HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA99-1350_
Comprehensive Plan Polices Not Yet Implemented
Partial List of Examples Nov. 2, 1999
The Comprehensive Plan includes over 840 Policies in 8 Elements. Programs are
expected to be implemented over a 20 year planning period.
There is no adopted implementation strategy or phasing program.
Several groups of policies and programs are not yet implemented.
The following list gives examples of some of the programs which are not yet
implemented. This is not intended to be a complete list and is only illustrative.
Land Use Element
LU-20 LU-21 Establish Neighborhood Conservation Areas With Significant Number
Of Legal Non-Conforming Uses
LU-66 Design Standards In Multi-Family Infill Districts
LU-105, LU-106 Focal Points Within Center Suburban Designations
LU-141 Master Plan Requirements Within Center-Institution Designations
LU-273,
LU-274,LU-275 Gateways Program
LU-276 LU-277 View Protection Regulations
LU-282 Citywide Comprehensive Landscaping Standards Should Be Developed
LU-283 A Vegetation Plan Including A Tree List Should Be Developed
LU-289-LU-294 Streetscape Policies Requiring Street Furniture,Design Orientations
LU-305-LU-309 Design Oriented Policies Just Now Being Implemented Through Design
Guidelines Applicable To 2 Zones.
Downtown Element
DT-4 Restrictions On Ground Floor Uses Within Downtown Core
DT-7 Downtown Core Development Standards And District Characteristics To
Be Identified
DT-10 Floor Area Ration Standards to be used
Housing Element
Objective H-P
Policies H-95-H-99 Sets Forth Monitoring Program
U
KING COUNTY HISTORIC SITES SURVEY File No. 0358
Field No. JW-62 Inventory Sheet
s
NAME
Historic Henry Ford School 7
Common same
Site No.
LOCATION
Number & Street 416 Wells Street Not for Publication
City or Town Renton Zip 98055
Incorporated X Unincorporated
I
Community name Renton a
Congressional District 11 Community Planning District Renton 1
State Legislative District 7 Zoning P-1 1
County Council District 6 Shoreline Environment
CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE
District X Public y Occupied Agriculture _Museum
X Building (s) _Private Unoccupied Commercial Park
Structure Both Preservation Educational Private
Historic Site Work in Progress Entertainment —Residence
Arc. Site ACCESSIBLE Threatened by: Government Religious
Object X Yes Restricted _Demolition Industrial Scientific
Yes Unrest. Neglect Military Transportati al
No
Other
OWNER OF PROPERTY: Renton School District #403
Number & Street 416 Wells Street
p 98055
City or Town Renton State WA Zi
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sec_17 Twn 23 Rng 5 (TL
TOWN OF RENTON BLOCK 16 LOT 5, 6, 15, 16
PRESENT REGISTER STATUS i.r,%•h •
State RegisterNat. Register
Ter '
Other
DESCRIPTION J-
J, '
CONDITION TION i
X Excellent X Unaltere ti : i,4 i' '••
oo
Fair
y
Deteriorated /_Original Site i rr:e i•
7 s its`Ruins t ti...••
Unexposed Date
PRESENT & ORIG. PHYSICAL APPEARANC>
Henry tord Elementary School is an irregularly shaped structure which nearly fills
the block. Two single story classroom sections measuring approximately 50' x 100' , aie
on the east and w st sides of a 75' . 80' , a. roximately two sto auditorium in the
middle. Th flat roofed building has a decorated crenal ated parapet. The exterior of
the structure is brick vene ith wire cut terra Gotta trim.______
A flat arch characterizes the window bays. Most of the bays have four double hung
windows with multi le anes in the upper sashes.
Ogee arched entrances re located near the center of the facades, facing Wells
Street and Main Stree . Each entryway has ouble door with a multiple paned window.i1L
its upper portion. Ther are single paned side lights. A single paned transom is above
each sidelight and transom of five individual panes is above the doors
The design of the Henry Ford School has numerous similarities to enton High School,
such as the use of the same materials and the details of the doorwa s
About 1968, a modern addition was built to the south, on th site of the former----...ormer')
Central School DThe addition is attached to Henry Ford School by two partially glassed
in corridors.
