Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L93-0083 - TURNER & ASSOCIATES - SEARS HOMELIFE DESIGN REVIEWl93-0083 402 strander boulevard l93-0084 turner & associates "'' : :.... City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF: ATTACHMENTS: Prepared November 9, 1994 Rick Beeler, Director November 17, 1994 L93 -0083 Howard Turner Board of Architectural Review approval of the Sears Homelife freestanding sign. 402 Strander Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. Light Industrial C -M Industrial Park Approval of sign design A. Nora Gierloff, Planning Intern A. Colored Drawing of sign design A B. Letter from. Mr. Turner with drawing of sign design B 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review FINDINGS BACKGROUND L93 -0083 Page 2 The applicant is seeking approval for a freestanding sign for the Sears Homelife store. The building design was approved by the Board in November of 1993 with the provision that the freestanding sign should be "designed to be architecturally integrated with the building and subject to approval by the Board of Architectural Review." DECISION CRITERIA Section 19.32.140 (C) of the Sign Code, "Commercial Zones Where Signs Will Face or Abut Other Commercial Zones," states that for sites with over 400 feet of street frontage the maximum square footage allowed for a freestanding sign is 100 square feet per side with a maximum of 200 square feet for all sides. Both proposed sign designs use colors similar to those on the building and the same typeface as the wall sign. Sign Design A is the standard Sears Homelife sign used at stores across the country. Sign Design B is a modification of that design with a peak added to the top to more closely reflect the building facade. Both designs A and B would be approximately 50 square feet per side for a total of 100 square feet. The remaining 100 square feet of allowed sign area would be reserved for the second tenant whose sign would appear below Sears on the same poles. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of sign design A as it is integrated with the building design through color, typeface and the step motif. Sign B takes this one step further with a peak that echoes the building facade, however the relationship of the sign to the building is clear without this modification. Both sign designs meet Sign Code requirements for allowable area, height and content. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT Rick Beeler, Director TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared January 21, 1994 HEARING DATE: January 27, 1994 FILE NUMBER: L93 -0083 APPLICANT: Howard Turner REQUEST: Planning Commission approval to reduce the number of truck parking spaces from three to two and Board of Architectural Review approval to extensively modify an existing 30,816 s.f. industrial /office building into a 44,000 s.f. retail building with 101 parking stalls. LOCATION: 402 Strander Boulevard; Tukwila, WA. ACREAGE: 1.6 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: C -M (Industrial Park) SEPA DETERMINATION: An environmental determination will be made prior to the hearing. ATTACHMENTS: A. Summary Sheet and Vicinity Map B. Site Plan C. Building Elevations and Details D. Landscape Plan E. Applicant Responses to B.A.R. Criteria F. Illustrated Planning Division Recommendations 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review FINDINGS VICINITY /SHE INFORMATION L93 -0083: Home Life Page 2 1. Project Description: The proposed project is shown in ' t th iits A through 3. The applicant proposes to convert an existing industrial/office building of 30,816 s.f., into a retail commercial and a furniture store of 44,596 s.f. (including mezzanine). The front 90 feet of the existing building would be demolished and the building extended eastward to join the Computer City building, as shown in Atta>rit3. 2. Surrounding Land Use: The project is in the middle of a commercial/office area with a retail store to he immediate east, a retail commercial structure to the north, and commercial /office building to the west. These structures are shown in Att :. ent' A. A warehouse /commercial building and a new retail structure (Segale Retail Center) lie to the south, across Strander Boulevard. 3. Terrain: The site and surrounding areas are generally flat. 4. Access: Access to the site is via Strander Boulevard. The site shares an eastern access with Computer City and has its own access to the east (tt4.0 4e ) BACKGROUND This project is being presented at the same meeting as a Zoning Code amendment. This has been done at the applicant's request and with his acknowledgement of the significant risks. Staff agreed to proceed with this review in order to accommodate applicant needs as best as possible. At the time of this writing, the applicant is proposing a western perimeter sidewalk based on either achieving a Zoning Code amendment which would waive the five foot building setback and landscaping requirement on the east, or eliminating the existing eastern side yard property line by consolidating this parcel with the adjacent easterly (Computer City) parcel. Either action would only affect the western five foot landscape strip. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review DECISION CRITERIA L93 -0083: Home Life Page 3 This project is subject to Board review due to its location in the GM zone, pursuant to TMC 18.60.030(2)(B). Board review criteria are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. The applicant's responses are presented in lttach e t E 18.60.050: General Review Criteria. (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 movements 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. The project property line lies at the curb of Strander Boulevard Immediately behind the curb is a 8 ft., treed landscape area and a proposed 6 ft. sidewalk. The proposed action also incorporates a five foot sidewalk along the western property line, but no landscape area. The applicant has indicated that this would be landscaped. This is much less than what new construction with similar development patterns have provided contributed to area pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities provided in conjunction with similar developments on their property include a pedestrian plaza and six foot wide sidewalk at the Strander Retail Center, a six foot sidewalk and plaza within the Tukwila Pond/Target development, 20 foot wide river trail donations as properties are developed, and various six foot wide sidewalks at the Southcenter Mall property. These sidewalk areas also enhanced on -site circulation. Staff finds that a 2.5 ft. wide sidewalk at the property line and the normally required five foot wide landscape strip would provide adequate pedestrian circulation within the site and contribute to area -wide circulation. The "half sidewalk" would be coupled with a second "half sidewalk" on the property to the immediate west, to begin developing a mid -block pedestrian path. The western (Seattle Fur) building is scheduled for design review in April. Staff Report to the L 3 -0083: Home Life Page 4 Board of Architectural Review The visual affect of the front (Strander) parking area is moder treed, landscape islands. The smaller (15 ft.) street trees and interior parking area trees, help to provide a visual transition t building. The building is similar in height to surrounding 25 to 36 ft. hig a site coverage ratio which is similar to, or less than, surround' structures Actnt`:A (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining propertie provided. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent neighborhood character. d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patte loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and cony encouraged. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with str be encouraged. Vehicular access to the site is provided by a shared driveway coordinated with the adjacent easterly parcel and a westerly d accommodate truck traffic. Pedestrian access from the street by a 4 ft. wide sidewalk through the middle of the parking are There is a second, 5 ft. wide pedestrian walk along the weste However, this sidewalk conflicts with the 5 ft. side yard landsc (see Background) and will have to be revised to show plantin Transition from adjacent properties is primarily provided by 1 be discussed in Criteria No. 3. The proposed building's simila been discussed in Criteria No. 1. Truck Parking 1. The proposed structure is a furniture and commercial 44,000 square feet of area. . ted by several edium (25 -30 ft.) the 32 ft. high buildings and has g commercial should be h the established s and nience should be t circulation should hich has been 'veway which would idewalk is provided property line. ping requirement s. ndscaping. This will mass and scale has ales building with Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L93 -0083: Home Life Page 5 2. An except from Table 5, TMC 18.56.060, which establishes the minimum number of required truck spaces for various building sizes, is shown below: Minimum No. of Truck Spaces 1 2 4 Building Size Under 10,000 s.f. 10,000 to 25,000 s.f. 85,000 to 155,000 s.f. 3. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that no more than 2 truck spaces are anticipated, based on the needs for a facility of this size and their ability to schedule deliveries (A€ nt ). (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, 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 combination. g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L93 -0083: Home Life Page 6 Landscaping in this project functions primarily to moderate the affects of the parking area, enhance adjacent pedestrian sidewalks along the street and through the parking area, and provide a transitional buffer to the western property. Site landscaping is shown in Att4O lime The areas along the northwestern portions of the site are bare of significant plantings which would moderate the affects of its asphalt surfaces and bare walls. Medium sized trees along the perimeter landscape buffer and substituting a few columnar evergreen trees (e.g. arborvitae) along the building planters would introduce significant transitional and moderating plantings in this otherwise bare area. These plantings could be provided without compromising its functions the area's. Illustrative plantings in this area are shown in Att66 e t ; Lighting along the building's primary public (south) face will be a combination of up -wash along the wall areas and down - lighting from under - canopy areas. Exterior lighting along the west and south areas will be wall mounted down lights. No luminaire plans have as yet been submitted so off -site glare impacts cannot be evaluated. No automatic irrigation plans have as yet been submitted. (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 to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. . 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. Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review L93 -0083: Home Life Page 7 Building architectural quality can be provided by a range of elements, many of which have been used here. The proposed building design uses a rhythm of vertical/horizontal building modulation and entry canopies to provide the basic shapes which allow quality architectural design. Overall design continuity is provided by the roof cornices and the rhythm of building modulation. A mixture of architectural styles was incorporated into the basic building shape to provide a fanciful face to a former industrial building. This fanciful design is especially evident in the entries where many details such as bas -relief accents and arches, columns, glass, transitional roof modulation and cornices provide architectural quality. Staff was disappointed to find that the fine design detail reflected in the vertical column lines is not actually present and that the columns will be plain. The fine design detail was perceived to provide a high quality, vertical "grounding" which complemented the level of horizontal element detailing. The proposed wall colors are white and taupe, with mauve and white used as accent colors.° A colors and materials board will be presented at the meeting. No data is provided on HVAC screening. (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture A free standing sign is indicated, but no data on its design has been provided. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed development provides adequate transition from streetscape to structure, pedestrian travel, and relationship between building mass. However, there is a need for a 2.5 ft. half sidewalk which could be joined with a similar half sidewalk on the adjacent property, to provide for adequate area -wide pedestrian movement. This is minimally equivalent to the greater pedestrian circulation facilities provided by new construction. The moderation of large paved areas is discussed in Conclusion No. 4. 2. The proposed development provides for good pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and harmonious development texture and mass with the area. Staff Report to the L93 -0083: Home Life Page 8 Board of Architectural Review 3. Adequate landscape transition from adjacent properties is provided except for the northwest corner as discussed in Conclusion No. 4. 4. Site landscaping and treatment provides an inviting and stable appearance with the following exceptions: a. The western perimeter where a sidewalk is proposed, must be landscaped in order to satisfy the side yard landscaping requirement of the Zoning Code. b. Additional landscape trees should be added to the northwest project area in order to moderate the affects of paved areas and blank building walls, as shown in Madliiiidiff. c. The landscape planter in the south parking area should be removed. It's low shrubs will not help to moderate the impacts of the parking area and pedestrian travel patterns make plant survival very questionable. d. All lights should be shielded to avoid direct off site glare and a luminaire plan submitted to demonstrate this. e. All landscaped areas should be automatically irrigated and moisture sensors used. This will help ensure plant survival and conserve water. 5. The proposed structure reflects quality building design; especially in the retrofit of an industrial building. However, staff feels strongly that the columns should receive a high level of fine detailing such as could be provided by fluting, a simple curved base, or other detailing. This would provide an appropriate complement to the horizontal canopy detailing that it vertically grounds, and recognize the fine detail needed to reflect a high quality presentation when customers come into close proximity to this prominent element. 6. All HVAC equipment should be screened by the parapet to the height of the unit. 7. Based on the proposed uses, the anticipated needs do not indicate that the reduction from three to two truck parking spaces would result in injury to neighboring property, obstruction of fire lanes or traffic, or conflict with the purposes and intent of this chapter. Staff Report to the L93 -0083: Home Life Page 9 Board of Architectural Review RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve reducing the number of truck parking spaces from three to two, and that the Board of Architectural Review approve the project design subject to the following conditions: 1. The western perimeter area be revised to provide .wide sid ...al? .loom— preperty kne -aid a five foot landscape 2. Additional landscape trees shall be added to the northwest project area as shown int7c1�G121#= 3. The landscape planter in the south parking area shall be removed (Mtab 4. All lights shall be shielded to avoid direct off site glare and a luminaire plan submitted to demonstrate this. 5. All landscaped areas shall be automatically irrigated and moisture sensors used. 6. The entry columns shall receive a high level of fine detailing such as could be provided by fluting, a simple curved base, or other detailing as discussed in Conclusion 5. The final design detail shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development, with appeal to the Board of Architectural Review. 7. All HVAC equipment shall be screened by the parapet to the height of the unit 8. The proposed free standing sign shall be designed to be architecturally integrated with the building and subject to approval by the /1 •D elopmei b oitiz ) op- A. 2c a r re-c r v 2 A C. I a cZV. A(0-7-6- llx4vZ LmTR. /Grp & E. A, i 2.c-te(S(oAcs. AT41014 City of Tukwila • Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Fidelity Associates. Homelife Remodel 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE RECEIVED NOV 161993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. This site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: This site has a wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree planter strip along Strander Boulevard which, along with new landscaping, provides an excellent buffer between the busy arterial and the interior of the site. The proposed side walk is located inside of this buffer, bringing pedestrians away from vehicular traffic. The sidewalk is buffered from the parking lot by new landscaped planters which are designed to enhance and go with the existing landscaping and to screen the cars from the sidewalk. Additional plantings adjacent to the buildings and at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping, providing the desired transition. B. Parking and service area should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: The Parking areas are well designed, . moderating their visual impact. The most visible half of the parking is adjacent to the substantial, 20 -year -old. established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 75 feet from an existing or new landscaping planter. Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas are enclosed in the .building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All three of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the building from the street. One of the loading docks is semi- recessed into the building . City of Tukwila Design Review Applig.._..on C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This area of Tukwila is very homogenous in height and scale. The existing building, which is being remodeled from an industrial warehouse to a retail store, is 20 feet tall, similar to its neighbors to the west, north and south. The addition of the retail entry, windows, and canopy elements on the south and west walls of the proposed, add modulation to the building. Windows, doors, and truck service elements are being added to the relocated concrete panels along the northwest side of the building . 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The reuse of existing concrete,tilt -up panels with their painted finish assures that the proposed remodeled retail building is in harmony with its neighbors, especially the recently remodeled Computer City Supercenter to the south, which was designed similarly by the same architect. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the west and east along. Strander Boulevard. B. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided Response: Existing landscaped buffers to the north and south are to be preserved. New landscaping is being added at the west property line where none now exists. Concurrent with this application, we are requesting a zoning code change to remove the requirement for the 5' sideyard building setback and landscape buffer to the east, principally because if installed it would result in an unsatisfactory landscape transition, in addition to providing a place fo fire and thieves to hide. City of Tukwila - Design Review Application L C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Truck entry to the site is restricted to the west driveway. Trucks will travel directly to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the rear of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front end. Retail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around the retail entry at the south end of the building, and will use the driveways and sidewalks closest to the building entries . E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Response: One existing driveway onto Strander Boulevard is shared with Computer City, promoting safer access to the site, one lane in, and two lanes out. The new driveway at the southwest corner of the site is being located so as to promote coordinated use with the Segale Retail Center driveway across the street. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. Response: A landscaped planter and sidewalk enhances the 3' difference in floor height between Computer City and this project. • City of Tukwila • Design Review Applik. on B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: We are voluntarily proposing a sidewalk along Strander Boulevard, to run primarily inside of the existing mature, 20 -year -old landscaping, similar to the recently redeveloped site to the east. Pedestrian traffic from adjacent properties to the east and west are accommodated with handicapped- accessible ramps leading to the well - buffered, inviting, and stable pedestrian circulation sidewalk. From there, sidewalk and striped access through the parking areas to the building entrance is convenient and clearly recognizable. Pedestrians coming from parking in the rear and west lots are provided with sidewalks along the south side of the building. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide'shade. Response: The existing mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees along with new street trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These trees provide shade as well for the proposed sidewalks and parking areas. New landscaping along the building's west, south and north sides reinforce these attributes while moderating the scale of and casting contrasting shade patterns on the 23 to 32 -foot building walls. A view corridor east to west through the site is created by the partial demolition of the south portion of the building, continuing what was started with the Computer City Remodel. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Cast -in -place concrete curbs and sidewalks protect all new and existing . landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the south parldng lot area to the building, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. City of Tukwila • ^i,,,, Design Review Application E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: Approximately 9% of the site is planted. Planters are located at the ends of all parking rows and at corners of the building. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: The three full -sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year- around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are recessed into the building. 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. Response: Planters are provided along all required buffers, except where fire truck access requires a 20' wide fire lane along the northwest side of the building. City of Tukwila Design Review Applici___ �n A. i....l.t .....t�t.:L ^':t. �r.'nf��4..:. pia ..s., nM'wtt'Y:�M:4 r�.�- .::�'.'r >;•�. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and retrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entry. The north and west sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. The proposed parking lot light standards will be less than 15 feet high. 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. Response: The existing building is the best looking, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its painted finish is of very fine quality and has been well maintained over the years. These panels are being relocated on site and integrated into the proposed structure in an attractive fashion, and many interesting addition materials are being added. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types, though not as nice as this one. The building immediately to the east, Computer City, has been recently redeveloped in a similar fashion. City of Tukwila Design Review Application 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. Response: The main retail areas will have well - proportioned portal components. Windows are being added to provide a more inviting appearance. Landscaping adjacent to the building will add human scale to those walls which are not being enhanced by the entry areas. D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: The building will remain primarily of painted finish. However, bright color accents will be introduced at the south and west elevations. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. Response: Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened from view and held back away from the edge of the building. F. Exterior Iighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Response: Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the exposed finish. . /:.. City of Tukwila Design Review Appla, _ion G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: Although similar, none of the adjacent buildings are of the same painted finish. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous 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. Response: Not applicable. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings. Response: Not Applicable: INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. Response: The largest natural amenity in the area is the existing, mature 20- year -old landscaping along Strander Boulevard. These are being preserved and made a key part of the proposed landscape design. City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. Response: Lunch and break areas for employees are being provided at the planter areas around the building. 3. The proposed development should provide for and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. Response: Sidewalks along the south property line, the south building side, and within the south parking area promote this. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Response: The site to the east along Strander Boulevard was recently remodeled for another retail user with similar bulk / retail use. Many of the other buildings on this block are being considered for similar redevelopment. The Segale Retail Center is approved and under construction. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environment impacts. Response: The proposed development pulls the building area further back on the site and increases the amount of landscaping. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features of the area. Response: Not applicable. Howard R. Turner, AIA November 15,1993 r rACHH Moir. ~ F PROVIDE 2 • 6• W000 FEADER 10 DEFNE BED AREA (Z6C T 72E-e-s 1� ,+• {• 6 + {,yEXISTNG COTTONWOOD TREES TO REMAIN f 1 _ '1• Roc 1- 2.S" S r De-WA C (c d-- 5' L ^ND ScAPC ST2iP — Zrrnlrurla.� Se c, ,4 -A . 0,c, 7 —AFL FLA G utP. s Az -EN et , • 0 0 O . , . . . 0 at T -1' ;-.V4 94 •71,4111111111111111110 11111111111111111111.11.1k-P _.*'•- '. I11∎ \h'\ \_ v \`CCU ,wsSam.- ∎wecmQ t eita\__ -.*I. J atiok ell] S.VP ZIC 1 C..3 - 1t C 1 -r C Pt.,A. Yc& Awl,., vi� Ca • PLANT SCHEDULE EXISTING O• TO BE TRAN EXISTING 6'• TO BE IRAN EXISTNG J• TO BE IRAN EXISTING Pr. EXISTING PIN EXISTING VI REPLACE AN EXISTING SV' TRANSPLANT REMOVE & REPLACE 2 EXISTING PURPLE•LEAF PLUM WITH NEW TREES AS DESIGNATED. RECEIVED NOV 6 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review Design Review Application Fidelity Associates Homelife Remodel 1. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE A. This site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Response: This site has a wonderful, 20 -year old, mature, groundcover and tree planter strip along Strander Boulevard which, along with new landscaping, provides an excellent buffer between the busy arterial and the interior of the site. The proposed side walk is located inside of this buffer, bringing pedestrians away from vehicular traffic. The sidewalk is buffered from the parking lot by new landscaped planters which are designed to enhance and go with the existing landscaping and to screen the cars from the sidewalk. Additional plantings adjacent to the buildings and at the end of each row of parking complement the other landscaping, providing the desired transition. B. Parking and service area should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Response: The Parking areas are well designed, moderating their visual impact. The most visible half of the parking is adjacent to the substantial, 20- year -old. established mature landscaping mentioned above. Note that no parking is more than 75 feet from an existing or new landscaping planter. Particular attention has been paid to the service area. The dumpster areas are enclosed in the building, and the enclosures are screened from view from adjacent properties, the street and the retail parking area. All three of the full -sized loading spaces are hidden behind the building from the street. One of the loading docks is semi- recessed into the building . City of Tukwila, Design Review Application C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Response: This area of Tukwila is very homogenous in height and scale. The existing building, which is being remodeled from an industrial warehouse to a retail store, is 20 feet tall, similar to its neighbors to the west, north and south. The addition of the retail entry, windows, and canopy elements on the south and west walls of the proposed, add modulation to the building. Windows, doors, and truck service elements are being added to the relocated concrete panels along the northwest side of the building . 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged Response: The reuse of existing concrete tilt -up panels with their painted finish assures that the proposed remodeled retail building is in harmony with its neighbors, especially the recently remodeled Computer City Supercenter to the south, which was designed similarly by the same architect. The preservation of the existing mature landscaping ties in with similar plantings on the sites to the west and east along Strander Boulevard. B. Appropriate landscaping transitions to adjoining properties should be provided Response: Existing landscaped buffers to the north and south are to be preserved. New landscaping is being added at the west property line where none now exists. Concurrent with this application, we are requesting a zoning code change to remove the requirement for the 5' sideyard building setback and landscape buffer to the east, principally because if installed it would result in an unsatisfactory landscape transition, in addition to providing a place fo fire and thieves to hide. ntruV.:n Uv<r:'.: v...,R..'.'.::µ ;tr,:wn: _.Ir:G.ly•:` }l:. ✓.: :1, :Sf r.; ', c."0 ,'A u.,w <... City of Tukwila Design Review Applic ton C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the establis ed neighborhood character. Response: Not applicable D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loadin facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be enco raged. Response: Truck entry to the site is restricted to the west driveway. Trucks will tray directly to the truck maneuvering area, which will be segregated in the re of the site away from customer parking and pedestrian activity at the front end. ' etail customer vehicles and pedestrian traffic will primarily congregate around t e retail entry at the south end of the building, and will use the driveways and side alks closest to the building entries . E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation s ould be encouraged. Response: One existing driveway onto Strander Boulevard is shared with Computer 1 ity, promoting safer access to the site, one lane in, and two lanes out. The new driveway at the southwest corner of the site is being located so as to prom ' to coordinated use with the Segale Retail Center driveway across the street. 3. LANDSCAPING AND SITE TREATMENT A. Where existing topographical patterns contribute to the beauty and tility of a development they should be recognized and preserved and enhanc Response: A landscaped planter and sidewalk enhances the 3' difference in floor heig t between Computer City and this project. Zn+.11= ...:.1 yy lari�... 'FY'.,7p,;., City of Tukwila Design Review Application B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: We are voluntarily proposing a sidewalk along Strander Boulevard, to run primarily inside of the existing mature, 20- year -old landscaping, similar to the recently redeveloped site to the east. Pedestrian traffic from adjacent properties to the east and west are accommodated with handicapped- accessible ramps leading to the well - buffered, inviting, and stable pedestrian circulation sidewalk. From there, sidewalk and striped access through the parking areas to the building entrance is convenient and clearly recognizable. Pedestrians coming from parking in the rear and west lots are provided with sidewalks along the south side of the building. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. Response: The existing mature, 20- year -old groundcover and trees along with new street trees provides the entire site with an effective barrier from the busy, adjacent arterial. These trees provide shade as well for the proposed sidewalks and parking areas. New landscaping along the building's west, south and north sides reinforce these attributes while moderating the scale of and casting contrasting shade patterns on the 23 to 32 -foot building walls. A view corridor east to west through the site is created by the partial demolition of the south portion of the building, continuing what was started with the Computer City Remodel. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrians or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Response: Cast -in -place concrete curbs and sidewalks protect all new and existing landscaping. A path of ramps and striping leads clearly from the south parking lot area to the building, discouraging pedestrians from walking through the planting areas. .____.»_ ............................ ��, K...y,...n,.,.,..t,,..�:.�es.ry .,.:, :uutic.ih�n;c_,a.�r�*«w.r:,;,.{5 Jt3,�::rtn w•A%5:.^.tr.'!!6'8;3;�FS;..Kr :, u7m" � 'C:.:e.�.�;ix.;rr�a.::�:t;:rrr. City of Tukwila Design Review Application raxtrr,'�; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged Response: Approximately 9% of the site is planted. Planters are located at the ends of all parking rows and at corners of the building. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accommodated by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Response: The three full -sized truck loading bays are hidden behind the building. A mix of evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs, and enclosure walls assure year- around screening of the service areas. The dumpster and recycling areas are recessed into the building. 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. Response: Planters are provided along all required buffers, except where fire truck access requires a 20' wide fire lane along the northwest side of the building. .. .. City of Tukwila Design Review Application H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscaping. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and retrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: Lighting emphasis will be on the retail entry. The north and west sides with their immediately adjacent neighbors, will be lit for security and service criteria only. All proposed fixtures on site will be shielded types. The proposed parking lot light standards will be less than 15 feet high. 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. Response: The existing building is the best looking, concrete tilt -up panel type building in the area. Its painted finish is of very fine quality and has been well maintained over the years. These panels are being relocated on site and integrated into the proposed structure in an attractive fashion, and many interesting addition materials are being added. The surrounding area is almost completely of similar scale and building types. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Response: The surrounding area is nearly completely of similar scale and building types, though not as nice as this one. The building immediately to the east, Computer City, has been recently redeveloped in a similar fashion. .Y,rYa; .':�: `+ H:+.' a':. i'. S�+ y.= �' i' . �2: �: FS: F.!' ru' i�;;;i:: ?r;. kvr;• eixtfiy;? a, �.,;: a...,;' X. �.: r; al7K,. rf;„ trt�. r."l �rry: ax,`. M^_ rx..: r. r. �; yn? ita^ �.: mx�- �• nko ,:'�G�n:am:�.,ti.,e..x..:.,..,. City of Tukwila Design Review Application 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. Response: The main retail areas will have well - proportioned portal components. Windows are being added to provide a more inviting appearance. Landscaping adjacent to the building will add human scale to those walls which are not being enhanced by the entry areas. D. Colors should be harmonious , with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Response: The building will remain primarily of painted finish. However, bright color accents will be introduced at the south and west elevations. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground of buildings should be screened from view. Response: Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened from view and held back away from the edge of the building. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building. design. Response: Exterior lighting fixture will not be a primary architectural feature. All building mounted fixtures will be harmonious with the exposed finish. i�.. �� .............«........ uer....,.<.:...:.-.. a. hx rGN:MAi:L:H1�.,:.:..vltr.M" ?1t City of Tukwila Design Review Application G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Response: Although similar, none of the adjacent buildings are of the same painted finish. 5. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE A. Miscellaneous 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. Response: Not applicable. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines acceptable to site, landscaping and buildings. Response: Not Applicable: INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT 1. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. Response: The largest natural amenity in the area is the existing, mature 20- year -old landscaping along Strander Boulevard. These are being preserved and made a key part of the proposed landscape design. 1 ;5 }i�i):LS"!e: Ott "_7r. +': K7t�.trctnre .. City of Tukwila Design Review Application 2. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. Response: Lunch and break areas for employees are being provided at the planter areas around the building. 3. The proposed development should provide for and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. Response: Sidewalks along the south property line, the south building side, and within the south parking area promote this. 4. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. Response: The site to the east along Strander Boulevard was recently remodeled for another retail user with similar bulk / retail use. Many of the other buildings on this block are being considered for similar redevelopment. The Segale Retail Center is approved and under construction. 5. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environment impacts. Response: The proposed development pulls the building area further back on the site and increases the amount of landscaping. 6. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features of the area. Response: Not applicable. Howard R. Turner, AIA November 15,1993 l r CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DESIGK,REVIEW APPLICATION 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3680 I. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: 2 441p KJ& 1, 6-t-1t'u F-4(2. L USE 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) S?p l ..io aL eu ¢0 , 't ' wl u--a- . Quarter: Nt✓ Section: /UP Township: ..23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) 3. APPLICANT:* Name: (Abi... no-1) TLP.i.:64L Address. -60- t l `a0(:1 -, i 1 4 Z L4113 PL Ite Ph co T (AA q tG sus - -74-$1 Signature:- deej '(.J Date: 1% (15 3 * The applicant is the person whom the st aff will contact regarding t he application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: t 4*)6a r Ll Lt"'( i ri Di`:L i ►r7 Pmt:,poirsiC5 OWNER Address: 41-1t tAnAl 04. t t-la ci _-- (4ta.,.,O LA (N04O Phone: 20LP - 232 . 4:041n5 I /WE,[signature(s)] swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: 11/15 15 i . .�.. L R3 -ooa3 (5ov? ') 1- (olt -tc Co oa,_s -t r-ot l P_2o ). _ _ 3Y._ .. Tl 0" r,. f -tizr °:. ::•`isr4�1t?' ,:ate ^'r+�Ty�fi,f .;Y .Ci'" 7;`ir;` ;F,iA;{•i'y;•!�. t INITIALSL. - Request for approval To: Board of Architectural Review, City of Tukwila From: Fidelity Associates February 24, 1995 Fidelity. Associates 4211 Holly Lane Mercer .Island, WA 98040 FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206-232-6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 To: Board of Architectural Review, City of' Tukwila From: Robert L. Wiley, Managing Partner RE: Request for approval of Sears Homelife building, as built Issues The siding on the second story of subject building was changed during construction after approval was believed to have been received from the Department of Community Development. The owner, contractor and architect met with the Department's inspector and understood that the proposed change had been approved. After installation, it was learned that the inspector had not realized that the sample of siding shown was ribbed and not a flat surface as originally approved by the BAR. The Department is asking the owner to replace the existing second floor siding. Request: The owner requests the Board of Architectrual Review to approve the siding as installed. Reason: The owner asks the request be granted for the following reasons: 1) The overall building looks very good and is compatible with its Southcenter surroundings, see attached photographs. 2) The correct proceedure was followed in requesting a change. The change was made in good faith on the understanding that it had been approved and would be compatable with the design originally approved by the BAR 3) Change would be very costly at this point. Although cost would not be justification for not correcting something that was blatantly wrong, this building is not bad or offensive. At present, February, 1995, the north side of the building is fully exposed. At the time the change was made, the north side was largely concealed by the old Shuck's office - ware4�9Quse. New buildings that are now being constructed on this site angtYie landscaping is in, the north side will again be significantly shielded. The Department is sensitive to the appearance of the second floor now, but I honestly believe that in a short period this will not be noticed or noticeable Background: Subject building was started in the late summer of 1994. As the contractor completed the shell, driving rains made it unlikely that he could apply the Dryvit siding and get it water tight in any reasonable period of time. The contractor suggested the use of NorClad siding which could be installed despite the weather. The owner, contractor and architect studied samples and considered options. After deciding upon the NorClad option, the Department was contacted and asked to inspect the selected siding. On October 14, 1994, the contractor installed samples of the cornice, Norclad siding and expanded metal proposed for the HVAC screen. Vernon Umetsu met with us to look at the samples at mid morning. He rejected the expanded metal HVAC sceeen, but to our understanding, approved the cornice detail and the use of the Norclad siding for the second floor walls and the HVAC screen. This meeting was followed with Vernon Umetsu's letter of October 28, 1995 in which he conditioned any approval upon "texture, color and relectivity". We felt and feel that we meet these conditions, but we have obviously had a significant misunderstanding. Had we sensed any significant reservation at the time, we would have sought further clarification or not gone ahead with the alternative treatment. I believe our record shows full cooperation with the City. We complied with all requirements, and absorbed considerable costs in correcting items that had been approved by the City on the original drawings but which were found not acceptable in the final inspection. We proceeded with this construction in good faith and believe that the final product should be viewed as acceptable to the City and the BAR. In order to receive a Certificate of Occupancy, the owner has procured a letter a credit in favor of the City, for an amount deemed sufficient to redo the second floor with a Dryvit finish. We request that the second floor be accepted as built and that the letter of credit be returned. We obviously stand to be significantly effected by the outcome of the BAR's decision. We regret this misunderstanding with the Department and understand their unwillingness to accept a building that they feel differs from that which the BAR originally approvaL Nevertheless, we request that the BAR review the existing situation and approve it. Exhibits: Attached are photographs of buildings in Southcenter, and in the vacinity of 402 Strander Boulevard. They show that both strong and subtle vertical lines have frequently been incorportated in Southcenter building design. Captions accompany and explain each of these photos. Included are photographs of the Sears Homelife building. These were taken on a clear sunny day with the sun low on the horizon. Under more typical conditions we suggest that the shadows created by the ribbing in the bright sunlight, and with the sun higher in the sky, will be negligible. We understand that these shadows are one cause of the Department's concern. SEARS HOMELIFE BUILDING EXHIBITS A review of the buildings in Southcenter reveals that many of them incorporate vertical lines as architectural detail. In most, these vertical lines are juxtaposed along side of' or above flat wall surfaces. Often, as seen in the following photographs, the vertical lines are subtle, showing up only in certain light, or when one is close to the building. A review of the buildings also reminds one of the popularity of brick construction in the 1950s and 1960s and precast concrete in the 1970s and 1980s. Dryvit is the style of the 1990s and offers many opportunities for architectural design. One design detail, it is suggested, should be its use along with other siding materials to create variety and interest. It is suggested by the owners of the Homelife building that the vertical lines on the second floor Norclad siding is compatible with the architectural detail on adjacent buildings as well as others throughout Southcenter. Without such detail and variety, Southcenter could gradually become a Dryvit getto. The owners acknowledge that this detail was not on the original submittal to the BAR. However, it is believed that the building, as built, is attractive, compatible with others in the area, and should be approved as built. 402 Strander Blvd on a sunny January 1995 day. The second floor has Norclad siding on the east, west and north sides. The building faces south. nJX Sears Homelife Exhibit page 2 402 Strander looking northeast. Second story walls are Norclad siding. 402 Strander looking southwest across the vacant Circuit City site. Sears Homelife Exhibit •a ye Eagle Hardware incorporates vertical detail above the window line In �� , '111111111 CompUSA uses a second level metal screen to conceal. IAC and other roof top attachments. Sears Homelife Exhibit page 4 Washington Dental Health Center at Strander and Andover Park East has precast vertical concrete members to add interest, while vertical lines are repeated in the building to its south. Metal siding on the Minolta Building, which houses the Department of Community Development, is accented by vertical line which break the flatness Sears Homelife Exhibit page 5 Vertical detailing on this Andover Park West office park adds to the attractiveness of the structure, yet is subtle and principally apparent only from close inspection Sears Homelife Building page 6 Sears' main store and J. C. Penny's incorporate vertical . etail to create aesthetically pleasing s ctures. Sears Home life Exhibit. page 7 Here is a precast concrete building with strong vertical lines which crea c strong, interesting shadows in bright sunshine. frF'1l&. of BAR. "Dects.Nr CAerrAcint) Co UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS Initials Meeting Date Prepared by Ma or's Council review 8 -21 -95 V.U. /review i v/ Timeline: City Council public hearing on August 21, 1995. Sponsor's Summary: D. Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review Determination of May 25, 1995, Case No. Recommendations: . Sponsor: Committee: Administration: N.A. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. Cost Impact (if known): N.A. Fund Source (if known): N.A. ITEM No. .g,,, Y�) l,;<p* a� �q 3,S�y'J ' 3.0, , Nt .xDn�rk ; R t'S. .. ..: )"x' `)v £ [ r Tor:. 1. k1 e �`r `f�:& r u<„� 3;S :3 3. ., t r1: : :: ,x. `. ;✓5 � Y � > t r: �.F`��t(p`>�.� }� z •.�i, ��" ka�.s3'. � !t <�?� y>y:'£i n ��'''!11�j {� �}'(y s e ����.V.t?s E1 bY.D��+ivik�� sr •.3d its f,,, %f :?':.. G"s`E ; i 'A.k"f3 JtQ a•33X r.h'k,`r1 Y v,„ oiF k�W ?59 "'cx ib [T'A-t4[.k O.I.N F. € O t S .11 A,F� fk'r. .Vi 6 3 �Y✓�C Sx t 0� E 3 ,.:p xt •t • CAS Number: Original Agenda Date: August 21, 1995 Agenda Item Title: Fidelity Associates appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision. Original Sponsor: Council Admin. Other X (BAR) Timeline: City Council public hearing on August 21, 1995. Sponsor's Summary: D. Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review Determination of May 25, 1995, Case No. Recommendations: . Sponsor: Committee: Administration: N.A. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. This is a quasi - judicial appeal. Cost Impact (if known): N.A. Fund Source (if known): N.A. rt S ki 0.a ^Sk t £k r S�ZT Y� k x k i.. n '.f 2 �f t} k�:�x it(: »f ff.. 3. , .:?, �ECORD,OF COUNCIL ACTr�N •. , .: h , , ; Meeting Date Action 8 -21 -95 5 -25 -95 B. Sample of metal siding (to be presented at the hearing). 8 -21 -95 C. Minutes of the Board of Architectural Review meeting on May 25, 1995. 8 -21 -95 D. Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review Determination of May 25, 1995, Case No. L93 -0083. 1\: „, ).R ;:"i f S: k? 0'' ti ♦ C k .:, ..:�.0.i;"" t Y> :err . • 3r r);', : a <sc $. �sd.`Ez., z.< ?� ",.., <T ;5 st,:� t : z5),. >t` � aA >>h:� ;ysz:r�� o5.:: � v : r,.t� >~•i � k� :Y`'.(.t `J. GS•34skdi �;::. .R3 Ss t t t2.: k;S,y v.�� tk YY^A, �ifN Svs.< >vft ,t,.' ?M3.�. Sk'.? �): y s��.. ,. k'.4 'f �i O' i > Y�SA�) •Tt�pKr>.•:•A:,� ;�y�. Kp?O�if. s• r "i o..: } `4.• Y r F£ YL% £� s', ^ V'•)`' )5 ) r^ ' Y tx £. Y '...>,` C [ .. f N 5 �" .f�, yt'C K`C'.w:oL Nt :S.L'.�.. ..:.� £ (>... f `Lt (M....:�vF',�ai �Y .,•<, >., . n ?.n �H ..... k �..... FP I�U�GES ) (o.:.. T.! . , >7 i. . <i'�C. K.� , i .. ' < >� yr �n�i k^F � M� X'y:"�.CS� Meeting Date Attachments 5 -25 -95 A. Staff report to the Board of Architectural Review (5- 18 -95) and Attachments. 5 -25 -95 B. Sample of metal siding (to be presented at the hearing). 8 -21 -95 C. Minutes of the Board of Architectural Review meeting on May 25, 1995. 8 -21 -95 D. Appeal of the Board of Architectural Review Determination of May 25, 1995, Case No. L93 -0083. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: John McFarland, City Administrator From: Jack Pace, Acting Director, Dept. of Community Development Date: August 14, 1995 RE: Fidelity Associates Appeal of a Board of Architectural Review Decision. Fidelity Associates has appealed the Board of Architectural Review's denial of a modification to an existing design approval. This is a quasi- judicial appeal, with all information being presented in a new public hearing. This memo organizes submitted materials, Board of Architectural Review (BAR) deliberations, and a reviews an additional option. Background The Sear Homelife project was initially approved by the BAR on January 27, 1994. The applicant proposed, and the BAR approved, a second story dryvit wall as part of the building design. During construction, a standing seam metal wall was approved by the Planning Division, subject having the same "texture, color and reflectivity as the first floor dryvit walls ". This approval letter was issued 4 days after revision plans were submitted. The Planning staff concluded that the wall substitution did not satisfy the approval condition and that further BAR review was required. The BAR reviewed the proposed design modification, staff design options, and adopted the following motion on a 5 -1 vote: "Require a dryvit finish to be properly applied to implement the original BAR approved design." Fidelity Associates has appealed this BAR decision to the City Council and submitted information supporting its position. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) August 14, 1995 Page 2 Review Process This is a quasi- judicial process. All information in the City Council's decision must be submitted at the public hearing. The City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the BAR's decision. No information source carries more weight than another, whether it be the BAR, applicant or staff. However, the previously approved project design must be accepted as satisfying the BAR design criteria. Appeal Issue The applicant is appealing this BAR determination and requests the following: 1. Approve the building as built (e.g., with the standing seam metal wall) or 2. Approve the building with the metal wall and a newly extended, simplified cornice. Staff Review The BAR adopted a motion denying the unadorned standing seam metal wall proposed by the applicant and requiring that the originally approved dryvit finish be properly applied. Verbatim minutes of the BAR hearing are presented in Attachment C. In general, the BAR considered: a. the staff evaluation of building design; b. the applicant's submittal of siding material, arguments of extenuating circumstances, and objection to adding any further architectural pilaster columns or cornice to the wall; and c. their perception of the wall's visual prominence and design quality. The BAR determined that the unadorned standing seam metal wall did not satisfy the review criteria. A motion to require the original dryvit finish was then adopted (Attachment C). The "Site Treatment and Landscaping" BAR criteria should be also considered, along with the "Building Design Criteria ". This allows a design option to keep the metal wall with the extended cornice (proposed by the applicant) and replace the street front Purple Plum trees with Red Maples, as specified in the "Street Tree Program." L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) August 14, 1995 Page 3 The combination of improved building design and improved street tree consistency may provide an acceptable level of project consistency with BAR review criteria (e.g., TMC 18.60.050(4)- Landscape and Site Treatment and ibid,(2)- Building Design, respectively). Please note that: a. this is a special case in which "credit" for providing Red Maple trees per the Street Tree Program is given toward satisfying BAR design criteria because the existing plum trees were already approved, b. this option to extend the cornice and replace the existing plums for Red Maple trees is at the owner's option, since he is already vested in the dryvit wall finish by the previous BAR approval, and c. a new project with new trees would be required to satisfy the Street Tree Program without being given credit to offset lesser building design quality. Staff Recommendation The Planning Division recommends: 1. Subject to the needed applicant agreements, approving a second story wall design which: A. allows the standing seam metal wall to remain, B. extends a simplified cornice around the entire second story wall, and C. replaces the existing Purple Plum street front trees with Red Maple trees. 2. If the applicant does not agree with the provisions of recommendation No. 1, the Planning Division supports a properly applied dryvit finish to implement the original BAR approved design. 1See discussion in "Please note (b)" above on vesting. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared May 18, 1995 ATTAIN A John W. Rants, Mayor HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: ATTACHMENTS: NI OT g.e56.'rtrb \l 1 barb -rAic USC'� WS-rock-b. May 25, 1995 -0083: Sears Homelife Steve Lancaster, Director Fidelity Associates (Robert L. Wiley) Modify the previously approved second story wall materials on the north, east and west faces of a 44,000 s.f. retail building. 402 Strander Boulevard; Tukwila, WA. 1.6 acres Light Industrial C -M (Industrial Park) Previous Attachments A. Summary Sheet and Vicinity Map B. Building Elevations and Details C. Landscape Plan Colors and Materials Board (to be presented at the hearing) New Attachments Al Request for Approval (of Design Modification by Applicant) B1 Photographic Slides of Building Elevations (to be presented at hearing) Cl Planning Division Letter of Conditional Approval to Modify Second Floor Material D1 Illustrative Design Approach 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Page 2 L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) FINDINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace }the �dryvit finish for a second story, 12 ft. high wall (;74ttacbme t C), with a standing seam metal wall. Standing seams are 2r "inches high and spaced 9 inches apart. The wall sits atop a 20 foot high dryvit wall, and is set back from the building edge as follows: a. 20 feet on the north with complete visibility facing Circuit City, b. 70 feet on the west (facing Future Shop /Best) and ' 10'feet•on the east with partial obscuring from the south by Computer City, but almost complete visibility of its northern half). The metal wall is shown in taementn >A; and The metal--wall color would.match the first story dryvit. BACKGROUND .This project was previously approved by the Board on January 24, 1994. (file L93- 0083). The second story wall material was proposed and approved with a dryvit finish which matched the first floor dryvit wall.. During construction, the applicant requested a change in material •on the second floor, along the north, east and west building. faces. The BAR approved dryvit was proposed to be replaced with a metal face. Staff approved the change subject to having the same "texture, color and reflectivity as the first floor dryvit walls" per A tachma t C1 Further discussions with the architect made clear .hat.`' rr..sinooth wall face was required for consistency with the BAR approved design (10/14/94). The applicant incorrectly thought that substantial Planning approval had been granted for the material change and that only a cursory inspection would be later needed. Subsequent discussions with the applicant and his architect corrected this misconception during inspection of the construction. Planning staff, the previous D.C.D. Director and the current D.C.D. Director inspected the second story metal wall at several different times. It was unanimously determined that the wall material did not satisfy the conditions of substitution, and that it was a significant design change which required BAR approval. C Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Page L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) The applicant elected to assign funds to the City, equivalent to 150% of the cost estimate to build the second floor wall with dryvit, as approved by the BAR. On this basis, the construction was approved. The store is currently open. It is staff's opinion that all parties have acted in good faith, and that this situation has arisen as a result of legitimate misunderstanding. Staff has taken into account the good faith actions by all parties in its evaluation and design recommendation. DECISION CRITERIA • This project is subject to Board review due to its location in the C -M zone and exceeding 10,000 s.f., per TMC 18.60.030(2)(A)(ii). Staff has reviewed the proposed material •change with respect to BAR "Building. Design" criteria • (18.60.050(4)). The Building Design criteria are shown below in bold, along with a staff discussion of relevant facts. Applicant responses to th criteria are presented in A:aChziez%t' € >'A. vlr.we.G Aixiinw.xM1xL�x....v 18.60.050(4) Building Design a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should. be based on quality of its design and relationshi to its surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony wit permanent neighboring developments. 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 color 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. The proposed standing seam metal walls are often found on warehouse and industrial "Butler" buildings. They are not typically found on retail structures in regional commercial centers. A windshield survey was made of building materials in the gener.1 vicinity by staff. No instances of this material's use in reta'1 Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Page 4 L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) or office buildings were noted. In fact, it was found in only limited applications on area industrial buildings. Buildings in the immediate vicinity have been recently renovated or are in the process of being replaced. Materials being used are predominantly masonry or dryvit finished to simulate masonry. The proposed standing seam metal wall will be most visible from the north and northeast, where it will atop a 20 ft. high wall and rise an additional 12 feet. The wall would be a major feature forming the south boundary of the new Circuit City development. The wall will be less visible from the west. These views will be presented in slides at the hearing as t ac iii n. CONCLUSIONS The plain, 12 foot high standing seam metal wall contrasts significantly in the level of architectural quality from the surrounding structures, which have used smooth /etched masonry, split faced brick, pilaster columns and cornices to enhance building design. Staff has considered two options to raise the metal wall's design quality to rough equivalence with surrounding buildings: 1. Require a dryvit finish be properly applied to implement the original BAR approved design. 2. Incorporate large,. but simple pilaster columns and cornices to add architectural interest to the plain metal wall and -help the metal wall to visually recede. The pilaster would have a dryvit surface. The cornice could be dryvit or match the material used in the existing cornice. A f inal element would be a column cap design to unify the.standing metal wall with the dryvit surfaces. An example of this design approach is illustrated in tac in I 4iiii:4:•:•i:: •eM D. : ?ri. n . rrx. rnvn +. +•ti.. nv r This second approach attempts to balance a recognition of good faith efforts by all parties, the relatively high cost to implement the•.original dryvit design, and the need for City consistency in requiring roughly equivalent design quality from all new construction. This design approach would not be supported were this to be a new review because of design's relatively contrived nature (e.g., the use of an industrial oriented material in a neo- classical design and the clash with the surrounding neo - classically derived materials used in all other areas). Staff Report to the Board of Architectural Review Page 5 L94 -0083: Fidelity Associates (Sears Homelife) RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Division recommends modifying the simple wall design based on the design approach shown in Atta'c�imeif I :. The D.C.D. w.x �:• x,: a:atxs.:a:wxw;ca.,•..:a•.:v:• Director shall ensure final design consistency with B.A.R. criteria, and these findings and conclusions. .hml f bar SEARS HOMELIFE SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE SURVEY BAR CONSULTANTS ARCHITECT 1.7051 NO ASSOCUI(S 0870 281610.4a 715 M 919994117 9005 (706).165 -7431 585 3.15 -7509 (.011051: 15-4111 R 14+(.9• .N CIVIL 0.91. 65(0. NO 1110.7 2009/401 014C 1831 !CAI 11.L •4996104 9502 006)323 -898 (A( 323 -7111 E01 24C10394 C. N(19500t LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 14171.111 PS 973146 SI9(t7 9115 D (l'005. •40(0107 954:20 (101)776-9937 444 77. -7692 0.7 AC1: 99•9 (477509( 99A /107 SURVEY 090.0( 9110(310 40 (70(560 09 510568110161 3(11 TLC *4940101 9603 (04(AACC5 9..6 090804 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 194TC 11/6•0 40 C00697019"- 3 01 9219 844183 939 5V51 all(X(.1I19 9 4104 9700' )06 55.5120 r'r 757 -990 0.4 9CI: 9446 .909545 CODE INDEX GENERAL O to 6 Cf(92 091 4.625 0 O.P42CY 0.853 92 11114494791.966 4111000 DI 92(0 Of 03091C101 AREA 10181 59300 96((40 49(4 )) 30,66 9' 9 UUL 64.041(011: 11 590440 90 /((r 3075 9' DPOODD 10181 0.105 .30* (1.513035OCI79 49) 171 1 g M1'168101011.0 Sai 2.5'- 70) 0 .0175 • 0160 (790260)3000070 ,- 1911540130.8676370E 7.(4 00.7507 A 8-10p [35(904 0.0190 9816 6 5(0.17(0 8(7173(6 176 )00357 010 50.6107 013 AI 059.660 2E90 2(1080( /01620993 trC EGRESS 10(6(5 urn 9006 CCDPA0T (O'11 20097 4. / 10 • 670 0554'4495 (05 90015(07[1(81: 670 7102 • 11310E0 Val 943111199.41E0 613 90(5 1012rc U1TE" 11001 (504061 1048 6609 7. / 00 • 527 CC0P.410 C91 8014 5(0161(61{ 527 1 00 • 06 10(S Lot •00130690 (690ES P(9U.L5 '7.' ' O00r8f11060 3163 / 30 • 790 (0048635 (61 *6274 5(0108(61: 754) 9 07 • 50 90E0 C69 Iro118 (10800. 0110E0 9071.44 1900. 001406 7616241) (0i 70114f8C0 6((270 • 203 ((C7 *70409541 Cr (7215 /[1110x() ZONING • 2050 04 1(1)5106, 58176 6070( 5[1680( uE 50 190n. 25 REAR, 5' Say 8311.111 4(00 5' by E S STREET MAP St T ANL 01 061E54 !)OLLEVAIK I AC(RA SCALER SEA-11/11 L_ 400 SIRAt(x BOLLEVARO BARER BOL(EvA'90 OS tl11ER L EVA97o .ErI.IW` 1 nRTUTT11TAVIT16 n U 114114 223 AMOVER PIA% EAST 1(8165.0, IYA9(4TO4 (AS PRCPOSE0) FOEUTY ASSOC. 402 51R9.2t1ER DOU.EVARD SCGALE PETAL CENTER 401 SIRA CCR 000.EVARO K BLOCK MAP 1••100' 1fJ rtn NIfIIfNIIHII Cl$OJIER 404 STRA71: R )J6LEVARO QIII(IIIIIIWP 1 1) M 1i II! Ii7 I1 1 PARKING ANALYSIS • FIDELITY( ASSOCIATES TURNER AND ASSOCIATES COVER SHEET REVISIONS 4r 1;13.• (09.(6;5 SHEET 97,191. VX 16.5'1 Sr. 91 (m • 4L'0itf S1./0:0 • •1016.0577. P80.-77 51410 5(0)00 • IG S1415 9910.[(0 • CO•('4C S141S (7627400. (XI Er 11]) 1o1µ F R3C 1007150 • ( 5(09081 Pw70 (8!(6.4l (07010 *'D6 COMUI el Y.9374 'ICS 191140( (04.,3)) 96e SS ItM $S tt73T4t !' 