able to install canopies as originally proposed.
Discussed boundary line adjustment process as a way to protect
interests of both property owners.
On 11/1/91, Ann talked with Dollar owner Cassan, and later with
Dollar attorney, about ways to design boundary line adjustment to
protect interests of both property owners.
On 11/1/91 in the morning Ann received "fax" from architect with
Memo John McFarland Page 4
Dollar Development, 11/1/91
questions regarding BAR application and cash assignment procedures.
On 11/1/91, Ann talked with Dollar attorney regarding items to be
completed by Dollar for Planning approval. Ann has letter going out
to him with specific list (for probable receipt 11/4/91).
On the afternoon of 11/1/91, messenger from Dollar owner Cassan
arrived with check for $3750 but not with required supporting
documentation.
>X Review (BAR):
At a Pre - Application meeting on 3/21/91, Planning informed Dollar
Development that their proposed re- development may require design
review by BAR.
Later, when Dollar submitted a permit application for site
improvements and two canopies ( #6663), Dollar was told that it would
need BAR approval. To resolve Dollar's concerns, Ann and Jack met
with Dollar Development to review which site improvements would
require BAR.
Dollar subsequently deleted the canopies from #6663, presumably to
avoid exceeding the value threshold for BAR review. The deleted
canopies were later proposed under application #91 -317; however, the
canopies still exceeded the threshold for BAR review. Dollar then
deleted one of the canopies from #91 -317.
After review with the City Attorney on 10/9/91, Planning informed
Dollar that the cumulative development (both #6663 and #91 -317) would
require BAR. However, site improvements have been nearly completed;
one canopy has been built (without a permit), other construction
materials have been ordered, per the owner.
Construction without a permit:
Dollar has constructed a canopy on the site. No permit has been
issued for any canopy construction. Previously, Dollar had been
informed by Building that this same canopy could not be built due to
Building Code requirements. Planning had also previously informed
Dollar that canopies would require BAR approval.
Attached is additional information from Duane, outlining in more
detail his discussions with Dollar.
is 6 r∎ N
cc: Rick Beeler
Project file
SITUATION:
On 2 Oct I had Gary Sch
inspection of the build
his findings. I direct
make a decision as to w
issues present that wou
based on immediate dang
that any real dangerous
On 7 Oct the city recei
Architect firm, address
items Gary had written
including the Planning
letters they had writte
their letter to Ann the
responses to what had b
that the issues should
days.
Dollar rental agency mov
inspection sign -off by b
This is in direct violat
They were told in advanc
Siegenthaler that they s
inspection had been sign
The reason for requiring
departments prior to the
to insure all other depa
while we still have some
While making a mechanica
noted that people had oc
inspection sign off, whi
At my direction Gary pos
morning of 1 Oct.
Their attorney, Gary Huf
Occupy" notice. We disc
the city policy, and the
Mr Huff stated he had to
for them moving in prior
them to do so.
Their attorney, Gary Hu
Ann & Greg, as a result
Not Occupy" sign on the
conversation he and I h
A in without obtaining final
ilding inspector.
on of city policy.
by Gary Schenk and Ann
ouldn't occupy until final
d off.
sign -offs from all other
building inspector signing off is
tments needs are taken care of
leverage.
inspection the building inspector
upied the building prior to a final
h is in violation of city policy.
ed a "Do Not Occupy" sign the
called me to discuss the "Do Not
ssed the reasons for the notice,
standard permit sign off procedure.
take partial blame /responsibility
to final because he had advised
f, sent a letter, dtd 1 Oct 91, to
the Building Inspector posting a "Do
premises and as a follow -up to the
d the day before.
nk make an unofficial walk- through
ng and provide me with a report of
d this so that I could tentatively
ether there were any life safety
d warrant my taking legal action
rs. His report did not indicate
situations existed at the time.
ed a letter from Merrick Lentz
d to Gary Schenk, addressing the
p on his walk through inspection,
nd Public Works issues (copies of
to Ann & Greg were attached). In
submitted negotiation type
en on the approved plans, stating
e completed or decided within 60
At that time I discussed the situation with Ann and she
stated that based on a conversation she had with the City
Attorney she was not going to sign off on the permit card.
Subsequent conversations led me to believe that final action
on the Planning issues were taking place. Since it had been
determined that there was no immediate health, life safety
violations (based on the building inspectors walk- through
report and the fire departments sign -off) I did not feel
there was adequate justification to try to force immediate
evacuation of the premises. This decision was partially
based on information that representatives from Dollar were
actively working with Ann to try to resolve the Planning
issues. Since that time I have personally been involved in
two meetings on the subject; one with the owner and
architect and Ann; one with Jack, Ann, Mike Kenyon, and Ken
Nelsen (city plan checker). There have also been various in-
house conversations on the subject where I voiced my concern
on the possible precedence - setting situation being created
by allowing unauthorized occupancy of the building in
question. After overhearing a phone conversation between
Mike Kenyon and the attorney from Dollar on 24 October, and
subsequent conversation between Mike, Jack, and myself, I
thought a possible solution to the situation was pending
within a period of just a few days.
Duane Griffin, Bldg Offl
12/28/91 '
k
__._______
OCT 0 7 1991
CITY 1 u►cvVILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Per our previous discussions regarding the valuation of the canopy
in relationship to the design review process, I have completed some
additional information for your consideration.
In a previous letter I identified the cost of installing the
canopy. I have since secured actual costs for the work, totaling
$27,187. The cost of the roofing was included in the previous
Bestworth - Rommel quotation, instead of being separate as I had
originally thought. Also, the cost of the footings is slightly
higher than on the previous breakdown. The cost of the canopy of
$27,187 is substantially less than the valuation figure of $49,025
assigned by the City.
One possible contributing factor for this difference could be the
difference between this canopy design and a typical service station
canopy, which is the basis of comparison used by the City. A
service station canopy will typically include substantial fascia
construction as well as a ceiling treatment covering the structural
elements. The canopy being reviewed under this permit allows the
structure to be exposed, eliminating any cladding material. Also,
as you can see from the plans submitted, there is no fascia planned
for this location. For these reasons, the valuation of the canopy
should be reviewed, and reduced from the $49,025 value.
The other factor in the criteria for design review requirements is
the valuation of the building. The current valuation for the
building is $338,100 as indicated on the attached Assessor's Form.
15446 The building was vacated in 1989 when Tradewell suspended
BEL -RED RD. operations at this location. The following SUITE 410 P g ear the valuation was Y
modified, reflecting the vacant status of the property. As you can
REDMOND
wASHINGToNsee, the previous use set the valuation at $586,900. Since the
98052 building is now substantially complete as the Dollar Rental Car
c2o6)881- 8mfacility, a new valuation should be assigned to the use. Using the
ICBO Building Standards as a guideline, the following valuation can
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
October 4, 1991
Page 2
be calculated. Note that my sheet reflects the 1898 values, so
current values should be slightly higher.
Office - 2,272 SF x $50.60 x .88 = $101,168
Service Bays - 1,849 SF x $43.70 x .88 = 71,105
Parking Area - 19,779 SF x $21.50 x .88 = 374,219
Total Valuation $546,492
By reviewing the data above, we feel that the valuation of the
building should be considered as greater than $338,100, and the
valuation of the canopy should be set as less than $49,025. Either
one of these adjustments would allow the valuation of the canopy
work to fall below the 10% of valuation threshold. If both can be
considered, the value of the canopy would be less than 5% of the
building value.
Please consider this information as it specifically applies to the
requirement for design review. It is not our intention to be
trying to avoid the design review process per se, but we are merely
trying to complete the project in the most timely manner. If we
can eliminate the need of another 90 days before work can commence,
we would like to do this.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
MERRICK LENTZ, ARCHITECT
Merrick D. Lentz, AIA
MDL:md
Enclosure
cc: Dollar Development
10/04/91 13:57 8857697 _ _ _ _ �` �` `,� J 1 1 1 'J IvU . UUL t' 3 uc
r:)CT— 3 -9 1 T.11 1.r 1 2 2 td UP 'I 44 FZ TH- PZ Fl t- L INC
October 3, 1991"
21922 N.R. Jlvl1.1
Pride Break Downo
Sheet Metal materials
Fabrication and installation
Structural Steel Members
Total Unit Price for. Thie Canopy
DESTWOATW ROMMI_L
M...�I.�.��v..►. ., lIOI •— ..V .r. -
(200 14,1 - ?0ne 1- MOO - 829 -am
"Own gtrilltly is ns {„iparloul as !ht price"
Dollar DevelOpmertt Co.
