Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
LUA99-096
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 12th day of August 1999, affiant deposited in the mail of the United States a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Signature:K- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this I2` day of 2.9 AinAtS\jf()( 11/41 /1SL 17ce J . o ' ti lel0N+o c,Notary Public ' and for the State of Washingt 0 u s ' 40 residing at therein.4, r C1,> Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash LUA99-096,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. vim AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL RENTREERNTON,WASH NGTO HEARING N An Appeal Hearing will be held by the600S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seadailynewspaperpublishedseven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal Washinondgton, floor Augusto C Hall, 9 Renton, a :0Washington, on 03, 1999 at 9:00 newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months AM to consider the following petitions: prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language SUNSET WAND WASH continuallyAAas a dailynewspaper in Kent, KingCounty, Washington. The South CountyThe appellant. 096 y 9 The a Architectural Design & Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Consulting,Inc.,appeals the Determination State of Washington for King County. of Non-Significance-Mitigated issued by the Environmental Review Committee. The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County The portion of the determination that is Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers appealed is mitigation measure number duringthe below statedperiod. The annexed notice, a for,the Sunsettion limiting hours ofoperation for Wand Wash (File No. LUA- 99-024,SA-A,ECF). Location: 1425 Union Ordinance#4788 Avenue NE Legal descriptions of the files noted above are on file in the Development as published on: 7/23/99 Services Division,Sixth Floor,City Hall. All interested persons to said petitions are invited to be present at the Public The full amount of the fee cha for s ' oregoing publication is the sum of$40.25, Hearing. in the charged to Acct. No. 8050 July 23,s1999.hed 6388 South County Journal Legal Number 6389 Legal e , County Joumal Subscribed and sworn before me on thisday of Q , 19 n'(g p1411111111F,, kx l Notary Public of the State of Washington NOTAR}, ` o residing in Renton King County, Washington 9 .F14vA '• SH1''' o00 11l141 Sound Levels for the Vacuum Motor alone. Running at half load Distance dB level 3 ft. 85.2 4 ft 82.7 8ft 76.7 16 ft 70.7 32 ft 64.7 64 ft 58.7 128 ft 52.7 256 ft 46.7 Vacuum with noise reduction in place running at full load Distance dB Level 6 ft 78 8ft 76 10 ft 74 20 ft 70 30 ft 66 40 ft 62 50 ft 58 60 ft 54 70 ft 50 80 ft 46 90 ft 42 100 ft 38 AUG-e2-99 05 : 12 PM 07245 3152537948 P. 01 C FTT ' b4 Dou„,/j 4'2)6-- 4Z - Cara tion Thank you s r inheeair was in h Industry 1and oour Electric AcAcustek vacuum maws do Keyssignificanttcant for vacuums used in the noise level reduction. Noise is more complicated than one might suppose. Noise"quality" versus "quantity' results In perceived dificrances by each individual,n asu e'thal aa[nre Attachtrci is from B 8 K Instrumentsereusuallymore s that than IOW rumbles, even though battydiscussesnolsocontrol, As indicated in previous correspondence, relevant test data d:por1 s upon outside conditions end specifically, distance. Lomb l Electric has provided a othe attached sheet fo and a subsequent rspecspecific details. ample i t Sound rower ould enable a viable comparison. Please reference lovuls do nut retails to distanceuAustconversion to pressure readings. Tfie e3sles1 approach Inir 4tadl (distance awayrornvacuumct) and els ember that extrapolating decreasesbenadcorrespondingffespondtrgrdecgrlease Intithe sound plossurmm level of t3 dB's. time distance is double, there will also P Once again,Lemb Elucttic hopes that the enclosed information will allow Monorail a betterunderstandingoftheAcustekmotorsnoisereductionbenoftts. If wu can be of any further assistance, please contact us. Sincerely, ob C3olem Marketing Industry Manager errorJure 7640 cc: Stanley W. Mackey, Regional Sates Manager a 11"0 TOTAL MM.frY MAMA6amara AUG-02-99 05 : 13 PM 07245 3152537948 P. 02 tr EQUATION AND EXAMPL4 Lw R rp 1n Logic 20i Rs'1Se Lw , = Sound Power, rIB Lp = Sound Pressure, di)et f1a Ss = 1 MI reference surface date = 1 a Rs mr Equivalent Radius Pi(3.1418) RI (DIstrinve Away) Dcaea.e In dF3 Ssound Pressure Level 10 Logic 2rIV Rse /So 3 Feet 7.2 dB 4 Fc_et 9.7 tie roet 18.7df Remember. every time dlstanoe is doubled, there will also bo a decrease In the sound pressure level of 6 dB'c, EXAMPLE Acustek Model: 116757-13; Motor alone at 1/2'effective orifice Sound Power Reacting 92.4 dB Dbience(Rs) 3' 4' 8' le' 32' 64' Sound Power(Lw) 92.4 92.4 92.4 92,4 92.4 92.4 Decrease relating to distance 7,2 -0.7 -15,7 -21.7 -27.7 -33.7 Sound Pressure (Lp) 85.2 82.7 78.7 70.7 64.7 .58,7 In thn above example, you would expect decreases In the motor's sound pressure equivalent to a level of 58.7 df3's at 64 feet away. TOTf1L PRGE ,©O2 *4 JUL- 19-99 06 :57 AM 07245 3152537948 1 . 