In 1970, the interior of Henry Ford School was altered slightly to accommodate iHs
new use as the school district offices.
E-ll of it • A'
J
ended 8/12/96
ITY RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-345. Officially designated historical
urbanization occurs throughout the Planning Areasitesshouldbepreservedand/or incorporated into 5 historic structures and sites are in danger of beinalldevelopmentprojects. j eliminated. These policies recognize the
g
Discussion: The City of Renton has a rich history im ortance o historic resources and establishasapioneersettlementandminingcommunity. As framework for developing programs to protect
them
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
Open Space System
Objective LU-W: The open space network should be interconnected and include public lands such as parks,public open space,trails, environmentally sensitive areas, private open spaces, public rights-of-way, waterways,and visual open spaces.
Objective LU-WW: The function of the open space ti 14 V s W
network should be to: e r.,,- 1 '!f- lit/
a, preserve land resources; y
b. provide relief from urban development;
1 1' c. maintain a habitat for wildlife; a
k; /'- f
1 :
y`d. provide physical access and visual 4 F `
connection within the City;
t' r
and
J'ti `=,r'e. define the form of the City.
Objective LU-XX: Adequate open space
lands should be preserved to meet the C )/„
a: t r,
µt* •
jneedsofpresentand•future generations. 4.
r ,. ii , , ,,,,- , _ ;
Objective LU-YY: Multiple open space uses should
be provided on lands whenever feasible.
T' ;'`'
3 . -, lit:,...._e...
Discussion: The concept of an open space network
vs
f ,,
includes the notion that the available open space would k s, ` r r
function together to create a sum greater than its parts i '(i i4 ,„ , • ',.•.
and that, where possible, the pieces of the system would
0 '` ,
r
r l -t- , ;',
No;`•` , 'be connected visually, or physically connected through
11f
the use of an interconnected trail system. y1t ;
k'f = 4w r
x
The following types of lands are examples of the variety of
i` x '`
r';
lands which should be preserved as part of the open space "` _' . -'" ; :.
w
network:
a. Natural areas and natural features with scenic, environmental or recreational value;b. Lands that may provide public access to creeks, rivers, and lakes;
c. Lands that define the boundaries of urban and rural communities;d. Lands that visually or physically connect natural areas or provide important linkages for use as
recreation, and provide habitat for plants and wildlife (i.e. utility right-of-way, water easements);e. Lands valuable for active and passive recreation;
f Lands which are environmentally sensitive; and
g. School sites.
1-42
ii
iG
T .
iJ
i
O
Clayton O'Brien-Smith, AIA
Principal
Representative Projects Clayton has been responsible for design and:project
management for a variety of successful projects in
The Seneca Apartments Western Washington, including senior, low-income, and
Seattle, Washington market rate multi-family developments. As a project
leader, he fosters a strong and consistent working
Cascade Court Apartments relationship between design team, client and contractor.
Seattle, Washington Clayton is skilled at the graphic and verbal
communication of the design and construction of
Mt.St.Vincent Independent Living, assorted building types. As a designer, his attention to
Apartments detail supports a refined sense of what is appropriate to
Seattle, Washington a given site,program and budget.
3052 N 137th Apartments Experience
Renovation GGLO
Seattle, Washington Principal, 1985-Present
Watermark Tower Residential The Bumgardner Architects
Renovations Staff Architect, 1980- 1985
Seattle, Washington Project Manager
RiverPlace Public Parking/Retail Education
Portland, Oregon University of Washington
Master of Architecture, 1981
Cafe Flora Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Design, 1977
Seattle, Washington
Civic
Alberg/Beck Remodel & Addition Coach, McGilvra Soccer, 1990-present
Seattle, Washington Executive Board Member, Seattle Emergency Housing
Service,
KMPS/KZOK Office and Studios Building Committee Chair, 1988- 1990
Seattle, Washington
Awards
Schuchart Corporation Offices Seattle Area Master Builder "Best Renovation" 1995
Seattle, Washington Excellence in Remodeling "Best Addition"1992
Seattle Area Master Builders Association "MAME"
Weems Residence Award
Decatur Island, Washington Best Residential-Addition"1992
Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce "Commitment to
Excellence"1991
Published Work
Greater Seattle, 1993
Sun Coast Builder, 1992
G
4., Firm Profile
O
MINNIIQGGLOisrecognizedforitssophisticatedyetcosteff. ive
approach to mixed-use work in architecture, plannin. . d
0
interior design.