2460 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer !eland, WA 98040
Re: Entry Way Canopy at 160th & pacific Hwy. S.
Attn: Mr.' Loren Rogge
Scope of Work: Design, fabricate and install_ a 45 x 6.' (2)
column canopy attached to the existing building.
0veraa/ canopy site ie 45' x 61 ■ 2,745 square
feet.
.• .... _._ .___. . ..---- ,.___..._...._ -..._ _....,..... • ......._._,._4•1•0.__• •
$2,700.00
60,190.00
$13,659.00
$24,839.00
. Woodi./lvilbo, NA DOOf, FAX 660- 64,11
-..... w••■••■
P . 0 1
- - .ID .. .
OCT 03 '91 1114E LECA
1I
.. . . 1 . . — Y
10/04/91 13157
•a as
GENERAL OON1 FACTOR, INC,
Ootober 3. 1991
Dollar Rent A Car
P.O Box 68428
Seattle, WA 88168
ATTN: Loren F1 *1ii
a 8857697
•
WX7''s V f J L 1 1 ..J .,J 1 `1 U. V U L 04 .t•! rl
RED South Csnopy•Footings at 15858 Psoifio )wy south, Tukwila.
* Excavate, Norm and Pour (2) Canopy Footinga..,,,8 2,348,00
( PLUS TAX )
THANK YOU !
LEE MORSB OENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC.
Post -N"' brand fax transmittal memo 7f01
P,1
Phone • >:oa41- YANK..,_,,
FAX g (208) 244.0860
)I NUmSER
?1?2.3L]4- 9024..06
]U• L)C
1 (- 1Z ( : )
10/04/91
NO ALL PARTS WHEN PAYING IN PERSON
CASAN b648 T DORIS 0
S . I WA
13158
• :
••
PROPERTY ADDRESS 15858 PACIFIC HW S
�— — :MO Yt St'I'iic' •
THIS LO Lm I , ut bunpNr•
MOM,
City
PORTION Unincnnenretetimu.d • •
Pt1r1 .
Fite
Sew., (tlor Wow
abut Y
Othut .......
Enwrutncy Med Eve
Carole) Aeslllnitnl . , . ,
5twlace Water MIt. . .
TOTAL CURRENT Al LING
055005
98188
C2 -23 -04 1D 2 4 24Z3'2C 23 04
THAT POR OF W 2 48 F1T OF N
E
eo2 FT AA EE OF O SSF St W
M A 3 G S 0 0 .120 FT
First hall must he paid sit Isoltmer ktel
by April 30 ut FULL AMOUNT BF•
COMES U*LINOUENT and accrual
interim PIO petl.IIY 01 prescribed ny
Ian 11 lint hill tied by kith 30
eecerd hell must be void by Ot101.01
31 or It beCoftteg (tehngarnl arul
.Car un I old pomity,
PULL AMOUNT MAY eE
PAID APRIL 30111
ICT ACII THIS POR1 ION AND MAIL.
WITH YCUn PAYMENT • lid :•1991 REAL ESTATE TAX
IICIP('Il IY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER
2x2304- 9024•06
cUltIILN f 1)11 L INC 5)1r,.T RID ' 1
2,788.6
1 46. 1 i 12 ,
A..36i.56
266.48
iNffl
payment KING COUNTY STATE OP WASHINGTON . DELINQUENT PAYMEN CS RECEIVED WIT HC
500 FOURTH AVENUE, S ATTLE 98104.2367 ' INTEREST AND PENALTY WILL OE RET1JR
•
Make check payable to: KING COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION. Your cancelled ohook to your rucelpt.
SECOND HALF PAYMENT BECOME& DELINC1UENT TAX TAR DWI 1NTCm[bl PENAL, Y PRINCIPAL AMOUNT !�C HALF AMO
TYPE YFAN YIAO TO ISLE nevu ILEI AFTER OCTOBER 3ist.
u did nut make a Wet payment and/or pay all or tho delinquencies
d abovo, call (200) 2204850 for delinquent tax, Interest and panalty
P ASSAN JAMES T DORIS 0
O 1-i0X 68428
SEATTLE IAA
)t: TncN 714IS PORTION AND MAIL
WITH YOUR PAYMENT
ROPERTY 1AX ACCOUNT NUMBER
"'304- ff' -4t,
FULL AMOUNT MAY BE PAID APRIL 30th,
PRIOR YEAR PAYMENTS MUST INCLUDE
ALL INTEREST AND PENALTY DUE;
055005
98L88
Flat half payment must be paid or postmarked by AprII 30th
or ENTIRE BILLING BECOMES DELINQUENT AND WILL
ACCRUE ANNUAL INTEREST AND PENALTY,
CASSA JAMES T DORIS 0 055005
S CATT L E: 6 WA 28 98188
Cun.nt
Onfitrd
11 : . ' . ,.;..1 REAL. ESTATE ,TAX i e� �QI.� :
(3nymt3nt KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON
UI; LINOUENT PAYMENTS RECEIVE!) Waft
FOURTH AVENUE, SEATTLE 98104.2387 INTEREST AND PENALTY WILL OE RVTUHI
� t_ c. c. .1 Make check payable to: KING COUNTY FINANCE DIVISION, Your cancelled chock hi your minim.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT *HALF AMO
4 .7 /eaSO 41834
4.
IA* imt OMII milIn9T PENALTY
I'M- YEARYIARIn. ISIF VI. IISrt
Cur re 1 S
Omlued
iWM
0,11
pant
91
Z 8857697
bt/11ru .1
2WM
./ 4 4 `J • •••• 1 1 1 V • .4 1 .. •
e,OCN1 ILIvr u
! \ne1 jo, ..
Lind Value .. •., 48611
.1381
11
9178.
Imarmemente
bast+ lxen,pt v.lu.... .
TAXARLF VAtCC •..
Levy Mate • . •.•
[IN,er.1 1 e11 ..... • • •
Swift A.NIM ... .
Sullen Welee MIL .
TOTAL UMW AIILINO
Omitted Taxes ... .
',PTAs C1UARINT BILLING
INCLUDINO OMITS .
DELINQUENCY IN DRMA1•ib
1111TFRFBT
PCNAL1 Y
ENT TOTA
. k •
(WA( L.t■t,ltt tit
AND 5)111N0(11 N 1 '.
06
9,778.
9 ,77R.
r niNCIPAL
4.889.
All payments must IN
t he PRINCIPAL •
TER@8T • PeNAL
SWM wham cue.
DUE OCTOBER 31 (4,889 • C
22230490240600048892509
ASPOYmNwmtut
the PRINCIPAL
TRRI$T • PINA
fWIA whin M.
DUE APRIL 30 4188 e i
222304902240600048892509
10/04/91 13158
8857697
r.� l
Iva I .4S % •4 u r "OW
DOPARThTagNT O ' A881188 ,EPTg,
500. 4TH AVE. ROOM 7ODA• « F,: „ IJ 11
SEATTLE, WA BB1 04 -2304
FORWARD AND ADDRESS CORREN6 « 1990
FOR TAX $ DUE IN 9q FARO L NO. 222304 - 9024.06
THIS IS HO A TAX DILL MAIUNO ADDRESS
OLD VALLI
LAND
330500 , 'A86100
BLOO$,
3381001
.024200
586900
TOTAL
923400
10/3/91
NIW VALUE
CASSAN JAMES 1' +D(1RIS 0
PI) BOX 63420
SEATrLE UA
YOU HAVE .UNtW'
TU r APP0AI: iMI s,;':AL
' h�I : i ' 1. �•.
•
w m.r .Me IOW" •, •
1'l 1 AS1 111 1 1 11 TO PA I141'
NUM111, 11 WHI.N IN41111tl•(3
•
EPt S ' �� ;
A.; . .
■
A R c
PRESORTED
FIRST Cues MAIL.
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
SEATTLE, WA
PERMIT NO. 113
4090
055005
911188
05
11 tm . v v a- 1 . V 1
15446
BEL -RED RD.
SUITE 410
REDMOND
WASHINGTON
98052
(206) 881 -8117
September 27, 1991
Ms. Ann Siegenthaler
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Permit Application #91 -317 - Revised Valuation
Dear Ann:
After discussions with you and with Shelly, I have prepared
the information for a revised valuation for the canopy being
reviewed under this application. Based on the construction cost
of $29084.00, this work now falls below the 10% of project
valuation threshold and should not need to go through the
Design Review process.
