Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L96-0010 - RAMADA INN - DESIGN REVIEW
L96 -0010 PROPOSED HOTEL DEV 4006 S. 139 ST DESIGN REVIEW -(s WI ,og C 1TI1 C/L -K- A F F I D A V I T 0 Notice of Public Hearing LI Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Packet []Board of Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda O Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other []Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on � �' C] 1/1(k1A Gt. frks 6 (cc-1-) Name of Project I/l')(IU I 0 File Number [A 9 '" 6'6 I 'y:.i:::ii:::v...:W:;:;.:• .,+ \i::v...�cir!r :.. 1uni.... svK. v... su�v. ��.' eJC. i.•. e:.. i,' r.K C:... �w..:. ruJa[ <ds;!+S..+u4ri.t��...au.....arw �Tw+LJ.ers.aL.wr.V...cay...� Signature .z = • 1-'. mow: JU o' (Dw Lux. J _ w O U-2d 1 —w i: 1- O' 1-; O • m. 4O = U` u.. 0; w z 0 ~` z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION January 24, 1997 TO: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Assessor, Acounting Division King County Building and Land Development Metro Environmental Planning Parties of Record: Wen Fan Lin Marilynn Van Hise Don and Mary Tomaso Bob and Janelle Scarber Jim Brinton Rita Casey Ellen Gengler Diane and Ted Meyers Steve and Jeri Anderson Paul and Betty Gully Ron and Nancy Lamb Chris and Faye Thibodeaux Jerry and Ed LaPlant Steve, Elizabeth and Richard Bicknell Bill and Janice Scheffler Beth and Tavo Quevedo Deborah Winship Sandra Buskirk Christina and Daniel Aragon Warren Wing Arthur Burrington Beal (Bob) and Joanne McManus Vera Locke Pamela Reiss Yvonne Euler MaryEllen Whitehead A. L. McDonald Jon Fertakis SUBJECT: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Philip Smith Philip Hemenway Dwight McLean Fred Sherman Tamra Hughs Robert Dean Frizzell Ron Guernsey Robert Priest Rand Koler Rick Sherman Elizabeth Springer Colleen McFee Cathleen Munson Bill Turner Kathy Doolin Curtis Smith Sharon Kidd Mike and Betsy Fowler Phil Linder Lanny Vickers Helen Dingle Treva Gomez Lee Loyd Cecilia Wheeler Christine Strayer Lona Sweeney Betty Baker File L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z Z e.a., u6D JU` . UO O O w O' u..< Z I-- O Z i--: w w;. DO N :w w, 1- 15 . uiz .1:_;. L96 -0010 Page 2 Notice of Decision DECISION: Design Review approval was granted for this 26,016 sf, 38 unit, 2 story hotel. LOCATION: 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA E96 -0004, BLA L96 -0006 SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Board of Architectural Review at the January 23rd public hearing. The Board voted to approve the design of the proposed hotel as presented and also adopted the findings and conclusions of the staff report dated January 13, 1997. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planners are Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace who may be contacted at 431 -3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes nothwithstanding any program of revaluation. The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, January 24, 1997. The Tukwila City Council is the administrative body which would hear any appeal of the decision. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. z F- Z: r4 J U.. 0O cn w =' N O W w Q CO = F- W =' 1.- Z 0' W U 0 O -. OF ur z O • F. z Lanny Vickers 1222745AvS Tukwila, WA 98178 Beal McManus 5610 S 133 Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee M. Loyd 13531 43 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Yvonne Euler 15220 40 S Tukwila, WA 98168 Betty Baker 11662 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Deborah Winship 4226 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Mike Fowler 3517 S 130 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Marilyn Van Hise 13708 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kathy Doolin 11828 44 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Rand Koler Broderick Bldg Penthouse 615 Second Av Seattle, WA 98104 -2203 Arthur Burrington 12244 45 Av S Tukwila, WA 98178 Treva Gomez 4504 S 124 Tukwila, WA 98178 Pamela Reiss 13531 43 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Christella Aragon 4610S 124 St Tukwila, WA 98178 Jon Fertakis 11822 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Sharon Kidd 4242 S 146 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Phil Linder 11918 Interurban Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bill Turner 13435 48 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Beth Quevedo 4420 S 156 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Janelle Scarber 13716 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Helen Dingle 4115 S 114 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Vera Locke 11810 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Cecilia Wheeler 3723 S 150 St Tukwila, WA 98168 A.L. MacDonald 4246 S 146 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Johnny Cheng 2112 Third Ave, Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 Sandra Bruskirk 15042 Macadam Rd S, #G -2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Warren Wing 11850 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bill Scheffler 1471059AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Curtis Smith 4226 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 z w' 6 JU .0 0; co o cn w w= LQt. • = c� w. I- o • z • 'O 0 H w Wf U Ni 0 Cathleen Munson 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ellen Gengler 13727 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98188 Robert Priest 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Hemenway 4036 S 128 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Paul Gully 1301742AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Jerry LaPlant 13704 42 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Christine Strayer 11830 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 K C BLDG /LAND DEV DIV SEPA INFORMATION CENTER 3600 136TH PLACE SE BELLEVUE, WA 98006 -1400 Tamra Hughs 13831 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 -4011 Ron & Nancy Lamb 4251 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Chris & Faye Thibodeaux 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Dean Frizzell 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Diane Meyers 13919 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ed LaPlant 13704 41 S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Lona Sweeney 12247 43 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEPA REVIEW SECTION PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -7703 K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ACCOUNTING DIVISION 500 4th AVE - RM 709 SEATTLE, WA 98104 Steve & Jeri Anderson 13703 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Fred Sherman 1371542AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Colleen McFee 3836 S 130 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Elizabeth Springer 13325 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 1301538AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 MaryEllen Whitehead 13335 56 S Tukwila, WA 98178 METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLNG DEPT 821 2ND AVE SEATTLE, WA 98104 z • 1H`. W 2, J o: oo coo w w' z: CO u. wO gQ Ea _• w1 z F- I- o z �. D • 01• , O H z ▪ cy o: Z' U N, O 1-1. City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Supplemental Staff Report to the BAR Prepared January 13, 1997 Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: January 23, 1997, remanded to the BAR by the City Council NOTIFICATION: Notice of Public Open House mailed December 31, 1996 Notice of Continued Public Hearing published January 10, 1997 Notice of Continued Public Hearing mailed January 10, 1997 FILE NUMBER: L96 -0010 ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA E96 -0004 BLA L96 -0006 APPLICANT: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 26,016 sf, 38 unit, 2 story hotel. LOCATION: LOT SIZE: 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA 22,320 sf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Regional Commercial SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace ATTACHMENTS: U. Set of Building Plans V. Materials Board to be presented at hearing 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z re u6o JO U O? co U; U w, w = 1- W Ot 15 U8; I-w z= I- 0 z�— IJJ D o: ;O N F 'w w. H U . H O;. l..Z N! z.... Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR FINDINGS BACKGROUND L96 -0010 Page 2 At a public hearing on August 29th the Board of Architectural Review granted design approval for this project. This BAR approval was appealed on September 20th and was scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 18th. Prior to the hearing the applicant and appellant agreed to a redesign of the project and asked the City Council to remand the project to the BAR. The Council agreed and the new design is the subject of the current BAR hearing. The current design has several major changes from the design previously approved by the Board. The building has been reduced from three to two stories by eliminating many of the common spaces and placing the majority of the guest parking underground. The number of units has been reduced from 43 to 38. The garbage collection area and loading zone have been moved to the northwest corner of the lot. Four parking spaces in the existing EconoLodge parking lot will still be used to meet the parking requirements for the new hotel and an easement for four specific spaces will have to be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit. This staff report is a supplement to the staff report dated May 15, 1996, the first update dated June 19, 1996, and the second update dated August 23, 1996. This project was vested prior to the effective date of Tukwila's 1724 ordinances so notice and process are being handled according to Tukwila's prior regulations. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN DECISION CRITERIA Hotels and motels are subject to BAR design approval according to the multi - family review guidelines, as stipulated in TMC 18.60.055. In the following discussion, the multi- family review guidelines are shown below in bold, followed by staffs comments. MULTI - FAMILY REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Site Planning. A. Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into and blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a multi - family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single family structures if that existing single family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "Low Density Residential" (detached single family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. The site, which is zoned Regional Commercial, is adjacent to a single family neighborhood zoned Low Density Residential. The difference in use and z w J U; UO co w= J I- � u.. w O. gQ rn -L.-. I- w z�. H O, Z D'. D p: OH:. ww U: 0 wz Ham! O. z... Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 3 standards between the two zoning districts results in a difference in scale between the proposed hotel and neighboring residential buildings. The hotel design responds to this adjacency by incorporating residential design elements such as a pitched roof, significant detailing, and residential scale windows. The redesign has placed the majority of the parking underground, enabling the structure to be two stories rather than three stories tall. z w B. Natural features which contribute to desirable neighborhood character shall be .6 V preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not 0 O. limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, and N significant topographic features. There are no significant natural features on the site to be preserved. w o C. The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically g pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, but not be limited to Q w ° facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to = CJ provide a desirable transition from streetscape to the building, and providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. z O A variety of landscaping including trees, shrubs and groundcover will be installed w on the southern edge of the site along South 139th Street as well as a sidewalk 2 =o with a connection to the building entrance. An overhang will shelter people from S2; the weather as they enter the office. ww D. Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using H U building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a features establish a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of LLj N high quality development. U O ~, Landscaping, flagpoles and the tower feature provide visual interest to the z pedestrian entryway. E. Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. The project will have two curb cuts, for the entrances to the underground parking lot and the parking lot along the west side of the building. F. Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. Landscaping and fencing around the perimeter of the site will be used to buffer it from rather than link it to adjacent buildings. Trees along the south and east edges of the site will provide some screening of the building from the residential area. The fence will discourage trespassing and screen the parking lot. G. Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be provided; increasing from the public right -of -way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. f? l Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 4 There is little separation between the public lobby area and the guestrooms. Parking spaces along the west side face directly into three guest rooms. H. Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas. The larger parking lot will be located underneath the building which will reduce its visibility from the street. The perimeter fencing will screen the smaller lot on the west and north sides. I. The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long -term structures. The reduction of the building's height from three to two stories brings it more into scale with the neighboring single family structures. The reduction in the number of rooms from 43 to 38 has reduced the footprint and bulk of the building and created a transition from the commercial scale of structures along Pacific Highway to the residential scale of structures to the east. 2. Building Design A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood; The redesign of the project has reduced the scale of the building to one more similar to the neighboring houses. The pitched roof is used to emphasize the modulation of the building and further reduce the scale. B. Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design /shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures which are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony required should be consistent with the non - conforming structure's anticipated permanence; See response to 1) I. C. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis shall be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure. The larger windows on the south elevation present a more commercial appearance, which is appropriate because that is the side most visible to incoming customers. There are two types of windows for the guestrooms, one for the majority of rooms and a contrasting type used for the modulated sections. This helps to emphasize the modulation and detailing. Z Hw 6 5 U O' �0. w; • w z: J I-- ..N LL, w0 • g J. D. • Via. •z . -` • 0 H' w w U u,. ~O _z O~ • Z Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L96 -0010 Page 5 D. The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. The building color scheme is muted and harmonious beige and taupe, with darker colors used on the base and as accents. E. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs, and appearance to surrounding properties. Monotony of design is avoided by the horizontal and vertical modulation of the building wall which is emphasized by the detailing and variation in roof forms. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment A. Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place; There is no significant topography or vegetation on the site. B. Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass; Landscaping will provide an attractive streetscape and help to buffer the project from adjacent uses. The site does not contain significant views or outdoor public spaces. C. Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided; Two sidewalks link the building to 139th Street, one from the main entrance and one from the front exit stair. Other sidewalks link the rear exit stair to the west parking area and that parking area to the main entrance. D. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided; Landscaping and fencing will be used to provide a buffer to adjoining properties. See response to 1(F). 4. Miscellaneous Structures. A. Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be rot•. iM TY.. z I-z 2 J U. U O' co U w` J H- N u- w 0' g u. Q' Na _ z �. 1- 0 w ~' 0 0 N., 'CI H. = -- U. z:. lii 0 z A Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 6 appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structure proportions shall be to scale; The proposed signage is integrated with the building design and meets the requirements in the sign code, with the exception of the location of the z freestanding sign. That must be moved slightly to the east so that it is set back from all property lines as far as it is tall. No additional structures are proposed for w the site. 6 JU B. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, shall be v p accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or combinations of N w w =; these. Screening shall be effective in winter and summer; N U_; w O. The garbage collection area will be located at the northwest corner of the site and 2 �. completely enclosed within a 6 foot wooden fence. g Q C. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall = d; be screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the I— _ architecture (i.e. raised parapets and fully enclosed under roof) and landscaping; Z I--` I- O'. Z Heating and cooling will be provided by individual heat pump units in the guest 11J w rooms, therefore no large mechanical equipment will be required. The only o: mechanical equipment that will be visible are vents of the heat pumps located near 0 -> the windows. w w' D. Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with u_O safety, building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded, and Z; restrained in design with no off -site glare spill over. Excessive brightness and V brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. Z The under- building parking areas will be lit to maximum allowable levels given in the Washington State Energy Code standards. Lighting fixtures will be provided in the west and south setback areas. The lighting plan required as a SEPA condition will be evaluated to ensure that the lighting will enhance the safety of the site while preventing excessive brightness on the residential side of the site. CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site The redesigned site plan provides adequate landscaping along all four sides of the site. Sidewalks provide good pedestrian circulation around the site and out to 139th Street. The two separate parking lots, one beneath the building, minimize the visual impact of parking areas. In addition four parking spaces in the existing EconoLodge lot will be needed to meet the building's parking requirements, as in the previous design. Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 7 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area The proposed building is on commercially zoned land and its height is in scale with the three story Econo Lodge to the south and the two story Washington Mechanical Contractor's building to the north. The reduction in height from three to two stories eases the transition between the commercial and residential areas. This building provides a reasonable mix of residential character and commercial scale which is appropriate for its location between a residential neighborhood and the commercial strip along Pacific Highway South. Fencing and landscaping have been used to buffer the building from its neighbors. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive streetscape and entryway to the site. The lighting plan should enhance the safety of the site without creating unnecessary brightness off -site. Locating part of the parking lot underneath the building helps to reduce its visual impact. The garbage area will be screened by a 6 foot fence. 4. Building Design There is no consistent neighborhood character in the immediate building designs. The building successfully blends the commercial and residential aspects of its design. The pitched roof, vertical modulation, residential scale windows and detailing provide visual interest and relate it to the neighborhood context. The colors chosen for the building are muted and harmonious. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture The signage proposed is integrated into the building and complies with Tukwila's sign code. The freestanding sign will have to be moved slightly so that its closest edge will be set back at least 24'6" from all property lines. No miscellaneous structures or street furniture have been proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the project as shown on the drawings dated January 6, 1997 with one condition: • The freestanding sign must be moved so that it is set back from all property lines at least as far as it is tall. z tew 6 • J U. :U O; uj W =. N uj L Q; w • •z O: jd `U p. •O CO w w; �-- U • •W •z U N. O z A F F I D A V I T KNotice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting ['Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet LJ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning. Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Official Notice Other El Other, was mailed to each of the following addresses on ��10 ojvtaA/J- CA/Ifi/QA/1/-( Name of Project File Number (Jl (D (3) Signature z w re 21 JU; Uo w o; cow; • wr w g a. cn • s0: • • •z �. w~ . uji R 1'41. ww H• :V: 0. • Z. ui z City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 13, 1997 RE: Proposed Hotel Redesign at 4006 South 139th Street Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge Motel at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to expand directly north, across S. 139th Street from the existing motel. Under the current proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new two story hotel. After the Board of Architectural Review approval of the project was appealed the applicant chose to redesign the project to address the concerns given in the appeal. The building will now be two stories tall instead of three stories and have underground parking. The redesigned project is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing on: Thursday January 23, 1997 7:00 PM Tukwila City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Sincer ly, 4,// ora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Aragon -Marin :Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Strewet Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O.Box925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M °Jr .1381337AvS • Seattle, WA 98168 { Woods Melody J 13808 38 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 3323926AvSW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 1382338AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 1384438 Av. S . . . Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 38AvS. WA 98168•' Fickle Dixie L 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 11652 4 Av S Seattle, WA 98168. Carter Clarence C Jr 4115S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 .4 Resident 1381438AvS :. Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 1386238AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 •Feuling Michael Lawrence 704 N 74 Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl 1370941AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 13716 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kessell Kelly 1371741AvS. Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S 1 . . Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168. Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #27 Tukwila, wa 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #30 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #33 Tukwila, WA 9,8168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #31 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S' 140 St, #34 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila,•WA 98168 Tenant •4020 S140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 .41_ Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #32 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #35 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #22 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 4020 S 140 St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 z ~w` oc �; J 0 00: CO o> N w', J H' LL wo J; u. <, F- 1— 0 • .0 Ds wuj: • H - LLB!, U •_� o Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020S 140 St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #7' Tukwila, WA, 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1387438 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1372141 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 4011S139St Tukwila, WA 98168 Wash. Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4012 S 140 St, #28 • Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant. 4020 S 140 St; #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 Tukwila,WA 98168 Tenant 1382038AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 1372741AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Leonard 4101 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific. Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 4. Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S.140 St, #1} Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA , 98168 Tenant 40205 140 St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tanii Beemer 1371941.AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1375141AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell, LeRoy 4110 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 z ~w 6 J U; Uo: CO • U.1 =; J CO LL . w0 co 1-w z 1-0 0�' ;o ∎ - w • H 0: lL r_-% 0; •uiz _� ; 0 z United Motors 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Hemenway 4036 S 128 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Paul Gully ; .1301742AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Ellen Gengler 13727 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98188 • Robert Priest 1372841AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 • Rand Koler Broderick Bldg Penthouse 615 Second Av Seattle, WA .98104 -2203 Cathleen Munson 13717 41 Av"S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Marilyn Van Hise 1370841AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jerry LaPlant 13704 42 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Dean Frizzell 1371741AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 • Diane Meyers 1391942AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Ron & Nancy Lamb 4251 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Chris & Faye Thibodeaux 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Janelle Scarber 1371641AvS . Tukwila, WA 98168 Tamra Hughs 1383137 Av S Tukwila, WA 981,68 -4011 Bill Turner 13435 48 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kathy Doolin 1182844AvS • • Tukwila, WA 98168 • Beth Quevedo 4420S 156 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant ti . 13921 Pacific Hy S • Tukwila, WA 98168 Ed LaPlant 13704 41 S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Elizabeth Springer a ! 13325 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 1301538AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Fred Sherman 1371542AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Colleen McFee 3836S 130 St ,Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37 Av Tukwila, WA 98168 Steve & Jeri Anderson 13703 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bill Scheffler , 1471059AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Curtis Smith 4226S139St Tukwila, WA 98168 • • • Deborah Winship 4226 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Mike Fowler 3517 S 130 St Tukwila, WA 98168 •. Lanny Viekers- . 1222745.Av S • TUlcwila, WA 98178 ;. Beal McManus 5610 S 133 Tukwila, WA 98178 • Lee M. Loyd 13531 43 Av S ' Tukwila, WA 98168 • Yvonne Euler 15220 40 Tukwila, WA 98168 Betty Baker 11662 42 Av :S Tukwila, WA 98168 • r • , Sharon Kidd 4242 S 146 St , Tukwila, WA 98168 Phil Linder 11918 Interurban Av S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Arthur Burrington 12244 45 Av S Tukwila, WA 98178 Treva Gomez 4504 S 124 • Tukwila, WA 98178 Pamela Riess ” 13531 43 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Christella Aragon 4610 S 124 St ' Tukwila, WA . 98178 Jon Fertalds 11822 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ft • ; Sandra Bruskirk 15042 Macadam Rd S, #G-2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Warren Wing 11850 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Helen Dingle 4115 S 114 St Tukwila,' WA 98168 Vera Locke 11810 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Cecilia Wheeler 3723 S 150 St Tukwila, WA 98168 A.L. MacDonald 4246 S 146 St Tukwila, WA 98168 • , . • ' . , 1 • ' t .:::•••• • .• , A F F I D A V I T 54Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet O Short Subdivision Agenda Packet ( ' a O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit El Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifi.cance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other F0g4) g 1?') �-� was mai a to each ofthe followin addresses on . q/011 4ieNt Name of Project File Number, L °`)-- ODID rtv- msnv�ym�+:tnNruu'TV r 1 z it • ~ W 6 00 w 0 U)w Wz CO O' 1- w. z � F- O; z D o' O A'4 W w, 1- V w f-. O z U N O ~; z :. PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., on January 23,1997; in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (OLD BUSINESS) CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010: Econolodge Johnny Cheng Design review approval of revised design for 38 unit hotel. 4006 S. 139th, Tukwila. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING L96 -0072 City of Tukwila Update of Subdivision Ordinance. City Wide. L96 -0064 City of Tukwila Revisions to TMC 18.56, Off - Street Parking and Loading requirements. City Wide. L96 -0061: GTE Paul Ingraham Conditional Use Permit approval to place a cellular antennae on the Doubletree Suites Hotel rooftop. 16500 Southcenter Pkwy, Tukwila. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (NEW BUSINESS) CASE NUMBER: L96 -0063: Chevron APPLICANT: Chevron /Lakha Investments Co. REQUEST: Design review approval of a 4 -bay gas station and 2,200 square foot convenience store. LOCATION: Pacific Hwy S at the corner of South 146th Street, Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times January 10, 1997 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent ti Property Owners, File. z z' UO co o. cnw w X' w O' 2 J: I w; _. Z �.. I-- O Z ;O Nl 0 H; = HU Z ■ UW O z A F F I D A V I T O Notice of Public Hearing 5;tNotice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet LI Board of Appeals Agenda Packet U Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit 0 Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action Official Notice 0 Other LI Other, was mailed to each of the following addresses 5ck Name of Pro jectteM File Number LA I D 6b1 vvteAdA;\ d..14.tl11itli:ai..6itiei%Yr' on �2�31 r'1 (7 n . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director December 30, 1996 RE: Proposed Hotel Redesign at 4006 South 139th Street Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge Motel at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to expand directly north, across S. 139th Street from the existing motel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new two story hotel. After the Board of Architectural Review approval of the project was appealed the applicant chose to redesign the project to address the concerns given in the appeal. The building will now be two stories tall instead of three stories and have underground parking. You are invited to attend an informational open house to view the redesigned project on: Thursday January 9th 6:00 to 7:30 PM Tukwila City Council Chambers 6200 Southcenter Boulevard The project architect will be there to show drawings of the proposed motel and answer any questions you may have. City planning staff will also be available to answer questions about the design review and permitting process. The project is scheduled to be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing on January 23 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. That meeting is also open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Since ly, Ci Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 f--z 2 C.) O' co O' W 2.. w o' Z Z o` C.) N; Au 0 H; V 'Z , O z U fri' O z. Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 13808 38 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 33239 26 Av SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 13844 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 13856 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Fickle Dixie L 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 11652 4 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115S139St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13814 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 13862 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Feuling Michael Lawrence 704 N 74 Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl 13709 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 1371641AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kessell Kelly 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 z • .FW J U UO ?. . N0' CO w, Wz NLLi. W o' • ¢: co a di ▪ • z�. {= o .z • W W'. moo:. U X0.52:_ W; oi w z, . o . z Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #27 Tukwila, wa 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #30 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #33 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #31 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #34 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant .4020 S 140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #32 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #35 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #22 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 z zH w;. re 2 JU oo co a cn w w= J LL w o'. ga- ¢: = Ft w z� I- 0 z 2 0 0 5.12 w .Z, CU 0 SP- 0 1 0 1 z Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #7 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1372141AvS. Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 4011S139St Tukwila, WA 98168 Wash. Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4012 S 140 St, #28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13820 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Leonard 4101S139St Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #1 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tami Beemer 13719 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 1375141 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell, LeRoy 4110S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 z Q 1' J U; U o,_ U 0: w• = u. wo = a: w. z �— uf U 0. o cn = w` ,1-U' 11J col z• United Motors 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Hemenway 4036 S 128 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Paul Gully 1301742AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Ellen Gengler 13727 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98188 Robert Priest 1372841AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Rand Koler Broderick Bldg Penthouse 615 Second Av Seattle, WA 98104 -2203 Cathleen Munson 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Marilyn Van Hise 13708 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kathy Doolin 11828 44 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 1 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Jerry LaPlant 13704 42 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Dean Frizzell 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Diane Meyers 13919 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ron & Nancy Lamb 4251 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Chris & Faye Thibodeaux 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Janelle Scarber 13716 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tamra Hughs 13831 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 -4011 Bill Turner 13435 48 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Beth Quevedo 4420 S 156 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ed LaPlant 13704 41 S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Elizabeth Springer 13325 Macadam Rd S Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 1301538AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Fred Sherman 1371542AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Colleen McFee 3836 S 130 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Steve & Jeri Anderson 13703 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bill Scheffler 1471059AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Curtis Smith 4226 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 z �wf. J U;, U.O •moo' w w z; J I- (i) w 0' 2 u. co a •=- a I- w. z - •.. F- 0i z F-, U 0 N. • w Wa 'H V� tL O •z V N; 0 Deborah Winship 4226 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Mike Fowler 3517 S 130 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Lanny Vickers 12227 45 Av S Tukwila, WA 98178 Beal McManus 5610 S 133 Tukwila, WA 98178 Lee M. Loyd 1353143AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Yvonne Euler 15220 40 S Tukwila, WA 98168 Betty Baker 1166242AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Sharon Kidd 4242 S 146 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Phil Linder 11918 Interurban Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Arthur Burrington 12244 45 Av S Tukwila, WA 98178 Treva Gomez 4504 S 124 Tukwila, WA 98178 Pamela Riess 1353143AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Christella Aragon 4610S124St Tukwila, WA 98178 Jon Fertakis 1182242AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Sandra Bruskirk 15042 Macadam Rd S, #G -2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Warren Wing 11850 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Helen Dingle 4115 S 114 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Vera Locke 11810 42 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Cecilia Wheeler 3723 S 150 St Tukwila, WA 98168 A.L. MacDonald 4246 S 146 St Tukwila, WA 98168 z re 6 o o o 0 co in in 1--i u.? cs I- Ili _i z�.: I- 0 Z U 0, '0�'; 0.1 = wL z' 0 z DISTRIBUTION OF HEARING RECORD FOR APPEAL OF BAR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FILE # L96 -0010 w 7.0, Maydr Rants (1) s,00,,=:`CityAdministrator John McFarland (1) CityCouncil members (7) '`%I Acting-City Attorney Jim Haney (1) ,5.t:cgorLegislative Coordinator Lucy Lauterbach (1) ,' %aCiiie -Clerk Jane Cantu (1) DCD- Director Steve Lancaster (2) , ;; SvPla iner Jack Pace (1) Assistant Planner Nora Gierloff • `File (� `I .Appellant Nancy Lamb a - p :,Applicant- Johnny Cheng (1) \r .c..n in � 1 I UQ ecember 16, 1996 City of Tukwila la John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Johnny Cheng Cheng.& Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 RE: Proposed Hotel Development at 4006 S. 139th Street L96 -0010 Dear Mr. Cheng, Thank you for your early submittal of the revised drawing set. Overall I think the design is nicely detailed and works well on the site. I have enclosed and annotated a set of plans, the main 'areas to be revised are: 1. The south 'elevation facing 139th Street is too blank and monumental for the primary public facade of the building. Repeating some of the elements from the east or west elevations would create a more inviting street presence. 2. Please look at'the location of the double entry doors into the lobby. Placing them on the south wall where the sidewalk leads would be more welcoming than their current location behind the turret on the west wall. 3. ' ' The freestanding sign must be set back from all property lines at least as far as it is tall. The maximum allowed sign area is 50 square feet per side and the height is limited to 24'6", the height of the building. 4. Any columns in the underground parking lot should be shown and located to avoid interference with car door opening. Parking spaces next to walls should be 10' not 9'. 5. A.schedule of plantings that calls out the quantities and species of. all landscape materials must be added to L1.1. 6. Will the 10' directly east of the building be landscaped? If so please show this, if not indicate what the ground material will be. I am also enclosing the comments I have received from the Building, Police, and Public Works - Departments. Apparently there is an unresolved US West/Puget Power easement on the site which should be addressed prior to building permit issuance. As a reminder, we will need eight copies of the final plan sets on January 3, 1997 to stay on schedule. Due to the extensive changes to the building design, especially the underground parking area, the SEPA threshold determination will have to be amended. I am enclosing a copy 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila Washi on.:.98188. 1.._ • 1.,.... I.... • of the, checklist that you submitted with the original application, please revise it to address the impacts of the. current building design by January 6. I spoke to Mr. Lin and Mr. McLean about the public open house for the new design on December 12. They agreed to the idea once they understood that it should not delay the BAR meeting or the design review process. The open house is tentatively scheduled for the evening of January 9, 1997 in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. If you will be unable to attend on that date please let me.know as soon as possible. You will receive a notice during.the first week in January. If,you have any questions or think that you cannot meet the schedule outlined above please call me at 433 -7141. Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 1 • cc: . Wen Lin Enclosures:: Annotated plan set Department review comments SEPA Checklist • • a.i¢cJw Z =~: rew F w. U O' CD 0 cnw: w 0' J '.. F- w Z 1- 0; z �. U.1 w,, 2 0 Do O ;o F-; w W, V; u:1- O: z. w NC' 0 AGREEMENT TO REDESIGN HOTEL, This agreement, dated as of November 18, 1996, is between Mr. Wen Lin on behalf of his marital community (the "Developer ") and Ron and Nancy Lamb (the "Appellant ") and agreed to by the undersigned. 1. The Existing Plans. The Developer has prepared plans for the construction of a hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street in Tukwila, Washington. The SEPA determination was referenced by the City of Tukwila as File No. E96 -0004 and the project is referenced as File No. L96 -0010. The plans have been approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review and are currently under appeal to the Tukwila City Council. 2. Withdrawal of Appeal. The hearing on the pending appeal is scheduled for the evening of this date. The parties shall ask the City Council to remand the matter to the BAR, so that the Developer can submit plans in accordance with this agreement. 3. New Plans. The existing plans shall be replaced by new plans in which the building shall be reduced from three to two stories and its footprint shall be reduced in size. The 22 stalls shown on the existing plans below the raised portion of the building shall be eliminated and placed in a basement parking garage on the site. The rest of the surface parking will remain and the parking layout design shall follow the current BAR requirements. The number of guest , n rooms shall be no more than 40. E AR's a ,�4u.�.. `fig un ■% `!N O 'i'�na -S2 cam, vuo ham- e to i Z ■ �.¢ 1 - - fr ,9j) ; c Lk5 . 4. Architect's Best Efforts. The Developer's architect, Johnny Cheng, shall work with 'PAck'^-s tc the City and the Lambs to prepare the new plans and shall use his best efforts with respect to the Q``,,,,,,,`, J following: (i) If off -site parking cannot be avoided, then up to four spaces on the EconoLodge I`5� parking across e area m y permit guest k 1 th t a be used in order to ermit the agreed number of rooms (ii) If garbage and the loading dock cannot be located away from the front yard, they may be 'P'NvlI:` BSc' located in the front with proper landscaping to screen them from the street. w.c c.g 14. ✓w..Lis/ 5. No Further Appeals. In return for the revision of the existing plans and the inclusion , u �► � of the above - described design features in the new plans, the undersigned agree not to appeal the a.cuN new desig the BAR's decision regarding the new plans, any SEPA decisions or requirements, nor the rking layout of the existing conditions in the EconoLodge parking lot. With respect to ese matters the undersigned shall be bound by the determinations of the Planning C mrr_ission and BAR. o n K c�n 'r`74 0 \1✓1 Ca V0A- Y L � Zkc av � sa. c�c1 �)( 6. Signatures. The Developer has asked the Lambs to try to obtain the signatures of the "Parties of Record" identified on the August 30, 1996 Notice of Decision of the BAR. The Lambs will use their best efforts to contact each such person and they shall request each person to sign this a: ement. / Nancy Lamb Ron.Lamb \ 'Rand Koler Wen F an Lin e/L--17 Johnny Cheng ,n„ VidtS kj& 41-v ka.z* . '�.`*"f� ' , . �l , • . .Yi�sXt$",%Y -�(" �!rt. •i^ ","'„ . �N� \7' .m m- +.r..rro,..xr.n v..,.,v....;rxaee i ie:.r - u•,,. .,r, '�*e:z !S'�- w,i'X�w {a;ngn:.. ? t prp.rt9.1i� ,., . ,3.n� �nr c FYI - ny , �._�. .4W"7 z w JU 00 CO u)W LU LL 0 Q. =a �.w z� zo w U O_ 0 H• ww 0 2 —O wz. —I O~ z A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N I , Sys --VIA / VAA hereby declare that: 56Notice of Public Hearing Lj Determination of Non- significance fl Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Board of Adjustment Agenda fl Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice D Board of Appeals Agenda O Notice of Action Packet Planning Commission Agenda ❑Official Notice Packet LI Short Subdivision Agenda 0 Other �, Packet. fl Notice of Application for 0 Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on 1V7-16 (Pgi-Acs AlTi\a-1 Fl� Name of Project .-Cflill1 01)6E File Number 1-40-000(0 Signature 114W11,02e.� Micro Com Systems Washington Ltd. 12608 -B INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98168 TEL (206) 248 -3191 FAX (206) 248 -3313 ATTENTION The next image may be a duplicate of the previous image. Other: sc-D,,,,„3.Lrd �,�- -- www.microcomsys.com S � �WF 6D. JU. 0 0 U) WI J � LL WO LL a =d' ~ _ Z �. ZF Au Ili U� 10 N oi LI O. Z; :0 �`4 A F F I D A V I T A McAk ,.-i-eN Notice of Public Hearing D Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet LI Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet fl Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Determination of Non - significance LI Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action Official Notice Other El Other, was mailed to each of the following addresses on Cpu;s� 5_ ATrT\c. F1 Name of Project ti iD 1.0b{aE File Number 1---1C0 —000(0 Signature L WIL021/ z i-- w re D 0 00 N 0 W= LL: w0 g w+ zp_ Z r; Do O0. C3 I-- 11,2 w' Z; • N U =; i 0 ~. Y"y Gity of Tukwila NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD., TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, FILE #L96 -0010 FOR DESIGN APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED HOTEL LOCATED AT 4006 S. 139TH ST, TUKWILA, WA 98168 (CURRENT SITE OF THE AIRPORT MOTEL). APPELLANTS: RON AND NANCY LAMB 4251 S. 139TH ST. TUKWILA, WA 98168 THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS; HOWEVER, TESTIMONY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL. THE CITY OF TUKWILA STRIVES TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 433 -1800 BY NOON ON MONDAY IF WE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE. DATED THIS 7 DAY OF 1996. CITY OF TUKWILA fITYCLERK NE E. CANTU DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES, NOVEMBER 8,1996 WEN FAN LIN 13910 PACIFIC HY S TUKWILA WA 98168 JIM BRINTON 13007 167 AV NE REDMOND WA 98052 PHILIP HEMENWAY 4036 S 128 ST TUKWILA WA 98168 RON GUERNSEY 13732 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 ELIZABETH SPRINGER 13325 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA WA 98168 PAUL GULLY z' 13017 42 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 DIANE MEYERS 13919 42 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 V >) IelI1- NICI,u4\1 13015 PS -& XLW 1 of V A (3)� 1 tog z� ■ACAMM S S 'tA\l \ lR ► DON & MARY TOMASO 13707 41 ST S TUKWILA WA 98168 RON & NANCY LAMB f 4251 S 139 ST TUKWILA WA 98168 FRED SHERMAN 13715 42 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 ROBERT PRIEST 13728 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 CHRIS & FAYE THIBODEAUX. 13727 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 COLLEEN McFEE 3836 S 130 ST TUKWILA WA 98168 RAND KOLER KOLER ROSEN FITZSIMMONS BRODERICK BLDG - PENTHOUSE 615 SECOND AV SEATTLE WA 98104 -2203 BOB & JANELLE SCARBER 13716 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 PHILIP SMITH 13016 37 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 STEVE BICKNELL 13722 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 TAMRA HUGHS 13739 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 STEVE & JERI ANDERSON' 13703 42 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 MARILYNN VAN HISE =' 13708 41 AV S TUKWILA WA 98168 RITA CASEY TUKWILA WA 98168 LLJ 6 J U; 0 CO w wX, LL k wO g:3 u. <. =d. 1-w. 2 ZH 1- O Z I-: w w; O • ' tu LI O Z'; U w_ O '. City of Tukvvila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 21, 1996 Johnny Cheng Cheng & Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 . . Proposed Hotel Development at 4006 S. 139th Street Dear Mr. Cheng, At the City Council appeal hearing on November 18 for project L96 -0010 Mr. Lin and the Lambs indicated that they wished for the project to be remanded to the BAR. The earliest possible date for the Board to consider the revised project would be January 23, 1997. In order to be ready for that meeting the following schedule must be kept: December 12 Applicant to submit new design to DCD - 5 complete sets of plans December 1,9 DCD will return a list of comments and revisions January 3 Applicant to submit revised design to DCD - 8 complete sets of plans While a place on the January 23 agenda will be reserved for the project it is not guaranteed to be heard on that date. If either of the submittal dates are not met or the scope of the outstanding issues is such that they cannot be addressed in that time frame the hearing will be delayed. If you have any questions or think that you cannot meet the schedule outlined above please call me at 433 -7141. Sincere Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner cc: Ron and Nancy Lamb Rand Koler 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER - OFFICE MEMO TO: Members of the Board of Architectural Review FROM: Steve Lancaster SUBJECT: Appeal of BAR decision on Case No. 96 -0010 Proposed hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street DATE: November 8, 1996 Attached for your information is the Notice of Appeal filed on behalf of Ron and Nancy Lamb by their attorney Rand Koler, and staff's response to that appeal. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at its regular meeting of November 18, 1996. Please contact me at 431 -3670 if you have questions regarding this matter. Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development BAR_COPY.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council From: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Developmen Subject: Staff Response to Appeal of BAR Decision L96 -0010 Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street Date: November 8, 1996 HEARING DATE: November 18, 1996 FILE NUMBER: L96 -0010 NOTICE: - Published in the Seattle Times 11- 08 -96. - Distributed for posting to Tukwila Community Center, Tukwila Library, Foster Library, South Central School District, Highline School District - Posted at Tukwila City Hall. - Mailed to parties of record (persons who have previously testified, submitted written comments, or signed -in at previous. meetings). (see Exhibits 3, 11 and 30 for additional notice information) APPLICANT: Mr. Johnny Cheng APPELLANTS: Ron and Nancy Lamb REQUEST: Appeal of BAR Design Approval for proposed hotel. The appellant has requested that the City Council modify the design approval of the Board of Architectural Review as follows (see Notice of Appeal, Exhibit 2, p.8): 1. Require that the loading zone be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street. 2. Require that the dumpster be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street. 