1 ; - In1986 Alan Grainger,Bill Gaylord,Chris Libby and Cl. ton
it it1 ! O'Brien-Smith established a partnership combining eh'
itknowledge,talent and design expertise. Today,eight p ci-
f pals and seven associates lead teams that undertake chal ng-
iip _ , tug ing projects throughout the region.
1
Our work in the design of older existing structures inc des
the renovation, adaptive re-use, and historic preservati« of
institutional,commercial,residential,and hospitality buil.; igs.
We provide creative problem-solving skills on technical is leg,
ft
as well as a strong sensitivity to the aesthetic integrity • the
original building design and materials. 1000000000111
11 i l What sets us apart from other firms? Our philosophy, An
l II 11 il
1 i i 1 l 11 owner of GGLO works one on one, with every clien on
01 i 'l
1 g every project. This forms a project partnership in whic the
Or _ ' "°' client is involved from the very beginning. We listen t•'our
4i +
clients, understand their needs and strategies, and Irk
collaboratively to bring them success. Our designs are ar
1.
tic
and original while respecting budgets and programs. e
face each challenge with an imaginative and a fresh outl •k.
I..y`
01 1l
l I
i 1ii )
i h . .
11,Jil 31
111!11
7
o
Renovation Projects
Building Renovations
Eagles Auditorium Housing Renovation,Seattle,
Washington
44 units of low-income housing in top three floors
Monte Cristo Hotel Renovation,Everett,Washington
Conversion of historic hotel to 76 units of
low-income housing
Thomas B.Foster House, Seattle, Washington
Five bedroom house with eight unit addition
Graham Apartments,Seattle, Washington
14 units
Mission Ridge Ski Lodge Renovation,Wenatchee,
Washington
Expansion of dining/kitchen facility and skier services.
Addition of new lounge,fireplace, daycare facility,
veranda, childrens'ski school and administrative
offices.
Sheraton Tacoma Hotel Interiors Refurbishment,
Tacoma, Washington
Public 4obbies, guest rooms, restaurants, retail spaces
Watermark Tower Residential Renovations, Seattle,
Washington
Lobby, corridor and unit renovations, new model unit
1
Ticino Apartments,Seattle,Washington
45 units
T
41
Renovation Projects
Building Renovations(continued)
Tuscany Apartments, Seattle, Washington
79 units
Seattle Public Library Floor Covering Replacement
for the
Downtown Library, Seattle,Washington
Custom carpet design and implementation for
90,000 SF area for downtown library
Cafe Flora Restaurant, Seattle, Washington
Building shell and interiors for a 3,200 SF restaurant
Hoge Building Renovation, Seattle,Washington
Exterior and interior of 16 story 1911 landmark office
building
Sterling Court Renovation, Seattle, Washington
10 units
G
CT
o
Renovation Projects
Tenant Improvement Renovations
Colaizzo Opticians,Seattle, Washington
700 SF retail space with laboratory
F,.