Please let me know if this concurs with your understanding
so that the permit review process can be completed. Thanks for
your help in resolving this question.
Sincerely,
Merrick D. Lentz AIA
cc: Dollar Development
•
OCT 011991
Y CM- TuMlVILA
PLANNING DEPT.
MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT "
(206) 881 -8117
September 27, 1991
Mr. Duane Griffin
Building Official
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Permit Application #91 -317 - Revi'sed Valuation
Dear Mr. Griffin:
This permit was originally submitted with two separate canopy
structures. During the discussions regarding allowable area
increases needed to allow the entrance canopy, it became
necessary to eliminate the canopy over the gas island. This
action was taken several weeks ago in a letter to Mr. Ken
Nelson of the Plans Examination staff.
It appears that the valuation of the revised condition has not
yet been adjusted. I am enclosing a copy of the contract to
install the canopy structure at the entrance. Costs in addition
to the erection include the concrete footings and the cost of
the rolled roof decking. The total costs are as follows:
Total $29084.00
Please revise the valuation for this project according to the
data provided. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
L ick D. Lent
Structure Erection
Concrete Foundations
Rolled Roof Decking'
15446
BEL -RED RD.
SUITE 410
cc: Dollar Development
REDMOND Ann 'Siegehthaler - Planner
WASHINGTON
98052
$24839.00
1500.00
2745.00
DATE: June 6, 1991
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
Exclusions:
PO ER
GUARANTOR
UR
Mr. James Caesar:
BES T WOR TH -R OMMEI
2192( N.E. 150th, Woodinville, WA's 98072
2460 - 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer island, WA 98040
BESTWFtI * 145KL
PROPOSAL / CONTRACT
Data
Dollar Rent -A -Car
2460 - 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
CONTRACT MR
160th & Pacific Hw .
Seattle, WA
RESTWORTH ROMMEL INC. appre'c.i.tes the opportunity to provide th s quote on your Construction
project. If this quote is acceptable, your signature be2ow will create our contractual
agreement and A security interest in the item fabricated.
For the sum of $ 24, 839.00 , plus W. S. S.T. (Unlcu a Rorie Certificate is provided) , NO propose to provide the
items described herein according to the following specifications:
45' x 61' (2) Column Custom Canopy
Structural engineering and calculations are to be submitted for
approval before proceeding.
Furnish and install structural members as required on approved
drawings.
Furnish only, anchor bolts.
Installation of .rolled roof deck. Deck order is to be placed by
Bestworth - Rommel, Inc. Material and freight charges will be paid
by Dollar Development Co.
Furnish and install 3' diameter galvanized spiral corrugated
culvert pipe around the (2) columns.
All concrete work, all electrical work and fixtures, .r er'm
.and .
Any changes to the above must be evidenced by wn}tem chAnge order and signed by purchaser and AF,SflVORT7f- RQditfF.l,,INC,
TERMS: Balance in full to be paid within thirty (30) days after completion of
installation.
Late charges of 1!% per month to accrue on all balances more than thirty (30)
days after date of invoice.
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPEARINQ THE REVERSE HEM" ARE PART OF THU AGREEMENT.
Thc price gnot•d in David upon the job site being graded level, with no ditches or obstructions, and has adequate room for our crews and equipment to maneuver and l crfonu their work
in one contimous operation. ncviatinni will significantly impact the price. _. . „
Each structure pro,toced is unique to the alto for which it is designed and cannot be reused or resold. In the event of cancellation, the full cost of any engineering. fabrication or erection
which has begun will be paid, including labor And materials.
Receipt of this signed contract will begin the engineering and fabrication. The standard lead time required front contract to erection is five wceka. Please make allowance In your
scheduling. In ev�st {hat AF,STWORTH•ROND1EL,T C. commences legal action to enforce the terms of this agreement, the purchaser agrece to pay all ;oats, and attorney's
fete incurred. Cy .tf I'S i..RTII- ROM�lEL,1NC. Venue for : legal action shall be King County, WA.
BESTWORTH- ROMMEF1, INC
(206) 481 -2656 FAX#(206) 668 -6434
Authorized Signature /Title /Date Authorized Signature /Tit1Q /Date
September 27, 1991
Mx. Duane Griffin
Building Official
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Permit Application #91 -317 - Revised Valuation
Dear Mr. Griffin:
This permit was originally submitted with two separate canopy
structures. During the discussions regarding allowable area
increases needed to allow the entrance canopy, it became
necessary to eliminate the canopy over the gas island. This
action was taken several weeks ago in a letter to Mr. Ken
Nelson of the Plans Examination staff.
It appears that the valuation of the revised condition has not
yet been adjusted. I am enclosing a copy of the contract to
install the canopy structure at the entrance. Costs in addition
to the erection include the concrete footings and the cost of
the rolled roof decking. The total costs are as follows:
Please revise the valuation for this project according to the
data provided. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
15446 errick D. Lett AIA
BEL -RED RD.
SUITE 410
cc: Dollar Development
Structure Erection
Concrete Foundations
Rolled Roof Decking
REDMOND Ann Siegenthaler - Planner
WASHINGTON
98052
(206) 881 -8117
Total
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
$24839.00
1500.00
2745.00
$29084.00
_l___
[(main
0
DATE: June 6, 1991
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
REST WORTHY- ROMMEI4, INC.
219i. N.E. 150th, Woodinville, WAS 98072
Mr. James; Canaan
2460 - 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
BESTWORTH- ROMMEL,INC. apprec ates the opportunity to provide th s quote on your Construction
project. If this quote is acceptable, your signature below will create our contractual
agreement and a security interest in the item fabricated.
For the sum of $ 24, 839.00 , plus W . S. S.T. (Unlcu a Resale Certificate is provided), we propose to provide the
items described herein according to the following specifications:
45' x 61' -(2) Column. Custom Canopy
Structural engineering and calculations are to be submitted for
approval before proceeding.
Furnish and install structural members as required on approved
drawings.
Furnish only, anchor bolts.
Installation of rolled roof deck. Deck order is to be placed by
Bestworth- Rommel, Inc. Material and freight charges will be paid
by Dollar Development Co.
Furnish and install 3' diameter galvanized spiral corrugated
culvert pipe around the (2) columns.
Exclusions:
All concrete work, all electrical work and fixtures, •ate - - ermi.ts_-
.an'd 'i rl s 5 tt'15r1 s .
Any changes to the ab,ne must be evidenced by wr>7ten change order and signed by purchaser and RgSfl OR77I- R0MMFT,,TNC,
TERMS: Balance in full to be paid within thirty (30) days after completion of
installation.
Late charges of Iii% per month to accrue on all balances more than thirty (30)
days after date . of invoice.
THE TERM$ AND CONDITIONS APPEARING ON THE REVERSE HEREOF ARE PART OF THI¢ AGREEMENT.
The price quoted in bare upon the job site being graded level, with no ditches or obstructions, and has adequate tom for our crews and equipment to maneuver and perform their work
in one continuous apctstion. flcviatinns will significantly impact the price.
Each structure produced is unique to the site for which it is designed and cannot be reused or resold. In the event of cancellation, the full coot of any engineering, fahricalinn or erection
which has begun wilt be paid, including labor and materials.
Receipt of this signed contract will begin the engineering and fabrication. The standard lead time required from contract to erection Is five wceka. Pk,tse make allowance lra your
scheduling. In ev• }fat BEST WORTB•R0\MQ;L,TNC. commences legal action to enforce the tents of this agreement, the purchaser agree, W pay all :pits, and attorney's
fees incurred 6v fft : 1'S t)RTII - . IEL,TNC. Venue for fety legal action shall be icing County, WA.
PU ER
Authorized Signature /Title /Date
GUARANTOR
Date
BESTWRI *145KL
PROPOSAL / CONTRACT
Dollar Rent -A -Car
2460 - 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
CONTRACT h1314
8 SIT
160th Cr Pacific Hw .
Seattle, WA
R,ESTWORTH- ROMMEf, INC.
