HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L93-0051 - HOME DEPOT - SPECIAL PERMISSIONl93-0051 6810 south 180th street the home depot
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
August 18, 1993
Ms. Pam Combs
Tube Art
6810 South 180th St.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Subject: Home Depot Sign, L93 -0051
Dear Ms. Combs:
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director.
Attached are your sign permits for Home Depot. Also attached is a
copy of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held to
review your permit applications. Conditions are as noted in the
original staff report, forwarded to you earlier.
I understand you will pay the permit fees of $100.00 when you pick
up the permits.
Sincerely,
Diana Painter
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 •
EPRF7
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 22, 1993
L'13 -- ao5/
Mr. Meryhew called the work session to order at 6:10 p.m.
Mr. Williams reviewed from the last meeting that the Commission agreed to add a clarifying
sentence to the bottom of page VI -8 regarding the indexing of the maps.
Mr. Knudson said that on page V -19, it says that there were 170 players in the Tukwila
Soccer League, when in fact there were approximately 210.
Mr. Williams and the Commissioners agreed to change the number of players from 170 to
210.
Mr. Knudson asked if there was a proposed bicycle or trail system along the golf course.
Mr. Williams said that the Green River Trail goes along the Interurban Ave.
Mr. Knudson said that the City asks industries to provide trails, however, the City won't put
in a trail near the golf course, one of the most scenic places in the City.
Mr. Pace said that in working with Boeing, they have agreed to provide public access off site
and employee access on site.
Mr. Williams said that a Council member has raised the same issue. However, due to how
the golf course is laid out, there is a real safety issue. The City is looking to loop a trail
back out to Interurban at the Volvo White property.
Mr. Knudson said that he felt the City has not been setting a good example.
Mr. Meryhew said that there is a small trail on 46th, between 148th and 150th and asked
where it fits in this plan because it's not shown.
Mr. Williams acknowledged that it should be included and that they would add it to the list
on page VI -20.
Mr. Meryhew said that two widows are doing the maintenance for the trail and they are
having a hard time keeping up with the blackberries.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1993
Mr. Williams said that it's the Parks Department's responsibility to maintain it.
Page 2
Mr. Knudson asked if the City could get their names and recognize them with a "thank you"
or something in the Plan itself. He added that this type of community spirit may be
contagious.
Mrs. Craft asked if some of the unpaved trails would be paved.
Mr. Williams said that had not been planned.
With regard to page VII -1, item #5, Mr. Knudson asked if the City had any plans to
implement impact fees.
Mr. Williams said that currently, the City does not have a position on impact fees. Under
growth management the City can charge an impact fee based on the a formula of acres
needed for community parks or types of development. The money has to be used within six
years. The Council and Mayor have not made a decision as to whether we will have a fee
like that.
Mr. Flesher asked if any of the neighboring communities have an impact fee in place.
Mr. Williams said that the City of Issaquah has a substantial fee.
Mr. Malina said that on page VII -5, the "action" portion of #6, Tukwila Pond Park &
Acquisition, says "development" while one of the funding sources is the Conservation Futures
Levee. The Conservation Futures Levee funds cannot be used for development or
maintenance.
Mr. Williams said the "action" portion of #6 should say, "Acquisition/Development ".
Mr. Malina asked if the same would be true for #19 on page VII -5.
Mr. Williams said that the funding source for #19 should not include the Conservation
Futures Levee funding ( #22).
Mr. Malina asked if the Conservation Futures Levee funding should be added to item 22,
Interurban Hillside.
Mr. Williams and the Commission agreed that Conservation Futures Levee funding should
be added to item 22, Interurban Hillside.
With regard to the Beaver Bend Park, Mr. Williams said that it meets the definition of an
open space and lineal park. He added that he thought it flies in the face of one objective
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
July 22, 1993
and goal and that would be public access. There's a comment about equal distribution of
park lands and funding. That particular community, would probably have, per population,
a greater number of acres of land than some other areas in town. It meets some objectives
and goals and does not meet some others. Mr. Williams said that there are a couple of
things that need to occur before Administration would have a position. The Mayor defers
these kinds of proposals to the Parks Commission. By TMC, they are to advise and
recommend on acquisition. In addition, the Mayor is out of town at this time, therefore, he
said that he could not give a recommendation as to whether it should be included in the
Plan or not.
Mr. Knudson said that it should at least be considered.
Mr. Malina asked how much of the gas tax money the City gets.