Bookstore Bar,Alexis Hotel, Seattle, Washington
40 seat bar
Cafe Flora Restaurant, Seattle, Washington rIl
Building shell and interiors for a 3,200 SF restaurant
Palmer Groth Pietka Steffen, Seattle, Washington
4,000 SF real estate analyst firm
Alexis Cafe,Alexis Hotel, Seattle, Washington
32 seat restaurant and kitchen convertedfrom existing
bar
Ratti Swenson Perbix& Clark, Seattle, Washington
7,000 SF office suite for engineering firm
University of Washington Parenting Clinic, Seattle,
Washington II,
2,500 SF suite of offices, treatment, and observation
rooms
Safeco Insurance Companies Metro Service Office,
Seattle, Washington
2,500 SF using Action Office System
l
t'
BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
In re Henry Ford School APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF
LUA 99-135, ADD
INTRODUCTION
Appellant has stated no legal basis for invalidating the ERC decision in this matter. The 11
City of Renton has validly issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) and
demolition permit for the Henry Ford School building. This structure has never been designated '!,
a historic landmark, is severely deteriorated, does not comply with any current codes or
regulations, cannot reasonably be rehabilitated and is one which the Applicant is contractually
obligated to tear down under its purchase agreement with the Renton School District. Appellant
can point to no code provision or ordinance that would prohibit the demolition of the building.
Denial of the demolition permit or the imposition of a condition to retain the structure would be
unreasonable, ultra vires and constitute an unlawful taking of the Applicant's property. The
MDNS and issuance of the demolition permit should be affirmed and the Appellant's appeal
dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Applicant in this matter is Service Linen Supply, a family-owned, second-generation
business in central Renton. Service Linen employs 75-80 people at its operating facility in
Renton,where it has been located since 1946. The Renton facility is immediately adjacent to the'`!
Henry Ford School.
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF - 1
r . .- .
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Weste venue
206)Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEF OF APPLICANT.DOC
e,Washington 98104-1097
206)382-9540
iff .+ Y `1 W4142 (206)626-0675 Facsimile
kti,
The Henry Ford School was built in 1922. Around 1970, the Renton School District(the
District") discontinued its use as an elementary school and converted the building to
administrative offices. In 1998, the District determined that, given its condition, the building
could no longer function even for this purpose. The District evaluated the possibility of the
renovation of the structure to meet current needs and health, safety and other codes and
concluded that to do so was not feasible. After duly noticed public hearings,where the minutes
reflect that demolition of the building was discussed, the District decided to surplus the site.
Service Linen entered into a purchase agreement with the District for most of the site and !'
building. The District's property included two lots. The southerly lot, which contains another
administration building built by the District and which is connected to the Henry Ford School I
building by a breezeway,was sold to a third party. The lot line dividing the two lots actually
runs through the Henry Ford School building so the District required in the purchase agreement
that Service Linen demolish the building within two years of closing.
The Henry Ford School building is in terrible condition. Asbestos abatement work,
which occurred prior to the sale of the building, destroyed significant portions of the roof and
building interior. Because the building is no longer water tight, there is substantial water damage
throughout. The entire interior of the building has been destroyed or rendered unusable by the
combination of the asbestos removal,water damage and previous remodeling and salvage work.
In addition to these obvious defects, the structural integrity of the building is highly
questionable. There are significant cracks in the exterior walls and foundations and uneven
settlement of floors and foundations has occurred in numerous places. Because load-bearing
walls are located throughout the building, substantial reconfiguration of the building for adaptive
reuse is impossible.
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF -2
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Westem A ue
Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEF OF APPLICANT.DOC
Sea6tle,Washington 98104-1097
206)382-9540
206)626-0675 Facsimile
Furthermore,the building does not meet any current seismic or other code standards. It i
impossible to make the basic building infrastructure meet current code requirements. The
building occupies virtually the entire site; thus, it is impossible to meet current on-site parking
code requirements. All of these factors render the preservation of the structure totally
impractical and unreasonable.
Service Linen has cooperated with the Renton Historical Society with respect to their
interest in the building. Service Linen has agreed to allow the Society to remove and retain the
identification plaques from the building and the front doors.
On August 13, 1999, Service Linen applied for a demolition permit. It also filed an
environmental checklist which identified the age of the buildingand that it was not listed ong any
national, state or local preservation registers. The ERC issued an MDNS for the demolition of
the structure. The ERC decision discusses historic and cultural preservation issues. The ERC
decision acknowledges that the building has not been designated on historic registers and is not
protected for historic preservation. It also notes that the estimated renovation costs of the
structure would far exceed the value of the building and concludes that restoration would not be
feasible.