(206) 481 -2656 FAX#(206) 668 -6434
Authorized Signature /Title /Date
/ � C
ISSUE:
BACKGROUND:
' /1
P x
2l Q� r; 4OZ bit
TO: Rick
FROM: Ann (and the other planners)
RE:
-s/acivet-
NDUM
fd eoI. 6 t n � _ �
a&z.Q, e7i G� l
BAR REVIEW OF CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT
(Dollar Development permit applications)
DATE: September 11, 1991
* value based on estimates of exterior or building structural work only.
If a development proposal is submitted as a series of individual but
related permit applications which are each exempt from BAR, but
together exceed the segments the threshold for BAR review, can we
require BAR review of the entire development?
The BAR value threshold is, in this case, $33,800 (10% of existing
building's assessed value) (See attached TMC 18.60). Two of the
permits are below the value threshold. The third application will
automatically require BAR review.
In other words, if BAR review is not required for separate
development stages, could it still be required for the end product of
these stages?
This question has been raised by the permit activity for the Dollar
Development site at 15858 Pacific Highway South. Dollar has
submitted three permit applications, two of which have been issued,
as follows:
Permit Work Value Appl. date Permit issue
R= ##6403_ : T.I . & :landscaping _____ ._._$10- ,_000 *__..__.1.1L8/90 ___..__r 1/18/9 - tri. `J , MhAar
#6663 Site improvements ' $20,000* 4/11/91 7/1/91., C e ZoS� o�)
r"
#91 -317 Canopies 885 7/29/91 -- pending --
, 21/60
TOTAL VALUE OF EXT. WORK: $96,885
1.
•E cc,S / 2 .
A; oui
yON' ()sr per,,
Thanks.
Memo R. Beeler
BAR Review /Dollar Development, 9 /11/91
Page 2
Attachments: Permit application copies
BAR requirements (TMC 18.60)
cc: Jack
Building permit file
Given that the total value of these exterior improvements exceeds the
BAR threshold, and that the related permit applications were
submitted within 3 -5 months of each other (or all within one year)
Should Dollar have gone through Design Review for C
all exterior work? ` 4 4 ' � f . •
If BAR review is required for the "cumulative" t' �
effect of separate development stages, how can we
provide for this in building permit review process?
rc4P.
P P -tom
lease let the planning staff know your decision. We need to send
Dollar a letter regarding design review for their latest application,
and should let them know then if there are any other design review
issues.
Sections:
18.60.010
18.60.020
18.60.030
18.60.040
18.60.050
18.60.060
18.60.070
Chapter 18.60
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
18(7
Purpose and objectives.
Membership.
Scope of authority.
Application requirements.
Review guidelines.
Special review guidelines for Interurban
special review area.
Action by board of architectural review.
18.60:010 Purpose and objectives. It is the purpose
of this chapter to provide for the review by public officials
of land development and building design in order to promote
the public health, safety and welfare. Specifically, the
board of architectural review ( "BAR ") shall encourage well
designed developments that are creative and harmonious with
the natural and manmade environments. (Ord. 1247 S1(part),
1982) .
18.60.020 Membership. The board of architectural review
shall consist of the members of the planning commission. The
officers of the planning commission shall also sit as officers
of the board of architectural review. (Ord. 1247 S1(part),
1982).
18.60.030 Scope of authority. (1) The rules and
regulations of the board of architectural review shall be the
same as those stated for the planning commission in the bylaws
of the Tukwila planning commission. The board shall have the
authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny all .
plans submitted to it using guidelines in Section 18.60.050.
(2) The board of architectural review shal], review pro-
posed development plans for the following described land use
actions:
All developments will be subject to design re-
view w the following exceptions:
( i) Developments in RA and R1 districts,
( ii) Developments less than ten thousand gross
square feet of building area in PO, Cl, C2, CP and CM dis-
tricts, except when within three hundred feet of residential
districts or within two hundred feet of the Green /Duwamish
River or that require a shoreline permit,
(iii) Developments in M1 and M2 districts except
when within three hundred feet of residential districts or
within two hundred feet of the Green / Duwamish River or that
require a shoreline permit;
307 (Tukwila 6/89)
18 .040--18.60.050
Any exterior repair, reconstruction, cosmetic
alte ions, or improvements, the cost of which equals or
exceeds ten percent of the building's assessed valuation, of
any existing commercial development in excess of ten thousand
gross square feet in building floor area in PO, Cl, C2, CP
and CM zoning districts. (Ord. 1497 52, 1989; Ord. 1481
§2(J), 1988; Ord. 1452 §1, 1908; Ord. 1447 Si, 1988; Ord.
1247 51 (part) , 1982) .
18.60.040 Application requirements': Applications for
review by the board of architectural review must be submitted
to the planning department at least two weeks prior to the
meeting of the board of architectural review.
Building permits shall not be granted until approval of
plans by the BAR. All applications shall be accompanied by a
filing fee as required in Chapter 18.88 and shall include but
are not limited to site plans, exterior building elevations,
the environmental checklist if applicable, and other materials
as required by the planning department. (Ord. 1247 §1(part),
1982) .
18.60.050 Review guidelines. In reviewing any applica-
tion, the following guidelines h
sall be us L- he BAR in R
its decision making: --
(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.
(2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area.
(A) Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encour-
aged;
(B) Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining
properties should be provided;
(C) Public buildings and structures should be con-
sistent with the established neighborhood character;
(D) Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circula-
tion 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;
(3) Landscape and Site Treatment.
308 (Tukwila 6/89)
Fire Department Review
Control Number #91 -317
(513)
Re: Dollar Development - 15858 Pacific Highway South
Dear Sir:
The attached set of building plans have been reviewed by
The Fire Prevention Bureau and are acceptable with the
following concerns:
1. Maintain sprinkler protection for all enclosed areas.
(NFPA 13, 4- 1.1.1) (UFC 10.302)
Extend sprinkler coverage to include all canopies,
entryways, foyers, etc. which are completely or
partially constructed of combustible materials. (UFC
10.301).(Canopies which are an exposure to other
buildings must be protected where the building requires
sprinkler protection.)
2. All required occupancy separations, area separation
walls, and draft -stop partitions shall be maintained and
shall be properly repaired, restored or replaced when
damaged, altered, breached, penetrated, removed or
improperly installed. (UFC 10.401)
Yours truly,
City gf Tukwila
FIRE DEPARTMENT
444 Andover Park East
Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661
(206) 575 -4404
cc: T.D.F. file
ncd
The Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
August 28, 1991
August 23, 1991
Sincerely,
airy Metsker
/ad
Mr. Ken Nelson
Plans Examiner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Conversation of 8/23/91 (ie: canopy construction)
We have decided to eliminate the service island canopy cover.
Attached are the calculations for the changes in allowable area of
building. Please let us know as soon as our permit is ready to
issue.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
DOLLAR'
DE CO.
Pacific Northwest Headquarters
2460 76th. Avenue S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 236 -2439
Two side separation calculation:
1 1/4% per foot of setback beyond 20'
Setback on South 32'
Setback on West 40'
Area increase 32'- 20' =12' X 1 1/4% = 15% Allowable Area
Increase
Allowable area 8000 SF X 1.15 = 9200 SF Allowable.
Increase for sprinklering 9200SF X 3 = 27600 Allowable Buidling
Area
Actual Building Area: 23900 BLDG.
2700 Entry Canopy
TOTAL 26600 SF
RECEIVED
CITY OF.TUKWILA
Auu 2 3 W` 31
PERMIT CENTER
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTIICENTER (BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 08188
August 15, 1991
Barry Metsker
Dollar Development
2460 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
RE: Dollar Development, Inc.
Plan check number 91 -317
Dear Mr. Metsker:
After reviewing the proposed plans and other related records on
this project, it has been determined that the construction of
these canopies as proposed will cause the square footage of
allowable area to be over that allowed by UBC Chapter 5.
The permit process for this construction may not continue until
this problem is resolved
Please confirm you have received these comments by contacting
this office and /or submit revisions within ten working days.
Fill free to call me if there are any questions, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. at 431 -3670.
Sincerely,
Ken Nelsen
`Plans Examiner
X123 BARRY w,k 3wiM,T LaiTTalt o r
'(W1S101.1 Zb IRA MIAMI GAS ZS1.AVLa CAUttw •
PRONE 11 (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDuscn, Mayor
I B 1
o £02 j .— I
ObS'8
1
1
1
,
1
G
'
'Le/
01 22/ 01'2
_ z 1
2r/
v Isf
I
•
7
on
n on c i 2124
0172/ 1 01
Ob S12
1
1
1
I
—
1610
I 1
an
2£ to
O61'62
0
8ti
ors ' az 01
. r.s.