01 NITN1 'Bob FrDry. _ ohN MMM01\10RAJL VACUUM NOISE TESTING (dB) Without Noise heduction W th Noise freduct on t&..L tad .F_uai.Loa t Ns1.l oacl 6 Ft. 85.8 90.0 73,0 78.0 8 Ft. 84.2 89.5 71 .5 76.0 10 Ft. 82.1 88.5 70.0 74,C 20 Ft. 81.0 86.5 6/1.0 70.0 NOTE: Both Vacuums were tested at 220V for 10 minutes Low rent levels will not damage Vacuum motors or filtration, iU IIP SUIt!N PAIN T1111I:SIIDLD Alil PLANT! 0 AM!'M!LIUICD f1OCK MO5IC O nwNuul 111vIrctl I 51Af1T Or 11115AI'e LEVet.O LOUD pnf:11E3111A Avd11A011 PAC's:NV? COM'El1Sn1 iOfi UACKGr;CIUIID MUSIC AvEnAG[ nO61f1OrIGE 0 sonT MUOIC O cwlt f wnit;ran NEcl101t; flOOM I .... Q 1(I• )0 JQ— 10 ISO Oo )Q .Qil t10 IINI 1 It) No 1]Q l in MONl)I tell. Igllylll,tti ;11!i:>!:'1'1?I15 •• I Imo 5,14•11?ii • I'at !i;3'L1 PI la E•i, „.,,," A g.`• a s yry,"-'# K T I i I Y .: . r_ it a d*. • ryt, a sp i F .y y.,,i rfrt ^t a 4 I` 41 F''' v r!, t • z% tA.-' .h • ,_ t 4 q= M1 L la," ,# , a Av.. t ! 4 c# r !`; . 1 t„v `M . 4 Laf+r,, h l 4.. ' t' . y tx • 4 ' ". 4 -,,,toe,_„ 4 t+ ; r a 4 d *. I jaIt-o Y ' 1, jY`• ' tilt A • t` w t s {y , , ' , i 1L3 . . '. «. p .!*«- A K. ; 1 3 fir 1 14"n: ;4. 4 * aas' br jyr4;. a."r* r 41., 4 sr .... .4,, :,, .,, ... `-'' . 44t/1' '4„..41k - - :- •..- : ', 444 ' `4.,„ '• 4. .' i..4 r't- " Atier: t!.!... aty jaw. . r 1 '.1: €. I E J: may o'1If m q Et. -','," 1 i , ..1''s_ • " r l,', '•' Otc r P T i kc" 'w •` e@ SN"` ,•• ill a S rtk'' y' 2 y: te 544 1/4 , „ ..., ,-..••,"", • ., W.*el:1,4:: f:..:;•;$;: t..•,,• , ' : . . •.1.2 ir..,"*-."• • 1/47 ii.,,..:-.7'• - !•44,"„t•,,,,-.:.:,....-...:',;- x , .43, 414, :,.,-,. _,. ,.;.'-,,.r4.41,,,„trik. i• 444,a rf" a ry r . 9 t * hn p 2"- r 1 tr 1, x i, X c r p 4 tOF r VI. e r a i ,.. '° i't . y ; roil*fir,} ,,`.. } 3 i' ys a` .± air . 3; r h. F r `. t i 4. i'r i "' " .{ t. ; N. a y`r. a,' s 0 I ... e * h it° a F i t` d' J a f • r4 F to i ` e St; s .. a ' . 1,,'' i e `' fq`•4.I• ; q a. r i4r+t yam lot x ..a • _ a. i II:. +s w x . q x- kT I• ', w 0,1 s ( Y` s` fi' n i r . 4, a ;t A a. t TI a k ram v f+y. q r'4 a y= e a I e - 1.. i q a°'w a `f;`. 4 a F .„.• y i gar a r 2 r .. ' 9 i.p j, .• + '. it 3"' 'Ss r .,.. t q ! i+X! y .. a I 4... E , Yr.., y - S..2'4'' t o , r w a ..- . 4p 4, •• , :'° ot r ,•4:r'.t g yr 1 e -• .h'" Ted- 4 4 : ' e •/': c ° .+ 4 P•{ • c f 4 y • 1 x r,•• al 0. t r '',„ • 5 ' •4,ate.:{ 3 • "sy `,.€f , t-...tl' w• t S.. S3 '' , '' t r r y e a. Ail Y' j. a, `'I.t h a 4a - Lc ' fir.{ t f Ty te go- a 4T `. N 9i. « tr .$ r it i y. • * fp r1. fbr ' f . 4 T '- e t, F,4F , j1• l 1A 4' ` ri I, HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT r - . August 12, 1999 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Robert C.Downing Architectural Design&Consulting,Inc. Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD LOCATION: 1425 Union Avenue NE SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals ERC's mitigation measure limiting hours of operation from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the August 3, 1999 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,August 3, 1999,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal,Exhibit No.2: Land use file LUA99-024,SA-A(by proof of posting and publication,and other reference) documentation pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Noise study Parties present: Robert C.Downing,Appellant 5707 Parkview Lane Everett, WA 98203 John Zavaglia,Appellant 4044 NE Sunset Blvd Renton, WA 98056 Representing City of Renton Larry Warren,City Attorney Leslie Nishihira,Development Services Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Robert C. Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 2 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. The underlying applicant is seeking to establish a car detailing use at 1425 Union Avenue NE and the appeal is limited to the hours of operation of the wand car wash. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC)set the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Downing,appellant herein, stated that the operation is a self-service car wash with vacuums. It is appellant's understanding that the reason the hours of operation were limited was concern over the noise of the vacuums. Mr. Downing presented a noise study from the vacuum manufacturer which indicated that the amount of noise that is entering the property would be equivalent to conversation or background noise such as music,or less than 60 decibel levels of sound. The appellant suggested that if they are not allowed to operate all the vacuums 20 to 24 hours a day,that those closest to the adjoining neighbors be closed at 9:00 p.m. and the vacuums next to the detail shop near the front of the site remain open. The owners of the wand wash also operate the Chevron station to the south,but it closes at 11:00 p.m. and opens at 5:00 a.m. The Chevron station has a car wash,but not a wand wash operation. Mr. Warren noted that the noise study was not available to the ERC at the time of their decision. He further stated that not only is the vacuum a concern,but there is also noise from the car wash and the people using it. The City code is dedicated to trying to buffer incompatible uses,and in particular commercial and retail establishments from residential establishments. Light and glare are concerns,but noise is the main issue here, particularly in the back where the equipment is located. Mr. Downing responded that while they could control the noise of the machinery and could install additional landscaping buffers and sound walls on the corners of the property,there is not a lot they could do to control the public. Mr.Zavaglia testified that he had tested the noise from the vacuums by standing at the nearest apartment. Whenever a car went by he could not hear the vacuums, so the car noise generated from the street is noisier than the vacuums. He suggested that a further option would be to shut down the vacuums and wand wash as well as the lights at the back of the site and leave the front portion operating. He stated it is necessary for them to be financially viable to have the hours of operation extended. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 9:25 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: Robert C. Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 3 FINDINGS: 1.The appellant, Robert C. Downing, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated DNS-M) issued by the ERC. Mr. Downing,hereinafter the appellant,filed the appeal on June 21, 1999 and the was appeal filed in a timely manner. 2.The appellant who is the project manager for the underlying land use application objected to a mitigation measure or condition that was imposed by the ERC. The condition would restrict the self- service car wash to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 3.The subject site is located at 1425 Union Avenue NE. The site is located on the west side of Union Avenue NE about three lots north of Sunset Boulevard NE. 4.The subject site is approximately 24,886 square feet in area. The parcel is approximately 85 feet wide which corresponds with its Union Avenue frontage. The parcel is approximately 259.17 feet deep. The parcel gently slopes downward to the southwest from approximately 390 feet to approximately 384 feet. There is a steeper drop down to Honey Creek at the extreme western edge of the site. 5.The applicant proposes developing the site with a six(6)bay car wash,vacuum stations and detail shop and office. The detail shop and office would be located closest to Union. It will be two stories with a first floor of approximately 868 square feet and a second floor of 367 square feet. It would be finished with a clock tower. 6.The six wash bays and equipment room would be lined up to the rear of the detail shop in a single array from east to west. It would be approximately 26 feet wide and approximately 124 feet long. Two vacuum stations would be located to the rear of the detail shop and between the detail shop and the first wash bay. Two other vacuum stations would be located to the rear of the site. Of these, one would be located near the southwest corner of the site and the other in the west center behind the westernmost wash bay. 7.The proposed car wash and vacuum stations were proposed to be open and operational twenty-four hours per day. The detailing shop would be closed during the night. One of the owners of the proposed use also owns and operates the nearby gasoline station which has a car wash that is operated by personnel rather than self-service. That owner had suggested that he or employees would monitor the unmanned facility but that the gasoline station is itself not open 24 hours per day and that there would not be constant monitoring of the subject site. The gas station and its car wash are open between 5:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. 