3. Require that all parking lots used in whole or in part by the proposed development "be entirely legal under the City Code." 4. Find the proposed offsite parking unacceptable "for its use of an illegal parking lot." LOCATION: 4006 South 139th Street STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace FINDINGS Background On August 29, 1996 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted design approval for a proposed 43 -unit, three story hotel at 4006 South 139th Street. The design approved by the BAR is represented by Attachment N to the Supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996 ( Exhibit 30). The BAR based its decision on the BAR review criteria contained in Chapter 18.60 Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) and on the findings and conclusions contained in the staff reports (Exhibits 3, 11 and 30). A Notice of Appeal of the BAR's decision was filed within the prescribed appeal period by attorney Rand Koler of Koler, Rosen and Fitzsimmons, P.S., on behalf of Ron and Nancy Lamb. Revisions to the Notice of Appeal were submitted by the appellant on the first business day following the end of the appeal period. In consultation with the City Attorney, the Director of Community Development determined that the revisions constituted minor corrections and clarifications. The applicant was notified in writing that the City intended to accept the revisions, and was given an opportunity to object. No objection was received. Therefore, the Notice of Appeal under consideration in this proceeding is the revised Notice of Appeal attached as Exhibit 2. Under TMC 18.90.020, the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the decision of the BAR within 90 days of receipt of an appeal. In this instance, the appellant has requested that the Council modify the BAR decision by: 1) requiring that the loading zone be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street; 2) requiring that the dumpster be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street; 3) requiring that all parking lots used in whole or in part by the proposed development "be entirely legal under the City Code;" and 4) finding the proposed offsite parking unacceptable "for its use of an illegal parking lot" (see Notice of Appeal, Exhibit 2, p.8). In reviewing the Board of Architectural Review's decision, the City Council must rely upon the same design guidelines utilized by the Board. Design review guidelines applicable to hotels and motels are established by TMC 18.60.050, 18.60.053 and 18.60.055. The following provides staff's analysis of the issues raised by the Notice of Appeal. Specific issues raised by the Notice of Appeal are reproduced in bold italics, with an analysis of each issue immediately following. Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 Page 2 • z ~. et w2 6 U O'. CO C. � w W =: w o` J: u- Q • a - _: z� � o zr 2• p :o N. 0 H w • ur li. - F" :. O, w z. 0 ~' z. Analysis Appeal Issue #1. There is no legitimate basis for locating the loading zone in front of the building so that it prevents pedestrian access to the main entrance of the building and reduces landscaping. The City of Tukwila has no standards or regulations regarding the placement of vehicle loading areas, therefore approval of this design was at the BAR's discretion. The loading zone as approved meets the requirements given in TMC 18.56.060 for a space at least 10 feet by 30 feet with a 14 foot overhead clearance meant for use by "small trucks such as pickup trucks." The loading zone creates no barrier to pedestrian access to the main (east) entrance to the hotel. An additional accessible entrance with sidewalk access will be provided into the lobby on the south face of the building. Direct access into the building for those utilizing handicapped parking stalls is provided by an entrance located between the two stalls. See Exhibit 30, Attachment N, Drawing A1.1 Site Plan. The full amount of landscaping required by code, 10 feet for a front yard in the Regional Commercial District, has been provided (TMC 18.24.080). The loading zone is located between the landscaping and the 20 foot front building setback. Businesses commonly use the area between the landscaping and building wall for parking. In the event the City Council agrees with the appellant that the City's design guidelines require that the loading zone be relocated, the specific applicable guidelines from Chapter 18.60 TMC upon which this decision is based must be identified and appropriate findings developed. Appeal Issue #2. The garbage dumpster enclosure should be away from the street, at the rear of the building. After all applicable development regulations and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are met, approval of a project's site design is within the Board of Architectural Review's discretion. The BAR approved design meets all of the applicable standards. The development standards for garbage collection areas given in TMC 18.52.090 require an opaque fence sufficient to provide complete screening, an identification sign not to exceed two square feet, and weather protection be provided. The garbage collection area is located out of the required front and side landscape areas. Fences, such as the one that encloses the garbage collection area, are allowed within building setback areas. Policy 8.1.5 of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan states, "Require mechanical equipment and trash and recycling containers to be incorporated into the overall design of sites and buildings and screened from view." The landscaping and fence shown in the approved design will screen the garbage area from view. Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 Page 3 z • Z. QQ �. UO • =. } w J CO LL. • w 0. < I a. F- _ z� F- 0 z�-; 2 • 5; 0 =V 0 H: U U- 0: This policy is followed in the Plan by an implementation strategy that states "Prohibit dumpsters within front yards." According to the Comprehensive Plan, implementation strategies "are representative approaches to policy implementation aimed at achieving goals" (Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan, p.iii). Their function is to suggest possible ways to achieve the goals and policies but on their own they are not independently enforceable. The BAR chose not to impose this measure as part of their discretionary design approval. W In the event the City Council agrees with the appellant that the City's design guidelines require that 6 the dumpster be relocated, the specific applicable guidelines from Chapter 18.60 TMC upon which v o this decision is based must be identified and appropriate findings developed. co w WI. tL Appeal Issue #3. It is not appropriate for the BAR to require the Econolodge parking lot to be W O restriped to illegal density. g -±- a. As part of the proposal to build a new hotel, the applicant intends to meet a portion of the = development's parking requirement at the existing Econolodge parking lot located across South ~ i 139th Street. This is allowed under TMC 18.56.040(B), as long as either: 1) the parking is provided ? g ) P g�P �-o. through a deed, easement or other legally binding agreement running with the land; or 2) the w Planning Commission approves of the parking location through issuance of a Conditional Use 2 o Permit. In this instance, the applicant chose to provide four (4) of the parking spaces required for 8 cn. the new hotel, on the Econolodge property through an easement. .o W w. In order to utilize the Econolodge parking lot to provide a portion of the parking requirement for the „ 0' new hotel, the Econolodge parking lot must accommodate the spaces required by code for the z Econolodge and have at least 4 spaces left to dedicate to the new development. At . the time the v w application for the new hotel was submitted, the Econolodge parking lot contained 49 spaces. 1-: 1 Forty-seven (47) spaces are required to meet the parking requirements for the 47 -unit Econolodge Z hotel. Two (2) spaces were therefore available for use in association with off -site development. The applicant indicated through testimony before the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) that there is sufficient room in the Econolodge lot to provide 47 spaces plus an additional 4 spaces for use by the new hotel, by re- striping the lot. Since the proposed new 43 -unit hotel development provided only 39 parking spaces on -site (4 spaces short of the requirement), the BAR required that the Econolodge parking lot be appropriately re- striped prior to final approval of plans for the new hotel, to ensure that sufficient parking would be provided for both hotels. The re- striping has been accomplished by the property owner. The appellant argues that re- striping the Econolodge parking lot "renders the lot illegal." This argument is apparently based upon a belief that no modifications can be made to a legal nonconforming parking lot unless the entire lot is brought into strict compliance with current City of Tukwila parking lot dimensional standards. The acting City Attorney has reviewed the appellant's arguments and can find no support for this position in either the Tukwila Municipal Code nor in the commonly accepted legal standards applicable to legally established nonconforming uses or structures. Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 Page 4 .,tiu....:.mx,.,w...., • et+. ,,,w�. »a x'rcrsM.anA'TUSan " ?f4�'S,e,ogpv. a fvf..^•`.."i*.,�,1P, 7 = ttE!�.rnar. The only provision of the Tukwila Municipal Code relating to nonconforming parking lots is contained in TMC 18.70.080. In pertinent part, that section provides: If a change of use takes place, or an addition is proposed, which requires an increase in the parking area by an increment less than 100 %, the requirements of the Off -street Parking and Loading Regulations chapter of this title shall be complied with for the additional parking area (emphasis supplied). In this case, the 4 parking spaces designated for use by the proposed new hotel meet all applicable requirements of the Off -street Parking and Loading Regulations chapter of the Zoning Code. In the absence of other specific code provisions relating to the re- striping of a nonconforming parking lot, general legal principles regarding nonconforming uses and structures must be considered. Traditionally, changes are allowed to nonconforming uses and structures as long as those changes do not increase the degree of nonconformity. In this case, the appellant asserts that the re- striping renders the lot illegal, because "the aisles are too narrow and certain of the stalls do not conform with City of Tukwila requirements." However, based on staff's consultation with the acting City attorney, since the re- striping did not increase the degree of these nonconformities (i.e., did not make the aisles narrower than before or reduce the size of any nonconforming parking stall), and since the spaces associated with the new hotel meet all applicable requirements, the appellant's assertion is in error. The Econolodge parking lot has not been rendered illegal under City regulations. In summary: Since the Econolodge parking lot was built prior to annexation under King County standards (some of which were less stringent than Tukwila standards), the lot became "legally nonconforming" upon annexation. While the parking lot conformed to Tukwila requirements for the number of spaces, it was nonconforming as to certain dimensional standards. The re- striping recently accomplished by the property owner has not increased the degree of nonconformity, and the 4 parking spaces proposed to be dedicated for use by the proposed new hotel meet all applicable City standards. Appeal Issue #4. The proposed project should not be designed in violation of the high density residential standards. The appeal states that the hotel project, located in the regional commercial (RC) zone, should have been designed to meet the development standards of the high density residential (HDR) zone. Tukwila's code does not require this. By code the project was required to meet two sets of criteria. The first are the development standards of the Regional Commercial zoning district which govern such quantifiable items as allowed uses, building height, building setbacks, and required landscaping area (TMC 18.24.080). The second are the design review guidelines which contain goals for site and building design and are applied by the BAR. During design review hotels and motels are held to the more stringent multi - family guidelines (TMC 18.60.053). Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 Page 5 P,�V„n`.'""o^..,t?eaa+wnm xxnnz• ,.- re-.,�wwr....gee.y�xr+.?itFF !A:'S�71*f!`"t'i,�GF'?C • :y!7:'CF ;!,`4'r',`G+:1�"v.'w, =p 'k^ tY•SF;t'n!4P! It is incorrect to infer that the application of the multi - family design review guidelines to hotels and motels requires that the development standards of a different zoning district (High Density Residential) should be applied. Appeal Issue #5. The changes which have been made to the proposed development, since the SEPA review, are not authorized under SEPA. It is unclear from the Notice of Appeal (Exhibit 2) what, if any, relief is sought by the appellant relating to SEPA. No procedural remedy (e.g., withdrawal of the MDNS, requiring an EIS) is available, since the appeal was not filed within the time limits established for procedural appeals. The Council could, in theory, find that the BAR's decision was in error for not adequately mitigating the project's environmental impacts, based upon the environmental documents prepared regarding the proposal; however, the appellant has not requested nor provided any basis for this. Instead, the appellant asserts that changes made to the proposal after SEPA review "are not authorized under SEPA." SEPA does not prohibit modifications to a project after SEPA review. In fact, the SEPA Rules anticipate that changes may occur after a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) has been issued (in this case, a Mitigated DNS was issued on May 6, 1996 - File # E96- 0004). SEPA requires that a DNS be reconsidered and withdrawn if "there are substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts" (WAC 197- 11- 340(3)(a)(i)) (emphasis supplied). In other words, SEPA does allow changes to a proposal; however, if those changes will result in significant adverse impacts an EIS must be prepared. In this case, the appellant suggests that changes made to the project during the Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review's (BAR's) consideration will have adverse impacts. Changes cited by the appellant include: 1) re- striping of the Econolodge parking lot; 2) location of a loading area within the proposed hotel's front yard setback; 3) "providing no pedestrian access" to the hotel's front door; 4) location of a garbage dumpster within the hotel's front and side yard setbacks and in "close proximity" to a single family residence; and 5) a reduction in landscaping at the front of the building due to the loading zone and dumpster location. From the standpoint of SEPA, the issue is not whether the changes will have adverse impacts when compared to the original proposal, but whether the project's environmental impacts are now both adverse and significant, therefore requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The issue of what is a "significant" adverse environmental impact and what is not has been analyzed by the courts on numerous occasions. The City's SEPA Responsible Official (the Director of the Department of Community Development) has reviewed the changes made to the proposal after issuance of the original Mitigated DNS; has reviewed the legal standard for "significance" established by the courts; and has consulted with the City Attorney on this matter. The Responsible Official has determined the changes required and/or approved by the Planning Commission/BAR will not result in the project having significant adverse environmental impacts. The changes do not violate any of the conditions of Mitigated DNS #E96 -0004. The proposal remains in compliance with the requirements of SEPA. Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 Page 6 Conclusions 1. The Board of Architectural Review acted within its authority and discretion in approving the location of a loading zone as depicted by Attachment N to the Supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996 (Exhibit 30). 2. The Board of Architectural Review acted within its authority and discretion in approving the location of a garbage dumpster enclosure as depicted by Attachment N to the Supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996 (Exhibit 30). 3. The re- striping of the Econolodge parking lot does not violate any laws or regulations established and enforceable by the City of Tukwila. The Board of Architectural Review appropriately required that the ability to provide a sufficient number of parking spaces be demonstrated prior to making its final decision on project design. 4. The adopted design criteria for hotels and motels are fully contained within TMC 18.60.050 "Review Guidelines" and TMC 18.60.053 "Multi- family review guidelines," as referenced by TMC 18.60.055 "Hotel and motel review guidelines." The Board of Architectural Review appropriately applied these criteria in approving the design for the proposed hotel development as depicted by Attachment N to the Supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996 (Exhibit 30). 5. Changes made to the proposal following the issuance of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance E96 -0004, and approved by the Board of Architectural Review, do not violate the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Recommendation That the decision of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review in case # L96 -0010 be upheld. Staff Report: Appeal of BAR Design Approval Case # L96 -0010 vn u ) t41;}StiiC.zzti Page 7 z • .1- w. • .J U: •UO • 0.0 -J CO 11i • u. w o:. =d t- w • s z� F- 0 zi-; • U > • 0 cn c11—! w wi F-U z. • • U N z KOLER, ROSEN • FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -2203 PHONE (206) 621 -6440 • FAX (206) 587 -0226 RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIAL: (206) 621-6441 City Council The City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. 100 Tukwila WA 98188 September 20, 1996 NOTICE OF APPEAL Re: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision; File Number: L96 -0010 Name of Appealing Party: Address of Appealing Party: Telephone Number: Dear Council Members: SEp 2 0 1996 tATY Cirri CLERK / Ron and Nancy Lamb 4251 S. 139th St. Tukwila, WA 98168 -3206 243 -3716 On behalf of Ron and Nancy Lamb, we wish to appeal the decision of the Board of Architectural Review ( "BAR "), dated August 30, 1996 regarding the proposed hotel development referenced as File L96 -0010, involving SEPA Permit E96 -0004 and BLA L96- 0006. The BAR has disregarded the City's land use policies and design guidelines in the interest of maximization of the scale of a proposed hotel. The result is a design which causes a nearby parking lot to be illegal, substantially reduces landscaping from what was shown on the application and places a commercial loading zone and garbage dumpster at the front of the building on a residential street near single family residences. None of this has been reviewed for negative impacts on the residential environment. These features are, in fact, contrary to SEPA because each impact can be mitigated by the application of a conventional design. Introduction The BAR has sacrificed the Comprehensive Plan's highest priority goal - improving and sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability in the interest of maximizing the size and density of a hotel. The proposed project consists of a 3 story, 43 room hotel located at 4006 S. 139th St., adjoining a single family neighborhood. The developer proposes to build the highest density hotel that the City of Tukwila will permit. The BAR has not rlkklients \lamb\tuk0918.1tr/9.20.96 z ~ w' Ce U O; cn w • w =. w 0 u-a 'a ° zd w :z F.. 1-0. • .z I; LLJ 2 j; V i ww z oco ui .0 0 '- 9 -23 -1996 11:42AM FRC'- A- .,KRF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 2 RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1996 Orr? O - 7+.:inyta-„ CITY CLERK adequately integrated the proposed development with the surrounding residential neighborhood, resulting in a design more appropriate for the highway than a residential street. The site is on a residential street (South 139th) in a transition area with single family residences on 2 sides. The surrounding area is single family residential, except for the • - commercial strip along Highway 99, which is immediately west of the site. (See, Board of Architectural Review verbatim minutes, May 23, 1996, testimony of Mr. Pace, pages 3 -4.) The developer is constrained by the City's zoning and building codes, as well as the comprehensive plan, to integrate the proposed development with the residential neighborhood into which it protrudes. This. broad policy goal of the City (and several more specific policies and guidelines) have been ignored for the sake of maintaining the maximum number of rooms in the hotel. The developer has adamantly resisted any design modifications which would lead to a reduction in the number of rooms at the site. In trying to maintain the number of rooms while making modifications through the review-process, a design has evolved since the SEPA review was completed, with a number of significant negative environmental impacts. An example of BAR's rush to approve the design without consideration to the negative consequences of its unconventional design features is shown by its attitude toward illegal parking lots. In attempting to achieve optimum development of the parcel of land, the developer has exceeded the parking capacity of the lot,in question requiring the use of 4 parking spaces on the EconoLodge parking lot across South 139th Street and removal of the garbage collection facility. The lot across the street had to be restriped to provide more spaces in order for it to be used by the proposed project. The lot is too small for the required number of legally configured spaces, so the lot has to be illegally striped for the offsite parking to work. Initially the staff stated that the restriped configuration of the EconoLodge parking would have to comply with the Tukwila Municipal Code. (Board of Architectural Review, verbatim, May 23, 1996, page 2, testimony of Mr. Pace.) As we understand it, the BAR now says that so long as the 4 offsite spaces are of legal dimension, it does not matter that the expansion of the lot to 51 spaces is illegal under the City's code. In short, the design criteria which are intended to protect residential neighborhoods have not been followed, and the proposed development now includes unnecessary and illegal features which seriously detract from the residential neighborhood. The project should be redesigned to comply with the City's policies, and to avoid an illegal land use. rlktelientsqambttuk0913,Itn9 Z3,96 P. 2 9 -23 -1996 11:4.2AM FRDRF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 • Page 3 Issues on Appeal 1. There is no legitimate basis for locating the loading zone in front of the building so that it prevents pedestrian access to the main entrance of the building and reduces landscaping. TMC 18.56.030 requires a loading zone with a minimum size of 10 feet by 30 feet for a hotel with as few as 3,000 square feet. At about 23,000 square feet, the proposed building is almost eight times the minimum size for a required loading zone. When the BAR would not waive the requirement of a loading zone, the developer removed landscaping from the front of the building and placed the loading zone in the front yard setback. Loading zones are conventionally placed at the rear of buildings. The developer's placement of the loading zone at the front of the building, where it will have the maximum negative impact, violates landscape policies and guidelines without any justification. Loading zones are almost always, except in industrial zones, located at the rear of buildings, away from the .street. This preference is founded on aesthetics and the adverse impact of loading activities on pedestrian use and traffic. This preference is so strong that it appears that on the Pacific Highway corridor, truck loading zones may be required to be located at the rear of a commercial site. (See, Nancy Lamb's June 27, 1996 testimony and EconoLodge fax, dated May 31, 1996.) There is no design -based reason for placing the loading zone in the least desirable location, where it will have the maximum adverse effect on the residential neighborhood. The City's policies of integrating ,sites with residential neighborhoods and of minimizing negative impacts on residential neighborhoods are all promoted by placing the loading zone in its conventional location, i.e. the rear of the building. Furthermore, the loading zone, as it is currently configured, is of highly questionable utility. The prospect of a large truck maneuvering around in this small space is daunting. The area is so small that the driver of a large truck parked in the loading zone will have to walk through landscaping to get to the rear of the truck. The placement of the loading zone in the front of the hotel displaced the pedestrian access to the hotel's front door. There is a driveway to the front door but no walkway. Pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the hotel has been shifted from the front door to rlkklicnauamb\tukn9I 8.1trr9.23.96 ar.k.,..cee:.d+txws ¢ x.:r.;:,.aauufwe ...,. . P. 3 z z uj 0 0` CO �n w: w= ; L, w0 CO d. 1— w Z i-- O.. Z 1— w U� O T. 0 1- w w. H0 ;; III H' z. 9 -23 -1996 11:d3AM FRCRF /NI FAX 206 SS7 0226 P. 4 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 4 i 9 -23 -1996 11:44AM City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 5 FROM 'RF/NI FAX 206 687 0226 No land use policy or guideline supports this placement of the dumpster and enclosing structure. Policy 8.1.5 states that "both mechanical equipment and trash and recycling containers [must] be incorporated into the overall design of sites and buildings and screened from view." One of the implementation strategies reads as follows, "prohibit dumpsters within front yards." The dumpster is inappropriately located within a front yard and the enclosing structure violates the front and side yard setbacks. (Refer to TMC definitions) It is also unclear whether there is sufficient access to the dumpster by garbage trucks. In its present location, the garbage truck must negotiate a set of 90 degree maneuvers to get to the dumpster. . The dumpster's close proximity to a family home violates all of the guidelines and criteria which emphasize rendering commercial uses compatible with the residential neighborhood and minimizing the adverse effects of such high density uses on residential neighborhoods. All of the City of Tukwila's guidelines, policies and considerations dictate that the dumpster and its enclosing structure ought to be at the rear of the building out of sight from the street and moved from proximity to family homes. The BAR'S review guidelines require, in considering the relationship of the structure to the sitc, that "service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas." TMC 18.60.050 (1)(B) This would be easily achieved by locating the loading zone and dumpster at the rear of the lot. 3. It is not appropriate for the BAR to require the EconoLodge parking lot to be restriped to illegal density. There has been some confusion about the status of the EconoLodge parking lot across the street from the site. The lot is "illegal" if it does not conform to the law. The applicable law is the City Code unless the parking lot was legally lined at the time of the annexation to Tukwila and it then had more thari 47 stalls. It then may be "grandfathered" and may continue as configured at the time of the annexation. Similarly, if King County had issued a permit and the permit had not expired since annexation (which is not possible) the developer might have a "vested" right to construct a parking lot in strict accordance with the permit. The EconoLodge Jot, however, is not "grandfathered" and not subject to any "vested" rights. In the file are aerial photographs of the site for the years 1985, 1986 and 1989, each showing 47 stalls. Thus, there is no "grandfathered" right to use more than 47 stalls. When the site was annexed, the number fit the requirements of. the City that there be at least 1 stall for each of the 47 rooms in the EconoLodge. By 1994 the owner had increased the number rlkleliunNmubkuk0913.1;0 -3,96 P. 5 kiv'91A_ z 6 :_ J U� U O0. CO 0 WI J 1L WO g Q: CO a' I-W z1—, zo. U• �: O cn_. 0.li W W: 1O U E. 0 9 -23 -1996 11 11:414AM City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 6 z 61-1 without City authorization to 49 stalls. This was apparently done because the owner offers 6 o parking to patrons of the Seattle - Tacoma Airport. rJ o: co 0 Recently, the EconoLodge restriped the lot again, increasing the number of stalls to 51. _ This renders the lot illegal, as the aisles are too narrow and certain of the stalls do not co o. conform with City of Tukwila requirements. There is no vested right to 51 stalls because, w among other things, there is no valid permit for 51 stalls to make room for the 4 stalls needed for the proposed development. u The details of the numerous code violations on the EconoLodge parking lot are _; discussed in Nancy Lamb's memos of August 24 and 26 and in her August 29 transcript. z ~' z rr-. w 4. The proposed project should not be designed in violation of the high 2 density residential standards. v N 0 o it Page 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Objectives states that the highest priority of thc v' :plan is to, "Improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The City, o u. Council decided that multi - family standards should apply to motel and hotel uses in order to z promote aesthetic goals and to reduce 'illegal activities associated with these uses. The only o co HDR standard which was deemed to be inapplicable by the Council was the HDR recreational 0 I space requirement (See, Testimony of Nancy Lamb, June 27, 1996 and Memorandum from z Nancy Lamb, dated August 21, 1996.) FROM^.�KRF /NI FAX 206 S87 0226 P. 6 The City Council's discussions in October and November of 1995 acknowledged concerns regarding motel and hotel use in Tukwila. These uses, the Council acknowledged, were associated with unsavory and illegal activities and the Council seemed to acknowledge great concern that these activities intruded into single family neighborhoods. In this light the City ought to be particularly convinced about sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability. TMC 18.60.053 charges the BAR with implementing the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. The foremost objective, then, is to "improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." Site planning is required to involve the integration and harmonious blending of the building and landscaping with the neighborhood building scale and natural environment. TMC 18.60.053 (1) (A) The BAR has sacrificed the integration of the site with the residential neighborhood for the sake of preserving the maximum building scale. This is the tail wagging the dog. Scale must depend on the design criteria, not visa verse. Id. at (I) TU :clicnrs %unb'iu1/4091$.1w9.23.96 figMEMIMWATMI mgwo er:v!.'Wa:rr}..^+5�.R'!L M1KttIV !PI �1 9 -23 -1996 11:d5AM City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 7 FROP KRF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 The design standards applicable to this proposed hotel, as well as the HDR guidelines, are particularly important for RC zones close to the LDR or MDR zones. HDR standards are a significant protection to residential neighborhoods from the adverse and dangerous effects of hotel use, It is not coincidence that the application of HDR guidelines would result in a lower density hotel. It is appropriate that a hotel on a residential street, next to single family homes, be of less density than a hotel on the valley floor. This hotel, because it is in a transition zone from commercial to single family residential, should be built in reference to the low density uses, as required by the HDR guidelines. By optimizing landscaping and removing, to the extent practical, commercial and service activities from the front of the building, there will be a slight reduction in density. This is a necessary consequence of the implementation of the HDR guidelines and the comprehensive plan's priorities, not a reason for ignoring then. S. The changes which have been made to the proposed development, since the SEPA review, are not authorized under SEPA. Since the May 21 SEPA decision the proposed hotel has been changed in a number of respects which adversely affect the residential neighborhood. First, the EconoLodge parking lot has been rendered illegal by restriping in order to provide 4 spaces for use in connection with the proposed development. This changes the SEPA analysis rather dramatically, as the development was deemed to have no adverse land use effects in the initial SEPA review. This can hardly be said of the development as it is presently envisioned. The proposed development, as it now stands, requires the use of an illegal parking lot across the street, the waiver of the City's land use policies and guidelines in. locating the loading area in the front yard setback, off the residential street and providing no pedestrian access to the front door. It also requires the disregard of the policies and guidelines regarding dumpsters and containment structures by locating the structure and dumpster within the front and side yard setbacks and in proximity close to a family home. The aesthetic considerations have also changed dramatically since the SEPA review was conducted. The initial proposal envisioned a single large structure fronting the residential street with parking and services at the rear of the building. The front was relatively • extensively landscaped. The present plan is for the large structure to remain in place with. a loading zone in the front yard in place of landscaping. Thus, activities which are inconsistent with the residential neighborhood have been moved to the most obtrusive locations at the expense of a substantial portion of planned Landscaping and a dumpster in front, near a house. r1 k4: licntsM:unikuk0918.1tr/9.23.96 P. 7 9 -23 -1996 11:45AM FROW.VRF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 8 It seems clear that land use, aesthetics, transportation, public services and noise have all been adversely affected by the changes to the proposed development which has been made the highest conceivable number of hotel rooms at the site. The conclusions regarding the initial application do not relate to the present development. All of these changes have been made without a threshold SEPA determination and they violate SEPA because the negative impacts can be easily mitigated by complying with the City's own policies. Conclusion The issues discussed above relate to changes in the proposed. development. In each instance the design guidelines and Comprehensive Plan policies were sacrificed in the interest of maximizing the number of hotel units. In so doing, the review procedure has been turned on its head. Residential neighborhoods are designated the highest priority but the policies favoring the neighborhoods have been implemented only to the extent that they do not affect the number of units in the proposed hotel. We ask the City Council to require that the loading zone and dumpster be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street. We also ask the City Council to require that all parking lots used in whole or in part by the proposed development be entirely legal under the City Code. The City Council, we submit, should find the proposed offsite parking unacceptable for its use of an illegal parking lot. Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. Rand L. Koler RLK:mo rlkkeli<nt;tlainb'Nk0913,1u19 :3,96 -44 4':.. _ 4 P. 8 z i 1. z; ge • 00 N o; w w• w =' J H; .N LL: in 0. LL Q co d • 1 w, .01-' • w H V 0. z; U N; .o Z. INDEX OF EXHIBITS 1. Memo from Steve Lancaster to Mayor and Council 2. Notice of appeal received 9/20 (page 1) and 9/23/96 (pages 2 -8) 3. Staff Report dated 5/15/96 with attachments A through J A. Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance E96 -0004 B. SEPA Determination Memo C. Letter from Mr. Cheng requesting Loading Zone Waiver D. Detail of Site Plan E. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria F. Applicant's Response to Multi - Family Review Criteria G. Set of Building Plans: A1.1 Site Plan A2.1 First Floor Plan A2.2 Second Floor Plan A3.1 North and South Elevations A3.2 East and West Elevations L1 Landscape Plan H. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) Comments Submitted During SEPA Process: I 1. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 4/7/96 I 2. Comments from Ms. Marilynn VanHise dated 4/9/96 I 3. Comments from Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons dated 4/22/96. I 4. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 4/22/96. I 5. Comments from Janelle and Bob Scarber received 4/23/96 I 6. Petition dated 4/23/96 I'7. Comments from Janelle Scarber dated 4/26/96. 18. A second copy of the petition with additional signatures received on 4/29/96 I 9. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/2/96 I 10. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/16/96 J. BAR Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/16/96 4. Memo from Mr. Lancaster retaining MDNS dated 5/23/96 with enclosures: Letter to Ms. Gierloff from Mr. Cheng dated 5 /15/96 Memo to Mr. Lancaster from Ms. Lamb dated 5/16/96 Letter to Mr. Lancaster from Mr. Koler dated 5/21/96 5. Planning Commission approved minutes of 5/23/96 hearing A. Planning Commission verbatim minutes of 5/23/96 hearing 6. Renderings of proposed hotel displayed on wall at 5/23/96 hearing: A. First Floor Plan B. Second Floor Plan C. North and South Elevations D. East and West Elevations E. Landscape Plan z rev O U•O` W =; J 1, w O' u_ a - d:. •z F-o z • U Di . • ;off': = W' • ;-- :LI o. Z w v); O 1-: • 7. Slides of hotel site vicinity shown at 5/23/96 hearing (to be available at hearing) 8. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 5/23/96 9. Letter from Mr. Koler submitted by Ms. Lamb at 5/23/96 hearing 10. Notice of Decison dated 5/29/96 11. Supplemental Staff Report dated 6/19/96 with attachments K through M K. Set of Building Plans A1.1 Site Plan A2.1. First Floor Plan A2.2 Second Floor Plan A2.3 Third Floor Plan . A3.1 North and South Elevations A3.2 East and West Elevations L 1 Landscape Plan L. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) M. Diagram of the Clear Vision Triangle for Sign Placement 12. Planning Commission approved minutes of 6/27/96 hearing A. Planning Commission verbatim minutes of 6/27/96 hearing 13. Annotated proposed hotel first floor plan displayed on wall at 6/27/96 hearing 14. Fax to Mr. Cheng dated 5/31/96 15. Letter from Mr. Koler dated 6/26/96 16. Selected pages from the Gibson Traffic Consultants traffic study submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 17. Report by Ms. Lamb submitted at 6/27/96 hearing dated 6/20/96 18. Addendum to report submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing regarding RV problems 19. Page 18 -90 of the TMC submitted by Ms. Lamb :at 6/27/96 hearing 20.. House for sale flyer submittedby Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 21. Newspaper advertisement for airport parking at the Econolodge submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 22. Annotated landscape plan of proposed hotel submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 23. Email message from Washington Coalition of Citizens with disAbilities submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 24. HFS Incorporated information submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 25. Annotated site plan of Econolodge submitted by Ms. Lamb at 6/27/96 hearing 26. Letter from Mr. Lin 7/3/96 27. Memo from Mr. Benedicto 7/23/96 28. Letter from Ms. Gierloff 7/25/96 29. Letter of Transmittal from Cheng & Associates 8/6/96 30., Supplemental Staff Report dated 8/23/1996 with attachments N through T N. Set of Building Plans A1.1 Site Plan A2.1 First Floor Plan A2.2 Second Floor Plan A2.3 Third Floor Plan z ; mow. re 6 D o 0 ; ' cnw: J S; F- • w wo LL a• '. • _: Z zo o 2 V;. U- - 0. z` A3.1 North and South Elevations A3.2 East and West Elevations L1 Landscape Plan 0. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated July 10, 1996 P. Memo From Bob Benedicto dated August 7, 1996 Q. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 19, 1996 R. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 20, 1996 S. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 21, 1996 T. Detail of Parking Easement 31. Letter from Ms. Van Hise dated 8/26/96 32. Letter from Ms. McFee dated 8/28/96 33. Planning Commission approved minutes of 8/29/96 hearing A. Planning Commission verbatim minutes of 8/29/96 hearing 34. Drawings put on wall at 8/29/1996 hearing: A. Proposed Hotel First Floor Plan - BAR Issues 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 B. Econolodge Site Plan - BAR Issues 2, 7 . C. Proposed Hotel Landscape Plan - BAR Issue 9 D. Proposed Hotel East and West Elevations - BAR Issue 10 35. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 8/23/96 (secondary entry to building) 36. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 8/24/96 (restriping and ADA requirements) • • " 37. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 8/26/96 (off -site parking) 38. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 8/29/96 (response to supplemental staff report) 39. Memo from Ms. Lamb dated 8/29/96 (response to Building Department review memo) 40. Photo from p. 21, exhibit 2 of Moratorium Waiver Hearing Packet 41. Walker Aerial Photo dated 10/13/86 42. Booklet submitted .by Ms. Lamb .at 8/29/96 hearing 43. Page from the Uniform Building Code submitted by Ms. Lamb at 8/29/96 hearing 44. Pages 937 through 941 -1 of King County Development Code submitted by Ms. Lamb at 8/29/96 hearing 45. Pages from the Washington State Building Code submitted by Ms. Lamb at 8/29/96 hearing 46. Notice of Decision dated 8/30/96 47. Large Color Aerial Photograph of S. 139th Street and Pacific Highway dated 11/20/94 (to be presented at hearing) September 30, 1996 Johnny Cheng Cheng & Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 RE: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision File L96 -0010 Dear Mr. Cheng, This letter is to inform you that an appeal has been filed regarding the Board of Architectural Review's decision to approve your hotel project on August 29, 1996. The notice of appeal was filed with the City Clerk before the 5:00 PM September 20, 1996 deadline (enclosure A). On September 23 revisions to that appeal were accepted by the City Clerk (enclosure B). It is our determination that the revised notice does not contain any substantive changes from the original appeal and so we will use the revised version in the remainder of the appeal process. If you object to this determination please notify the City Clerk's office in writing by 5:00 PM October 11, 1996. The appeal has been tenatively scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on November 18, 1996. If you have any additional questions about the appeal process please call me at 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner cc: Mr. Wen Fan Lin Enclosures. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER - OFFICE MEMO Mayor Rants City Council Planning Commission Steve Lancaster Appeal of BAR Decision Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street October 2, 1996 An appeal of the Board of Architectural Review's design approval for the proposed hotel (variously known as the "Econolodge" or "Ramada Inn" proposal) was submitted on behalf of Ron and Nancy Lamb on September 20. September 20 was the legal deadline for submitting an appeal. The following Monday, a revised version of the appeal was submitted. Since these revisions were submitted after the legal appeal deadline, DCD staff has consulted with the acting City Attorney, Jim Haney, as to whether the revised version could be accepted. DCD staff has concluded that the revisions are minor in nature, and can be characterized as simple clarifications and corrections. Mr. Haney has concurred that the revised version can be accepted and used by the City Council in it's consideration of the appeal. We have notified the development applicant of this determination, but have given him until October 18 to file any objection he may have. Although the BAR and the press have requested copies of the appeal, we would prefer to not distribute copies until the matter of which version is the "official" appeal is settled (that is, after any objection has been considered or October 18 has passed without an objection being filed). We are concerned about the confusion that might occur by having two versions of the appeal distributed without a clear and final understanding of which version is valid. We anticipate the Council appeal hearing will occur in mid November, and that the appeal letter and related materials will be distributed to the City Council well in advance of the hearing. However, if any of you feel a need to have a copy of both versions of the appeal letter before that time, please give me a call at 431 -3670 and I will be happy to provide them. cc: John McFarland Jim Haney Jack Pace ECONO4.DOC Lucy Lauterbach File .z mow: 6 D. U O'. gyCI' W = J H ui O: co • I- w' X; Z I- 0' • ILI 11.f zi- )O' C 0 H w w:. H U•. - O. all Z: U N: z 9 -23 -1996 11:d2AM FROM KRF /NI FAX 2 06 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 2 RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1996 CITY C4-"iiJV i..r CITY CLERK adequately integrated the proposed development with the surrounding residential neighborhood, resulting in a design more appropriate for the highway than a residential street. The site is on a residential street (South 139th) in a transition area with single family residences on 2 sides. The surrounding area is single family residential, except for the commercial strip along Highway 99, which is immediately west of the site. (See, Board of Architectural Review verbatim minutes, May 23, 1996, testimony of Mr. Pace, pages 3 -4.) The developer is constrained by the City's zoning and building codes, as well as the comprehensive plan, to integrate the proposed development with the residential neighborhood into which it protrudes. This broad policy goal of the City (and several more specific policies and guidelines) have been ignored for the sake of maintaining the maximum number of rooms in the hotel. The developer has adamantly resisted any design modifications which would lead to a reduction in the number of rooms at the site. In trying to maintain the number of rooms while making modifications through the review process, a design has evolved since the SEPA review was completed, with a number of significant negative environmental impacts. An example of BAR's rush to approve the design without consideration to the negative consequences of its unconventional design features is shown by its attitude toward illegal parking lots. In attempting to achieve optimum development of the parcel of land, the developer has exceeded the parking capacity of the lot in question requiring the use of 4 parking spaces on the EconoLodge parking lot across South 139th Street and removal of the garbage collection facility. The lot across the street had to be restriped to provide more spaces in order for it to be used by the proposed project. The lot is too small for the required number of legally configured spaces, so the lot has to be illegally striped for the offsite parking to work. Initially the staff stated that the restriped configuration of the EconoLodge parking would have to comply with the Tukwila Municipal Code. (Board of Architectural Review, verbatim, May 23, 1996, page 2, testimony of Mr. Pace.) As we understand it, the BAR now says that so long as the 4 offsite spaces are of legal dimension, it does not matter that the expansion of the lot to 51 spaces is illegal under the City's code. In short, the design criteria which are intended to protect residential neighborhoods have not been followed, and the proposed development now includes unnecessary and illegal features which seriously detract from the residential neighborhood.. The project should be redesigned to comply with the City's policies, and to avoid an illegal land use. tIklciicntstlamb\tuk091 S,Itrr9 23,96 iftemlepinentnemintrAmr P. 2 z z re w: JU U O: 0: " Uw w= J H: w O: xw • Z • i-a Z ILI La. Ua 'O Cl w w: Z F=; w Z. • O~. z 9 -23 -1996 11:t2AM FROM RF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 • Page 3 Issues on Appeal 1. There is no legitimate basis for locating the loading zone in front of the building so that it prevents pedestrian access to the main entrance of the building and reduces landscaping. TMC 18.56.030 requires a loading zone with a minimum size of 10 feet by 30 feet for a hotel with as few as 3,000 square feet. At about 23,000 square feet, the proposed building is almost eight times the minimum size for a required loading zone. When the BAR would not waive the requirement of a loading zone, the developer removed landscaping from the front of the building and placed the loading zone in the front yard setback. Loading zones are conventionally placed at the rear of buildings. The developer's placement of the loading zone at the front of the building, where it will have the maximum negative impact, violates landscape policies and guidelines without any justification. Loading zones are almost always, except in industrial zones, located at the rear of buildings, away from the street. This preference is founded on aesthetics and the adverse impact of loading activities on pedestrian use and traffic. This preference is so strong that it appears that on the Pacific Highway corridor, truck loading zones may be required to be located at the rear of a commercial site. (See, Nancy Lamb's June 27, 1996 testimony and EconoLodge fax, dated May 31, 1996.) P. 3 There is no design -based reason for placing the loading zone in the least desirable location, where it will have the maximum adverse effect on the residential neighborhood. The City's policies of integrating sites with residential neighborhoods and of minimizing negative impacts on residential neighborhoods are all promoted by placing the loading zone in its conventional location, i.e. the rear of the building. Furthermore, the loading zone, as it is currently configured, is of highly questionable utility. The prospect of a large truck maneuvering around in this small space is daunting. The area is so small that the driver of a large truck parked in the loading zone will have to walk through landscaping to get to the rear of the truck. The placement of the loading zone in the front of the hotel displaced the pedestrian access to the hotel's front door. There is a driveway to the front door but no walkway. Pedestrian access from the public sidewalk to the hotel has been shifted from the front door to rlIklicutstlamb tuko918.It09.23.96 9 -23 -1996 11:t3AM FROP''.RF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 4 P. d z a a side door near the Derby Tavern. This route is what guests parking offsite would have to et w 2 use. This is certainly an undesirable design feature. (See, Memo from Nancy Lamb, dated u3 n ` August 21, 1996, page 1 -2.) U O • co Q co w: This also causes there to be no handicapped access to the front door from the public -J H sidewalk. The handicapped parking stalls are served by yet another secondary entrance with .w p pedestrian access. This problem is discussed in the August 23rd memo of Nancy Lamb and 2 the August 29th transcript of her testimony. ga 5 co By placing the loading zone within the front yard setback, a significant amount of = w' landscaping in front of the building has also been eliminated. This creates an overall z i_ reduction of about 20% of the landscaping shown on the design review application. Exhibits z O' E and F of the BAR's packet for the May 23, 1996 hearing extol the project's Landscaping w w: and show its critical importance as a buffer in the residential neighborhood. The placement of v o! the loading zone in front of the building eliminates much of the landscaping shown on the ,p N- original application of the building and replaces it with a cement strip on which noisy, uj ui• invasive activity will be conducted. = 0: U. O: There is no question but that there is a strong preference by the City of Tukwila and eii z other jurisdictions to locate loading zones at the rear of buildings. This preference should be c) w. H =; much stronger where, such as in this instance, the building is located in a transition zone z 1— between commercial and residential uses. Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.7 and 1.8 both support the placement of the loading zone at the rear of the building. This location is further supported by review guidelines 18.60.050(1)(a) and 18.60.053(1)(C). There is no policy or legitimate purpose served by placing the loading zone where it will have the maximum adverse effect on the nearby residences and the residential neighborhood. How can this he justified in light of th.e City's claim that protecting residential neighborhoods is its highest priority? 2. The garbage dumpster enclosure should be away from the street, at the rear of the building. The garbage dumpster has been relocated since the SEPA review from the rear of the lot to a location closer to the residential street and near to the single family residence on the east side of the site. The dumpster is required by 18.52.090 to be enclosed in a gated structure, this 6 foot tall structure has been located within the 10 foot side yard setback and the 20 foot front yard setback. It has been located at the worst place in terms of its negative effect on the residential neighborhood and nearby homes. rik4aicntsUamb\tuk0918.1W9 23.96 9 -23 -1996 11 :411AM FROP '-{RF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 5 No land use policy or guideline supports this placement of the dumpster and enclosing structure. Policy 8.1.5 states that "both mechanical equipment and trash and recycling containers [must] be incorporated into the overall design of sites and buildings and screened from view." One of the implementation strategies reads as follows, "prohibit dumpsters within front yards." The dumpster is inappropriately located within a front yard and the enclosing structure violates the front and side yard setbacks. (Refer to TMC definitions) It is also unclear whether there is sufficient access to the dumpster by garbage trucks. In its present location, the garbage truck must negotiate a set of 90 degree maneuvers to get to the dumpster. . The dumpster's close proximity to a family home violates all of the guidelines and criteria which emphasize rendering commercial uses compatible with the residential neighborhood and minimizing the adverse effects of such high density uses on residential neighborhoods. All of the City of Tukwila's guidelines, policies and considerations dictate that the dumpster and its enclosing structure ought to be at the rear of the building out of sight from the street and moved from proximity to family homes. The BAR's review guidelines require, in considering the relationship of the structure to the site, that "service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas." TMC 18.60.050 (1)(B) This would be easily achieved by locating the loading zone and dumpster at the rear of the lot. 3. It is not appropriate for the BAR to require the EconoLodge parking lot to be restriped to illegal density. There has been some confusion about the status of the EconoLodge parking lot across the street from the site. The lot is "illegal" if it does not conform to the law. The applicable law is the City Code unless the parking lot was legally lined at the time of the annexation to Tukwila and it then had more than 47 stalls. It then may be "grandfathered" and may continue as configured at the time of the annexation. Similarly, if King County had issued a permit and the permit had not expired since annexation (which is not possible) the developer might have a "vested" right to construct a parking lot in strict accordance with the permit. The EconoLodge Jot, however, is not "grandfathered" and not subject to any "vested" rights. In the file are aerial photographs of the site for the years 1985, 1986 and 1989, each showing 47 stalls. Thus, there is no "grandfathered" right to use more than 47 stalls. When the site was annexed, the number fit the requirements of. the City that there be at least 1 stall for each of the 47 rooms in the EconoLodge. By 1994 the owner had increased the number rlk\elicntstivnb\tuk091 S.ltrl9,23,96 P. 5 9 -23 -1996 11 : ddAM FRO�S...