. OPOP/
I
I
1
I
29
2c k
iri zi
I =
MI
z
I,
\-°-',.;
N-
ST 1 ' W 01
00 sze
0
_
r
alt Tt g£:
1
1
r op.s72
(0
OP19/2
-
- 270 .
zri 1 01.-C*1
sr Icy
v lv
..1
2£
"
/ =N..
• c/
a.) 'MN •
2
0
OP . .91 2
•Ull
LE ,
loll
#
,
Ot.....922
GI ?I' rn
L , 1. 11 f
I . 1.. •%1
- ...,1
1 -4-- --7- -g -
ow
s oz2ct
-- —
-:'_*
.2 £2/5 I L2
sr/ t
en
I I ill
2£
1 607£ .1
11
II I's
N or. S12
21
1.2 %
V I I
,, o
cp iv,: • .
,r.f7A I
N aC3 I
= z v /. - /.?/. 1 od
% a co
. r.s.
,
1 2E
uz ,
0' 0?
iri zi
01 221 ; 01?
/
• 2
- LUC
n
_
UP
•
r
alt Tt g£:
1
1
I
: 1 1:1 OZZE
(4 0 '
I
% 0113E c a
Ot'LC
N •
1
Ol'P2/ 1 01271
I
I mi i
EO2 1 .-- 4" I ifi oa
09 1 01 OQ
00e
scup
99 o.91
C2'992
Desii
09 t
w
• e
ssa tJ
1r 5
/rue
r 09
1 0
op Zie
- iz 1 09
I fj , „'„;
0
N
• al•••■••••••■ •
..74, 47fro,
a
gzrc
atc
.-s
C9
.o
34V
H1171
•••
iD
trtig
• L2
CO
,., I I
OP T
0
(13
soap
"--- - - - - - - --
\ \ VI
ir`•
't 0 4
1 '' 1/6 ':,ti (V
: ';;....-,-:,...• ......efr • :rd' ob:Ear
1 1
,..c) r p 1 z , 01 ot-79-4---r s9 9 01
.......' I 9 ti
' i . ' ..‘11Ca I •
tS )
LS t. c. 1
1 s'i
,...._
° 9 0
772-^1-7"-(1F 0
09/
- c ?. GC t.CED P•1 ,•-)
Cr)
— — -- . t?;:iirn...- ( \I
1:1 Uzi
r--
_al. ..
OP'S
0[19/fr SI199 p 79
9
1 I 1
E ft Eri b-
.
I - I f
- -
QLLI1 09 IS9 '99 I S 9
Co,
c0
r.
52/ 0 Vii - qvi
I 00
.....2 a 2 £ • , R 1 S Z £'-`-i
?.‘,• =I
::0 15-rra" : 1;P: : i ll
1 --,e I , r,
0.1
.5? 1 91.9 ,h......._
a
1 I
-si V2Zi
S2/ 07
0.0 * 1 09 i 09 5999 1
N ',21 rn 1 -I n:
.r.
1 .1... - .1
-1 Ze Z ; i n
, ,
PT 99 99 S12 (i9
• • •■■■, • INNIIMOM • •••■
9S
1.£ Z
N,
(N.I
SW
Ot'LC
N •
• e7sa
. i s, LC Tt
—
q
1
LE ,
2
EZLE 01
N
172
LS
-:'_*
.2 £2/5 I L2
sr/ t
c0
SP/
a p
u.
11
II I's
N or. S12
21
1.2 %
•.- - =•44.7.
I I
__I-I
+. /2
Oa 03 a
I tx/A
is/ ..-.1.-.:
al
.........-........
LC Jc:?
r
OPSI 2
0 S`li CT CT
011.91? •••• N
ZOLt (; a IS :2
sat 1 Of"
OP ST/ 1
1 I L I
6SP£ i
I. I'
i ok Ste
co
fn
0
= i t7£
1 \ Lt
1
- Z SVC
cn 0 -
afr so z fr v.:
N
(ID Cr) 0
1 o si oc.
. .,.,
•
In rn
op Si 2
..z -
1 51 I OP 52
,t, 1
rt .4.%
1 I r •
-t • I +I'
.4---_-___Dr-r-
161bV
— — -0S'1?
v c n
aoszz
a
+ 1 az z e/
RAIVC IN I ca N (0 r
Cr) 1 Zit£ n
1 50 ‘ C:0 -1- 1 ---
__ _ _
1
) Fs -s- 1 — m 1
CZ '21"/ I OC z 4 / oval? 1 56/
00e
scup
99 o.91
C2'992
Desii
09 t
w
• e
ssa tJ
1r 5
/rue
r 09
1 0
op Zie
- iz 1 09
I fj , „'„;
0
N
• al•••■••••••■ •
..74, 47fro,
a
gzrc
atc
.-s
C9
.o
34V
H1171
•••
iD
trtig
• L2
CO
,., I I
OP T
0
(13
soap
"--- - - - - - - --
\ \ VI
ir`•
't 0 4
1 '' 1/6 ':,ti (V
: ';;....-,-:,...• ......efr • :rd' ob:Ear
1 1
,..c) r p 1 z , 01 ot-79-4---r s9 9 01
.......' I 9 ti
' i . ' ..‘11Ca I •
tS )
LS t. c. 1
1 s'i
,...._
° 9 0
772-^1-7"-(1F 0
09/
- c ?. GC t.CED P•1 ,•-)
Cr)
— — -- . t?;:iirn...- ( \I
1:1 Uzi
r--
_al. ..
OP'S
0[19/fr SI199 p 79
9
1 I 1
E ft Eri b-
.
I - I f
- -
QLLI1 09 IS9 '99 I S 9
Co,
c0
r.
52/ 0 Vii - qvi
I 00
.....2 a 2 £ • , R 1 S Z £'-`-i
?.‘,• =I
::0 15-rra" : 1;P: : i ll
1 --,e I , r,
0.1
.5? 1 91.9 ,h......._
a
1 I
-si V2Zi
S2/ 07
0.0 * 1 09 i 09 5999 1
N ',21 rn 1 -I n:
.r.
1 .1... - .1
-1 Ze Z ; i n
, ,
PT 99 99 S12 (i9
• • •■■■, • INNIIMOM • •••■
TO: Dollar Development
FROM: Ron Cameron
DATE: June 28, 1991
RE: Release of Building Permit
Per Letter from Don Monohan, City of SeaTac
After receiving his fax letter tomorrow morning, the Metsker Dollar
building permits can be released. His conditions will be:
1. Part of Pacific Highway, South 160th Street drains through site;
a hold harmless is to be provided for SeaTac prior to C of O.
2. Metsker Building sidewalk, an easement for the sidewalk is to
be given to SeaTac prior to C of O. The property will be /is in
Tukwila, easement to SeaTac as part of street and is their
responsibility.
3. Copy, of. SeaTac `driveway ;permit will be provided in a,week or s
Metsker has provided a $10 K cash "bond" for, SeaTac. permit, ,
.:....:...
revisions including.. driveway.
Don's letter to Metsker provides for drain hold harmless and easement
prior to C of 0 by accepting building permit and . agree to.
RC /amc:B7:Dollar
1&,(
■(—e,t0-4(--1- se. 05*
July 29, 1991
Philp Fraser
Senior Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
- 6200 Southcenter Blvd.
• Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Dollar Development - Street Improvement Permit.
'Dear Mr. Fraser:
". Pursuant to your April 29, 1991 letter, I have provided the following relating to your
approval and issuence of the street improvement permit:
PP
WSDOT: We have received approval from Robert T. Eichelsdoeifer,
° Developer Reviewer, Developer Services Section. Phone No. 562 -4297. The
± �: project approximately on ect was reviewed with Robert a roximatel April 18, 1991. His only
��: ""c.. Pri
concern were to maintain their asphalt spec and 42.50 feet from center lane o
‘.:,.Pacific Hwy South to curbing and gutter. Both of which we have included in our
scope of work.
Mi r O: We have reviewed the project with Doug Johnson, Transmit Planner.
Phone No: 684 -1597. We have received Metro's private property use permit and
g and foundation plan for the bus shelter.
•
SEATAC: Plan was submitted approximately June 25, 1991 to Donald
6'1VI onaghan, Transportation Supervisor. Phone No: 878 -9100. Approvaihas
-1 <given •.