11
LEGAL ARGUMENT
The Appellant has not cited any applicable ordinance or provision of the Renton City
Code which would bar the demolition of the school building. Further, the Appellant has not
identified any significant environmental impact that has not already been addressed in the SEPA
checklist or reasonably mitigated in the ERC conditions. There are no alleged factual errors.
The Appellant simply has stated no basis for overturning the decision of the ERC or withholding
the demolition permit.
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF - 3
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western nue
Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 1
Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEF OF APPLICANT.DOC 206)382-9540
206)626-0675 Facsimile
A. The provisions of the GMA and King County Countywide Planning Policies cited,
by the Appellant have no legal relevance to the City's actions on this permit.
In his original appeal and clarification statement, the Appellant cites numerous provisions,.
of the Growth Management Act (the"GMA"), RCW36.70A. All of the sections cited deal with
the elements and requirements for the adoption of Comprehensive Plans and development
regulations,neither of which are at issue here. Similarly, the cited references to the King County
Countywide Planning Policies relate to the process of the adoption of Comprehensive Plans and
development regulations. If the Appellant is arguing that Renton has not followed the GMA or
King County Countywide Planning Policies in the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan and
development regulations, this is not the proper forum for such an argument. Such challenges are
to be brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board, following the procedures under
the GMA. RCW 36.70A.280.
B. Any objections to Renton's implementation of its Comprehensive Plan cannot be
challenged through an appeal of an individual project permit.
Appellant seems to be arguing, in his citation to several provisions of the Renton
Comprehensive Plan,that the City has not taken specific legislative steps to properly implement
the cited goals and policies. Again, this is an improper forum for such arguments. RCW
36.70B.030 clearly provides that it is unlawful to consider such arguments as a basis to challenge
a permit decision on an individual project.
C. There are no provisions of state law or the Renton City Code cited which would
be the basis for invalidating the ERC's decision or the demolition permit.
The ERC's decision is entitled to substantial weight. RMC 4-8-110.E.7(a); WAC 197-
11-680. A MDNS can only be overturned in this case if there are significant adverse
environmental impacts that were not identified in the environmental documents or not considered
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF -4
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western A ue
Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEF OF APPLICANT.DOC 206)
Seattle,W
382-ashington 98104-1097
206) 9540
206)626-0675 Facsimile
in the conditions of the MDNS and the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitraryand capricious.
RMC 4-8-110.E.7(b). Such is not the case here. The historic nature of the building was
discussed in the environmental checklist. The ERC decision reviewed the issues of historic
preservation and concluded the structure had not been designated for preservation. The decision
also considered the restoration of the building, and concluded restoration would not be feasible.
There is nothing either in state law or under Renton's code that requires anything more.
D. A SEPA condition requiring preservation of the building or denial of the 111
demolition permit on the grounds of historic preservation would be contrary to II
law and constitute an unlawful taking of the Applicant's property.
There are no statutes, code provisions, ordinances or policies which prohibit the
demolition of a building that has never been formally or officially designated as a landmark or
historic site. Permits can only be conditioned or denied under SEPA based on specific adopted
ordinances and policies. RCW 43.21C.060; WAC 197-11-660.
Conditions may be imposed on a project if they are reasonable and capable of being
accomplished. RCW 43.21C.060; WAC 197-11-660; RMC 4-9-070.N.4(c). There is substantial
evidence in the record to support the ERC's conclusion that the restoration of the Ford School
building is not feasible. The District, after conducting public hearings, reached that conclusion.
Service Linen will present additional testimony at the hearing demonstrating that restoration is
practically impossible. To require the building's preservation under such circumstances would
be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.
Under the facts of this case,to require the preservation of the Ford School building would
act as an unlawful taking of the Applicant's property. As set forth above, there is no legal basis II
for requiring the preservation of the building. Further, given that rehabilitation of the structure is
infeasible and the building occupies virtually the entire property purchased from the School
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF - 5
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western A • ue
Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEF OF APPLICANT.DOC
Sea ,Washington 98104-1097206tle)382-9540
206)626-0675 Facsimile
I l
District, Service Linen would be deprived of any reasonable use of the property if required to
keep the building. Such a taking would be unconstitutional under the state and federal
constitutions and would form the basis for a damages action against the City under state and
federal statutes. RCW 64.40; 42 USC § 1983.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above-stated reasons, the appeal should be dismissed and the MDNS and
issuance of the demolition permit affirmed.