Mr. Williams said 1 /10th of 1% of all of the gasoline tax monies collected by D.O.T. is
supposed to go for public trails, bridges related to trails and the State decides where they
are going to spend that money.
Mr. Malina said that it sounds like there are two definitions for the State Bicycle Funds.
Mr. Williams clarified that the funds are available on a competitive basis and within D.O.T.
right -of -way.
Bob Merkle, Parks Commission Chairman:
Mr. Merkle said that they had a short time frame to put the Plan together. He said that the
Beaver Bend Park issue is something that should be investigated further, but not put into
this Plan at this time.
Mr. Malina asked if the Parks Commission has been briefed on this project.
Mr. Merkle said they have not been approached yet. He added that there is just so much
money available to develop parks and he asked if this park is the best place to direct those
funds.
Mr. Malina added that the Commission feels strongly that citizen input is very important.
Mr. Merkle said that the Parks Commission agrees with that. He continued by saying that
he doesn't want to jump in without the proper research having been completed.
Mr. Williams said that the Parks Commission meets the first Tuesday of every month and
holds special meetings as needed. The proposal came in after the June meeting and they
won't review it until the second week in August.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1993
Mr. Meryhew asked Mr. Merkle if his recommendation would be to not include this proposal
in the Parks and Open Space Plan at this time.
Page 4
Mr. Merkle said, yes, that would be his recommendation and he would be speaking for
himself, not the Commission.
Mr. Knudson said that he did not have any objection to including it in the Plan, however,
he didn't feel it would be a top priority given the other projects.
Mrs. Craft said that if this Plan is a planning tool for the future, then they are not excluding
the parcel, just not including it at this time.
The Commission agreed by consensus to leave the Beaver Bend Park out of the Plan and
forward it on to the Parks Commission.
Mr. Williams reviewed the proposed bicycle trail.
The Commission agreed by consensus to leave the bicycle trail out of the Plan.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN AS
AMENDED AND FORWARDED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION.
MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Williams reviewed the plan for trails.
Mr. Meryhew called for a ten minute break.
Mr. Meryhew called the Board of Architectural Review Public hearing to order.
Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Malina, Knudson, Flesher and Mrs. Craft.
Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter and Sylvia Schnug.
The Planning Commission agreed to review and re- submit the minutes of June 24, 1993.
L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081 - Croonquist:
Diana Painter presented the staff report. She handed out an additional letter that came in
after the packets were mailed out. She stated that this was a office /warehouse building that
is being proposed on one of the last vacant parcels in the Southcenter South Industrial Park.
It's located in the shoreline zone, therefore, a SEPA was required. The proposal is for an
80,000 sq. ft. warehouse building and of that, 5,500 sq. ft. will be office space in the
southwest corner of the site.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
July 22, 1993
The project is for a concrete tilt -up building. On the back side of the building are 16 truck
loading bays, and 8 doors. The applicant is proposing an additional two bays on the south
side. They have the required amount of landscaping on the rear yard. Some allowances
have been made on the front yard because of existing landscaping. The access to the project
is from South Glacier Place which now ends in a cul -de -sac. From this cul -de -sac, there will
be a t- intersection. As part of this project, staff has asked that poplars and landscaping be
added to the toe of the levee.
The project first appeared in the Planning Department about a year ago. Staff has
requested a setback of 25 feet from the toe of the levee and the applicant is proposing 28
feet. This is because the applicant is proposing to add two additional bays and parking has
to be replaced. The two bays are mitigated by the addition of a strip of planted area to
screen it. The applicant has also indicated that they would be willing to extend a short wall
that is proposed to screen the additional bays. Staff feels that the impacts of those
additional bays would be fairly minimal.
Mr. Meryhew asked if the additional dock would be covered or open.
Staff said that is proposed to be open, but it could be covered.
Ms. Painter said that there are conditions that will be addressed at the time of permitting,
and the applicant has already agreed to them. The applicant is contributing $29,000 towards
traffic mitigation. The applicant is aware that the . easement on east boundary of the site
needs to be re- written to allow for truck traffic. There are no tenants secured at this point
for this building. The existing landscaping will be preserved and maintained as part of the
project. A trash collection area will include a recycling facility.
With regard to the last sentence in recommendation #1, on page 8 of the staff report; Mr.
Knudson asked if the City has asked this of anyone in the past.
Jack Pace clarified that this is what has been required of all applicants in the City for the
maintenance of landscaping.