. ` e included six (6) sets of our proposed channelization plans, pages C -1 & C -2.
z any additional information relating to the issuence regarding the above permit,
tact me at 236 -2439.
D�LLA
DEVELOPMENT CO.
Pacific Northwest Headquarters
2460 76th. Avenue S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 236-2439
RECEIVED
JUL 30 1991
PUBLIC WOR
Dear Ron:
CIT OF SEATAC
19215 - 28th Avenue South - SeaTac, Washington 98188 - (206) 878 -9100 - FAX (206) 878-9416
Public Works
Bruce Rayburn, P. E., Director RECEIVED
June 28, 1991
JUL 1 01991
Ron Cameron TUKWiLA
City Engineer PUBLIC WORKS
6300 South Center Blvd
STE 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Dollar Development, Inc. Project at 15858 International Blvd
A permit is on the verge of being issued for the off -site
improvements which are required by the City of SeaTac in
conjunction with the above referenced project. The applicant /owner
has posted a bond in the amount of $10,200 as collateral to insure
the permitting and installation of the required off -site
improvements. This project is in the City of Tukwila, but the
streets bordering it are in the City of SeaTac.
The roadway drainage from the streets adjacent to the project
enters into a privately owned and maintained drainage system on the
applicants /owners property. The City of Tukwila does not wish, at
this time, to assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities
for this private drainage system. The City of SeaTac therefore
requires that the applicant /owner of the property hold the City of
SeaTac harmless from any and all damage resulting from the
discharge of drainage from the public drainage system into the
applicants /owners private storm drainage system.
Also, the proposed sidewalk. on S 160th Street is partially in the
public right -of -way and partially on private property. To avoid
complex jurisdictional issues, it has been agreed that the
applicant /property owner shall grant to the City of SeaTac an
easement for that portion of the proposed sidewalk on private
property adjacent to S 160th Street.
The applicant /property owner has agreed to provide to the City of
SeaTac a City approved storm drainage hold harmless agreement and
an easement for that portion of the proposed sidewalk to be
installed on their property adjacent to S 160th Street.
Both of these documents properly executed by the applicant /owner
shall be submitted to the City of SeaTac prior to the City of
SeaTac issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
A copy of the applicants /owners letter agreeing
is attached for your information.
Basedrupon above, ..,,.I concur; with the City of
building : permit for this
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further,
please advise.
Very Truly Yours,
Donald G. M onaghan,
Transportation Supervisor
to these conditions
Tukwila •issuing the'
Ron Cameron
City Engineer
6300 South Center Blvd
STE 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: D.O11ar €Developm nt., Inc. Project at 15858 International Blvd
Dear Ron:
A permit she, ,sen_issued f o r t he off -site ,°improvsmsnte which are
required by the City of SiaTao in Conjunction with the above .
referenced project.. This project is in the City of Tukwila, but
;that - streets ; bordering < it ;are in , the .. City BeaTsa
since the roadway drainage is discharged to the on -site storm
drainage system, it it necessary that the property owner provide,
and the City of Tukwila accept, an easement for the on -site storm
drainage conveyance system. If you are not willing to accept this
responsibility, the City of seaTac will require a hold harmless
from any and all damage resulting from the discharge of drainage
from the public drainage system into the property owners private
storm drainage system.
Also, between the two of us, we need to get an easement or
dedication for the additional right -of -way necessary on S. 160th
Street for the construction of the sidewalk.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter further,
please advise.
Very Truly Yours,
Donald G. Monaghan, P.S.
Transportation Supervisor
S C 5996 L6, 90Z *9 Lti68L890Z : WVOZ; L l : 16 -9Z -9 1 oq_LeBF .40 Wn, 0 11i�sc
■
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUli WIL.4, WASHINGTON
April 29, 1991
Berry Metsker
Dollar Development
2460 76th Ave. S.E.
Mercer Island, Wa. 98040
RE: Dollar Develo.ment - Sit
Dear Sir:
Public Works Department has
plan for the roadway and
following comments and condi
prior to beginning the si
following permits and mee
environmental process is
resulting from findings
retroactively. Call Denise
have the following permits p
1. Sidewalk Channelization
(Permit Fee = $25.00)
Per our review of your A
determined to be require
Ordinance.
Approval of the final ch
through WSDOT, SeaTac, M
'1 . this permit for construc
associated storm drainag
••'street section shall be
widening and sidewalks f
Pitthe completion of channel
) evelopment shall provide th
�o k. Tukwila (that portion i
;eaTac) for acceptance of p
.nthe turnover documents wi
4 A.
8188
DEVELOPMENT
FILE
PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gory L. VnnDuscn. Mop?.
Plan A••roval at 15858 Pac H
reviewed and approves the subject site
tility site plan improvements per the
ions:
e work the developer shall obtain the
the following conditions. As the
ncomplete, changes to site conditions
of environment shall also apply
llard, Permit Coordinator at 431 -3672 to
epared for pickup:
Street Im•rovement Permit
ril 3, 1991 letter, sidewalks were
per the City of Tukwila's Sidewalk
nnelization plan shall be secured'
tro and Tukwila prior to issuance of
ion of sidewalks, street widening and
and utility relocations. A typical
dentified for your proposed street
r Pac Highway /South 160th Street.
zation street improvement work, the
following documents for turnover
Tukwila) and SeaTac (that portion in
oposed public infrastructure. Included
1 be the following:
Letter from the Develo•er's representative requesting turnover
of proposed public fac'lities within the City of Tukwila
addressed to the Publi• Works Director, attention Phil Fraser.
(A like letter to SeaT -c for proposed public infrastructure
turnovers to the City •f SeaTac is appropriate).
.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
As -built plans.
Bill of Sale.
Sign -off permits for appropriate facilities per public
standards from City of SeaTac and City of Tukwila and WSDOT
approval of as- builts.
List of materials.
Right -of- way /easements executed by property owner, unrecorded,
with signatory for acceptance of right -of -way and easements by
the Mayor, City Clerk and City Attorney.
One year Maintenance Bond for proposed public facilities
as part of this turnover dated from commencement from date
of letter and request for acceptance by the City.
These documents shall be provided prior for request for C of 0
by the development. Please note that the Tukwila Mayor /City
Council is the sole authority for acceptance of easements
and proposed public infrastructure improvements.
LA/404i
•2. Storm Drain Permit (Permit Fee = $25.00)
A new manhole structure shall be provided at intersection of
existing 30" pipe and new 8" storm.
3. Landscape Irrigation Permit (Permit Fee = $25.00) --
Four (4) sets of Landscape Irrigation Plans shall be provided via
the Permit Coordinator for City review prior to issuance of this
permit. On plan please identify the irrigation system, coverage
and deduct meter (if appropriate), and DSHS approved backflow
prevention device.
Also, the applicant is referred to the City of SeaTac for
appropriate approvals and street use /curb.cut /access permits, for all
public infrastructure and roadway improvements in South 160th Street
and Pac Highway South located within the City of SeaTac.
Please complete the enclosed copy of the Non - Residential Sewer Use
Certification, return a copy to Val Vue Sewer District and forward a
copy to Metro. Metro will use this - information to determine
late - comers charges for this development.
The applicant is referred to Water District # 125 and Val Vue Sewer
District for appropriate approvals /permits for sewer and water
systems. The applicant is referred to other City departments with
regards for approvals for fire, planning and building requirements.
And finally the applicant is referred to Metro with respect to Metro
bus shelter which will be placed in private property by easement and
other Metro design criteria.
The channelization plan shall be based on the enclosed April 5, 1991
letter from WSDOT and other requirements of WSDOT through their
RIVERTON ,
FOSTER ,
• THORNDYKE •
ANNEXATION ATLAS
LA (e1
Wif
0.47 At.
1.32 Ac.
8
STERLING
THEATRES CO.
1.00 Ac.
RIVERTON
EIGHTS PRE58. CHURCH
Ix
73.2J
r.L 2s
0.60At.
"lsioistrm sr.
rtr4
.A
/.7
•
•
ett°14 4e
lu
1080 Ac
BOWLING ALLEY
4 RESTAURANT
4CC
S
• STERLING THEATRES CO.
e0/ /7 /S
•aT RLIN• „THEATRES CO.
3.26 Ac..
•
STERLING' THEATRES CO.
181 Ac.
1 ill 7t /7
% • \� STERLING THEATRES CO
, 1.85 Ac.