8.The rear western boundary will be maintained in some natural vegetation from the top of the existing slope adjacent to Honey Creek. In addition,a landscape strip is proposed along this western boundary. 9.At the hearing the applicant introduced information on the noise generated by the vacuums that will be used. They produce less than 60 decibel levels of sound. This information was not available to the ERC when they made their decision. The applicant also suggested building some kind of wall or berm Robert C. Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 4 and also limiting the operation of the vacuums and even the rearmost,possibly three, wash bays during the night hours. There was no information on the noise levels as the machines age. 10. The City noted that the reference for noise is at the receiving location. In addition to the noise of the various components including the vacuums and the wash stations,the City was also concerned about the noise from patrons during the late evening hours which could include unruly,tumultuous behavior as well as radios,engine idling and the general hubbub associated with a 24 hour operation. There is also concern about the spillover of the lighting that will be used to advertise the availability of this business during these late evening hours. 11. Honey Creek runs at a diagonal along the west(rear)and south boundaries of the subject site. 12. There are two separate multiple family complexes west and northwest of the subject site. Residents of the multifamily housing expressed concern about impacts of the proposal on the adjacent creek and the noise associated with the uses proposed of the twenty-four(24)hour,round-the-clock operation. 13. The appellant specifically objected to Condition 3A which states: 3A: The hours of operation for the car wash shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 p.m. CONCLUSIONS:: 1.The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore,the determination of the Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2.The Determination of Significance and the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC in this case are entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous'when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore,the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below,the decision is remanded to the ERC. 3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the Robert C. Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 5 preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. Similarly, attempts to remove or modify any conditions imposed to mitigate environmental impacts would be subject to strict scrutiny and the appellant would have to clearly show those conditions are wrong. 4.The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the actions of the ERC were erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. There is a definite burden in overturning an administrative determination and it requires more than a minimal presentation and mere objections to the conditions imposed to offset the environmental impacts of a proposal. 5.The appellant has failed to demonstrate the condition is unreasonable as it stands. While there may be a possibility that reasonable persons might reach a different conclusion, it is clear that the contested condition is squarely aimed at a real problem- late night noise and light which can disturb sleep or other residential amenities. The appellant even admitted that one of the owners of the nearby gasoline station with an attached car wash, although not self-service,closes at 11:00 p.m. So while there was an initial claim that the owner could monitor the subject operation during the off-hours,that would not actually be possible without additional employees. 6.As noted by the City,the City does emphasize separating when possible incompatible uses and providing reasonable transitions or buffers between them. A 24-hour car wash and vacuum operation is not necessarily a detrimental use but it can be one in an inappropriate location. As can be seen in this case,the zoning and uses alone do not necessarily accomplish the City's goals and objectives. That is why environmental review and land use review still provide necessary safeguards. Land use unlike many areas of law is not all black and white. There are shades of gray. There are standards that weigh whether something is appropriate. "Appropriateness" is not generally measured in many legal matters. As can be seen here, one tier of commercial uses does not necessarily provide a measure of a good separation. In addition,the zoning permits residential uses and commercial uses to mix immediately adjacent to each other. Permissible uses may in fact create untenable conditions when juxtaposed. Normal sounds during the day or even during the evening may not have the same impacts as those same sounds during the late night when the ambient noise levels drop substantially. Perceptions of acceptable noise vary with the hour and location. What might be reasonable along Rainier Avenue in downtown Renton may not be acceptable,even along a trafficked but mixed use street like Sunset Boulevard in the Highlands. 