Mr. Malina asked if an irrigation plan goes along with that.
Mr. Pace said that was correct. He continued that this was nothing new, they are trying to
make the conditions more precise.
Mr. Knudson asked if this was on the property they have given up.
Mr. Pace said no, it's on their property.
Mr. Meryhew asked if the top of the levee bank, on the river side is the property line.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
July 22, 1993
Staff indicated that it was.
Mr. Knudson asked what the applicant was giving to the City.
Ms. Painter said that the easement was existing and came in as part of the original
subdivision.
Mr. Croonquist said that the owner did not want to be responsible for putting in an
irrigation system on the tow of the dike.
Ms. Painter then reviewed the recommendations on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report. She
stated that she would have to do some research on clarification for the wording of
recommendation #6.
Mr. Pace said that if no action occurs within two years, the shoreline permit becomes null
and void. The intent is to have the shoreline permit and the design review follow together
so they expire together. The applicant is aware that they can apply for an extension within
those two years.
Mr. Malina asked if staff was requesting that the applicant put down a rubber mat or
concrete slab across the railroad tracks.
Ms. Painter said that she had not discussed the particulars of that.
Mr. Malina said that the City has done extensive work in replacing old crossings with the
rubber mat. He said that he would like to add that the applicant continue the rubber
matting.
Ms. Painter said that. the warehouse is proposed to be painted a light gray. The office part
of the building features horizontal strip windows in aluminum framing. The doors on the
backside have 3' reveals to be painted a darker green, while the doors are proposed to be
painted a softer green.
Mr. Flesher asked if the coping along the top would be green as well.
Ms. Painter said that she suggested that they use the accent color.
Mr. Flesher asked if that would be one of the two greens.
Ms. Painter said yes, and left the decision up to the applicant as to which one.
Mr. Meryhew clarified that condition #2 should be changed to 28' instead of 25' if the
commission decides to make that a condition.
Planning Commission Minutes Pag ° 7
July 22, 1993
Mr. Malina asked if the change in setback, change the mitigation costs.
Ms. Painter said no because they are tied to traffic generation.
Mr. Malina said since there is the addition of two loading docks, then there is more tra • c.
Ms. Painter said that the fee is based on the square footage of the building and the us of
the building. The number of bays does not effect the mitigation.
Mr. Meryhew asked if the Commission requested that the new loading dock be covered
a wall screen be put on, would that change the square footage of the building.
n
Mr. Pace said that the increase would be off -set by reducing the square footage on anot er
end of the building.
Al Croonquist; Alfred Croonquist Architects:
Mr. Croonquist said that the owner felt it would be a big help if there could be truck load g
capability on the north side of the building. Therefore, by moving the building back 8 f et,
that would further move the building from the dike, and trading the parking spaces in fr • nt
of the blank wall for parking along the angle, would satisfy staff's recommendation. e
stated that the dock can be enclosed. Aesthetically, it would be just as nice looking if he
dock were kept out in the open with landscaping screening it. He stated that they would 1 e
to have the option to do it either way.
Mr. Meryhew asked if they would be leaving items out on the dock over night or for peri
of time.
ds
Mr. Croonquist said that these are spec. buildings which are built without a tenant in mi d.
He said that the screening would hide the dock so items wouldn't be seen if they were eft
out.
Mr. Meryhew asked what the landscaping is that has been proposed to be added.
Mr. Croonquist said that they haven't had the landscape architect address that yet, b t it
would be done in a way that would be acceptable to staff. He added that the owner wo Id
be willing to do the irrigation at the bottom of the dike but he doesn't want the irriga on
system there and he would prefer not to irrigate at all. He would prefer to place nat ral
vegetation in that area that would require little irrigation.
Mr. Pace clarified that in the past staff has not specified that the irrigation be in the d ke.
Mr. Meryhew asked if they planned on putting an irrigation system at the base of the • ike
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
July 22, 1993
which would spray upward.
Mr. Croonquist said they would prefer to irrigate all the plantings, with the exception of the
dike, where they would prefer to have natural vegetation.
Mr. Meryhew asked if they planned on taking out the blackberry bushes.
Mr. Croonquist said that the owner would probably want to take the blackberry bushes out.
He added that he wasn't sure what the landscape architect had planned to put in for natural
vegetation.
Mr. Malina asked how they felt about putting in a rubber mat at the railroad crossing.
Mr. Croonquist said that personally, he has a problem having a rubber mat required. If it
is required, then they would be willing to do that.