�:RF /N I FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 6 without City authorization to 49 stalls. This was apparently done because the owner offers parking to patrons of the Seattle- Tacoma Airport. Recently, the EconoLodge restriped the lot again, increasing the number of stalls to 51. This renders the lot illegal, as the aisles are too narrow and certain of the stalls do not conform with City of Tukwila requirements. There is no vested right to 51 stalls because, among other things, there is no valid permit for 51 stalls to make room for the 4 stalls needed for the proposed development. The details of the numerous code violations on the EconoLodge parking lot are discussed in Nancy Lamb's memos of August 24 and 26 and in her August 29 transcript. 4. The proposed project should not be designed in violation of the high density residential standards. Page 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Objectives states that the highest priority of the :plan is to, "improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The City Council decided that multi - family standards should apply to motel and hotel uses in order to promote aesthetic goals and to reduce illegal activities associated with these uses. The only HDR standard which was deemed to be inapplicable by the Council was the HDR recreational space requirement (See, Testimony of Nancy Lamb, June 27, 1996 and Memorandum from Nancy Lamb, dated August 21, 1996.) The City Council's discussions in October and November of 1995 acknowledged concerns regarding motel and hotel use in Tukwila. These uses, the Council acknowledged, were associated with unsavory and illegal activities and the Council seemed to acknowledge great concern that these activities intruded into single family neighborhoods. In this light the City ought to be particularly convinced about sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability. TMC 18.60.053 charges the BAR with implementing the Comprehensive Plan goals, . objectives and policies. The foremost objective, then, is to "improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." Site planning is required to involve the integration and harmonious blending of the building and landscaping with the neighborhood building scale and natural environment. TMC 18.60.053 (1) (A) The BAR has sacrificed the integration of the site with the residential neighborhood for the sake of preserving the maximum building scale. This is the tail wagging the dog. Scale must depend on the design criteria, not visa verse. Id. at (I) rll:tclicnts \Iamb \tuk091 S,1tr19.23.96 t !4 P. 6 z . mow. � —J UO 0• cnw .w w o: Q N d, =. z � I- o. 2 0 I—' wu 111 z' : O :z 9 -23 -1996 11:d5AM FROG"-- KRF /NI FAX 206 587 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 7 The design standards applicable to this proposed hotel, as well as the HDR guidelines, are particularly important for RC zones close to the LDR or MDR zones. HDR standards are a significant protection to residential neighborhoods from the adverse and dangerous effects of hotel use. It is not coincidence that the application of HDR guidelines would result in a lower density hotel. It is appropriate that a hotel on a residential street, next to single family homes, be of less density than a hotel on the valley floor. This hotel, because it is in a transition zone from commercial to single family residential, should be built in reference to the low density uses, as required by the HDR guidelines. By optimizing landscaping and removing, to the extent practical, commercial and service activities from the front of the building, there will be a slight reduction in density. This is a necessary consequence of the implementation of the HDR guidelines and the comprehensive plan's priorities, not a reason for ignoring them. 5. The changes which have been made to the proposed development, since the SEPA review, are not authorized under SEPA. Since the May 21 SEPA decision the proposed hotel has been changed in a number of respects which adversely affect the residential neighborhood. First, the EconoLodge parking lot has been rendered illegal by restriping in order to provide 4 spaces for use in connection with the proposed development. This changes the SEPA analysis rather dramatically, as the development was deemed to have no adverse land use effects in the initial SEPA review. This can hardly be said of the development as it is presently envisioned. The proposed development, as it now stands, requires the use of an illegal parking lot across the street, the waiver of the City's land use policies and guidelines in. locating the loading area in the front yard setback, off the residential street and providing no pedestrian access to the front door. It also requires the disregard of the policies and guidelines regarding dumpsters and containment structures by locating the structure and dumpster within the front and side yard setbacks and in proximity close to a family home. The aesthetic considerations have also changed dramatically since the SEPA review was conducted. The initial proposal envisioned a single large structure fronting the residential street with parking and services at the rear of the building. The front was relatively • extensively landscaped. The present plan is for the large structure to remain in place with. a loading zone in the front yard in place of landscaping. Thus, activities which are inconsistent with the residential neighborhood have been moved to the most obtrusive locations at the expense of a substantial portion of planned landscaping and a dumpster in front, near a house. rik\clients\lumb \tuk0918.1u19 23.96 P. 7 9-23-1996 11:tBAM FPOM...47F /NI FAX 206 687 0226 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 8 It seems clear that land use, aesthetics, transportation, public services and noise have all been adversely affected by the changes to the proposed development which has been made the highest conceivable number of hotel rooms at the site. The conclusions regarding the initial application do not relate to the present development. All of these changes have been made without a threshold SEPA determination and they violate SEPA because the negative impacts can be easily mitigated by complying with the City's own policies. Conclusion The issues discussed above relate to changes in the proposed development. In each instance the design guidelines and Comprehensive Plan policies were sacrificed in the interest of maximizing the number of hotel units. In so doing, the review procedure has been turned on its head. Residential neighborhoods are designated the highest priority but the policies favoring the neighborhoods have been implemented only to the extent that they do not affect the number of units in the proposed hotel. We ask the City Council to require that the loading zone and dumpster be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street. We also ask the City Council to require that all parking lots used in whole or in part by the proposed development be entirely legal under the City Code. The City Council, we submit, should find the proposed offsite parking unacceptable for its use of an illegal parking lot. RLK :mo r1k\clientlAlmnb\tuk091 S.ltrl9.23.96 Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. Rand L. Koler P. 8 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 -3260 LAMB FAMILY Ron, Nancy, Braden, Kirsten Telephone: 206 - 243 -3716 LambtownWest@msn.com September 20, 1996 To: Tukwila City Council Re: Motel proposal at 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila u- sE(GEUV fr EP 2 0 1996 4_../4.c. f 4_. CITY OF . CITY CLERK Attached please note that there are four sheets of signatures of Tukwila resi- dents and /or property owners who support our appeal of the decisions rendered by the Board of Architectural Review regarding the project listed above. We seek to protect the neighborhood adjoining the motel project and, in addition, the Comprehensive Plan, be- cause this is a precedent - setting case. The appeal filed on our behalf by Rand Koler, Attorney at Law, is intended to help uphold the City Council's stated vision in the Com- prehensive Plan for appropriate revitalization of the community while keeping neighbor- hood stabilization as the Council's highest priority. The signers of this petition are from neighborhoods throughout the city. Like us, these citizens expect that the goals, objectives, and policies of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan will be upheld, and they want family neighborhoods to be protected from inappro- priate impacts, in this case excessive problems associated with a very dense, historically negative land use. Listed below are the names•of those whose signatures have been collected to date: Marilynn J. VanHise Jerry LaPlant Ed LaPlant Janelle Scarber Richard Bicknell Steve Bicknell Elizabeth Bicknell Robert Dean Frizzell Cathleen A. Munson Ron Gurnsey Bob Scarber Thank you. Bill Turner Bill Sche$ler Janice Schauer Kathy Doolin Beth Quevedo Tavo Quevedo Curtis W. Smith Deborah Winship Sharon Kidd Sandra C. Buskirk Frederick Sherman Ted Myers Diane Myers Mike Fowler Betsey Fowler Paul M. Gully Christella Aragon Phil Linder Warren W. Wing Lanny Vickers Arthur A. Burrington Helen Dingle Beal (Bob) McManus Treva Gomez Vera Locke Lee M. Loyd Pamela S. Riess Betty J. Gully Cecilia Wheeler Yvonne Euler Christine Strayer MaryEllen Whitehead Joanne E. McManus Lona M. Sweeney Daniel Aragon A.L. "Mac" McDonald Betty Baker Roger E. Baker Jon E. Fertakis z s ~. w JV.. .0 0 N : UW J H, ! LL. W O; LL =: d H w'. Z HO' Z 1-' U 0 0 1-: -1- W; 1— U. u. O` ui z� U N' H= 0 z TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL: We support the Koler /Lamb appeal concerning the motel project at 4006 S. 139th St. and its impacts to surrounding properties. We expect the City of Tukwila to uphold its commitment to residential neighborhood stabilization and to enforce both the standards and the spirit of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan with its enabling regulations. We do not feel that the conditions imposed by the Board of Architectural Review sufficiently protect the Comprehensive Plan's vision — and they do not adequately protect a family neighborhood from problems created by this very intensive land use. The vision needs to be upheld as a message from the City Council to the community that the requirements for high quality development are taken very seriously and are to be enforced as described in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code book. To be reviewed under multi- family guidelines, any hotels or motels proposed for the Regional Com- mercial zones that are near residential neighborhoods should be designed using most of the High Density Residential zoning regulations (including lower development coverage area, greater setbacks, and wider landscaping buffers than basic commercial standards) to help reduce the intense use of these properties by transient, overnight people, and to make the scale of these projects more harmonious with Low and Medium Density Residential zones. Commercial parking lots should comply with all Tukwila's codes and not cause problems for residential -use streets. High quality design features (such as a solid waste collection area in the rear and a practical, safe, integrated, and inviting entrance) should improve Tukwila's image that is por- trayed to community residents and visitors to the Pacific Highway corridor. If Tukwila's message is that neighborhoods will be protected, now is the time to uphold the Compre- hensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Thank you. )C4i.t 04;J-eJ 1314n 414S-0, .— /�27&V - -44.3 t3 20 y� Vt7 -0 �` - �l a - 55c e- 9 wig s-�- ��=- S (S 1 141' 1j 1 Q g- j 9l 6F ;G v{ t '37g .1� /� -� Sa e1 S31 t-3-4-1-)- 4 ( ue. s, S-ect {+(-e c.V ca e- / 3 7 3 2 Y is r w/ c.,q- (31 zf Aue. S gaan.k. ( - ci 8168 z Z re w _ , JU UO CO CI w= w w O' LL Q. cna. w.. z� o, zI-: uj w o D .O H; wa — o= uiz` O 0 14 z • ; TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL We support the Koler /Lamb appeal concerning the motel project at 4006 S. 139th St. and its impacts to surrounding properties. We expect the City of Tukwila to uphold its commitment to residential neighborhood stabilization and to enforce both the standards and the spirit of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan with its enabling regulations. We do not feel that the conditions imposed by the Board of Architectural Review sufficiently protect the Comprehensive Plan's vision — and they do not adequately protect a family neighborhood from problems created by this very intensive land use. The vision needs to be upheld as a message from the City Council to the community that the requirements for high quality development are taken very seriously and are to be enforced as described in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code book. To be reviewed under multi- family guidelines, any hotels or motels proposed for the Regional Com- mercial zones that are near residential neighborhoods should be designed using most of the High Density Residential zoning regulations (including lower development coverage area, greater setbacks, and wider landscaping buffers than basic commercial standards) to help reduce the intense use of these properties by transient, overnight people, and to make the scale of these projects more harmonious with Low and Medium Density Residential zones. Commercial parking lots should comply with all Tukwila's codes and not cause problems for residential -use streets. High quality design features (such as a solid waste collection area in the rear and a practical, safe, integrated, and inviting entrance) should improve Tukwila's image that is por- trayed to community residents and visitors to the Pacific Highway corridor. If Tukwila's message is that neighborhoods will be protected, now is the time to uphold the Compre- hensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Thank you. y7 /0 0075 ;/9i _ 42f ac s6 d-a) j2Aj-c..,424— IS << /zz, s i39Tit )444/' // H 2- 91. 5 1 17,-•L `•L k • 5D31.? 71aealf 1/6MW 17JeLic` (57/5 r / z F=- W 00 w =. J H 0: u_ Q. 3 2 d. z� zz o. M. U�. O N; I- WHW. LL Z. w O~ z r• TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL: We support the Koler /Lamb appeal concerning the motel project at 4006 S. 139th St. and its impacts to surrounding properties. We expect the City of Tukwila to uphold its commitment to residential neighborhood stabilization and to enforce both the standards and the spirit of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan with its enabling regulations. We do not feel that the conditions imposed by the Board of Architectural Review sufficiently protect the Comprehensive Plan's vision — and they do not adequately protect a family neighborhood from problems created by this very intensive land use. The vision needs to be upheld as a message from the City Council to the community that the requirements for high quality development are taken very seriously and are to be enforced as described in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code book. To be reviewed under multi- family guidelines, any hotels or motels proposed for the Regional Com- mercial zones that are near residential neighborhoods should be designed using most of the High Density Residential zoning regulations (including lower development coverage area, greater setbacks, and wider landscaping buffers than basic commercial standards) to help reduce the intense use of these properties by transient, overnight people, and to make the scale of these projects more harmonious with Low and Medium Density Residential zones. Commercial parking lots should comply with all Tukwila's codes and not cause problems for residential -use streets. High quality design features (such as a solid waste collection area in the rear and a practical, safe, integrated, and inviting entrance) should improve Tukwila's image that is por- trayed to community residents and visitors to the Pacific Highway corridor. If Tukwila's message is that neighborhoods will be protected, now is the time to uphold the Compre- hensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Thank you / 0/1/1 - //1/ti //mss r.owIty Ate- 36-i-7 5 , )30.4,_ S-' /i 1 „ (66( or 7,449r/12 g / A/74/z v < 04 vt' tic f 5 Q s /tz,40 Ai6- 4 6 S . Fe778- ,c g 3f6 5 131 7g, (7dr sa•/c/ "(6-444-4e 1, ``' s Z w re 2 J C.) U 0. co vow. W =: wO. ga I-W Z �. I-0 Z H: LLI U 0' 0 H: = U'. w c, I- z TO THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL: We support the Koler /Lamb appeal concerning the motel project at 4006 S. 139th St. and its impacts to surrounding properties. We expect the City of Tukwila to uphold its commitment to residential neighborhood stabilization and to enforce both the standards and the spirit of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan with its enabling regulations. We do not feel that the conditions imposed by the Board of Architectural Review sufficiently protect the Comprehensive Plan's vision — and they do not adequately protect a family neighborhood from problems created by this very intensive land use. The vision needs to be upheld as a message from the City Council to the community that the requirements for high quality development are taken very seriously and are to be enforced as described in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code book. To be reviewed under multi - family guidelines, any hotels or motels proposed for the Regional Com- mercial zones that are near residential neighborhoods should be designed using most of the High Density Residential zoning regulations (including lower development coverage area, greater setbacks, and wider landscaping buffers than basic commercial standards) to help reduce the intense use of these properties by transient, overnight people, and to make the scale of these projects more harmonious with Low and Medium Density Residential zones. Commercial parking lots should comply with all Tukwila's codes and not cause problems for residential -use streets. High quality design features (such as a solid waste collection area in the rear and a practical, safe, integrated, and inviting entrance) should improve Tukwila's image that is por- trayed to community residents and visitors to the Pacific Highway corridor. If Tukwila's message is that neighborhoods will be protected, now is the time to uphold the Compre- hensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Thank you. JI» n(e eA_ it / i3s3i S. 6vueQa S, tiaa 1 - & 0 ‘ 1 - a 7y ' _ 3 • -'''� CRS. ./LAA--e-1-4-7 'C-7) ro so , y `2�(a 2L 09. '$.1 sr V?44 /*6-//c, ctAQ-Q-3„ sa "‘e?,1al %, 9 8 1 z 6 J0. UO CO J - w O; ga co =d z�. Z O. U co'' w W' S 1-U: o, wz Ni Z KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-2203 PHONE (206) 621 -6440 • FAX (206) 587 -0226 RAND L. KOLER 1' t'� DIRECT DIAL: z (206) 621-6441 September 20, 1996 ,Sf° _ I- �. :art �Q X996 2 NOTICE OF APPEAL CITY R U ,`��. u6 D —J U. U O' City Council W, The City of Tukwila w i' -i 1_, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste. 100 u) w Tukwila WA 98188 w O w a Re: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review Decision; rn D, File Number: L96 -0010 I W Name of Appealing Party: Ron and Nancy Lamb z = Address of Appealing Party: 4251 S. 139th St. f- 0 Tukwila, WA 98168 -3206 z i - w w: Telephone Number: 243 -3716 . 2 o ;ova' Dear Council Members: 0 i--, ,w W H U On behalf of Ron and Nancy Lamb, we wish to appeal the decision of the Board of u. ~▪ o Architectural Review ( "BAR "), dated August 30, 1996 regarding the proposed hotel :iii z development referenced as File L96 -0010, involving SEPA Permit E96 -0004 and BLA L96- U N,. O �! 0006. o The BAR has disregarded the City's land use policies and design guidelines in the interest of maximization of the scale of a proposed hotel. The result is a design which causes a nearby parking lot to be illegal, substantially reduces landscaping from what was shown on the application and places a commercial loading zone and garbage dumpster at the front of the building on a residential street near single family residences. None of this has been reviewed for negative impacts on the residential environment. These features are, in fact, contrary to SEPA because each impact can be mitigated by the application of a conventional design. Introduction The BAR has sacrificed the Comprehensive Plan's highest priority goal - improving and sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability in the interest of maximizing the size and density of a hotel. The proposed project consists of a 3 story, 43 room hotel located at 4006 S. 139th St., adjoining a single family neighborhood. The developer proposes to build the highest density hotel that the City of Tukwila will permit. The BAR has not rlk \clients \lamb \tuk0918.Itr /9.20.96 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 2 adequately integrated the proposed development with the surrounding residential neighborhood, resulting in a design more appropriate for the highway than a residential street. The site is on a residential street (South 139th) in a transition area with single family residences on 2 sides. The surrounding area is single family residential, except for the commercial strip along Highway 99, which is immediately west of the site. (See, Board of Architectural Review verbatim minutes, May 23, 1996, testimony of Mr. Pace, pages 3 -4.) The developer is constrained by the City's zoning and building codes, as well as the comprehensive plan, to integrate the proposed development with the residential neighborhood into which it protrudes. This broad policy goal of the City (and several more specific policies and guidelines) have been ignored for the sake of maintaining the maximum number of rooms in the hotel. The developer has adamantly resisted any design modifications which would lead to a reduction in the number of rooms at the site. In trying to maintain the number of rooms while making modifications through the review process, a design has evolved since the SEPA review was completed, with a number of significant negative environmental impacts. An example of BAR's rush to approve the design without consideration to the negative consequences of its unconventional design features is shown by its attitude toward illegal parking lots. In attempting to achieve optimum development of the parcel of land, the developer has exceeded the parking capacity of the lot in question requiring the use of 4 parking spaces on the EconoLodge parking lot across South 139th Street. The lot across the street had to be restriped to provide more spaces in order for it to be used by the proposed project. The lot is too small for the required number of spaces, so the lot has to be illegally striped for the off -site parking to work. Initially the staff stated that the restriped configuration of the EconoLodge parking would have to comply with the Tukwila Municipal Code. (Board of Architectural Review, verbatim, May 23, 1996, page 2, testimony of Mr. Pace.) As we understand it, the BAR now says that so long as the 4 offsite spaces are of legal dimension, it does not matter that the expansion of the lot to 51 spaces is illegal under the City's code. In short, the design criteria which are intended to protect residential neighborhoods have not been followed, the proposed development now includes unnecessary and illegal features which seriously detract from the residential neighborhood. The project should be redesigned to comply with the City's policies, and to avoid an illegal land use. rlk \clients\ lamb \tuk0918.1tr/9.20.96 z i- CC QQ5 J0 00: w =• J w 0; u-< -7 co z�. I— 0. Z 1—e •LU U D wW. • z ▪ U • • I— ui ,0 z City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 3 Issues on Appeal 1. There is no legitimate basis for locating the loading zone in front of the building so that it prevents pedestrian access to the main entrance of the building and reduces landscaping. TMC 18.56.030 requires a loading zone with a minimum size of 10 feet by 30 feet for a hotel with as few as 3,000 square feet. At about 23,000 square feet, the proposed building is almost eight times the minimum size for a required loading zone. When the BAR would not waive the requirement of a loading zone, the developer removed landscaping from the front of the building and placed the loading zone in the front yard setback. Loading zones are conventionally placed at the rear of buildings. The developer's placement of the loading zone at the front of the building, where it will have the maximum negative impact, violates landscape policies and guidelines without any justification. Loading zones are almost always, except in industrial zones, located at the rear of buildings, away from the street. This preference is founded on aesthetics and the adverse impact of loading activities on pedestrian use and traffic. This preference is so strong that it appears that on the Pacific Highway corridor, truck loading zones may be required to be located at the rear of a commercial site. (See, Nancy Lamb's June 27, 1996 testimony and EconoLodge fax, dated May 31, 1996.) There is no design -based reason for placing the loading zone in the least desirable location, where it will have the maximum adverse effect on the residential neighborhood. The City's policies of integrating sites with residential neighborhoods and of minimizing negative impacts on residential neighborhoods are all promoted by placing the loading zone in its conventional location, i.e. the rear of the building. Furthermore, the loading zone, as it is currently configured, is of highly questionable utility. The prospect of large truck maneuvering around in this small space is daunting. The area is so small that the driver of a large truck parked in the loading zone will have to walk through landscaping to get to the rear of the truck. The placement of the loading zone in the front of the hotel displaced the pedestrian access to the hotel's front door. There is a driveway to the front door but no walkway. Pedestrian access to the hotel has been shifted from the front door to a side door near the rlk\ clients \lamb \tuk0918.1tr /9.20.96 z 65: o O! *CO o CO w w =. wO gQ =d I- al zF I-- O Z 11J mi. 2 DI ;0 N o H; ww'. V — 0: Z' U N� z City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 4 Derby Tavern. This is certainly an undesirable design feature. (See, Memo from Nancy Lamb, dated August 21, 1996, page 1 -2.) This also causes there to be no handicapped access to the front door. The handicapped parking stalls are served by the secondary entrance with pedestrian access. This problem is discussed in the August 23rd memo of Nancy Lamb and the August 29th transcript of her testimony. By placing the loading zone within the front yard setback, a significant amount of landscaping in front of the building has also been eliminated. This creates an overall reduction of about 20% of the landscaping shown on the design review application. Exhibits E and F of the application extol the project's landscaping and show its critical importance as a buffer in the residential neighborhood. The placement of the loading zone in front of the building eliminates much of the landscaping shown on the original application of the building and replaces it with a cement strip on which noisy, invasive activity will be conducted. There is no question but that there is a strong preference by the City of Tukwila and other jurisdictions to locate loading zones at the rear of buildings. This preference should be much stronger where, such as in this instance, the building is located in a transition zone between commercial and residential uses. Comprehensive Plan Goals 1.7 and 1.8 both support the placement of the loading zone at the rear of the building. This location is further supported by review guidelines 18.60.050(1)(a) and 18.60.053(1)(C). There is no policy or legitimate purpose served by placing the loading zone where it . will have the maximum adverse effect on the nearby residences and the residential neighborhood. How can this be justified in light of the City's claim that protecting residential neighborhoods is its highest priority? 2. The garbage dumpster enclosure should be away from the street, at the rear of the building. The garbage dumpster has been relocated since the SEPA review from the rear of the lot to a location closer to the residential street and near to the single family residence on the east side of the site. The dumpster is required by 18.52.090 to be enclosed in a grated structure 6 feet tall and this structure has been located within the 10 foot side yard setback and the 20 foot front yard setback. It has been located at the worst place in terms of its negative effect on the residential neighborhood and nearby homes. rlk \clients \I amb \tuk0918.1tr /9.20.96 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 5 No land use policy or guideline supports this placement of the dumpster and enclosing structure. Policy 8.1.5 states that "both mechanical equipment and trash and recycling containers [must] be incorporated into the overall decision of sites and buildings and screened from view." One of the implementation strategies reads as follows, "prohibit dumpsters within front yards." The dumpster is inappropriately located within a front yard and the enclosing structure violates the front and side yard setbacks. It is also unclear whether there is sufficient access to the dumpster by garbage trucks. In it's present location, the garbage truck must negotiate a set of 90 degree maneuvers around parked cars to get to the dumpster. The dumpster's close proximity to a family home, violates all of the guidelines and criteria which emphasize rendering commercial uses compatible with the residential neighborhood and minimizing the adverse effects of such high density uses on residential neighborhoods. All of the City of Tukwila's guidelines, policies and considerations dictate that the dumpster and it's enclosing structure ought to be at the rear of the building out of sight from the street and moved from proximity to family homes. The BAR's review guidelines require in considering the relationship of the structure to the site, that "service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas." TMC 18.60.050 (1)(B) This would be easily achieved by locating the loading zone and dumpster at the rear of the lot. 3. It is not appropriate for the BAR to require the EconoLodge parking lot to be restriped to illegal density. There has been some confusion about the status of the EconoLodge parking lot across the street from the site. The lot is "illegal" if it does not conform to the law. The applicable law is the City Code unless the parking lot was legally lined at the time of the annexation to Tukwila and it then had more than 47 stalls. It then may be "grandfathered" and may continue as configured at the time of the annexation. Similarly, if King County had issued a permit and the permit had not expired since annexation (which is not possible) the developer might have a "vested" right to construct a parking lot in strict accordance with the permit. The EconoLodge lot, however, is not "grandfathered" and not subject to any "vested" rights. In the file are aerial photographs of the site for the years 1985, 1986 and 1989, each showing 47 stalls. Thus, there is no "grandfathered" right to use more than 47 stalls. When the site was annexed, the number fit the requirements of the City that there be at least 1 stall for each of the 47 rooms in the EconoLodge. By 1994 the owner had increased the number rlk \clients\I unb \tuk09l8.1tr/9.20.96 z �Z � w u6m U O' N 0; to w; J = • CO LL w O: gQ - d. w _• z� Z o; 0 .O N 'w w H V, UN O.~ z City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 6 z without City authorization to 49 stalls. This was apparently done because the owner offers ~ z • parking to patrons of the Seattle - Tacoma Airport. w. Recently, the EconoLodge restriped the lot again, increasing the number of stalls to 51. d o. This renders the lot illegal, as the aisles are too narrow and certain of the stalls do not co W conform with City of Tukwila requirements. There is no vested right to 51 stalls because, _1 �: among other things, there is no valid permit for 51 stalls to make room for the 4 stalls needed fn U. wO for the proposed development. 2 The details of the numerous code violations on the EconoLodge parking lot are N D discussed in Nancy Lamb's memos of August 24 and 26 and in the August 29 transcript. i w' z z1.: 4. The proposed project should not be designed in violation of the high z O; density residential standards. w w Page 3 of the Comprehensive Plan Objectives states that the highest priority of the p N; plan is to, "Improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The City w E` Council decided that multi - family standards should apply to motel and hotel uses in order to s, v promote aesthetic goals and to reduce illegal activities associated with these uses. The only u. f-' HDR standard which was deemed to be inapplicable by the Council was the HDR recreational z space requirement (See, Testimony of Nancy Lamb, June 27, 1996 and Memorandum from _, Nancy Lamb, dated August 21, 1996.) 01— z The City Council's discussions in October and November of 1995 acknowledged concerns regarding motel and hotel use in Tukwila. These uses, the Council acknowledged, were associated with unsavory and illegal activities and the Council acknowledged great concern that these activities intruded into single family neighborhoods. In this light the City ought to be particularly convinced about sustaining residential neighborhood quality and livability. TMC 18.60.053 charges the BAR with implementing the Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies. The foremost objective, then, is to "improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." Site planning is required to involve the integration and harmonious blending of the building and landscaping with the neighborhood building scale and natural environment. TMC 18.60.053 (1) (A) The BAR has sacrificed the integration of the site with the residential neighborhood for the sake of preserving the maximum building scale. This is the tail wagging the dog. Scale must depend on the design criteria, not visa verse. Id. at (I) rlk \cli cnts \Iamb \tuk0918.1tr /9.20.96 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 7 The design standards applicable to this proposed hotel, and as the HDR guidelines, are particularly important for RC zones close to the LDR or MDR zones. (We are assuming the site is zoned RC, as our copy of the zoning map indicates otherwise.) HDR standards are a significant protection to residential neighborhoods from the adverse and dangerous effects of hotel use. It is not coincidence that the application of HDR guidelines would result in a lower density hotel. It is appropriate that a hotel on a residential street, next to 2 homes, be of less density than a hotel on the highway. This hotel, because it is in a transition zone from commercial to single family residential, should be built in reference to the low density uses, as required by the HDR guidelines. By optimizing landscaping and removing to the extent practical commercial and service activities from the front of the building, there will be a slight reduction in density. This is a necessary consequence of the implementation of the HDR guidelines and the comprehensive plan's priorities, not a reason for ignoring them. 5. The changes which have been made to the proposed development, since the SEPA review, are not authorized under SEPA. Since the May 21 SEPA decision the proposed hotel has been changed in a number of respects which adversely affect the residential neighborhood. First, the EconoLodge parking lot has been rendered illegal by restriping in order to provide 4 spaces for use in connection with the proposed development. This changes the SEPA analysis rather dramatically, as the development was deemed to have no adverse land use effects in the initial SEPA review. This can hardly be said of the development as it is presently envisioned. The proposed development, as it now stands, requires the use of an illegal parking lot across the street, the waiver of the City's land use policies and guidelines in locating the loading area in the front yard setback, off the residential street and providing no pedestrian access to the front door. It also requires the disregard of the policies and guidelines regarding dumpsters and containment structures by locating the structure and dumpster outside the front and side yard setback and in proximity close to a family home. The aesthetic considerations have also changed dramatically since the SEPA review was conducted. The initial proposal envisioned a single large structure fronting the residential street with parking and services at the rear of the building. The front was relatively extensively landscaped. The present plan is for the large structure to remain in place with a loading zone in the front yard in place of landscaping. Thus, activities which are inconsistent with the residential neighborhood have been moved to the most obtrusive locations at the expense of a substantial portion of planned landscaping and a dumpster in front, near a house. rlk \clients \Iamb \tuk0918.1 tr /9.20.96 City Council The City of Tukwila September 20, 1996 Page 8 It seems clear that land use, aesthetics, transportation, public services and noise have all been adversely effected by the changes to the proposed development which has been made the highest conceivable number of hotel rooms at the site. The conclusions regarding the initial application do not relate to the present development. All of these changes have been made without a threshold SEPA determination and they violate SEPA because the negative impacts can be easily mitigated by complying with the City's own policies. Conclusion The issues discussed above relate to changes in the proposed development. In each instance the design guidelines and Comprehensive Plan policies were sacrificed in the interest of maximizing the number of hotel units. In so doing, the review procedure has been turned on its head. Residential neighborhoods are designated the highest priority but the policies favoring the neighborhoods have been implemented only to the extent that they do not effect the number of units in the proposed hotel. We ask the City Council to require that the loading zone and dumpster be located at the rear of the building out of eyesight from the street. We also ask the City Council to require that all parking lots used in whole or in part by the proposed development be entirely legal under the City Code. The City Counsel, we submit, should find the proposed offsite parking unacceptable for its use of an illegal parking lot. RLK:mo rlk \clients \Iamb \tuk0918.Itr /9.20.96 Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. ovv,L \o-L Rand L. Koler Z •. 6 :-J• i U U; N Ca ;W=; A F F I D A V I T 1, 5*-VIA I WMu.0 -,& J Notice of Public Hearing Li Notice of Public Meeting fl Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit 0 Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other NOTICE- O 1- E-ci f i O/3 El Other was mailed to each of the following addresses 11 2T of fi_ot-r-61-Lt EN41►ZaOsI4A- FEVIEW SEcfloiv Fo C307, L -7.7o 3 0L41APlA WA. ch6c4-`1'103 g KIND eink.NTI Ayr ;?'s or-Flclr PCCOuN iN&, 151vf 5.00 L PO) - 'RA 109 EATfl E, WA- Name of Project eCONto LO�� File Number Lgtp - 0010 on 9-3-9(6 Noc-,1 eowa -1 bar. o F D gi-tP 16 r < C-.111J�F,t?IN11 SEIZV iC-SS 3iouo 1310 Pc- 5S- 131%yt ->;.�v ►,� F , vii A q ©Uto - Iq o0 M6t0 - FNV 1 Rols^1>;+s l S2-1 2_01) kJ SEA 1t , vVA pleb D Iii. P113 Z glo Signature z Wiz. maaw J 0 U 0' U CO w' • = JI. N - w O LLa U = a. 1-=. z�; o z 1-1 uj D o' o N' -i o�. aj 1- -. WZ, 1- O. z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION August 30, 1996 TO: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Assessor, Acounting Division King County Building and Land Development Metro Environmental Planning Parties of Record: Wen Fan Lin Marilynn Van Hise Don and -Mary Tomaso Bob and Janelle Scarber Jim Brinton Rita Casey Ellen Gengler Diane Meyers Steve and Jeri Anderson Paul Gully Ron and Nancy Lamb Chris and Faye Thibodeaux SUBJECT: DECISION: LOCATION: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA DETERMINATION: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Philip Smith Philip Hemenway Dwight McLean Fred Sherman Tamra Hughs Steve Bicknell Ron Guernsey Robert Priest Rand Koler Rick Sherman Elizabeth Springer Colleen McFee File L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Development Design Review approval was granted for this 23,200 sf, 43 unit, 3 story hotel. 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA SEPA E96 -0004, BLA L96 -0006 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Board of Architectural Review at the August 29th public hearing. The Board voted to approve the design of the proposed hotel as presented in Attachment N to the supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996. The Board also adopted the findings and conclusions of the staff reports dated May 15, June 19, and August 23, 1996 as amended by the Board and shown in their minutes of May 23, June 27, and August 29. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 a' 6 UO CO =, JI" wo ga u_ w, z� i- o z al a U o ui z uiz; U �. rz z L96 -0010 Page 2 Notice of Decision Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planners are Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace who may be contacted at 431 -3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes nothwithstanding any program of revaluation. The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, August 30, 1996. The Tukwila City Council is the administrative body which would hear any appeal of the decision. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought: The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. I 1 A F F I D A V I T 0 Notice of Public Hearing LI Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit fl Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice 0 Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 5u_ oakix-VAA .. Name of Project File Number L„9 (p obi Signature City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION August 30, 1996 TO: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Assessor, Acounting Division King County Building and Land Development Metro Environmental Planning Parties of Record: Wen Fan Lin Marilynn`Van`Hise .Don and Mary Tomaso Bob °and Janelle "Scarber -Jim Brinton Rita Casey E11'enGengler Diane :Meyers Steve and Jeri Anderson 'Paul Gully Ron and Nancy Lamb Chris and Faye Thibodeaux SUBJECT: DECISION: LOCATION: ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA DETERMINATION: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Philip Smith Philip`Hemenway Dwight McLean Fred Sherman Tamra Hughs Steve Bicknell Ron Guernsey Robert Priest Rand Koler Rick Sherman Elizabeth Springer Colleen McFee File L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Development Design Review approval was granted for this 23,200 sf, 43 unit, 3 story hotel. 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA SEPA E96 -0004, BLA L96 -0006 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Board of Architectural Review at the August 29th public hearing. The Board voted to approve the design of the proposed hotel as presented in Attachment N to the supplemental Staff Report dated August 23, 1996. The Board also adopted the findings and conclusions of the staff reports dated May 15, June 19, and August 23, 1996 as amended by the Board and shown in their minutes of May 23, June 27, and August 29. 6300 S thcentx er Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 �vn.a�r a. o.Rr.y.�� e.•, ...,•M.�w,o...,...ewc« . Y.. .+er+.n.,nrnx�ewrv�aesvv.m.aw,,,, #e.CJ rroom+o4Ra;�Y filmmtw + %'Q'R. z i ~. •u6 JU: 00 U 0 N w. J =; • CO LL.. w o: LLa =a 1_ w 1- O: Z ,0 U; iO 0 H. ww wz U � 0 z L96 -0010 Page 2 Notice of Decision Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planners are Nora Gierloff and Jack Pace who may be contacted at 431 -3670 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes nothwithstanding any program of revaluation. The time period for appeals is 21 days starting from the date of this Notice of Decision, August 30, 1996. The Tukwila City Council is the administrative body which would hear any appeal of the decision. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials shall contain: 1. The name of the appealing party, 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party, and if the appealing party is a corporation, association, or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf, and 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in that decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed, the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. nv.wlwMrML wwwwswa +rmw.nw+ww— .w.e*mocon.ent . I1 z • z: ce -J C.) U Or CO (.3 Ww w O. g J. = a: M. H Ot ; Z D D p: ❑ 1- ;w w. = V. w z _`. O ~` Z A F F I D A V I T ONotice of Public Hearing Jj Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet J Planning Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action E Official Notice LI Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on PL-txd. Povi)a- `b 41/A, se--;6Y-L--7--Cs Name of Project File Number L"! (i- Obi d Signature z a z' • .wt t n 00 ;• w=:. w =d, F- _. Z �. z�-. N: w ': F.' wz F-�i • Z. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on August 29,1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: OLD BUSINESS: z Q w. Du6 JU' O 0; N 0. W =. J 1- CO IL w O I. CASE NUMBER: L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel 2 APPLICANT: Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates g _; REQUEST: Continuation of design review for a 43 unit hotel. w D. LOCATION: 4006 S. 139 Street, Tukwila. = a'. I— al x. zI H O' z.H; II. CASE NUMBER: L96 -0051: Code Amendment 2 m' D o'. APPLICANT: City of Tukwila 0 co: REQUEST: Amending the Zoning Code to change the definition of 01—, "Significant Trees" to include Cottonwood trees. :w w LOCATION: City-wide H. v w z' w : .0 — O , z NEW BUSINESS: CASE NUMBER: L96 -0052: Code Amendment APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Amending the Sign Code to include an amortization ordinance for non - conforming signs and changes to the planned shopping center and office sections. LOCATION: City -wide CASE NUMBER: L96 -0053: Code Amendment APPLICANT: City of Tukwila REQUEST: Amending the Zoning Code to allow fermenting and distilleries in Industrial zones. LOCATION: City-wide Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times August 16, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners/ Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ,.+M tMratiejaMM=V jw),3e5+,,ctrr omm wr- .oa.+vne+ue..mxn+rIM.0rma+im .1 Y.IM*91nla rAMHE% fist,,,,,. • •.Tenant . 4020 S 140. St, #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 . . • •.. . S 140 St,.#28 _Tukwila, WA 98168 .':Tenant • : .:4020•S 140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 S.140 St, #30 '.jukwila, WA 98168 Tenant ....„.„... • S 10 St., #31-4( WA 98168 Tenant •''!4020 S 140 St, #31' Tukwila, WA 98168 . , -.:Tenant . S 140 St, #32/ • WA 98168 Tenant --- • Sr140 St, #33' .-‘Tukwlla, WA 98168 . . . S 140 Si/f34/ WX 98168 • S 140 St, #35 :....:.:.:.Tukwila , WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 ' Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020S 140 St, #22 Tukwila,:cWA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 TukWilai WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila,-,WA 98168 • "Ipart '4020 Si4o St, #25 Tukwila; WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 •Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St., #11 //- Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 4020 S 140 St, #13/' Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 40?0 S 140 St, #14// Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 / Tukwila, WA 98168 ' Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 : • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17' Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19,' Tukwila; WA 98168 Laundromat 4012 S 140. St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #1/I Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #2/ Tukwila, WA 98168 :Tenant 4020 S. 140 St, #3.; Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 .St, . #4. . Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 • *Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA 98168 :Tenant .:' 4020 S 140 St, #7 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA. 98168 • Tenant 4020.S 140 St, #9 :.._.. Tukwila, WA 98168 • Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hy 'S Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant . :: 13874 38 Av S Tukwila, WA-.98168 Tenant ''.'13820 38 Av S Tukwila, WA .98168 8eemer, Tami 13719 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13751 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha i . 4011 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Leonard / 4101:S 139 St_ " ,Tukwila, WA' 98168 Huntell.LeRoy 4110 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 .Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const- '13810 Pacific Hy S 'Tukwila, WA 98168 • Derby Tavern .// • 13820 Pacific Hy S .Tukwila, WA 98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 .M1 Tenant - 13921 Pacific Hy'S Tukwila, WA 98168. Tenant' 13923 Pacific. Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 - Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 • Tukwila, WA 98168 • z = 1-1' 'H Z, re 2 JO U O' ' cow W= H; W• , w<. a; w. • _: z� z w w;. V, Wr 1-- ~V O:. w --( O. z Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 • Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 I• Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS• Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 13808 38 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 • Uhl William A 3323926AvSW - Federal Way;. WA• 98023 Gause Sharon. 13823 38/Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin i• _ 13844 38 Av S "% ' • Tukwila, WA 913.168 Hudson Tommy III 1385638AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 .:r Fickle Dixie L 1386838AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S .Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 116524AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Carter•Clarence C Jr..- 4115S 139 St /" Tukwila, WA 98168 , Ton*. oma$o•Donald•L 13707141 St S Tukwila, WA 98168. Resident / 13814 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 • Clay. Ralph L 1382638AvS' Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S `r ' Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 1386238AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Feuling Michael Lawrence 704N74 Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle; WA 98109 Stanley Carl • 13709 41 Av S - Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 13716 41 Av S • Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 KessellKelly 1371741AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 • Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 • • Guernsey'Ron R . - 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Nancy Lamb / 4251 South 139th Street {Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 13015 38th Avenue South Tukwila, ,WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 1371541AvS Tukwila, WA 98188 . Kiddoo .Corwin • 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Phi Tip Hemenway 4036 South 128th Street • Tukwila, WA 98168 • Fred Sherman 13715 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth. 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan —'' 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila;•.WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 •z • Z' 'CL U O! cn w; •W Mc• Jai• • .N W! • gad` Nom;.. • = • F- , . . : • • I— O: W <'O H = U • O, • Z, r • A F F I D A V I T XNotice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting 0 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on T1-1411 O F D I S T R I B II T'I O N hereby declare that: O Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice f Notice of Action []Official Notice 0 Other Other Name of Project ( /(��° it File Number L M (p Signature City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 8, 1996 RE: Proposed Hotel Development 4006 S. 139th Street Dear Neighbor, This letter is to inform you that the continued Design Review hearing for this project that was to take place on Thursday August 22nd has been rescheduled for Thursday August 29th. The design of the project has been presented to the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) at public hearings on May 23 and June 27. The BAR required some revisions at the June 27th public hearing. Given the scope of these changes and the items scheduled for the July 25th agenda the project was scheduled to come back before the Board at its August 22nd meeting. However, a quorum of Board members could not meet on the 22nd, so the meeting has been rescheduled for Thurday, August 29th. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the proposal is invited to attend. It will be held at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday August 29th. The revised plans are now available for review. If you have any additional questions or want more information about the proposal please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Sincere, y, 'I'llNora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 :. Tenant '4020 S 140 St, #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 `Tenant:.. 4020 S 140 St, #28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant ••4020 S 140 St, #30 :Tukwila, WA 98168 'Tenant 4020 S 140 St., #31 ;Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant X4020 S 140 St, #31 ;Tukwila, WA 98168 .Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #32. %Tukwila WA 98168 Tenant :4020 S,140 St, #33 *,..Tukwila, WA 98168 • 'Tenant . ':.4020 S 140 St;°' #34 *Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant '4020 S 140 St, #35 ;Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020'S 140 St, #22 Tukwila, • WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 Tukwila; WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Te,nant 4020 S :140 St, #25 Tukwila; WA 98168. Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant . 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 ., • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 ' Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19 Tukwila; WA 98168 Laundromat 4012 S 140 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #1 Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 re w; UO` U) w w = am;, N LL; w o. g J. =� a. z�. o' z ;w w.: Do o AU -al'. 'I OF p, on ui z; 01- z. Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #7 *Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA. 98168 Tenant 4020.S 140 St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Padific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38 Av S Tukwila, WA. 98168 • Tenant !'13820 38 Av S Tukwila, WA *98168 i, arr.V.Si wi'✓+5:1irIsL:'<F� i7 kli'" �l.E 7tSi. ";;Y `..asi.a+. vSS'Y1:Sini::tfniKYS�.:ii�3?r Beemer, Tami 13719 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13751 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 4011 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 PI Huber, Leonard 410'. f S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell. LeRoy 4110 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 .Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const .13810 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern • 13820 Pacific Hy S .Tukwila, WA 98168 :iStld�i " 1iVf..W" tti.'L:i git" United Motors • 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 13921 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant. 13923 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 Tukwila, WA 98168 Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 13808 38 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 3323926AvSW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38,1Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 13844 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 13856 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Fickle Dixie L 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 11652 4 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tomiso, DonaldL 1370741 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 1381438AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S • Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 13862 38 Av Tukwila, WA 98168 Feuling Michael Lawrence 704N74 • Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl 13709 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 13716 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kessell Kelly 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 z a zH z eV Ili Um 2 6 JU o O', (0 0;. W w w ti w 0: ga. wQ. Via'. = w' F- o's z 1-: w w • 0; • (D` ;0 1-: w V -• .0' zl W z� -' Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Nancy Lamb 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 13015 38th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 r Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo .Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Philip Hemenway 4036 South 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Fred Sherman • • 13715 42n4 Avenue South • Tukwila, WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila; WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 _ 1 w -2: U: U O; Nom. LO J =: 'Li 0; g is Z z LLI w U w ■• 0 ~. z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Supplemental Staff Report to the BAR Please refer to May 15th Report for Design Criteria Discussion Prepared August 23, 1996 HEARING DATE: August 29, continued from June 27 and May 23, 1996 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Continued Public Hearing mailed July 24, 1996 Notice of Continued Public Hearing mailed August 9, 1996 Hearing Agenda mailed August 15, 1996 FILE NUMBER: L96 -0010 ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA E96 -0004 BLA L96 -0006 APPLICANT: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 23,200 sf, 43 unit, 3 story hotel. LOCATION: 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA LOT SIZE: 22,320 sf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Regional Commercial SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Approval STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 1— W cc 2 u6o U o O; CO 11.0 w= J N LL: w O; = c", �w Z• z I- O z UOi. co: ,O. .w :H V! w z r, ;V,fAr z Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR ATTACHMENTS: L96 -0010 Page 2 N. Set of Building Plans 0. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated July 10, 1996 P. Memo From Bob Benedicto dated August 7, 1996 Q. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 19, 1996 R. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 20, 1996 S. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated August 21, 1996 T. Detail of Parking Easement ae 21 • ( :U O; • . U W :W =: W QH. M�' • , ,, Di • H W; F- O. 1-: O_ • W W, H U • ` • W • • Zt.. H � .Z•;. Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 3 FINDINGS BACKGROUND This is a supplement to the previous staff report dated May 15, 1996, and the first update dated June 19, 1996. iz The BAR held the first public hearing on May 23rd at which the Board decided to deny D the applicant's request for a waiver of the loading zone and require a 25% increase in the o' landscape buffer along the south edge of the property. The hearing was continued to June cn 27th to allow time for the project to be revised to meet these requirements. w =, u_ At the June 27th hearing the Board continued the hearing and directed the applicant and w O' staff to address ten specific areas of concern that they wanted resolved before making a final decision on the project. The focus of this hearing is whether these issues have been u resolved to the satisfaction of the Board. i Da I- w z �. ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS HEARING F- O' Z uj The areas that the BAR wanted resolved were the following: 2 .0 ±O N. oF- w uj` H U The landscape plan is compatible with the parking overhang. 6 p:: Li. Z. 2. The applicant must address the shortage of parking spaces by restriping the existing —, Econolodge parking lot in a manner which meets the City of Tukwila parking Z ~' standards given in TMC 18.56 before a building permit is issued for the new hotel. 1. The 1'6" overhang of the parking stall into the landscape area on the north and east sides of the site will be allowed if the landscaping is low. The acting City Attorney has advised staff that spaces in the Econolodge parking lot used to satisfy parking requirements for the new hotel, and access to these spaces, must meet current city standards. He has further advised staff that restriping of spaces other than those needed for the new hotel, cannot be required to meet current city standards, so long as any pre- existing degree of legal non - conformity is not increased. Staff has determined that the four spaces in the Econolodge lot proposed for meeting the parking needs of the new hotel, and access to those spaces, meet current City code requirements. Staff has also determined that the restriping of the remainder of the Econolodge parking lot for a total of 51 spaces) has been accomplished in a manner that does not increase the degree of non - conformity for that lot. It should be noted, however, that the act of restriping the Econolodge parking lot may have triggered an obligation on the part of the property owner to bring the entire lot into compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The acting City Attorney has advised staff that the City has no authority to enforce Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 4 ADA requirements other than those that have been specifically incorporated into the Washington State Building Code (Chapter 11). The restriping "threshold "for compliance is not incorporated in the building code (nevertheless, the Washington State Building Code has been certified by the federal government as "meeting or exceeding" the requirements of Title III ADA). It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all such ADA requirements, and enforcement action would be through the U.S. Department of Justice, rather than the City. 3. The proposed monument sign must be moved out of the "clear vision triangle" as shown on the attachment to the staff report. This has been done as shown on drawing A1.1. 4. Ensure that the handicapped parking area be redesigned if necessary to meet the ADA and Tukwila codes, and return to the Board for final review. The handicapped parking area has been redesigned to provide the required spaces at appropriate dimensions, and to provide direct access to the interior of the building so that handicapped persons will not have to enter the designated driveway to access the facility. As indicated under item #2, above, the City has authority only to enforce the accessibility requirements of the Washington State Building Code. The Code states that the primary access to a facility must be accessible (Sec. 1103.2.3). It goes on to state that "wherever practical, the accessible route of travel shall not cross lanes of vehicular traffic" (Sec. 1107.1.6)(emphasis supplied). Staff has concluded that the primary access meets these requirements. The proposed additional entrance provides an appropriate option under these circumstances, but is not mandatory under the State code. There may be other issues associated with handicapped parking and accessibility that will need to be addressed during the detailed design and plan check process (see memo from plans examiner Bob Benedicto, Attachment P). The entire project will be carefully reviewed for compliance with Chapter 11 of the Washington State Building Code and other City- adopted codes at that time, as is our normal procedure. As in the past, should our detailed plan check result in anything other than minor, insignificant changes to a BAR - approved design, the proposal would be brought back before the Board for additional review (TMC 18.60.030(3)). 5. The loading zone must be reviewed, and if necessary, be redesigned to meet all Tukwila requirements. It should not be designed for passenger loading and shuttle parking, but should be designed for vans or delivery trucks. It cannot count the sidewalk width as part of its area. z F=-Z re 2 w. c) 0. w 0. �w W =. Jam. wO g¢ = a: 1-w_ T F-. • I-O':. Z F- 2 D. ' O N' ta ;w w H U — ~O. Z � 0 z. Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR Page 5 The loading zone and sidewalk have been redesigned. The location of the sidewalk has been changed to the west side of the lot to avoid any conflict with the loading zone, see A1.1. 6. The garbage area height, location, and size must be reviewed by staff to make sure that it meets all requirements. Staff should advise the applicant if redesign is necessary prior to the next hearing. The garbage area will be enclosed in a 6 foot fence and landscaped. The drive through canopy has a 14' clearance. Fire engines require a 13'6" clearance. Staff's discussion with SeaTac Disposal indicates that they require a 14' clearance. The garbage enclosure is not located within the front setback area. There are no zoning code requirements for size of garbage collection areas. The recycling collection areas meet area requirements. Mr. Benedicto's review showed no UBC issues. 7. Ensure that the easement meets the building code requirements. Staff has discussed this matter with the City Attorney and his advice is that even if some aspects of the Econolodge parking lot do not meet Tukwila's current code requirements the granting of an easement for some of the spaces would not in itself trigger conformity for the entire lot. The City of Tukwila does not have the authority to enforce the requirements of the ADA outside of those accessibility requirements found in the UBC and enforced through the building permit process. However, any spaces which are to be used to enable the new building to meet code should themselves meet code as should the route of travel. The applicant has submitted a plan of the Econolodge parking lot calling out the spaces to be used by the new hotel and demonstrating that they meet current standards. 8. All parking regulations must be met, including both Tukwila's parking code and the UBC, especially the 10' stall width where obstructions would interfere with opening car doors. The width of columns at the end of stalls does not have to be subtracted from the stall width calculation, however columns in the middle of stalls which interfere with door opening must be relocated or the stall width increased. The columns and parking spaces have been redesigned to meet these requirements. 9. More evergreen trees should be provided along the east side of the site to provide more screening for the residential neighbors in the winter. The trees along the east side of the project will be western hemlocks. This is a relatively quick growing evergreen tree suited for screening. 10. The blankness of the short portion of the east wall should be remedied either through modulation or architectural detailing in order to make it more harmonious with the residential neighborhood. } i 1 Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L96 -0010 Page 6 One unit has been removed from the third floor, enabling the roof to slope continuously from the peak to the second floor. This results in only one story of building wall instead of two on the projecting portion of the east wall, and fewer windows facing the houses to the east. Detailing has been added to the wall to increase the visual interest. CONCLUSIONS Each of the areas of concern raised by the Board at the last meeting has been addressed. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the project. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division- Permit Center , 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: 8/.411 PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: 96 — v PROJECT NAME: f//• mac( 40E,, C PROJECT ADDRESS: 4-D06 (� �ti° 4tC o CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: / s 7 REVISION SUMMARY: SHEET NUMBER(S) 7 /L•-- ( 4 1. L 4 . c)/ 4°). 3 A 3 �� " Cloud " or highlight hli g ht all areas of revisions and date revisions. SUBMITTED TO: /46-.4_, (27 RECEIVED AUG 1 6 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Y+� 3/19/96 z =z w. JU O 0 co J • H • w w0 gQ I- w. z� z o. Lu '0 - O I-' W W' F=-0 F (L -' z O� Z MEMO DATE: 8/7/96 TO: Nora G. FROM: Bob B. SUBJECT: Preliminary review comments- proposed 42 -unit Hotel. NO. of PAGES: 1 I have reviewed the preliminary plans and the untitled commentary of design concerns. The following response is from the perspective of the building division which will have the responsibility for reviewing this project for compliance with the applicable codes. It should be noted that the subject plans are preliminary and do not represent construction documents that would normally be submitted with a building permit application. The majority of design concerns have been directed to the requirements of the A.D.A. as it relates to barrier free access to this building. The requirements for barrier free access are enforced through Chapter 11 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, as amended by the State of Washington, and adopted by the City of Tukwila under Title 16 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Chapter 11, as amended by the State of Washington, was submitted to The U.S. Department of Justice and has been certified as meeting or exceeding the new construction and alterations requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We will be reviewing and vigorously enforcing Chapter 11 - not the A.D.A.. The remainder of design concerns are building code related or architectural design functions. The building code requirements will be reviewed by staff and compliance will be documented on the construction documents prior to issuance of a building permit. Architectural design functions are left to the design professionals who are trained to provide design services. We involve our authority only when the architect's design is clearly contrary to the health and life safety requirements of the building code. Many valid topics of review have been identified in the commentary that is the subject of this memo. Be assured that all code related concerns will be addressed during the plan review that takes place as a result of the building permit application. • CH EN G b ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL LETTER It PROJECT (name, address) "AVM DA- /Avd' Ly1 -bP /v TO L/rr t 2P h w/M ATTN.: ∎ /C4 G /ECGo�� WE TRANSMIT: ( ) herewith ( ) in accordance with FOR YOUR: ( ) approval ( ) review & comment ( ) use THE FOLLOWING: ( ) Drawings ( ) Specifications ( ) Change Order ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: DATE: da /e /y If enclosures are not as noted please Inform us immediately checked below please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us ( ) under separate cover via your request ( )distribution to parties ( ) information ( ) record ( ) Other ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducible ( ) Product Literature ( ) Other r COPIES I I DATE REV.NO. I DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE / (/ /frf. /esv /Sb'o ,O4 $ /4 N / v / tk-Al. yr ,nom• ACTION CODE A. Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS E. No action required E. See REMARKS below r C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS PA Ache y see .444 Y 9e4 ,ems tSM.s. J wipes �n 1.4 AO' >D &Mice' cr Nero' "r4 X1-7" exwv. Gts 1,497-4" ,4.a 'f A-2 A- ,1- 4'm4f ou' 1ORi>E' Y4s (e.g_ ,eeOaer a v/L VOcf 1.4Sey -ru Coe. COPIES TO (with enclosures) ❑ 0 ❑ BY: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AN 0 6 1996 PERMIT CENTER ARCIIITF_CTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112'1111RD AVENUE, stint 201, SEATTLE. WA 9R121 PHONE 206-411.5745 /FAX 206- 441.1760 ..erPM�CP°n4'uq'flaN2T�tlf7 MrcaB !S5+!OeArcHrm�m•.nM�.HCmmm.c. zero+. nx......-.•......... ..,.....,..- ...........o..a. .....ovxsn.+lax„�rMr�;Nw!• 7ntlg'.�'. •-�.. rn».•sx,aaor Nr..F,wWl -.w. ttS ;F't7fT' �iNr:,...:,.,�.r.,. z 1 w. J QQM. o UO• Nom: uj J 1- U) LL. 0. 2 g J. co D I=- _, Z I- 0' Z O N, 0 I-': wW la Z: Iii U N, F. H z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 25, 1996 Johnny Cheng Cheng & Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 RE: EconoLodge Design Revisions L96-0010 Dear Mr. Cheng, This letter is to accompany the drawings you submitted July 17 which I have redlined to show the areas which need to be revised to meet BAR or code requirements. I am also enclosing a memo from Bob Benedicto, Senior Plans Examiner, which outlines some building code issues that will have to be addressed at the time of building permit application. We have discussed the use of off-site parking at the existing Econolodge to meet the new hotel's parking requirements with the city attorney. His position is that even if some aspects of the parking lot do not meet current code the granting of an easement would not in itself trigger conformity. However, any spaces which are to be used to enable the other building to meet code should themselves meet code as should the route of travel. This means that instead of the general easement that has been submitted we need an easement that identifies the specific stalls to be reserved for the new building and confirmation that they and the aisle which provides access to them meet Tukwila's standards. I will need eight copies of the revised plans (seven for the Board, one for the file) and the new easement by August 6th. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at 433 -7141. 74/ Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner cc: Mr. Wen Fan Lin Enclosures. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 24, 1996 RE: Proposed Hotel Development 4006 S. 139th Street Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to build a new hotel directly north, across 139th Street from the existing hotel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new three story building. The design of the project has been presented to the Board of Architectural Review at public hearings on May 23 and June 27. The BAR required some revisions at the June 27th public hearing. Given the scope of these changes and the items scheduled for the July 25th agenda the project has been scheduled to come back before the Board at its August 22nd meeting. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the proposal is invited to attend. It will be held at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday August 22nd. The revised plans will be available for review after August 7th. If you have any additional questions or want more information about the proposal please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 cc 6 Uo w: wI J LL' w o: LLQ1 _ °. w. _. z t-- o z 1-; D O cu O H, = wt V1. IL I-1 W Z: z CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: 7 /f7/g4 %- 00/o PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: /' 94 ` 00/ P/A3-p12-a_a_ae.- PROJE CT NAME: �'[ d� - C= UnC.)IUQ/ -r, PROJECT ADDRESS: 4O D 6 v • / 3I,uc CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: 44 l 5 7 «L REVISION SUMMARY: RECEIVED CITY or TUKWILA JUL 1 7 1996 PERMIT CENTER SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. c,sa. /24_td ( 7 SUBMITTED TO: 7it CITY USE ONLY 3/19/96 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 10, 1996 Wen -Fan Lin Econolodge Motel 13010 Pacific Highway South Tukwila, WA 98168 RE: BAR Hearing Schedule Dear Mr. Lin, I have scheduled the proposed hotel project, L96 -0010, to go back before the BAR on the August 22nd hearing date. This will allow enough time for you to redesign the project to address all of the concerns that the Board raised at the June hearing as well as provide time for staff and the public to review the changes. We will need your revised drawings by July 22nd to allow staff enough time to review them and prepare an updated staff report. If you have any questions or comments, please call me. at 431 -3670. Eck Pace Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 •.z • . • ;� w • JU` ',OD; • U U'. ,C0w • w z; N LL; O! a. • Date: July 3, 1996 To: Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner Department of Community Development Fax: 431-3665 Dear Mr. Pace: Econo Lodge Sea-Tac Airport 13910 Pacific Highway South Seattle, Washington 98168 206/244-0810 800/446'666I Fax: 206/431-9503 Today Mr. Johnny Cheng, our architect of the Ramada Inn project at 4006 S. 139th Street, informed me that our confining BAR review may not be placed on the agenda at the meeting to be scheduled on July 25, 1996. The concern is that the City has other projects to review while the Lamb party may once again make a lengthy presentation. As you are aware, this project has been subject to repeated delays. Timing is crucial for this project. Since the construction of a project like this generally takes nine months or longer, a further delay will slide the opening of the new hotel to into late summer (1997). Most of our business is during the summer months (June, July and August). It is essential to have our property open before the summer, for financial health. In addition, the delay may invoke the bank to cancel the financing commitment, .as the SBA loan guarantee is due to expire again from the previous extension. We will do whatever to meet the requirement from the board. Our project review on July 25 should not take longer than necessary in this BAR review, allowing the 0000rtunity for other new applications to be reviewed at the same meeting. Your consideration of this request will be deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Wen Lin cc: Mr. Steve Lancaster Director r ���r~�� u � � �~^'��..0 "996 5mm Drawing# City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director June 28, 1996 Johnny Cheng . Cheng & Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 RE: EconoLodge Design Revisions Dear Mr. Cheng, This letter is to summarize the preliminary conclusions reached at the Board of Architectural Review public hearing last night. The BAR expressed concerns that the building was pushing the limits of the site and decided that they wanted the following specific items to be addressed and for the project to come back before the Board when it had been redesigned. This list is from my notes and may be expanded once the minutes of the meeting have been prepared. 1. The 1.5 foot overhang of the parking stall into the landscape area on the north and east sides of the site will be allowed if the landscaping is low. 2. The handicapped parking stalls must be redesigned to meet UBC standards including the requirement that direct entry to the building from the stall be possible without having to enter the travel lane. 3. The loading zone must be designed for delivery trucks, not just passenger loading, and it cannot count the sidewalk width as part of its area. 4. The height of the entry canopy must be designed to accommodate fire engines and garbage trucks. 5. Recycling space must be provided on site in the amount specified by code. 6. All parking regulations must be met, including both Tukwila's parking code and the UBC, especially the 10' stall width where obstructions would interfere with opening car doors. The width of columns at the end of stalls does not have to be subtracted from the stall width calculation, however columns in the middle of stalls which interfere with door opening must be relocated or the stall width increased. Stalls 13 and 14 should be examined to ensure that they are usable. 7. More evergreen trees should be provided along the east side of the site to provide more screening for the residential neighbors. 8. The blankness of the short portion of the east wall should be remedied either through modulation or architectural detailing. The monument sign must be moved out of the clear vision triangle as shown on the attachment to the staff report. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z _ .` 1.1 00. CO CI. w =. J 1--' w0 g. LL j. - = a. w f- s z �. 1- 0: z 1-. w_ U� N ww 0 =' 0 1--. z ••• • L96-0010 Page 2 (4) I would like you to estimate how long these revisions will take to accomplish and get back to me by July 8th so that we can schedule you for a BAR meeting. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at 433-7141. Sincer ly, • .,..• • ' "i■A'au,' RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIAL: (206) 621 -6441 KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SUITE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -2203 PHONE (206) 621-6440 • FAX (206) 587 -0226 June 26, 1996 Via Facsimile (206 431 -3667) and U.S. Mail Steve Lancaster Director of Community Planning City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: File No. L96 -0010; BAR June 27, 1996 Hearing Dear Mr. Lancaster: This letter is submitted in response to the supplemental staff report to the BAR, prepared June 19, 1996. We represent the Lamb family in connection with the above - referenced matter. Nancy Sandine Lamb provided you with a letter dated June 20, 1996, containing her comments on the proposed development. Her letter points out the numerous code violations contained in the subject application and its non - conformance with the City's purposes and objectives in its land use planning, none which seems to have been adequately considered in the staff report. At the hearing conducted on May 23, 1996, the applicant was required to make certain design modifications. These modifications were made, but they were not done in a manner in conformance with the Tukwila City Code and the concerns regarding parking, safety, the site's integration with the neighborhood and accommodations for handicapped have been exacerbated by these most recent changes. Listed below is a brief description of the areas in which further inquiry by the staff is warranted. 1. Parking. The staff report correctly states that 44 parking spaces are required for 44 rooms. It states that 40 parking spaces are available on the site, but fails to state that more than half of these sites are illegal. The sizes are sub - standard, encroached upon by support columns, and located too close to walls. Furthermore, as detailed in Nancy Lamb's letter, parking ingress and egress is sub - standard. c:wp51 \Iamb \Ian06- 26.Itr \04.23.96 I Z Q ' W, • 1 U 0 CO W =: J I.-, w o, �Q =a �w I- o' Z ~` 2 ml o N. ww LL• Z : Q u) z Steve Lancaster June 26, 1996 Page 2 The staff report states that Econo Lodge has granted an easement for 4 spaces, which apparently do not now exist. It acknowledges that the Econo Lodge parking lot must be restriped to provide an adequate number of spaces to accommodate the parking requirements of the new development. The feasibility and legality of off site parking for the four stalls, however, has not been adequately analyzed. Furthermore, the proposed easement does not reserve any parking space for the project. The easement is of little use unless specific space is allocated for the exclusive use of the new building with appropriate signage. (Presumably, these four stalls would be located in the part of the lot closest to the new hotel.) W O'. 2. The Loading Zone. The staff report says that applicant has designed a loading 2 space which meets the minimum size requirements of 10 feet by 30 feet. The illustration ga' available for public review, however, shows that five feet of this space is to be used for LL • <: pedestrian traffic. - w zi-- ZO w P- o �— 3. Disabled Patrons. As explained in Nancy Lamb's letter, the applicant does not i v, appear to make adequate provision for access by disabled people. This raises related concerns regarding compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act. The staff report does not z` seem to give any consideration to the effect on disabled people of the applicant's attempt to H jam on the site the maximum conceivable density. The myriad examples of corner cutting 0 l- and attempts to avoid the literal application of the Code requirements results in a plan which is not only threatening to the peace of the residential neighborhood and the safety of pedestrians and drivers, but creates at best an inhospitable environment for disabled people. The staff report fails to discuss the appropriateness of the dimensions of the loading space the applicant's selection of the location of the loading dock, nor does it consider the effect of this location on the surrounding area. The report further ignores the effect of garbage and recycling collection on operation of the facility, including traffic patterns. 4. Conclusion. The staff report, including the first report, do not adequately consider the profoundly negative effects and risks created by the proposal. The redesign most recently proposed represents a gesture intended to meet BAR's requirements to the minimal degree. The result, though, is a huge monolithic structure towering over a residential area with illegal parking, grossly inadequate provision for traffic patterns, and unscrutinized off - site parking. This project, if permitted as now presented, will be, not just a continuing problem the City, but a blight on the surrounding residential community. c:wp5 I \Iamb \Ian06 -26.1 tr \04.23.96 �'l.Yl:il��i(F.i�' 1 J��+ 2+. h�a v- as�r..y� •.�:�i�Y.Yi.1L+�riii:N ' Steve Lancaster June 26, 1996 Page 3 We respectfully request that the applicant be asked to withdraw the application until the various code violations have been adequately considered and resolved by further design modification. RLK:mo cc: Ron and Nancy Lamb c;wp51 \Iamb \Ian06 -26.Itr \04.23.96 Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. a/vs Rand L. Koler City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Supplemental Staff Report to the BAR Please refer to May 15th Report for Design Criteria Discussion Prepared June 19, 1996 HEARING DATE: June 27, 1996, continued from May 23, 1996 NOTIFICATION: Notice of Continued Public Hearing June 14, 1996 FILE NUMBER: L96 -0010 ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA E96 -0004 BLA L96 -0006 APPLICANT: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects z. �Z. W a U0; CO WI w x: J W0,. u_ < ral 1— i H 0'. zl UJ 2 Di a; REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 22,750 sf, 0 I--' 44 unit, 3 story hotel. LOCATION: 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA LOT SIZE: 22,320 sf COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Regional Commercial SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace ATTACHMENTS: K. Set of Building Plans L. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) M. Diagram of the Clear Vision Triangle for Sign Placement 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Y_ a moteteatOne, Supplemental Staff Report to the L96 -0010 Planning Commission/BAR. Page 2 FINDINGS BACKGROUND The BAR held a public hearing on May 23rd at which the Board decided to deny the applicant's request for a waiver of the loading zone and require a 25% increase in the landscape buffer along the south edge of the property. The hearing was continued to June 27th to allow time for the project to be revised to meet these requirements. Under TMC 18.56.060 one loading space is required for hotel buildings which are between 3,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. The minimum dimensions of a small loading space are 10 feet by 30 feet. The applicant has revised the drawings to provide this space directly south of the lobby, resulting in a reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces from 41 to 40. The BAR required a 25% increase in the standard 10 foot wide landscape area along the southeast edge of the site and the applicant has revised the drawings to show this 12.5 foot buffer. By using compact parking spaces the increase in landscape area was provided without loss of any parking spaces. The project requires 44 parking spaces for the 44 rooms. Forty parking spaces are available on site and the owner of the existing Econo Lodge has granted an easement for use of four spaces in the Econo Lodge parking lot to meet the parking requirement per TMC 18.56.040 1(B). As the existing parking lot is currently striped there are only 49 spaces, two more than required by code. The applicant has documented that the lot can be restriped according to City of Tukwila standards to provide 51 spaces. The lot will have to be restriped before issuance of a building permit for the new hotel. ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS HEARING The following discussion is a supplement to the previous staff report dated May 15, 1996. Only minor changes to the site plan were necessary to comply with the Board's decisions so only the sections of the design criteria discussion which have changed due to the revisions are included below. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; B. The largest trees are concentrated along the south and east edges of the site to provide a buffer between the commercial zone and the residential zone. The site is enclosed by a fence on all but the southern side, so landscaping other than treetops will not be visible from those sides. An increase in landscape buffer width has been provided along the southeast edge of the property, which faces a residential zone. z Q z' w u6D • UO o. w= J wo .u_ _1 rnDev: _: w: I— 0 • •z t-' • w w: D • o; 1- w W;. .HV;. ..z • U N` O ~; z. Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Commission/BAR L96 -0010 Page 3 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings Z and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale; ' ~ w' The proposed signage meets the requirements of the sign code, except the location of the 6 freestanding sign. The proposed wall signs are each 22 square feet in area. Under the v p Sign Code the south facade is allowed up to 80 square feet of signage and the west facade N o ' u�w is allowed up to 145 square feet of signage. The proposed monument sign is 22 square 11.1 I—'. feet per side, while the site is allowed a sign up to 50 square feet per side. The monument sign needs to be moved out of the "clear vision triangle" adjacent to the driveway (see O attachment G). There are no illuminated signs proposed for the north or east facades per g SEPA condition number 6. LL- Q d, 1— w: CONCLUSIONS ? I— O; Z I—; Lu The project as currently designed does not conflict with the policies in the j o Comprehensive Plan. All applicable development regulations will be met when the 0 co Econo Lodge parking lot is restriped to provide the required number of parking spaces. �- The changes to the site plan required by the Board's previous decisions were minor and v. the discussion of the project's relationship to the design criteria criteria has not changed u_ 5 except in the two sections noted above. The conclusions given in the previous staff Z'. report are still applicable with the exception of Part 5, Miscellaneous Structures and cwi ='. Street Furniture, which follows. z 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. The proposed signage meets all sign code requirements and SEPA condition 6, with the exception of the location of the monument sign which will need to be moved away from the driveway. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the project with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must address the shortage of parking spaces by restriping the existing Econo Lodge parking lot in a manner which meets the City of Tukwila parking standards given in TMC 18.56 before a building permit is issued for the new hotel. 2. The proposed monument sign must be moved out of the "clear vision triangle" before issuance of a sign permit. cl a ,T1 < • )- '7.77-21,;f): • • .% • oi _ a 4 .1.23N.LS LOSS1 , o r T ACHMENT M -RI 1NM Qicl (56 C H E N G & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS June 18, 1996 Ms. Nora Gierloff Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed Hotel (Ramada Inn) at 4006 South 139th Street, Tukwila, WA Dear Nora: ;,.. Coil JUN 1. 8 1996 DFVELOPMFNT Enclosed please find seven copies of the revised plans for your review and approval, plus a color board and a plot plan of Econo Lodge. I went over the parking layout of Econo Lodge and found that it is generally in comply with the city zoning requirements, except driveway widths which I assumed was designed according to King County Zoning when the permit was issued for the project in 1985. I don't think that the owner needs to widen the driveways from 23' to 24' to meet current zoning code, since there has been no change to use or structure over the last 11 years. Please call, if you have any questions. I really appreciate for your assistance since the beginning of this project. It has been a pleasure working with you. Sincerely yours, (X -617 ohnn C. L Chen Y . L. g Architect Enclosures: Revised plans and color board cc: Mr. Wen Lin ARCHITECTURE /PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206-441-5745 /FAX 206 -441 -8760 • z D. 00. CO w • w =. J V. `. • w0: • u-< • d> • 'I- w' •_'. z • :g Di O =, H V` u= O ui z. i0 wt • • • `.F 0•-1- : •z: A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N I, ,'Ail-Y1)4 4eM 41,E -�- hereby declare that: VNotice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet fl Board of Appeals Agenda Packet JJ Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet fl Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Li Shoreline Management Permit fl Determination of Non - significance f Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of. Action ❑ Official Notice 0 Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on -7- ZS" 1(0 -r-ha A mAC,1-1E6 Name of Project e.O N0�1i&IF File Number FA L9 L9 - 0010 Signature c nv uQ z i-Z rew J U; U0 co C: CO 111, W J � N.U; 0 u- Q i-0 z 0 N'.. 0 1— W W'; H V' wz Ii 01- Z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 24, 1996 RE: Proposed Hotel Development 4006 S. 139th Street Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to build a new hotel directly north, across 139th Street from the existing hotel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new three story building. The design of the project has been presented to the Board of Architectural Review at public hearings on May 23 and June 27. The BAR required some revisions at the June 27th public hearing. Given the scope of these changes and the items scheduled for the July 25th agenda the project has been scheduled to come back before the Board at its August 22nd meeting. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the proposal is invited to attend. It will be held at the Tukwila City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday August 22nd. The revised plans will be available for review after August 7th. If you have any additional questions or want more information about the proposal please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Sincerly, Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 'Tenant:. ;4020 S 140 St, #28 !Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 ;Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #30 Tukwila, WA 98168 'Tenant 4020 S 140 St., #31 ;Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant ;4020 S 140 St, #31 .Tukwila, WA 98168 !Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #32. Tukwila, WA 98168 !Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #33 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #34 Tukwila, WA 98168 'Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #35 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #22 Tukwila,:. WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 :140 St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant . 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19 Tukwila, WA 98168 Laundromat 4012 S 140 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #1 Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 n�nw... .•uu,,,,..,�e�rrtxx�rN:,r�l��Y�. �e4F��,' sa* R�ttt x' �G�'!,''l�i'•'1�1�?:9!'C.7��._. - z gz �: - z. CL • Wes,. J U; U O:: W= . uj O; a;: u. to = a' • .mow • z� zI Di ;O ww • H Vi z; U t O F; 1 :Z • Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant I 4020 S 140 St, #7 L Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA. 98168 Tenant 4020.S 140 St, #9. Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant. '13820 38 Av S Tukwila, WA '98168 Beemer, Tami 13719 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13751 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 4011 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 tl Hube, Leonard 410 ..iS 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 • Huntell LeRoy 4110 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant. 13923 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 Tukwila, WA 98168 z u6 JUi OO; .(0 w; w O` = • • z i-- z D pi . io 0; 1.0 AIJ • w z` Aragon -Mann Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 1380838AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 33239 26 Av SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 13844 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 13856 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Fickle Dixie L 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 11652 4 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomf so• DonaldlL 13707'41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13814 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 13862 38 Av Tukwila, WA 98168 Feuling Michael Lawrence 704 N 74 Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl 13709 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 1371641AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donna M 22315.6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kessell Kelly 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 v Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Nancy Lamb 4251 South 139th Street 'Tukwila, WA 98168 Dwight McLean 13015 38th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 •hti�l u:.iL::S:X'w:... iU...V Yn,�,....,,....N,v....ina.r.� ...�... Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo .Corwin 4102 S 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Philip Hemenway 4036 South 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Fred Sherman 13715 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila; WA 98168 Philip Smith 13016 37th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 A F F I D A V I T • M Notice of Public Hearing L Notice of Public Meeting LI Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet ['Planning Commission Agenda Packet fJ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit fl Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action El Official Notice 0 Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on N OkANtAii t cab cb( f )'(01,0/11 W 3 1. —ant loOdl t- Name of Project IGI (D - (-i) / O File Number ILLSibillcuLte _ i'.��:�L��I.fN'" •) �Sv .•:l':.�iY�141iab6al�tSht'1�z etQ QWes' 00: 1 .u) w ; w =: w Oi u.Q = d', w Z 1- 0` • Z i-- '0_�; 10 N' W 1- U; z;. • 0.1 z ti City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on June 27, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: OLD BUSINESS: I. CASE NUMBER: , APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: NEW BUSINESS: II. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates Continuation of design review for a 44 unit hotel. 4006 S. 139 Street, Tukwila. L96 -0021: Short Strokes Golf Facility H. Todd Kilburn, Peter Schroeder Architects Design review of a 2,324 sq. ft. golf club fabrication and sales business, and upper -story residence. 12923 E. Marginal Way, Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or.by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Time June 14, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners/ Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z. z, 0; U O; (0 0: W J H (ALL> wo LL F- Z w° = w; V i W z' • U ='. z A F F I D A V I T Notice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet LI Planning Commission Agenda Packet ❑ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit fl Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance fl Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice LI Notice of Action Official Notice j Other, Other was mailed to each of the following addresses F-T4 NTA —%vim �.ST Name of Project File Number L% ( on (4/41GI(/) z w. r[2 JU UO: :UO; U) 11J: MI I; w o u Q' mom':. w. ~_ :z 1- O • z 2 U co: :O co: w W; O z+ V Ham;. .z:..,' City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on June 27, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: OLD BUSINESS: I. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: NEW BUSINESS: II. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates Continuation of design review for a 44 unit hotel. 4006 S. 139 Street, Tukwila. L96 -0021: Short Strokes Golf Facility H. Todd Kilburn, Peter Schroeder Architects Design review of a 2,324 sq. ft. golf club fabrication and sales business, and upper -story residence. 12923 E. Marginal Way, Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Time June 14, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners/ Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #27 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant.. 4020 S 140 St, #28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #30 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St., #31 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #31 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020.S 140 St, #32 Tukwila, WA .98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #33 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #34 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #35 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #21 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #22 Tukwila,- WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant . 4020 S 140 St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #19 Tukwila, WA 98168 Laundromat 4012 S 140 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #1 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #2 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #5 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #6 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #7 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #8 Tukwila, WA. 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13820 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Beemer, Tami 13719 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13727 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13751 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 4011 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Leonard 4101 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell LeRoy 4110 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #36 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140 St, #37 Tukwila, WA 98168 z w u� J U; o; cn w; w J f .N U.', war uf z I— o 10=1. • i W H.V • U W' 0 Aragon -Marin Carlos Humbert 1814 East Fir Street Seattle, WA 98122 Fiore Nick T 4021 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Crowell Earl J 4105 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Birchcrest Apts. P.O. Box 925 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jacobson Carlton M Jr 1381337AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Woods Melody J 1380838AvS Seattle, WA 98168 Uhl William A 33239 26 Av SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Gause Sharon 13823 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ruffner Melvin 1384438AvS Tukwila, WA 98168 Hudson Tommy III 13856 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Fickle Dixie L 13868 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Vu Thinh Tien 24060 26 P1 S Des Moines, WA 98198 Sharma Nandeshwar Kimar Usha Devi 4017 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber Leonard E 116524 Av S Seattle, WA 98168 Carter Clarence C Jr 4115 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso, Donald L 13707 41 St S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13814 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Clay Ralph L 13826 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Bussey Phred D 13838 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Ballantyne Sherri 13850 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Stinson Saundra L 13862 38 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Feuling Michael Lawrence 704 N 74 Seattle, WA 98103 Geninco Insurance Trust 1001 Westlake Av N Seattle, WA 98109 Stanley Carl 13709 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Scarber Janelle M 13716 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tomaso Donna M 22315 6th Av S, #308 Des moines, WA 98198 Seitz Alfred B 13800 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Kessell Kelly 13717 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Priest Robert W 13728 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 13742 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 .z Lre ..JU: U O! N0' CO UP w =; J ,- w 0;- J; w Q: = Cy: ►-w z�. • I- o, z �. •U0 ;0 H :w 0. LL O uiz =: z Simon Elrey W 1900 Highland Rd Shelton, WA 98584 Hughes Cliff H 13739 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Guernsey Ron R 13732 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Brinton James F 13007 167 Av NE Redmond, WA 98052 Palermo Frank 13715 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98188 Kiddoo Corwin 41025 139 St Tukwila,WA 98168 Leonardo Gilbertine 4220 S 139 St Tukwila, WA 98168 Bicknell Elizabeth 13722 41 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Lin Wen Fan 13910 Pacific Hy S Tukwila, WA 98168 A F F I D A V I T Notice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: fl Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ❑ Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice fl Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Other Packet Notice of Application for O Other Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit was inai-led to each of the following addresses on -hcy ( 'w( 01, gq--- le (41 Name of Project File Number /--0(e " 0 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on June 27, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: OLD BUSINESS: I. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: NEW BUSINESS: II. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates Continuation of design review for a 44 unit hotel. 4006 S. 139 Street, Tukwila. L96 -0021: Short Strokes Golf Facility H. Todd Kilburn, Peter Schroeder Architects Design review of a 2,324 sq. ft. golf club fabrication and sales business, and upper -story residence. 12923 E. Marginal Way, Tukwila. Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement, or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division at 431 -3670. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times June 14, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners/ Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 JUN 1 %; 19$h REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: 7'(rf 9� PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: ? - ,f9 4 O S. (. ILdebuiia, 1 � PHONE: 4- 4-/ - S (4� REVISION SUMMARY: 1420-17 r (nom peA SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. SUBMITTED TO: ' d 6t J CITY USE ONLY 3/19/96 fidPVIToMMTIPAORIPPAttemmtkomutxxot z cc&I 6 JU UO 0 W=. J1: U LL w0 u- a. • _. =d 1— w z� 0: Z~ U• � N'. o 1. W w: LL 0, • Z 0 z A F F I D A V I T I, 6'k -. 'I1\ McNw LI Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet D Planning Commission Agenda Packet fJ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit fl Shoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance LI Mitigated.Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action 00f ficial Notice Other Ab i'1C.- OC el i o►A B9 1-1-1 1?)0A RD D— AR-454 RE��► Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on �s� TAE A�PCA s�e-6 Name of Project kCOM01-0b61. _ File Number L1 Q - 0G 10 6- 30-90 Signature rCV r 1 QSCSh-- City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 29, 1996 RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review File Number L96 -0010: Proposed I3otel at 4006 S. 139th Street This is to confirm that the Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review on May 23rd, 1996 denied the applicant's request for a waiver of the loading zone, and required that the east 25 feet of the southern edge of the property have a 12.5 foot landscaped buffer, rather than the 10 feet of landscaping that was proposed. These decisions will likely result in a reduction in the number of parking spaces that can be provided on site and therefore require that the project be redesigned, possibly with fewer guestrooms. The hearing was continued until June 27th to allow time to revise the site plan to meet these requirements. If you should have any questions regarding this project please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, //,/ Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z •: • mow' JU •o o' O Ill J � wo; • u.._: • Id w. Z ww: • Do` oAO: • • w •ui Ui 31j c..) z•. • t� Nancy Lamb 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Tamra Hughs 13739 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Elizabeth Springer 13325 Macadam Road South Tukwila, WA 98168 Johnny Cheng Cheng & Associates 2112 3rd Avenue - Ste 201 Seattle, WA 98121 MariLynn Van Hise 13708 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Ron Guernsey 13732 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Priest 13728 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Randy Koler Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons 615 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 f; tit: A�; v: �'.' s�, �: i- T) �: 4.Saii,'".+?. "^,tF•5�'%;'�:."Sd �.-�"�S.zfii``�. ,:3. ,,.• . <b"i.�'t"�':Lrit2:1i: Janelle Scarber 13716 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Steve Bicknell 13722,41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Chris & Faye Thibodeaux 13727 41st Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 • • x` t.` aiL�;.`..; ti�ii`%. z:'! u�r:<; N''+. rtiiii`" r4i�?.` i�:+`-+ SS+'i+!i•,iC.`k: ?Y:I+i";�'i�Fi tii.+�?ri.Kk'xt City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director May 29, 1996 RE: Notice of Decision by the Board of Architectural Review File Number L96 -0010: Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street This is to confirm that the Planning Commission/Board of Architectural Review on May 23rd, 1996 denied the applicant's request for a waiver of the loading zone, and required that the east 25 feet of the southern edge of the property have a 12.5 foot landscaped buffer, rather than the 10 feet of landscaping that was proposed. These decisions will likely result in a reduction in the number of parking spaces that can be provided on site and therefore require that the project be redesigned, possibly with fewer guestrooms. The hearing was continued until June 27th to allow time to revise the site plan to meet these requirements. • If you should have any questions regarding this project please feel free to write or call. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z �W Te . JU. U O :y N 0: WI .J .= d - =.. z�. 1- O z�. D 00 10 Ut. 0 H —i •uiN • t)..-1' :z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared May 15, 1996 May 23, 1996 Notice of Open House to Surrounding Properties on April 2, 1996 Letters to Surrounding Properties on April 10 and May 6, 1996 SEPA Determination Mailed on May 6, 1996 Notice of Public Hearing to Surrounding Properties on May 10, 1996 Notice of Public Hearing Posted on Site May 10, 1996 FILE NUMBER: L96 -0010 ASSOCIATED PERMITS: SEPA E96 -0004 BLA L96 -0006 APPLICANT: Johnny Cheng /Cheng & Associates, Architects REQUEST: Design Review is required for this proposal to construct a 22,750 sf, 44 unit, 3 story hotel. LOCATION: 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila, WA LOT SIZE: 22,320 sf COMPREHENSIVE •PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial ZONING DISTRICT: Regional Commercial SEPA DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued May 6, 1996 RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions .STAFF: Nora Gierloff, Jack Pace 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENTS: L96 -0010 Page 2 ' A. Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance E96 -0004 B. SEPA Determination Memo C. Letter from Mr. Cheng requesting Loading Zone Waiver D. Detail of Site Plan E. Applicant's Response to Design Review Criteria F. Applicant's Response to Multi - Family Review Criteria G. Set of Building Plans H. Materials Board (to be presented at hearing) I. Comments Submitted During SEPA Process: I 1. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 4/7/96 I 2. Comments from Ms. Marilynn VanHise dated 4/9/96 I 3. Comments from Koler, Rosen & Fitzsimmons dated 4/22/96. I 4. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 4/22/96. I 5. Comments from Janelle and Bob Scarber received 4/23/96 I 6. Petition dated 4/23/96 I 7. Comments from Janelle Scarber dated 4/26/96. I 8. A second copy of the petition with additional signatures was received on 4/29/96 I 9. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/2/96 I 10. Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/16/96 J. BAR Comments from Ms. Nancy Lamb dated 5/16/96 z Q Z1 z;. 6 DI J,U U 0: co p; cn w W =' w 0}' • cc: u..2 a 1.-• _ ? Z �- w w U ' 0 H, = U 1- _: To j. O, U a` Z ,Staff Report to the Planning Commission FINDINGS VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION L96 -0010 Page 3 A. Project Description. The applicant is requesting Board of Architectural Review approval of the proposed design for a three story, 44 room hotel located at 4006 South 139th Street, pursuant to TMC 18.60. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins on the site would be torn down and replaced with the proposed development. The applicant is also requesting a modification (waiver) of the Zoning Code requirement for one (1) loading space, pursuant to TMC 18.56.060. B. Existing Development. The site now contains several one story buildings with a total of 18 units which were built as tourist cabins in the 1940s. C. Surrounding Land Use. The south edge of the building site is along South 139th Street, the existing Econo Lodge is across the street. To the west is the Derby Tavern, a small commercial building and a billboard. To the northwest is a two story building occupied by the Washington Mechanical Contractors, with a storage yard north of the site. To the east is a single family neighborhood. The nearest single family structure is located approximately 50 feet east of the site's east property line. D. Topography. The site is generally flat with a slight downward slope to the northwest. E. Vegetation, Vegetation on the site consists of small trees, some shrubs, grass and bamboo. F. Access. Access to the site is from South 139th, with the proposed access drive located approximately 115 feet east of Pacific Highway South. BACKGROUND This project proposal was reviewed in a pre- application conference on January 4, 1996. An informational open house at which the applicant presented colored drawings of the project was held on April 9th. Many of the concerns expressed at this meeting were addressed by revisions to the project design. A determination of non - significance with mitigation conditions was issued to the project on May 6, 1996 (see Attachments A and B). No subsequent comments have been received. The mandatory SEPA conditions are: Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 4 1. Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 2. The proposed development shall be subject to review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review under the provisions of TMC 18.60. 3. A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction standards shall be provided along the site's east property line. 4. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and south property lines shall include a mix of deciduous trees of at least 2.5" caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. Irrigation of these landscaped areas shall be provided. These and other landscaping requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior to occupancy. 5. A bond or other financial security acceptable to the Director of Community Development, in an amount not less than 150 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and installation , shall be provided prior to occupancy. This security shall be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and survival of all required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. 6. No illuminated sign shall be allowed on the north or east facades of the hotel structure. Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. 7. No parking space needed to meet the requirements of TMC 18.56.050 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident, guest, or employee of the motel. 8. Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure, bollard or similar landscape area lighting shall be provided in the east landscape buffer area and the parking area, including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing security. A lighting plan and analysis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development, in consultation with the Chief of Police. 9. There shall be no vending machines, or other facilities that will provide a likely place of congregation for non - guests located outdoors. The landscape plan as submitted does not conform to the part of condition 4 that requires deciduous trees along the east and south property lines to be at least 2.5 inches in caliper at time of planting. The legend will need to be revised prior to issuance of a building permit. 413V4,e,r tiltt 9!1$t?C' 75!!V.0,517Rf?TAPte AMR+∎=t..* wy.ew.v,k4ne a.n«..er.:...... movr..a...tvo. z ~w 6 - , 0O U0: WI J H. w 0. 2 J LL ~ z� I- a Z i— Ili up `0 co w W. H U; i- ~O; ui 0 z Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 5 The staff report is organized into four parts, part I is the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Regulations, part II is the Loading Space Waiver, part III is the Zoning Buffer Decision and part IV is the Design Review Guidelines. PART I: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING CODE REGULATIONS The building and site design of the project must comply with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code standards. Staff's response follows. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES - GENERAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 8.1.2 Provide pedestrian pathways between sidewalks and building entrances and between adjacent properties and buildings to ensure that parking lots are not a barrier to pedestrians within commercial areas. A sidewalk will be provided along the south edge of the property with a connection to the motel office. 8.1.4 Landscape interior areas as well as perimeter strips in parking lots. Parking lot is only one aisle wide. 8.1.5 Require mechanical equipment and trash and recycling containers to be incorporated into the overall design of sites and buildings and screened from view. * Roof designs to include and conceal equipment * Prohibit dumpsters within front yards No mechanical equipment other than vents for the room air conditioners will be visible from the exterior. The trash dumpster will be completely enclosed. 8.1.12 Require roof lines to be prominent and to contribute to the distinct characters of the areas. The proposal has a pitched roof. DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS - RC DISTRICT 18.24.080 Front yard - 20', Side yard - 10'; adjacent to LDR - 10' first floor; 20' second floor; 30' third floor. Height - 3 stories or 35' Landscaping - 10' front; sides if adjacent to LDR - 10'; rear - none The proposal meets these standards. S'ri:afJ;�L•i a';riirf:2iii:::U!;irC.dSYU; '9L'S;a4'tii3iu :'ik 1:6;s1034+934,4aa4ia a.' 4.:tu[ut,C.WWi+'tis, u htiVI .k,rwr. ' .4. • .d... 'ia'.xl^ry.^]ca.reFl= prkMVA Id'h"J.wRM1 = XAVVV,V4 Z = 2 00. :N 0; • cn w WI J wO;. a J, lL Q' cna: W' 1- O • Z I—• w � o :0 co; 0 I— w LI O: 1j Z; . U� z Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 6 18.52.030 The required landscape areas shall be increased by a minimum of 25% or 50% or by construction of a decorative fence or solid planting screen, to be approved by the Director, along the applicable front, side and /or rear property line(s) in the following circumstances: z (1) 25 % increase with a minimum of five feet when: z (B) Commercial use occurs across the street from a single - family use district; re 1 The applicant is proposing to provide a solid hedge along the 25 feet of the site frontage 0 O on South 139th that is across the street from LDR zoning. N w J =: F- 18.52.030(3) Installation of a solid planting screen within a 10' wide landscape strip N u_ . with a height of five to eight feet or the construction of a decorative fence, to be w0; approved by the DCD when: ga (A) Commercial use district occurs adjacent to a single- family use district. co d w Landscaping as well as a wooden fence are part of the proposal. z I- O: zH 18.56.040(1)(B) Off - premises parking areas shall be provided through a deed or easement or other legally binding agreement running with the land, the term of v o which shall be at least as long as the reasonable life of the premises served thereby, o C2, or in lieu thereof, obtain a conditional use permit, issued pursuant to the w w requirements and procedures of the Conditional Use Permits chapter of this title. l? The applicant has provided an easement for the off - premise parking spaces. w z` F- 18.56.060 Loading space required -1 for 3,000 to 100,000 sf of hotel, min. 10' x 30' z 1-:. These requirements may be modified by the Planning Commission upon appeal and after hearing, where the Commission finds that such reduction will not result in injury to neighboring property or obstruction of firelanes or traffic and will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this chapter. The applicant has requested a waiver from this standard because the activities on site do not require a dedicated loading zone to ensure public safety and convenience (see Attachment C). 18.56.080(4) (Parking for the Handicapped) Curb -cuts. Where any curb occurs between the accessible route of travel and any parking space required by this section, curb -cuts shall be provided for each such parking space. The curb shall be located so that disabled persons may gain access.to the accessible route of travel directly from the parking space without entering a vehicular roadway. The proposal meets this requirement. 18.56.050 Off - Street Parking Spaces: 1 required for each guest room. Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 7 The project requires 44 parking spaces for the 44 rooms. Forty -one parking spaces are available on site and the owner of the existing Econo Lodge plans to grant an easement for use of four spaces in the Econo Lodge parking lot to meet the parking requirement per TMC 18.56.040 1(B). As the existing parking lot is currently striped there are only 49 spaces, two more than required by code. The applicant has documentation that the original parking plan approved by King County provided 51 spaces. The applicant proposes to restripe the lot in accordance with the original plan, however until that takes place there are not sufficient spaces to meet the code requirements of both hotels. PART II: LOADING SPACE WAIVER Under TMC 18.56.060 one loading space is required for hotel buildings which are between 3,000 to 100,000 square feet in size. The minimum dimensions of a small loading space are 10 feet by 30 feet. This requirement "may be modified by the Planning Commission upon appeal and after hearing, where the Commission finds that such reduction will not result in injury to neighboring property or obstruction of firelanes or traffic and will be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this chapter." The applicant requests that the Planning Commission waive the requirement for a loading zone space on the grounds that it is unnecessary for the types of deliveries expected at the site, see Attachment C. PART III: ZONING BUFFER DECISION CRITERIA Under TMC 18.52.030 when a commercial use occurs across the street from a single - family use district one of three mitigating actions is required. Either the landscape buffer must be increased by a minimum of 25 %, or a decorative fence or solid planting screen must be installed. The applicant is proposing to provide a solid hedge along the 25 feet of the site frontage on South 139th that is across the street from LDR zoning. The BAR can accept this solution or instead require that a fence or 25 percent increase in landscape width be provided. Increasing the required landscape width from the current requirement of 10 feet to 12.5 feet would eliminate one parking stall from the site (see Attachment D). PART IV: BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN DECISION CRITERIA Hotels and motels are permitted uses within the RC Regional Commercial zoning district. The City does not have the authority to disallow use of the site as a hotel under our current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. This project however, is subject to BAR design approval as required under TMC 18.60.030 due to its location in the RC zone and its use. It is also subject to multi - family review guidelines, as stipulated in TMC 18.60.055. z mow: 00 W �. N w; w =. J LL: w o. 2 J LL Q' co�. w. z I- �0 zI- U 0' Co to 0 I— = U' LL ~O U N; O z Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 8 In the following discussion, the Board of Architectural Review criteria per Section 18.60.050 of the Zoning Code is shown below in bold, followed by staff's comments. For the applicant's response to the criteria see Attachment E. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with 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 the site. A. The project will include installation of a sidewalk, street trees, and decorative plants along South 139th Street. B. Locating part of the parking lot underneath the building helps to minimize its visual impact from 139th Street. Landscaping and fencing will partially screen the parking from adjacent properties. C. The project site is zoned Regional Commercial, an intensive commercial zone, however it is adjacent to a single family neighborhood zoned Low Density Residential. In the RC zone buildings may be up to 3 stories or 35 feet in height while in the LDR zone buildings are limited to 30 feet. The hotel as proposed is at the height allowed by code while most of the nearby houses are one story with pitched roofs. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. A. Harmony on 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. A. The hotel has a pitched roof like many of the neighboring single family houses. The external cladding is stucco, similar to that of the existing Econo Lodge. B. The largest trees are concentrated along the south and east edges of the site to provide a buffer between the commercial zone and the residential zone. The site is enclosed by a fence on all but the southern side, so landscaping other than treetops will not be visible from those sides. C. This is not a public building. e'41�CC�iC#fffi!1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 9 D. Little loading activity is expected for this use according to the applicant. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation is separated where possible by curbs and sidewalks. E. The traffic report did not indicate any problems with vehicle ingress and egress from the site to South 139th Street. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment. z • l• z A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a 6 JU development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. 0 O co 0 B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote 1 co w safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; -� • u C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and w O. important axis, and provide shade; g • J: D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor N traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; w. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas z t▪ =-: is encouraged; z 0 0, Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be ? o F. accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; c� O — �, 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; = v H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining �'-- p landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size co compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and 0 _' restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Z 1- A. The site is essentially flat. B. Sidewalks will be built to City of Tukwila standards. C. The planned landscaping will provide an attractive entry to the site and complement the south facade. The site does not lend itself to vistas or axial organization. D. Trees and shrubs will be protected from vehicles by curbs and wheelstops. E. Landscaping in the amounts required by code is provided along the perimeter of the site. G. There are no areas unsuitable for planting within the required landscape areas. H. The under- building parking areas will be lit to maximum allowable levels given in the Washington State Energy Code standards. Lighting fixtures will be provided in the west, south, and east setback areas. The lighting plan required as a SEPA condition will be evaluated to ensure that the lighting will enhance the safety of the site while preventing excessive brightness on the residential side of the site. Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 10 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B Buildings should be appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good w re 2 proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; w W = E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; w O F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, g and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; � < G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. z w Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. I- Z H: I- 0' A. No response. w F' B. The project is similar in scale to the existing Econo Lodge south of the site. It will be somewhat taller than the Washington Mechanical Contractor's building, but much more 0 detailed and residential in character. The building will be larger than the one and two w w story single family houses east of the site. v. u_ C. The larger fixed pane windows on the south elevation present a more commercial . z. appearance, which is appropriate because that is the side most visible to incoming 0 N: customers. The rest of the windows have operable sliding panes. There are two types of 1 windows for the guestrooms, one for the majority of rooms and a contrasting type used for the modulated sections. This helps to emphasize the modulation and detailing. D. The colors chosen for the building, beige and taupe, are harmonious and subdued. E. Heating and cooling will be provided by individual heat pump units in the guest rooms, therefore no large mechanical equipment will be required. The only mechanical equipment that will be visible are vents of the heat pumps located near the windows. F. Exterior lighting fixtures should be of a high quality due to their visibility and exposure to the elements. They will be evaluated as part of the SEPA required lighting plan. G. Monotony of design is avoided by the vertical modulation of the building wall which is emphasized by the variation in roof forms. The horizontal detailing of the first floor helps to ground the building and provide contrast. S. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 11 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. The proposal contains no signage, miscellaneous structures or street furniture. Signage x z J U' 0 CO w O: g a' In the following section, the multi - family review guidelines that apply to this project are N wshown in bold, staff's comments follow. For the applicant's response to the criteria see = Attachment F. Z � I— O' Z uj co O— W W! F- V u.Z:. U co z will need to be approved at a later hearing. MULTI - FAMILY REVIEW GUIDELINES Many of the design criteria for Multi - Family review have been addressed in the prior discussion. Where applicable the earlier discussion will be cited to avoid repetition. 1. Site Planning. A. Building siting, architecture, and landscaping shall be integrated into and blend harmoniously with the neighborhood building scale, natural environment, and development characteristics as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. For instance, a multi - family development's design need not be harmoniously integrated with adjacent single family structures if that existing single family use is designated as "Commercial" or "High Density Residential" in the Comprehensive Plan. However, a "Low Density Residential" (detached single family) designation would require such harmonious design integration. B. Natural features which contribute to desirable neighborhood character shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Natural features include, but are not limited to, existing significant trees and stands of trees, wetlands, streams, and significant topographic features. C. The site plan shall use landscaping and building shapes to form an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian scale streetscape. This shall include, but not be limited to facilitating pedestrian travel along the street, using architecture and landscaping to provide a desirable transition from streetscape to the building, and providing an integrated linkage from pedestrian and vehicular facilities to building entries. D. Pedestrian and vehicular entries shall provide a high quality visual focus using building siting, shapes, and landscaping. Such a features establish a physical transition between the project and public areas, and establishes the initial sense of high quality development. E. Vehicular circulation design shall minimize driveway intersections with the street. F. Site perimeter design (i.e. landscaping, structures, and horizontal width) shall be coordinated with site development to ensure a harmonious transition between adjacent projects. Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 12 G. Varying degrees of privacy for the individual residents shall be provided; increasing from the public right -of -way, to common areas, to individual residences. This can be accomplished through the use of symbolic and actual physical barriers to define the degrees of privacy appropriate to specific site area functions. H. Parking and service areas shall be located, designed, and screened to interrupt and reduce the visual impact of large paved areas. I. The height, bulk, footprint, and scale of each building shall be in harmony with its site and adjacent long -term structures. 1) Site Planning A. The site, which is zoned Regional Commercial an intensive commercial zone, is adjacent to a single family neighborhood zoned Low Density Residential. The difference in use and standards between the two zoning districts results in a difference in scale between the proposed hotel and neighboring residential buildings. The hotel design responds to this adjacency by incorporating residential design elements such as a pitched roof, significant detailing, and residential scale windows. The mass of the building is shifted to the west side of the site, away from the residences. B. There are no significant natural features on the site to be preserved. C. A variety of landscaping including trees, shrubs and groundcover will be installed on the southern edge of the site along South 139th Street as well as a sidewalk with a connection to the building entrance. An overhang will shelter people from the weather as they enter the office. D. Landscaping combined with building details on the south facade such as awnings and granite tiles provide visual interest to the entryway. E. The project will have only one curb cut, for the driveway on 139th Street. F. Landscaping and fencing around the perimeter of the site will be used to buffer it from rather than link it to adjacent buildings. Trees along the south and east edges of the site will provide some screening of the building from the residential area. The fence will discourage trespassing and screen the parking lot. G. No guestrooms will be located on the ground floor of the building so that no windows will be adjacent to public walkways or driveways. Recreation and exercise rooms will provide semi - public recreation space for guests. H. Part of the parking lot will be located underneath the building which will help to reduce its visibility from the street. The perimeter fencing will screen the lot on the west, north and east sides. I. The building is in scale with the two buildings adjacent to it, however there are few other multi -story developments along that portion of Pacific Highway. It is larger than the neighboring single family structures, but does respond to them through residential detailing and roof forms. .mow- rx M 1.; .. z ce H w ; U OO; N J= F- U)w Li.' O' g Q. = a. 1- w z� 1- O. Z F- U o w w. ~ U' O, w z, 0 F- z. Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 13 2. Building Design A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and its ability to harmonize building texture, shape, lines and mass with the surrounding neighborhood; B. Buildings shall be of appropriate height, scale, and design /shape to be in harmony with those existing permanent neighboring developments which are consistent with, or envisioned in, the Comprehensive Plan. This will be especially important for perimeter structures. Adjacent structures which are not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan should be considered to be transitional. The degree of architectural harmony required should be consistent with the non - conforming structure's anticipated permanence; C. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, parapets, stairs and decks shall be integrated into the overall building design. Particular emphasis shall be given to harmonious proportions of these components with those of adjacent developments. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with the anticipated life of the structure. D. The overall color scheme shall work to reduce building prominence and shall blend in with the natural environment. E. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Otherwise monotonous flat walls and uniform vertical planes of individual buildings shall be broken up with building modulation, stairs, decks, railings, and focal entries. Multiple building developments shall use siting and additional architectural variety to avoid inappropriate repetition of building designs, and appearance to surrounding properties. 2) Building Design A. No response. B. See response to 1) I. C. See response to BAR Review Guidelines 4 (C). D. The building color scheme is muted and harmonious beige and taupe, with darker colors used on the base and as accents. E. See response to BAR Review Guidelines 4(G) 3. Landscape and Site Treatment A. Existing natural topographic patterns and significant vegetation shall be reflected in project design when they contribute to the natural beauty of the area or are important to defining neighborhood identity or a sense of place; B. Landscape treatment shall enhance existing natural and architectural features, help separate public from private spaces, strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade to moderate the affects of large paved areas, and break up visual mass; +: i"<: 1• T�!! KKf��hl uiK: �t�S" 4R" 1','' R` �7*. �i?' F*' ?NtX` lR- '��'I�wsTMSMhYnro.:.a,riew..e. —_- z = 1-'. ~w Z 2 00 CO 0, CO W. w z. Jam. in O' ILQ CO =d �w z�., Z a' w w, 2o 0 Off_ 0 I- I 0 w W' O: = 0 z Staff Report to the .Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 14 C. Walkways, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Direct pedestrian linkages to the public street, to on -site recreation areas, and to adjacent public recreation areas shall be provided; D. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties shall be provided; 3) Landscape and Site Treatment A. There is no significant topography or vegetation on the site. B. Landscaping will provide an attractive streetscape and help to buffer the project from adjacent uses. The site does not contain significant views or outdoor public spaces. C. See response to 1(C). D. Landscaping and fencing will be used to provide a buffer to adjoining properties. See response to 1(F). 4. Miscellaneous Structures. A. Miscellaneous structures shall be designed as an integral part of the architectural concept and landscape. Materials shall be compatible with buildings, scale shall be appropriate, colors shall be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and structure proportions shall be to scale; B. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, shall be accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting, berms, or combinations of these. Screening shall be effective in winter and summer; C. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings shall be screened from view. Screening shall be designed as an integral part of the architecture (i.e. raised parapets and fully enclosed under roof) and landscaping; D. Exterior lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size consistent with safety, building architecture and adjacent area. Lighting shall be shielded, and restrained in design with no off -site glare spill over. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors shall not be used unless clearly demonstrated to be integral to building architecture. 4) Miscellaneous Structures A) No additional structures are proposed for the site. B) The garbage dumpster will be completely enclosed within the building. C) See response to BAR Review Guidelines 4(E). D) See response to BAR Review Guidelines 3(H). z w re 2 • 0 0: .co 0: •cn w I: J wO .2 g J :co is z� • zF-- '2D o .co w W` u. Hi • • z' — _` O ~' z Staff Report to the Planning Commission CONCLUSIONS L96 -0010 Page 15 PART I: ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS There is no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan policies. All development regulations have been met, with the exception of the parking requirements. There is a shortage of three spaces on the new hotel site. The original parking plan approved by King County for the Econo Lodge shows 51 spaces, four more than are required by Tukwila's parking standards. After construction the lot was resurfaced and restriped to a different plan, resulting in the reduction of the number of spaces to 49, so currently there are only two spaces in the Econo Lodge parking lot which could be used by the new hotel. z w; mo 2 UO. moo:. Wz J • CO U.. At least one additional parking space will have to be located, or the number of rooms O; reduced to 43 in order to meet the parking code. The applicant proposes to restripe the Econo Lodge lot according to the original parking plan to bring it back to 51 parking spaces. i Ci ZF-. The activities proposed for the site would not seem to require deliveries from oversized w o. vehicles. The applicant has indicated that the supplies required for operation of a hotel .2 D are mainly cleaning and paper products in quantities that could be carried in a passenger v N, vehicle. There will be no restaurant on site. o w W.. .z -O . z: w 0� z PART II: LOADING SPACE WAIVER If the waiver is denied the applicant will have to provide a loading zone on site which will result in the loss of parking spaces. Because the number of parking spaces must match the number of guestrooms this loss will likely require a reduction in the number of rooms that the hotel can construct. Reducing the number of rooms may affect the building design, in which case the new design would need to be reviewed at a later BAR hearing. PART III: ZONING BUFFER DECISION CRITERIA The landscape hedge proposed by the applicant along the eastern 25 feet of the southern edge of the site would provide adequate screening and be a more effective design solution than an extension of the fence or a 25 percent increase in the landscape area width. If the Board chooses to require the increase in landscape width one parking space would be eliminated (see Attachment D). The loss of this space may require a reduction of one guestroom, depending on the ability of the applicant to restripe the Econo Lodge parking lot and the granting of the loading zone waiver. PART IV: DESIGN REVIEW/MULTI- FAMILY REVIEW GUIDELINES 1. Relationship of Structure to Site The proposed building is on commercially zoned land and its height is in scale with the three story Econo Lodge to the south and the two story Washington Mechanical Contractor's building to the north. While it relates to the scale of the commercial Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 16 structures along Pacific Highway rather than the residential structures to the east, it does ease this transition by pulling the bulk of the building toward the west and providing screening with trees along the south and east edges of the site. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area z There is no consistent neighborhood character in the immediate building designs. This = E- building provides a reasonable mix of residential character and commercial scale which is g appropriate for its location between a residential neighborhood and the commercial strip 6 = along Pacific Highway South. Fencing and landscaping have been used to buffer the v O building from its neighbors. ' g of W =; 3. Landscape and Site Treatment o co —O The proposed landscape plan provides an attractive streetscape and entryway to the site. 2 ; The lighting plan should enhance the safety of the site without creating unecessary g brightness off -site. Locating part of the parking lot underneath the building helps to co a reduce its visual impact. The landscape plan will need to be revised to meet SEPA i_ w condition 4. z i_ HO 4. Building Design z I- The building successfully blends the commercial and residential aspects of its design. 0 o: The pitched roof, vertical modulation, residential scale windows and detailing provide ,o visual interest and relate it to the neighborhood context. The colors chosen for the = W; building are muted and harmonious. Mechanical equipment and garbage dumpsters will 1- �; be visible from the exterior. "-- 0 z 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture v u F- _ O ~' z No miscellaneous structures, street furniture, or signs have been proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS LOADING ZONE WAIVER Staff recommends approval of the waiver because the motel will not have a restaurant or other use which would require deliveries from large vehicles. ZONING BUFFER DECISION CRITERIA Staff recommends that a solid hedge be provided along the east 25 feet of the south edge of the site to buffer the single family zone across the street rather than a fence or an increase in landscape area width. BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN Staff recommends approval of the project with the condition that all signage be approved by the BAR at a later hearing. The landscape plan will have to be resubmitted with a legend calling for deciduous trees along the east and south property lines to be at least 2.5 Staff Report to the Planning Commission L96 -0010 Page 17 inches in caliper at time of planting. This is a mandatory SEPA condition and so does not need to be a BAR condition. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant must address the shortage of parking spaces by restriping the existing Econo Lodge parking lot in a manner which meets the City of Tukwila parking standards given in TMC 18.56 before a building permit is issued. If this is not possible the number of guestrooms must be reduced to match the number of parking spaces. 2. The applicant will have to return to the BAR for approval of all sign designs and locations. CITY OF TU K W 1 L A MITIGATED f;ETERMINATION OF NCiN'SIGNIFICANC.E (M[:tti'5) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 44 ROOM HOTEL PROPONENT: JOHNNY CHENG LOCATION OF PROPOSAL. INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS. IF ANY: ADDRESS: 4006 S 139 ST PARCEL NO: 736060 -0195 SEC /TWN: RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E96 -0004 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public an request. The conditions to this SEPA . Determination are attached. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comment::. must be submitted by /VC Al 21 4 lsl`ik The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Steve Lancaster,. Responsible Official Citv'of Tukwila. (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 M41 (0.1 — I S S,f: Date Copies of the procedures for 'SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk' and Department of Community Development. Attachment A z _ w: 2 1 JU 00: wI w• 0 ga: w a CO 3 Z �. H 0. Z I- al al o 0 co O 0 1— w w o LLB, z ill N 0 z CITY r j WILA CONDITIONS Addre: : 4006 S 139 ST Applicant: tutus: ISSUED Permit No: E96 - -0004 Applied 02:23„1996 Type: P -SEF'A DN'SC Approved: 05/06/1996 Location: Parcel #: 736060-0195 Zoning: C2 •*• kb k• k• k• k4hk• k• k• t• k•*• k• kk• k• k• M• k• k• N• k• k• k• k: k• k•4• k• k• k:k k: t•, a •k•k: +•k•k:.4k:k•k•k•k• *•*:4*' •k•k•k:*:b•k•1 k•kk:kk:kA•kk:t:4** 1. Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. 2. The proposed development shall be subject to review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review under the pr•ov i s ions of TMC 13.60. 3. A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction standards shall be provided along the site's east property line. 4. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and _south property 1 ines ..ha11 include a mix of deciduous trees of at least 2.5" caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. 1rrigiat ion of there landscaped are shall be provided. These and other landscaping regirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior, to occupancy. 5. A. bond or other financial security acceptable to the Dire ctor of Community Development, in an amount not less than 15 0 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and instal tat ion, shall be provided prior to occupancy. This security sh alt be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and surviv al of all . required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. 6. No illuminated _sign shall be allowed can the north or east facades of the hotel structure. Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. - 7. No parking space needed to meet the requirements of TMC 18.56.050 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident, ident, guest or employee of the motel. 3. Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure; bollard or similar landscape area lighting sh.a l l be provided in the east landscape buffer area and the parking area including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing _•ecur t:. A 1 icht ing plan and analysis sis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the L'i:•ector of Community Development, in consultation with the Chief of Police. 9. l he. - shall be o vending machines, or other facilities that w:77 provide a likely p l ace of congregation for non- guests 1oe'iated outdoors. Z W ce 6 0 0. CO uj J N LL w0 2 D.a Hw Z� H0 Z W uj 2 o. 0 0 N; 0 1—, ww � U U CO: O Z A F F I D A V I T 1, y Lil►A bA(MvLLuJ KNotice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting D Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet LI Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T R I B U T I O N hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit []Determination of Non - significance fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action LI Official Notice 0 Other fl Other was maid to each of the following addresses FAxeD LINbA t iM Ri ,v -'' Name of Project File Number t o - (001 O L°1(a —boo 2-4 LC\Q -toO\ 8 Lcw -tip I go on Signatures C 1r \eMll •z i 1-`• - 're . .0 0: • rnw�. J w 0' 4a =a t- =. .z� • z•�' • U • 0 Ni ,C wl. • A. 0:. zt Z • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on May 23, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: NEW BUSINESS I. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: II. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: III. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: IV. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010 Econolodge Hotel Johnny Cheng of Cheng & Associates Design Review of a 44 unit hotel 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila L96 -0024 Foster High School Pat Larson of Foster High School Approval of an internally illuminated 16 foot tall, 2 sided readerboard sign, 60 square feet per side 4242 S. 144th Street, Tukwila L96 -0018 Showalter School Portable Buildings Bill Slaybaugh, Heery International Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of two portable buildings to be used as administrative offices. 4640 S. 144th Street, Tukwila L96 -0016 Tukwila School Portable Buildings Bill Slaybaugh, Heery International Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of two portable buildings to be used as classrooms. 5939 S. 149th Street, Tukwila Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times May 13, 1996 Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 z w • • JV. 00. 0! • w =' w o: • Li.) a w m. z 1- o z I- LLI 0 cn :0 ww i=- wz :o .z A F F I D A V I T O F D I S T R I B U T I O N / NWL14;4'J hereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing E Determination of Non - significance O Notice of Public Meeting fl Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Board of Adjustment Agenda O Determination of Significance Packet and Scoping Notice LI Board of Appeals Agenda fl Notice of Action Packet fl Planning Commission Agenda 0 Official Notice Packet Short Subdivision Agenda El Other Packet Q Notice of Application for D Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on 5 "" 1 0 - c O Name of Project ac_ono Lb b r File Number L-9 - O Q t.K], • ar .. . , • • • 2 • • . • • S ignature� G.,, l.i -t.. • • • • • City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development PUBLIC NOTICE City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster, Director Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing at 6:30 p.m. on May 23, 1996, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: NEW BUSINESS I. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: II. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: III. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: IV. CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L96 -0010 Econolodge Hotel Johnny Cheng of Cheng & Associates Design Review of a 44 unit hotel 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila L96 -0024 Foster High School Pat Larson of Foster High School Approval of an internally illuminated 16 foot tall, 2 sided readerboard sign, 60 square feet per side 4242 S. 144th Street, Tukwila L96 -0018 Showalter School Portable Buildings Bill Slaybaugh, Heery International Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of two portable buildings to be used as administrative offices. 4640 S. 144th Street, Tukwila L96 -0016 Tukwila School Portable Buildings Bill Slaybaugh, Heery International Conditional Use Permit to allow placement of two portable buildings to be used as classrooms. 5939 S. 149th Street, Tukwila Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Seattle Times May 13, 1996 • . .. • •• Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 + !PtWRI tMOVV1N' MOMra. M.nwo. oM: t+ n�**. nw. w. wn...; wynw�we...... K. v..•. wr.,...,.... m•+•^•,• nnMwx. vr.<, viw.< «..aw.4+Mne..Ml�nuerwwwwwuvvnw, mn✓�+�saam.�.+. w.na«wra v� aw�.n4w••,n•�...- ,�..., ,PT,"1"1"1"/"1"PFV*1411,111"010.1"Wfutir'fivix'A'241“1"(•%"■•"*`•1'444?-1, 4.4`,"Jit, 736060f 0090".07 CI TY.;OF?•TUKHI L A • '"•"4.:::* 6200 'SOUTHCENTER"...BLVD1 TUKW IL11; WA .• . . . • t • • • r ;'t-• 7360604.017000 •," • ',J08STANLEY)CARL+LINDA:Mr '489999: 13709f41ST'AVE'iS.: q-• 98168 . • • .*, 499800 ' . 98188 .• • 736060•01826T06 " SCARBER r JANELLE ••E 209.999 13716L41ST: AVE:•S',"'• SEATTLE • • .•••• 98168 • 736060-0215-07i . TOMASO' DONNA M . 22315 t6TH 4308 •• ; DES: MOINES; WA : • • • 279800 :1' 98198 I ! • • I ' 736060-022505 •-•„ SEITZ';'..ALFRED'f8'.'*&'VIROINIA:'' L562274 •• I I • 13800t.PACIFIC:HWY.S f.5.; . I . TUKWILA :WA ; • • • 98168 • .1 736060-0240-06 KESSELLIKELLY 137174..41ST ;. AVE i„S SEATTLE WA . i• 21, • . • , • • . • „. 4:'. 1,•;'1";; ,4■!).‘,.■ 736060'01 0 P')5 BR I NTON AES'!F 13007 • 167THI;AVE.:?..NEW.Y.•': REDMONO 1• WA 9800 •••••••i', . •.•••••••. • • • . _ •ii ;• • . . . . • • 1.`; 920046 : • • •:;.: • ••• 736060-70175".05.' 'LEONARDO!' GILBERT INE !4220 • S 139TH:LST SEATTLE t...WA ..• 98168 •••:-• • • • • • . • • . . 736060-0210.'021 •:;'•;•4 .,;..FTOMA SO s DONNA 'M ' 22315 6TH AvE.: DES MOINES'WA • •,..:,.. •;• '::•itiON3875 • • 4:4(003198 :::••-474 • 736060022000 • HUGHES F. CLIFF - H+LEA .,•7799991:• 13739 :41ST AVE •:. S :.'•• • • • SEATTLE ; WA •: •;;„98168 ••;•" .. • . • • - • , ..• • ' ' • • , ,........;::•.::, • i'•••••„! ::: :•,..•••• • •• -.. :•`• 736060-0230-08 •-:' ', ..,. .1,•:•,:-...t.. *•',•••' ,.' - ': • .::•.SEITZj•ALFRED f B1.6.VIIIRp.INIA;:t:L562275. '-.:..-.71 13800' P AC IF I C.:, HWY.i.:i s :!. .::,.:-...::;..kpt.'q,::;:!:•::'-',;, ..: TUKWILA i WA', '..: '..';'::'..' '4.4:,::; ..' ..:W..... . ' .;...98168 • ....' • . , .. :- ••"....-:?•:. :-.• • . - f . • . • 1 • • i ' • . . .736060'0310'01 • • • :•••" SCARBER; JANELLE-IMI E 462194 13716U41ST!AVE;:.,S1...., . SEATTLE .1WA - . • 98168 • . 1r • ,.:,,Jipl:,.. 1 736060-0315-06 '''"7":-''''. !• • • IIICKNELL:ELIZABETH*ETiA0609999'1-1 ! 1.3722I41ST.AVE;Sc% .,-- • - .i, i SEATTLE.WA ,1 ' ::.:, "J''' 98168*4 i .... _ • • 736060-'0320-09 PRIEST' ROBERT :41' 13728;41STI.AVEI.SL. SEATTLE/ OA - •• 879999:: • • 98168. 736060"033007 " •;•—•• CARPENTER ...TRONA R 13742 •:.i41ST •;AVE 5 • SEATTLE WA • . 439999. •.: •98168 • 736060-3341'04 SIMON'ELREY i W'190WHIGHLANDIR c;:v:..•,:* ,.:SHELTONIWA:..'-. ...:-':."_,:•-q- ',:; • 736060-0340"05 " 4102 S - 139T 1-) ' • • • 1 KI 0000 ? CORWIN:. L+DEBORAH;D • • TU.KW ILA •• WA 9!316,8 •• -..7360600400+02 • • • : • • • 440326 " ' • :• LIN WEN FAN+VIRGINIA :.a.:••-961029 • •••...,•- 13910 -PACIFICA•44Y,S'..,-,'••• ** SEATTLE WA 98168 • • . •. • 98584 .• • ': •"; •• ••• ••••.,.: • :• • ••• • • • • • • • • . •••.' i; • ••••••.::. . ••••• :": : •••.: "'•••• . • • , • • ... • • ff.*. ;Iv . • . ' . ..•.. .• •: • . • . 11- w . z re 2 -J O 0 co WI -JI- M IL aj 0 )- g 5 0 p, Z I-0 Z W uj 2 (.) O Y2, G1 w ° Z' w O 1- z r1Ukt NICK T . , 402.1.-S 139TH . ST SEATTLE' WA - 736060 - 0425 -03 CROWELL 'EARL''J: ' 4105.139TH•.ST,. TUKWILA.WA 736060:-.0465-04'.. BIRCHCREST "APARTMENTS: P0' BOX: 925 EDMONDS WA • 736060= 04901-03' JACOBSON' CARLTON .M: JR • 13813 :37TH AVE: S? SEATTLE :WA. 7N9999 98168 119999 98168 ,..,uuoU-U420 -O8 HUBER'LEON 1' E' .1165214TH•A.E`•S.: SEATTLE 'WA . • • • ! 736060- 0430 -06 'I .':CARTER.CLAREN 4115 S :• 139TH ! SEATTLE • WA :, ' i •• '. 260902' 98020 736060-0475-02' .BIRCHREST.APARTMENTS1. PO 80X.925.; • EDMONDS WA •5N9999 : • .98168':: • 736060- 0525 -02. 379999:• TOMASO DONALD#L' :1370741ST:S 98168 SEATTLE WA ':686400- 0915 -02' WOODS MELODY :.Jr 1380838TH• :AYE SEATTLE' WA•' 986400 .0925-00; - UHL'WILLIAMIA•' 33239 r26TH ; AYE SW Y . . FEOERAL•`WAY 3 WA 479999' 98168 ~'886400- 0920 -05 ',MCMINN DAVID'L% 1381438TH 'AVE . S : SEATTLE ;WA'. •. •' 260902 Y: :98020 ' ., 359999 ;98168. • 279999, '981b8' 386400- 0930-03 209999! ''CL'AY'RALPH _L! 6' PATRICIA2 ..13826 38TH .AVE . S 98023• .SEATTLE.WA 1186400-093598-::7-- GAUSE.SHAROW 13832 38TH , S SEATTLE'WA • 1N2342 98168. RUFFNER :MELVINI; 13844 ;38TH S; SEATTLE'WA • C0876` •98168 ',16409709557031 * . -..... HUDSON'TOMMY'III +TRISA LEE 099999. 13856' 38TH .AVE ; S;.' TUKWILA.MA 98188 L(FICKLE 'DEXIE Lt 13868 '.38tH .AVE . S SEATTLE -WA • • .���,400- 0.9.84°02--- :_.�... - ..__._..• 'VU •THINH TIEN +THU THI: '•24060:26TH.PL;S: ,IDES MOINES :WA' 579999 98168 f186400-0940-01t • .BUSSEY'PHRED'D +SANDRAi _ 13838 :38TH AVE . SOUTH •;,, SEATTLE4NA • 98168' • {.86400= 0950 -08 . . BALLANTYNE ' SHERRI ?• 13850'.38TH 'SEATTLE•WA. 709999 .98168 1 :'969999:: '98168 A186400-0960-06 'STINSON'SAUNORA!LI •13862.38TH:AVIS• SEATTLE • WA • • 52A006 98168 8.36400- 0970-04' FEULING'MICHAELLAWRENCE '319999 704 N 74TH SEATTLE WA. • 98103 -8“,6400-098507• '209999 ' GENINCO:INSURANCETRUST`., 1049999 • 1001 :WESTLAKE.AVEIN. 98198 I SEATTLE WA . '98109 z 2 Z` rt ~ w UO N0 CO w` J F 0 u- w0 N d w = Z zo 0 UN O 0 I- = U'. ~O' 0 - =. O~ z .'= Wash Mech Contr� /or 13800 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 .' \~' f"----- li _ Tenant 13921 pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13923 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaza 13925 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13874 38th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13820 38th Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Beemer, Tami 13719 41st Ave S %Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 Ave S T a, WA 98168 • `- • -^ �-' �� .