\ �'0 \
(PARKING) � • � ''; •
\ \ r o \
•
7
20
8
5
17
/OS.111.11111111/in - ■WWENS
• THIS MAP IS SMALLER SCALE FOR CLARITY .
PROGRESSIVE CO.
1.58 Ac..
T.L. 27
PROGRESSIVE CO. e
1.48 Ac
/647H
June 21, 1991
Dear Mr. Metsker:
Canopies:
Exterior bldg.
improvements:
Gas pumps:
Car wash:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
Mr. Barry Metsker
DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT
2460 76th Avenue S.E.
Mercer Island, WA 98040
RE: Building Permit Application #91 -149
($20,000)
$20,000
($20,000)
($ 5,000)
$20,000
PHONE # (206) 433.1800
not included in this permit
Total value work this permit
Cary D VanDusen, Mayor
Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to clarify your proposal for .
the new Dollar Development site. The following is a summary of our
understanding of the status of the proposal.
Originally, it appeared that the proposed exterior work would require
Design Review under the Tukwila Zoning Code. Based on information
you had provided, Design Review was required because the value of the
proposed exterior work was estimated at $60,000, which would exceed
10% ($33,000) of the existing building's value ($338,000). However,
we concluded at our meeting that the value of the proposed exterior
work would actually be less than the 10% threshold for Design Review.
This conclusion is based on your description of the work and your
cost estimates, as follows:
consists of new siding /facia only
equip. only, not "structure
equip. only, not "structure"
As the total value of exterior work included on your current building .
permit is less than $33,000, the work does not exceed the 10%
Mr. Barry Metsker
Dollar Development, 6/21/91
Page 2
threshold for Design Review. Therefore, no Design Review will be
required. The Planning Division has already r 'eviewed your proposal,
and there are no other outstanding issues under the Zoning Code.
Accordingly, Planning has approved your building permit application.
Also, I would like to clarify the issue of Design Review for future
work at the Dollar Development site. Future cosmetic or structural
alterations will require Design Review if the value of those
alterations alone, excluding any previous work, exceeds $33,000.
Thus, future construction of the canopies (at $20,000), would not
trigger Design Review.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ann Siegent)'aler
Assistant Planner
cc: File
Permit Center
1 2UE7 c-J ZoKi ik.161
• r •"1 " )e-P.-12, - , /4,6:47.4 it.teXn
Z4110 ao 4
2.4.11 s Z.r2 1s5 zea
Fizc■itrat7
A: • •
•‘.• • c'ONI: XeZ,
• • • AV)(..
Ii
IPS
.,.. c 1/41Vof4:
! •- . 04ekipi
; 1 1 ° \ 445.;
, , 1 c)
;
' ... 0 .
0
•
4,
oCCNS 7...
• . C \ 70 0 • .. •, 0 •
/ s N , C* e eviterze¢0212eG.WccifZf' .
\ (
I. Z _._ — — .
-........ - .. c-m....-t 0 ... :. --.
,,,......—'
. ,,,...
uorg:
b_ ....4211_1:7 •
LJ Filer .s-e7.1t.c.e.P
0z4:1 _to1 EL--■ -u
- 1/2.-Year-=
IL.
157
•"; t."
EI-fl
"9
1
A G 0 i• e •.7 . .
(kaf'(...C6e7C41,0:t. 02 0.0 2020
- 0 r
IKVVILA
CITY OF TUKWILA I PLANNING DEPT.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CHRNIOA D OF ARCHITEIfURAL REVIEW
DEC 18 1991 i DESIGN REVIEW
PPLICATION
Cross - Reference Files:
R STAFF: USE ONLY::
Rec eipt :Nu
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: New canopy structures; new siding
and paint for existing building;. paving and landscaping improve-
ments to existing paved lot.
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)
15858 Pacific Highway South, Tukwila, WA
Quarter: SE Section: 22 Township: 23 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
3. APPLICANT:* Name: Merrick Lentz Architect
Address. 15446 Bel -Red Road, Suite 410; Redmond, WA 98052
Phone. (206) 881 -8117
Signature: Date: December 9 , 1991
* 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.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name:
OWNER
James Cassan
Phone: (206) 236 -2439
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
Address:2460 - 76th Ave., S. E.; Mercer Island, WA 98040
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that I /we are the 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: December 9, 1991
CRITERIA
' • 'BOARD OF ARCHITECTUR gEVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICAT N 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:
TbP canopy Gfrurturps provide a transition in scale from the street
to the existing building. Landscaping at the interior of the lot,
plus perimeter landscaping and fencing, both for security and
screening, is used to moderate any impact of the existing paved area.
The location of the canopies support (l the identity of the building
entrance in a prominent position on the building, and (2) the
secondary use as a gas pump shelter in a secondary location west of
the building, and out of the main circulation corridor of the site.
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:
The existing building is appropriate in its setting, and the canopies
harmonize with the unique building design of. this and the Lewis &
Clark Recreation Center. Although the immediately surrounding areas
are lacking in landscaping, a landscaping transition is provided at
the perimeter. Traffic flow has been carefully determined to
minimize circulation conflicts while accomplishing the required purpose
of flip facility. Traffic flow from and onto public streets has been
spPnificlally controlled by signage and use.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTUR REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATI , N 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:
The existing condition of this site prior to this use was entirely
pavement, with no landscaping. Perimeter planting has been placed
alone th • . _ •
•
. -.
•
. ••
• - • • -
. • • • . • • - •
for the interior perimeter lot lines. Planting beds on the north
side of the building will be enhanced, even though they are screened
by an existing site nhsnuring fpnr.p_ She area past of the building
will be used for vehicle storage, and the 5 - foot landscaped area is
omitted in this area_ To mi t i gatp si t-e- nhsnuri ncg scrPPn i ng will hp
. •
_•• _.. _•
is added at the nrthPast nnrner and snuthPast portion of the peri-
meter to maintain the Pquivalpnt area of planting_ This allows
and PffenitivP sc p ni og, and still all nw for safe vehicular circulation
• •
• • •
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-
velo . rnents.
° ' ' BOARD OF ARCHITECTURif REVIEW
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICAT `"N
Page4
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:
The existing building is unique in its design, and visually accentuates
the use of bow trusses in its exterior appearance. The placement of
natural finish steel siding enhances the existing lines of the building,
and the use of curving transitions of the material to the building
further compliments this design. The design of the canopies was
selected to further accentuate the lines of this building. While the
purpose of both canopies is to provide shade and protection from the
elements, the sweeping, flowing design is as unique as the building.
Building colors of two tones of gray provide a subtle harmony with the
natural finish steel, and a blue accent is provided at the roofline.
Exterior lighting was selected to blend with the site and avoid
conflicting visually with the building.
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:
is the only other structure provided. A strong delineation is made
bctweer pedestrian and vehicular circulation to provide safety to
pedestrian traffic and sennrity to the property. No other accessory
t is site is strictl vehicular; a bus stop shelter
•
•
,-
MilfrirsIAMTA..12
. • • „. • . .
;■•;',
;•.*'.' i';,.-.'.'."';',':".,',,:.;::,,,:'(:';'.,:•''-•;'..•••'::'i;i'.;;:;P?::1?:i..F:'1:::.,:,,'''!!'i',,.".„,i''',..`'':.2,,.!,...,'•:;T-,..:i.liki.;:;i4,:ii•-•';t1:',!!;-:!!i'•:';',;1-•::::.;.!4.;;;+,!>!..!: ‘1:':iiii:5i.q1J,l!.',,.,',f.:4i.t'fi,
• ' .
! .
"•
R0121 Z.MP
WEST • ELEVATION
... ■
, . .
' . . " l''' ' • , .. , ...-
- .... , ' ; !,• ,.. , ., , • ^ ...i. 1■;. ,: t . 4 '.4i; - ... , 1: . ..0, . . ...;z;it;,..tti:te.;;14',t; .,...,...■...:' 4v.,...;:i.1,d,:!/,,:
.....;,..;760:..tcli E4:.; fr ' ; ;7,. ■■ ; eb,
9 " 9 :t: 4 ,;•.,,?. °gf
to Not
•
••••••••;•?.:••, : • •.• f•:• • • .•
•
•n:1"UP 011644
i t LIFT IAD
Laminfr iniumair
11111 didUlfill1111111111ii
g.,
E. -roariarr Tre sbe Fto•zre-c•
, • •
Job
OW 1 W1TP
. ". • , • •
•. • •• • ... • - .