Mr. Malina asked what they were proposing.
Mr. Croonquist said paving between the tracks which would be asphalt.
Mr. Pace clarified that the other projects in the City with rubber matting are in the public
right -of -way, and this project is at the end of a public right -of -way.
Mr. Croonquist said that they would like to extend the wall to the edge of the dock.
Jack Bennett, Representative for Property Owner:
Mr. Bennett stated that the park has CCR's in place which give them absolute control over
how tenants store and use the premises, both the parking lots and the docks. They do not
allow storing items outside of the building and they use CCR's to enforce that.
Mr. Meryhew asked if that was a lifetime agreement.
Mr. Bennett said that it runs with the land. All the property owners in Southcenter South
are bound by .the CCR's.
Ms. Painter stated that staff would ask for an all- weather surface across the railroad tracks
because it's private property and not a right -of -way. The intent of requesting native
vegetation is for the ease of maintenance and minimal water use. She added that they
would like the blackberry bushes removed. Mr. Croonquist's proposal for landscaping is
fine. Staff would also like to see a wall which is an extension of the building face, and a wall
of landscaping on that side.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1993
Mr. Croonquist said that he would prefer to extend the wall, enclose the building and add
landscaping. The owner has the final say on what they do.
Page 9
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Flesher said that with regard to the recommendations, they need to make sure they
change item 2 to 28' instead of 25'. On item 3, delete the last three words, "from the trail."
He added that he would like to see a specific commitment in time and manner of the
landscaping and the irrigation plan. There are blueprints that say there will be a sprinkler
plan and there really isn't one. And there are blueprints that say that the vegetation is going
to stay, when in fact the blackberry bushes are going to be taken out. They need to firm up
what the landscaping and irrigation plans are. If the poplars are going to be there, they
need to specified as poplars. It can be handled administratively, just as long as it's firmed
up.
Mr. Meryhew said that item 1 should be changed to read, "...(existing blackberry brambles
are to be removed and replaced with native vegetation)." He added that also on item 1, a
sentence should be included which says, "An irrigation system shall be submitted to staff for
administrative approval."
The Commissioners agreed to add an item 7, which refers to the sketch on the exhibit with
full enclosure of the new truck dock and no landscaping is required adjacent to that.
Mr. Malina said that there should be a note indicating that the wall will go all the way up
to the height of the building. He asked if there has been any indication as to where they
are going to put the dumpsters.
Mr. Pace said it was not indicated on these plans.
Ms. Painter said that the dumpster is shown on the first site plan, next to the stairwell on
the west side of the building.
MR. MERYHEW MOVED TO APPROVE L92 -0080 BASED ON STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
CONDITION #1 - REVISED TO READ, "EXISTING BLACKBERRY BRAMBLES ARE
TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACES WITH NATIVE VEGETATION." ANOTHER
SENTENCE WILL BE ADDED AT THE END THAT READS, "A LANDSCAPE PLAN
INCLUDING AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM, MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE STAFF FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. THE SYSTEM DOES NOT NEED TO BE PLACED IN
THE DIKE, BUT MUST ADEQUATELY SUPPLY WATER TO VEGETATION ON TIIE
DIKE TO ENSURE THEIR SURVIVAL."
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1993
CONDITION #2 - CHANGE' THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM 25' TO 28' PER
'1'H.E APPLICANT'S REVISED DRAWINGS.
CONDITION #3 - DELETE THE LAST THREE WORDS, "FROM THE TRAIL."
CONDITION #4 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED.
CONDITION #5 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED.
CONDITION #6 - ACCEPT AS PROPOSED.
Page 10
ADDITION OF CONDITION #7 - "THE NEW TRUCK DOCK SHOWN ON SKETCH,
ATTACHED TO THE APPLICANT'S LETTER DATED JULY 20, 1993, WILL BE FULLY
ENCLOSED. LANDSCAPING SHOWN ON THIS SKETCH NEXT TO THE DOCK IS
NOT REQUIRED."
MR. MALINA SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
L93 -0051: Home Depot
Diana Painter presented the staff report. She stated that this is an application for a special
permission sign for the Home Depot project. This proposal is for two wall signs. One at
the main entrance and one on the east facade of the building, facing the river. Special
permission is required because they are requesting larger signs than is allowed in the Code.
Although the sign at the main facade of the building is over the permitted size, staff felt it
was a well integrated architecturally with the facade of the building and is appropriate to the
building type and setback.