DATED this 1st day of November, 1999.
BUCK& GORDON LLP
4IIAJ1fh
Joel M. • •on, WSBA#09274
Attorneys for Applicant
Service Linen
BUCK&GORDON LLP
APPLICANT'S HEARING BRIEF - 6
902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western enue
Y:\WP\SERVICE\BRIEFOFAPPLICANT.DOC
Seattle,Washington 98104-1097
206)382-9540
206)626-0675 Facsimile
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
Ii
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
County of King
MARILYN MOSES being first duly sworn, upon oath,
deposes and states:
That on the 23rd day of November ,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:
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
q 3 rd r
4'U-eiryuixdayopt 1999.
ri-dat ifitte/nt avit
Notary Public and for the State of Washington,
residing at therein.
Application, Petition, or Case No.: Appeal of ERC's Decision
re Henry Ford School
LUA99-135,AAD
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
Yi y.t• •
J•
f
r
a 1,
x•
3
1
X •
1 a
I
HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT
November 23, 1 9
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
REPORT AND DECISION
APPELLANT: Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue S
SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeals ERC's SEPA determination re
Demolition of Henry Ford School
PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearin
and examining the available information on file,the Exami r
conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows:
I II
MINUTES
II
The following minutes are a summary of the November 2, 1999 hearing.
The official record is recorded on tape.
The hearing opened on Tuesday,November 2, 1999, at 9:25 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh fl '
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 LUA99-116,ECF(b
proof of posting and publication, and other reference)
documentation pertinent to the appeal.
Exhibit No.3: King Co.Historical Survey and Exhibit No.4: City's Summary and Excerpt
Inventory(2 pages)
Exhibit No.5: Mr.O'Brien-Smith's Resume Exhibit No.6: Photograph album(20 pages)
Exhibit No.7: Photographic montage of building Exhibit No.8: Applicant Service Linen's Hearing
exterior Brief
Parties present: Daniel Palmer,Appellant
16638 106th SE
Renton, WA 98055 j
i
Representing City of Renton
David Dean.City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira,Assistant Planner
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 2
Representing Applicant Service Linen
Joel Gordon
902 Waterfront Place
1011 Western Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to Ordinance 3071 and s
the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner f
reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden
demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous,and would have to show clear and convincing evidence t
the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so.
Mr. Palmer,appellant herein, explained that he is an historian and has taught a Local Historic Landmarks cl
at Green River Community College for five years and has expertise in recognizing historic landmarks and
buildings. Currently he is a member of Citizens for Cultural and Historic Preservation.
He stated that the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)made a Determination of Non-Significance,and e
found that in error because the building had been designated as an historic landmark. The criteria for that
designation was based on national historic landmark criteria. Although it is recognized as a local landmark,
easily qualifies as a national one. The building was surveyed in 1978 and is listed as one of the older buildi s
in Renton. The survey lead to an inventory sheet which gives the site official status as an historic landmark,
making it eligible for a national as well as state register. Mr. Palmer explained the significance of the surve
and inventory, and gave the definitions of historic landmarks from the King County Historic Preservation
Program. This agency did the survey and they concluded that the school was significant to Renton for its
architectural style and the role it played in the Renton School District's history.
There was discussion among the parties regarding the significance of this designation and its relevance to thi
appeal. Further discussion involved the controlling policies and regulations of historic designations, i.e., State,
County or City. The City of Renton has policies of historic preservation in its Comprehensive Plan(CP),but
does not have an historic preservation program.