•
• • ,.
- ;
-
•
9a3E
4QT «4
A " 1'Sr • ''::11;11
131.,rS 1.317e) e)r_ 30.4% CE)(ir
cAt-ioriee7 1 4 4 (re.011X2C,D) •
1.$1■195CAl'It 10106 (gx1071t-lt Korb' - Aso)
ityirgRV.
'ut 4i 01. (e4qvtit-IA
• _.ore.• or • WORK
FPcAurf Is A RENTAL CPC awe- rL ne-mr-Jq RECiUiKENIPt
fi).g pueLic, Acce.Y,r. taexivorp:
. , pco
• •. • • ' IN '511%44
4)(vaTit4CI Corr)
• VICIAEO Ae.FA frivic41
• ..... Y.E. et.11■CI-11 Afd
'
I.CCATIV N. 11:,* uNIE weir or i5t..t.11
LANPC. AT . TielF:e-T Peeimelri.?;,
RANiu-4.! ItLp0417-:, , rxtAsnr41 A of-Aw . •
• •• uTu.rnEs Age- exv-yrisk Aso WILL gEMAirsi LI4Mix7ip1e7 •
ot;o 5FWEA VALVOE tfwee
WA OlirrgOf 126 FgoviCE evetzkAT •cf •
..-
`.putrIevrEA CLig?tNTY LCYAral At NOIMI • EPOI'aiZT(. LINIE
WEVC of e0iLviNei. 113e TD EXiirriNCI Vit. 13Y
E)(15Tit-Z.1 i&J11..00•11`; FENC4t41 ANI.) Rill*M.Yr$, NO %gat..111■1
1 TO are DuMt.' f.C44.11%..1El) rgOM RJ61,1C... VIEW.
. e
LIGHTiniei EXIS"rinlei ANL) WILL ND"' mtv)vi ro
i WoRK. 11-k15 WeLICA
• t • ReQuiRto
0 CHAI1 LINK. ret•iGg. .SLAT:? F-1;1 6,
14`0201,E go .
To pc.' .teL.F_crop
NT LADAiIt'i If.4.g..14-1`51'11-4Lii • VX4fli'l At)
NOICATVO N MAW pfa.PAS . pLAI-k• Lec •
L%•D !SM11t UU9 fop; 5i-VN.D F-9 .A1417N"
PRuNlt../e2 LOTTO L.t.)
GoPt.fue.
M. ruv.NIVAL- O ••
1-IfxDr.e.A HtEt Verl. •
CD4G.VAL.K..
1; J I •
S.;
STATE Cf
WASH NGTON
REGISTERED
LANDSCAPE ARCROCC
1
KENherrit 1.0tiEV
CERTIFICATE NO 30
I
CY,
441‘,L,. ,1,
Art4,
d A cilAINI LINK
ftNce. (g)(ItgiNici) w
SLAT7'.
r .'
Ei/.61'. IV' cor,
SOIL. t) 1161 Atce,A Ci\LGULA 5
v•K1 Al.LOWAY;LE: Ai:EA pER - orcr., •
AKEA • i.;70(p (4) I
(561'28) '. *41/2.%ii-IcerAs5 Aunwri):
4 380o t:f
AF:EA 11600 :
1-14.11...K CYZIEPA INIC.REA:4 Se
• 3i. AU,OWAii)LE e noe.-AD , s4 1 ,f. •
SU IL) 11■16.1 AttirA t
ttilLt711 AtTro .1.31tWPAE Il.gaGob t'sF
SetiVICE. AREA 1541
or5ta. 45'14 Sr'
CAe WV:4%114:A 95 51"
MEZZANIN.15_ .11
PKOra:',VC) CAN101-'114) 3141S fdr • 1bTN 1&111..ki AK UN 23440:e
-v.frp,T,4D - s
?fr
•
•rt
•• • ; , .• •
•
• •
' . . .
'.
,..'
, .
•
•
• '• ''••••• • • ; • • •'•
. ...
• .• •
•
,,,,
•
•
24 se rmalrto2costo:LisaimaxAsunor. •
cj• oextc.73s0 f: 5°
ezo'grit:er , 3 1 .-g" r/ forz.
.f rrr 5E,6,Ti 57
071. • . .
Gurf:EF. : FG',"M?11 or The
? 4 4 F,F4A IN 1T .3617-?:11c,kle.-fFilf?17 IPE'aL1171ER.
d i=i2t■it'Vs/S 51-ALL E V IN41 . t 16 1 ( •
e •
RXIRE1)( "TI ' WITH- GTA•optial>
r.-.1><. pize'D F BC Pc
wAIT*. . • , . . • . .
: . •.
. .
rogrAnz SET
L?t ST.)
• k. -12.1H
02 •
e-per) 14.0 114-
• . 1 OIL - rri4 • :G13 - r-WI
: . 344. 5e) . • „ p.11-1 344-7 •
542. 59 • •
• ; .•
."'IZeje:•415-1:7
1 • •
aim Oen
r,"" '1•" t.
1 . rw- UP • •
Oorsoz
•
L9,14ti(gAg..4
f•47 40
// /.
: '
. ,,. . . „
1 mou_ue • .I'''=" . 4:'''' r.-- . .
• . .
1 741 e..Z.,ty ,.ea1.1c... e.
- :1P4 ..i:Itt. t...-. .e-i..e.F7'.75.1 r" •
--- -- ---- - - -- A ... IIIMMNSH
Wev ;_
FLopg:DR.SIN
144)/e - i+1 5 ek.t•/* cfrpdc.
•Nr.-; qt.1(Z•5
.• • : •;,:i •
w ; ss
- • -klo
• •
• ••
.9ciiIstflOticaprt-
•'''.
YDate
.• ,
••••••••;,••...•...:•. • , ,.„,
• •
•
• •••
••„• ,• • • „ • , ,
thr
,,,••• • •-•• •" •• • • '" • ••"•,••,••• •••••••
' • ''
�
OULIO YOfle
CHECKED;
DRAWN 1g
PRO& EMIR.
coNCTRUG Otjdt ...
: 9rANOPARV I- DC,F,g°,I`'IP
�T BZINNt Go tf CURB
REVISION
i�of"ILE;6i�D
� "
1 15'f GU{2B oM'rt - F
F>c . fiE 12 ;. L.I N E
APP'D
CONTRACT. NO
FED: AID PROD: NO. V ila .,
APPROVED
lac �yT r 'L,I
•
STc�,I- M I k 4 L_ft�l�
AL' I' .0 :.w,t) c IZ Liti
q _ �i4ST 1.0.141-R.
SU2FACIKIG :LEGEND: .. :
• 0 0:45''P,SPr-1 LTGb Jc, P/�VN C1.45S 6,
ILICLUDINGF3 lt•I ASPI -MILT • ::. :..I
O "c9 W CRJ5H0P SURF A cIN - roj' CURSE
300. ° 6R•\LO,L. PASB GLASS:. 5.
IIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIIIJIIIIIII1IIIMIM- I1IIILI1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11IIIIII1IIILIII1IIIIIII1III1II_ 1IIIIIjlµllllll11llllll1IIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIIIIII1IIII
0 umsmai 1 2 3'. �► :, S.._..6 7 1 8. 9 10 • 11 12
IIF THI MICROFILMED DOCUMENT.;IS LESS '
IF
CLEAR THAN;} THIS :NOTICE, IT ;IS DUE•:TO
OE .ez ee �z ez sz ai ez; 'zz tz TH . LITY` OF •�TH < ORIGINAL�'DOCUMENT� 6 e
_ I ► diiil1 I i I ill II I Iiii111 d iii Bill 1141141111111 hi ►�.;:
IriAfl1N1II1 �11tuili ilThatfil[Tili iII>I( i
':, i . t .
sR- 99_
Z 23 � ''` I�•Sv
wG�►T LINE:CN 1 2!''
�I$TINC.. pVIN. • > r f`-1A'T4 I4 65I`1
PAVGM Gi447l<;
MATCH k74
CONC.GU�IS , a D
(aITT'ER :sr:GTIO N
Alm:7 �:�T
IL t,:(E 1N JAD[11A
`se .'.,?::,,: ': t +, ,;.t1y•l
{ARC tT CTS ENGIN
irk ,q In
su?a
K el pp " I�,r
9 0 - #
,; • ?! '
"»;