On the east side of the building, the proposal is also larger than what would be permitted
outright in the Sign Code. Staff felt this was a sensitive area because of its location along
the river. The sign was scaled such that it could be seen from the West Valley Highway.
It does not fall within the shoreline environment. Technically it's 30' outside the shoreline
zone, but staff felt that it would be highly visible from the trail and from the shoreline,
therefore, used another provision under the Code to require a 90 %. reduction in size because
of the high visibility of the sign. The applicant has agreed with the conditions of the . permit
as recommended by staff.
Mr. Meryhew asked if they've agreed with the 90% reduction to 135 sq. ft.
Ms. Painter indicated they had agreed.
Mr. Knudson said that before there was a trail the sign size was based on the setback from
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1993
the road, therefore they were allowed a larger sign. Now, due to the trail, businesses are
being required to have a smaller sign.
Page 11
Mr. Pace said that the section on signage is a discretionary one. They are allowed a certain
height and size. Anything larger than that is purely discretionary by the Planning
Commission. The question in this case is given the river, does the Planning Commission
want to allow a larger sign. Also, given the large facade of the building, the larger sign looks
more in proportion to the building.
• Ms. Painter said the setback that staff is talking about is from the property line.
Mr. Knudson said that was his mistake, he was looking at the sign from the road, not from
the property line.
Ms. Painter said that the letter height with the modifications would be 3'6 ".
Mrs. Craft what the sign was made of.
Ms. Painter said neon tubing.
• Michael Harvey, Tube Art Displays, 2300 Occidental Ave S, Seattle:
The letters are closed neon and the faces will be plexi- glass. They are 5" in depth. There
is a 6" reduction in the letter height. The length of the letter were reduced by 6' total. They
had proposed 168 sq. ft. and was reduced to 135 sq. ft.
Mrs. Craft what the difference in visibility is between a neon sign and a painted sign.
Mr. Harvey said that the difference is great. He added that they tried to get as far away
from the trail as possible.
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
MRS. CRAFT MOVED TO APPROVE L93 -0051: HOME DEPOT BASED UPON STAFF'S
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND THE STAFF REPORT. MR. FLESHER SECONDED
'1'IiE MOTION AND '1't1E MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jack Pace reviewed briefly the Fosterview Estates project and indicated that there will be
informational meetings prior to the hearing to answer citizen's questions.
Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting.
: �`.
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
HEARING DATE:
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL PERMISSION SIGN
Prepared July 14, 1993
July 22, 1993
L93 -0051
Tube Art/Pam Combs
Rick Beeler, Director
Special Permission is required to construct two signs in excess
of the square footage allowed in the Sign Code
6810 South 180th Street
C -M Industrial Park
Light Industrial
Approval for Sign A
Approval with conditions for Sign B
Diana Painter, 431 -3661
A. Building elevations, site plans, sign section and color
schedule
B. Letter from Tube Art
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
FINDINGS OF FACT
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
The building site is located north of South 180th Street, next to the Green River and
the Christianson Trail. Signs are proposed on the south facade of the. building, facing
180th, and on the east facade, facing the Green River Trail.
BACKGROUND
The Home Depot project was reviewed by the BAR in January of 1993 as a remodel
to the existing Frederick & Nelson warehouse building. A sign proposal was
submitted as a part of this proposal for information only. It included a pylon sign,
an entry sign, and a sign oriented toward the West Valley Highway.
DECISION CRITERIA - SIGN A:
Section 19.32.140 of the Sign Code, "Commercial Zones Where Signs Will Face or
Abut other Commercial Zones," stipulates that the maximum square footage allowed
for a sign on an exposed building face over 5,000 square feet is 150 square feet,
except under the following circumstances:
"Upon application to and approval by the Planning Commission, the permitted
sign areas provided in Table 1 may be increased no more than fifty percent
for each doubling of the required minimum setback distance for the wall upon
which a particular sign is to be placed, but in no case shall sign areas exceed
that permitted in Section 19.32.150."
Maximum square footage according to Section 19.32.150 is 500 square feet.