�� • nant 3727 41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13751 41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 Re'd, N'esh�� �oI� S 1��t/' St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Beonard 4101 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 98168 Huntell, LeRoy 4110 S 139th St Tukwila, WA 98168 '--'- Laundromat 4012 S 140th ST Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #1 Tukwila, WA 98168* Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #2 • Tukwila, WA 98168 - Tenant 4020 8 140th Sty #3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020S 140th St, #4 Tukwila, WA 98168 • i• • , Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #21 . Tukwila, WA 98168 • ' • • Tenant • 4020 8 140th St, #22 Tukwila, WA 98168 [ t^ Tenant 4020 S 140th St' 15. Tukwila, WA 90168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #16 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 .\ �`�c--,■ °,N. t.--t ^d cef./1e Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #19 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant '4020 S 140th St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #23 • Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 20 S 140th St, 45 �kwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 46 Tukwila. WA 98168 Tenant 4020'S 140th St, #7 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, Tukwila W� ' ' ' � 68 \~`r� ��� -T-L.'/- � ' ~`.yc~ ' ' "����ca��� / ~--//'6J_ s . t,-1A 98/LeD Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #9 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #10 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th 8t, #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #12 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th Sty #13 Tukwila, WA 98168' Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #14 Tukwila, WA 98168 _ `• _-' • • ri a 'IX; 41. 020 8 14.c ‘..1 '9E3168 Tenant 4020 3 140th St, #y„, Tukwila, WA 9816B T(i7Inant 4020 S 140th St , #37 Tukwila, WA 981G3 • • „ • • ‘• •••• •• • .• • • , ••. • ..' •:.*, • :.':• . • . • • • . . • • . • .• . • • • • I.. . ,... 1 ::. :. ::......: .... ; • .... :";;.: ., :' • ••• ••••.•:::::•.:....:',...!..:.;-'..,:?, 1..• : ;• . ....... ......... l• ,• • '.' . :::•.'"......:.:;'..'......:;%.,.:.**,,.:;....••••••• .....:;•;;..,,, I . . • - -......,:','••••,,....•;.-:•"•••••••;":..:•?.'••:•. ••••:..:....' ••.: ..;,....:.',':. •:•,.'., -.;',..'.., • .., ...•...1".:',....:::•:..••:. .. • '...• • .. . • - • - ;.....::......::::::'...,-..,.....• ',...' :*:•:. ,•."..'.... ' ... . .... .. .;. . ... , ... ,, „. .. , . „ . ....., . . .. . .. • ' • .• . . .. . . .. . ..... • ..... • .• • • • • • • . • • • .. . • . • .. . • • • T. nt 4020 8 1401; h St *25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #26 Tukwil::•t, WA 98160 Tenant •020 C3 140 t h - 1UkWi1—W1)8169 Tenant 4020 S 140t1• Tukwi 4A 98168 28 Tenant •020 8 140th St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 ' 40th St, #30 -r f.wila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 8 140th St, 44:31 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 1401:; h St, *32 Tukwila, Wi 98168 Tenant 4020 9 1401; h 91; , 44:33 Tukwila, WA 98168 4020 h st , • 14A '.7.!2168 , • ;•,.. . • • • • •.• • • •'•• • . • • 0,■•■ .01.4,4r hr. z Z • • re ui • 6 m. 0' 00 1.0 111 wO g -7J; co a. 111. 1' .Z 1- 0. • Z LU uj. 11.1 uj• P•A t• U. 0 ; Z 0 z TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTER - OFFICE MEMO Project File No. E96 -0004 Steve Lancaster Proposed hotel development at 4006 S. 139th SEPA Threshold Determination May 6, 1996 As the City of Tukwila's SEPA Responsible Official, I have determined that the proposal of Mr. Johnny Cheng, Cheng and Associates, to demolish an existing 18 -unit "tourist cabin" complex and develop a 44-unit hotel, will not have significant adverse environmental impacts if appropriately conditioned (mitigated). Therefor, an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required for this proposal if the mitigating conditions included in the Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance (MDNS) issued this date, are implemented. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required where a proposed action will have probable significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. Conversely, where a proposed action, with reasonable mitigation, will not have environmental impacts that cross the legal threshold of "significance," an EIS cannot be required. In making this determination, I have reviewed the Environmental Checklist submitted by Mr. Cheng on February 23, 1996; a memorandum evaluating the Checklist and related information prepared by Assistant Planner Nora Gierloff; and other relevant information in the possession of the City of Tukwila. I have also reviewed and considered correspondence submitted by a number of individuals having an interest in this proposal. These include: • April 7, 1996 memo from Nancy Sandine Lamb. • April 9, 1996 memo from Marilynn VanHise • April 20, 1996 letter from Bob and Janelle Scarber (with cover letter dated April 23). • • April 22, 1996 letter from Rand L. Koler (attorney representing Ron and Nancy Lamb). • April 22, 1996 memo from Nancy Sandine Lamb • April 23, 1996 petition bearing eleven (11) signatures. • April 26, 1996 letter from Janelle Scarber. • May 2, 1996 memo from Nancy Lamb Attachment B r A number of legitimate concerns were raised by this correspondence and during an informal public meeting held at Foster Library on April 9, 1996 (see memo to file by Nora Gierloff, dated April 10, 1996). While some of these comments cannot be addressed through the City's SEPA authority, others have formed part of the factual basis upon which mitigating conditions were included in the MDNS. Several of the comments I have reviewed express concern about potential impacts that are inseparably linked to the use of the subject site as a motel (e.g., need for alternatives analysis, cumulative impacts of multiple motels in the area). Many of the concerns would apparently apply to any proposal for a hotel or motel. These issues are not appropriately addressed through SEPA review. State law requires that the project review process, including SEPA review, use the fundamental land use planning choices made during development of the community's comprehensive plan and development regulations as a starting point. These decisions should not be re analysed in making a decision on an individual project (ESHB 1724). The following indicates the results of my review of the probable adverse environmental impacts of the proposed hotel development: EARTH No significant adverse impacts. ' AIR No significant adverse impacts, given appropriate handling of any asbestos that may exist in buildings to be demolished (see ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, below). WATER No significant adverse impacts. PLANTS No significant adverse impacts. ANIMALS No significant adverse impacts. Although sightings of hawks, herons, eagles, squirrels, raccoons and opossum have been reported in the vicinity, there is no evidence in the record that the development site itself provides habitat for these species or any species that may be recognized as rare, threatened or endangered. Nor is the proposal likely to significantly affect such habitat that may exist in the vicinity. E96 -0004 Page 2 z z 1- W. J U, O 0 co WI CO u-. w0 2 J u- ?. f- z;. Z �. � 0 Z W U • 0: O D- o w w. • U u-H Z tiJ C.)▪ _, Off. z ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES No significant adverse impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Potential impacts: Due to the age of the structures proposed to be demolished, there is a likelihood of the presence of asbestos. Demolition creates the potential for asbestos to become airborne, creating an environmental health hazard. Existing regulations established by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, if followed, are sufficient to mitigate this potential hazard. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • TMC 18.24.080. Performance standards (Compliance with standards adopted by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency). Mitigation: Demolition of existing structures shall be carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. LAND AND SHORELINE USE No significant adverse impacts. The use is consistent with the land use designations of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code, and is subject to compliance with . the city's adopted development standards. HOUSING No significant adverse impacts. AESTHETICS Potential impacts: The size, shape, and architectural design of a commercial structure on this site creates the potential for aesthetic incompatibility with neighboring uses, even if development standards regulating height, bulk, setbacks, parking , landscaping and other project characteristics are met. This is especially true where a proposed commercial development abuts land designated and used for single family residential development, as is the case here. Potential impacts include: incompatibility of scale; incompatibility of design and color; excessive lighting; interference with access to light and air; and reduction of privacy. Such potential impacts are recognized and addressed by Comprehensive Plan policies and Zoning Code provisions authorizing and requiring review of proposals such as this by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review (BAR). E96 -0004 Page 3 z �w o_2 6 � 00. W 0 = J H U) La. 0 gQ.. -a I=— w _ Z 0: Z 2 U0 O u O H w • w: IL 0 z Policy Basis for Mitigation: Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60 authorizes the imposition of conditions related to project aesthetics and design. The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 also authorize such conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.1. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.1, and Policies 8.1.5, 8.1.9, and 8.1.12. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 8.2, and Policy 8.2.18. • TMC 18.24.070 (Design review required for all hotels and motels in RC zoning district). • TMC 18.60.050 (General design review guidelines). • TMC 18.60.053 (Multi - family design review guidelines). • TMC 18.60.055 (Multi - family review guidelines to be used in design review for hotels /motels). Mitigation: The proposed development shall be subject to review by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review under the provisions of TMC 18.60. LIGHT AND GLARE Potential impacts: The size and nature of the proposed hotel create the potential for spillover of light and glare impacting neighboring properties, even if development standards regulating height, setbacks, landscaping and other project characteristics are met. This is especially true due to the site's proximity to land designated and used for single family residential development. Potential impacts could be created by light emanating from hotel room windows (particularly those of the second or third floors), parking area lighting, signage and security lighting. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policies 1.7.3 and 1.7.4. • TMC 18.60.050(3)(H) and (5)(B) and 18.56.053 (4)(D) (Exterior lighting). Mitigation: A solid eight feet (8') tall fence meeting all applicable construction standards shall be provided along the site's east property line. Landscaped buffer areas along the east and south property lines shall include a mix of deciduous trees of at least 2.5 inch caliper at the time of planting, and evergreen trees of at least eight feet (8') in height at time of planting. Irrigation of these landscaped areas shall be provided. These and all other landscaping requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code shall be met prior to occupancy. E96 -0004 Page 4 z w QQ w J U. 00: N 0: w= J w0 u-Q. CO = w' Z �. F-0: zi—: U • � O -' 0 I-. w w, • U; o w z. z • A bond or other financial security acceptable to the Director of Community Development, in an amount of not less than 150 percent of the cost of landscaping materials and installation, shall be provided prior to occupancy. This security shall be for the purpose of guaranteeing the health and survival of all required landscaping for a period of not less than two years following occupancy. z No illuminated sign shall be allowed on the north or east facades of the hotel structure. _- w cc Indirectly illuminated, incidental directional signage may be allowed, if consistent with the Tukwila Sign Code. - o (o cnw: RECREATION w = No ,significant adverse impacts. w 2 HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION L < -' No significant adverse impacts. _ z�.. I-- o TRANSPORTATION z F- D` Potential impacts: A Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared for the proposed project by o m Gibson Traffic Consultants (April 29, 1996). This analysis was reviewed by the City Engineer, o who has reported that the analysis was performed according to appropriate methods, and = v. demonstrates that there will be no significant adverse impacts related to traffic generated by the proposed development. I have also reviewed traffic studies prepared by Gibson Traffic w Z Consultants for the Fosterview residential subdivision, to gain an understanding of the c) cumulative impacts of these development proposals on traffic in the area. Based on this p t=-' information, I have found no evidence that the hotel proposal will result in significant adverse Z traffic impacts. The proposal does, however, have the potential for adversely affecting the parking situation in the area, and if this results in inappropriate parking along substandard streets, could result in localized congestion and safety hazards. The practice of using off - street parking lots for "park and fly" purposes related to the proximity of SeaTac International Airport, reduces the availability of parking for persons actually residing within the hotel units. This in turn can force legitimate hotel parking onto adjacent streets that are not currently built to standards intended to accommodate such use. The owner of the subject property has indicated, during consideration of previous proposals for a hotel on this site, that he has allowed persons who were not residing in his facilities leave their cars parked in his lot (see, for example, verbatim transcript of hearing for EconoLodge waiver, City Council Meeting, January 17, 1995). Persons who stay one night have been allowed to park for up to a week, and people who have not stayed in his facilities at all have been allowed to park for $4.00 per day. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the E96 -0004 Page 5 conditions are based on a.plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.3. • Comprehensive Plan Goal 13.1, and Policy 13.1.1. • TMC 18.56. (Off street parking). Mitigation: No parking space needed to meet the requirements of TMC 18.56 shall be occupied, or shall be offered for occupancy, by a vehicle other than that of a registered resident guest or employee of the motel. PUBLIC SERVICES Potential Impacts: Hotel/motel and some other uses in the Pacific Highway corridor of Tukwila have historically placed a disproportionately high level of demand upon police services. The proposal would increase the number of units on the site from 18 to 44, an increase of 26 rooms. Policy Basis for Mitigation: The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 43.21C.060) and TMC 21.04.270 authorize the imposition of conditions to mitigate adverse impacts provided the conditions are based on a plan or regulation identified in TMC 21.04.270. In this case, the following provisions of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code apply: • Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7, and Policy 1.7.3. • TMC 18.060.053(3)(C) and (4)(D). Mitigation: Security lighting shall be provided along the west facade of the hotel structure; bollard or similar landscape area lighting shall be provided in the east landscape buffer area; and the parking area, including the area beneath the hotel building, shall be illuminated for the purpose of enhancing security. A lighting plan and analysis shall be prepared and submitted at the time of building permit application, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development, in consultation with the Chief of Police. There shall be no vending machines, or other facilities that will provide a likely place of congregation for non - guests, located outdoors. UTILITIES No significant adverse impacts. E96 -0004 Page 6 z _1— . re w 2 J U: o O' CO C1' w= J H wo gQ N D 2 a - w. •z = 1- O .z .0 W w. - O. w .0 =; O~ z C H E N G 8 ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS May 15, 1996 Ms. Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila 6300 southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed hotel at the corner of S. 139th Street and Pacific Highway S. Dear Ms. Gierloff: Enclosed please find 7 sets of revised plans for your review and approval. We also like to request the waiver of requiring a loading dock for the project. Since there is no restaurant or cafe to be included in this project, and almost all the supplies will be purchased by the owner or his employees at local Costco store with their personal vehicles, there is no need of a loading dock for this project. Enclosed please also find a copy of easement agreement for providing 4 parking stalls at the adjacent project for the proposed hotel development. In order to do so, Mr. Lin will need to re -strip two parking areas: one in front of the building and another parking area right next to east property line. I have instructed Mr. Lin to go ahead with the re- stripping, since he had a permit to do so. The re- stripping will be only to comply with what was approved by King County. No landscaping changes will be required or needed for this work. I also like to request to change one of the SEPA conditions to allow '6' instead of 8' high wall to be built along east property line. 8' wall is simply too tall and unattractive. I would think the next door neighbors would prefer to see trees we have proposed for the project, instead of a tall wall which will be totally out of scale with buildings in the residential area. Don, the next door neighbor, was very pleased with the design proposal at the open house. Your approval of the above described waivers will be most appreciated. Thank you again. Sincerely yours, CHENG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Johnny C. L. Cheng, AIA Architect Enclosures: Revised plans Parking eastment agreement MAY 1 4 1996 ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206.441 -5745 / FAX 206.441 -8760 z i1 w JU. U 0 wo w= J I. co w; in 0. 2 J I— _' z� I-0 Z t--. co ;0 —` ,0 -. wW 'F._ U LL o` Z IIJ U co 0 ~' z 1 On iY es—c_ ezl achment D - ED LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1".20'-0" BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 1 . CRITERIA 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 z response is insufficient, attach additional response to this form. _ I-- z 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE a! n A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and _1 o to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. ; co W B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the i visual impact of large paved areas. co o C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. 2 ga RESPONSE: L a The design proposal places the L- shaped building closer to the west property line to I W allow more landscaped area along east property which is right adjacent to a residential z 1_, neighborhood to the east. To further reduce visual impact, in addition to extensive z o. landscaping on the ground, trees will be planted at about 30 feet on center. A six feet w w! high fence will also be built along three sides of the site to provide visual screen D o' between surface parking on the site and adjacent properties. To be compatible with :o -: adjacent residential buildings, the proposed three -story building will have pitched roof w w to echo the roof style of the neighborhood. = U. El z 0 co _; i _ 2. RELATIONSH OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA z I_ IP 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: To reduce the scale of the building mass and to create variation in building facades, modulation, change of window styles, and special architectural features will be incorporated in the building design. Extensive landscaping will be provided on front and side yards to soften the edges of the site and to enhance the environment for the project and its adjacent properties. A new sidewalk will be provided along South 139th Street per City's standard and to improve pedestrian circulation in the area. Attachment E BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 2 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 encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible . with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: As shown on the landscape plan, the main design concepts are to provide extensive landscaping to enhance the natural environment of the site and to proper screening for the parking area. shrubs, varying from medium -small to large, will be placed along building edges and right next to the wood fence along east property lines. Seasonal flowers will be planted on both sides of the driveway leading to the parking area. Large shade trees with 2" caliper will be located along east property line to provide visual screen between the project and residential community to the east of the site. Lighting for the parking area will be limited to the entrance canopy area and covered parking garage to reduce excessive brightness. 4. BUILDING DESIGN . A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. des- rcv.DOC z Wiz` 00 CO CO 11,1 J H U) II_ w0 ga' -. �d z� I-- 0 Z ~` w 0 O '; 0 W• W • p. w z. co ~ o z BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 3 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures; standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: The site is located in a transition area between commercial to the west and residential community to the east of the site. In response to this condition, the architect has designed the building which will fit the physical character of the site. The three -story . will have pitched roof and roof details .which will reflect the typical architectural characters of residential buildings in the areas. Residential windows with wood trims and grids will also be used for all guestrooms to reinforce this character. Modulation in building facades will help to reduce building mass and add interest to the building. In addition, architectural details which are most associated with residences have be incorporated in the building design. No mechanical equipment will be visible from building exterior. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and 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: Because of site limitation, there will be only one building proposed for the site. No street furniture or miscellaneous structures other than wood fences will be provided. z ~z w• 6 • -J U; UO .co w =? w Oi gQ 19_a �_! w ~ . :2 D. 0 .ww �U CY -Z• U N' 0 • z C H E N G & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Compatibility of the Proposed Design with Multi - family Structures Re: Proposed Hotel Development at 4006 South 139th Street The proposed hotel development is located at the corner of South 139th Street and Pacific Highway South- a transition zone with commercial properties to the west and residential areas to the east. The existing run -down, single -story, motel building has caused security problem for both the building owner and the neighborhood, and has required extra police protection over the years. Therefore the goals for the project are to enhance the existing physical environment of the site and to improve sense of security for the site and adjacent areas. z Fa=- Z'. ry w. J0: .0 0.. w= J H, w 0. g Q1. d As described in the submitted environmental checklists, the proposed design will be an L- shaped , ui . three -story, wood structure with stucco exteriors. The building will have pitched roof with residential El- l— details and windows to reflect the character of its adjacent residences, while maintaining certain z commercial quality for its identity and to fit the character of its transition zone. The roof overhangs 2 uj and window treatments with grids will echo the details which are mostly found in residences and n o apartments. Building modulation will also help to reduce the scale and mass of the structure. ° - Extensive landscaping, together with 6 feet high wood fences along the property lines will help to w soften the edges of the site, and to improve the natural environment of the area, while providing 0. proper screening for the project. ;LL z'. Cu en New sidewalk along South 139th Street will be provided to improve pedestrian circulation and make a o clear separation between public and private properties. This clear hierarchy of spaces will help to create a sense of place and security for the site and adjacent area. Attachment F ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN RECEIVED MAR 0 7 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206-441-5745 / FAX 206 -411 -8760 Attachment G: Set of Building Plans bound separately d v.C::: pr1 i..n[A341! i..4::2Sr?:V.i:: Attachment H. Materials Board to be Presented at Hearing rte, -I 01 o o: � 0 ;N.w ILI J �y 'N wf O• g war:. Dc `1wv , 'F_ 2 V 0e -t 10 HF ,w := of :U Z` �.:L'Tiwi...z•Y.uiviJ4a....., nea._.,:.S:i+..w...n.,.�.a „a.m : �v:. .•,tie.:...,.a._..>a,e+...a..,, iv._a, a..�swxa.ti�i 11::.' �r1: i�te �Y/: i1: J)+ 1. 4ti:::,, fs.( �:::. r” w "i1}ii.iF::l✓1!i.:is�C'.�i'c`c� it :'t o: SEPA Official, City of Tukwila Copy to: Mayor Rants Re: SEPA matters relating to Epic File #E96 -0004 From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, 4251 S. 139th St., Tukwila, WA 98168 Date: April 7, 1996 RECEIVED APR 8 19 6 i'L0 E NT My family and I will be out of town at the time of the project's "open house" on April 9, so we cannot comment at that time about the proposal submitted for a hotel /motel at 4006 S. 139th St., Tukwila. (For citizens' consideration, I think there should be east- and south -view elevations ren- dered of the proposed building in relation to existing buildings to the east and west.) However, I have reviewed the documents pertaining to it, and there are some major concerns which I feel re- quire an environmental impact statement. I am stating these concerns now, in hopes that the SEPA process will include a determination of significance. Such a determination is, according to the attorney we have consulted (Mr. Rand Koler, fa- miliar to the city from a previous application for the project), a sensitive method of dealing with community concerns in a less confrontational way than the BAR /quasijudicial procedure creates: A determination of significance is an option which casts city government in a positive light, is well within the rights of the City of Tukwila, and is certainly practiced by other cities. No one more than we, a permanent family, wants to see the Comprehensive Plan aspirations successfully improve the residential neighborhoods and 99 corridor; that is why this decision is so . critical. Yet, given that individuals associated with this project were a political force during the 1996 election, and given that whom they supported would be put in the position of hearing any appeal to decisions made with regard to the project, it would be prudent for Tukwila first to put the burden of addressing the community's concerns onto a neutral 3rd party by requiring an EIS. In other words, because of the relationship between office - holders and parties connected with this project, and be- cause so many people in the city would be affected directly and indirectly by decisions made per- taining to the project, there are enough concerns that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would be a factor: Any additional hearing would be more difficult, which I'm sure we'd all like to avoid. As to the Environmental Checklist, the applicant /architect has dismissed major concerns of the neighborhood and community, in my opinion. (In fact, in Section E, the applicant states that the only alternative to building this 44 -unit hotel /motel is leaving the existing $1000 -value buildings on the. site.) However, there are responses or omissions that show this proposal will indeed make sig- i nificant impacts to the residents near the site and to Tukwila in general: (1) Section B, Item 10. Aesthetics The height is listed as "about 35 feet" (although, I believe, it is at least 40 feet at the roofs ridge). The applicant states that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This cannot be true. While the east boundary setback is 30 feet, a building of this height will block to- pographical, sky and sunset views from many properties. I realize that 35 feet or 3 stories is al- lowed. The building actually would exceed this, however, because the roof itself is the equivalent height of an additional story above the 3 stories allowed. As to other aesthetics, while a sloped roof is one appropriate design feature which could help make a commercial building look compatible with adjacent low-density residential properties, the total mass of this project is completely out of scale in relation to its lot and to the surrounding proper- ties. The square footage of the building is nearly the same as the lot itself; multiply each story's square footage by the height, and you get a realistic picture of the volume or mass. The characteris- tics of a commercial project of these proportions would very much affect the neighborhood. The aesthetics, therefore, are questionable — the massive character of the building far outweighs the attempt to add "some residential" elements. . Eventually, it would be incumbent upon the BAR to take the mass of this 44 -unit project into ac- count. As is stated in TMC 18.60.055, the BAR will need to apply the multi - family review guidelines. May I refer you to sections 18.60.053(1)(I) and (2)(B), where harmony is a consideration. Further- more, the BAR needs to align its decisions with the Comprehensive Plan. I estimate that an average ATTACHMENT 1 1 jerliPMITIM !u 1 :e%f:T,z:"= N:h+l!4 "sM1^ jq :. rt *•'.:rsrrLSY.gtct,,,: •. �Y: rn�1�+ 1J" tm.n�.sln�"'Z:�:.pr,�.,;..'r�.L f,.'\ e�4gir. Y. tsp'/ r7iP. ?e` Tt: �'. �,.". fP�+/! s: 4, mmr'.;✓„ uw`: x{.'? fluri7", ii. Sw», y:._ y: ?a*Lxnt?:^Y!.rrsxrA,*,!Y�lxt+ z w et JU 00 co wi w0 u_ co =w I— z� I— O Z F- LU U • � o t-'. w W. _ F- H W ..z co O H: z apartment would be roughly the size of two motel units (2/44 = 1/22), and factor in a 1/22 portion of the general spaces on the first floor. This means that the project proposes a density of 22 units per half acre. However, the Comprehensive Plan defines high- density residential as "areas charac- terized by multi- family buildings: 15 - 21.8 units per net acre". The motel project is double this den- sity. It is hardly of a harmonious scale and is insensitive to the neighborhood. The community image of Tukwila is affected, as well. The density /scale issue is inconsistent with many of the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the first major objective of which is "to improve and sustain resi- dential neighborhood quality and livability". (Section F, G(2) and G(4) of the ordinance adopting the Plan offer similar direction.) In fact, I truly hope it's unnecessary to bring this kind of argument to the BAR --L. or to a SEPA appeal — when the impacts seem so obvious and the city's stated stan- dards are so important. (Similarly, I'd like to point to TMC 18.50.085, which says that at most 50% of the surface in a multi- family development can be impervious, while .the Environmental Checklist item B.1.g notes 74.3 %. It seems that the BAR process would also consider thisinconsistency.) (2) Section B, Item 15. Public Services The applicant states that there would be increased need for police services. True, and — compari- son to the operations of the existing run -down motel notwithstanding — this is a real concern. The parking garage would be an attractive place to hide, or to transact drug sales or "in -car" prostitution business. Lighting isn't the sole remedy. Closed - circuit surveillance would help. The applicant also needs to be aware of proposed Crime -Free standards for motel /hotel operation. However, the bigger, long -term impact on the neighborhood and the entire community is dreadful. With the high crime rate in the 99 corridor, it was necessary for the city to impose an emergency moratorium on permits for this type of business, and this cited that there was a need to "protect the public health, safety, morals, vision, and general welfare of the Highway 99 neighborhood ". Histori- cally, the motel businesses have been an enormous drain on the city's budget — and image. There is nothing in this project's checklist to argue otherwise. There would also be an increased need for social services, attributable to the effect of imposing a large -scale commercial project on the neighborhood, which leads to reduced property values, which leads to low -rent housing, which leads to the problems of transience, etc. This cascades and results in even more impacts to the community. (3) Section E, Item 4. The applicant states there would be no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. I strongly disagree — and there are numerous conflicts with both the Plan and its supporting Zoning Code. Community image and neighborhood revitalization are chief concerns. To cite one of the Obstacles to Plan Achievement, "Some businesses focus upon their own success while using methods which may „ harm the public welfare." I believe that over - building on this lot size exemplifies such an obstacle. Truly a motel /hotel project like the one proposed is bound to have a significant impact on the community and consequent repercussions. It especially deserves careful assessment when it is the first proposal coming after the arduous Comprehensive Plan process, and with all the official talk of sensitivity to citizen concerns (i.e., one of three goals listed in the Housing section is "improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature of neighborhoods ") and the focus on improving the Highway 99 corridor image (eg., "part of the area's poor image stems from the criminal activity seen and perceived "; "...[social and health problems] and the transient nature of the community, to an unspecified extent, are increasing the insecurity and images of the criminal character of the area "). At great expense to the developer for legal and architectural advice, proposals for a hotel /motel at this site continue to be pushed into the DCD process without an appropriate forum to discuss impacts upon the neighborhood and city. Community concerns have not been solicited or addressed appropriately prior to submission of applications relating to the project. Unless these concerns are alleviated, there will continue to be objections from citizens. This is bad for the devel- oper and bad for the opinion people have of their local government. Therefore, I urge you to deter- mine that the proposal is significant, requiring an EIS to address the needs of the community and the impact to the residential neighborhood adjacent to this site. 2 z I I- ~W 6 UO CO CI co w J H' V) u_ w0 J w< = H w =. z� 1- 0 Z F- w U • � O (1) • F-- w W. u' O wz N 0 z April 9, 1996 City of Tukwila Planning Department Re: Environmental Checklist, Epic File No. E96 -0004 "Motel" at 4006 So 139th St, Seattle A. BACKGROUND 10. "Lot line adjustment permit" - What is meant by this? B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 2. Air b. off -site sources - some emissions from highway? c. proposed measures... A 6 foot fence on the East side of property will protect guests on the West side of 2nd & 3rd stories of motel from traffic on the West ?!!! 4. Plants b. plants to be removed - blackberry bushes? . Environmental Health b. noise - fence along property lines does not cut noise from highway: 8. Land and Shoreline Use i. How many people would reside in completed project? Answer: none!!! Is it going to be different than across the street? 9. Housing b. How many units? Is it 44 or 45? 10. Aesthetics a. Exterior building material? "Stucco" - just like that shack across the street that looks like a temporary building from World War II: c. Proposed measures... "Some residential characters on its facade to compliment with adjacent resi- dential properties." NO adjacent residential properties have "characters on their facades "! ATTACHMENT 1 2 ( e,s, a1.:.::... ..�.. -- ' 1 Page 2 - 4 -9 -96 City of Tukwila Planning Dept 14. Transportation c. # of parking spaces...I'll bet prospective guests wouldn't be too pleased to walk a block from their car to the motel: But then, there will probably be enough parking, considering how frequent "guests" change: z Q f. Vehicular trips per day •-• "274 on average weekday" g, Just what we need: more cars, more air pollution 6 JU and more noise! O� N o. w =; 15. Public Services w LL b. Measures to reduce...impacts on public services... w0 But no refusal to "rent" to prostitutes: N D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET _ 1. Increase...emissions to air...or production of noise? z �: No measure can reduce emissions or noise except NO MOTEL!!! Z O; Ww. 4. Environmentally sensitive areas...Too bad our homes p = are not considered environmentally sensitive - guess CI I we should become hawks or eagles! = w. --~O 6. Increase demands on transportation & public services, wu) etc. More people, more cars, more noise, more v =` pollution!!! z ' 7. Too bad our governments at all levels can't be bothered protecting us! Please have had the courtesy & professionalism to have read each line & respond to my concerns. Sincerely, Jai. Marilynn VanHise 13708 - 41st Ave So Seattle, WA 98168 (206) 244 -7157 . SLC� . ( Page 3 - 4 -9 -96 Cii., of Tukwila Planning Dept Re: Cheng & Associates - Compatibility of the Proposed Design with Multi - family Structures "The existing...building has caused security problem" Only one ?!! .."improve sense of security for.•..adjacent areas" z By inviting 40 -90 more people? mi- W: ... "character of its adjacent residences" No neighbor- hood residences are 3 stories high with or without pitched 6 D J U: roofs! 00 coo; "Extensive landscaping...will help to soften..., & to W =, improve, etc" Just like the . big shack across the street ?: -1 1.... cow "6 feet high...fences" do not provide screening for 2nd w 0. & 3rd floors: 2 r gQ Page 1 #1 N 3; A. Landscaping - cheap, chintzy, ill -kept like H w' the other property of owner? z 3; I- C. Height & scale - Only owner's "lodge" across g the street is 3 stories high. A 3 story building v o- is not compatible with surrounding houses, most !.O .; of which are one story. of- 2 V':. Page 1 #2 C. Public buildings... "Extensive landscaping" Does owner mean like what's across street? z Page 2 #3 C. Landscape treatment...provide shade. Owner hasn't provided shade trees across street, why should we expect he will with new building? D. In location where plants...Very little visible care has been taken with plants across street. Page 2 #4 B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale... Only 3 buildings in the neighborhood are over one story high - 2 homes & the 3 -story shack. „b, APR.22.1996 11:19AM P 2 FROM : KRF *NI LAW OFFICES 'I : NO. : 206 587 0226 KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. LAW OFFICES THE BRODERICK BUILDING • PENTHOUSE SurrE 615 SECOND AVENUE • SEATTLE. WASHINOTAN 98104.2203 P•roNe (206) 621.6440 • FAX (206) 587-0226 RAND L. KOLER DIRECT DIALI W (206) 621 -6441 -J U. 0 O.. CO �. CO w wI; U) w' w 0. Via Facsimile (206 431 -3667) and U.S. Mail �' = d; Steve Lancaster 1- _. Director of Community Planning z City of Tukwila z Of-, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 ill; Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Environmental Checklist; Epic File No. E96 -0004; w w. Johnny Cheng Proposed Hotel Development H : lbw 0 N', We represent Ron and Nancy Lamb, the owners of a residence near the above- z described proposed project. As you know, there is a great deal of concern among the residents in the neighborhood with respect to the effect of the proposed hotel development on their residential neighborhood. We urge you to require an Environmental Impact Statement so that the community can be assured that its concerns are being considered and that appropriate mitigation procedures and alternatives have been examined April 22, 1996 Dear Mr. Lancaster: A. Overview. 1. The Project. The Applicant' owns the EconoLodge on the south side of South 139th Street. He proposes to remove three small buildings across the street from the EconoLodge and construct a 45 -unit hotel facing 139th Street. The proposed hotel is too big for the lot, given the City's parking requirements. To meet these requirements, it is proposed that the new hotel be raised above the surface to maximize the parking area. Even with this 1The owner's architect has identified himself as the "Applicant” on the environmental checklist. In this letter we intend the reference to be to the unidentified property owner. cwpS 1 NambNan04- 23.11t10s.23.96 ATTACHMENT 1 3 setaz- . raqR.22.1996 11:19AM P 3 FROM : KRF *NI LAW OFFICES PI _ ,0. : 206 587 0226 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 2 added elevation, however, there is insufficient parking space on the lot, so four parking spaces on the other side of the street will have to be dedicated to the new hotel. 2. Community Concerns. The existing hotel (including the EconoLodge) is associated with crime, breaches of the peace and assorted other police problems. These criminal activities and police problems occur in a single - family neighborhood in which children are being raised. The proposal involves a significant expansion of the existing use, which the Applicant in Section E admits has a substantial negative impact on the area. Nonetheless, he proposes to greatly expand his hotel without any analysis of its influence on the surrounding residential area. This proposal raises serious questions involving the health and safety of the residents and their children. This proposal should not be permitted to proceed until the Applicant has addressed these concerns. The fundamental, problem with the Applicant's Environmental Checklist is that the Applicant views the "vicinity" of the project as Pacific Highway South and not the residential neighborhood which abuts it. The Applicant's checklist gives virtually no consideration to the residential community impacted by the project.' This is the type of situation in which an environmental impact statement is most appropriate. It seems inconceivable that a project creating serious police and safety issues in a residential neighborhood could proceed without the benefit of the review required by an environmental impact statement. Additionally, there are several concerns about the cumulative impact of a second large hotel on the residential community, apart from the associated criminal activity. These concerns, regarding the impact on the single - family residential community, do not appear to have been given consideration. B. Noise. In Section 7(b), the Applicant suggests that there will be virtually no noise impact on the surrounding residential area. The neighborhood residents are very concerned about noise, not just the noise created by the guests' vehicles, but the noise created by the guests, the noise created by police activity associated with hotel use in the area, and the hotel itself. The City has received complaints relating to noise at the existing facility. How can a significantly expanded hotel be associated with reduced noise problems for the residents in the vicinity? For example, the checklist states that there are no birds in the area. While it is true that no birds live immediately wesst of the site on Pacific Highway South, immediately east is a rural environment which is the habitat of numerous birds. F;wp31Mam611an04-23.I0\O4.23.96 ' A•' tMi !UZ+?in7VPFr4t+tr.vr,Etw. _ X n∎YAvw .reCat+iterv,v rrd!z ?4 R71U!',NM MreR! l.tlr±lryryCvt'm., finmal';ttg. -4-mm; ixry :+M'' z ~w ce 6 Uo co co J 1 wo gQ co D = d: w Z 1.-, 1- o Z �- 0 0— o wW w z. U w. z • FROM : KRF *NI LAW OFFICES Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 3 HHR.22.19Jb 11:2WHM F 4 P; E NO. : 206 587 0226 C. Aesthetics; Light and Glare _ • u 00 cn(1.1 w =; U) u_ . w0 g Q. = a. �w z�. D. Recreation. z g In Section 10, the Applicant says that the building height will be 35 feet. We understand that the actual height, including the roof, will be 40 -42 feet. The construction of a large hotel will obviously have a significant aesthetic impact on the residential neighborhood. The hotel will tower over neighboring homes. No serious thought is given to the aesthetic impact of a much larger hotel intruding into a residential area. The Applicant seems to give little consideration to the Iight and glare caused by a busy hotel in a residential area. Accordingly,. the Applicant does not propose to take any mitigating measures with respect to this light and glare. Light and glare from the elevated hotel will certainly illuminate surrounding homes and be viewed from distant homes. w Section 12 states that the proposed project will not influence recreational opportunities. o o This is outrageously wrong. The Applicant proposes a use which involves a relatively large `0 H number of people coming and going and which is associated with criminal activity. This use w w` is being proposed in a residential neighborhood in which children reside. The residential v community does not agree that expanding a use that has historically been associated with - 0 prostitution, drug use and violence will have no effect on the recreational activities of the lii z co o families in the neighborhood. Z E. 'Traffic. • In Section 14, the Applicant indicates that the proposed use would have little traffic impact. The proposed hotel does not have direct access to Pacific Highway South. The residents in the area are concerned about the increase in traffic on South 139th Street and what impact this may have on the residential area, particularly when there will not be enough parking places on the site to accommodate the proposed use. A part of the concem regarding traffic relates to the inadequacy of parking places. Parking is already a problem with the relatively low level of use on the proposed site. A contributing factor seems to be the Applicant's practice of renting parking spaces to airport patrons. Long -term parking arrangements have caused the parking lot to be so jammed with cars that the City's parking ordinance was violated. This has also led to violations of on- street parking requirements. This problem will be compounded by adding a high density use for which there is insufficient on -site parking. a:wp31VambUan04- 23.1u104,23,96 9,PR. 22.1996 11: 21 AM P 5 FROM : KRF *NI LAW OFFICES F 10. : 206 587 0226 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 4 F. Public Safety. In Section 15, the Applicant acknowledges that the proposed project would increase the need for police and fire protection. It is not sufficient, however, to acknowledge that police and fire protection needs will be increased. The problems associated with the need for increased police and fire protection are enormous concerns to the residents in the area. The need for increased police protection will have a direct impact on the families in the neighborhood. There is a school bus stop on the corner of 139th and 41st Avenue South, a short distance from the proposed project. The Applicant and the community (and probably the City) acknowledge that hotel use at this site creates a serious public safety issue. The Applicant's proposal to increase the amount of hotel use will, it concedes, increase the gravity of the public. safety risks. These problems must be examined by the Applicant before inflicting them on the neighborhood. G. No Meaningful Consideration of Alternatives. The residents take sharp issue with the Applicant's discussion of alternatives to the proposal. This is set forth in Section E of the Supplemental Sheet. Here the Applicant says the alternatives are to leave three existing buildings, which are in "very poor physical condition" and which "have created a lot of security problems for both the owner and the local police department over the years" or to permit a new three -story hotel with 45 guest rooms. Obviously, these are not the only two alternatives. The Applicant has given no consideration to maintaining the existing buildings, converting the property to a use which does not create substantial police problems, or numerous other alternatives. The checklist does not reflect that. the Applicant has given any thought to alternatives or to mitigating measures. The Applicant, of course, wishes to utilize the property to its maximum potential. The checklist shows that the Applicant has not attempted to factor in the concerns of the community about the proposed use. An environmental impact statement offers a vehicle through which the two interests can be melded. H. Cumulative Impacts; Future Ownership. When the project is completed, the Applicant will own two hotels, each on a separate lot, Each is entitled to be treated separately with respect to signage and other governmental c:wp51 amb \Ian04.23.1c104.23.96 ee. !..YFMMfC..n.FSY 1MW155�..e.1.e.er eex,4 ..i.?f.1w,Anwt, -0 /'. iMA i:4est,u aptef!,wo... ... ill" I'll ~ z i-- z 6 00 fA 0 cnw w= J w 0. g Q. Via; = F— mi." Z �. f=0 Z U0 0 92' ca ww ui z' U ,„: z ^. y APR. 22. 1996 11:21AM P 6 FROM : KRF *NI LAW OFFICES 1 4E NO. : 206 587 0226 Steve Lancaster April 22, 1996 Page 5 permits and approvals. The presence of two substantial -sized hotels on a residential street will geometrically increase the problems associated with one substantial -sized hotel. The transient character of the area will be greatly increased. • Inevitably at some point in time the two hotels will come under separate ownership. (It is possible that this situation has already arisen.) The residential neighborhood will then have two competing hotels, virtually side -by -side. An environmental impact statement would discuss and analyze the cumulative impact of two hotels on the single - family community and the effect of separate ownership. �. Conclusion. . The community's public safety concerns about the project cannot be denied or minimized. The checklist, while verifying the legitimacy of these .concerns, clearly . shows that they have not been given much, if any, consideration. The other matters listed above have, similarly, been glossed over by the Applicant. When these matters have been given serious consideration by the Applicant, he will be able to identify meaningful alternatives and mitigating measures. The environmental impact statement process offers a means for the City, and particularly the residential community, to see that its, interests are protected while the Applicant is permitted to further his financial interests. Very truly yours, KOLER, ROSEN & FITZSIMMONS, P.S. 6t,‘..sz\ Rand L. Koler ewp5l\lambNlan04- 23.1u104.23.96 . iL:' iY':• }:.t�.w*: 3iuir.`F,titi2 "Jn= "�r..H�l�'�, _ _ uay.'av %Yt ; '. i!§G:tf "••�_.'m WikgP.'rl z i� w: try U O' ai W =. . •J w: wO g-J wa cO d: w Z �.,. I-0 Z I—; w D o. '0 - w U � O w z To: Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD, City of Tukwila From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, resident, 4251 S. 139th Street Date: April 22, 1996 Re: Epic File No. E96 -0004 Thank you for your letter of April 15 and your neighborhood communication dated April 10. I greatly appreciate your wise choice to allow additional time for the DCD to consider the multiple issues involved in the proposed development at 4006 South 139th Street. As you know, the major issues concern the intrusion of this overly dense structure and its historically problematic type of business upon the single - family neighborhood it abuts. I must reiterate that, because of the many large questions raised by this project as it has been presented, I feel it would be in the city's best interest to have the questions answered through the EIS process. Also, I think that it would be inappropriate to send the design as -is to the Board of Architectural Review, because there seem to be so many inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code pertaining to the design and function of this project. An EIS would allow a forum and time for these issues and inconsistencies to be discussed and mitigated. This could potentially provide the developer an opportunity to present a better, more acceptable proposal to the community, and specifically to the community's BAR representatives. This needn't be . a confrontational process. As I stated in my communication of April 7, this is a sensitive site and a sensitive time to propose a project of this sort. Thank you for giving due consideration to the community at large, and specifically the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed new hotel /motel, by weighing its potentially grave impacts. Collectively we want to be proud of Tukwila; we want our community to be safe for children and senior citizens, and a place people want to put down roots; we don't appreciate the status quo of the Highway 99 corridor; and we want redevelopment to reflect the positive vision set forth by the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. I sincerely thank you for your courtesy in helping our community achieve these goals. —Nancy Lamb ATTACHMENT 1 4 .z w ce uJ JU 00 w= J . w 01 J u- Q, "11_11 z o; U :0 wa H V, w z, F= _ O z ‘2-/tUat_ 2.- 3 taie_ aia.e..ked . 6 4 de- &zZ ,e_ liWItC0./z-e-d. OIL 4IL"--_a4a_0at____ fit-e--e---b a). . aiLite 6Le-- ot-e- .._ ceAop L6 otx... lb ota. coace... Ao .Az_aAw___. e-i-6- oliae. ,_1 A DiA.il■ pa/4-6 .