Mr. Palmer continued that the City in its staff report to the ERC stated that Service Linen and Renton Schoo
District acknowledged the building's significance to Renton's history. He further stated that the City is non-
compliant with its own CP and cited several policies to that effect. He also indicated that many of the polici
had processes in which the citizens' inputs were included and that many responses had been received from 1 1
residents over the significance of this school. The Determination of Non-Significance calls for other
alternatives to be studied, and the appellant suggested that other alternatives or compromises were available,
and that funding for restoration of the building may be available from King County, state or federal
governments. On cross-examination,Mr. Palmer stated that the school had not been designated on the feder
or state register of historic places. The King County survey and inventory which has been done is based on
criteria of national register status,and the next step would be to go national.
Clayton O'Brien-Smith, 1191 2nd Avenue,#1650, Seattle,Washington 98101,architectural consultant for
applicant Service Linen, stated that the school is not historically significant and that the rehabilitation and
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 3
preservation of the structure is not feasible. The school is not unique from an architectural or construction
standpoint,but is of a similar age and style as many other educational structures in the greater Northwest th
possess greater architectural integrity. Renton High School,within about half a mile of this site,has been 1
maintained. The subject site is no longer in a mainly residential area, but is surrounded by a freeway,
commercial businesses,and parking lot. Extensive settlement,age deterioration, inappropriate remodeling er
the years,and partial demolition of the building have seriously impacted the integrity of the original buildin to
the point where it has lost any important significance. Bringing the structure up to current standards would
involve extensive and expensive upgrading to meet code requirements. Because of the recent asbestos rem. al
project,the building is currently open to the weather and there is standing water throughout.
John Giuliani, 812 N 1st, Renton, Washington 98055,an interested party,stated this building was unique to
Renton and its history,and should not be compared with other areas for its value, and that it was important I
the community. He suggested that other uses for the building should be explored.
Debbie Natelson, 207 Main Avenue S,Renton,Washington 98055,an interested party and local business
owner, stated that Renton does not have a rich architectural heritage,but to many citizens the school is one i
the few to be preserved. She also felt that the school was a public building and to tear it down for a parking .t
was unconscionable.
Barbara Horton,20613 SE 291st Place,Kent,Washington 98042, appeared as vice-president of the Renton
Historical Society. It is the intention of the Society to preserve and maintain the culturally significant edifi•
within its boundaries,and that the society did not support the razing of this school.
Mr. Dean,City Attorney, stated that the historical significance of this facility was considered by the ERC,b
the committee did not have before it a program,ordinance or statute that would tell the City or applicant w
standards to use in its determination. The City was concerned that the Council was the appropriate governi
agency to address what should be done within the City of Renton and not some other agency.
Leslie Nishihira,City of Renton,addressed the issue of notification to interested parties of the proposed lan
use action,and stated that fluorescent signs were posted on telephone poles.
Rebecca Lind, City of Renton, stated that she was familiar with the City's policies concerning historic
preservation,but that Renton did not have an adopted implementation program or phasing program as requi
1
d
by the CP. She further responded that SEPA is referenced in the City's CP, and the CP is referenced in the ity
Code as part of the policies and procedures to be looked at in reviewing applications.
Bob Raphael,P.O. Box 957,Renton, Washington 98057,co-president of the applicant herein, gave a brief
history of Service Linen. When the property became available,they met with the school district to see abo
saving the building. After the building was inspected, it was determined that it was too expensive to bring up
to code standards and to meet their particular configuration needs, and it would need to be demolished. It s
written into the purchase and sale agreement with the school district that it would be demolished. There w.
extensive asbestos throughout the building and it had to be removed before it could be demolished. This w
done by the school district prior to their purchasing the building.
4
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 4
Jerry Fry, P.O. Box 957,Renton,Washington 98057, an employee of the applicant,presented a series of
photographs which showed the current condition of the school. He described in detail the damage resulting
from the asbestos material removal, as well as the general deterioration of the building.
Debra Aungst, 300 SW 7th Street,Renton,Washington 98055,Assistant Superintendent,Renton School
District, gave a brief history relating to the sale of the property,which has been used as its headquarters sin.
1970. The two pieces of property include the Henry Ford School and the property adjacent to the south whi
were connected by breezeways. After an evaluation it was determined to surplus the facility and notices for
public hearing were publicized and a hearing was held on August 26, 1999. She further responded that the
district was not aware of any historic designation given to the building.