DECISION CRITERIA - SIGN B:
Section 19.32.130 of the Sign Code, "[Commercial Zones] Where Signs Will Face or
Abut Multiple Family Zones or Public Facilities," stipulates that for commercial uses,
the maximum square footage allowed for signs facing a public facility is 90% of the
square footage allowed in Table 1 (Section 19.32.140), or 135 square feet in this
instance.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
L93 -0051: Home Depot
Page 3
Further, the intent of the Zoning Code with respect to shorelines is as follows:
Section 19.28.010 The following signs or devices are specifically prohibited:
(K) ... on- premise, permanent signs located within the shoreline zone and
specifically oriented to be visible from the 'river environment'.
Applicant's Response:
The applicant's reason for the requested area increase is based on the fact that the
setbacks for both signs from the respective property lines are greater than the
minimum required. They are therefore allowed to increase their sign areas by up to
50% for each doubling of the required minimum setback, to a maximum of 500'.
Further, the applicant reasons that the proposed square footage is less than 6% of
the exposed building face, as discussed in Section 19.32.150 (.'Shopping Malls') of the
code, and therefore in keeping with the intent of the code, even though the square
footage of the signs is greater than the maximum allowed, and even though this
project is not a Shopping Mall as defined in the Tukwila Municipal Code.
The applicant's statement is as follows: "The proposal meets the requirements for
this approval and the design of sign 'A' with a 67% increase and sign 'B' with an 11%
increase remains in keeping with the intent of the code" (see Attachment B).
Staff's Response:
The proposed project is not a Shopping Mall as defined by the Tukwila Zoning Code.
Therefore, the proposed signs cannot be reviewed under this section of the Code.
The proposed project does "face or abut" both another commercial zone and a public
facility, and this is the basis for reviewing the signage proposal.
The maximum allowable square footage for Sign A, under the Sign Code, is 500
square feet.
The maximum allowable square footage for Sign B, under the Sign Code, is 135
square feet.
CONCLUSIONS
SIGN A:
The intent of the Sign Code with respect to signs in commercial districts is to allow
additional square footage if the sign is located further from the street serving the
development than the minimum required setback.
L93 -0051: Home Depot
SIGN B:
The intent of the Sign Code with respect to signs abutting a public facility is to limit the size
and visual impact of the signs. It is also the intent of the code to limit the size and visual
impact of signs within the shoreline area.
Sign B as proposed is next to a public facility, Christianson Trail; is 30' from the shoreline
zone; and would be highly visible from the Trail.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Sign A as proposed and a reduction in the size of Sign B in
accordance with Section 19.32.130 of the Sign Code (135 sq. ft.).
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board of
Architectural Review will be holding a pubic hearing on July 22, 1993 at 8:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following:
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L92 -0079, L92 -0080, L92 -0081
Alfred Croonquist
Design review to construct a 80,000 sq. ft. warehouse with ancillary
office space.
S. Glacier Place and Olympic Ave S., in Southcenter South Industrial
Park.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L92 -0064, L92 -006, L92 -0014: Fosterview Estates
Dujardin Development Company
Boundary Line Adjustment; Planned Residential Development and
Subdivision approval.
South of Southgate Park between 43/44 Avenues S. and 42 Av. S.
L93 -0051: Home Depot
Pam Combs, Tube Art
Approval for two wall signs which exceed the square footage allowed
in the Sign Code.
6810 S. 180th Street, Tukwila, Wa.
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 Department. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other
persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published:
Distribution:
Seattle Times
July 11 & 18, 1993
Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property
Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
:.Y.
TtV
•-••;:- 7,4,""*,"`."' " • -7., +::7:1
SOUTH ELEVATION
A3
I/16' -• I_0'
"
Dili/Il
11111111111111111111111111111 11
A3
,,ce(
EAST ELEVATION.
• - No.
METAL GRILL W/EXPANDED WRE
MESH BACKING -TYP.
CMU BULKHEAD
EE
TI-AtJ BOLT 3/0 DIA.
(NLC.1
2 X 6 W000 BLOCKNG
PROVOEIDESY CONTRACTOR
f-THRU 50.T 3/8° DA.
INJ C.I
2 X 6 WOOD 5.00KH.G CONT
.ROVOED 0Y CONTRACTOR
0
a
(z/2.5-41.-/-
r
a
1
METAL GRILL W /EXPANDED WIRE
MESH BACKING -TYP.
CMU BULKHEAD
TNRU 8O'.T 3/8' OIA.
IN I.C.I
2 X 6 PROVIDED WOOD BLOCKING CONTRACTOR
/—T WTU 8O•.T 3/8' DA.
L)."'"---__? X 6 WC 0D B.00K,+K; CONT.