• • ECEIVED -- APR 2 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT 1 5 ug.g.wmg„vios. - 54.1564441 ,i4titsm.votouokzama‘cogah,k,nst4-5*,4t Ita•Ruoat,v7., April 20,1996 City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED .APR 2 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Lancaster: We, the concerned residents of the properties close by and /or residents who will be impacted by the proposed construction of the 44/45 unit motel addition at 4006 S. 139th St. request that an Environmental Impact Statement be required. by the motel owner /developer. We make this request based on the following:(ref. checklist 2/5/96) o Traffic /Transportation - This does not address the tremendous increase in vehicular traffic from the proposed Fosterview Estates development added to the 274 vehicle transit per day to and from the proposed motel addition. Past records will show the auto accidents and injuries at the intersection of 139th and Hwy 99. This does not indicate•the near misses that so many of us have observed virtually on a daily basis. It is a given that all motel traffic will not access /egress onto Hwy 99. 139th Street adjacent to, and east of the "-motel" is quite narrow and has deep ditches along both sides of the roadway. Typically the overflow vehicles from the existing Econo Lodge and the old units on the north side of 139th park on 139th. Sometimes on both sides of the roadway. This makes a difficult transit through that area, especially in inclement weather. When you mix in the pedestrian traffic going to and from the motel units and the Derby Tavern, it becomes a dangerous piece of road. o Parking - The Econo Lodge promotes "park and ride" of non- guest parking over every major holiday period. This practice pushes many vehicles out onto 139th and wherever they can . find a spot to park. Once again this increases the congest- ion which will be greatly exacerbated by the Fosterview Est- ates project. o Public Services - Historically, the Airport aka Econo Lodge Motel has had an excessive number of Police and /or emergency responses. This indicates the owner. /manager et al, have not made any obvious effort to maintain any semblance of area security. There has for as long as the motel has existed, been openly visible drug trafficking and prostitution allowed on the premises. Kindergarten and Elementary school children are bussed to and from 139th three times a day. They are already at high risk with the existing traffic and activity that to a great extent evolves around the Econo Lodge and its patrons. z • � Ir 1 w D 00: U)w • w= w0 -j. w. 1- 0 zF-: 0 u), 0E-: ww I O'. w z• ----_ • 0 ~. • z Sheet 2,' :quest for EIS by Econo Lodge There are no sidewalks or safety zones along 139th. It is reasonable to expect the transient drivers will not necess- arily be acquainted with Seattle area weather.' Combine this with unfamiliarity with their "rental car" and the increase in traffic exposes the children to again a higher risk of accident. o Environmental Health - The obvious age of the "old" units at the proposed construction site suggest that there is a better than average potential that asbestos and lead will be found on site. We realize that demolition contractors would review that probability but we would like to see the verification and attendant disposition spelled out in an EIS. o Animals - We quite often see Hawks, Herons, Eagles and a wide variety of songbirds in close proximity to,the proposed con- struction site. Also a number of Squirrels, Racoons & Opposum frequent the general area. o Aesthetics - We do not feel that a three story addition should be allowed at the proposed site. What little view unencumbered by manmade monoliths that is left to the resi- dents to the east of Hwy.99, we feel should be left as visua- lly pleasing as is possible. That is why we purchased our property here to begin with. With a two story limit placed upon that location would intrude significantly over what we now view. A three story will alter the aesthetics of our area to a great degree. o In summary: The need for an EIS should be incumbent upon the owner /developer to allow the nearby property owners better insight into the proposed addition of 44/45 motel units. The fact that the Environmental Checklist did not have answers for most of the items that one would expect adds to our fears that a building will be constructed disregarding those Checklist item s being answered. We feel that traffic (totally) has been brushed aside as not being a problem. Previous testimony during the Fosterview Estates meetings tells us otherwise. Tukwila has yet to step up to the plate and hold proven irresponsible owners /developers accountable. The result will be a continued degrading of the quality of residential life. We will hope and expect that an EIS will be required to isolate and detail many of the non - answered questions we feel are very important. Respectfully, Bob & Janel e Scarber -13716 41st v . So. Tukwila, WA 98168 z Hw 5 0O N 0 J w 0` w j. • O. - w z� - 0. z 0 o- 0 F- ww I- U' IL I- O ..z = 01. z ATT April 23,1996 City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person 11 : 1 , .WILq Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. APR 2 4 1996 Tukwila, WA 98188 PERMIT CENTER The undersigned request an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) be required by the owner /developer of the Econo Lodge proposed addition of 44/45 motel units on the north side of 139th Street. Please reference the Environmental Checklist, dated 2/5/96. • TRAFFIC /TRANSPORTATION - The addition of 274 vehicle transits per day added to the transits from the proposed Fosterview Estates will greatly impact vehicle congestion on 139th Street. • PARKING - Always a problem at the site, especially the "park & ride" allowed over major holiday periods. • PUBLIC SERVICES - Owner has never controlled drug trafficking and prostitution. Police /emergency responses are disproportion- al due to owners apparent endorsement of the drugs and hookers. No sidewalks or safety zones for school children. Increased traffic will be a real danger. • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - Require visibility of probable asbestos and lead in old construction and how it will be addressed. • ANIMALS - No answer in Checklist regarding birds and animals in area. • AESTHETICS - No other three story construction on Hwy 99 in Tukwila, except for existing Econo Lodge. Only a two story structure should be allowed to help preserve what little resid- ential feeling is left in the neighborhood. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 13'108 i41 -So .k1 ct .da t JaiiII�.r-6E, -- , , 4�` l 3-7//„ - 4/ s./ A,, • • ..sic - ,, i ! / 37 /C- 9/;r. 44.e. C,- r+uli1cMT 1 c fla April 26, 1F6 City of Tukwila Steve Lancaster Dear Steve: APR 2 it 1996 You said you would like to hear any comments wr 9'H iRghborhood and citizens have on the proposed motel at 4006 South 139th by Cheng & Associates (Wen Fan Lin Owner). There have been too many years, meetings, letters, confronta- tions, etc plus proof from Wen Fan Lins track record. To try to condense and explain to you the ramifications and frustra- tions that we as a neighborhood, myself and husband specifically have toward any proposal by Wen Fan Lin. These go back to years before our annexation to Tukwila. Through past unfortunate experiences we have learned the hard way that what he proposes and promises are totally opposite what actually happens. We are asking you to do what you can in your position to try and insure that as few of these circumventions of zoning and city ordinances' occur. We expect Wen Fan Lin will be held more accountable for his actions and deeds than he has been previously. The number of trees ?? that have been proposed are not enough nor large enough diameter nor of a variety that will grow tall enough to mitigate any buildings, lights or noise. Why can't he be required to use larger, different varieties of trees and include conifers as well as deciduous ones? Why can't the other greenery require more density? As it is now there is no time frame for replacement of dead or damaged trees, shrubs or bushes. Why can't he be required to replace and maintain for a 5 -7 year time frame? It was mentioned to me when I' asked this question at the meeting at the library that it was up to the citizens to police things like that and turn it over to the Code Enforcement person. This seems like a very round about way of handling something that should be taken care of in an expeditious manner by the city not left up to a form of citizen patrol. There is no form of sprinkler system proposed to maintain the plantings. Why not? How can they be expected to thrive in our climate through the dry season? The Econo Lodge doesn't have a' sprinkler system either, hence why most of the plants died, but there is a fountain ?? that wastes water. Seems like the prior- ities are a little wrong. We would also hope that no vending machines are allowed to be outside the buildings like the pop machine at the Econo Lodge. It attracts kids and undesirables who litter the area and hang around blocking traffic and making derogatory comments. They usually do this in groups of up to 10 -15 and it is not pleasant. There are a lot more concerns that we have regarding this propo- sal. There is no one item that is more important than another, we DO NOT WANT ANOTHER MOTEL especially a three story one along ATTACHI1EN1 at d 7 pecifically this location. z ~ w re 6 00 CO 0 w= J I WO 2 u_ Q. =d W Z �. I- O. zt- O N. o WW 0 u' O. .. Z U= z April 23,1996 City of Tukwila SEPA Determination Person Steve Lancaster 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED APR 2 9 1996 CgivIMUNITY DEVELOnIENT. The undersigned request an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) be required by the owner /developer of the Econo Lodge proposed . addition of 44/45 motel units on the north side of 139th Street. Please reference the Environmental Checklist, dated 2/5/96. • TRAFFIC /TRANSPORTATION - The addition of 274 vehicle transits per day added to the transits from the proposed Fosterview Estates will greatly impact vehicle congestion on 139t$ Street • PARKING - Always a problem at the site, especially the "park & ride" allowed over major holiday periods. • PUBLIC SERVICES - Owner has never controlled drug trafficking and prostitution. Police /emergency responses are disproportion- al due to owners apparent endorsement of the drugs and hookers. Jr No sidewalks or safety zones for school children. Increased traffic will be areal danger. • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - Require visibility of probable asbestos and lead in old construction and how it will be addressed. • ANIMALS - No answer in Checklist regarding birds and animals in area. • AESTHETICS - No other three story construction on Hwy 99 in Tukwila, except for existing Econo Lodge. Only a two story structure should be allowed to help preserve what little resid- ential feeling is left in the neighborhood. NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS 9iii a .{) Gtnn. - • 13 '? o 8 41 •D Jai 1E11 Scarbar- it,„ 00,// ' . AeiaA6r-2• /37/4,, - 4lls/z-,40 S-, '')3P---1:74-- Z. = / 7 /C - 9 /A- i • C- riZi. IS"- L. 'r Ai �., .. Taw-oqsto-nt' \lc 9 G' E Gu Ext.. i im 111Fria, . e:/k, _,ef /3'739 - .� � , 1 732 151 4pv. so i J 4 b; C K n1.4,_ L t / z 12 k' Li i 51- AJr- se, --,1G& As I ? . G' A 11. a 7t- icki1J- I _ - W gr £L-JZMjT-// $ (j &E' ,/` ai-c n.0:_ / _. # 3 , . Wrt',, eef.(l.. ✓" . -- ��.�� I ZG :/x -' ice ,7 -. 4// . . z zi F. z. • cew Q = O 0 • cn w• J H' • • LL w0 w =. � c! =W I- z� ZO: w 2 U0 - 0E-. w w: Z. O~ z 4251 South 139th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 USA LAMB FAMILY Telephone: 206- 243 -3716 LambtownWest@msn.cont Dale: May 2, 1996 To: Steve Lancaster and Nora Gierloff, Dept. of Community Development, Tukwila Re: EPIC File #E96 -0004, Proposed Hotel at 4006 S. 139th Street, Tukwila I'm grateful that DCD staff has been cooperative in letting me review the above -listed files as regards SEPA and BAR, Reading through the memos, notes, and letters, i saw several items to which I want to respond. Nora's memo dated April 10, 1996 states that only one comment ( #15) is SEPA related. I disagree. Signage, aes- thetics, building height and size in relation to the surrounding context, crime questions, and parking issues are all rel- evant to the environmental impact this project will have on the neighborhood. I have previously referred to the many social impacts that increased numbers of transient visitors will undoubtedly have on our community as a whole. I be- lieve that these issues should be considered through the SEPA process and should require an enviromnental impact statement. The memo, however, minimizes the very legitimate concerns presented by the people who attended Ilie April 9 "open house ". This is disappointing; I hope it will be reviewed prior to Steve's SEPA decision being issued. I suspect comment #? relates to the amount of space set aside for the storage of trash and recycling bins. (The drawing I saw was unclear.) If enough space hasn't been set aside already, the addition of same could eliminate a parking space and therefore a room. It seems like this is a valid concern to discuss in the BAR context, because the size of the bulding (and relationship of parking to the number of rooms) in relation to its neighbors is a key question. Comment #12 refers to the existing EconoLodge's poor landscaping quality. Separate parties (ultimately the ownership of either or both of the two motels/hotels will change, and the older motel could even be replaced by a com- pletely different business) will be responsible for separate parts of what now is to be a cooperative parking facility, if two spaces arc allocated for the new building's use. TMC Section 18.56.070 requires cooperative facilities to have "al. least the sum" of the requirements for the two businesses. With reference to 18.70.090, there is a change of use, with "Park bit Fly" (rentals by non - guests) spaces converted permanently to stalls for guest parking for another business. The need for a permanent. casement suggests that BAR review of the change -of -use issue and subsequent. imposition of current standards is appropriate. I believe it's necessary for the old landscaping to now conform to current require- ments. Please discuss this landscaping issue related to reassigned responsibility for property. To achieve the best im- age for Highway 99, and in establishing a precedent for upholding the goals of the new Comprehensive Plan, it's something the BAR should take into account. Other communications lead to more issues. The proposal shows 41 spaces for the 44 rooms, resulting in one-too- few spaces, if two spaces can be allocated across the street at the existing motel. i expect that Sec. 18.52.030(1)(b) will require the landscaping in the SE corner of the property (adjacent to parking space #40) to be increased from 10 to 15 feet, because this is directly across the street from single- family zoning. It semis that the 5 -foot landscaping addition would essentially eliminate one more parking space, so the proposal is Iwo spaces short, or four spaces short if it is ruled that all parking should be on -site. Also, loading space requirements should not be waived, even if this results in fewer parking stalls, because of safety concerns. [And any request for waiver(s) should originate with the developer, not be the responsibility of DCD staff; it is necessary for the developer /applicant to bear the burden of proof; right./ Safety, convenience and quality of pedestrian facilities? BAR guidelines - Sec.18.60.053(3)(c) for example -call for direct pedestrian linkages to the public street. Mr. Lin, if that is the developer, has in the past promoted his project as one that will increase pedestrian use of the public streets by his guests, so one might hope that the guests' safety is of high priority on his own property. However, between the building entrance and the street, pedestrians would have to circumnavigate a handicapped parking stall ( #41), and most on -site parking guests are given no safe walkways be- tween their stalls and the entry. These problems suggest human concerns arc overshadowed by financial concerns. Regarding the call for a public sidewalk west to the highway (and I believe this should be done wholly at the de- velopers' expense, given the number of guest trips he expects to generate), this will directly impact parking for the tavern. Will the neighborhood have to endure more tavern patrons' cars on the residential streets? This needs study. Therefore, even just based on the parking/loading /access questions, the total number of rooms ought to be re- duced. In regard to the number of rooms and the resulting density issues which I brought up in April, I look forward to reading your comments on applying the multi- family criteria. But as I've said before, I don't think this proposal should be presented to the BAR until appropriate changes are made. Thank you for your attention to these comments. ATTACHMENT 1 9 .•*Yrr.++=r!axn- ,r Ro:<.Kr? tea 12A. !G..}V10"0.?9A!2s1i`.tt!sNCAs3'F —Nancy Lamb 4251 South 139th Street LAMB FAMILY Telephone: 206 - 243 -3716 Tukwila, WA 98168 -3260 LambtownWest@msn.com Ron, Nancy, Braden, Karsten May 16, 1996 Ht EiVED To: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Official MA'( 1. 6 1996 Re: File #96 -0004 Z COMMUNITY a: DEVELOPMENT As pertains to the application for construction of a 44 -room motel /hotel at 4006 S. U o 139th St., and the mitigated determination of nonsignificance dated May 6, 1996, I request ; co w that you consider the following. Although it may seem a small matter, perhaps it would be helpful if the 44 -unit mo- w O tel /hotel project were given a name that could be used consistently. The applicant, owner, consultants, and others too easily can put a different "spin" on this project by using names Q which tend to glorify it beyond its basic essence. It is apparently yet an unnamed motel, cn d and it seems to fit the definition of a motel listed in the zoning code (a "hotel" usually pro- = w viding room service of food, for instance). E- _ z O To my knowledge, there has been no communication from the applicant, Johnny w E' Cheng, referring to it as an EconoLodge project, yet the city's own notice of the BAR hear- uj: ing on this project refers to it as " Econolodge Hotel ". The owner of the EconoLodge, Mr. Lin, U is apparently the developer, but in discussing this project with at least one neighbor, he o stated that the project was not connected with the EconoLodge. Materials submitted by the w applicant seem not to use a name, and the traffic study calls it "Sea -Tac Motel ". I'm somewhat confused, as well, by references to this project as both "motel" and z "hotel ". While the applicant presents it as a "hotel ", implying amenities above and beyond U those customarily found in a "motel ", the traffic consultant calls it a "motel ". What appear r '—; to be national standards for calculating traffic volume are used in Gibson Traffic Consult- ants' submissions to the file. Pages 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18 of the Gibson fax sent April 30, 1996, used an "ITE TGM Code 320" — identified as pertaining to motels. Trip generation data for motels has been used, and may be appropriate, given that one needs to consider the "worst case" for traffic volume. This, though, assumes that more guests would arrive and depart in private or rental cars if it's a "motel" instead of a "hotel ". However, the Gibson fax on page 16 evokes an interesting question because of the following item — "Employment density: The average employment at motels is much lower than at hotels. The average employment density of the motels surveyed is 0.44 employees per room; the range is 0.14 to 0.58." If this project is a motel, we can assume 0.44 employ- ees per room, or 19.36 employees total, spread throughout the day; if it is a hotel, as the applicant purports, the number of employees would be greater. (And we cannot assume that any employees would use public transportation.) The owner would surely want to hire enough employees for proper maintenance of his facility and excellent treatment of his guests. A high room occupancy rate must also be assumed, with full or near -full use of all parking stalls on site. Yet: Where are any of the employees going to park? Already there aren't enough parking spaces on the site for the number of rooms the applicant proposes. Will employees park on the street, then? And if so, what does this do to the residential street the motel fronts on? And would tavern parking also be affected, sending more pa- trons' cars into the residential neighborhood to the east, south, and northeast? Employees who don't occupy on -site parking stalls might be able to parallel -park on the street in front of the motel /hotel (perhaps up to three would fit). But the applicant has ATTACHMENT 1 10 1 :AC • 114,7 1...' Ra�A":;'. iiwt ?mt.?14.1,Y,:'F,:r14'Per,fST -f. .iskt. - ,m1I3!w3v3` ! .F tlfirs,9�':`!1.j, Y�.1�'fr�Trik... ..� not designed a loading area. Again this begs a question: Where are delivery trucks going to station themselves for loading and unloading, when the public street is likely to be occu- pied by parked cars? With these factors considered together, the SEPA decision should address mitigation measures pertaining to the impact of non -guest parking on the neighborhood - specifically, parking for employees cars, delivery trucks, and displaced tavern patrons' vehicles. z • I would next call your attention to the Gibson fax on page 6 (actually page .3 of the = April 29 cover letter). The Trip Distribution section states that 60% of the site traffic would ILI CL 2 turn south onto the highway, with 30% turning north. (Conversely, 30% of the site traffic would come south on the highway and turn left onto 139th to reach the motel /hotel.) With U O all the other local traffic and EconoLodge traffic using this intersection, and the majority c presumably making left turns either onto or from the 45 MPH highway, it seems likely that ' w w this intersection will be prone to be the site of more accidents. Has the intersection been N 1 adequately studied by the appropriate city authorities? 0 As the 1995 Comprehensive Plan states, in paragraph 2 of Purpose under the Resi- g 5 dential Neighborhoods chapter, the goals and policies "give the highest priority to achiev- w- ing the image of neighborhood quality". Goal 8.2 states the need to ensure an environment N a that "is a positive reflection of the City as a whole and of the surrounding residential and H w business community". This motel /hotel project, which unfortunately asserts its presence z at what should be a sheltering or protective gateway of an important residential neighbor- Z O hood, needs to be held to the highest standards possible, therefore. ( The highest standards must also apply to the pedestrian element and streetscape as- 0 N` pects of this project, and appropriate mitigation conditions are requested below. South 0 H 139th is a residential street. That a commercial development is allowed to have its only ac- w w cess onto the residential street is, of course, a problem to reconcile within the Comprehen- H sive Plan and its application to this site. o .. Z In Policy 13.2.3 it seems clear that this commercial project needs to have direct pe- U destrian access to the building. Danger to pedestrians (particularly, but not limited to, 01- handicapped pedestrians) has not been mitigated, because a person would have to cross Z parking stall #41, encountering two curbs in the process; when approaching the building from the street. Wheelchair access to the front door would require maneuvering into the lane of traffic in the driveway — a driveway which seems destined to be used also by deliv- ery vehicles and garbage trucks. The issue of safe pedestrian access from parking stalls to the front door is yet another matter to be considered by the BAR. The combination of these omissions by the applicant to the following: SEPA mitigation conditions regarding transportation should address the need for safe, proper pedestrian access to this facility's entrance from the resi- dential street and from the parking areas on site. Another issue: The streetscape aspects are both transportation- and aesthetics - related. As stated earlier, South 139th is a residential street. Implementation strategies un- der Policy 7.4.4 call for sidewalk and landscape planter for both sides of residential streets, and "priority for neighborhood quality design features ". Figure 11 seems to call for a mini- mum landscape planting of 5 feet in association with a sidewalk in the public right -of -way. Other references call for separation of sidewalk from street (eg., 7.4.6). Since this project is, as stated previously, virtually positioned in the gateway to the residential neighborhood east of Highway 99, it needs to provide an obvious barrier between commercial and resi- dential as a vehicle travels east on 139th; (Goal 7.3 and Policy 7.3.1 reflect this need for di- vision between commercial and residential) in order to prevent non -local traffic from using this residential street beyond the motel /hotel. It seems clear that, if there is not already a specific ordinance requiring landscaped "parking strips" on residential streets, there will soon be one. Any future work on 139th will accordingly need to incorporate landscaped 2 " s • r "^Y?lrr t?! X?1r _?aR_j;:3;,.!:..n- ',^,.i'�i.r !r,"i 04" ,°,5!:CsV p. ?AL`:Y,- ;a1;"%.3'P!X ,�,',.�.'-tt*1+�.:'F;'.?',Y I `t. `" eat,:t' arz strips, so the current proposal should be required to install same. (I reiterate the need to hold this project to the highest standards envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.) The aesthetics of the neighborhood, would be immensely impacted by the proposed mo- tel /hotel, and the traffic impact is not to be taken lightly; so: In keeping with the goals, policies, and vision of the 1995 Comprehensive Plan, to enhance the character of the neighborhood (and even the project it- self), to meet the recommended higher streetscape standards on this local ac- cess street, to visually help separate commercial use from adjacent residential Z property, and to provide safer separation of traffic from pedestrians, there 1 H should be a mitigation requirement that a planter between sidewalk and street w re be built according to the standards envisioned by the Comp Plan. 6 ° JU. The safety of motel /hotel guests and the neighborhood is of great concern. The May 6 U p mitigation conditions partially address the need for greater security, and the applicant ' w w himself admits there would be increased risk of criminal activity associated with adding - H more motel rooms to the Highway 99 corridor. An 8 -foot fence would help keep trespassers co w off the residential property on the east side, but the 6 -foot fence surrounding the remain- w O der of the property wouldn't impair determined trespassers from entering the parking ¢ "garage" or other unsecure areas. Furthermore, the "garage" cannot be seen from the mo- LL tel /hotel lobby, and illegal activity could easily go unnoticed. Of tremendous importance is w d management procedures, etc., that are being incorporated into the new motel /hotel regu- H in lations. To eliminate any possibility that this project could be built "grandfathered in" with Z '- lower standards than these regulations, these regulations should be a SEPA requirement. H O' Therefore, please add the following conditions: w E- ui All fences should be solid -8 -foot fences, not just the one on the east side (re: Con- U N dition 3), to preclude criminal intrusion on the property and make it more 01 "defensible". Security cameras should be installed for proper surveillance of the park- w W ing garage and western landscaped setback. All standards of the 1996 motel /hotel H c?: regulations (and future amendments) should be adhered to and run with ownership of u..1- - 0 the property. The Tukwila Police Department should carefully review all plans rele- iii Z want to the security of this property, both for the sake of the motel / hotel employees U and guests and for the sake of the surrounding community. ~O E- The other conditions listed in the May 6 decision should not be diluted or eliminated. One hopes that Condition 1 would be applicable if the owner decided to destroy the cur- rent "tourist cabins" and simply make it a parking lot. (The applicant apparently has not considered this an alternative to an oversized motel, however, it would be a reasonable suggestion in light of the fact that the owner claims to be losing money there because of its high crime rate and the effects on the EconoLodge business. A park -and -fly lot would in- crease his revenue, if we correctly read his previous implorations.) I could not end this correspondence without addressing the environmental impact to the community of the land -use choice itself as a motel /hotel. It is difficult to reconcile that any exploration of the social and public safety impacts of a motel /hotel on the community would have had to happen as part of the EIS process relating to the Comprehensive Plan. Even given the pressure everyone was under to enact this important document, it seems a gross error not to study these impacts in a methodical way, especially when there had been the need for an emergency moratorium on this type of business. This just doesn't make sense. Thank you for taking these comments into consideration. Nancy Lamb 3 ym, vti�ezv ,�t+�e.�fz.o;.rn.Ma= .a:�JYOK i 'PkY'o?�•tt�:74SF1r»rro«ur„+.w, rte» rrm±, k. etannlL:^ r; �.} yK�+ 3' S!'. C?? e{' `,,u.4�"Y,M�p�7]�r:•,tkstrxa..: -�.: a�+�l- ;.mr.,.- ;�,r.+. Z 4251 South 139th Street LAMB FAMILY Telephone: 206 - 243 -3716 Tukwila, WA 98168 -3260 LambtownWest@msn.com Ron, Nancy, Braden, Klrsten May 16, 1996 To: Board of Architectural Review • Re: Proposed Motel /Hotel Development, 4006 S. 139th St., File #96 -0004 nvi 1 13 1996 • (•, _ ', ?`.;,1!11! 1 ~� ��;..; �;_;�:;= ,j,,1EN T At approximately 1:30 p.m. I learned that this afternoon you'll be sent your packets relating to the May 23 hearing on the above - referenced project. Later I also learned (much to my relief) that you will receive copies of any correspondence or petitions which were submitted by various citizens in anticipation of both the SEPA decision by Steve Lancaster and the design review hearing. Because of the complex relationship between SEPA and design review, most comments were made with the intent of "straddling" the processes — some comments bearing weight mainly on design considerations, others pertaining to environmental impacts. Even though citizens' correspondence may be combined under the SEPA heading, please read each of these items for their pertinence to design review. Most of the citizens of Tukwila, myself included, are not legal experts, and we find it hard to separate the BAR's zoning and comprehensive plan issues from the issues that fall under the state's Environmental Protection Act rules and regulations. But all aspects need to be considered in your hearing. I cannot state this strongly enough: It is of paramount importance that the BAR judge this project with the knowledge that this will be the first significant project to be regulated by the 1995 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, with its major goals stressing residential neighborhood revitalization, as well as improvements to the character of the Highway 99 corridor. Any relaxation of the goals, policies, and ordinances will doom the Comp Plan vision for Tukwila by setting a precedent. One of the "Obstacles to Plan Achievement" listed in the plan is "Narrow Short-Term Interests That Harm the Community". No matter how well - meaning the applicant or owner /developer of this property may possibly be, there would be no hardship to the proponent(s) if the full intent of the Comp Plan and Zoning Code are applied. It is not the city's duty to maximize ze the benefits to any land owner, if this results in a negative impact to the surrounding community. There is a lot at stake here in your decision. Since you are appointed representatives of the community, I hope you'll give the utmost consideration to citizen comments. That said, I am taking the liberty of appending my various memos to this note, because perhaps this compilation will be ruled as admissible evidence if it is outside the heading of SEPA alone. In particular, I wish to ask that you give good consideration to the following aspects of this motel /hotel proposal. Please refer to the attached memos for deeper discussion. Parking: Not enough parking is located on -site to accommodate all the guests' cars, let alone employee cars and delivery vans or garbage trucks. Off -site parking should not be allowed. The parking infringes on pedestrian access to the entrance of the lobby. These and other parking issues can be partially resolved by reducing the number of rooms. Density: The sheer bulk of this structure is incompatible with its neighboring single - family properties. It exceeds the 35 -foot limit for 99 corridor development. It exceeds the multifamily guidelines for density and impermeable surface. The height and bulk of this structure.will have direct aesthetic impact on the single - family neighborhood by blocking sky and light. The height needs to be reduced, and therefore the number of rooms needs to be reduced. Public safety: A severe impact is anticipated by the surrounding community because of the intrusion of yet another motel. (May I remind you that this is a stand -alone motel and need not ever be associated with the existing EconoLodge.) Very high landscaping and lighting design standards for protecting the property itself and the surrounding properties need to be applied. Security measures are very important and would appear to be within your domain. I anticipate addressing you on May 23, but hopefully this written information will convey some of the most important issues. /Aril —Nancy Lamb ATTACHMENT J vlser M .Mint,. .•'•tfOMMIi','AS ;�i"`...."ri e:MirfItk„rJt'S .{"1$•,gf`:eit. ;awrw�`.asyMn'sef'w.' :".'!taP'er.".r,�nr„i i'h?;;M3£•?Y,!::;�rttP7�w, :��2,yi•:ro^�++,•.,. .arrrn -w xoa>._+. .^(..>�.r::r +arr�a+n`+,rmwa.: 1WcY:M ... ., •• ,. .. f' .N�"I:xKFt:!'Ka�lfh�•iq.Hfi:+'R Y4r.. h;'. e'* te+ Yt. 'euoWtor.!s!'+.i!+c;U,nt*f z z 6 Q!� U0 W i. wO 2 �Q a. w Z� F- O Z F- ill uj 2 0 ON 1- WW H- u. O WZ U) O Z To: SEPA Official, City of Tukwila Copy to: Mayor Rants Re: SEPA matters relating to Epic File #E96 -0004 From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, 4251 S. 139th St., Tukwila, WA 98168 Date: April7, 1996 My family and I will be out of town at the time of the project's "open house" on April 9, so we cannot comment at that time about the proposal submitted for a hotel /motel at 4006 S. 139th St., z Tukwila. (For citizens' consideration, I think there should be east- and south -view elevations ren- _ I- dered of the proposed building in relation to existing buildings to the east and west.) However, 1 in have reviewed the documents pertaining to it, and there are some major concerns which I feel re- quire an environmental impact statement. I am stating these concerns now, in hopes that the SEPA -J 0 process will include a determination of significance. u) p w w Such a determination is, according to the attorney we have consulted (Mr. Rand Koler, fa- -, 1- miliar to the city from a previous application for the project), a sensitive method of dealing with N 0 w o community concerns in a less confrontational way than the BAR /quasijudicial procedure creates. A determination of significance is an option which casts city government in a positive light, is well 5 within the rights of the City of Tukwila, and is certainly practiced by other cities. 52 0 No one more than we, a permanent family, wants to see the Comprehensive Plan aspirations H w successfully improve the residential neighborhoods and 99 corridor; that is why this decision is so z H critical. Yet, given that individuals associated with this project were a political force during the 1996 Z 0 election, and given that whom they supported would be put in the position of hearing any appeal to decisions made with regard to the project, it would be prudent for Tukwila first to put the burden of addressing the community's concerns onto a neutral 3rd party by requiring an EIS. In other words, U because of the relationship between office - holders and parties connected with this project, and be- p f- cause so many people in the city would be affected directly and indirectly by decisions made per- w ui taining to the project, there are enough concerns that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would H t) be a factor. Any additional hearing would be more difficult, which I'm sure we'd all like to avoid. u. r z Lii co As to the Environmental Checklist, the applicant /architect has dismissed major concerns of 0 the neighborhood and community, in my opinion. (In fact, in Section E, the applicant states that the H only alternative to building this 44 -unit hotel /motel is leaving the existing $1000 -value buildings on Z the site.) However, there are responses or omissions that show this proposal will indeed make sig- nificant impacts to the residents near the site and to Tukwila in general: (1) Section B, Item 10. Aesthetics The height is listed as "about 35 feet" (although, I believe, it is at least 40 feet at the roofs ridge). The applicant states that no views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. This cannot be true. While the east boundary setback is 30 feet, a building of this height will block to- pographical, sky and sunset views from many properties. I realize that 35 feet or 3 stories is al- lowed. The building actually would exceed this, however, because the roof itself is the equivalent height of an additional story above the 3 stories allowed. As to other aesthetics, while a sloped roof is one appropriate design feature which could help make a commercial building look compatible with adjacent low-density residential properties, the total mass of this project is completely out of scale in relation to its lot and to the surrounding proper- ties. The square footage of the building is nearly the same as the lot itself; multiply each story's square footage by the height, and you get a realistic picture of the volume or mass. The characteris- tics of a commercial project of these proportions would very much affect the neighborhood. The aesthetics, therefore, are questionable — the massive character of the building far outweighs the attempt to add "some residential" elements. Eventually, it would be incumbent upon the BAR to take the mass of this 44 -unit project into ac- count. As is stated in TMC 18.60.055, the BAR will need to apply the multi- family review guidelines. May I refer you to sections 18.60.053(1)(I) and (2)(B), where harmony is a consideration. Further- more, the BAR needs to align its decisions with the Comprehensive Plan. I estimate that an average 1 X IG;{'5"'^..",Jt?V..'YP,,:".,<} -rA.+ SIT ;Y'^.:i9'f4n.s:C°- "], +zrf^vrtn �tK+.'. tW�C} r' y.. a[: i2epgrW�n' rrxa..;cY,re.n1M,°aK.'sh�,ton.; .m;._ K!E:T;es�.4+��s,^• „{ r ^,N.'a?;:+¢ u-,N 'T'YaTS. 1'. K91.'t4i^ n.,-..'. dry+: n. ,w,»;f^'axTC".MC`.}.ytv7t"41 apartment would be roughly the size of two motel units (2/44 = 1/22), and factor in a 1/22 portion of the general spaces on the first floor. This means that the project proposes a density of 22 units per half acre. However, the Comprehensive Plan defines high- density residential as "areas charac- terized by multi- family buildings: 15 - 21.8 units per net acre". The motel project is double this den- sity. It is hardly of a harmonious scale and is insensitive to the neighborhood. The community image of Tukwila is affected, as well. The density/ scale issue is inconsistent with many of the stated goals of the Comprehensive Plan, the first major objective of which is "to improve and sustain resi- dential neighborhood quality and livability". (Section F, G(2) and G(4) of the ordinance adopting the Plan offer similar direction.) In fact, I truly hope it's unnecessary to bring this kind of argument to the BAR — or to a SEPA appeal — when the impacts seem so obvious and the city's stated stan- dards are so important. (Similarly, I'd like to point to TMC 18.50.085, which says that at most 50% of the surface in a multi - family development can be impervious, while the Environmental Checklist item B.1.g notes 74.3 %. It seems that the BAR process would also consider this inconsistency.) (2) Section B, Item 15. Public Services The applicant states that there would be increased need for police services. True, and — compari- son to the operations of the existing run -down motel notwithstanding — this is a real concern. The parking garage would be an attractive place to hide, or to transact drug sales or "in -cat" prostitution business. Lighting isn't the sole remedy, Closed - circuit surveillance would help. The applicant also needs to be aware of proposed Crime -Free standards for motel /hotel operation. However, the bigger, long -term impact on the neighborhood and the entire community is dreadful. With the high crime rate in the 99 corridor, it was necessary for the city to impose an emergency moratorium on permits for this type of business, and this cited that there was a need to "protect the public health, safety, morals, vision, and general welfare of the Highway 99 neighborhood ". Histori- cally, the motel businesses have been an enormous drain on the city's budget — and image. There is nothing in this project's checklist to argue otherwise. There would also be an increased need for social services, attributable to the effect of imposing a large -scale commercial project on the neighborhood, which leads to reduced property values, which leads to low -rent housing, which leads to the problems of transience, etc. This cascades and results in even more impacts to the community. (3) Section E, Item 4. The applicant states there would be no conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. I strongly disagree — and there are numerous conflicts with both the Plan and its supporting Zoning Code. Community image and neighborhood revitalization are chief concerns. To cite one of the Obstacles to Plan Achievement, "Some businesses focus upon their own success while using methods which may harm the public welfare." I believe that over - building on this lot size exemplifies such an obstacle. Truly a motel /hotel project like the one proposed is bound to have a significant impact on the community and consequent repercussions. It especially deserves careful assessment when it is the first proposal coming after the arduous Comprehensive Plan process, and with all the official talk of sensitivity to citizen concerns (i.e., one of three goals listed in the Housing section is "improved neighborhood quality by reducing the transient nature of neighborhoods ") and the focus on improving the Highway 99 corridor image (eg., "part of the area's poor image stems from the criminal activity seen and perceived "; "...[social and health problems] and the transient nature of the community, to an unspecified extent, are increasing the insecurity and images of the criminal character of the area "). At great expense to the developer for legal and architectural advice, proposals for a hotel /motel at this site continue to be pushed into the DCD process without an appropriate forum to discuss impacts upon the neighborhood and city. Community concerns have not been solicited or addressed appropriately prior to submission of applications relating to the project. Unless these concerns are alleviated, there will continue to be objections from citizens. This is bad for the devel- oper and bad for the opinion people have of their local government. Therefore, I urge you to deter- mine that the proposal is significant, requiring an EIS to address the needs of the community and the impact to the residential neighborhood adjacent to this site. 2 ilMr.?,,er+;aa! ! f'Pn tVp g' ;frc;rexr:gr4MaKTtacs " V yt ?ca;" r. ,!qfr., ,f .'1.Frl:,=i ^?kt ;q,;w >,.snP7-M ;:s'irt?!tY;PM rL∎:r.9?'rnr;,T >mmyM:ftI V :'r4r:-'- V'XA.J^ rsit z ~ w CC JU O 0 CO C1 w= S w O gQ co Do =W F- _ z� F- O z w uj U o. O -. O F- =• U u. 6 w .z U � 0 z • To: Steve Lancaster, Director, DCD, City of Tukwila From: Nancy Sandine Lamb, resident, 4251 S. 139th Street Date: April 22, 1996 Re: Epic File No. E96 -0004 Thank you for your letter of April 15 and your neighborhood communication dated April 10. I greatly appreciate your wise choice to allow additional time for the DCD to consider the multiple issues involved in the proposed development at 4006 South 139th Street. As you know, the major issues concern the intrusion of this overly dense structure and its historically problematic type of business upon the single - family neighborhood it abuts. I must reiterate that, because of the many large questions raised by this project as it has been presented, I feel it would be in the city's best interest to have the questions answered through the EIS process. Also, I think that it would be inappropriate to send the design as -is to the Board of Architectural Review, because there seem to be so many inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code pertaining to the design and function of this project. An EIS would allow a forum and time for these issues and inconsistencies to be discussed and mitigated. This could potentially provide the developer an opportunity to present a better, more acceptable proposal to the community, and specifically to the community's BAR representatives. This needn't be a confrontational process. As I stated in my communication of April 7, this is a sensitive site and a sensitive time to propose a project of this sort. Thank you for giving due consideration to the community at large, and specifically the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed new hotel /motel, by weighing its potentially grave impacts. Collectively we want to be proud of Tukwila; we want our community to be safe for children and senior citizens, and a place people want to put down roots; we don't appreciate the status quo of the Highway 99 corridor; and we want redevelopment to reflect the positive vision set forth by the 1995 Comprehensive Plan. I sincerely thank you for your courtesy in helping our community achieve these goals. —Nancy Lamb CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: S7 /l( ,--f • PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: PROJECT NAME: PAT) PoJ ,(4% 70 -. PROJECT ADDRESS: CONTACT PERSON: 46 D 6 J. /J 9 7» f r. Co N.te iv r eh '5 PHONE: �1�/— �s'9 f<-/— z w J0. 00: cnw W =' J 1-- wo gJ LL D. a t- _. z� 1- o. REVISION SUMMARY: D o' UO N, o f-, SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. MAY 141996 SUBMITTED TO: Fitz rrAMurAMPIttlelw r .rsuwt.tvw+nrznsymms)"*.p rn�w xe: wra .;•rgvw.t*+x4tnw.t..e+,,cr,::*. .::arn ema ros,. ,fintemar:r ^n+s sr1t .;IX•ren+m.,,, 3/19/96 z r C H E N G & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS May 15, 1996 Ms. Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila 6300 southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Proposed hotel at the corner of S. 139th Street and Pacific Highway S. Dear Ms. Gierloff Enclosed please find 7 sets of revised plans for your review and approval. We also like to request the waiver of requiring a loading dock for the project. Since there is no restaurant or cafe to be included in this project, and almost all the supplies will be purchased by the owner or his employees at local Costco store with their personal vehicles, there is no need of a loading dock for this project. Enclosed please also find a copy of easement agreement for providing 4 parking stalls at the adjacent project for the proposed hotel development. In order to do so, Mr. Lin will need to re -strip two parking areas: one in front of the building and another parking area right next to east property line. I have instructed Mr. Lin to go ahead with the re- stripping, since he had a permit to do so. The re- stripping will be only to comply with what was approved by King County. No landscaping changes will be required or needed for this work. I also like to request to change one of the SEPA conditions to allow 6' instead of 8' high wall to be built along east property line. 8' wall is simply too tall and unattractive. I would think the next door neighbors would prefer to see trees we have proposed for the project, instead of a tall wall which will be totally out of scale with buildings in the residential area. Don, the next door neighbor, was very pleased with the design proposal at the open house. Your approval of the above described waivers will be most appreciated. Thank you again. Sincerely yours, CHENG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Johnny C. L. Cheng, AIA Architect Enclosures: Revised plans Parking eastment agreement MAY 1 4 1996 PERmII (;':LATER ARCHITECTURE /PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206-441 -5745 / FAX 206-441 -8760 w 6 J C) U O: J =, u_ w 0' u_< cn a. z�` I- 0 D o. O • H w = U' ui Z,, z ' •••••••• . • • EASEMENT (Parking Spaces). THIS INDENTURE, made this 74 day of /lel , 1996, between Wen-fan Lia and . • Virginia S. Lin, husband and wife, hereinafter call the Grantor as well as Grantee: WITNFSSETH:' That the Grantors in parcel B, for and in consideration of the sum of One dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby convey and grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns in parcel A, the right to use four (4) parking spaces in parcel B. Both properties are located in the attached described lands and premises situated in the County of King, State of Washington. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this insatunent has been executed the day and year first above written. (FOR INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT) • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF I, the undersigned, a notaty Public, do hereby cettify that on this day of 1996, • • , personally appears before me WEN-FAN LIN and VIRGINIA S. LIN, husband and wife, fo me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the written instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the use and putposes therein mentioned. • Given under my hand and official seal the day and year in this cettificate above written. •Vi _iik.....• ......... _ dll . aryl u: blic in and for siding at _Sie..4.77 e State ofWashington,.....1.1. e. MAY 1 4 1996 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A Lots 6, .7 and 8 in Block 4, Robbins View ,Tract Addition to Riverton, as per plat recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, Page 90, records of King Dale gStreete(40th Avenue aSouth)i vacated adjacent thereto and described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 8; thence North 89 °52'24 ", West 26.62 feet, thence North 00 °07'36" East parallel with the East line of said Lots 6, 7 and•8, 180 feet; thence South 89 °52'24" East 6.31 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence South 6 °18'33" East along the Westerly line of said Lots 6, 7 and 8, 181.14 feet to the point of beginning. • PARCEL B Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 7, Robbins vi9w Tract. „A,,ddition to,,.Riverton, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, Page 90, records of King County, Wash ington; thence South 140 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence East 7.72 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 19 in said Block 7; thence South along the East line of said Lot 19 a distance of 140 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence West along the South line of . said Block 7 and Westerly extensions of said line to the Easterly line of the stirp of land • conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Recording No.3202548 records of King County, Washington, for Primary State High- way No. 1; thence Northerly along said•highway Line to the North line of said Block 7, produced West; thence East along said produced line and on the North line of Lot 1, said Block 7, to the point of beginning, being Lots 1 and 19, Block 7, and that portion of vacated Lot 10, Block 8, . Robbins View Tracts Addition to Riverton, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 17 of Plats, Page 90, records of King County,. Washington, lying. Easterly of said State Highway. TOGETHER WITH all of vacated Dale Street between said Blocks 7 and 8; EXCEPT the portion of said vacated street lying within said State Highway. Situate in County of King, State of Washington. : MAY 1 '1 1996 P'.=:%iiriYr{;;i: quin • -.• • • ; • • .• I ..••• 7...• • • . . „ J 2•4,-7%;;Ve, • 1'1 —41(4).P4' 5r: • Tr ,a117/TrhjYt ATT;4„ - AD. 14. -iXtv:: • ..47j" , • • fpt fly- .7.41 a,: t• 14, .,- • "v - .-••••• • -; • .. • `'• „,0k ,1 w.Ice.>c -1. - ...byre. PLoNN • G•trA, Z • 1..44smcA•puAff S. . PrzmN.e.Gte. 4 . 1 Azac OLAN g -TyricAL. wn- r.t.AN . - • :LOT :Okaar.. riAN .. to. ..a..mou-naN ',Averet..: veva+ i... . * .:4V110:4412.4.. .. 1.4.444 . .5f1.1.k...7101= Ge11-. -.. ''.7;11■14).01 • PA.,•■•4 • ' l'ir'' ':•Snaz•el".• iven-t t•IAILJi•J6i •bd-leDULE e;:d•- .-V 1-I ../eirkilliAL Walr. PL44.1.44e.. 12t. . SMZUG-r. WaTe WI SVS.C.T.4 21 tr.;- -; .;•• ' .'''. ' ....ert- • ..o.i...!*."...!1!A '-': '7. ...'. . • - :•: i'•• -.i-::- ... ,. • • . • • - • PI_A'■1.-FS 7"---)-{EttiLE- ' •-... _,.....,Thi 1,;,-,u,0,1 5,.77-.....)18AL NAM. E ezmma,4 NAME ea, ' - 'Per-tAR-K-. - ' 7,LE.ES 1 cA.z3a....r.o • ...LUZ. -4g3UGM— s— 44.3 - • sis.w., 2,1 Tri:-F--A F-"J - ■ Az t‘.12. 2.,;:i 1 ,f..t.L..-.1.140-JM ' NNE , ■ M.a.F.I.-t ---1,J1-1 . •-i • U t s g . 1 5 E . K . R . I . J L A ' r A . ' !,44.43,1 ZAN P J I 461 . u-tER4zy' e;:d•- .-V 1-I — --- . 1 -112.1.15,- i 0 fe,,j1JD C„,-..../EF4-. . 11--$-97-11-tsilr"-- 6 :1°t- 0 1 4 .--1 1.-;.11.141FeRI: saN?-14, - • -1.:P4sc.,FoLIA is 1 K.H0c.e-NEV.L.-IN - ;— 4H . • I 1 (.0 tl....A p..b.P..S 3 6 - SOH • , i 11. ! 7.,.,74.4 PH arinliA -Y„;-4.2."H .,,. • ' pi-4LitH ivy -Aso ocr .. . •. • . •LvLn.-31 1 ' ' ' • LI,W4C. MU1411 - 'SI 14K.4..... ” . . • N.7TE / LALL • ce zoitscp_-c, -0; Z, Q.c.11-4De. ,v wi44. CAQ.K.Khz1-1. ' ..• • s.' • • ;.7611771"'.17-r". -;41k %.**";'."..1 • ••■••• 17:4 • 'VtNtY"'''' ■‘..e.''t r.:••• f &Op. uJ , . , . . . . o3'1.01-7 '• • - • ' • ' • 7.'14'.`'t '1•7377.7 (TrtMerttri.,./7---vtiZIletri: 7r2rt,%tgr:7?)7T:tal'e? v.-P.-V.;-•"."-Z 0-Pr.,;:.-.,1 tr,., ;• ..% • i17."... '.. • , -,•.•.;•: ;.;, L ::::..,..,=,....: ;.1- 2 •• -; .:::: li .; ' %.,• • ,.: .. .'1."-die±:':'CV:,...■4,1,' u t •I • • • '• I. '• • •;•..21.-N --:••.:•••••\ . :•• 1", • . • •, . - • • •-•• • •••.: .7•••„ . • • • • • " • • • ;:••••■:' z • • ' • r•-•",•-::-•:. ""'"" . 1.7 .-•-a •: 14-41 - • , ;Y.*= etteltle.' _ . ilt . •••.r."-.F -.- ....,---‘77-4--;4.....-:—.--t'P:4-, iet.