7.The limitations on hours of operation are not unreasonable given the situation-the nearby surrounding residential uses. There certainly is nothing arbitrary or capricious about limiting noises that can create inhospitable conditions. 8.While allowing the use to be established and then trying to reign in the potential problems is an option, that is probably not a good option. It would be unfair to the applicant if in fact 24-hour operation is necessary to support the investment and a time limitation were to follow construction and occupancy. After the investment,the business could fail. It is also unfair to the residents-placing on them the onus to complain or seem unduly sensitive to urban noises. Clearly,the locale is not a pristine, quiet, rural area,but the City does owe it to its residents to guard their amenities,particularly during normal sleeping hours. Robert C.Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 6 9.This office is not convinced that the ERC made any errors. The appellant did have opportunities to submit the concepts submitted at the hearing to the ERC before the decision became final--that is, altered plans, limited hours of operation and the noise figures. This office is not convinced that this information would have changed the ERC's determination. 10. This office is not in a position to weigh whether the appellant's late proposed changes, a possible wall or berm,closing off portions of the site after certain hours or the noise figures submitted, substantially alter the impacts that the proposal might generate. Staff did not have time to consider or analyze the potential changes. 11. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. No such conviction results from hearing this case. This office,based on the record,will not substitute its judgment for that of the ERC. At the same time, it appears reasonable to allow the ERC to review this new information,although at the risk of delaying resolution of this matter. This office will remand the matter back to the ERC. They may choose to alter their determination or reaffirm it even in light of the possible changes suggested by the appellant. DECISION: The matter is remanded to the ERC. They may choose to alter their determination or reaffirm that determination even in light of the possible changes suggested by the appellant. ORDERED THIS 12th day of August, 1999. FRED J.KAutLN HEARING E MINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of August, 1999 to the parties of record: Robert C.Downing Larry Warren Leslie Nishihira 5707 Parkview Lane 1055 S Grady Way 1055 S Grady Way Everett, WA 98203 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 John Zavaglia Adele R. Sunu Magne&Klara Erga 4044 NE Sunset Blvd 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E303 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#A101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Shirlee H. Schlemmer JoAnn Berrett Dana L.Evans 3800 NE Sunset Blvd,#B101 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E102 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E203 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Robert C.Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 7 Vicki McCarron Janice Wiggen Sheryl Kobayashi 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E302 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E304 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#F101 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Alis Windelev Erin Epting Jessica Roberillo 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#F102 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E101 3800 NE Sunset Blvd Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Marci Hall Rosalee Walton Claudia Donnelly 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E103 3800 NE Sunset Blvd 10415 147th Ave SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 Renton,WA 98059 Jayne Schraw Lisa Windelin Paul Worsham 3800 NE Sunset Blvd 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#F102 Kathie Eichenberger Renton, WA 98056 Renton,WA 98056 3800 NE Sunset Blvd#E204 Renton,WA 98056 TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of August, 1999 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman, Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members, Renton Planning Commission Jana Hanson,Development Services Director Chuck Duffy,Fire Marshal Betty Nokes,Econonic Development Director Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Larry Meckling,Building Official Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ.Dev. Administrator South County Journal Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,August 26, 1999. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 16,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk,accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. Robert C.Downing Appeal of DNS-M for Sunset Wand Wash File No.: LUA99-096,AAD August 12, 1999 Page 8 The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. I raf,, J ILI 6+0 - a i' _ ..uza2® Q:4. 2 may'`,++ ' • 151H lt ) +®-- rib lam[-f"J' s% `",. S Q 1 4) o LW( fo I. it t 90( a +4fa :,®, I Tt SP 06.00 Lf' 0 O t ti- tin C Patten I r 4 W 0,OIft.7JJ \ 1. 11 fti Q s n.. L51 :i ' '' ' 1` ti Ik' C1 I)540 l2 1 A tea—r i.- _,N•4•5.i•.4..i.r4,+ • i_,,_- r, f Ira tw --pie, „lili-'--' 1; 11, t© I 0t rZ °°13,, 11 --„Fa) Ivl.,8 R1. Ezi ri •e ii I) (2) Q 1 I I v s os:-el Itt3' •'. >/ 4PL. szm jMfIZ:1 21•t3^ 4j ` i • Sronley B De loamy I:i'__I[ 2 fq. 2 '44164 jj16i t. 6, . r. •I i 11c t,_ 1.Z j1 ID L 1F t I V tZ)+ F+ Z ' '/ kill 6 Q iCU = 1 11,,.. • I I .It. .13 N.E. fi;i ia 5r.a Rio , . (70 S. g N.E. IS Fly '~ +s 1 , y •. s `' ''"`C CIT _ OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman June 24, 1999 Mr. Robert C. Downing Architectural Design& Consulting, Inc. 5707 Parkview Lane Everett, WA 98203 Re: Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for Sunset Wand Wash, File No. LUA99-024, SA-A Appeal File No. LUA99-096,AAD Dear Mr. Downing: We received your appeal dated June 18, 1999,and the hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, August 3, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Should you have any further questions,please contact this office. Sincerely, Fred J. Kauf an Hearing Examiner cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City Attorney Jana Hanson, Development Services Director ERC 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 Ica_. Architectural Desigi A and Consulting, Inc. 4. 5707 Parkview Lane Everett, WA. 98203 CITY OF RENTON Phone(425)348-5277 SP,,Fax(425)742-5804 J U N 2 1 1999 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICEJune18, 1999 Mr. Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA. 98055 Re: Appeal of Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for Application Number LUA-99-024, SA-A, ECF. Project Name: Sunset Wand Wash Mr. Kaufman, We are writing this letter to appeal the Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated decision made by the Environmental Review Committee on June 1, 1999. The portion of the decision we wish to appeal is mitigation measure number Three(3), section A. "The hours of operation for the car wash shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 9:00 pm. While we understand the concerns for noise in relation to intrusions on the neighboring properties, we feel that there are more appropriate measures that could be utilized than restricting the hours of operation. We would not be adverse to providing additional screening to minimize the noise impact to the neighboring properties or placing the vacuum stations closest to the property to the West of the site on a restrictive timer, while allowing us to continue to operate the vacuum stations closest to the street. We thank you for your attention to this matter. If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us at our office(425)348-5277. We look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Sincerely, dif Robert C. Downing Project Manager cc:ZI Corporation Jobfile NOTES RECEIPT DATE 2/ 99No. 4474 RECEIVED FROM// Zi s Or/7' Sea ADDRES 'YU/} NE C1-.L'4.1.1 LUe . Uv tom / /A_M gees&s 767 FOR L ff F - Le/4-99-a0V 1- -/ bk3f ut'l Wad AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. CHECK 'too wC2 C C,"HONEY PAID BALANCE ORDER BY II C1998 REDIFORM®8L802 et..a r ZI CORP. 1717 4044 NE SUNSET BLVD. 98-819/1251RENTON, WA 98056 9119 TO THE PAY e `1 v( tORDEROF U 1 0 LT-DOLLARS """ "'ice lbwne Bank Redmond 869-8558 16150 N.E.85N 86reek Redmond.WA 98052 FOR ti J-',:_ i. r.......) 1. ii'00 1 7 1 70 17. 1 2 5 108 19 11: 00870 290 c wr a— — _---