PROVIDED 8Y CONTRACTOR
2 X 6 WO ^7 B.00KNG
BETWEEN. STUDS
0 10`
0
.90 ALUMNIIM SO'6WALLS
DARK BRONZE IN1C.1
CONTN10uS
PROVOEO 8B BLOOCNG
CONTRACTOR, TYP
3/8• DAM. TI:tU
BOLT (N1.C.)
SEE CANOPY
SECTIONS
NEON TUBNC W/ LETTER
TRANSFORMERS IN' CI
0
TRANSFORMER INIC:
.43 DARK BRONZE
A; uMn.:M BACK ;NQ
3/8' :AM T--R„
8O.':nIC)
S4xcaN p a.► VE
111
.u_ lu_Ll.' iiJIii!IILIILr
0
r
t'1
90 ALIJMMJM SOEWALLS
DARK BRONZE INJ.C.I
CONTMJOUS
7x6 WOOD BLOCKNG
PROVOED BY
CONTRACTOR, TYP
• 3/B' DIAM, THRU
BOLT (NJ.C.)
- SEr CANOw
SEC flON5
- AEON rl.6NC W/ LETTER
TRANSFO MERSINIC
TRANS%ORMER
— .A0 DARK BRONZE
BACK INc)
—3 /E' :AN
BO.r:J.IC)
— T:c\ wAw T03ND
,C:
44.x. r.1 t .) va
L,
1 1.11iii1 1] 1(11(11 1111.r
(� $OL TH IBDth STREET
`p1s� -T P L_Arr..1
•
TH! HOE
GZ" /ZrZ1-07
,...10„..6 ton
) •
SOUTH ELEVATION (6250f-1-)
1/16' -1' -0'
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EAST ELEVATION
1/1,. - P-O' •
\ —METAL GRILL W /EXPANDED WIRE
MESH SACKING -TYP.
CMU BULKHEAD
*'12:'q —_
°ROVOE-J WOOD CONTRRAGCTOORR ?'
THRU BOLT 3 /B' 0A.
(NLC.1
] X b WORD BLOCKING
PROVDED BY CONTRACTOR
;n
�THRU BO.7 3/B' Ov+.
(NiC.I
0101
0
? X 6 WO 5 OCKNG
BE1 V Ets STUDS 1 (
Tal
b1
SECTION @ 2'- 6' SIGN
It
!/4 l o
SECTIONS @ LETTEF
Tut , °cam �" T Tv�
S IQ. T tn.� LA 0„,.14
Design No:
Sheet ( of
0
t N
4 -o
-r
0
LIM
0 0
11141P
11111111111 11111111111111111
0
t'1
�-- METAL GRILL W /EXPANDED WIRE
MESH BACKING -TYP.
CMU BULKHEAD
ri
Ti RU BOLT 3/B• DIA.
INLC.I
2 X 6 W000 BLOCKING
PROv050 BY CONTRACTOR
THRU BO :T 3/W Du.
IMO.)
2 X 6 %COD B.CCoNO CCNT.
RROVOE08Y CONTRACTOR
7 X 6 WOC' 5.00KM0
BETWEEN 5T OS
SECTION @ 2'- 6' SIGN / �� SECTIONS @ LETTERS
90 ALUMAJJM SOEWALLS
DARK BRONZE INAC.)
CONTP JdA
7PROVOxD B�OCKnIG
CONTRACTOR. TYP
3/8' DAM TtiiU
BOLT
SEE CAVO.•
BECTON!.
NEON TUBING W/ LETTER
TRANSFORMERS (MC.:
C.:
T AISORMER IN
.c0 DARK BRONZE
:;:: BACK ;NC:
3O.T:MC;
\--4• XL. METAL BOx
AT EACH .ETTER
;NIC:
1I 1 it
Y-A,t -E V4 = t 0
rTU WALL TL8NG INI.0
7 . 6 W7 6LOCK.JG
8E TLtiEat STUDS
46.xcar! ¶ Iz. v
:1 111 1 1llliJillllllllllll.r
1 SOL TH 180th STREET
11 =I60
#-4A.) % LA 1,3A
Design No: `-
Sheet ( of
Date:
Revision:
Designer: ='° t
Salesperson:.,,-
&)(O % i RIVE
Pi T 1
.�..,�. t " =I6'
Revision;
This original artwork is protected under
Designer; 4 Federal Copyright Laws. Make No
reproductions of this design concept.
Salesperson: .y?- lbbeArt