-q,, ....A.44.1.A.ya,.;.;4:41.-;,.1/4,...?,...•, :,.:-.-. - - - ...• ....-.^.:'-, --........,., t,,,,., -z-.+• „...z.:.....•.y.....r....„,„... ,......-...-.-..-- --.,._•,,,, .4 :•--.,•,,, .,:., ..,-...,;.... ..,.,...,../...,..t....z.::...71....,, .1, ;.......;,:::;.....:,:..,., ";'•'''...:!**2"... • ,,., .1:. - •!: -71 • • . ..., - If ';•• -`..-::;:l',4:-'7'=" ..........:,!:;:: 0, ... -r-- --,:.•:,•.:41::...;.....;• . , ' ' -4'..-.:.:_:".1/4" '."•! . • ••‘-r .24.;it•4' 17. nT.",1,1441-iti4;{ •-." • =-44 •-.11!2' . X . . • . "•• • • .? •-•• • .•7`;.•.,<:=:-.:`,..."'r."...•./orof . • ;!. ••_ ,„.•••• • nt • e■-,,;,j "• -tr.- 7 • •••••• • - • I - 11-Al7r '-1-1.-•it,;(1.-E. • 1r.c..■1144,L gi-sle coMMON NAME. e a- ' REMAR.K... - • . . . I Pl•-:-E.A F.:N.5w,, ca_ae.....r.47 e.:,..J.I.-- -ff"'"' : Auttia. I c.-.14..c..tnia-nr4 WJE 1-i,..,.,.i_e• IS.- 1•:.--1.-1 . r . fld-ut...W•= .5F_ •gg.u1-6,-;c, • 444s4z4ts.1 FL.cweie-INIGI . 01E:MY Cy.- ,-,.I 1-1 1 ',...:,2\r'E-. • rdiv•41Feg.1 is 5alc14, 11-4-9 auslIpte... •-r..4-1...KISC.IFoL.IA 1 5 Q441- s.:•.'' ,d, . • ; Kr-ioce..-im..-1.4 I ;L,.._ 4...4 H ! . • ave.v...-2REs.i. w...g.re-nES., A., zAL.E.A.s . . • -,-rit,11.•:+, Nal-4H. -.41.1H , . ' . .. .• .. • gl,k7/1...Itti IVy - le,4 0C.; .... . . CIAKK. ?-1:11.;:..1-i • S4 i.ne..4.1. " • • • • z 11- z • w 2 () O 0 cf) W w 0 2 ?- g 5 u_ w z 1-0 z w w 0 0 ci- LLI Wo 1— ri3 Z O CI) P O 1- z ;‘:••••'.;7`1 • 19N: 1••-1..7ral £ •.:.?1•tc•Jstc..,,,• •:,.444-1-- 0,/r-e, -.-Y• • •\ ..,.. ,....J.,..,,.....,... •,' ` ;•7,1".cp.•• -. . . . ...tr..< • ;•% . . . . . . . . . . - . :-.,-r.. •-•-•:,•,..: ,r;ht...*-:-,.•-::-;712 -.•,... - . • • --.. . . . • . . .**t ' . . .': : - • -• ••••' ••••,--:.-:•;2•.. .L,-,:ie 4:•-•_-"!:1-.:!-.---- • . .. - • - -., • •.. . ...• ,,- -., •..,1:: :7,-7:: *:,"-•.:;.:.'...:1 .„,., • .,.1,,,.:e.,..,... • ..,,•1 ,,* -.. ,w,..: i •., • + , A rj.■ ‘,..Na„....,..1.1.,... < se.i. %;,•-.: ,,,,,m■ , •••• ' P./ 34 .2"4„..; -ffil4tIN..':'-.. .ig • ..e. :".•1,--W1.):-;A:U. ••■•• • • • • . • , • 4.•■•-.4"..•-•■•••;:ti.,•,,, • I •:•:**% • 4.:"I•Dt!•r• :••••-- • • . :". • .. drr. t*,:•,:•:-.'eliikl...•-••••*1,'Ll:2'.4•:%1:44c r.r:As.,;•-• V;A:•.1,14.•••••6 .t. ,....,.<.■Or-:;:,#•.•?Zt., , City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 17, 1996 Johnny Cheng Cheng & Associates 2112 Third Avenue Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98121 RE: EconoLodge Design Revisions Dear Mr. Cheng, After discussing the comments about the EconoLodge project given at the open house with the Planning Director I have decided to ask for some changes to the design. The most significant of these is to address the shortage of one parking space now that there are 41 spots on site, 2 available next door and 44 rooms planned. In addition you will need to ask the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for a loading zone. We need a letter from you or Mr. Lin explaining how the operation of the motel would not require sufficient volume of deliveries to necessitate a loading zone. The signage for the building will have to be shown on the drawings and approved by the Board. This is important because sign permits will be issued based on what is approved and any change from that may need to go before the Board again before permits are issued. I have enclosed our sign regulations to help you develop a proposal. Please provide either perspective drawings or photo montages at the hearing showing how the new building would look in context from the residential area and Pacific Highway. These do not need to be detailed, massing is sufficient, but they must accurately show the building height and landscaping as it will appear at installation. The other changes are those discussed at the open house concerning landscaping and lighting. Have a landscape architect make the following revisions to the landscape plan and stamp the drawing. • Select specific plant species with preference for fast growing trees suited to site conditions • Change east border to a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees • Consult with Don and Mary Tomaso about their preferences for tree species along the east edge of site, phone number 243 -5985 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • Increase the size of trees along the east border to 2.5" caliper for deciduous and 8' for evergreens • Increase the fence height along the east edge from 6' to 8' • Revise the landscape plan to match current building design Show the following light fixtures on the plans. • Add low luminaires to the east planting strip to increase the safety of the east edge of the property • Add downlights to the west side of the building to illuminate the strip between the fence and the building If you have any questions about these revisions or would like to meet with me to discuss them please call me at 433 -7141. Sincere Y, -1//1 Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner cc: Diana Painter Steve Lancaster Enclosures MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Nora Gierloff RE: EconoLodge Open House Issues DATE: April 10, 1996 These were the main issues raised by the attendees at the April 9th open house at Foster Library: 1. Adequacy of the onsite parking. There was some concern about the use of spaces at the original EconoLodge, it was pointed out that spillover parking is a concern now. 2. Lack of loading dock parking 3. Where will the new fence be in relation to the existing chain link fence on the residential property? How high can it be? 4. What signage is proposed? What is allowed? 5. Show complete southern elevation (mass in far edge of building). 6. Concern about the height of the building in relation to the surrounding context. 7. Concern about the adequacy of the size /number of trash receptacles to be provided. 8. Will hourly or weekly rentals be allowed? 9. What is the status of the Hotel/Motel Management Ordinance? 10. Preference for larger, evergreen trees along the east edge to buffer the single family residence. 11. Park and Fly service uses additional spaces, will that be stopped/addressed? 12. The existing EconoLodge landscaping is in poor condition. What can be done to improve this? 13. Are there any assurances that the new landscaping will be maintained? 14. What type of lighting will be installed in the parking area? How will it affect the residence? Will it be adequate to deter crime? 15. When the existing units are demolished who will check for asbestos and make sure that it is properly handled? 16. Could the motel be reduced to 2 stories? Of these issues the following should be addressed during the BAR review: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 16. IMMILaranein am snore stnaeexeenuenzimranaeenuuneo eltmlef27 T'h•',wm+irr sw!o+.vaaPlKffS:u eocW,rL79. 05MtrPY- e tlwrA ivope .w. .............-.,.._._:._ ;mow:, • J • •U O w p; WI w. • o. J w 1._ w z� • :z �. .w w. � U, O:. .z. off z The only SEPA related comment is number 15. All licensed contractors are required to handle asbestos and lead paint removal in an approved manner. A demolition permit issued by the Public Works Department will be required before demolition is started. Comments number 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 cannot be addressed through the SEPA and design review processes. • 7 This would be an issue for the King County Health Department if the trash receptacles provided were inadequate. • 8 This is a question for Mr. Lin. • 9 • 11 The Park and Fly service should only be allowed to use spaces above those required by code. This is a difficult issue to enforce but the City will continue to work with Mr. Lin the solve the problem. • 12 Because the original EconoLodge was built under King County regulations the City does not have the records it needs to enforce a landscape plan. Code enforcement action can be taken if the dead landscaping creates a hazard or nuisance. • 13 The new project will be required to conform with its landscape plan indefinitely. t ua v. ••OW 1� • wee ♦YIIIML! Y •.Ysnwr • •••• •• t y1114.• a 0.1.11r MOW • IM/rsow••IO• • 11rr 25112:4114•01a1 t. t,}.. 11.1 ' 0 " M Plot e d fi••••••• ww1r61 A �des I`11rv�rM 1�▪ r•M IY�.•A ✓ IN WIN I•MI • UMW NM rr A1.1 CITY OF TUk`vWILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER HotPro� sed SWIM Se MO /16 tee wwr"M �••w w•••• ewe. IAI RoAI RM Moe. 1.11•• or•■1.r r- A2.1 RR!77_1'1TC c T `t OF i U ii;VILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER _ • e ms. WIEt2412 NAM KAM d▪ ams. omows. Fr. ' INN 1.1111■111110.• 1 00•1•1•11 MI MISR _____ = MS lb A2.2. 4v0 RF!.7.17IVED CITY OF TUMVILA • FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER 14::1111111 1 MU 111111 I •IM 1_ M. 11 I I I I I" -Ajk- • (1). SOMA 4111.14r • ow ear.- •il 1,M MIL•1 EM ■ 1 1 Proposed Hotel ■•••••■■••••1 SEMI/Maim =Lies 111■Y` IMO 1101.111.11re Itinme11.13 PME•••••• MOD ROOM PLAN 1111.1111Mal• 13M.•••■ Pme Raw= ORM/ RE IIMINIPM ESN MEM 12SINIM-- A2.3. • - : . • • ) • . • REr,r71"7.0 CITY OF TUKWLA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER ■•■1-••—• Proposed Hotel allil•••■•■• 111■11■1•010ro =L a tee •1111111.m,•■■•1 11,11011==.1•1400a —a INALD•11111.11MaTall 17.11,1■=le Ell OSA 9.■.E. = =. = R Fc fFID CITY OF l'Ui<WILA • FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER Proposed Hotel 41111111•0=111•11 1110111,•414■11•1 =gales Isgawkall•••••■• r.11.1.111•Wr..11111 .1■•■=•••• .111111.41.1 rwir sianissiaawen• 13111■•• MEMO MN Wm' tro=m Nit Mat arm__ = A3.2. RF.C.T.7`177.0 CITY OF TUMNILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER ri / $ LANDSCAPE PLAN lkossnallaaLsaudals 000 `•to• fr..lr.. M•T.. •.. _ AT T..•.�.� Yt1am ^--- ammo/1W •== .r.4r Ommeemallamemml r•�3-- cep v ••_ ..�.YYYl Mww.w. 1`dr.,rrrr,.. I...Am. • W.rr o..w. Ir■•r•r..... CITY OF I U;\„VILA. FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER Proposed Hotel m Mw A Aw 4.M. Mw.po. Cheng & Associates 1R Met /mina 4 9. .N Mw.•m Mail T.pv.m0 .0473S Fwf7004N020 O va TI.. LANDSCAPE PLAN O Dup. wen OCa••co. Om.nrb Russ Ob b...1 fNOOi OI\..I b CO.Knn • Dwan Br Dow awn Iftel L1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT: TO: FROM: DATE: C H E N G & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS pep °O5&2 //OTEL C�-41)/VD e/Ty L rukA✓ /zA./ A40/14- Johnny C. L. Chcng W47/9; 7 WE TRANSMIT: (pp) herewith ( ) via carrier ( ) via fax- no: FOR YOUR : IC) Approval ( ) Distribution to parties ( ) Review & Comment ( ) Record ( ) Oliicr NO. OF PACIES: FOLLOWING INFORMATION: i 0 0 J' 04,00 de0/44t. ez.frp, *It o u . ( ) Information ( ) Use Copies Date Description Action Code 'a ere- /0 5e ' - '- - - ..: / A /.//A2./, A2.2, Ate./ fA3. 2) T 7-4,4 F4 r r ruby / c,o/v Svru , 90ve Posy 4,t/ Action Code: Remarks: cc: A: No action required C: Immediate action is required D: For signature and return:: to this office D: Sce remarks below APR 0 4 1996 DEVE.L PMEN I ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 21)2 THIRD AVENUE. SUITE 201. SIM777-P, %VA 9d121 PHONE 206-441.5743 / FAX 206-441 -1760 C H E N G & ASSOCIATES. ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT (name, address) TO ATTN.: WE TRANSMIT: (' herewith ( ) under separate cover via ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: ( ) approval review & comment ( ) use THE FOLLOWING: ( ) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducible ( ) Product Literature O Change Order ( ) Other pie via //v-r G v, 1/ : /v/WieV% Q o a 6 r. met-6-7 elf -r 7"MfCv✓ /L4 v/= e,v tiMV.v/77 „OF vFGv7°A9 A 7 6.10 ..rda eE+ -sc& lit 00, 7`rekwi4", WA 9 /cP4' Mt. ,OM*-,4 f4'^"7'4. ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: DATE: 3 /6 /y 6 If enclosures are not as noted please Inform us immedialely checked below please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us ( )distribution to parties ( ) information ( ) record ( ) Other COPIES DATE REV.NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE / p. .e/2 /A Tiu� Of ,og C7 ACTION CODE A. Action indicated on item transmittedD. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS COPIES TO (with enclosures) 0 0 ❑ BY: RECEIVED MAR Q 7 1996 ARCHITECTURE /PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PHONE 206 -441 -5745 /FAX 206 - 441 -8760 z Z. 0 0: W w; x. N u_ w 0 J. N a 1 ZF.: I- 0: Z I— 0 :0 = w?. U; Z tll Z C H E N G 8 ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT (name, address) TO ATTN.: WE TRANSMIT: ()(herewith No. of pages ( ) in accordance with your request FOR YOUR: approval ( ) review & comment ( ) use THE FOLLOWING: '1ev Po diE9 m77e1 08,E14.p/,,,JT taooh s /JprH ST' ' C-11./ gr "7-10141(49. ‘,ob cou7sfceivn1., / -L(iv Tu 'W/64 WA. f 04 /11,0 NU a/ 4e.eA pA /iv D 497: dfi G.OMM t/A17 4 7 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: DATE: cV. :9. If enclosures are not as noted please Inform us immediately checked below please: ( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures. ( ) Return enclosures to us ( )distribution to parties ( ) information ( ) record ( ) Other ( ) Drawings ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Samples ( ) Specifications ( ) Shop Drawing Reproducible ( ) Product Literature ( ) Change Order ( ) Other COPIES DATE REV.NO. DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE / . i $5 ?tan' R.Ev/ ,1PPLf GAyia.v ACTION CODE A. Action indicated on item transmittedD. For signature and forwarding as noted below under REMARKS B. No action required E. See REMARKS below C. For signature and return to this office REMARKS COPIES TO (with enclosures) 0 ❑ BY: Jbmow/y ��y r FEB 2 9 '1996 COMMUNITY fl17\IF1_.OPMENT ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206 -441 -5745 /FAX 206 -441 -8760 S.+ i4'1tF i '• - +r^• ^bcr.A =enera.nMTF.INWrAl, =w1V• YMIVN RI rtTnW, M1, 4e wnww+. w.«. n.,....,........ a«--......+ .w;r.n r.., 4.,•+ Evanwrrx!..T.ttrYtn•ANtOOrWiF�. tAVfien z Q Hz' f, w, 00 N 01 to w w =. V_ L: w 0: g u_ ?. a: w Z 0 •w W: .1— U, • w •Z.: 0 CO 017' z :. • PROJECT # CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY PART A: (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT) 4/14,1 2 /-� 1. Owner Name /Address /Phone: -(dlG LkJCi� a c:), la . 1-63/1" Agent or Contact Person /Name /Phone: 6 h17327- C /eV.y Lr / 57174c— Site Address (Attach map and legal description showing hydrant location & size of main): kc<. -2/ ?e(4 2. This certificate is submitted as part of an application for: ❑ Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Short Subdivision co' Commercial /Industrial Building Permit ❑ Rezone ❑ Other: 3. Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): • / • 4. Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the rear of the furthest structure: Z/ S ft. 5. Minimum needs of development for fire flows: gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Source of minimum flow requirement: ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Developer's Engineer ❑ City ❑ Insurance Underwriter ❑ Utility 6. Area is served by: / Owner /Agent's Signature: ❑ Other (Utility) Date: 21/ y- /74 (Reverse side to be completed by water utility and goveniing jurisdictipj.).7,.m7) ,7'1T ( 05/06/94 FEB 2.3 1996 t:;.r:4•ih6'auit taiifia"a1.4$tfl'L'�1� i'ERM{1' CENTER iF•1 "ran WG7! AW24W.V1:17rM;MY, VIPM` ? TJTMM!YLI z • J U; U O; ' COW W - H;' CO W o: LL a' 22 v. W. Z �. Z Ww H U o. z w oei O • F..;. Z PART B: (TO BE COMPLEI' BY WATER UTILITY) 1. The proposed project is located within l U k t )i 1 (City /Cod ty) 2. Improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: 77.6 C - i 7'/ rG /11 `4;1/ /A( o,z 1-- 0 .14 6(9 l doss e ct s —% % 111G j."-c QS . `% m k Jy Co c.,, - / c2cr,, itiZS" 5-714--el V 4-oct7 3. Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be available at the site with a flow of /0 2S gpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of z hours at a velocity of 7 fps as documented by the attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. C9- c -e A-1r Lv a t. S- Agency Phone Z LIZ --q S'[f 7 By Date PART C: (TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNING JURISDICTION) 1. Water Availability - Check one ❑ Acceptable service can be provided to this project. ❑ Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements listed in item #C2 are met. ❑ System isn't capable of providing service to this project. 2. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) Agency /Phone By Date 05/06/94 Z HZ • C4 W J U: 0 O, W 2: J WO 2 g .LL I- la Z I- o' Z '2 D p: O co ;ILI W F=- U . Z UN O ~ 2 Z /2/ 20/ N w N N A N v W �� l iv I 40 0 th \!01- 33 -50p JO a SO I '66 I ..• Coo 0 8o t oO �o I °$ iri, `aDS O a` f s p, c * Bo N r U 4:zc5.. ±- 0 O .`S °P..0 ° ° s 0 Q W w 0 co 13; ,47.i.L•48 to ':.� aN d u'0 So = v o O cz' 0 n 6 % O� ar. n �p c O� �, `9a N dD C' U �. a a o O�� v • a A o� C' Q It W C oQ O' i1. So N c n $ 0 _, Q !o C 01 r; /2 0 c 58.73 c ° O 4% .V 34.90 0 01 0000.0 14 r) 120° 6 ° \9,;: ° a c a G. ° e Q v, o a c 0 ° C. a pil, c „ c 0 m S. „ a Qc o O % a 6 o o a_ � N A/ • o 38TH AVE. S. 0 or TO' t0 cs '71 Q eV") jor 685 /00 /79. -Es � °. °`r6 6 �•so•0 ... - w To 0 CO o a J � 40r'/ AYE• s. v. 1-21ALEi57 H W ! cur.•+ a •a�•n�v.��p «aj;,nrm!2Yi�^"^2rn:u m p }c to 11 Go s- ar -srsi ^.5•.0,•-•r.. .ten- r...r..,..r.r......w +n..,a- wry- c.:... u+ M,-l: SYr";. e• aYT"^',' s .T. >or: ?:r »!..ryY.,� >....... -.. z w W = 00 to W = J 1_ top W g Q. CO D I a. I- III Z= Z° W ui t) O CO 0 I- W W I. �. Z L11 z ZijEtU let! —d S)/ b. CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER NON - AVAILABILITY `51 Building Permit ❑ Short Subdivision Proposed Use: ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD fl Rezone or Other ❑ Residential S.F. 0 MulitFamily Commercial (l Other APPLICANTS NAME /A.iF-X) L I PROPERTY ADDRESS OR APPROXIMATE LOCATION 2,47c>4 S, / 3 9 '‹ f (4tW /s4 cl F(6� LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4--7YFT 0-442/( (Attach map & legal description if necessary) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION 1. a.I`!I / Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing 8 size sewer 46, feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR— b.! Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: 0 (1) 4Co feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and /or (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and /or I,._I (3) other (describe) mdvA/lola, ove:2 csx,1s-noc W+t►LNLii. A 1J b MA.1J 4o LG n w) 5 rr 2, (Mus be completed if 1.b above is checked) a.12-__ The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR b.L11 The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a.�� The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district b.�or city. OR Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. District Connection Charges due prior to connection: GFC LFC UNIT TOTAL (Subject to change on January 1st) METRO Capacity Charge $750 billed by METRO after connection to sewer system. b. Easement(s): Required Maybe Required c. Other: I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is t}que:•r{ =D This certification shall be valid for one year from datffYCofUNILA signature. VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT Manager, T. J. Matelich or Inspector. Steven F1A1-r.hAr FEB 2 3 1996 2- Date PERMIT CENTER z ~w JU 00 (0 J H mw w O: LL j. c_ .0. 1- w, I- 0 w~ .2 U� 0 }- w w. 1- u. ui = • O~ z ALL OF.LOTS 6. 7 AND 8, BLOCK. 4, ROBBIN'S VIEW TRACT ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT'RECORDED IN VOLUME 17 OF PLATS, PAGE 90, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED DALE STREET (40TH AVENUE SOUTH), ADJOINING THERETO AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:- BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 8; THENCE NORTH 89 °52°24" WEST 26.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00007136,, OF SAID LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, 180 FEET; THENCE ASOUTHR89 °52'24"HEAST 6,31 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTH 6 °18°33" EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, 181.14 FEET TO THE POINT LIF BEGINNING. N ut 0 Z J C O Y ro"z Z zp- m W a ~JJ F•NLL C , n m 03 ID N VD N N O kr a W 4 %k W Z 0 d 'S 3AV )Sib 3 .££,LO 2 N 00'0£ 00'09 _T_ O�kw, r - -- • L NLL I M .££•L0,2 S -- 00'09 00'09 —` - -- 4 jwJ 3wva! Aao1s3No N Inv* 71,4O3 AVON! AyotS 3N0 -- 00'09 . 8 N,o' , Y,. ---I 1 r - i I 1 I I 3wva! gaols 3No 1 1 1 1 •....J L, I W 1 I r 1 i 1 — -4 M1 g 1 n,� 2 8 3 .££.L0.2 N /O Lo W - W W ct J w 0 N. ~"N0 LLWR 0 N u I- 3 CD W3 I•-W W J 2k-„ Ci Ur a WO Q�Q 4. aWVW� CCU' Wc0i 48 WOO !W >Ja Og 0• SWl- bhp WU W V .rf mo:l -0 m ~Z a0 O.a ZZF" V W O ml--z >g zz i:: �- a crw (Dug. • l't ?; O,- Pli 2 I"' k- n u r..,. { 1 > 1 F I N 4 gi i N I I 1 4 Z Z • J U: U O' coo NW W =, J 1-. • u wO ict = CJ Z� Z Off; D U L:1` LD w w'. IO Z W :. N, z C H E N G 8 ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS Compatibility of the Proposed Design with Multi - family Structures Re: Proposed Hotel Development at 4006 South 139th Street The proposed hotel development is located at the corner of South 139th Street and Pacific Highway South- a transition zone with commercial properties to the west and residential areas to the east. The existing run -down, single -story, motel building has caused security problem for both the building owner and the neighborhood, and has required extra police protection over the years. Therefore the goals for the project are to enhance the existing physical environment of the site and to improve sense of security for the site and adjacent areas. As described in the submitted environmental checklists, the proposed design will be an L- shaped , three -story, wood structure with stucco exteriors. The building will have pitched roof with residential details and windows to reflect the character of its adjacent residences, while maintaining certain commercial quality for its identity and to fit the character of its transition zone. The roof overhangs and window treatments with grids will echo the details which are mostly found in residences and apartments. Building modulation will also help to reduce the scale and mass of the structure. Extensive landscaping, together with 6 feet high wood fences along the property lines will help to soften the edges of the site, and to improve the natural environment of the area, while providing proper screening for the project. New sidewalk along South 139th Street will be provided to improve pedestrian circulation and make a clear separation between public and private properties. This clear hierarchy of spaces will help to create a sense of place and security for the site and adjacent area. RECEIVED MAR 0 7 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTURE / PLANNING / INTERIOR DESIGN 2112 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 201, SEATTLE, WA 98121 PHONE 206-441 -5745 / FAX 206 - 441 -8760 tkiSiL%} +U: Y:!+:1.$ :tii,'n:.'CS1C:S`sdiCtd nv5}ydYa.W,x'iew: " "S.sourreowi« :maw: .d afia BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 1 CRITERIA 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. z oc w 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE v A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and o o. to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. co w: B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the N LL, visual impact of large paved areas. w o. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. 2 RESPONSE: N a The design proposal places the L- shaped building closer to the west property line to _ allow more landscaped area along east property which is right adjacent to a residential z ~— neighborhood to the east. To further reduce visual impact, in addition to extensive w o landscaping on the ground, trees will be planted at about 30 feet on center. A six feet o; high fence will also be built along three sides of the site to provide visual screen n o between surface parking on the site and adjacent properties. To be compatible with .0 czi �' adjacent residential buildings, the proposed three -story building will have pitched roof w w' to echo the roof style of the neighborhood. • 0. z. ud ivy O ~. 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: To reduce the scale of the building mass and to create variation in building facades, modulation, change of window styles, and special architectural features will be incorporated in the building design. Extensive landscaping will be provided on front and side yards to soften the edges of the site and to enhance the environment for the project and its adjacent properties. A new sidewalk will be provided along South 139th Street per City's standard and to improve pedestrian circulation in the area. des-rev.DOC BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 2 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 encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and paving of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: As shown on the landscape plan, the main design concepts are to provide extensive landscaping to enhance the natural environment of the site and to proper screening for the parking area. shrubs, varying from medium -small to large, will be placed along building edges and right next to the wood fence along east property lines. Seasonal flowers will be planted on both sides of the driveway leading to the parking area. Large shade trees with 2" caliper will be located along east property line to provide visual screen between the project and residential community to the east of the site. Lighting for the parking area will be limited to the entrance canopy area and covered parking garage to reduce excessive brightness. 4. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. du- rcv.DOC n.wvo!fxx+ - 1 z w CL D. U O: CO o cn L1.1 =: F. w w g Z !- O. Z o :0H ww 1-- V, 6 iu z; 0 z.. v. Y:ae?Stn.ut::.lL':d.Y BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE 3 C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures; standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: The site is located in a transition area between commercial to the west and residential community to the east of the site. In response to this condition, the architect has designed the building which will fit the physical character of the site. The three -story . will have pitched roof and roof details .which will reflect the typical architectural characters of residential buildings in the areas. Residential windows with wood trims and grids will also be used for all guestrooms to reinforce this character. Modulation in building facades will help to reduce building mass and add interest to the building. In addition, architectural details which are most associated with residences have be incorporated in the building design. No mechanical equipment will be visible from building exterior. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and 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: Because of site limitation, there will be only one building proposed for the site. No street furniture or miscellaneous structures other than wood fences will be provided. des.rcv.DOC A F F I D A V I T ,0 F Notice of Public Hearing )4Notice of Public Meeting LI Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet []Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: fl Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LI Shoreline Management Permit O Determination of Non - significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action Q Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project t� .tD.IA4 File Number D I S T R I B U T I O N D . J 0. . 0 O Ga C w wi w= J H. w 0' .�Q • -•a 1 w: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 2, 1996 RE: Econolodge Renovation Open House Dear Neighbor, The owners of the Econolodge Motel at 139th and Pacific Highway have applied to the City of Tukwila to expand directly north, across 139th from the existing motel. Under the proposal the old tourist cabins now on the site would be torn down and replaced with a new three story motel. You are invited to attend an informational open house on this project on April 9th, from 7:00 to 8:30 PM at the Foster Library meeting room. The project architect will be there to show drawings of the proposed motel and answer any questions you may have. The project will then be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing on April 25 at 7:00 PM in the Tukwila City Council Chambers. That meeting is also open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. If you have any additional questions or comments please call me or Diana Painter at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, 431 -3670. Sincerely, ` t , Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 c ,zQ z. a: w: u6� o01 'N .w= ,w O M D. a. .z la = Vi Ali z. i 3606U- U32u -09 PRIEST•ROBERT W 13728 41ST::AVE'S'. SEATTLEIWA 736060- 0330 -07, CARPENTER THOMAS R 13742 41ST-AVE S SEATTLE WA 736060-0341-04:' SIMON'ELREY W 1900'HIGHLAND :RD' SHELTON , WA A 736060 - 03251;.4)4 879999 / GUERNSEY. N:R +DEBRA 0 8N9999 .13732 41ST AVE'S '98168 .SEATTLE.WA .98168 736060- 0340 -05 439999 KIDD00 .CORWIN:L +DE80RAH.D.'399999 4102 S 139TH.ST: 98168 • TUKWILA WA 98168 736060- .0400 -02 440.326 -LIN�WEN•FAN +VIRGINIA 13910•PACIFICHWY.S 98584 SEATTLE:.WA 736060-0405-07 ARAGON -MARIN'CARLOS: HUMBERT529999•� 1814_EAST-FIR -ST SEATTLE.WA 98122. 736060-0415=05 FIORE •NICK ;T . 4021. S' 139TH. ST. SEATTLE''WA- 736060- 0425 -03 CROWELL 'EARL `J 4105.139TWST• TUKWILA WA' 736060 - 0465 -04 BIRCHCREST'APARTMENTS: PO' BOX. 925 EDMONDS WA' 736060 - 0490-03 JACO8SON' CARLTON ,M °. JR 13813 ;37THr•AVE.. S' SEATTLE'WA" 886400-0915-02' WOODS MELODY :Ji 13808 .38TH • AVE S SEATTLE:WA.' 886400 - 0925 -00; UHLrWILLIAM!.A. 33239 26.TH ;AVE SW FEDERAL" 'WAY `WA 886400- 0935 -08. GAUSE SHARON 13832'. 38TH S SEATTLE WA ' 886400-0945 -06' RUFFNER MELVIN` 13844 ;38TH. S, SEATTLE WA 7N9999 98168 736060-0410 -00' SHARMA NANDESHWAR USHA.DEVI- ' 4017 S 139TH :,ST :TUKWIL.A WA 736060 - 0420-08 HUBER'LEONARD E. f •116524TH :AVE °.S SEATTLE =WA , 961029 / 98168. KUMAR+ .:009999 98168 736060- 0430 -06 119999 / CARTER CLARENCE.CiJR 4115 S139TH. 98168 SEATTLE ,WA '736060-0475 -02. 260902 I BIRCHRESTAPARTMENTS PO_BOX,925. 98020 EDMONDS WA' 736060- 0525 -02- 379999 TOMASO';DONALDL` 13707 :41ST:S 98168 SEATTLE:WA. '886400- 0920 -05 479999 ,MCMINN OAVID•L` J 1381438TH.AVE S• 98168 SEATTLE 14A • • 886400- 0930 -03 209999 j 'CL'AY RALPH �L! C ":PATRICIAF ..1382613.8TH'AVE.S 98023 SEATTLE:WA: 886400- 0940 -01' 1N2342 f .BUSSEY :PHREDeD +SANDRA:L .13838 38TH.AVE SOUTH 98168 SEATTLE:WA 886400-0950 -08 C0876 BALLANTYNE"SHERRI• f 13850'. 38TH AVE S . •98168 SEATTLE•WA 5N9999 ; J 98168 V 98168 260902 98020- 359999 98168 279999 98168 V 98168`! 709999 98168 969999: 9816811 x4wr�+,7wn*M+!rnsn -„• z w 6 0 w i. wO D. a H =. z �. z o: 2 p. O- O ,- Wuj —O uiz 0 z i c***s c* **Scacic* *****sc**;c*ac)�C*J ***fc**apt**)(>;c **4****SIC' *ic * * ****** * **ic*****is** *** c;c;c*;c;c*ic7'r . I 'COMMENTS: y', L BATCH'NUMBER: • EA •. '►: CUSTOMER . NAME • WEN -LIN • 3: *0407 r•t4"6"1. rte+ 0PIPTV.11.1rrMzr10V.V f"1" M11,1" �csc3.$* ** cn 6"tX <bYapc*************V31" ")! . 1.crc:cvvrcxcvc*n4x(r) .736060-0090 -07: .7360600100-05 CITY'OF`TUKWILA- 499800; BRINTON:JAMES F': 6200 SOUTHCENTER:.BLVO°. 13007.167TH. AVE.NE TUKWILAWA. 98188. REDMONDWA.. 736060= 0170 -00" JOB :STANLEY CARL +LIND A- 13709A1ST AVE S. SEATTLE WA: 736060-0175 -05, 489999: H/ •LEONARDO-GILBERTINE 4220 • $ :139TH _ ST .. .98168 SEATTLELWA'. 736060- 0182 -06' SCARBER'JANELLE M +ROBERT'E 209.999 13716:41ST.AVE S SEATTLE WA ' 736060 - 0215-07- TOMASO 00NNA:M 22315 `.6TH :AVE S:;308 DES. MOINES WA 98168 279800 98198. 736060 - 0225-05 SEITZ. ALFREIYBBVIRGINIA°L562274- 13800PACIFICHWY;S TUKWILA:WA. 736060-0240 -06' KESSELLFKELLY: 13717 41ST:AVE S SEATTLE :WA :. 98168 736060-0210 -02 'TOMASOi DONNA •t1' 22315 6TH •AVE ' S VA308 OES:MOINES•WA 736060-0220-00 HUGHES: CLIFF H +LEA' 13739 41ST :AVE'S SEATTLE ; WA . 5N9800' 98052 920046 1 98168 :ON3875 V 98198 779999 -,/ 98168 736060-0230 -08 SEITZ ALFRED B'E VIRGINIAL562275 13800: PACIFIC HWY S . ` 7. TUKWILA ; WA 98168'1 {(.: 736060- 0246-00 759999 PALERMO`FRANK. 13715.41ST :AVE S 98168' ! TUKWILA.WA• 736060- 0310 -01 SCARBER JANELLEM;C'ROBT,E'462194' 13716 t 41ST :AVE S' . SEATTLE WA 98168 V 736060 - 0315 -06 BICKNELL:ELIZABETWM'ETAL609999 13722;41ST.AVE.S SEATTLE WA 98168 I+ • • z =F' � W 6 —J U 0' U U W J I- V) w. LL < El a z F- 0` z r: ur n o, o o U' W 0 jaiµ due.,' =•TC. n: , 88640070955703; 'HUDSON'TOMMY;III +TRISA'LEE 1385638TH.AVE S TUKWILA WA 886400-0965 -01 FICKLE'DIXIE.L< 13868:38TH.AVE S: SEATTLE WA .886400-0960-06 099999 i STINSON'SAUNORALi , / •13862'.38TH.AVrS 98188 V: SEATTLE.WA 886400 - 0980702.. VU :THINH'TIEN +THU THI' 24060.26TH :PL:S'; DES 'MOINES':WA- 579999 98168 886400-0970704`. FEULING MICHAEL!-LAWRENCE 704 N • 74TH : SEATTLE WAS 886400-0985-07, 209999 . GENINCO ;INSURANCE'TRUST: V 1001 WESTLAKE . AVE N . 98198 .1 SEATTLE WA 98168 319999 98103V / 4N9999- l 98109 ``- °' Z �W, aa 2! W � U° !U O N W` W zr N W O, • a • a. � _ O: Z n • 0 O -: _ill! V4 W F O W Z. • O Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 427 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, |28 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #29 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #30 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #31 Tukwila' WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #32 • Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #33 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020. S 140th St, #34 Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 035 Tukwila, WA 98168 � \ant 4N20 S 140th St, #20 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 421 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #22 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #23 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #24 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #25 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #26 Tukwila, WA 98168 • , • • • ,. • unun� 4020 S 140th St, • Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St , #11 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 412 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #13 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #14 • q.Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #15 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 016 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #17 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant • 4020 S 140th St, #18 Tukwila, WA 98168 : Tenant • 4020 S 140th St, 019 Tukwila, WA 98168 aundromat -1-012 S 140th ST Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 8 140th St , 41 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, 42 Tukwila, WA 98168 • 'i .11--: � ��- . Tenant 're ' 4020 S 140th 8t, 43 � � . Tukwila, WA 98168 �� ' • ` _ i ,.ii. i == �� i :uj x, 1-11-/ . «0.m_` Tenant ` �0� 4020 S 140th St, 04: Tukwila, WA 98169 ... 1: � '^� �� � . D .1 i_ wu � Z T ���-� Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #5' ,.• � Tukwi l a, WA 98i68 �� ' ^ �c� 1�: Tenant 'A- 4020 � S 140th St , #6 Tukwila, • WA 98168 ��`!• �.��� u� r �t %�� �~1 • 1- 0 Z , Tenant � '�� ' - ''� , . 4020 S 140th St, !7 • Tukuila. WA 98168 Tenant 4020 S 140th St, #8 • Tukwila, WA 98168 ,'� Tenant 4020 S 140th ' St #9'` Tukwila, WA 98168 Indian Plaz.a 13925 Paci'Fic Hwy Tukwila, WA 98168 • Tenant 13074 30th Ave S J.! Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13820 38th Ave Tukwila, WA 98168 )2' 3 Beemer, Tami 13719 41st Ave 3 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13721 41s1; Ave TUkwila, WA 98168 1. • ..! Tenant • .13727 .41st Ave S Tukwila, WA 98163 .-.:Tenant 13751L 41st AYe Tukwila,' WA 98168 Reid, Niesha 40118139th St . 'Tukwila, WA 98168 Huber, Beonard rr 4101 S 139th St Tukwila, N 9816e Hunt ell, LeRoy 4110 8 1391. h St Tukwila,. WA.90168 • • " LIST OF RESIDENTS' Wash Mech Contractor 13800 Pacific Hwy 8 Tukwila, WA 98168 Seitz Virginia Const 13810 Pacific Hwy Tukwila, WA 98168 Derby Tavern 13820 Pacific Hwy S Tukwila, WA 98168 United Motors 13911 Pacific Hwy 8 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13919 Pacific Hwy Tukwila, WA 98168 Tenant 13921 Pacific Hwy Tukwila, WA 98168 3. Tenant 13923 Pacific Hwy 'S Tukwila, WA 98168 •. • . • . • • .• , • . • : • . • . • • • „ • . „.• '•... • • . .... . • . 1 • • • . , • • . . . . . VAINIVNOPMVIOJAWAVOk•Isr , Z 402 4 7 140th S;, ii;: 6 a,, WA 98168 Tenant 4020 140th St. *37 Tukwila. Wr'-1 9168 Z H• W QeQ 2. W � —J U: Cr v) W; J 1.-' 0 LL` WO 2 ri LL Q' cn CI 1—O. Z W W: . gyp, Ota •W H U;. • LL 1 w Z: col U—' BOARD OF ARCHIT:CTURAL REVIEW DESIGN ■EVIEW APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 FOR STAFF AF1- USE ONLY Planner: ----.aA0,:ra Wn s -A,; o '�; er� to File Number: Cross - Reference Files: 4 - 006.4-/ Receipt Number: 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: A ivocA/ m7 L 6u/ 4, /,4/ . 7a A ee-i v,4 4 re 4' 4 4 4' J't /CD DA4J' /ic/ .4 ?"?..tee. . 47v,ey Wove ABM. mitt,o %V6; 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) IAOO 6 5. /d 9 iH Sr.CSET, .s44-TrG�, . Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: Address: Phone: J ON /iv Y e. L . Cs{et/d a// 2 7771//Ld 4-Vi / S!/ /T4' 3v // SEA 774, WA- 7e/ 4e sz/- f75'J Signature: 0 .+ / ( X e Date: _2/.20 ?4 * The appZt is th / erson 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: Wt/EA/ uA/ OWNER Address: / 3 7/ L /141-0(A /c N /o.lv6✓4Y .roa 7% .r 4 -o-LE, 9,10/ Phone: O11- /o• I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we are l Ze owner(s) or contract purc Zaser(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: -�� 2 /7 OF "I U1 WILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER nn,�.m�+. uoir•�r...,�,o.�r�.. men, n.. wcr4v4r. ru- rstA�* �YrSwYNl 7Aa7:?c*r,�'F+r,!a'T�'F!„3Q,�. 2�t!ff;�?.'', ���',�3'R'.. :;'ui"�n,'!'�te .w . . z I=-Z ry W O 0 co w: w= J � w Orr' J. w a D. = d: H in Z zo LL! Lu .‘• 2l o � = Vi I- w F-: ui Z: U =: O ~` z BOARD OF ARCHITF— c:TURAL REVIEW DESIGN 't .REVIEW APPLICATION CHECKLIST CITY OP TUKWILA" DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to assist you in submitting a complete application.. Please do not turn in your application until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -368a: RETURN THIS CHECKLIST WITH YOUR APPLICATION GENERAL Application Form Design Review Fee — $900.00 Environmental Checklist Environmental Checklist Fee — $325.00 PLANS IERIe (7) copies of the set of plans are required. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30', with the north arrow, graphic, scale and date all identified on the plans. Also, the license stamps of the architect and landscape architect shall be on each appropriate plan. The following information should be contained within the plan: Vicinity map showing location of site and surrounding prominent landmarks. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads. Lot size and impervious (paved and building areas) surface calculations. LV ✓. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area in excess of 15 %. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s),.accessory structures with appropriate setbacks, parking and loading area dimensions, and driveways. I E '7.'7D Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will berry coF TU WILA. saved. Proposed landscaping: size, species, location and spacing. FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER C4 2 6 J C) U0. NO W z; LL. Wes. LL Q; if.). d z �. z0 0 co D. W W tip`; ..z W N; 0 z.. AOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGN REVIEW APPLICA71N CHECKLIST Page 2 G. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and how water and sewer is available. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dediations. For commercial and industrial uses, gross floor area by use and parking " calculations. J. For multiple residential, location, dimensions and description of common open space and recreation areas. Dimensioned elevations of building drawn at 1/8" =1' or a comparable scale. Elevations should show the type of exterior materials. L. Location and elevations of exterior lighting for buildings and parking areas. M. Location and elevations of dumpster screens. N. Color and material sample board for exterior building and accessory structure colors and material. O. Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which accurately represent your proposed project. P. One (1) Photomaterial Transfer (PMT) of each drawing reduced to 8.5" by 11" (most printing companies can make PMT's). PUBLIC NOTICE A mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ") A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6548. RF(7T- „' D CITY OF '1Ui:INILA FEB 2 3 1996 PERMIT CENTER z w; 0; •c .v) w =. u.; -J D. SP.. a. �w � 1- 0, z I- . `gym: oco; ; • • o 1-••: • oi w w' tii z; • U • .O F.; .Z File: Z i-Z U Of U) Q ,cow% u. W = WO .QQ LL.Q 35mm Drawing# File: 35mm Drawing# 'ile: LqOOi 5mm Drawing# !:.::l4L:i• - tudL:wVi7+Lfan . -• v. C1lSr - !.3.r2iliwx.`_AM •R wvL +a.. yY auan:K.CtiJ.4U.ke..v'. �:1r6(u• smm Drawing; at{ � bT�,•L'•s � 111 "i$1•4 Slla "''4 h. ••.■ • . ti a 1.1 K 5•. •. •T 4 • •.r! • • • •,,i /ins t.. k5 per- i3A- • •':.::1, i�ili�i l�ili�ilIJIjI�i I�IJI�IlI�III�l I�III�IlI�I!I�i II!IIII11�1{l�I i�II,�Ili�ili�i i�ili�I� (iIZ 8I7 :' �IZ; H;•.'I'; is •ZIZ IIZ; .OIT: 9T 1BII /t OIT 1111 mihm IIIIIIDI milmi milim mdmi uuhm mduu uuluu mduu uuluu uulmi uuluu uulmi milmi mduZ V✓l 7� JIL��/1 RECEIVED JUL 0 3 1996 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r • • -77 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 3 87'51417• E aao ONE STORY FRAM I VACATED. DALE, STREET. O' LOT 5 - - -- MIIMO a UTILITY EASEMENTS A.FJ1584576 A.F.0159SOS3 ALL OF LOTS 6.7 AND 6. BLOCK 4. ROBBN'S VIEW TRACT ADDITION TO RIVERTON. ACCORDING TO. THE PLAT RECORDED N VOLUME 17 of PLATS. PAGE 90. N KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED DALE STREET (40TH AVE 3.). ADJOINING THERTO AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: B EGNI NG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT Si THENCE N es'Sl'14' W 16.61 FEET; THENCE N 0'07'36' E PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LNE OF SAM LOTS 6.7 AND 8.180 FEET; THENCE S anew E 6.31 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAD LOT 6; THENCE S 6'18'33' E ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAD LOTS 6.7 AND S. 161.14 FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING. ...WWII OWED I 1 j - - - --i °\,‘,..... co L1IIiI( ‘i. 17 6' DEC. I 1,•'. , / 4 S?'' 1 1, 1 CONC. 1 ,1.. A_ 1 ASPI. 7 2_g• •) 'CEpARS, . HORIZONTAL 8. VERTICAL K.C.A.S. 0 SET R EBAR/I.D. CAP D SET LNE STAKE B EXISTING MON/CASE n SET NAIL/I.d. tog v —'$ -s FENCE LINE Vmak- lotSO;1 t iwtvflL MC CO UP DEC. MAPLE CLUSTER CLEAN OUT UTILITY POLE DECIDUOUS TAVER{! �., ??1?i�14.444''?a�AfiAre . s . I. 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 CONC. , MST NY PAS LL bpi DSO ANa,11 �SAN_uN NM MILS mess =� M Zd` SOLO 11.,•b1'1 • S. 139th: ST.'.. hr!!`il5rce aFP^tli, MI= SIMS WEN COW. =Llr OUP 6).K... 7 Is. MILT ._. ortpl v■ _. - A1Sf.i by� ._. _. �. A w 160.00 CC LL MO. STONE EAF_M_ENTS 0.F 04011459 - TRANSMISSION LINES A.F: H4518866 - SEPTIC TANK A.F. 04516665 - FIRE WALL PIONEER NATIONAL TITLE 843. CO. NO. A- 1117611 Ari IW a I •"1:71:r.:: :p'iS.4.!,r. +y.. 8 rwA'- !„51,0- '4.r5 .;rvrI i ,x•. 1. o �0 0 S 87'51'05• E 1281.93 S. 140th ST. 343.91 POSITION S FN01, NO1NN POSITION CAI- A FROM RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for rewire this day of Oil at IM la book of at page........at the request of DENNIS L LUND Mir. Sept. of Records SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This map correctly represents a survey made by ms or under my direction In conformance with the ,. requirements of the Survey Recording Act at the request of ....WN.W �,..,tS..aiE..: agnatieL Certificate No....11fi1i t� • BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR WEN LIN !NM A OF THE 8W4 OF SEC. . TAN. R 4 E, W.M. LUND d ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS CITY OF TUKWILA 2220 S. 287TH ST. FEB 2 3 1996 FEDERAL WAY. WA. 98003 206 839 -7755 PERMIT CENTER OWN. BY DLL DATE 9 -13 -1111 JOS 110. • 57$11 CORD. BY BLS SOALE • I'' • 20' SHIM I Oil I r i i I I I I I I i i II i I i III rl .I I:...�L_I. I_I I I- - I - -I -I -I I -) i III I� I I �I1 III I I rh I I i I I i I I I I 12 . -I ....I _ -� 3 I 41 :r��_ I I*51 I 6 u•• 1 oIE � 61z i 91g \i LIz ;)- 91z1 SIz Iz..l fi1Z I .zlz f TIZ: I QI�:IT.,,I, BIT „I, �IT.,I, 911 „I, • p■.'t ECONO LODGE J:XISTING SITE PHASE -I 44 EXTRA PARKING SPACES WILL ISE USED FOR PHASE -II DEVELOPMENT Y1 SAN MH 're RIM 260sD 11 IE.25113 INLET7 MH RIM Q58S I.E. 2kkkkkSS 1' 24" PROJECT INFORMATION 1. LOT AREA. 2. ZONING. 3. BUILDING AREA 4. LOT COVERA•E• 5. FLOOR AREA. 22320 SF RC 1,910 5F 35.110 EASEMENT FLOOR 9,939 SF UST FLOOR 1,910 SF 2RD FLOOR 8101 SF 26,016 SF 6. BUILDING HEIGHT. 24' -6 "t 6' WOOD FENCE ALONG r PROPERTY LNEs 1. LANDSCAPE AREA. 1,150 SF (31% OF THE LOT AREA) 8. NO. OF GUESTROOM. 38 RGOM9 :.t 9. PARKING. 38 SPACEB'yREOWRED 38 SPACES;PROVIDED (34 CN SITE, 4 OFF:81TE) 10. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ALL OF LOT 6, 1, 1 S BLOCK 4; RD'ElN'S VIEW TRACT ADDITION TO RIVERTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 CF. PL:AT5, PAGE 90 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION CF VACATED STREET (40TH:AVE.,61 I. HT POLE F1.ANTING AREA • 28' -3" I_ FREE STANDING SIGN UV 50 SF. SIGN AREA 1 r PARKING TT POLE 8' -6" 4'6' 8'-6" EXISTING EUILDNGS TO BE REIHIOVED L u ET 8 CONC. WALK LPLANTING AREA 0 CCNC. WALK 742. METAL RAILING lt. \ RAMP DOWN TO BASEMENT GARAGE 47' METAL RAILING r -- LPLANTING AREA • B, -0" W -6" :1 DELIVERY LOADIN.- AREA:_ :.. ._ r '- CAFSAGE/ RECYCLE C C C J 6' WOOD FENCE 1 7 1:'. :PLANTING AREA ' I _.._I t�' -- I', I fill I i { ...;r: J CONC. WALK >rlf ITT- RCCc HATCH PER CODE METAL FLASHING (TYP) 3' ROOF DRAIN 1 OVERFLOW (TYP) PROPOSED NEW HOTEL 0 YARD LIGHT EUILDNG LINE PLANTING AREAS ROOF LINE T 3" ROOF DRAM 4 OVE(FLCIU (TYP) 4 YARD L4iNT r L� J J L Roc: LINE BUILDING LINE BASEMENT WALL LINE PLANING AREA EXISTING BUILDINGS TO BE I r I I I J L J 23' -2 52" 8'-91/2" 18000' S 2 "01'33" W 88' -0" N-8' WOOD FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE C 4" F a 10' -0" (DoSITE PLAN SCALE= 1.'•10P-0" 1111111II11111I I1111�II1I11111 1111111 I' I'I'I' 1�11111I1 11 1111'I111I'I1111111 IIIIIIII11111111 `I ONE: 6IZ BIZ LIZ;._9IZ 515 9IZ 1E •7.17. TE. O5 (11 8 LIL 08 ' 151 uuhiiiluulim uulmi milmi uuhm uidmi mlluu uuhuiliuufmi iuduiiliudmi uulmi uuhm iiiiluu mdul BPA�R. DATE 10,342INITIALS.12.a L°llp -MI EC01Ab la Otelk. tkiCIMI 61 ,E 4l 1- ?.3 -ct-1 Proposed Hotel 4006 South 139 Street Seattle, Washington Cheng & Associates Architecture/ Interior Design 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, Washngton 98121 Telephone(206) 441-5745 Fax(206) 441-8760 Sheet 1111e SITE PLAN CI Design Phase D Construction Documents Phase ® For Permit Application ❑ Ready For Construction Date Drawn By Discription 4/47. . 3151, . rEIMIT ATLICATICN DESIGN RENEW DESIGN RENEW Sheet Na A1.1 of 00 sheets 1 1 1 —J °-°tl, F� "- iLAUNDRY Cxir•l 1 x 1 N 10 0 8'_6 85' -0" RAMP UP 8' -0" 8' -0" 12.08' -8 "• 1SOILEr� ROOM E-D, BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE, I/O" • P -0" • .� r1i I�i 'Heil I iI�Iiji i�i l�.l ICI 111 Iii ill ICI 111111 I�I III II'''I' 11111 III ICI `I OIf: 9IZ f317.1 LI7.; _9Z c17, t�L E7, •••7I7 I7.- _.OIL_ gii it LIt It • 1111 uidmi milieu 1111101 imhiuluuliui iuIhm mihui uiilim imiim 111110111111111101101 mihui iudiiii 11111111 B.A.R. PRTIALED DATE APIOVNIS_ Proposed H Vt p NED JAN 06 1997 COMMUNITY 4006 MI4RARRFAT Seattle, Washington Cheng & Associates Architecture/ Interior Design 2112 Thiel Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone(206) 441 -5745 Fax(206) 441 -8760 Sheet Tflle BASEMENT FLOOR FLAN gDesign Phase ❑Construction Documents Phase OFOr Permit Application D Ready For Ccnstruclbn Date Drawn By Discdplbn _ -- . r2retir NPUCAmaI Sheet No. A2.1 of 00' sheets 124' -I0 V2" LOADING r e STALLS GARBAGE/ RECYCLE PLANTING CONC. WALK RAMP DN. TO BASEMENT GA • I4ANDICAP. HANDICAP. HEARING, IMPAIRED ------------------------------------- — ---- —7— ------------ -------------------------------- — 23-2 1/8" 10.-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN ecALE, i/e." • P-0," • 7 ' gi 11(1111:11111111411W1-01111114611111111:111111111111411141111.141101115b11141ifigh16611111i i B A.R . , APPRuVED ligSkrilNITIALS Proposed HoltelivED JAN 06 1997 4006 Sout seattie. whpahArgitry b1PMENT Cheng & Associates Architecture/ Interior Design 2112 Third Avenue, Site 201 Seattle, Wast-ington 98121 Telephone(206) 441-5745 Fax(206) 441-8760 Sheet 7110 FIRST FLOOR PLAN CB Destn Phase 0Construction Documents Phase 0 For Perrrit Application 0 Ready For Construction Date Drawn By Discripticn • • rexplIT ArrUCATIC.1 Sheet No. A2.2 of 00 sheets SECOND FLOOR PLAN 9CALEi 1/8" • 138•70. • • -;•••• • 1 1 :111 1 i14- 1 t oil 111111111111111i1111111111111111ll11111111111 111111 11111111111111111111r11111111IIIIIM11111111111111111111111111111111111111 1k Proposed Hotel RECEIVED JAN 06 1997 commuNrry 4006 south 139th staVELOPMENT Seattle, Washington Cheng & Associates Architecture/ Interior Design 2112 Third Avenue, Site 201 Seattle, Washington 98121 • Telephone(206) 441-6745 Fax(206) 441-8760 Sheet Tltle • SECOND FLOOR PLAN • A 9:1Desig1 Phase 0Construction Documents Phase 0 For Pemit Application OReady For Construction • • B A.R. 2 Drawn By Description ebertio . rerairr d•Ttlaance.1 Sheet Na A2.3 of 00 sheets PL L I :s) I m I (BASEMENT LINE PL OPENING TO PARKING GARAGE ,• SOUTH • EL = VATION SCALE: I /8" . -i m" CLASS "S' ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO WITH DRTVIT FINISH TTP o EXTERIOR) PL L LIMITED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE, ...:1._.II.'I'I.' IIIIIII i'H.l LII Ili Ifi iii III l�l.,i!) i�i III III Ill lII 111 ljl 111 l�l �i 111 !. �I:.•� {{ 116 • i,.n 1 11111 01• IE 6IZ .81Z- LIZ; _97.- 917,• 'HZ • FIZ �ZIZ.• IIZ> OIZ gli 1 811 LII 911 111111111 111111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII1111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII 11111111111111iIII 111111111111111111111111111 111111111 111111111 IIIIIIIZ APPROIED OATS INIilA1.S_._ca .Proposed EIVED Hotel REC JAN 06 1997 COMMUNITY 4006 South 139th Street DEVELOPMENT Seattle, Washington Cheng, & Associates rrchiteottxe / Interior Design 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone(206) 441 -5745 Fax(206) 441-8760 Sheet Title NORTH 4 SOUTH ELEVATIONS MI Design Phase (Construction Doctrnents Phase DFor Permit Application D Ready For Construction •Date Drawn By Dlsoription CAA(. . PCNNIT APPLICATION Sheet No. A3.1 or 00 sheets ■ ■ ■ 11 ■ PL BASEMENT FL LINE WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /8 ".1' -m" yy t CLASS "B" ASPHALT SHINGLES (TYP) • 9 PL FIRST FL LINE 1/8" STUCCO w/ DRYVIT FINISH ITYP) BASEMENT FL LINE — PL EAST ELEVATION SCALE. I/8" • 1-.8" • • fill. ij'I I I I�1 iii it 111 111 1I1 1II lIi III III IIIliji i�i 1�1 'Iri�ilIl'III Ijl • � l 111 I . . 12 . I. l l 3 _. �_. _ �. . -� 115 I l I G 8 g\. S7' 1.817 911 `I mouhm Z idBIuuludImilm11uulmi Iimluu �mduu Iuuluu 1mil iii Iuulmi Iuuluu imdmi uuluu uuhm u ulu i B PA R DATE 1 INITIALS � - - Proposed Hotel RECEIVED JAN 06 1997 4006 South 139th Str- DEVELOPMENT Seattle, Washington Cheng. & Associates Archkecture / Intsdw Design 212 Third Avenue, Site 201 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone(206) 441 -5745 Fax(206) 441-8760 Sheet Title EAST 4 WEST ELEVATIONS IQ Design Phase • ❑ Construction Documents Phase ❑ For Permit Application D Ready For Construction Date Drawn By Discription QAI% . KR1n A"LICtTKN Sheet No A3.2 of 00 sheets 'uE L 6apNC' 4 P ' . Hirt. 1ttbCc4., 8' HlrnH v /ct.L `D0,s•NCH MIN lYz' CAL; EdHlCttt '. WGLL.lFANCH• 24•• 4r roT a 1.4•00,0, os . j.. NS fu000p Fc ALONG 4-011h& AILIK\ tc 741111W. Aft 4-11fts, 001111'Ai0113I M MUIVI►.o_o. ®A►:��c!�o ab ►l ZI Ci►.�o INISKII l�►'o = ,I \.� �. �� -.. \— \� �: Mir DELI \— v 1101317 .. _ LOADI4G ARIA -- — - -- — - — ' GARBAGE/ RECYCLE ECONO LODGE EXISTING SITE z?t i,_ FLCt+!PatS Sflk o Yflrltflt6i.. irtIF.c. e ` Is ligt ro tAt r 14# 4 /b1 CoNC. PAJINC1 N .p1.1ASE II DEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE, 9 "'. I0' -O" III 1 I.11 1 III 1 III1III II�i I I 111 1 I•II 111 I III 1I3 1 III 11.1 I1.1.1 !. 11 1 :III : III I Ih ,1.s11 l 111 I 111 I 11I I 11 r 2 • 11 Olf; 6IZ 8171' LIZ;_8IZ 9IZ V�7 £IZ, ,7,17..•.112, OL7.; jt it LII 01 1111 IIIIIIIii IIIIIHid IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIII�I111 IIIIII11i 111111iii IIIIIIIIi IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIZ 0' UA=OD FENCE ALCBG 9RC1°ERTY LME B.A.R. APPROVED " J /?3 /,INITIALS_11 Proposed Hotel RECEIVED JAN 06 1997 4006 South 139 Street DEVELOPMENT Seattle, Washirgtcn Cheng & Associates Architecture/ Interior Design 2112 TNrd Avenue, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98121 Telephone(206) 441-5745 Fax(206) 441 -8760 Sheet Tltle LANDSCAPE PLAN CI Design Phase ❑Construction Documents Phase For Permit Application D Ready For Construction Date Drawn By Discription _KNIT ArrLICAtILN OENGN RE ,Ell DE646N REvID1 Sheet No L1.1 of 00 sheets mm ra.wlng# . • • • KING. COUNTY . . DEPT' :OF . :ASSESSMENTS • , 'et; , 21'27 •' S:' I36TH ST. .15 -.I' Z. .o• ;O.frt..'464 P 2 1s I ..•. ', JP . "0e v., . 4.: • - A - 0,0 • ..,, . 5 • • ..44 t".+#'• - : 6 0' :.,::.s: ••• -.71: :-',..'' s. op. "00°,' —7;7 i'.-"•••■•"•() ; 4,0. '•'.',0• • 1" • z 4, •°•/..• • 10 i,"0! tot.. .. 71," : I 40 • • %It:. .i#,, • 0 ;072, 92 .u.0,0 i ,,,,l• 21 .8 . ro 01 , 20 Se 55 iie t-,. 19 , . 6.73 •e.,0 t.,, , 113 . 37 ' % .0, V.1, 17 • • .f , -• _ 5 5 3,0,'". s•yi I e 57 ; : l r' 1 , . 3779 :.',"*. 0, 0; 1,- 13' •. o',:-. ..- *00, •,12 4 . • ;,. ... 00 /: -40. .11 t.lOt• 6 . . „ ,.• „. lo .71 •772 '0171. *11. .THIS MAP IS FOR THE PURPOSE'OF7, .YASSISTINCI IN LOCATING YOUR, . PROPERTY. AND .13 NOT GUARANTEED .TC/ SHOW ACCURATE 'MEASUREMENTS .7. ,I53 ...• • MO 11414. 14 ,1S RIVERSINe • e L./ C.C. LE D.0 • ' • , • . , SEA. TILE 510 •15 23 - 4 MAP RAV.,, 84014 N. • SCALE, I n• 100' tomicre • .1rirm4.7."..sbs 734060 oi..10/74 r:11. 9, 13PTM ST. . 3t 30.1 • • 77:. < • ,....„.••••"' 1 i 0 0 t181.31.331,1 363.0 CONDO. 21 9.12 COURT .9°1'. 1 3'1 NORMANDY •91-191V /MN • '1 7 co • < „ 0 • 4.90 63 • (1 3 All% 4 54 3 .14$44119a2. if • • sA „ 69. • I I" 414t .22 ',nor..., on r;ni 11 „. ' A , • t's ..41,4irtree4 ••ir:•.err NW22 - 23 1.,1:;q;•' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1111111111111. 11111111111111: • &hill intim %III?' eltew °wt. , 1, , 4:11, 0 '