5 S141S v3S <14 L5 u rcE[RY AsSOaEIES. H:LarE 1 rs i () )) (i.l //•1\ (/ U R II '-- 6676 169 970 6( ARCHITECTS 7411( *•9((1049665 ( )x•7871 J01 Mt" • 5(5: 1ADARI 019046Y:SH 0(010 Br; 90.t. 211.1..1.: 9 0.L3 • 65 VALLS SCUC:VAR(S it A f JWTLRE STO(E by SEMIS O, 0 0. • SOUTH ELEVATION CID rwt,I 1.0 OEAST ELEVATION • s:uc r.K' 91 O NORTH ELEVATION 3 scKC: r•K' o{ 5 • Gip n CD OWEST ELEVATION (7 )WEST CID CD ELEVATION I ui —G7:K Kr vo.a7 • 1rt`13QZ. Li © 11 1fSf]1TL • n..nu► •lov 1, — �__ i!IIIIIII fd► OCOLUMN DETAIL. 8 O.. CORNICE DETAIL scAu r- • MAN ■..�9_ • 111111111111 KEY NOTES (Dam.; rrvtr s ® rodID out.: artsrot on0SUt arts p K+.•c I( 41wlc p came cootrc ►N /l s rr IlnOartD at MAID NO AS IU a TIC. ® coma pant.( run 10 0.U. MO 19119, 1.1 ®IRC AKD Clone pans 11 CUM NO 19119. 1 -1 p r(ti 191wc1 wcro 09 IP ('9110 CO•oi 11Ntt. u,v 095190 mntrt nut. pr(W r KtK 0114. P.M ® Kw f s4 WORKS 9911111 (21)K. aM 011 Sr911 1r5M © anon OLWILCVI•rAtto r ItKllt p>u a omr1 oats © K. 1491 NM= NW I I. SIaU11a19 COOK NO .ID. ©K" BY wog NO r9N( (E) Kw srm mace pool O1 ►AM Accon Sag( (13 rooIR tow M vv. 't 911 CO soma, 1N10 ton: p •KL •:unto CkrOt79 Ir {i FOR ASSOOOA1 TURNER AND ASSOCIA 11•70 ft•Ct.t ASCII K•1 RC •4 MM (7p) A1-7UI BUILDING ELEVATIONS fDELITY 10.1E1.111 RF:IAX.t . tt0 P•9. 191 O(OOD 1191 C.10 REVISIONS r/• 59urslus: u SHEET 3A » krrAc* • C = VI p ryrN4.e . I0.€4. O.l.0 C[1110....0021.11$ ro .0... 112.0 Posen METAL ALL. ( AKC do00044 IRII 1141.0 r CAL 1.41,01• IA ■ 1•••0(4•111 1441.0 rv,$ .0 K l..ln..p• •• .0 K.'.., Yr.l.0 vla.,O. m .0r.. nrw :WTI 1.4..0 Con. 1.41.0 1.14104' 90 .0 +.+ r••VY .01101.1110,. MANE SCHEDULE .0.4w l .0l.rQ 11...41.In/11. 0(1.01 rl. .0v..0114(4 0.,.m ems 4/ 0.11 •0 1.1.4 .I r.. •1• (S.W. II Ll WN T r{ M 4. Y'7me.w.:I f„r 14'4.111 4644 .44 SAS ee Y 0 - C.. 1.f.M4•0.6:4 M.r fo•T.•,r,'awe/ .f.4•.1 •7• !+'y..0( )r.i'•' (+r• •._r+ Nowt __*_ 14... l C•,v. <1 4.♦ 11N.6.• O. • 1,61• I..• 1 r••+14... r...1 1 W em.. w1 4. 1• 11� M.- 11.1 0..,r 4. MIS 1rry I)I•4.Y1,1I 4 4.1,. • 11.14• r1{ 101 CDDLIS.CD1TA S..66•410..... W rr1.1 •.. ,:ft...4 I. M4.... 1.+1..4.•..+, •1<1.4./ 1041 rl 171'1r .'r•. • IT <1..4••<i ••• 111...0 0 .1*11 • • • 0(w. r.... w.... A. <.. •• . •11 ••• 0•. 0.+....r•�.•... KEY NOTES •LANDPLA L.wod.c.p• Arohl W Mr Yr.,, air D (1.r (,4+'•. I0%1 111.1411 FAX TURNER AND ASST ..70 i11r 14.( v( =010(4 •0. 146) Ila) ).)4071 LANDSCAPE PLAN FIDELITY ASSOCIATES, AD REVISIONS SHEET BAF Colors and Materials Board (To be presented at the Hearing) Request for Approval (of Design Modification by Applicant) (available for review at the Planning Division, but superseded by the newly submitted Appeal (Attachment K) ATTACHMENT B1 pie'Sde (To be presented at the hearing) L _ _ -I- City ty of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director October.28, 1994 Howard Turner Turner and Associates 18420 24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98155 RE: .B94-0197 (Homelife) Revisions (10/21/94). Dear Howard: I have reviewed the proposed revisions for consistency with the. Tukwila Zoning Code anddetermine the following: 1. The second floor exterior walls on the east, west and north may.be faced with a. metal siding based on your assurance that it will have the same texture, color and reflectivity a the first floor dryvit walls, and the "blind joints" will not be visible. ( . 2. The HVAC screen walls may be faced with the same metal siding as the second floor wall based on the assurances in Item 1. 3. The cornice detail revision is approved. • These changes will now be reviewed for consistency with other City Codes (e.g., Building and Fire). Please note that they require.further revisions to the plan details, and should be submitted as soon as possible to allow timely plans checking. Sincerly, ernon Umetsu Associate Planner cc: Pace `.i1e:93 \fid1 \prvsn 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite X1100 • Tukwila. Wa, shineton 0818R • 0061 4? 1-q670 • ! iv. r2nm AZ 1.Z / r LLL V NA ‘t REn5/0AR3 :LEVATION (8.2)- (5.3) ELEVATION Um(Frt..4 CAC I TA C 7)6-c (C^f 1111111111111111.1P17 ( 7.3) • LACCoge (&Zraotaa-) 79.erer 7' ftc..A snot- coe.„0S stmrce c-ckcirc-e- (p/ty-rirlAcr) (7.3) ri • (3.3) - (8.3) •EVATION (3.3) n (8.3) (33) (3.3) 3.2 (7.1) (32) (5.1A ATTACHMENT B (SAMPLE OF THE METAL SIDING) TO BE PRESENTED AT. THE PUBLIC HEARING ArrAcg • • • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 1995 (Approved 6/15/95) • Chairman Neiss called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present were Messrs. Neiss, Malina, Meryhew, Flesher, Marvin, and Livermore. Ms. Stetson was excused. Representing the _staff were Vernon Umetsu and Sylvia Schnug. • There were no citizens' comments. MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 6,1995. MR. FLESHER SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. With regard to the minutes of April 27, 1995, Mr. Neiss noted that on page six, third to last paragraph, it should be changed from "The Planning Commission has recommended..." to "The Planning staff has recommended..." MR. MALINA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 27,1995 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR. MARVIN SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT L93 -0083: Fidelity Associates: Mr. Meryhew: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on that number, we show it one place as L93- 0083 and another place as L94 -0083. On the staff report, it is shown as L94, on the agenda it's shown as L93. Vern do you know which is correct? Mr. Flesher: It's got to be 1994, we didn't approve it that long ago. Mr. Umetsu: L93 -0083 is the.correct number. I will amend the staff report. Mr. Neiss: O.k., we will hear from staff. Mr. Umetsu: Thank you, for the record, my name is Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning • Division -DCD. The project before you was originally approved on January 24, 1994. The project design incorporated a second story dryvit wall which is now proposed to be changed. With permission I'd like to come up to the podium and show you the exhibits. The wall in question is located right along this dotted line, as is shown in your attachment. It is about twenty .ifr\ Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 25, 1995 feet from the north building edge, seventy feet from the west building L. dge, and.ten- feet.from the east building edge. To the south, the wall actually transitions to a dryvit material, which then forms the front of the building. The dryvit material extends around the side of the building, and the rear which was supposed to also be facing that second . story wall. The wall itsel.is.most visible from the north where you look across the-Circuit City project, and from the :northeast:; : :' where you look across the Computer City project. It is less visible from the west where it . directly faces the Future Shop project and is somewhat visible from the soutLwest, where it faces the Segale project. I'll be showing you... we've experimented with video cameras and I'll be showing you some location shots. The wall itself is this corrugated metal standing seam material, typically found, if - you're familiar with Butler buildings, industrial buildings, and the common material, facing material. It compares with this dryvit type material that was originally approved. The wall is twelve feet high, and set atop a twenty foot high first floor base. Now, at this point, we're experimenting a little bit, to give you a sense of the surrounding area and if you will look at the monitors (inaudible) I will turn on the camera. You can see that I don't know how to pan, but let me pause this for just a moment. As I was panning, I set the camera so that what you see on the screen, is about what you'd see with your eye, as I set the height of the building in the camera to the height that I was actually seeing, so everything overlapped and hopefully gives you a better picture of what is going on. You can see we're looking across the Circuit City project now. You can see the wall and there is the Computer City shop. I'm panning in now and it's hard to make out the building because the exposure hits it a little strange because of the high sun. But you can see the (inaudible). When the former Director, Beeler, and current Director, Lancaster looked at this building to determine whether it was consistent, we looked at it under overcast conditions normally found in the early spring, winter periods. This is a close -up of the split -faced brick that would face the Circuit City project. And, as well as, a combination split -face brick and smooth- face material. (inaudible) Just by coincidence, you can see that tower off the north side of the wall which is the Circuit City project that we will be looking at next during your sign review. (inaudible) you can see the Circuit City building (inaudible). These are views from the northeast. Mr. Meryhew: Sitting here, and this is about where we're viewing it driving down the road or walking down the road, how noticeable is it that that is corrugated metal instead of... it's hard to tell here on the video if it's noticeable. Mr. Umetsu: We felt it was very noticeable. All three staff members who went to see it, the two directorF and myself, felt it was (inaudible). If it hadn't been noticeable, we probably would not be here tonight. Mr. Meryhew: Ah, so it was a case of somebody seeing the difference and realizing that hadn't been a part of the original. Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1995 Mr. Umetsu: Yes, and actually there was no deception or anything like that. Mr. Meryhew: Yeah, I understand that. Mr. Umetsu: Everything was on the up- and -up. When we reviewed it (inaudible). Mr. Meryhew: Because it's really hard to tell here until you pan in, or until you zoom in on it. Mr. Umetsu: (inaudible) Now let me fast forward. Mr. Meryhew: I drove by and I had a hard time even finding it. You know, what you were talking about. Mr. Umetsu: Well, that is a decision for this Board to make. Mr. Meryhew: Yes. Page 3 • Mr. Umetsu: O.k. now I'm going to fast forward here and you can see the Best building which is to the west. Now I went to the Segale project and their site (inaudible). Sylvia, I'm sure the microphone is not picking this up so... Mr. Neiss: I'm sure this has been a good education for you in the video camera uses! Mr. Umetsu: Yes, yes it is. Okay, right now we're panning to the south, around the Segale project, showing you the types of materials that are found on the south of the project, and you can see the Target store. We're coming around to the Best site now which is to the immediate west. Future Shop, and there you see the building. Now, prior to panning in, that's about what you saw from eye to eye. Now, based on our review of buildings that were surrounding it, especially the recently approved buildings, we didn't feel that plain, corrugated walls were of an equivalent design and we didn't feel that we could approve the plain unadorned walls as they were currently built. However, we did recognize the good faith efforts by all parties and partly because of that, and partly because there are some design options, we are recommending an option not to go ahead and re- plaster everything, although that's an option. We are recommending instead to put in some pilaster columns, a simple cornice with some unifying column caps or capitals that would tie together the metal wall, the dryvit base, and help those metal corrugations recede. That design option is shown in Attachment D -1. Mr. Neiss: to look. Vern, I have a tough time looking at this and figuring out how exactly that's going Mr. Umetsu: O.k., perhaps I can come up and maybe do a small, quick perspective here. (Mr. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 May 25, 1995 Umetsu then drew an example on the dry-erase board). So this is the top of the building. What . we're talking about is...coming out, some sort of cornice and then...so that you have these large columns attached to the building and... Mr. Livermore: Vern, how large is large? Mr. Umetsu: Oh, about two feet. Mr. Livermore: Square? Mr. Umetsu: Square, right. If you look at the applicant's submittal, it shows a picture of the Eagle Hardware store. Mr. Flesher: What's the material that you're talking about for the cornices and the pillars? Mr. Umetsu: The cornice would be up to the applicant, some sort of dryvit finish. The pilaster columns would just be some sort of boxed -out, possibly, probably wood with a (inaudible) dryvit finish. Mr. Flesher: finish? So all the attachments we've talked about so far are going to have the dryvit Mr. Umetsu: That's correct. Dryvit finish or whatever cornice finish they've used. I don't think the existing cornice is a dryvit finish. I take that back, the existing cornice is a dryvit finish. Mr. Malina: So we stay dryvit all the way. Mr. Livermore: They have the cornice on the front portion on that material, and I was down there too and they didn't even look (inaudible). Mr. Marvin: And it returns part way on one side (inaudible). Mr. Umetsu: The Eagle Hardware picture shows the...it doesn't actually show the back. I thought it showed a picture of the back. (inaudible) What we're looking at is having these columns come out a couple of feet and have the metal wall inset and the dryvit would continue then, the dryvit finish from the first floor, up to the second floor. Mr. Neiss: Using the columns? Mr. Umetsu: I beg your pardon. Using the columns, yes. For perception of the dryvit finish. Mr. Livermore: What kind of spacing on those columns. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 May 25, 1995 . . • Mr. Umetsu: The spacing... This is twenty-feet between... Mr. Livermore: So they're roughly twenty foot? _ ; Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 May 25, 1995 Mr. Meryhew: These columns that they're adding, they're basically two -foot square, twelve feet long, about on twenty -foot centers, roughly? Mr. Umetsu: Approximately. Mr. Meryhew: And they're topped by the cornice all the way around? Is that about two foot square? What's the size of that cornice? Mr. Umetsu: The cornice would have to be about two foot. Mr. Meryhew: About two foot square also? Mr. Umetsu: Well actually the cornice could... you know the... Mr. Meryhew: Not square, but it's about two feet... Mr. Umetsu: It could come out and then the final fmish could be whatever. Mr. Meryhew: About two feet vertical. Mr. Umetsu: Right, the cornice and the columns have to be the same width. Mr. Marvin: Vern, on the columns that you've proposed, are they square, like the ones below are a rounded column on the building, is that correct, like in the front entries? Mr. Umetsu: The front columns are round, that is correct. Mr. Marvin: So you don't feel that round ones should go up above? You think square because of the vertical lines of the material? Mr. Umetsu: Exactly, yes. There's enough of a design break, distance, that I don't think you'll get lost in a mish -mash of shapes. Mr. Marvin: Yeah, I think either way, but I see what you're... Mr. Malina: This is actually the first project that has come here, as far as a retail business goes, that we're going to end up doing something like this, or what it's being proposed. Normally we've always done this in an industrial area or a warehousing type of a concept and we've never done this type of thing in a retail business area. � Mr. Umetsu: I don't recall any other uses. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 May 25, 1995 Mr. Malina: I just have a problem with the fact that this mighf come back to haunt us. What-3"' prevents another developer on a piece of real estate on retail business that's going to come back "" - to us and say, "Well listen you guys did it for this" and yet all the other businesses around are .saying..., you know, -architects-come back to their own projects and when they see something next door they're going to ask why did we go to that expense when we could have gone to this expense. Mr. Umetsu: That is a concern. One way to address that concern is to say that we are trying this design solution out and if it works, great, and if it doesn't work, then we'll know better because design is something that doesn't always work. I mean you all have seen buildings that have started out looking great and just have not turned out very well. Mr. Malina: There's only been a few. We've done a pretty good job Vern. Mr. Umetsu: Not necessarily in Tukwila, I mean just all over the place. Mr. Neiss: Vern, I have a comment on this process and what I saw when I read through the packet. I was pretty distressed that we had been brought a package and made approvals, and it brought to light a comment that was made on another project where we were told that we didn't see the finished product when we were looking at it. When I saw this and changes from what we had originally approved have been made and then subsequently constructed, and now we're coming back and saying well, this isn't exactly what we wanted. I have a real problem with that. Either the design was approved by the Planning Commission as it was or if a significant design change like this was going to be done, it should have been brought to us before they went into construction. Now we have to deal with a situation where a developer has made a significant investment in something based on approval that we may come back and say we want all dryvit and how's the City going to compensate him? Mr. Umetsu: The City feels that its letter of conditional approval makes this an option for the City to do, and I do not, not being an attorney, I couldn't say absolutely that we're not subject to compensation. You can always be sued for compensation, but I feel that the conditions of approval with the plain corrugated wall, were not satisfied. And the ultimate approval of that construction was held with the staff of the City. Mr. Neiss: So you're saying you that made approval, and now that it's up you're saying that isn't what you thought you approved? Mr. Umetsu: No, we were assured that this would look exactly like what the Board had approved. We wrote a conditional letter saying that these are the things that we're going to look at. It's going to be smooth, it's going to be the same color, texture, etcetera as the dryvit and when it was put up, that was not the case. We always try and during construction, to allow the Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 May 25, 1995 developers to use different materials as long as it results in the same look and feel and the same design that was approved by the Board. But developers are also advised that this is all on their own, at their own risk and there is usually a surety, a guarantee involved, where we get some deposit, or we withhold approval.. Mr. Neiss: Did staff see this (tapped on corrugated metal sample)? Mr. Umetsu: Did staff see this... Mr. Neiss: Did you see that before they had gone ahead with the construction of it? Mr. Umetsu: I did meet with them out on site to discuss the use of that, of some alternative material for HVAC screening. I rejected that and then this was brought up as a material for HVAC screening, I approved that as an option. And then it was asked, and this is where my memory gets a little fuzzy, whether they could go ahead and absolutely use that for their second floor, and I'm not sure that I approved it, but I do know that I mailed out a letter, which is shown in your attachments, as a conditional approval and saying that you need to recognize that there are some conditions to this, essentially it needs to look like the dryvit. Mr. Livermore: Vern, on your October 28th letter that you're referring to, in the last paragraph, you say, "please note they require further revisions to the plan details and should be submitted as soon as possible to allow timely plans checking." Was that done? Were revised plans submitted to the Planning Commission? Mr. Umetsu: Revised plans were submitted to the Building Department for building permit approval. On those plans, the wall was shown as just a blank wall with a line saying, "corrugated metal ", excuse me "metal wall" or something, I can't recall the specific notation there on the materials change. Mr. Livermore: Do we have copies of those plans? Mr. Umetsu: Yes we do have copies. Mr. Malina: In essence what you're saying here is that the materials that they decided to experiment with is not the result that we want. And the materials that they used on the second floor was the gamble that they took. What we had made a motion on, did not come out the way that it was supposed to come out. Again, I think that this is a sad thing that has happened. However, I think a decision was made here at one time, and I think that decision still needs to stand. That's my personal view. Mr. Neiss: We can talk about that in deliberations. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 25, 1995 Mr. Umetsu: Are there any other questions I might answer? :. Mr. Marvin: On this same attachment C -1, #1, the second line says "...may be faced with a metal siding, based on your assurance that it will have the same texture, color, and reflectivity." Is that what, do you think that phrase you were looking for, was it "metal siding" that was on' these plans that were approved, do you have any recollection? Mr. Umetsu: It could be, I cannot say for sure. Mr. Neiss: Their decision was based on this letter though, is that correct? Their decision to go ahead with the metal that's behind me is based on this? As I interpreted the package, they made a decision based on the communication that you had made to them. Is that correct? Mr. Umetsu: Our approval was made based on this letter in attachment C -1. The applicants, when we were discussing things, initially had said that they had not recalled receiving this letter. It was in our correspondence file, and in our building file. I'm not sure what might have happened there, but they, at that time, had indicated that they didn't recall receiving this letter of conditional approval and had relied upon a verbal approval on site. I don't recall giving any such verbal approval on site and I would rely on this letter and some other notes (inaudible). Mr. Neiss: this? So there's no other documentation to support a decision that was made other than Mr. Umetsu: This is the decision, this is the documentation which shows our, in which we communicated our decision to the applicant. We do have other project notes, chronicling other discussion regarding this metal wall, but I believe this is the relevant document. Mr. Malina: Well, second of all, as far as the BAR criteria, under 18.60.050, under paragraph B, it says, "Buildings should be appropriate scale and harmony with permanent neighboring developments." However, that isn't the case here. The materials are not harmonious with the neighboring development and that hasn't been one of the criteria that is met under the BAR. Mr. Umetsu: The plain wall being proposed is not, I would agree. I think that the wood columns, pilaster columns and the cornice details would go a long, long way toward helping to unify, not only the design of the individual building, but raising the design quality to something not exactly to the surrounding buildings, but approaching it and I think given the good faith actions of all parties in this situation, I would urge the Board to approve that design option. I guess, if they came to us today and said "I'm building this building, can I do this ?" we would probably say no, you should have a dryvit finish, but this is, I believe, an unusual situation and we're willing to recommend approval of this option. Mr. Neiss: O.k., thanks Vern. We'll hear from the applicant. Any comments from the • Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 May 25, 1995 applicant? State your and address for the record please. My name is Bob Wiley, I'm managing partner of the partnership, Fidelity Associates, that owns this property. I brought my partner with me and I hope you'll allow her to maybe have the final word of the things I forget to point out. _. Mr. Neiss: Your address please. Mr. Wiley: Address is 4211 Holly Land, Mercer Island, Washington 98040. Mr. Neiss: Thank you. Mr. Wiley: There are a lot of things we agree with Vernon on. I think that there are a couple of significant things that I'd like to point out and I guess I would start with this most recent one, the discussion of Vernon's letter of October 24th. We clearly had that, I've had that all along Vernon, and I don't know anyone that has ever not acknowledged that. On the other hand, it was October 28th, isn't it? Yeah, because, Vernon, we had started to talk about an alternative building material on the second floor in September because the rains were so severe, you've got my report, right? And I think it's in the report what the circumstances were as to why we went ahead and considered an alternative material. We had gotten samples, I had looked at them, others had looked at them, and on the 14th of October Vernon came to the site. We had this sample and an example of expanded metal that was placed, in place, at the height. And incidentally sir, if I could, I would like to put that piece of paneling at the other side of the room because no -one except the HVAC maintenance people ever get as close to it as you are. You know, and it's been pointed out, that from a distance this isn't even noticeable and it could well be that when we had that up for Vernon, on the top of the first floor where it was going to be, he may not have seen it the same way we did. In any event, the architect, the contractor, and I met with him on the 14th of October, we had understood him to say the siding was satisfactory, the expanded metal screen that we had planned for the HVAC was not satisfactory, and we changed it. And so we went ahead. Vernon's letter came with more qualifications than we had understood on the 28th of October, that was two weeks later, the material was ordered and partly installed by that time. Had I known, and there are two circumstances under which I would not take a minute of your time, if we had known the extent of the objection of the Planning Department, we would never have gone ahead with this. The expense difference between the coated, and that's a very sophisticated piece of metal because it's coated, it's got a 50 -year life or some such thing. The difference between that and dryvit is very little. It's not an issue of expense, nor would it be an issue of expense to other people coming along behind us. This issue was that the weather was so bad that it was very difficult for them to work with dryvit, which you know is a trowelled on type of material. So consequently, if we had known the extent of the objection, we wouldn't have gone ahead. The second thing, and I hope you'll believe my sincerity, if it made a hill of beans of difference I Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 May 25, 1995 wouldn't be here today. Some of you have noticed that, have talked about it and what we have ended up with is a very good looking building. Do any of you even question that? We have ended up with one of the most attractive buildings in Southcenter. You should not look at the material on that second floor wall, but you should look at the result, look at the appearance. And I do think that the Planning Department, from the old industrial era you had, and conversationl . about butler buildings and metal buildings, it has a bad connotation. Let's put that aside thought please because let's judge the building on its final appearance and I hope you would agree with me that in that respect, we've really done something that we can be proud of. The raised seam, incidentally, also creates a vertical line, and I am sure you recall from the photographs that I have shown in here, that in the buildings adjacent to ours, and in buildings throughout Southcenter, vertical lines are very prominent. There is a prominent vertical line in many buildings, which aesthetically breaks the monotony of the area and makes them look attractive. I would like, if I could, to refer with you to Vernon's letter here and I will just refer to a couple of his comments as I go through the letter and on page 2... Mr. Umetsu: You mean the staff report? Mr. Wiley: Pardon, the staff report, yes. Excuse me. What we're talking about here is Vernon had pointed out that under further discussions, the architect made clear that the smooth wall face was required for consistency with the BAR approved design. I just have to say that we didn't ' understand that. In the next paragraph, he has pointed out that subsequent discussions with the applicant, and the following paragraph, the last sentence, "subsequent discussions with the applicant and his architect corrected this misconception during inspection of the construction." I would point out that that was at the completion of construction. I'd also point out, and Vernon you comment, nobody noticed that building until the Schuck's building was taken down. You did not see the north side of our building when the Schuck's building was there. Also, recall because you had to approve it, there is going to be another building built on the Schuck's property. On the street line, up at the street it will not be as high as the old building was, it will not be two stories high, but it's going to be high enough to just substantially mitigate the visual view that one sees from the north. You recall and incidentally, the panning had to be done to show you the siding, because with the naked eye, you really don't notice it. In my opinion, it all blends in very well, and consequently, you had to pan up in order to see that. From the west and the east and south, it would really be hard to object to that. The only objection could come from the north and that is going to be softened when the next building does get in there. There had been reference made to the design criteria and I'd like to go through the building design criteria on page 3 of the staff report. That there is a comment here that the building should be appropriate scale in and harmony with the permanent neighboring developments. Well, in our opinion, we think we've done that. We Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 May 25, 1995 think we have made a building that is as attractive as any building down there. In the bottom sentence here on that page, Vernon said that he had done a windshield survey of the area. I did too. I've got a lot more at stake in this than others, and consequently, I think I was more careful in what I looked at. And if you will start at the Andover East, at the Eagle building and come south down the street with me, let me point out that the Eagle building, and there's a picture in ... here of it, the Eagle building has got a raised seam metal detail on page 3 of my report, if you'd look please, on page 3 of my report above the awning, around the, you can see that, it's above the canopy there, that's about a three -foot deep raised seam metal sheet, metal siding that's put there. Underneath it is the Compu -Serve building which has a six -foot high metal screen shielding the HVAC system. But coming south on Andover Park East, the next street, it's a little street named after a man, before Baker, Evans- somebody, there's a little street there. There's a brand new building that's just opened up in the last few weeks called, "Evans Furniture ". Evans Furniture has an eyebrow, is what I'd call it, all around the entire building of raised seam metal, and it's painted bright red, and it's an accent point to the building. Coming further south if you go on Strander Boulevard two buildings to the west of ours, is a company L.D.H. Lithographic Service. It's a metal building. I don't think it's a permanent building, I think it will change. It's a metal building. I might also add that the building that Vernon's office is in is a metal building, the one next door. Throughout Southcenter, there are numerous examples of where there's a lot of metal. Across the street, kitty-corner from us, the Washington Dental building, and I'll bring my little polaroids up to you in just a moment, the Washington Dental building has raised seam metal canopies that come down, and they are the equivalent of flat walls. I'll just pass these pictures around. You know where Magnolia Hi -Fi is? The Magnolia Hi -Fi walls are a sloped raised seam metal wall and if we think of the Burger King which is over there in the Spieker, where Zoopa's is, those roofs are very steeply peaked. They are steeply peaked roofs of raised metal siding. And it seems to me that, may I present these up here where you can just look at them. Mr. Umetsu: Bob, I'm going to have to keep those if you submit them. Mr. Wiley: Oh that's fine. Mr. Umetsu: O.k., good. Mr. Wiley: The point I want to make, or I hope I can make, is that there are accent points on many buildings which incorporate metal design. It is not that uncommon. Nobody has as much as we do, and we wouldn't have as much as we've got if we had understood the problem because the anxiety and concern this has caused me and my partner is not worth it. So, I admit, we clearly have got more of a problem than anybody, but it is not that uncommon and I do think it is consistent with your building design, it is in harmony with the neighborhood, from my point of view. If you take a look at "g ", it says "Monotony in single or multiple projects should be avoided." I suggest that if every new building that goes in Southcenter is done out of dryvit, Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1995 Page 13 we're going to have an awful lot of monotony down there. You can recall, at least most of you can recall, that twenty years ago, everything was tilt -up, or precast concrete. We got a lot of i- monotony and a lot of it is still there. And I would just hope that you would consider this the`' way it is built, as being satisfactory. Then also, well those were the points that I had wanted to make as it relates to that. On the following page, it also says that buildings, under second '' paragraph, "buildings in the immediate vicinity have been recently renovated and are in the process of being renovated, materials being used are predominately masonry and dryvit. Gentleman, since they are predominately masonry and dryvit, and one of your objectives is to avoid monotony, I hope you will go along and approve the building as constructed because as it's constructed, it's a very attractive building. It is not for a minute what I would have if I could re= do it. Because it's just not been worth going through what we've gone through for six months. Never the less, it is there. It was done because on October 14th, we showed that panel to a person from the Planning Department and it was our understanding it was acceptable. Two weeks later, we got a letter with qualifications on it. Let me also though please point out, Vernon had communications with my architect, that my architect may not have had with me. I'm just saying that never the less, the panel was there, I was there, the contractor was there, we looked at, we had understood it was satisfactory and so we went ahead and built it. Now, I've told you about the numbers of buildings that are in the area that I think have got metal on them, some of them as you can see from those photographs, are pretty predominately metal. And I would like to urge you to please approve the building as it's done because it's a good looking building and there have been no objections to date. The cost difference between doing it with dryvit, as you originally approved, no question about it, you approved the dryvit, we requested a change, it was unfortunate that a misunderstanding developed. We proceeded in good faith, the Planning Department proceeded in good faith, and it was not until we got the thing up that they saw it and said "oops, that's not we thought." So, I think that covers the principle, well that covers the things that I had on my mind. But I hope that you would be willing to view the project by its final appearance. Not by the fact that it's raised seam metal or any other product. Because when you get that product as far away from you as it is from anybody walking around that building, it doesn't look that bad. And I would hope that, I hope you can understand my feeling. If the building were wrong, I wouldn't be here either, we would have fixed it. My tenants think it's a terrific building and my tenants have had lots of property in different places. They think it's a very attractive building. We have had people come to the opening from City Hall, that have complimented us on the building. The end product is o.k., it really is. Mr. Malina: How do you feel about staffs recommendations on the pillars. Mr. Wiley: I oppose it. Now neither Vernon or I are architects. But I have talked to my architect and I think that those columns around there would just simply complicate and mess up a perfectly comfortable appearance to that building. I think the columns specifically, I have an objection to. I would, if I could have you turn please, on my report, to page 2. I simply think Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 - May 25, 1995 - that if you put columns up on those walls that it's going to complicate the architectural style of the building and it's going to compromise it. We don't have that elsewhere, and that's my reaction sir. Mr. Mauna: How do you feel about putting dryvit on top of the metal? Dryvit material? To keep the same accent as the rest of the building. Mr. Wiley: How do I feel about it? I would feel terrible. It would be very expensive, which should be irrelevant to your consideration, that's not your problem, that would be my problem. The thing that I feel so strongly about is the building looks o.k., I believe, it looks o.k. as is. If anyone had objected to it, if the tenants had objected to it, if the neighbors had objected to it, if you had objected to it, I could understand this. The only objection has come from Vernon, and Vernon is doing his job. Because his job was to follow out what you approved which was dryvit. It was changed and he has no option but to object. I understand exactly where he is coming from. He has to object because that's not what you had approved. I understand, I'm just asking... Mr. Malina: I understand and I sympathize with the fact that on October 14th because of the weather and everything or prior to October the 14th, you intended to put the dryvit material up there as approved by the BAR. But because of the weather is when you turned around and made that decision or your architect made that decision or it was collaborated between all of you to try going to some other metal material, above and beyond what the BAR approved. You gave it a shot. Mr. Wiley: Yes, but we did so by going to the Planning Department and having a representative come down and look at the physical object and we said is it o.k. and our understanding was the expanded metal that you have proposed to cover the HVAC is not o.k., the siding is. Mr. Malina: The problem I have with this is I've got an October 28th letter here. I haven't got an October the 14th letter stating something to the effect that it's o.k. for you to go ahead and try. I mean I haven't seen that. I'm going... Mr. Wiley: Do you doubt it? Do you doubt, Vernon will you recall...? Mr. Malina: No, what I'm saying is I have to deal with what's right in front of me and so do the rest of these people up here, and I think what's happening here is we have an October the 28th letter from staff to you saying that this inappropriate, that this is not going to work. You took the gamble, you took the gamble of going up with metal rather than dryvit, the weather was beating you to death, you have a timeframe to meet, those are choices that you made. And I guess where I'm at is that I'm seeing that staff has turned around and said, alright, you want and try this second material, but you gotta remember this is your gamble. If this doesn't work for us, Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 May 25, 1995 then you're going to have to go to either an additional expense, or whatever the case is. You already pre- ordered your material, it already came on site, you had half of it up or most of it up before staff came back, or somebody from the City came back and said, "oops, this is not what' we talked about." Then subsequently an October 28th letter, and you said that you had this letter all this time and you were aware of the fact that upon receiving this letter, you would have turned around and picked up the phone right away and called somebody in the City, the Planning Department, or Vernon, or whoever, and said, "hey, let's talk about this" you know. Mr. Wiley: We really find...It was our understanding that what we were doing was all right, and it was not our belief that the letter changed that. Mr. Malina: Well, what I'm seeing in this letter here, dated October 28th is exactly... Mr. Wiley: Could you read the points, because he talks about reflectivity. Mr. Neiss: George, this is discussion for deliberation. Mr. Wiley: He's talked about things, about the reflectivity of the surface. I think it reflects the same. The thing that is different is the raised vertical ribbing and frankly I'd rather have dryvit, but as long as it's up there, I think it looks good. That's just my own view. I do incidentally... Mr. Malina: Well, I've just been informed by the Chairman here, that this is something I need to discuss with them later on. At any rate, I'll leave that as is. Mr. Wiley: O.k., thank you. Mr. Neiss: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Any citizens' comments? Mr. Malina: She wants to... Mr. Neiss: Oh, do you have some comments? O.k. My name is Mary Ann Wiley and I live at 4211 Holly Lane, Mercer Island, and I am Bob Wiley's wife. I will be very brief because I really don't have anything to add and I think it's not necessary to be redundant, we've already taken a lot of your time. However, I was there when the conversation took place, and I'm Bob's wife, so that makes me an impartial witness. However, we are amateurs at the development business. There is no way, and I think our reputation with the City in this whole project, I hope, as far as I know, has been one of leaning over backwards to work with planning departments and city governments and things that we had not ever done before. But, as good citizens wanted to do both because it was in our interest, of course, but also it's important to us to build a building that we are satisfied with, that you are Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 May 25, 1995 svtisfied with, that our tenants are satisfied with. And what I'm hearing here is that there are three things that you have questioned and that we too questioned. The appearance of the building, we feel that it is an attractive building as is. The harmonious to the neighborhood. We feel that it is harmonious in the neighborhood, that it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb in any direction. If anything, it is a good, a better building than many. And the third, and I understand your concern about precedent, that if you allow something, then perhaps you're setting a precedent. But, and again I'm an amateur at this also, it seems to me your job is to judge each situation individually, and determine whether or not you feel that it is appropriate. Not necessarily to have a concern about doing one thing now and down the road that will always come back at you. That, I'm afraid, is one of the things you just have to deal with and handle case by case as best you can. As for the columns, you asked about that, and I think, and I certainly, certainly don't mean to offend anyone's taste, because really what we're talking about is taste. One of us can think a building looks nice, another can thin it looks terrible. So, that's a personal thing, but if you tack on columns, the word "tacky" comes from "tack ", and I think you destroy a clean look by trying to do something that really doesn't add, but call attention in the wrong way. It would make it more noticeable, instead of less. So, I really don't feel that is an option that I'm comfortable with. I appreciate the effort to try to make the best of the situation, and if you really feel, and this is very out - spoken of me, if you really feel that is makes that much difference, that if six or a year from now, it would really have made that much difference, perhaps we should change it, and that's our nickel. But, I don't see how in good conscience you can feel that it would be that significant an issue. But there we come back to your responsibility to the City and taking your time to hear us and I do appreciate that. Mr. Neiss: Thank you Mrs. Wiley. O.k., any citizen comments? Any rebuttal from staff? Mr. Umetsu: A couple points, three points actually. The site meeting occurred on October 14th. Now, we received design revisions for our review and approval which were dated out of the architect's office on October 21st. We received them by mail on October 24th. The revisions were immediately routed to me and I went over them with my Division Head, and by October 28th we had mailed out a letter with this conditional approval, noting that other departments were now going to be reviewing it etcetera. So I think the Planning Division's review in four days was tiinely. Mr. Neiss: On October 14th you had the meeting, I want kind of reiterate what you just said. What happened on October 21st? Mr. Umetsu: We don't just give out approvals in the field with no drawings. Revisions to the building permit must be submitted. So, on October 21st, the applicant's architect completed plan revisions and that was his revision date. He then mailed them to us. We received those revisions on October 24th into our offices. They were routed to me, and I reviewed them and we mailed out a letter on October 28th. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 May 25, 1995 Mr. Neiss: So in 14 days, well let me go back here. No formal decision had been made until the 28th, yet the applicant moved to new materials on October 14th and had most of it done by • the 28th, is that how I'm understanding how the situation went down. Mr. Umetsu: I don't think that construction was anywhere near complete on the 28th, although I don't know, I didn't go down and monitor the construction. Mr. Neiss: Substantially complete? Mr. Umetsu: I couldn't say. We didn't go out for construction final review, which is when Planning usually goes out until mid- December, I believe. That's correct. Mr. Flesher: When you submit a list of revisions, do you have to stamp it and send it back to him? Mr. Umetsu: Yes. The Building Division takes care of that. But again, we don't mail out letters based on verbal descriptions, we only approve actual building submittals. Second, the review of the metal seam material is not just Vernon Umetsu going out there. Before we make these types of decisions, we go out with the Planning Director and review the situation and come to a departmental conclusion. If the Director had disagreed with me, and I urged him to disagree with me both times, we would not be here. Finally, I agree with Bob that you do not disqualify any material just because it is metal or plastic or what have you. But it's the type of application. And in this case, we think it's not... doesn't reflect the same design quality as surrounding structures. Mr. Malina: In your letter dated the 28th, I think there's part of a sentence that means a lot and it says, "assures that it will have the same texture, the same color, the same reflectivity, as the first floor dryvit walls, and all the blind joints are going to have to be non - visible" we're going to have to fill them in, o.k.? I think that intent, and I think the intent from the get -go was if they decided to go to a different material, then again that was their choice, but I think they also understood, they would have to understand, an architect would have to understand from the get - go that what he's putting on the second floor has got to have the same textures, or at least simulate the same textures, definitely the same colors, unless there has been a specific color change for whatever the reason to emphasize that portion of the building. But you have to maintain the same reflectivity. When you look at the samples of the dryvit material and you take a sample of the dryvit material and you place next to this metal here, you don't have the same reflectivity. Much less, the color is pretty darn close. And definitely you don't have the same textures. Mr. Umetsu then placed the metal sample on the other side of the room. Mr. Malina: I think what you're trying to achieve is nice thing, however, if you add a sample Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 May 25, 1995 of dryvit material next to it, I think that's what you're trying to achieve. Not by having a piece of colored metal up there. You're only seeing one particular texture. Mr. Flesher: Vern, did you have any other points? Mr. Umetsu: Those were it. Mr. Meryhew: I've got a question Vernon. Do you think, you've stated in your letter that this is strictly a case of misunderstanding. Do you believe that at any point in this there was any intent to deceive? Mr. Umetsu: No. Mr. Meryhew: So it was clearly a case of misunderstanding as far as you understand and believe? Mr. Umetsu: I believe that many times people... Yes. Mr. Meryhew: So this is just a communication problem that went haywire. Mr. Umetsu: I believe so. Mr. Flesher: Was the architect present at that meeting? Mr. Umetsu: On the 14th? Mr. Flesher: Yeah, was Howard Turner there? Mr. Umetsu: Yes. Mr. Flesher: And hasn't he had other projects with Tukwila, because I'm sure I've approved one or more? Mr. Umetsu: Yes, he has had several projects with Tukwila. Mr. Flesher: O.k., so he's not new to the business? Mr. Umetsu: No. Mr. Meryhew: Vernon, one other question. If the applicant had originally come to the staff and the Planning Commission or Board of Architectural Review with that metal in place of the dryvit, do you think you would have rejected that? Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 May 25, 1995 Mr. Umetsu: Yes, we would have. Mr. Meryhew: Under what grounds. • Mr. Umetsu: Based on the building design criteria and that would be #18, I believe (a.), which says, "architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should based on quality of its design in relationship to its surroundings." Mr. Meryhew: And you think there's probably a problem in the quality of design for the relationship to surroundings? Mr. Umetsu: In the quality of design based on the use of this metal material and in its particular application, which is the second floor wall. Mr. Meryhew: O.k, but we do have other buildings throughout the City in the central business district with the metal on it. Mr. Umetsu: That's correct, but those, as pointed out by Bob and shown here, those metal walls with vertical lines, are integrated with windows, they're not continuous, plain, twelve -foot high walls. They are stripped, they look they are about four feet in height, they're... Mr. Neiss: With the exception of roof material. Mr. Umetsu: With the exception of roof material, right. We have used standing seam metal roofs as acceptable design elements of a building. Mr. Neiss: Any other questions of staff? O.k., I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Do we have rebuttal? Mr. Wiley: The only the comment I would make is if there is a concern about reflectivity, I would urge you to take another look at the video. Because I venture to say that you can't tell the difference between the first and second floors in the video. And I venture to say that if you walk down there, you can't tell the difference between the first and second floors in person, except for the vertical lines. Thank you. Mr. Neiss: O.k., now I'll close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Mr. Meryhew: When this thing first came before me, I went down and drove past it, and I've been past that building a number of times since it's been finished and even been it. I had a hard time finding out what the problem was because it wasn't really noticeable to me. Until I went back and re -read, and took a look at it again, I saw (inaudible). I don't think that there was any intent to deceive and I know that if I had been involved in the decision where the design had Planning Commission Minutes May 25, 1995 Page 20 came before us originally, with this on it, I would have been happy with that design. I think it's a welcome relief, what little vertical modulation there is from the regular dryvit, and I don't see a problem with the building as it's finished. I don't believe there was any intent whatsoever on anybody's part to deceive or do anything wrong intentionally. I think we may be taking a punitive position here, which I don't think is quite right either. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm happy with the building as it stands today. Mr. Livermore: I too went down there this weekend and walked around, went in the store, went on the various sides of it. Unlike Vern, when I looked at it, there was a very distinct difference that stood out between the first floor and the second floor. Normally I think when you want a little variance in designs, you're talking about getting away from long, straight walls by making some steps or something like that. I think a totally different appearance of the surface between the first and second floor stands out. If that were strictly to the back of buildings, then it wouldn't be such a big thing, but I see no way that's ever going to be shielded from the view of from the east side, particularly northeast. And I don't see where any building can be built since it's a parking for a new store going in. I don't have anything against per se, but I guess I'm not too happy with the distinct change in the appearance from the fast to second floor. Not that the second floor is all that bad looking. I•don't like the complete change. Now when you talk about some of the metal used on the other stores that were brought up for example, Eagle and some of these others, you're not talking about a twelve foot wall, you're talking about a three or four foot accent strip that runs across the building to give it some relief. I wasn't too happy with what I saw down there. I have to admit also, looking right next door at the Computer City, where they used metal for accent clear to the ground on their columns and that, really looked tacky. They've been (inaudible) and repainted and the color didn't match and so on and so forth. Now I don't think that's a problem on the second floor. It's kind of a hard decision as to whether you go in and spend additional money for what really is an aesthetic problem. My concern is the effect this may have on the neighbors. I'm sure he would not like to have that metal in front of his building, when you drive up to go in. Yet he's expecting his neighbors to have that view from the front of their building and I don't think that's right. Mr. Neiss: How do you feel about the columns that staff has proposed? Mr. Livermore: My own personal feeling is I think the columns would extenuate the problem. I'm sitting here still arguing back and forth with myself because one side of me says it's up and it's a lot of money to replace it and it is an aesthetic thing, and the other side of me says wait a minute, the neighbors have to look at this forever more. I guess at the very least, I would like to see that cornice extended all the way around, as it does for twenty feet or so from the front at least from the east side. Mr. Malina: Well, I guess it's my turn. First of all I agree with Vern that I don't believe there was any intent to deceive the City in this. I think, I have the feeling the applicant was on a timeframe, the dryvit in the bad weather wasn't working, he took the gamble on the metal before Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 May 25, 1995 staff had an opportunity to come out and totally approve that project for that particular material. The architect who has done business in the City upon numerous occasions, I think he has seen,'. and through all of the examples that he has provided us in the past of similar structures that he' has proposing to build, should have known a little bit better. I think there was a communication break down. It's a great cost to replace the metal and put the dryvit up. I think at the same token, that the criteria that we fall under as far as the BAR falls under and under the building design criteria, this may change in the future maybe, but unfortunately we have to deal with what's here before us. I think the structure in general, is a nice, pleasing structure. The problem that I have is the vertical metal. ' I think it's going to stand there. Maybe the better suggestion would be to extend the cornice versus putting up the pillars. I don't know, I just feel sorry for the applicant and I kind of see where the City is at and I see where we're at. Again, I don't think there was any intent of deception involved here. It's a hard call to make. Mr. Marvin: I went and saw the building. At first I went on the west side of the building and didn't see a lot. But then when I went over to the east and north side, there it was, just really large. I noticed how the cornice went a little way and then stopped. The front of the building looks great and as you follow it around it's like it stopped here and from here back, it was completely different material. No design seemed to be thought of and instead of, like he mentioned the corrugated metals used as details. That's what these other buildings have. They're either small for the cover of the HVAC or they are used for a detail, to highlight design, not a massive vertical wall with no design whatsoever. The color is close. The reflectivity is questionable. I didn't notice a whole lot of difference there, although I saw it one shade, you'd have to see it through different times of the day to really tell that. As far as the texture, and I read this letter and it says maybe faced with a metal siding based on your assurance that it will have the same texture, I don't see where the architect, being an architect felt this material was even close to the same texture as the rest of the building. I think there is a responsibility there to follow. It is a tough situation because it is done. However, I don't feel that the design conforms with the rest of the building and the other buildings and tenants around it. The columns I'm not sure. The cornice, I feel, should have been continued regardless of what material. I know there was the rain and dryvit was approved, it started raining. These are choices that the contractor makes. If I'm the contractor, I'm looking at this material and I'm saying to myself, this is going to be a gamble. I've got two choices, I can just go with it or I can wait until I'm sure it's o.k. and they went with it. If this came before me before, and I was not on the Commission when this original was approved, but if it came now I would not approve this material on the building because it's not what's happening around the area with the other buildings. Monotony, that's a whole other thing. I think in order to break up monotony isn't to just put up a twelve foot metal wall. I think it's to incorporate design and accents. Mr. Flesher: As far as monotony is concerned I think we have a two -edged sword here. I heard the applicant and his objection to monotony, but we have to talk about harmony. You're almost saying the same thing and you're saying no don't do this, but yes do that. I see that the requirement for harmony or a harmonious with your neighbors as very, very important, Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 May 25, 1995 especially in this particular area because it is a special district. I sympathize with the applicant, however again, the architect, who we've dealt with on several occasions, does know the rules, he does know how to play the game. I see a very definite trail from the 14th to the 28th. His date of revisions was sent in on the 21st. Had I been him, I would have wailed for the stamp before I. ordered any material. I sure as heck wouldn't have gone out and started putting it up on the building. I'm very sensitive to the same things the Chairman spoke about. When we sit here and are belittled, and it may have been on this particular job, that we were told that 75% of the jobs that we do aren't going to necessarily going to be that way when we do that, and we haven't them all. That came from staff, now from yourself. That was very sensitive then, it's even more sensitive now. We approved a job, we approved a finish, we were told by the applicant's architect that we had done such and such with this other project and we had let this person get away with this and he pretty much raked us over the coals and then he turned around and pulled a trick like this. So, it's not a case of was it on purpose, was it deception. No, but by omission he certainly committed himself and his boss, if you will, into a bad situation. I agree that I don't think the columns are the answer. I think continuing the cornice makes sense and I think it should go back to dryvit, that's what we approved. Mr. Neiss: Now it's my turn. I am sympathetic with the applicant to the extent that he's made a significant investment in this. I'm not sympathetic with the timeframe. Things were done without a formal approval or materials were ordered. I agree with Jack that the architect should have known better. We approved dryvit, staff may or may not have made some kind of field decision, but the applicant interpreted as a decision. It isn't what we approved and 1 feel, along with Jack, that the cornice should be continued and that it should be dryvit as we originally approved it. Mr. Malina: With that, let me try making a recommendation and see where it flies. I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE... Mr. Umetsu: Excuse me. Point of law. In quasi-judicial law, once you make a decision that's complete, for instance approving the second floor as dryvit and therefore satisfying the BAR design criteria for say, building design, you cannot then go back later on and say dryvit plus something else. Mr. Malina: O.k. let me make a motion then. ON L93 -0083, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DRYVIT FINISH BE APPLIED TO THE METAL SURFACE, RATHER THAN REQUIRING THEM TO TAKE THE METAL DOWN AND THEN PUTTING ON, IF THE DRYVIT MATERIAL CAN BE APPLIED TO THE METAL. Mr. Livermore: They're going to have to put up some kind of a flat panel before they put it on. I think a dryvit finish still corrugated is not going to do it. I think it's the variance between the smooth on the first floor, or lightly textured on the first floor, and all of the vertical lines on Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 May 25, 1995 the second floor. I don't know enough about the dryvit process to know whether they put up plywo:d and put that on or what they do. Mr. Malina: Let me make this motion. REQUIRE A DRYVIT FINISH BE PROPERLY APPLIED TO IMPLEMENT THE ORIGINAL BAR APPROVAL. Mr. Flesher: I'LL SECOND THE MOTION JUST FOR A MATTER OF DISCUSSION. What I hear you saying, and what I hope is being transmitted does put our decision if you will, if it's approved, in line with paragraph #1. It won't be, of Vern's letter, it won't be a straight across situation. But it will have the same reflectivity, basically the same color, and certainly the same texture, and that's all we've asked them for, so they wouldn't have to go back over it with a flat panel, and blind joints would not be visible, because blind joints are blind joints (inaudible). I think that would conform, in my way of seeing it. Mr. Livermore: In other words with a dryvit finish on a corrugated surface? Mr. Flesher: If that's a practical application; if that can be done. I certainly don't make that assumption. But you would have the same texture as dryvit, the same color, and the same reflectability. Mr. Marvin: Not necessarily the same texture. You'd still have a corrugation. Mr. Flesher: You'd have dryvit coating. Mr. Neiss: It's the vertical. Mr. Flesher: Well o.k., I'm not going to get into it. Mr. Marvin: The texture on the existing, on the other part of the building is flat surface texture. Mr. Neiss: say "I ". Well we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor Mr. Malina: I Mr. Flesher: I Mr. Neiss: All opposed. I Messrs. Meryhew, Marvin, Livermore: I Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 May 25, 1995 • Mr. Neiss: The motion is denied. Mr. Flesher: The floor is open. Mr. Neiss: The floor is open to further discussion. Mr. Malina: The discussion being is we're all in agreement up to a point that we're looking for a dryvit material. • • • Mr. Meryhew: Are you looking for a dryvit material, or are you looking for the texture that simulates dryvit? Mr. Malina: The same texture, unless we go stucco, if stucco will fit. I think again, we're looking at the vertical lines. Mr. Meryhew: Are you looking for a smooth finish, or vertical. Mr. Flesher: It sounds to me like they're looking for a smooth finish along with the dryvit. Mr. Meryhew: So you're looking for the full dryvit effect? Whether or not it's dryvit... Is that critical or not? Mr. Neiss: The issue that I noticed when I saw it and I share Henry's view in this, is it was a mass of vertical extension off of this building. It wasn't an accent. It's twelve feet, and the whole back of that building. It was... it's pretty obvious to me. We talked about tastes, and the applicant, one person may feel one way about it. I personally didn't like it. That's what we're being asked to do is make a decision on the appearance and the architectural appeal, and the harmony. I feel that it should be as originally approved. Mr. Malina: With that, make a motion. Mr. Neiss: I'LL MAKE A MOTION THEN TO GO BACK TO THE BUILDING AND RECONSTRUCT IT AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE BAR, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. Mr. Mauna: Just read that. Mr. Neiss: REQUIRE A DRYVIT FINISH TO BE PROPERLY APPLIED TO IMPLEMENT THE ORIGINAL BAR APPROVED DESIGN. Mr. Malina: I'LL SECOND IT. Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 May 25, 1995 Mr. Neiss: We have a motion and a second, any discussion? All in favor say "I ". Messrs. Neiss, Malina, Marvin, Livermore, and Flesher:I Mr. Neiss: All opposed. Mr. Meryhew: I Mr. Neiss: The motion carries and the applicant is required to work with staff to apply the dryvit finish as originally approved. END OF VERBATIM The Commission agreed to not reconvene the work session given the time. L94 -0043: Circuit City Mr. Livermore disclosed for the record that his wife owns stock in Circuit City. He added that he felt he could consider the proposal in an objective manner and be able to render a fair decision. There was no objection by the applicant for Mr. Livermore to hear the proposal. Vernon Umetsu presented the staff report. He amended the staff report so the Special Permission for an over -sized sign is not required in this case and that portion of the staff report is deleted. Circuit City's design review went through without approval of the sign. The are seeking approval of a freestanding and wall sign. The Planning Division finds the signs to be consistent with BAR approval, subject to two conditions: 1) the red accent on the pole of the freestanding and the red face of the freestanding sign will closely match the red used on the entry tower of the Circuit City building. That condition was made prior to receiving the colored exhibits. 2) The leading edge of the freestanding sign will be set back 30 feet from all property lines, or as per Sign Code. The Sign Code requires all portions of the sign be set back a distance from property lines equal to the height of the sign. A minor drop of 5 feet would not be a significant design revision requiring Board approval. Mr. Malina asked if the freestanding sign would be illuminated? Mr. Umetsu indicated it would be. Mr. Malina asked if the illumination would have a spill over effect. Mr. Umetsu stated there is a requirement in the original design review that no more than two " • " .." • • ".' . ' - • ••• ' ".. A rrA CIA? 7) Fidelity Associates 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Appeal of Board of Architectural Review determination of May 25, 1995, Case # L93-0083 Sears Homelife Building 402 Strander Boulevard Date of hearing August 21, 1995 Date of submittal: August 1, 1995 FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane. Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206- 232 -6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 August 1, 1995 RE: Appeal of Board otArchitectural Review determination of May 25, 1995: Case # L93 -008 - Sears Homelife building INDEX TAB 1 SUMMARY. TAB 2 REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL TAB 3 EXHIBITS TAB 4 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT RE: FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206- 232 -6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 August 1, 1995 Appeal of Board of Architectural Review determination of May 25, 1995: Case # L93 -008 - Sears Homelife building SUMMARY OF APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL Issue 1. Second floor siding on subject building was changed during construction after approval was requested and initially granted. 2 Approval was subsequently qualified and the siding was rejected by the DCD and at a BAR hearing. 3. Owner is being required to redo the siding. Request 1. Approve the building as built, or 2. Extend the cornice around the entire upper floor in lieu of siding change. Reasons: 1. The problem has arisen from a "good faith" misunderstanding. The owner followed proper proceedures throughout and should not be punished. 2. The building is attractive as built and is compatible with its Southcenter surroundings. The owner and tenants are very sensitive to the importance of good design and appearance, and are pleased with the building. 3. To date neither the DCD, the owner, nor the BAR has received nor heard any criticism of the building. Background: (Please see the attached letter). Alternative treatment Extend the cornice all around the second floor. This was discussed and recommended by the BAR An attached elevation and photograph show how this would look. FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206-232-6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 July 29, 1995 To: Tukwila City Council From: Robert L. Wiley, Managing Partner RE: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review determination of May 25, 1995: Case # L93 -008 - Sears Homelife building ISSUE: Subject building's second story siding was changed during construction after approval was requested and received from the Department of Community Development (DCD) on October 14, 1994. The owner, contractor and architect met with the DCD inspector on that date and showed him a sample of the proposed siding change. Two weeks later, on October 28 , 1994, the DCD wrote a letter stating the approval was subject to various conditions including "texture, color and reflectivity". By the time it was received, materials had been ordered and installation started. Since the inspector had seen a sample of the "texture, • • : 0• • • :I• •., • :, •• acceptable After installation, it was learned that the inspector had not realized that the siding sample was ribbed and not flat as originally approved by the BAR The BAR seeks to require the owner to replace the existing second floor siding. REQUEST; The owner requests that the City Council - approve the building as built, or - accept an alternative of extending a cornice around the entire upper floor and leaving the siding as built REASON: The owner believes the BAR, through its comments and actions at the BAR hearing, felt that the builder /owner had attempted to "put one over on the City". This is emphatically not the case, and the DCD inspector pointed out at the hearing that he believed this problem was the result of a "misunderstanding ". The owner believes the BAR decision is intended to be punative, does not fairly judge the actual appearance of the completed structure, and imposes an unnecessary and unfair burden on the owner who . acted in good faith with the prior approval of the DCD. page 2 The owner believes the request should be granted for the following reasons: 1) The owner has cooperated fully with all Departments involved with the construction. Correct procedure was followed in requesting the change in siding and the change was made only upon the understanding that it had been approved. 2) The building is used for retail sales and its appearance is very important. Neither the owner nor tenants would accept anything that was not attractive and appropriate. The building looks good and is compatible with its Southcenter surroundings. (see attached photos) 3) New siding at this point would be very costly. Although cost would not be justification for not correcting something that was blatantly wrong, this building is attractive and inoffensive. At the time of the BAR review the Circuit City site was essentially bare ground. A new building has been constructed on this site and a pad designated for a future building at the front south east corner of the lot along Andover Park East. With this construction and with landscaping the north side is shielded. Although the BAR objected to the appearance of the second floor at the time of their review, however in a short period this will not be noticed or noticeable. BACKGROUND: Subject building was started in the late summer of 1994. As the contractor completed the shell, driving rains made it unlikely that he could apply the Dryvit siding and get it water tight in any reasonable period of time. The contractor suggested the use of NorClad siding which could be installed regardless of the weather. The owner, contractor and architect studied samples and considered options. After deciding upon the NorClad option, DCD was contacted and asked to inspect the selected siding. On October 14, 1994, the contractor installed samples of the cornice, Norclad siding and expanded metal proposed for the HVAC screen. An inspector met with us to look at the samples at mid morning. He rejected the expanded metal HVAC screen, but approved the cornice detail and the use of the Norclad siding for the second floor walls and the HVAC screen. On October 28. 1994 the inspector wrote a letter conditioning any approval upon "texture, color and relectivity". Since the inspector had seen a sample of the material, we assumed this was a formality and not a problem. Had we sensed any significant reservation at the time, we would have sought further clarification or not gone ahead with the alternative siding. I believe our record shows full cooperation with the City. We complied with page 3 all requirements, and absorbed considerable costs in correcting items that had been approved by the City on the original drawings but which were found to not comply with code or be otherwise not acceptable in the final inspection. We proceeded with this construction in good faith and believe that the final product should be viewed as acceptable by the City. We obviously stand to be significantly effected by the outcome of the Council's decision. We regret this misunderstanding with the DCD and understand their unwillingness to accept a building that differs from the original BAR approval. Nevertheless, we feel we have fulfilled our obligations, acted in good faith, have a fine looking building and request that the Council accept the building at built ALTERNATIVE: At the BAR hearing of May 25, 1995, the initial ruling of the BAR was that the owner should: 1) install the originally specified siding, and 2) extend the cornice all around the top story. The DCD representative pointed out that the BAR could not retroactively require more than it originally approved. Hence, the cornice extension was deleted. The owner believes the building should be approved as built. However, the owner is willing to extend a cornice around the rest of the top story (please see attached "Alternative Treatment"), in lieu of changing the siding, as has been discussed with the DCD. EXHIBITS: Attached are photographs of buildings in Southcenter, and in the vicinity of 402 Strander Boulevard. They show that both strong and subtle vertical lines, such as those that appear on the second floor siding, have frequently been incorporated in Southcenter building design. Captions accompany and explain each of these photos. Ribbed metal siding is not uncommon as an architectural detail, a screen, extended sun shade or as siding in the Southcenter area. ctfully submitted Robert L. Wiley Managing Partner SEARS HOMELIFE BUILDING EXHIBITS A review of the buildings in Southcenter reveals that many of them incorporate vertical lines as architectural detail. In most, these vertical lines are juxtaposed along side of or above flat wall surfaces. Often, as seen in the following photographs, the vertical lines are subtle, showing up only in certain light, or when one is close to the building. A review of the buildings also reminds one of the popularity of brick construction in the 1950s and 1960s and precast concrete in the 1970s and 1980s. Dryvit is the style of the 1990s and offers many opportunities for architectural design. One design detail, it is suggested, should be its use along with other siding materials to create variety and interest. It is suggested by the owners of the Homelife building that the vertical lines on the second floor Norclad siding is compatible with the architectural detail on adjacent buildings as well as others throughout Southcenter. Without such detail and variety, Southcenter could gradually become a Dryvit getto. The owners acknowledge that this detail was not on the original submittal to the BAR. However, it is believed that the building, as built, is attractive, compatible with others in the area, and should be approved as built. 402 Strander Blvd on a sunny January 1995 day. The second floor has Norclad siding on the east, west and north sides. The building faces south. Sears Homelife Exhibit page 2 402 Strander looking northeast Second story walls are Norclad siding. • :...tit: ;., ^;i•,?`. ^�sk;K��'!a'l�w�Ai:."3� .,'r�, .... ".�' °•s:' 402 Strander looking southwest across the vacant Circuit City site. Sears Homelife Exhibit page 3 Eagle Hardware incorporates vertical detail above the win CompUSA uses a secoiill level metal screen to conceal: i AC and other roof top attachments. Sears Homelife Exhibit page 4 Washington Dental Health Center at Strander and Andover Park East has precast vertical concrete members to add interest, while vertical lines are repeated in the building to its south Metal siding on the Minolta Building, which houses the Department of Community Development, is accented by vertical line which break the flatness Sears Homelife Exhibit page 5 Vertical detailing on this Andover Park West office park adds to the attractiveness of the structure, yet is subtle and principally apparent only from close inspection 440,40., op/41w,, Z'"..4.4izsontoti.F'77.414K:014.44:. :-:}:,: .<.. • OEAST ELEVATION r; EAST 3/32 " -f -0- REF: A32, A4.1, A42, A4.3 MAC SCREEN NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/3r4-0" REF: A32, A4.L A42, A43 WEST ELEVATION SCALE 3/3r =t-Cr REF: A32, A4.1, A4.2, A43 1E42.1147A( LR 1 41& / _ A ---g — — -- MING o RIM L 2 bb .94o( 214 Sus O NULL. CourJiKtiow SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/32 - .4-O" REF: A32, A4.1. A42, A43 FRST RCM Of & PROPOSED OUO: CD » CD h 11 MING COPUTER OY RIZ TO ROAN -------- - - - - -- DETAIL 2J66. GFIOWS OtAPENO 0 WALL. COArJEGT10 3 -- E1;QD11Q11.46 CITY OF n D AU6 2 6 1994 As BUILDING DIVISION ari■C mW,IER QTY Hip[; TO gF11M4 N O4RATW GAO GOISTAGROL RECEIVED RECEI in I gig AU616 TV--.._ .... NOTES o SM01►7N 1 . FRA" uG BEi'on514:i.0- TR�� sg. STFLX.11 -+z�, rzok comvEtriaNS. 1 6150 Nc6E- h -7 0 FIDELITY ASSOCIATES TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 8420 246h PLACE NE. ARCHITECTS SEATTLE, 63.464GTON 9155 TEL (206; 365 -7431 FAX: (206) 365 -7504 ELEVATIONS FIDELITY ASSOCIATES, HOMELFE JOB 994 HC•AaFE FLE FDA3 -tGcD na REGISTERED AgCN�TECTI DRAWN 9� SOH CFEO<ED EEY: FRT 11 :: DATE 5/30/94 sum Or v::- lIw1610 SCALE 3/32" = 1.-0' REVISIONS z c 15 1eiis • SHEET VEO • • BM .\ �7: '1:+ t• •• •, ' ' • ti 1 �' 'f„�yt'iv h5��;'(?.iui��'.}�.'G.�:�.X, i ^ii`.* _?. � � ..4 � ,rt�.!SFYt�ii?`f�'�j'.C.il +:.�� 4�. i�lii'fX�ii..:��4iis"+�_ : Q.Y.F. a�M:_afi',}.tnX, r w a�ibw�awr .+.r.+n+s�aww�..n.v...a+.ww+i ua.,.- rr... �ci.. 1�1' H: st": uv'. t2bi1�E "ii?x ?i.�'` ":�ii�? "i„h'u�.�t��. , S� , := iii: ^.:'� 2' � �.; 'c�+ w...i.». ..e,�.., „ows.•�mr.�c•mar�Ym.:rvMr.� CITY OF TUKWILA Id: MISC120 Keyword: UACT User: 1684 Comments regarding an Activity Permit No: L93 -0083 Tenant: HOWARD TURNER Status: APPROVED Address: 402 STRANDER BL 09/05/95 DESIGN REVIEW Line User Id Text 16 1684 9/5: ON 8/21, City Council approves design revision to allow 17 1684 norclad metal siding on second floor with addition of a 18 1684 simiplified cornice and replacement of existing plum street 19 1684 trees with red maples per the CBD Street Tree Program. 20 1684 Applicant agrees. 21 1684 Subsequent discussions w/ Wiley about need for a building 22 1684 permit, and landscape plans with planting details are held 23 1684 w/ Umetsu. Enter Option: A =Add, C= Change, D= Delete, I= Inspect Up /Down= Select, PgUp /PgDn(F2) =Page, F3 =First 12, ESC =Exit Comment Added O.K. QU SIJUDICIAL HEARING APPEAL OF BO • RD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DECISION 0 F MAY 25,1995; CASE #L93 -0083 APPELL • NT: FIDELITY ASSOCIATES August 21, 1995 MAYOR RANTS: Our next issue w 11 be a public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER HAGGERTO Council President and the City Coun was on the Board of Architectural R came forward. And I think, in the ap : Mr. Mayor, I respectfully request of you and the City it Members that I be excused from hearing this because I view and the Planning Commission when this applicant first earance of fairness I should be excused. MAYOR RANTS: You're excused im. COUNCILMEMBER HAGGERTO : Thank you. MAYOR RANTS: Before I open th have a telephone conversation with was simply a telephone call and ther free to, should I now, have to make t ATTORNEY COHEN: Has anyone couldn't be fair? COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: W this was before the Planning Commi of it while it was happening there, b what not. ATTORNEY COHEN: Will you be you hear today? COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Y public hearing, I would also disclose to Council that I did r. Wiley two or three months ago about this issue, but it were no statements of any kind made on my part, and I feel e decision do it with a clear and open mind. Ise had any contacts or any reason that they feel they ile we're all giving confessions here, I guess I had...when sion, not understanding where it might go, I followed some t I don't think it affected by decision as to what to do or able to make your decision based on whatever information COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I'll Umetsu for three pieces of informati and those 3 pieces were: What the o what the dollars may be for any of t of those questions would prejudice yet, and staff shall report on that late mention that on Thursday of last week, I asked Vernon n which would assist in the Council deliberation of this, iginal permit stated; what the revision to the permit was; and e options that were recommended by staff. And neither one e at this point. I have not received the information as of ATTORNEY COHEN: And that's 11 information that the applicant has as well, I would assume. The appellant. MAYOR RANTS: Very well. I will open the public hearing and ask that the city counselor swear in anyone who is going to give testimony this evening. ATTORNEY COHEN: Anyone who is going to give testimony, if you would stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm that everything you say will be true. MAYOR RANTS: We will begin with a staff report which will be 20 minutes and then the proponent will speak for 20 minutes for a match time if he so chooses. And at that time then we will listen to any citizen comments who wish to speak. Vern. VERNON UMETSU: Thank you, for the record, my name is Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning Division. Before us tonight is file #L93 -0083. This is an appeal of a Board of Architectural Review decision that a dryvit surface be installed on the second story wall of the Sears Homelife Building as originally approved. This is a quasijudicial hearing and conducted under a denovo ruling basis which is that all information will be presented anew and that your decisions, your findings, conclusions and decisions should be based on the criteria of the Board of Architectural Review. It should be noted that no other aspects other than the second story wall of the Sears Homelife building have been appealed, and so the original decision which is, and the original design which was approved by the Board of Architectural Review and generally shown on site plans and elevations on the wall behind you must be given deference or respect. That is you really can't significantly change it since it was not approved -- excuse me, since it was not appealed. The Homelife building was initially reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review on January 27, 1994. This project was approved as shown in those drawings, and with your permission, I would like to come up forward and generally describe this project. The site is located approximately in the northwest corner of the Andover Park East and Strander intersection. You can see that Computer City lies to the immediate east and this is the project site which is 1.6 acres. To the immediate west is the Future Shop and Best project, and behind the site is the new Computer City store. The building itself is approximately 44,000 square feet, rises to about 33 feet in elevation, and you can see these elevations on the next drawing. Entry to the site is from Strander Boulevard to the south through shared accessway - -two shared access ways -- excuse me. The entry to the building is on the south as shown here, and you can see the Sears Homelife project and then a secondary entry which is now the Putts Golf. This elevation that we're showing here is the originally approved BAR drawing and you can see on the elevation which is shown as the east elevation, the rear north elevation, and the west elevation that this area - -these 3 areas on the second story were approved as a dryvit surface. And dryvit is sort of like a stucco finish. The cornice, the fancy cornice, which is shown on the front of the building extended about halfway to the rear and then stopped, and then it was just a plain parapet going back. The site plan and building design were approved by the Board and construction documents and a building permit application was filed with the Building Division, reviewed and approved by all departments. Right now, I'd like to show you the building plans as well as colors and materials board. The colors and materials board shown before you show the type of dryvit finish that was proposed and approved by the department. Excuse me, proposed and approved by the applicant and all departments. On this elevation you can see where clearly where the cornice stops and a plain parapet begins. This surface is shown as 7.1 and that's called out on the materials spec sheets as dryvit. The project was constructed during the winter, construction started during the winter, and during that time on October 14, there was a field review of an HVAC screen for the rooftop HVAC units. That screen was rejected and it was replaced with a type of metal screen. Further discussions with the architect and the owner concerned a proposal to replace the dryvit on the second floor wall with a metal wall. That metal wall was discussed, revisions were drafted and received on the 24th of October. Staff reviewed those revisions and conditionally approved them as shown in the approval letter in one of your attachments on October 28, I believe. The condition of approval included consistency with the BAR criteria which was that it had to have the same look and feel on the second floor as on the first floor dryvit surface. The construction was reviewed when we typically go out to review construction which is toward, which is pretty much at the end of the construction period. And DCD looked at the metal wall that was installed. And I will bring you a copy of that metal wall here. The department determined that the look and feel of that wall was not consistent with the BAR dryvit design. This determination was not appealed, but the applicant went back to the BAR and requested a design revision to approve the metal wall as built and without any further embellishments. This decision the Board reviewed, all materials, including a video tape of the site which was presented at that hearing and determined that the dryvit should be re- installed, should be installed as initially approved. The applicant, Mr. Wiley, appeals that decision to us tonight. Now in reviewing this further appeal, staff has changed its, has taken another tact on reviewing this design proposal and now recommends approval of the metal wall subject to extension of a simplified version of this complex cornice all the way around the second story wall and the replacement of the existing purple plum trees with red leaf maple trees which would be consistent with the CBD street tree plan. At this point, that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions that I can answer. COUNCILMEMBER DUFNIE: I have one question. What is the grade of that sheet metal there and why was it rejected in the beginning, if you approve it now, is that correct? VERNON UMETSU: We rejected it initially because the quality level proposed which without the cornice as shown. We rejected it after thought because it, you could see these lines. It clearly looked different from the dryvit finish of the first floor level. The question was then, was it significantly different to require design revision. Yes, we determined that it was. Did it reflect the design quality similar to other buildings in the surrounding area, which had largely dryvit or similar types of finishes. We thought it did not reflect that level of quality. On its own we could not recommend approval as being similar in quality to the approved design of the BAR. And in an independent review of this metal wall alone, we did not think that it satisfied the BAR design criteria. Staff at the Board meeting did recommend approval of this metal with a combination of cornices, continuous cornice and additional pilaster columns, but the Board did not believe that that would be sufficient, and they especially didn't like the pilaster columns.. They therefore determined that a dryvit finish would be appropriate. Tonight we have changed our scope of analysis to include the overall project site. We looked at it and thought that this was somewhat of a special situation where we could consider the replacement of these existing purple plum trees which are very different from the red leaf maples specified in the CBD street plan as partially offsetting the difference in building design quality of this wall. This wall is about 20 feet higher above the first floor level and rises about 12 feet high. We thought that overall in looking at..If you were to consider the overall design quality and consider the site with respect to consistency of design and harmony of design with adjacent properties that we could recommend approval with a tree replacement and cornice extension. Please note that the Board was very concerned about setting a precedent of design quality and I would note that this is a very special situation where the existing trees did remain and were approved and that any future projects would have to replace their trees with the materials consistent with the CBD plan, and no offsetting credit for maybe a lesser quality building design would be given. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: But what I'm hearing you saying...This is a special issue here, we're making an exception now, but you're not going to be able to make one in the future, is that what I'm hearing? VERNON UMETSU: That is correct. In this particular case we think that it's reasonable to give credit for providing street trees, replacing the existing street trees with those which would be consistent with the CBD street tree plan. COUNCIL MEMBER DUFFLE: One last question, you kept mentioning the word "cornice." What is that? VERNON UMETSU: Cornice is the top cap of the wall and if I might, let me distribute a recommended design proposed by the applicant. Planning staff has reviewed it, and we recommend approval of that cornice design. Just a moment. On the left is the complex design shown on the southend of the building on that elevation. On the right is the simplified design and you can see where it's been slightly modified. I think a complex cornice continuing along would not be, would clash with the more simple design of the east, north, and west elevations. MAYOR RANTS: Any other questions for staff? Joan. COUNCILMEMBER HERHANDEZ: I was just going to ask what date this modification was approved and the staff recommendation to allow approval of the metal seam wall and to add the extension of the cornice. VERNON UMETSU: I had seen earlier versions of the simplified cornice, but it had not been officially proposed at the time of staff report distribution. We received these on Wednesday, Wednesday or Thursday of last week. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: And has the appellant has a chance to respond as to whether these are satisfactory? VERNON UMETSU: This is the appellant's design. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: This is his design that you have approved. VERNON UMETSU: That we recommend approval on. That's correct. The appellant has reviewed the staff report. We have been in contact with him, and he does fully agree with the staff recommendation that the cornice be extended, the existing purple plum trees be replaced with red maple trees, and under those conditions the metal wall would remain. MAYOR RANTS: Any more questions. I'll start with Steve and then I'll come back down. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Vernon why was the proposed alternate simplified? Was it a large expense or was it just the cornice? VERNON UMETSU: It is a good design option because the cornice...Extending a complex cornice all the way around would make the plainness of the rest of the wall - -it would clash with the simple remaining wall areas. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: How are the connections made with the simplified one where I assume it's going to meet the complicated one at some point in time. VERNON UMETSU: That's correct. And you can see where right on this elevation, I've outlined the new cornice areas in red. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Are those actual corners, where it's going around a corner and then, or is it a flat plain where they meet. VERNON UMETSU: They would meet on a flat plain, and it would be approximately half way back in the building, approximately...You can see where the cornice would start right there, and it is about halfway back from the Best building and you can see where that wall line is right there. The western cornice would be right about there. The eastern cornice would be right about there. And it would just go right around. I think they could be easily integrated; you wouldn't notice the difference. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I think that's what I was asking. VERNON UMETSU: Ok. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: The material that you have shown us today, the metal siding before us. Is that an exact replica of what's currently existing on the building. VERNON UMETSU: Yes, it is exactly what is on the building. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Same paint? VERNON UMETSU: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Thank you. MAYOR RANTS: Anyone else. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I'll continue. Tell me how a dryvit is applied. You mentioned stucco, but I'm not a construction expert so, I think of chicken wire and putting a bunch of mesh together. VERNON UMETSU: It's something like that but it's easier to apply. It's more durable, and I believe what you'd need to do, however is to either put something on top of this metal siding or take it down and replace it with some plywood. On top of the plywood then is what you would install the dryvit. The cost that you have asked for is approximately $25,000, $30,000. The contractor's estimate; I asked out architect and plans checkers about whether or not that was reasonable and they said it was pretty much in the ballpark, but they didn't know because they didn't know what would need to be done. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: How many square feet is that. VERNON UMETSU: I could work it out, but I don't have it right now. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Do that for me while this other speaker's speaking. VERNON UMETSU: Ok. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: How is the existing metal wall fastened to the building. VERNON UMETSU: I believe it's fastened by screws to a metal wood framework, but possibly the applicant could clarify that. I would note that we did collect, we have reserved in a savings account a sum equal to 150% of the estimated construction cost so we feel very confident that we'd be able to cover any construction costs with city controlled funds. MAYOR RANTS: Anyone else with questions for Vernon. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: The Planning Commission minutes mentioned some videos or some movies. Are we going to see those? VERNON UMETSU: They are available for your review. I didn't know whether you wanted to see them or not. We're at your disposal on that. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I guess my feeling would be that. I didn't go down and specifically look at the building because in the past we've been asked not to do that unless we do it as a group. So I would still like to do that. I guess I would bring that up if the Council would feel comfortable at some point deciding if we should go down there as a group and view this thing personally or if we should just deal with pictures and other things. That would make a difference whether we look at these films. If we're going to walk down and look at it, I don't think we need to look at the films. Or let's say ride down and look at it. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I don't mind looking at the films, but I'm not sure that I want to sit, that it's appropriate for us to sit and question whether something is attractive or not. I'm not sure that's the question before us. I think that's a question that the BAR deals with in its deliberations. Maybe we should come back to this after we finish the presentations. But I would like to discuss the basis for our decision and what the decision is that we're about to make. And before I would want to make a decision on whether we should go look at it or not. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I know the point is, do we want to watch films or not, and my thought is if we're not going to go look at it, I want to see the films. You're saying you want to make that decision first, but is that outside the realm of. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: If you want to see the films, I'll support you seeing the films. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: I don't mind seeing the films, but to me it's not so much of an appearance issue as it is some type of misunderstanding that might have taken place. And whether the material meets what was actually in the plans. But if you're saying now that you're satisfied with this proposal the way it is, I don't know whether it's an important issue for us to view the site or to see the film. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Well it is a visual issue. I mean it's mentioned right in the criteria that this was supposed to represent the texture and what not, and that you can't tell that sitting here. It's on a building wall down there, and you have to go look at it to see if it does represent that. If we don't want to dig that deep into the thing, that's fine with me too. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Let me ask this question to clarify for myself. Where is the film located. VERNON UMETSU: In that drawer, or in that cabinet. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: How long does it run? VERNON UMETSU: Approximately 10 minutes. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Do you think we can see it 'tonight? VERNON UMETSU: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Okay. That's my opinion anyway. Vernon, on October 24 when the revisions were received, what form were they received in. VERNON UMETSU: We had a plans sheet of elevations similar to what is shown behind you, and just a revision sheet saying "we request these revisions." Instead of calling out 7.1, the notation "metal wall" was shown across the elevation surfaces. I looked for that drawing, and I could not find it. COUNCILMAN EKBERG: When the metal wall was stated on the applicant's revision that was received, did it state what form of metal wall - -flat wall, corrugated wall. VERNON UMETSU: It did not say whether it would be flat or corrugated. I had assumed in my discussions with the architect that we were talking about a flat metal wall especially since, and that's reflected in our discussion to my understanding in our letter which talked about a half inch blind joint as being the prominent thing that needs to be concerned about. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: So if I were to understand, the revisions came through on October 24. VERNON UMETSU: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: With a metal wall being used to replace material 7.1 dryvit. VERNON UMETSU: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: And on October 28, you approved based on your knowledge of what was explained as a metal wall surface, your assumption being a flat metal wall surface based on dryvit being a flat surface. VERNON UMETSU: That's correct and that was, I thought, adequately explained in our letter of approval which said you had to have the same look and feel as the first floor dryvit. Subsequent to that the applicant's architect indicated that, geeze, well, there is no such thing as a flat metal wall, it has to be corrugated; which I didn't know. We allow architects...We have in the past allowed builders to try different ways to satisfy the BAR criteria, and as long as it had the same look and other design features approved by the Board, we have then approved it. Now we have since made an agreement with the Board that we will not do that anymore. Unless it clearly, unquestionably satisfies the BAR criteria, it shall go back to the Board for further review. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: What is the texture of dryvit? VERNON UMETSU: The texture of dryvit is this motley type of surface here. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: How would that texture be applied to a flat metal surface. VERNON UMETSU: I don't know that it could. I don't know how to construct this type of dryvit situation. Typically, I mean, I've seen dryvit applied. It's just a spray -on finish on top of a styrofoam type surface. I don't know how you would do it here. That's why the Board said in their motion that it should be properly applied dryvit. MAYOR RANTS: I think we need to make a decision if we wish to see the film now. It would be appropriate if you wish to or if you wish to listen to the proponent at this time. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I can go either way as long as I don't get stuck in a position where I can't see the films if I decide I need to at a later date. MAYOR RANTS: No I don't think. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I would like to have available the information that the Board of Architectural Review had available which was the film in addition to the material we have before us. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: I don't have a problem with that if it helps someone make a decision. I certainly don't have a problem with that. MAYOR RANTS: all right, then we will take the ten minutes to see the video please. VERNON UMETSU: Okay Let's see Mr. Haggerton had a microphone. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: It's in his drawer. COUNCILMEMBER CRAFT: He tied it up just for you. VERNON UMETSU: He was a Planning Commissioner after all. Okay, Jane are we okay here on this mic? Okay, this video tape was a bit of an experiment to see how it worked out. It had its good points; it had its bad points. I don't if we're going to use it again, but this is what the Commission saw. We're looking at the site across from the Teamsters building across...We will be looking across the Circuit City project and viewing the site from the north and the east. There's the Circuit City project and you can see the building. That's Computer City and there's the Homelife project. And you can see these metal wall, lines on the metal wall which were inconsistent with the dryvit. The HVAC screens are on top. At the top of that parapet is where the cornice would go, on top of the metal wall, and would go all the way around it. It would definitely, I believe, improve the appearance of that building, especially from the Circuit City side. I've took some pictures of the Circuit City to show the split face concrete and to show materials that were in surrounding buildings. This is another picture of the Homelife project and it's comparison with mass of buildings and materials in surrounding buildings. And that's the complex cornice, and you can see the three areas - -three steps of that complex cornice that will go around the corner. We'll next be going around to the south side of the project and viewing it from the Segale retail, Strander retail project across Strander. Let me just...Okay, its going. In this case, I made a mistake, the cameraman was not very good and, oh, I'm sorry. You have to bear with me for just a little bit That is the Barnes and Noble project, Barnes and Noble store of the Segale Retail Center. Cam raman making a mistake. You can see the type of cornice and building materials that's imme iately across the street from the side. So we're doing a panorama shot of the Best Project, Future Shop, and here we see the Sears Homelife project with the second story building wall, and that's here the simplified cornice would take off. And that is the dryvit finish. Are there any questions on that. Anybody want to see that again. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE I have one. One thing, I have never seen this sprayed on. I'm working on a house now that h:s a wire mesh and wood. I do not believe that this type of material would even hold on th re even if it were flat. This type of material is not for a metal roof. MAYOR RANTS: Could we ave the lights back up here please. Alan. COUNCILMEMBER EKBER : My question deals with the metal wall as it currently exists. In the previous question, Vernon, you mentioned that was screwed in to wood studs. Is there any backing material, like a foam o an insulation barrier that provides support for wind damage or other type of. VERNON UMETSU: I believ that it's appropriately supported. We can look at the plans, but Bob do you know, the constru tion details of that wall. ROBERT WILEY: I don't k n w the construction details, but they were approved by the City. It's a weather type wall. VERNON UMETSU: While Mr. Wiley is making his presentation, we can look it up. MAYOR RANTS: If there are no further questions of staff, we'll allow Mr. Wiley to speak. ROBERT WILEY: Good evening. My name is Robert L. Wiley, 4211 Holly Lane, Mercer Island, Wa. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be able to talk with you about this misunderstanding that we've had with the Department of Community Development. The facts have been covered really very ell by Vernon for the DCD. And you have each had a copy of this appeal. I am not sure wha you're customs are; but if you have read it, I might point out that we did have a summary under ab 1 which identified really the issues, which I think correspond to what Vernon has presented, hat are requests and are reasoning. Tab 2 is somewhat of a more detailed explanation of that. If you could with me for a moment take a look under Tab 3. You ill note that there are photographs and particularly the photograph, the first page, und- r page 3, does show the building. I think one of the things that would be apparent is that from the south or the traffic side of the building, the second floor is barely visible. If you turn the age please to the second page under exhibit 3, on the bottom, you'll note, this is looking fro Circuit City when it was under construction, and you will note that it is very apparent from the north. It is the cornice that we're proposing to put around the top that we think will make that look as a more finished piece of work. In any event those pictures can go along with the video perhaps to use as any reference work that you may want in order to see what we have there. However, I would like to emphasize three points, and I think I can be quite brief in my presentation. And I hope in turn that there may be questions because I think that might be the useful way to discuss things with you. First, our understanding with the DCD was over what was really said on October 14, and that was when the proposed citing was expected. The proposal to change from dryvit to metal was weather related. You may recall late last fall we had very torrential kinds of rain and allot of very bad weather. At that point the contractor told me that it would be very difficult to get the building secured and under cover or whatever they call it by putting the dryvit up. Because it was difficult to apply dryvit in that kind of conditions and he had suggested the metal alternative. We got samples of the metal alternative, and they were inspected on October 14. The inspector saw the three samples of material on that day. First was the HVAC screen which we had proposed that was not acceptable and was rejected and replaced by the metal that we have here. Secondly, we had shown him an example of the cornice which is that white gingerbread around the top of the building. And third was the siding. It was our very...And then subsequently, two weeks later on the 28th of October, the department wrote us a letter and added various qualifications to what we had understood to be an approval. On the 14th the contractor, architect and I had understood that we had gotten approval. Two weeks later this letter was sent to us, which did add clearly qualifications. I made the unfortunate assumption of feeling that since the inspector had seen the material, that issues like reflectivity and appcarance were not going to be a problem because we had understood that he had seen the material, and therefore we didn't think that that would be a problem, but that turned out to be a major misunderstanding. Of the three points I'd like to make, that's the first one, and the second one is that what we're asking the City to do is to approve the building as it was built for really a couple of reasons. The first is that we as the builders of the building proceeded with this change only after consultation with an inspection by the DCD. We believed we had approval to use the material that had been shown to the inspector. In every respect we have cooperated fully with the DCD, with Public • Works and with the Fire Marshal on everything throughout this entire project. It's been our issue to cooperate to get the job done right and every action we have taken was done in good faith. Secondly we would ask your approval because we think the building looks good. That's not a justification for going against what the BAR might wish, but nevertheless the appearance of that building we believe is attractive, and we hope that you would find it acceptable. Additionally, and to us the critical thing is the attitude of the tenants towards the building. Because the tenants are the ones who have to be able to have an attractive building to attract customers, and they have been very pleased with what we have there even though it clearly differs from what the BAR initially approved. That's not an issue; it does differ; there's no question. The third point I'd like to make would be that we request your approval as the building is built because we think the building looks right and looks nice. We have, however, realized that the DCD does not concur with that recommendation and therefore, as a consequence of that have discussed with them alternative treatments that would address the entire site. And in addressing the entire site, the BAR had hoped to put a cornice along there but they could not add it after the fact. The DCD and the owner have discussed this and would be willing to put this cornice around which, to some extent, would clearly make it look like a more finished product from that north side which is really the problem. In considering the overall appearance of the site also, we're willing to replace the purple plums with what is now the approved and preferred landscape plan which calls for a red leaf maple. And we would be willing to do that also. There were some issues brought up of cost that I can address issues of cost, application, and things like that. But I would like to identify that the dryvit clearly cannot be applied to metal. Dryvit is applied to a material like styrofoam. It basically styrofoam that is bolted or nailed or screwed to the wall, and then the stucco is a slurry that is trawled over it and then it is textured. The dryvit base, the styrofoam would have to be attached to the metal. I discovered after....What I had used for my cost estimate in putting up the bond for this was I had used the estimate of what had been the original cost for putting up the stucco. I discovered that it's about 25% more expensive to put it up now, and I've asked why and the issue is, of course, the metal. Instead of nailing the styrofoam up, they will have to screw it in with metal screws, and it will be more complicated. That's just a matter of fact. I'm bringing this up as a fact, it looks as though the cost of this would be $45,000 to $50,000. If we're dead wrong, you know that's not an issue. The builder should be held accountable for doing what's right. The thing we would argue and would like to have you consider is we think it looks all right the way it is. And we don't think it is justified to put in an additional $50,000 to change something that in six months I don't think you or we will ever think of or see or ask a question about again. I might add that to date I have known of no one who has raised a question about the appearance of the building. No one and everybody has moved in around us. So, then on the issue of application, it would be the way I said, they would have to put it up that way. The cornice would be exactly the same color and texture as the existing cornice. The architect has recommended something simpler because on the front of the building there is quite a bit of sort of gingerbread in a complicated design. Well I think that Vernon really has already explained this. On the back of the building where you would see it from Circuit City and the north coming down, to have something that fancy would almost be inappropriate against the very plain wall that is up there. So, in summary, I'd just say that we would hope that you would recognize with the owner that there was a misunderstanding. It was a misunderstanding in good faith, which has not been questioned by DCD or ourselves. It was a misunderstanding of what we thought was told us. We proceeded and we realized that it was a misunderstanding and a bad one. We think we can rectify that with the improvement in the cornice which would make the building simply look more finished. If we do not put the cornice up, if we still just do the dryvit, we're still going to end up with just a plain old box on the north end. We didn't think much about that box on the north side because when we built the building, Schucks had a great big warehouse there. Then they tore the darn thing down, and have repositioned where Circuit City is. However, Circuit City does have a plan to build another building on the front. They have a pad on the front of their property which, when it's done will create more of a visual barrier in the event that that metal siding is offensive. So, I do hope you might have questions that I could answer, but I'm not sure I can add more than particularly what you've read and seen in this handout. The handout itself did have a photograph in the back under Tab 4 in which we simply drew in a line to indicate what the cornice would be and then we had also had a picture in the back in which the cornice is just outlined in yellow to show where it would pick up and that would be the alternative. I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here and would be happy to entertain any questions you may have. ATTORNEY COHEN: For the record, if I could just quickly add that Mr. Wiley has been referring to Tabs 1 thru 4 which are contained in Attachment D. MAYOR RANTS: Questions of Mr. Wiley. Joan. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Mr. Wiley, as I understand it then on October 14 when the DCD inspector came to the site, it was your understanding then that it was, you had approval to proceed with this material. ROBERT WILEY: Yes maam. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: And they didn't say to you, we'll have to check that and get back with you or we'll have to check the plans to see what was approved, or we'll have to send you something in writing first. Did you understand that you just had the approval verbally to go ahead. ROBERT WILEY: I think the architect knew that there was going to have to be a written approval. I didn't. This was the first and only project I've ever been involved with. So I think the architect would have known that there had to be further approval. I did not know that at the time. I would add if I might. I regret the misunderstanding, but I can understand it. We had put the sample of material, and I believe it was that piece right there on the wall at the level it was going to be. The inspector, I think, did not realize what I looked like as well as I did because I had been working close up with it. And I think...So we had understood that the siding and the cornice were approved. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Were you told that you could go ahead subject to approval but that it would be at your own risk if you did go ahead and apply it. ROBERT WILEY: No, it was my understanding that was the approval. Subsequently on the 28th of October, the department did write us a letter and said that it was approved subject to reflectivity, color, texture, a couple of other issues like that which very clearly was spelled out. It was my mistake in saying to myself and the architect saw the sample, and if he had seen the sample and it wasn't satisfactory from a reflectivity and color and whatever other points there were, he would have said so. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: At what stage were you in the construction process when you received that letter that was dated October 28. ROBERT WILEY: The letter of the 28th, we had ordered the material and had....They may even have started putting it up. We did not know that we had made a mistake and had an unacceptable product to DCD until the project was completely finished, completely, completely finished. We were all done before this issue then arose and this objection was brought up. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: About what date was that. ROBERT WILEY: January. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: That you discovered that there had been a mistake or a misunderstanding. ROBERT WILEY: Yeah, we would have that date specifically because I'm sure that Vernon wrote us a letter. He's documented everything very well. But I think it would have been in January. VERNON UMETSU: About February 14. ROBERT WILEY: February 14, yeah. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Okay, thank you very much. MAYOR RANTS: Dennis. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: What's the approximate cost of the total project? ROBERT WILEY: About 2 million dollars I think. May I add a comment. Our objective in changing wall was not to save money. Our objective was to build the building. We were under pressure and everyone of you know; I'm sure that even the City Council almost would come under pressure because these builders have got deadlines. So we were under a deadline and were anxious to do what we could in that terrible weather to move ahead. And, therefore, the change was not done for economic purposes, but rather for construction purposes during that bad weather. MAYOR RANTS: Steve. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Do you know approximately what the cost of the cornice will be for you to continue that cornice around. ROBERT WILEY: I think it will be around $10,000. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: And replacing the trees. ROBERT WILEY: Probably under a thousand. I'm trying to swap out the plums for the maples, and I haven't got that worked out yet. But nevertheless they would certainly be trees that would meet City requirements. MAYOR RANTS: Any further questions for Mr. Wiley. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Mr. Wiley, thanks for you being here. Sony you have to burn up your Monday night. We talked earlier about...I had questions about the substance of the material behind the sheet metal, and I'll defer that for Vernon. I was wondering, the October 14 conversation with the DCD person that came out as the inspector for Tukwila, when that person was with you, I suppose you were on ground level looking up at the wall. The cornice was in place, the sheet metal was in place as well, the sample sheet metal. And there was conversation surrounding the look and the feel and stuff of that nature. What gave you the indication, what maybe words specifically gave you the indication to believe that the project was approved with this revision. ROBERT WILEY: Well, I don't recall the specific words, but the impression I got was the material that's up there for the HVAC covering is not satisfactory, you'll have to do it. The cornice and that metal and that wall will be all right. That was about as simple as I understood it. The inspector probably talked more to the architect than me, although, the architect, contractor, and I, all three, and the inspector were together throughout I believe. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: So as you said before and I want to make sure I heard it that the inspector did not physically touch the material being put on the building. ROBERT WILEY: No, I must be fair to the inspector that it was not right like that. I wished it had been because you know if, spilled milk. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: You mentioned that this was the first and only project you've done. ROBERT WILEY: Yes and last. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I won't ask you for a clarification on that point. ROBERT WILEY: No, my wife says if there's another one, I do it solo. MAYOR RANTS: I heard where the clarification came from. Any other questions for Mr. Wiley. Thank you Mr. Wiley. Council have questions of anyone now at this point. Then I would close the Public Hearing and Council can begin their deliberations. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Can we ask other questions of staff after it's closed. MAYOR RANTS: Sure can. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Vernon has some more stuff to tell us though. VERNON UMETSU: I think if you want me to introduce new stuff. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Don't close it yet. MAYOR RANTS: If you have new information, it needs to come under the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Maybe you better not close it. MAYOR RANTS: But you can ask questions of staff. Joe. COUNCILMEMBER DUFI- E: Vernon, I'd like to ask one question. During the process of constructing this building, how many times was there an inspection on the site. VERNON UMETSU: Planning does not go out to inspect a site except at two points. One, when the foundations are being poured to make sure that the building is correctly cited. And two, at the end of the project to inspect for all the things that need to be up - -the building finishes, the parking, the landscaping, we go out and count trees, we go and check cornices and tile accents, and that sort of thing. In between, really, there's nothing for us to look at, however, we will go out and inspect upon request for a specific issue. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE: Okay, now what I'm hearing here, the material was never checked before putting it on the building, is that correct. VERNON UMETSU: That is correct. We relied on the architect to understand what was required when we said "consistency with BAR approval." The architect had been the chief architect on site on at least 3 other buildings and so he was very familiar with our design review process and the requirements of this construction. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: Okay, my next question is, what's the difference of when you're building a home and building a major project like this and the difference in the inspection VERNON UMETSU: From a Planning standpoint? COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE: Yeah. VERNON UMETSU: We don't look at the building design in a single family house. We look at whether the setbacks are maintained, and that's it. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: Okay, now, I'm talking about the material. Because what I'm hearing here and now is that the material was not checked prior to putting up. Now my concern is - -I have the same type on my garage. When my material came in a package, the inspector was there to inspect and see was it right. The first bunch that I received was wrong, and they had to send it back. So my question is this, is it different in inspecting a home project than it is a business. VERNON UMETSU: Yes and No. Okay, yes, it's different because the inspector who came out and took a look at your metal siding probably was looking at consistency with the Uniform Building Code requirements, and was the material specified in the package as it was shown on the building plans. However homes are not subject to design review. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE: I understand that, but I'm not talking about VERNON UMETSU: So. No, Planning does not go out and look at building materials for homes at all. Inspectors do for consistency with the UBC. MAYOR RANTS: The building inspectors do who are under the umbrella of DCD. The Planners do not go, but the building inspectors do both for commercial buildings and for residential buildings. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE: That's what I thought because I'm trying to understand, because what I'm hearing from Vern is, it's different. And that's what I couldn't understand because they were there - -the inspectors were there. Because if they had not been there, I would had a cheaper grade of material, the same type of material. Then we had to send the whole package back and got updated. So that's why I was having a little confusion. Thanks. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I will follow through with the question I had before. What is currently behind the existing metal siding on that structure. VERNON UMETSU: As best I can read these plans, and I'm not an architect. It looks like 24 inch 2x4 studs, 24 inch on center with some sort of insulation which would give it anywhere from an R -5 to an R -20, excuse me an R -12, and then followed by some plywood on the interior. But I wouldn't count on that. MAYOR RANTS: Dennis. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: Vern, is weather an acceptable basis or acceptable reason for changing design plans. If a project is part way through or not completed or not even started, but the weather for some reason would interfere with construction, would that be an acceptable reason for changing the plans. VERNON UMETSU: Nothing is an acceptable reason for changing the plans in a manner which is inconsistent with the BAR design approval. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: Thank you. MAYOR RANTS: Any other questions. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: There was concern about weather -- weather preventing occupancy of the building or protecting the interior of the building. But if I understood you, and this may be a key is that plywood was applied to the 2x4 construction on a 24 inch center, and over the plywood was an insulation product potentially foam - -the sheet metal on top of that. VERNON UMETSU: I'm reading these sections which are based on a dryvit finish. So. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: That's not what I'm asking the question about. VERNON UMETSU: No, no. So what that says is that it's not exactly...Since they used a metal wall, it wasn't the dryvit finish. Now if it had been a dryvit finish, they would have used plywood on the outside as well and then a styrofoam sheet and then applied the dryvit. However, since they used a metal backing, I'm not sure what's behind the metal. It would be Whatever it was, there would be the metal, there would be a weather proofing material, there would be somewhere around an R -12 insulation backs, and then there would be a plywood interior wall. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: On metal? VERNON UMETSU: No, no, on the inside of the stud. Whatever it is, it is consistent with the UBC energy requirements and structural integrity requirements. COUNCILMEMBER DUFNE: Okay, now the way mine was done...My pole is 8x8; that's the pole and they have a 2x6 running lengthwise and then the metal is fastened to the 2x6's, and in between the 2x6's R -12 insulation is placed inside that. Then, the plywood and then fire code plywood on top of that. That is the way mine is built. I would think that's the only way you could build with a metal frame. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Joe for clarification, is that all done before the stud. The way you describe, was that done before you hit the stud. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFLE: No. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: It was done on the outside of the stud. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: No, no, first of all you put the plywood...8x8 studs in the ground. Then you just cement them in. Then you come along and you place the 2x6 running... I think Steve might know, 2 feet by 2 feet off center. And that's the way you run them and you run them diagonally. Then you bolt the sheet metal to it, and then after you bolt the sheet metal to it, from the inside, you put the insulation on it. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Okay, thank you. MAYOR RANTS: Dennis. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I have a couple questions of the City Attorney and perhaps the Planning Director, but not of Vern. I'm trying to understand the process we're going through here at the moment. And if I go to the letter dated August 14 to John McFarland from Jack Pace, Acting Director, page 2, top of the letter where it says "Review Process," the last sentence in the first paragraph says that the City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the BAR's decision. It's my understanding that means that we're sitting as the BAR. We're not sitting here to decide on whether to send something to back. We're not here to decide that the BAR may have erred and to send it back to them to re -work, re- decide. Instead, we're here sitting as the BAR and we could, as the BAR, affirm the current decision. We could deny it. In that case, if we deny it, I'm not sure what happens. We would have to come up with one of our own then, and if we modified it, then we'd basically be coming up with one of our own. Is that correct. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: It's my understanding this is an appeal of the BAR, and you have the options of either approving, denying or modifying, and you just need to base that on the criteria that's outlined. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: Okay. The next paragraph, the first sentence says that no information source carries more weight than another. That means the deliberations of the BAR, the applicant or the staff or what's presented tonight are all equal. In a sense, it means we are sitting as the BAR. Is that correct. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: Right. Well, that's one way of looking at it. I think that's right. It's a denovo proceeding so you can consider all of those things, and if you wanted to do something else..like if you wanted to visit the site or if you had other questions to ask, that's your prerogative as long as it's relative to the decision, so, yes. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Before you go on.. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I'm done. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Oh. Then the next sentence is what bothers me. However the previously approved project design must be accepted as satisfying the BAR design criteria. Which BAR design criteria. Just their general criteria that they work with or the original time it went to the BAR and was looked at. That specific criteria or, what does that sentence mean. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: The criteria is outlined in the TMC. VERNON UMETSU: 18.60.050. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: So, that's the general criteria. VERNON UMETSU: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Which is that texture....ok.. MAYOR RANTS: We can close the public hearing and continue your deliberations. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER: I have questions for staff. MAYOR RANTS: You can still do that. Is it safe to close this Counselor. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: Why don't we wait and hear what the question is and then. MAYOR RANTS: Okay. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER: I'm hearing that some of us are a little confused about what criteria we're supposed to be using. I understand this is denovo. It's all new. We look at it with equal weight. The criteria we're supposed to be using - -is it the design criteria, the TMC- -we're to be using that as the criteria for the decision. Or is there some other criteria. VERNON UMETSU: If I may. It is the general design review criteria in TMC 18.60. There are five criteria there on site design, harmony of the project with adjacent buildings, building design, landscaping and site treatment, and the use of miscellaneous structures. In our review of this project, two of the criteria seemed to be the key ones which would be building design and then site plan relative to harmony with adjacent developments. The other criteria did not seem to be as strongly related to the redesign of this second or the modification of design of this second story wall. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I think then going along with all of these points, it is reasonable to say that the applicant is not contesting the original BAR decisions, the original plans. That is not in question at this point at all. MAYOR RANTS: There's just one point in question that the criteria needs to be applied to. Any further questions. Safe to close the public hearing. Council pleasure. Dennis. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: Got some notes. In reading the material presented and listening to the presentations tonight, I've kind of saw basically five issues or arguments presented. The first point made or the first point that I looked at that the original decision to change materials was weather related. It was based upon the impact that a wet October had on the construction process, and that's why I asked Mr. Umetsu the question, is that an acceptable reason for changing materials, and the answer we were given was is that there is no acceptable reason for changing BAR approved design without going back to the BAR. So, looking at the original cause of the change, it seems to me that the original cause was not justification for the change. The next thing I looked at, there was some material presented by the applicant or the appellant, I guess in this case. And in their Attachment D, Section 2, first page, last paragraph, under reason, it says "The owner believes the BAR through its comments and actions at the BAR hearing felt that the building owner had attempted to put one over on the City." I read, and I did not listen to the tapes so I have no feeling....I was not present....I did not listen to the tapes so I know nothing about inflections that might have been in the voices, but in reading the attachments we have that dealt with that hearing, I could find nothing that would substantiate clearly that the BAR made their decision based upon a feeling that the owner was trying to put one over on the City. At least there was nothing that I could find in the written record to substantiate that. The next thing that I saw; the next point was that the owner acted in good faith with prior approval of the DCD. Now that....From Section 2 again, first page of the appellant's material, last paragraph, last sentence, it said "Who acted in good faith with the prior approval of DCD." I found nothing in what's presented or in reading the materials to see that there was actual prior approval of the change. I can see basis for misunderstanding. I did not see any basis to say there was prior approval. Then, the next thing I looked at was the misunderstanding. And I felt lots of reason to see there was clearly a misunderstanding. In fact, it occurred to me that all parties, the BAR, the applicant, and the department of DCD all stated that there was a misunderstanding. So then, it becomes a question....Is this misunderstanding, what does it cost, so that's why I asked the question about the cost of the project. A $2 million project, and what we have here is the cost of correcting this misunderstanding, is somewhere in the nature of $25,000 to $50,000 or around 2% of the total project. What I'm looking for is some kind of understanding on my own part. I'm not sure what that means. The last point I looked at was the statement that it's attractive as it is by the applicant. I looked at some of the statements in the record provided by DCD and things, and I quite honestly don't feel in a position to substitute my opinion for anybody else's on whether or not it's attractive as is. I'm not an architect and I'm not...so I'm a little uncomfortable in that role. So, then I asked myself, is it terribly unattractive. No, it isn't, however, it is different from the standards that we require of other retail buildings in the area. That was clear from the written material. It is more the kind of material that we would accept for a warehouse, and again, that's presented. One of the things we do in that area and we've continued in our new Comp Plan is allowing property owners and developers there a great deal of latitude on how they use the land so that they can let the free market place draw the use. And along with that we say, once they decide on how they're going to use a particular site, then how they develop it, the guidelines and the rules for developing it, have to be followed. If you're going to develop it for retail use, you have to follow the standards we have for retail. If it's going to be developed for industrial use or warehousing, you follow that. So I'm more comfortable with not dealing with the issue of attractiveness. Instead I would like to deal with the issue is that particular use of this material within the standards and guidelines we have for the use there. And the answer is no. So, where does all this leave me is I'm unfortunately to the conclusion, and I'm not happy with this conclusion is that I would....Unless I hear arguments from the rest of the Council, where I'm sitting is I would probably support the BAR's decision. I'm not happy with that decision because I think there really was a misunderstanding. I just don't think there's anything in what was presented that would drive me to change the BAR's second decision. MAYOR RANTS: Okay, anybody else wish to comment over here, discussion. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: Well, I agree, I think that it's definitely a case of misunderstanding. I don't think it was intentional, but, and I don't like to make a decision that's going to cost somebody more money. But I think in this particular case that it was an honest mistake, but if we just ignored it and allowed it to go uncorrected, it would set a precedent that I don't think that we would want to make. We'd have to deal with later in future cases just like this. So, unfortunately, I feel that we do need to support the BAR decision. MAYOR RANTS: Steve. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: Okay, I'd like to address Dennis' comments as best I can remember them, since he laid out system here. One, I think his first comments was that whether...there was no acceptable reason for changing BAR approval, and that may be what Vernon said tonight, but he also said that the practice was to do it in the past. They've changed that practice now. This obviously is something that's been done before. So I think that's not a big concern in my mind as an issue. Put one over on the City, I agree with you Dennis, it's hard to read those inflections in there. You could just as easily read that in as you could read it out, so I didn't really have a big concern. Everybody seemed to say that it seemed to be an honest mistake. That it was....The question of prior approval; I see how that misunderstanding happened. The question was not that the architect didn't know that he had to put in more plans. The question revolved around the fact, did he, after he submitted them, have the feeling that what they had done since the material had been seen was going to be fine. Not that he had to put in the plans, and the feeling I get is that he honestly felt it was going to be fine, from the conversations that had happened and the visual. That's part of the area of where the misunderstanding really took place. As far as attractiveness, as is, I have no problem saying what's attractive to me and what isn't. And I know I'm not anymore bull headed than you are. That's why I was concerned with your questions as to what we are doing here. Are we reviewing the BAR decision, are we making a new decision. I reviewed the BAR decision, and what the individuals said there, and the majority of the individuals said that they wanted a cornice around that building. They also said they'd like it in dryvit, but that they did want a cornice continued around that building. They did not approve that in the first plan, but after looking at the building, they felt that that cornice should be approved. The question of trees, and I almost get the impression that they knew where a soft spot might be. But that came up at Utilities that those trees were not consistent with our tree plan, and they got in there just before the tree plan went into affect. And it's an opportunity to get them consistent with the rest. So, I'm leaning to say I am sitting here as the BAR, and I could comfortably say that by putting the cornice on there, that that's an acceptable look and that we get a better building or as good a building as making them tear it off and put dryvit up there without the cornice and leaving the plum trees there. So, that's where my position is at this point. MAYOR RANTS: Pam. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER: So if I understand you right, Steve, you're saying that....you're understanding is that we are not reviewing the BAR decision. We're looking at it anew, does it fit the design criteria. And in your mind, it's an acceptable design with the cornice around it. I'm real torn myself on this. It would be much easier if there were definitely some bad guys, so I'd know which side to be on. And there aren't. I think it's honest misunderstanding that happened and they happened unfortunately. So that makes it more difficult to make a decision. In looking at the look of the building, I think the dryvit would be better. But I think as far as the overall look, the cornice would add more to the design. The stopping of the cornice is more detrimental to the look and the harmony, I think, than the lack of the dryvit finish, in my mind. I think this is unfortunate that it happened, and it's not an easy decision. And I'm still listening to other arguments, but that's where I'm standing now. MAYOR RANTS: Anyone else. Is there then a motion from the Council. Allan. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I was waiting for Joe, but..My impression of the standing C- metal wall contrasting with the level of architectural quality around it, from a personal perspective, I think...Is there..I wouldn't term it significant. The reason why I wouldn't term it significant is because I think that there may have been a misunderstanding on all parties, but it's the duty of the City to enforce and uphold and champion the existing ordinances that are in place that are policies for guiding the City in its growth. And, therefore, I have a feeling that our inspector may have been able to do his job differently and resulted with a difference process than what we have before us tonight. So I think that the responsibility lies with the City in enforcing, pursuing, informing, educating, the architect on what the City building requirements are, not depending on the architect to inform the City of those. So I think the City has a higher level of misunderstanding than that of the people who are here before us tonight. Also, I asked for documentation that the City had received regarding the proposed revisions and how that was presented to the City so that we could see it in writing. That information is lost, it is not available. I have concern about that. So, more and more, this is putting me towards some opportunity for the City to do business differently in the future, and Vernon mentioned one aspect is the approval process would be checked back with what the BAR recommendations were. Because of those type of issues, I do not want to put any additional burden on the developer at this point by insisting of the installation of trees that would meet our tree plan for the CBD. I think that's unreasonable and asking for an additional burden. Because of my initial opening statements about the wall contrasting with its surrounding neighbors, I would insist on a cornice to break up that wall somewhat and its higher elevations. That's where I stand on this. MAYOR RANTS: I guess that brings us back to is there a motion. Pam. COUNCILMEMBER CARTER: Well, I was going to comment that Steve had pointed out to me on our packet, the tab that says Attachment A, Page 3 there, gives the TMC 18.60.050 on building design so that you can look at the criteria as far as building design. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I'm not gonna quite put a motion on the table yet. I think that the difficulty is where...There's two real issues. One is the misunderstanding and where does the fault lie or is it shared. The second issue, of course, is what looks good and appropriate and things. I'm gone go back. Allen, I guess I disagree a little bit on your point on the City taking responsibility for educating the architect. I think it's very important that the City communicate clearly and, perhaps, that didn't happen as well here as it could. However, from a cost standpoint I don't think there is a builder or a developer anywhere in the City that would want to pay for us to have staff to do that level of education of architects or anybody developing things. I think the cost of that would be. so burdensome and so confusing that there's no way that anybody would want to do it. Back to the...I guess what we're really going to come down to then is do we think that the cornice is more attractive...or not more attractive...more...meets the building design criteria in 18.60.050 for more than the dryvit does. And how objectionable based upon that criteria, is the standing C -metal wall. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I basically concur with that. That's basically what it comes down to. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: Yeah. The cost...I mean when this whole thing is done The cost of $25,000 probably is close to what the City and the property owner, the difference on our own respective staff time on this thing and people's time. So, I'm not sure. What we'll probably need is a motion on the table from someone. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN. Before everyone votes, I want to make sure that everyone is clear that it's not voting on whether or not there was a misunderstanding and who was right and who was wrong, but on the criteria that's spelled out under 18.60.050. And if we choose to do business differently in the future based on a misunderstanding, that's perfectly fine or if a modification is party based on a misunderstanding. The basis for the decision should be solely based on the criteria listed. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I'm ready to make a motion to put on the table based on that. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: I'd like to discuss it just a little bit more. I would agree with Dennis saying that we're not here to educate the architects in their business. But we pay city staff to enforce our codes, building designs, and our ordinances. They need to be knowledgeable • as to what those are and what that entails as far as products that are deployed on a building structure. Otherwise, we may not need those services in the City if we leave it all up to designers and architects. I'd like to listen to Mr. Mullet's motion. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: I agree with what you said too Allen. There is that side of it, but I think that's been covered here. There's been some process changes that planning is now doing from what Vernon said, and there may be some more that we have to look at when we do the developmental regs which are coming up and how we address these things. But I don't think that's fully the issue here tonight, and the real issue is 18.60.050 which is building design and BAR review and based upon that I would put a motion on the table that we accept staff's recommendation to allow the standing seam wall to exist and extend the simplified cornice around the entire second story wall and replace the existing trees down below with the tree plan trees so they're consistent with the other buildings around it. MAYOR RANTS: It's been moved and seconded. Is there further discussion COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: I would speak against the motion. I think that the standing seam metal wall used to the extent that it is here does not meet the building design criteria in 18.60.050 for a retail structure. That's the only reason I would... MAYOR RANTS: Further discussion. 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 public hearing on January 27, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC IIEAARING L93 -0070: Golden West Games Greg Rust, New Image Neon Oversized sign based on doubling of the setback. 351 Strander Blvd., Tukwila, WA. L93 - 0086: Miscellaneous Zoning Code Amendments City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Amend the Zoning Code to; 1) allow software development and similar uses as principally permitted in the C2 zone; 2) allow lower minimum parking requirements for "places of public assembly," and 3) allow waiving the 5 foot side yard landscaping and building setback arca in the CM zone. City-Wide. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING L93 -0083: Home Life Howard Turner Design approval to extensively modify an existing 30,816 sq. ft. industrial/office building into a 44,000 sq. ft. retail building with 101 parking stalls. 402 Strander Blvd., 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 Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items. Published: Distribution: Seattle Times January 14 and 21, 1994 • Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property Owners, File. 6300 Southcente ulevard, Suite #100. • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431366s . City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director City of Tukwila PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on May 25, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the following: I . BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: L93 -0083: Homelife Fidelity Associates Amend the previously approved architectural design for the Sears Homelife building to allow use of raised seam metal walls on the second story, instead of smooth (flat) dryvit. 402 Strander Blvd., Tukwila. L94 -0043: Circuit City Constance Guffey, Plumb Signs Design review approval for signage. 223 Andover Park East, 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 12, 1995 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 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, August 21, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, to consider the following: An appeal of the Board of Architectural Review determination of May 25, 1995, Case #L93 -0083, requiring standing seam metal walls be replaced with originally approved dryvit walls for the second story of the Sears Homelife building located at 402 Strander Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188. Applicant: Fidelity Associates Robert L. Wiley, Managing Partner 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 All interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval, or opinions on this issue. Jane E. Cantu City Clerk Published: Seattle Times - Friday, August 11, 1995•• fig' -� _ Revised: 8/1/95 8:25 p.m. ( itract No. 9-41— 002 C, CONTRACT FOR SERVICES This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, Washington, a noncharter optional municipal code city hereinafter referred to as "the City ", and Rober t S . Be t t s hereinafter • referred to as "the Contractor ", whose principal office is located at 10423 Main St.,.Suite Four, Bellevue, WA 98004 WHEREAS, the City has determined the need to have certain services performed for its citizens but does not have the personnel or expertise to perform such services, and WHEREAS, the City desires to have the Contractor perform such services pursuant to certain terms and conditions, now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual benefits and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Scope and Schedule of Services to be Performed by Contractor. The Contractor shall perform those services described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. In performing such services, the Contractor shall at all times comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes, rules and ordinances applicable to the performance of such services and the handling of any funds used in connection therewith. The Contractor shall request and obtain prior written approval from the City if the scope or schedule is to be modified in any way. 2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The City shall pay the Contractor for services rendered according to the rate and method set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The total amount to be paid shall not exceed $ 9 , 000.00 3. Contractor Budget. The Contractor shall apply the funds received under this Agreement within the maximum limits set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor shall request prior approval from the City whenever the Contractor desires to amend its budget in any way. 4. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing February 1 , 1994 and ending March 31, 1994 • unless sooner terminated under the provisions hereinafter specified. 5. Independent Contractor. Contractor and City agree that Contractor is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties hereto. Neither Contractor nor any employee of Contractor shall be entitled to any benefits accorded City employees by virtue of the services provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal income tax or social security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to the Contractor, or any employee of the Contractor. 6. Indemnification. The Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, losses or liability, including attorney's fees, arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any act, omission or failure of the Contractor, its officers, agents and employees, in performing the work required by this Agreement. With respect to the performance of this Agreement and as to claims against the City, its officers, agents and employees, the Contractor expressly waives its immunity under Title 51 of the Revised Code of Washington, the Industrial Insurance Act, for injuries to its employees, and agrees that the obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless provided for in this paragraph extends to any claim brought by or on behalf of any employee of the Contractor. This waiver is mutually negotiated by the parties. This paragraph shall not apply to any damage resulting from the sole negligence of the City, its agents and employees. To the extent any of the damages referenced by this paragraph were caused by or resulted from the concurrent negligence of the City, its agents or employees, this obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless is valid and enforceable only to the extent of the negligence of the Contractor, its officers, agents, and employees. 7. Record Keeping and Reporting. A. The Contractor shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial and programmatic records which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed in the performance of this Agreement and other such records as may be deemed necessary by the City to ensure the performance of this Agreement. B. These records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination hereof unless permission to destroy them is granted by the office of the archivist in accordance with RCW Chapter 40.14 and by the City. 8. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by law during the performance of this Agreement. • 9. Termination. This Agreement may at any time be terminated by the City giving to the Contractor thirty (30) days written notice of the City's intention to terminate the same. Failure to provide products on schedule may result in contract termination. 10. Discrimination Prohibited, The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, or any person seeking the services of the Contractor to be provided under this Agreement on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, age, national origin, marital status or presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. 11. Assignment and Subcontract. The Contractor shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the services contemplated by this Agreement without the written consent of the City. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties hereto and no other Agreements, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, shall be deemed to exist or bind any of the parties hereto. Either party may request changes in the agreement. Proposed changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Agreement. 13. Notices. Notices to the City of Tukwila shall be sent to the following address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Notices to the Contractor shall be sent to the address provided by the Contractor upon the signature line below. 14. Applicable Law: Venue; Attorney's Fees. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration, or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Agreement, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be properly laid in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorney's fees and costs of suit. • DATED this ./ yr day of CITY OF TUKWILA A'"1'EST /AU NTICATED: ITY CLERK, JA E. CANTU APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY /ffr7 CONTRACTOR: Robert S. Betts BY: „vf 49-et3- T TLE Principal ADDRESS: 10423 Main Street Suite Four Bellevue, WA 98004 -5984 4 '. TURNER & ASSOCIATES August 16, 1995 Bob and Mary Ann Wiley Fidelity Associates 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Re: Update Report #16 Home life Building Tukwila, WA Dear Bob and Mary Ann, 18420 24 th Place N.E., Seattle WA, 98155 (206) 365-7431 BY FAX, ORIGINAL AND CC'S BY MAIL It was wonderful to hear your voice earlier this week. nEcF7 iv 46116 1 7 1995 DEVELOPMENT I have sketched on one page sk-001 the approved cornice next to a new proposed shape. The new proposed shape could be used on the sides and rear of the second floor walls. The approved cornice, already built on the south portion of the sides, will transition cleanly to the new proposed cornice. The view distance up and away from the street should make the transition unnoticeable. Please let me know if you want any changes made, either in the presentation format or the design. Sincerely, Howard R Turner, AIA cc: Ryan Yalowicki Superior Stucco Vernon Umetsue, City of Tukwila zgVl + :1 Sni.`r mmo- CV 3/4" int O BAR APPROVED CORNICE SCALE: 11/2 " =1' -0" AS CONSTRUCTED LINE OF BAR APPROVED CORNICE OVERLAYED ON PROPOSED ALTERNATE OPROPOSED ALTERNATE 2 SCALE: 11/2 " =1' -0" PROJECT: FIDELITY DATE. 8/16/95 SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1' -0" TO: BOB WILEY FAX: TURNER & ASSOCIATES 18420 24th Place N.E. Seattle WA 98155 TEL: (206) 365 -7431 ARCHITECTS FAX: (206) 365 -7504 SKETCH # 005 FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206 -232 -6465 Fax: 206- 236 -7227 Mr. Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite # 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECE JvE.D JUL COMMU;%1 DEVELOPMENT June 30, 1995 Re: Architectural alternative to siding replacement, Sears Homelife Dear Vernon, In seeking solutions to the siding problem on the Homelife building, we have talked from time to time about extending the cornice all the way around the second floor. In fact, in the BAR review, the BAR itself wanted to require the cornice be extended as well as the siding covered. Attached is a drawing showing the cornice extended. The most conspicious area in viewing the building is from the north, and the cornice would make this look more finished. I propose using a cornice the full 2' 6" in depth, but with fewer details than the cornice on the front, as we have discussed. I request that your office consider this alternative, and if acceptable, support this as a solution to our impasse when this issue goes before the City Council. If it were possible to resolve this by agreement without going to a formal Council meeting, I would agree to the extention of the cornice. If you feel that an exhibit in color would be of considerable help, please let me know and I will have one prepared. Sincerel Robert L. iley Managing Partner FORM 8075 1/90 } 4 NAT /ONAL OPERATIONS WASHINGTON WASHINGTON DATED JANUARY 03, UNCHANGED. PART OF yw 1995 THIS �AN/' � MEMBER FDIC PAGE: 1 98104 901�4 DI:CEMLER 30, 194 IS AMENDMENT AND (MUST BE ,i). r \ SEATTLE•F /RST J • L/C NO: G193220 INTERNATIONAL TRADE 800 FIFTH AVENUE, FLOOR 31, SEATTLE, P.O. BOX 3977/ SEATTLE, JUNE 28, 1995 BENEFICIARY: CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTE1: BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 ACCOUNT PARTY: FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 HOLLY LANE MERCER ISLAID, WA 98040 OUR CTANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT %lO. G193220 IN FAVOR OLD CITY OF TUKUILA IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: J. EXPIRATION DATE IS EX`..' ;LADED TO THIS LETTER OF CREDIT I S OTHERWISE INUMBEE 001 THIS AMENDMENT CONSTIT'UT] S AN INTEGRAL ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL CREDIT. YOURS FAITHFULLY, ,' , , of, A( IHORIZLI SIGN ° TURE LUSTOMER PICKUP mi EUDEME-3-11) FORM 8075 1/90 FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206- 232 -6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 June 1, 1995 City Clerk City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Re: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review determiniation of May 25.1995, case number L93 -0083 Dear Sir: On May 25, 1995 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) heard the request of Fidelity Associates that the Sears Homelife Building, 402 Strander Boulevard, be approved as built. The background of and reason for the request are summarized in the attached "Request for Approval" sent to the BAR on February 24, 1995. The BAR ruled that the second floor siding on the building had to be redone in dryvit to comply with their original plan approval. As the owner - developer, I appeal this, feeling it is unfair, unjustified and unnecessary for the following reasons. The BAR, I believe, rejected our request for approval of the "as- built" based on two conclusions: first, that the developer took a "gamble" that the change made during construction would be acceptable, and, second, that dryvit was originally approved and therefore must be used. Our objection to the first point rests with the documented fact that the developer wished to avoid any gamble and specifically requested and received a Department of Community Development (DCD) review of the proposed change before proceeding. Consequently, I, as developer, cannot agree with the BAR's view that this was a "gamble ". We openly sought review and approval, and at no time tried to slip anything past the City. A representative of the DCD met with the developer, project architect and builder at the site on October 14, 1994 to inspect actual samples of the cornice, the Norclad siding and an expanded metal proposed for HVAC screening. The representative accepted the cornice and siding, and rejected the expanded metal HVAC screen. The developer, architect and builder were clear in their understanding as confirmed by the attached letter (exhibit A) from the builder, dated December 21, 1994. The DCD representative saw, or was shown, a sample of the siding material. Based on the October 14 review and approval, materials were ordered. At my request, a letter was received from DCD on October 28, 1995, two weeks later. This letter (exhibit B) spelled out qualifications to the verbal approval given two weeks earlier, to the effect that the material "will have the same texture, color and reflectivity as the first floor dryvit walls, and the 'blind joints' will not be visible ". Though I found these later qualifications disconcerting at the time, I was not overly concerned since the DCD representative had seen an exact sample of the siding on October 14. I proceeded with the change feeling that this was not a "gamble" and comfortable in the fact that the architect and I had done everything we could to assure this. The second position of the BAR, that they had specified dryvit originally, and that was what they required, is arbitary and unreasonable based on the final apprearance of the building. The building has been an unqualified success for the tenants and there has been no concern, complaint or question raised by any neighbor, by other developer, by citizen of Tukwila or even by the City, other than the DCD. One or more members of the BAR said, in fact, that they didn't understand what the problem was. By ruling that the second floor siding has to be replaced with the originally specified dryvit, the BAR is ignoring, or overlooking, the involvement of the City's DCD in giving approval for the materiaL Equally important is their arbitrary ruling in saying that they want the dryvit, even though there has been no complaint or comment of any sort about the appearance of the completed building . For these reasons, the developer is requesting the City Council to set aside the BAR's ruling and approve the building as -built or to accept an extension of a cornice around the entire west, north and east sides as a satisfactory corrective measure to any perceived defect. Your prompt consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at any time if there are any questions I could answer. Sincerely, Robert L. iley Managing Partner cc: Department of Community Developme t RECEIVED MtV 1 1995 COrvMMUN t v DEVELOPMENT June 1, 1995 On December 29, 1995, I delivered a Letter Of Credit from Seafirst Bank to your department to assure compliance with possible action required as a result of our dispute over the Sears Homelife building second floor siding. The BAR heard our appeal on May 25, and ruled against Fidelity's request. Fidelity is submitting an appeal of the BAR ruling to the City Council today. It is my understanding that this appeal could take up to 90 days for a decision, though I have requested their prompt action on this matter. The letter of credit which I have given you expires on June 30, 1995. If you require an extension of this, please let me know. Sincerel t_7(2 Robert L. Wiley ~Managing Partner • RECEIVED 03 GUiviwium ► Y DEVELOPMENT FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206 -232 -6465 Fax: 206 - 236 -7227 City Clerk City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 RECEIVED mg 31 1995 l;f1 Y OF CITY CLERK June 1, 1995 Re: Appeal of Board of Architectural Review determiniation of May 25,1995, case number L93 -0083 Dear Sir: On May 25, 1995 the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) heard the request of Fidelity Associates that the Sears Homelife Building, 402 Strander Boulevard, be approved as built. The background of and reason for the request are summarized in the attached "Request for Approval" sent to the BAR on February 24, 1995. The BAR ruled that the second floor siding on the building had to be redone in dryvit to comply with their original plan approval. As the owner - developer, I appeal this, feeling it is unfair, unjustified and unnecessary for the following reasons. The BAR, I believe, rejected our request for approval of the "as- built" based on two conclusions: first, that the developer took a "gamble" that the change made during construction would be acceptable, and, second, that dryvit was originally approved and therefore must be used. Our objection to the first point rests with the documented fact that the developer wished to avoid any gamble and specifically requested and received a Department of Community Development (DCD) review of the proposed change before proceeding. Consequently, I, as developer, cannot agree with the BAR's view that this was a "gamble ". We openly sought review and approval, and at no time tried to slip anything past the City. A representative of the DCD met with the developer, project architect and builder at the site on October 14, 1994 to inspect actual samples of the cornice, the Norclad siding and an expanded metal proposed for HVAC screening. The representative accepted the cornice and siding, and rejected the expanded metal HVAC screen. The developer, architect and builder were clear in their understanding as confirmed by the attached letter (exhibit A) from the builder, dated December 21, 1994. The DCD representative saw, or was shown, a sample of the siding material Based on J the October 14 review and approval, materials were ordered. At my request, a letter was received from DCD on October 28, 1995, two weeks later. This letter (exhibit B) spelled out qualifications to the verbal approval given two weeks earlier, to the effect that the material "will have the same texture, color and reflectivity as the first floor dryvit walls, and the 'blind joints' will not be visible". Though I found these later qualifications disconcerting at the time, I was not overly concerned since the DCD representative had seen an exact sample of the siding on October 14. I proceeded with the change feeling that this was not a "gamble" and comfortable in the fact that the architect and I had done everything we could to assure this. The second position of the BAR, that they had specified dryvit originally, and that was what they required, is arbitary and unreasonable based on the final apprearance of the building. The building has been an unqualified success for the tenants and there has been no concern, complaint or question raised by any neighbor, by other developer, by citizen of Tukwila or even by the City, other than the DCD. One or more members of the BAR said, in fact, that they didn't understand what the problem was. By ruling that the second floor siding has to be replaced with the originally specified dryvit, the BAR is ignoring, or overlooking, the involvement of the City's DCD in giving approval for the material Equally important is their arbitrary ruling in saying that they want the dryvit, even though there has been no complaint or comment of any sort about the appearance of the completed building . For these reasons, the developer is requesting the City Council to set aside the BAR's ruling and approve the building as -built or to accept an extension of a cornice around the entire west, north and east sides as a satisfactory corrective measure to any perceived defect. Your prompt consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please contact me at any time if there are any questions I could answer. Robert L. Wiley Managing Partner cc: Department of Community Development r,.,�,, ;.T :,x rifi":`r. SS:�r.;2., ::v<r. ti:. :1;1* >� �slhClsu'in•. n'r'..nY ktt'F�,„'.5�i::':i''' <.t ". rT•+ 'r :'1' . ii4P . .. >-. e ... , .., „�r.'....�,w..�..r,. - . ..... ....... ..iv.: .,, a. �.._ : xn �r- ' -�•... .,� .« :itfwh,�,xalti�: ?h�7.:.`,]: mnor.;.%. ivrv��3 .....�..,�.['F.:AyhkStik:.0 .. ,.�J .Sts "Lrxc r.........7i...:.vi.. e.. 1t. 4'. ..,'.�.`8.'�.x.�.n,......_..,,� .�i �:a .,..� .,..>. . . FIDELITY ASSOCIATES 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206- 232 -6465 Fax: 206 - 236 -7227 February 27, 1995 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite # 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: BAR appeal of Department's requirement to replace Homelife second story metal siding Dear Rick, I have posted a letter of credit with the City of Tukwila covering the cost of replacing the Norclad siding on the second story of the Sears' Homelife building at 402 Strander Boulevard, and have requested a meeting with the BAR to appeal your decision. This has been scheduled for May 25, 1995. Since I requested this hearing in my December 27, 1994 letter to you, I had hoped this would have been scheduled at an earlier date. Attached are ten copies of my request to the BAR for approval for the building as build. I would appreciate it if you would see that copies are distributed to the BAR members well in advance of the May 25 meeting. Vernon told me ten copies were necessary. I would appreciate it if any extra copies, that are not needed by the BAR members or the City, could be returned to me. I hope you or Vernon will give me a call if you have any questions. i Robert L. Wiley . FIDELITY ASSOCIATE S 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206 - 232 -6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 Mr. Vernon Umetsu Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite # 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED we 2 8 1995 CO(Vitoum I Y OEVELOPMEI\JT March 27, 1995 Re: Request for meeting with Steve Lancaster and you Dear Vernon, On February 27, 1995 I delivered a letter to your office for Rick Beeler with ten copies of a report for the BAR relative to the second floor siding on the Sears building. At the time I did not know that Rick was no longer head of the department. I had a chance to meet Steve, but, of course did not have a chance visit with him. I would like to meet with you and Steve within the next 30 days to discuss my request to the BAR for approval of the building as built. Such a meeting might take fifteen minutes, but I hope that you might be able to allow a half hour, in the event that that much time was necessary. I realize that all of you are busy. This is why I feel it necessary to request and schedule a specific appointment. I have a good deal of time flexibility, but would suggest we meet at 3:00 PM any afternoon the week of April 10. Please discuss this with Steve and have someone confirm a time when the two of you could be available. I can be reached at the above phone number. Th ks, Robert L. Wiley 7 TURNER & ASSOCIATES • • 18420 24th Place NE, Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 February 7,1995, Mr Vernon Umetsu Plans Examiner Dept. of Community Development Tukwila,WA 98188 RE: BAR revision application Fidelity Associates Remodel Permit application B94 -0197 Dear Mr Vernon, The enclosed elevations show the revisions to the building as now constructed. We are applying for a BAR review of the building as is. Mr. Wiley will be preparing further information to support the use of the metal siding in the Tukwila vicinity. It will be delivered under separate cover. Howard R. Turner, AIA encl: revised drawing A3.1,dated 2/3/95 cc: Fidelity Assoc. RECEJVVE:: FEB 0 71995 CUwi v1 DEVELOPtviLk r .: TURNER & ASSOCIATES 18420 24th Place NE, Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 November 7,1994, Mr Jack Pace Dept. of Community Development Tukwila,WA 98188 RE: Fidelity Associates Remodel Permit application B94 -0197 Dear Mr Pace, We would like to add the enclosed alternate design to our freestanding sign Planning Commission application. Sincerely, Howard R. Turner, AIA encl: revised drawing Sign and building elevations cc: Fidelity Assoc. RECEIVED NOV 0 91994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : a. �i: t.+ t�ir.._.,:+„• c:> n+ saay.: c; �z.:•. tt+.; c. NJ; 3:. IVAq:Y Ct', 1 t.' SYid:':;: r<' i3t:'.....•,' S::' Ci': 1- ;�:et;7�4?;a+t.��:r;i; ";.¢•%::a iN:'•v;r;'2;�'.. fi...wrn��c.,v.aY;;is?n ° -:, Si•:` ?':t�',."""..,SO•ri,�.Lf r7,Si4+�T: ^.;•,,. rn r) 11 MEM MGATTNJG°3G Z�I i 22P-6" 2" 3" c (s'EC * o RETAILER 91GN, 50 SF- /SUE) 6-10 1/2" POLE SIGN SCALE: 3/8 " =1'-0" SIGN PERMIT '96'-10" 6 -10 4'-11" / / / SECOND FLOOR LINE I ONEUEE" 1 FURNITURE 5,3 8.2 2.16 0 mod" DEC 19 '94 1 0 c 3CNM TI Ui,:k 1 L ,— DCD/PW .,i John W. Rant:, Mayor Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director October 28, 1994 HcG:r rd Turner TuLrier and Ass.,,:iates 15420 24th Place NE Seattle, WA 98 RE: B94 -0197 (HorAlife) Revisions (10/24./94). Dear Howard: have reviewed the proposed revisions for consistency with the Tukwila Zoning Code and determine the following: 1. The second floor exterior walls on the east, west and north may be faced with a metal siding based on your assurance, that it will have the same texture, color and reflecti' ae the first floor dryvit walls, and the "blind joint will not be visible. 2. The HVAC screen walla may be faced with the same metal siding as the second floor wall based on the assurances in Item 1. 3. The cornice detail revision is approved. These changes will now be reviewed for consistency with other City Codes (e.g., Building and Fire). Please note that they require further revisions to the plan details, and should be submitted as soon as possible to allow timely plans checking. Since ornon Umstsu Associate Planner *':;., 4 cc: Pace =i.lo:s3 \fide \bpsysn �S . O gewthewtor Bnow,rd. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washln ninon 08188 • (106) 431.1670 • AK: tam? 43 ?1661 FIDELITY AS SOCIATE S 4211 Holly Lane Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone: 206 -232 -6465 Fax: 206 -236 -7227 Mr. Jack Pace Planning Department City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1994 CUNliviuis:i i Y DEVELOPMENT October 27, 1994 Re: Fidelity Associates pylon sign placement -402 Strander Boulevard Dear Jack, I believe you are familiar with the following, but nevertheless thought it worth summarizing in this letter. Fidelity Associates and Best Products had planned to develop their properties on Strander with separate driveways as shown on the attached exhibit A. Fidelity planned to place a pylon sign for our tenants on the island on the east side of the drive, which would have complied with the City's front and side yard set back requirements. The City of Tukwila Public Works Department would not permit two driveways so close to each other on Strander. Hence, Best and Fidelity, in cooperation with Public Works, have worked out the plan shown on exhibit B which has a single combined drive. Our pylon sign remains in the same relative position, i.e. on the island to the east of the driveway. Now, however, this island abutts the property to the west and Fidelity no longer has the required sideyard set back unless it can be measured from the center of the easement. Because our design plans were changed in order to comply with Public Works' requirements, I request that the City allow the setback for the sign to be measured from the center of the combined driveway easement thus bringing it into compliance with the City's setback requiremennts Sincerely yours, #ice j Robert L. Wiley, Managi Partner PP-:OM EATTLE PAC:F:C 7..7A • TV ACURA DEALERSHF ■••••••■■■••••■••■•.....■■•11111•111.■■•■■••••••••■■ (FRi)r)4'':u1 11-[a/IN , '5610190:1() P €‘454.4) Drivei...,,a) Gt4% "t- ••••■••••••■• emiskurr BEST PRODUCTS INC. STORE FUTURE SHOP STORE '41 • •lo ••■■••■•••• •• EAST 11 1111.1r 1111[11W 111111111111111111016111011111111111111ff STRANDER BLVD. IU 1111111111111111111111111111111.11111111 ---21101111.11111 ••• elmy•imsaw am ••••••••• 11■••••=0 • VP•0`.•■• ===•••■ II/ •••••••■ •■ • McCalcay City) Pct41 6 c T—' Nti 1 (Circuit 411• as TOTAL P.04 {: 2N�i.: f.':{ 1 '.'da{�s:lu:tL:.'t!t0.HT.A:Alinrv. suave— w..rusaw..f •vuv.Ye a.uau.eu. ^n.•uw. few' r .Y_cnu�..�rf.Y�4rw'.{.w.44vfna to1..1, ^ UK.M TI! FRA 4ilil':; Y4rT:`. Yh" M.'. S: N:{' N�.: a:+ 4L^". e1: c: 1KNC+ Sf1Y^ RVfv: nN. SNY. 11•. C: 1VYT. rY.• STfi' M14/ T+ SafrinlYiYYtwty� .ro }nx{ww.wwwwrrWYlaCMfLL TURNER & ASSOCIATES 18420 24th Place NE, Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 October 21,1994, Mr Jack Pace Dept. of Community Development Tukwila,WA 98188 RE: Fidelity Associates Remodel Permit application B94 -0197 Dear Mr Pace, The enclosed site plans show our proposed freestanding sign location as discussed with my client and the owner of the above referenced project. This location relies on the approval by staff and ultimately the Planning Commission of the setback being figured using the centerline of the cross easement between the Best project and this one. The cross easement was forced on this project by the requirement for a combined shared driveway. The interpretation of using the centerline of the easement as an assumed property line is therefore as way of limiting the impact of the combined access on this project. This location has the best visibilty, and works the best with the landscaping as well. Sincerely, Howard R. Turner, AIA encl: revised drawing A1.1, Al cc: Fidelity Assoc., North Coast Enterprises RECEIVED OCT 2 11994 CUivitviuNt i Y DEVELOPMENT .•/.�5:5:'wu',EyhS':?.ta ?u.64.. +,.,ai- c: <A:Bq'i�.it': ins` :�i "i`a','a''zift ":5i °4�:Ei %?.� Turner & Associates TURNER & ,ASSOCIATES. '-fi'. :;Sci:f „+BF:? '. ;t•.; 1,y zzl, ..f,.i�L!:Kmq.'Cm.'0i`at:W,SY i,, ,.:.T47mY'.c.t.trik:'wi;.-Ra".ti,V zuts mtr. 4 2063657504 ry P.02 1842014th Place N.B., SC4We WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431 January 21,1994, Mr. Vernon Umetsue Planner Dept. of Community Development Tukwila,WA 98188 Dear Mr Umetsue, As we discussed on the telephone, we are requesting a reduction from 3 to 2 truck loading spaces on the Fidelity Associates Remodel project.The nature of the use, both in the immediate and future, will not require 3 loading spaces. There are only 2 tenants planned for the building, and active coordination and scheduling will allow them both to operate each with only one loading space. Sjncerely, Hoard R. Turner, AIA RECEIVED JAN 2 11994 Dp►V1tV uN(TY DEVELOPMENT ; _ RISES RATED the it a sample purchased cornice,.; Vernon 0/14/941 C Noreen SiATTLa, WA 89128 5500 • FAX 361402? N! AL CONTAAC?OR Robert S. Betts, Inc. January 21, 1994 Land lvinnngcntcnt Conservation and Development 10423 Main Street Suite Four Bellevue, WA 98004 -5984 EXHIBIT A Phone 206/455 -9640 FAX 206/455 -1258 Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Contract for Consulting Services; Staff Support (BEST Products Company application) Dear Mr. Pace, Thank you for the offer to assist the City in reviewing the BEST application for development approvals. The assignment appears to be clear in its overall direction, requiring a SEPA review and determination, followed by one for the Board of Architectural Review. I propose to produce them, acting as contract staff support to your Department. I estimate my time for this task as follows: Task Hours Initial set -up 5 SEPA analysis & report 20 SEPA - related meetings 25 BAR report research 10 BAR report 25 BAR - related meetings 15 Contingency 5 TOTAL 105 hours Estimated Fee $9,000. This fee estimates the amount of time involved. I will bill on a $85.00 per hour basis and will notify you if the project is exceeding this estimate. My expenses are included in this figure. I anticipate economies of scale by simultaneously processing the SEPA and BAR reviews, although I have separated them in the above tabulation. I am prepared to begin immediately. My goal is to complete the work in time for the March 24th BAR meeting. This means producing a complete set of reports for publication no later than March 10th. Mr. Pace BEST Staff Support Serv,s January 21, 1994 2 This is tight, and depends on quick (e.g., three working days) turnaround by the applicant for key information. My expectations are that: - -My services will entail as many as 15 meetings with representatives from BEST, consultants and City staff. - -I will be responsible for routing and obtaining City • Departmental comments on the application, both for SEPA and for the BAR. I will provide draft reports for the applicant's comment as well. - -I will prepare reports, first in draft form, using the City's standard format, and then in final form for publication. - -I will rely on existing records, and will perform my own site inspections. As a separate service and if requested, I can provide original research and analysis, but I do not believe this is necessary at this time. -- Actual presentation of final Staff Reports to the BAR will be done by you or other members of your staff. I will attend these presentations at subsequent hearings if requested, but as an extra service. - -I will bill the City of Tukwila for my services on a monthly basis. My statements will identify time and tasks. - -You will be my primary contact and my final advisor in terms of the content of the reports and their completion. As part of this contract I expect to sign a City of Tukwila Contract for Services that references this letter. My resume is attached as confirmation of my qualifications to perform this work. With all of that being said, I want you to know that I am pleased to assist you and your staff in performing this work. Sincerely, Robert S. Betts, Inc. Enclosure: Resume Mr. Pace BEST Staff Support Servi;:Z,; January 21, 1994 3 ROBERT S. BETTS Experience: Planning Consultant, Robert S. Betts, Inc.. Permit processing for private applications. City Staff planning support. Rezones and comprehensive plan amendments. Real estate development studies. Chief of Current Projects, City of Bellevue: sub area plans, zoning amendments, public process. Senior Planner, Hall & Goodhue: General Plans for small communities in Oregon and California. Planning Commissioner for three and one half years. Major Recent Projects: Permit Expediter (The Home Depot) Planning and application coordinator for four stores in the Puget Sound area. Ongoing work with attorneys, traffic engineers, civil engineers, architects in order to facilitate efficient and prompt municipal review of the application. Client: The Home Depot USA, Inc. Growth Management (Boeing/ Duwamish Corridor) Led the, team that used the Growth Management Act to stimulate redevelopment of an aging industrial corridor. Project consisted of coordinating three governments having land use authority in order to devise a programmatic EIS which covers traffic, shoreline, and land use issues for the 1992 -2002 period. The, Plan affects 650 acres which contain 9.9 million square feet of developed floor area. Workforce will be maintained at a 25,000 level. Client: City of Tukwila (Lead Agency) County Plans (King County/ Sammamish Plateau) Represented King County's largest homebuilder during 64 citizen advisory committee meetings that were held to revise the County's 1982 plan for a 43 square mile area. In order to facilitate public discussion, prepared the Community Plan of Choice, a document of policies and guidelines for management of growth. Client: Buchans /Murray Franklyn. Education: . Postgraduate course work in real estate and project management: Harvard Graduate School of Design University of California, Berkeley Master of City Planning, University of California, Berkeley Master of Architecture, University of California, Berkeley B.A., Yale University 1' -3" 00 ON 1' - 3" 9' -4.5" 4' - 4.5 "--- ►I MATCH ROHM & HAAS #'S 2284 VIOLET 7328 WHITE (BACKGROUND) 2308 TURQUOISE . VIOLET 2287 VIOLET 2308 TURQUOISE �— ADDITIONAL SIGN TO BE ADDED LATER 22' - 6" OVERALL HEIGHT 10' -0" CLEARANCE TO GRADE PMS WARM GREY # 4C UPPER SIGN NEW D/F INT. /ILLUM. SIGN, FACE (BY OTHERS), CABINET SHEET METAL LOWER SIGN (TO BE ADDED AT A LATER DATE) NEW D/F INT. /ILLUM. SIGN, FACE WHITE PLEX, (ACTUAL COPY & COLORS TO FOLLOW), CABINET SHEET METAL CLIENT: SEARS HOME LIFE FURN. DATE: 6/30/94 REV .S 7/9, 9/10 SCALE: 3/8" = 1' - 0" ACCOUNT REP.: SCOTT R. DESIGNER: MAS FILE NUMBER: FS-063094-SH-1R2 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DRAWING, SUBMITTED FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE, IN dir FEDERAL CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT BEING PLANNED FOR YOU BY FEDERAL SIGN, IT FEDE IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, COPIED OR EXHIBITED IN ANY FASHION WITHOUT Division Federal Signal Corporation PERMISSION OF FEDERAL SIGN C 1' -3" I� 001 N ►h 1 - 3" 3" 9' -4.5" 4' - 4.5 " - - 0I MATCH ROHM & HAAS #'S 2284 VIOLET 7328 WHITE (BACKGROUND] 2308 TURQUOISE . VIOLET 2287 VIOLET 2308 TURQUOISE 4- ADDITIONAL SIGN TO BE ADDED LATER 22' - 6" OVERALL HEIGHT 10' -0" CLEARANCE TO GRADE UPPER SIGN NEW D/F INT. /ILLUM. SIGN, FACE (BY OTHERS), LOWER SIGN (TO BE ADDED AT A LATER DATE) NEW D/F INT. /ILLUM. SIGN, FACE WHITE PLEX, TO FOLLOW), CABINET SHEET METAL PMS WARM GREY # 4C CABINET SHEET METAL (ACTUAL COPY & COLORS 7 /1 WflNITUH/H ST SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL 11846 C0.1(7 FAIT I/W/94 998 2 :491.. RAN 7 ?1 1680 3 1/6.11 w I /81'f 1(1':A1i.15 fl/ 28/9A DAP 6 1 /161r. CLAM C2f VA'AYS 2/11/94 CIVIL 9.6 1144•9,4) CRA;Y4 A41) LANDSCAPE 'IAN 5 7611Y,,CA{ MAN SURVEY LA10 14176 136441 (/0/91) (4/0794) /35/92) SEPA ` ) !446 AC 1,11514 (41%5%93) BAR [45491 NLVC.W 081EMA oc®3 (1'/5/93) CONSULTANTS ARCHITECT ',FUT 1143 665301.41(5 V470 2460 01 401 NE. Si A1)1 E. wA9•Gla1 0055 (16 365 -743) FAY 365 -71,01 47:6114[1 10449,0 R. 1UP4N, AA CIVIL I%OI, KY0, 4113 4110.1.2 7410 4.144704 671164l 4651 57 0111F, 844/0101 9802 (01373 -4744 1'64 323 -7135 (04) ACT .014 F. A19 RSCTUI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT *10146 P5 40,) UAI4 SIM E1, 5t1IE 0 (25(94)5. 6104010, 900)0 (71)'' 716 -4932 FAV /l4 -74(13 (1J1IACI' .'4144', „4)491)0 4114301 SURVEY 014584)( 9,641.0110 4)'0 1.113466 0 70011 '911)4 WAY 4041,. 8)176. WA98010493V3 �a' .3 2 -3366 5, ACt 'w'1 0'40403 TRAFFIC ENGINEER 074.11 C 494)4112 Al) O1i1 EN6f 10 201 12111 AVI1L!: 119511015) 91LLVLE.WA94G10N 98004 (1206)4155.5320 (AV 453 -7180 CONTACT' VAR( 3A000SPC. CODE INDEX GENERAL E411510 COX 07113E OCCU'A'4Y CLASS 112 I 1 N- SPRINLERCD, SPRMLFN CF9.I10111 C341NACt04 AREA 101A4 1'451■ 0 (U 040 AREA 30.911 9" 01-411.2104 . (1 E0,1 26)04(49 4401(01 goDSY M60'05LD 10)4,L 413(•13 AMA 2 -51(6) P180 05.(90 1014:'(6710 ANNA -51061100113011) 9:044110.1 011 TWO 50E5, (435'- 20) A 005 '. 0280 (1.0280 ) 7.0104 2- VAAAUA 0,49E FAAC6GARIA 50.7504" A 4 -141)6 4)1RO4 ((4610 WAIL (7 49 0 99 4 0 (5 1 8 4 ) 1 4 ) 4 4 9 1A40../"(6 /70 COAUILN Ott AT 455'3.475 /END SC1B8CK 16:65.4419164 EGRESS I0A 111 VAN (LOOP OCO4ANT 1.04D 20.09) 4 / 30 620 OCCIPA.IS C417 W0121 6E0.44146N6. 670 4 02 . 133 1.11.11S ENI WOlIl 1404160 W 10(5 10.47144 19499, [1004 OCCUPANT LOAD 61909 50. / 30 = 527 09APA :99 Enl WOOT 1)104(41. 537 v 03.54 60'.9 (61 401') 1*0018(D TSB 14(5 REIAL ER '8' 0110474'11 LOAD 15.6.38 Sr. / 3J = 290 0CIV'A1.IS I81 MM. RE0146/6■7 290 4 02.59 10( EAf #1)12. 11605 DID 331049 81k1,1- VAAAVA 184511 8S61745 470145 6141 91410E14:0 (1 1(30 . 200114 4R4A4 4,(NT O 48145 PLR 3303(c) ZONING 10110 1111014 3E036011614: 461.O,l 11.011 OA TIARA PAR( 505', 1141911, 23'' PSAR, Y SIA S by STREET MAP FIDELITY ASSOCIATES FIOACLFE i ii °P14 101[ op ACURA 9(0,1.974) B.A.R. DAZE1. L ALS611 BAKER 00U.EVARD r.._.._... —. 1111 I DUCE 11!I FF II!11 II!II IIUI 11616. 401 BAo))/ 30116.0 ARi 723 ANOCM42 PARK LAST 1LWWI. A, WAS/ PIG(CN (AS ('4101'009.0) E()EII)Y ASSOC 407 414).40944 BC1A E. V ART) CCE4571Lf2 019 404 S)RAN) 12_ BIXLEVARO E1 SCA -(L'/ 400 StRAI(12 BOULEVA1. )rj {�IrnnnnnDrl`,r \‘11111111i11111111 aNS000)UD _ 111uuu rluu "i 1 u(uu,wuil,r�/ =r — , ,r._ = 5)Rn�17CR BOLA EV000 —, SCCALE T,OCR. CEN EV 401 5)9,45)9:96 BOUEVAHO BLOCK MAP 1.01004 PARKING ANALYSIS 411811/639.543 3025/030 A 96 STALLS WARODJi USE O Jr GO SF . 10 t 6.057 3" . a, FIDELITY A� LC lt' ®(i f� �r E LC /'u r�1 �1 lL /'� U A�7 TURNER AND ASSOCIATES COVER SHEET REVISIONS SHEET FIDELITY ASSOCIATES, OLELFE 44 RVE.W_CL964 X3__ yz L v .� ' C PAR IG STALLS REQ130 . ■0 STALLS IRONYO - 5 STALLS 5611089,5 WALLS P90VOED - 67 STALLS CRPACT STALLS PROWL° - (30% Cr 152) J$T55ITAAL111 TOTAL PAROG PROVDLl1 . leem 2m 4941) NE ARCHITECTS S.AM%.149(0104 9655 (206) 365-7431 �1 (L>EtrtY 1147 (45446 R[- �iE1VE� DRAWN BY' Stt 59$31 OCCI0 D BY: 19, 1. yyl DATE: 115193 - �NAiCNT ISCA400AL PAIMIG U45EAC141 PROVDED 44111 CQ4VIER 0(14, [V111 91E5 PROV11 (03.63) -165 STALLS SCALE: VAJAS AV./�� 1 Tit Ink SpAcas El. PART OF RULDIG L G BACK 1.11(---. PER FRE CODE TRLCK MANLEVFANG AREA PEW WAVY DUTY ASPHALT. F2r- rr )-1-1-ArccotsciEnifrAtasszen-scepacia.-7 r- r--T-- T - CC NU Ali( AD )VE 1. CF ET'S t1C APPLICANT m*0.11111 IIITO PLOW -ro POotettof 10' fAVVALCAPP ST AO T— c TrA eD OPI A co...mow POOPHITT LoWr AT L.A.R. P10118WIL, To COOLY Cob,. -USING CONCRETE BUICIG — - CONFUTER OTY SLPERCENTER 24.668 SF. 63 PARKING STALLS ! crn <1 I44 M I ST ANDER BOULEVARD RETAIL A N - B2 44,5 8,138 SF. ENTRY 20,099 SF. PROUNIL FLOC 15,809 SF. IfEZZAh NE -35,9e8-SF7- OTAL- ENTRY PRC8'OSED BOLUDARY LOT ADJUSTACNT HOMELIFE R TAIL 'EXIT . 00 SOEWALK 3 0 0 C [ HP:L-7 [ 1 z ! I 1 PROPOSED ZONING CODE 0-ONCE TO EL504ATE 5'SIDE YARD BULDIG SETBACK 4130 LANOSCAPE BUFFER R V 42 r2221 9 StAr.VARDS 30 85'•.765' 1 3 IC -38 3 SI ),25 ',.., ----LK CF EASING BULDI■G BE TO REMOVED __.1...L_L_LI i---_-__Li.._._.u__LL-','„ iimii•-..iiiiii-1 2.,..;;ZI -.2- ,........._ _ 17_12;1,8_ ST_At_pA.F.OStt 13.5._-_611 ,.__ ti.-''. _.8 STAWARD, 418 5 ,:68 . 73 50' FRONT YARD BULD(NG SETBACK ----- t3 08' 6 0.43 9> 8' ,48' a:1 i a CO/PACTS C.t....8....6L__ r SION----- LI .1 I .1.1'.:'.41 _1;1 FREE STAND14 - AEW 25' — - 1:11.LT:1:Ai ri. Lii.r._T_ r.sLIIC.: DRIVEWAY PLANTER- SEE BAR 5 L j 15' FRONT YARD LAN)SCAPE •:. ..._,.... EiUS STOP Ex 61 tiGI2w (70 BE VERFED \MTN NETRO) S 'Dram 1aormtett otapsc k Alt ArA IF PT. STRIP *MIN. PROPOSED SHARED PARXNG AGRED.CNT BETWEEN LOT 1 ANC LOT 2. I LjT 2 I I L) EXISTNG SHARED ACCESS EASEI.CNT. PROPOSED BOLKOARY LOT ADASTACNT STRANDER BOULEVARD sacTvem A-A 05-0083 KEY NOTES B.A.R. omt 441rifts.14 IF OE UP! ASSOCRTES TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 8470 24 FLA',/ SLAMS. AA '331S5 (770) ALS 743' ARCHITECTS PRELIM. GRADING AND UTILITY ASSOCV, I ES, HOW, LIE Xfl -Ton.T1,7 3 ASMARA 6[13 _ _ 774388087 7737 ■E' SCALE 1/20*AC-e REVISIONS ROCEIVED ,.....,...... (;SOUTH ELEVATION_;Dn } ®EAST ELEVATION 2 SCOLEE-r..o 0 f1 n A RIEITURE STORE by SEARS eN rgy coc uMms TO My( F /Mt beat/(, 0 ONORTH ELEVATION 3 scurr -h OWEST ELEVATION r- () WEST r.:n'" EYtSNO VD sIHK1PI o CNAL1ur ooc N 4TT cWMV2. sI „r(eruAr) /A lt�t AP TAA h4 ALPO Joy., yACtAA uAU. S 'AO ∎LrL 0.4 S6 ■nouNA' hAa 140. Rk n_-• Taal 1x200. KEY NOTES ®COLUMN DETAIL 8 SCr.�C;j2'.r O= ®CORNIrCE DETAIL % SCALE � 1 — — OSOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: nos' 8EF.I /13AR3 B.A.R. AAPyPROVED r4'E I L1A INITIALS1L>.. - .— Qosrr+0 was © PRCPOSD GRADES. DuPSTER DELOSIFE GATES 2t /EVAS E AES2 ROE. (I ) 1605710 QOFESETE PNEL5 r0 EE RELOCATED OR CRUSHED 40 PFCYOED AS EEL 04 STE ® E105150 COK%TE PA/E1 TO 038th CLEAN NO PAM. P -t ® RELOCATED Els5TE0 mown PAM- CLEAN N0 PANT, P-2 Q FEW PARAPET ACtm 01 TOP 11 EI05TND 0,CFETE PMEL., MADE FRUA E06TI0 CONCRETE PAI4.. ©1 FEW 2' METAL CORD, PAWED P -3. © FEW 1- 511 Ew0*ALS PANTED P -] 4EW carvrT ON Sim. silos (Dorm' s8AHSCORUGATED NO 2ITH r REVEAL Q 3-LEVEL VW! CRaCE CD rev DAM NOSZED *WAWA STORE/ACNE D/O04S 000 WF(AMS lEW IM DOOR AFC RRAAE. ® 4(w STEEL OVETSEAD 1(01 ci PANT ACCOIT STPPE 51!2011 SCR OY SEPARATE APPROVAL cp SC0EDED NNAC WTS cp WILL WOOED E%TERCR LP -LCHT FilDIELOTY ASSOCDATES ES TURNER AND ASSOCIATES 11470 241n r.41 NC. SCAIILE. NA 98155 2706) 165 -7431 ARCHITECTS BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIDELITY HOMELP'F REMODEL (ri 0E 11 RLE' 1'00203 0EC1IE0 00 INNTT 510E 11/0/93 SLUE: I /ritM4 -0' \H) MMUS 7•+4704 Icw 0 lx TO MI. (x1{1/0 COIIO•w000 3x!4010 Wm. l.K1.00070 Ir4l IO 1l lxaxsp.xxnO Z. Abloj7e (. .1— ;OEM t esown41s { J ( )-- ,o :,:;1:,«I'.. KIw was lO w MAL . so. •minumiIiuuE I.KIw4 PH TO Kul. 0 114\ 1111111 l0 l IDII III I; I 'tEMavE PL POM �J�� DTI KI� 41�14I,4.l�e..w Wa 'L .xr 0.4s(aO flxAVU COAx (I \J --+l. M:fw.11OJS I0 xlocoi lx.x.p. W105wtl lav4 V In TEMMIEWaniallailMMORIlar L._ 14170Ut • ACK,. 11 oSloRl osI NI sl e NW vnx IAA ■1414 AS g5u.110 PLANT SCHEDULE ti') I I 1 I e(13A \N 11JfO.ISIOx x4.11. As 170117.1 on plan [...Ire 014 l0 v.nw44 w VI' co . W0. sow:road LA en4W 7..1.11A11. IJ,),,.411444 3ww 44'k1,11F0 17 Iej144.4 1/4,0 ecfa V 51184:85 C,4us Mxus,^ Ie.IM mite* W.,. Y4.wo0.ef..fN tscooymho Lwwfnws 00x+4 kwpex sw.l..e 11wus k„ocu.ws •It.n1•I Comic! wow AIU 43(04 •f'Jw pYw'I A1s.kwko.M 44,64 t 446t430441404e 1010.4w SO .w4 nw k 11• psi cont . o:n I. 11• 11401 LOA ,4MA 34'. AA F bolo 43.41.34.11F0.364 t 8.443 11.74• p..3.W0 1 1 144 war y 4 REC IVED 4• pun y 11• o., x.1,yp,W *OA, .141 1 EPA 1 psi mw plwd 910 0. ODUMIIx 44Z DE4ELfj'MENT plc xw.+.aw...) p.w.« wll xmsolOOp..l e.sp 0*41. .. KEY NOTES B.A.R. rlu wT[ , /1 al .,•y Eo s.su_ ; U#NDPLAN. RS, . Lantheutpc Architecture, NMI M4111 SOW. 51,11[ 17 1.&0004,, WA 91020 14(4 4.404 010, 771.4912 106 42041, 7,4,7103 TURNER AND ASSOCIATES E12U 21Tx aa¢ NC ARCHITECTS S[WT11t. wt 900.5 (306) 365 -7431 LANDSCAPE PLAN FIDELITY ASSOCIATES, HO.MEL (FE Jai MELT,' fLE 7051440445 0440004 07 9)1 OC GED BY IVIS 9J SCAB 1/20'.1.-0' REVISIONS SHEET 114 A v