Robert Brown, 1220 N 4th, Renton,Washington 98055,Facilities Manager,Renton School District,describ
the asbestos abatement process and the method which the district used. The removal of the asbestos was a
r
of the sale agreement, after which it was assumed the new owners would immediately begin demolition. H
summarized the issues and problems the district encountered with the building prior to its being surplused.
Pat Auten, 14401 SE Petrovitsky#B-105,Renton, Washington 98058,president of the Historical Society,
stated that they had a vision and mission statement regarding the Ford building,but they did not take a vote
the trustees because they do not have the finances or the staff to handle something of this nature. She also
stated she was a former employee who worked in the building, and described the poor and unsafe physical
conditions at that time.
Leonard Smith, 553 John Street, Seattle, Washington 98109,representing Teamsters Local 117, stated that ' -y
supported Service Linen's development plans on the site,which employed 85 union members.
Marcie Maxwell, P.O.Box 2048,Renton,Washington 98056,Chairman of the Board,Greater Renton Cha i er
of Commerce, stated that to expect Service Linen to renovate the school was unfair and unreasonable. If the
are not allowed to proceed,the building would probably sit unused until being condemned.
Robert Cugini,P.O. Box 359,Renton,Washington 98057, stated he attended the school in the early 1960's a id
recently toured the site. The character of the building was substantially changed from its original nature.
noted that Service Linen's operations in that location predate the school's operation.
In his closing arguments, Mr. Palmer reiterated that SEPA is a guiding factor in determinations of significance
or non-significance. He further stressed the importance of preserving the older structures,primarily those from
1870's, 1880's,all the way through the 1930's era. If it wasn't important,then the Growth Management Act
would not have come up with policies dealing with historic preservation,as well as King County's policies id
Renton's CP.
Mr.Dean responded that the appellant's arguments would be more efficiently addressed before the Renton ity
Council to direct staff to prioritize an appropriate preservation program. He further addressed the policies
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gordon closed by stating basically there is nothing which provides a legal basis for overturning the ER s
determination. This was a property that was owned by a public entity which held public hearings and then
1
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 5
surplused the property. The issue of historic significance was considered by the ERC. The checklist asks if
anything is registered or proposed for registration on any federal, state or local register. There has been no
evidence submitted that the site is registered or is proposed for registration on any of those lists.
The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. e
hearing closed at 11:20 a.m.
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION
Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1.The appellant,Daniel Palmer,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)issued y
the ERC. Mr. Palmer,hereinafter the appellant, filed the appeal on September 24, 1999 and the ap I :1
was filed in a timely manner. A supplemental letter in response to a request from this office for mo
M.
detail was received on October 5, 1999.
2.The appellant is a concerned citizen who teaches historic preservation courses at Green River
Community College.
3.The determination the appellant has challenged was for the demolition of the Henry Ford Grade
School. The school is located at 420 Wells Avenue South in the City of Renton. The school is loc. d
between Main on the east, S 5th Street on the south,Wells on the west and S 4th on the north. It is
located mid-block. Surrounded by the newer administration building on the south and Service Line
supply(purchaser applicant)on the north. I-405 is located due east of the site. Mixed uses surroun
the site including single family,commercial and freeway.
4.The building is 23,300 square feet. It is a one-story structure. The exterior of the building is brick
veneer with decorative white trim elements that apparently are a concrete compound made to appear
like terra cotta. It is a flat roofed building with a parapet wall that modulates up and down.
5.In recent years,the building and an adjacent newer structure were used by the Renton School District
for administrative purposes. In 1998 the school district moved to newer quarters and the two side-by-
side buildings were generally vacant. The school district then subsequently surplused the buildings and
put them up for sale. Apparently they sold separately to two separate purchasers.
6.The two buildings are located on more than one legal lot. The Henry Ford School,the subject of thi•,
appeal, straddles a common property line and sits on a portion of the lot which houses the newer
administrative building. As indicated,that newer building and its lot were sold to a third party.
7.As part of the sales of the two properties,the district was to be responsible for asbestos remediatio nd
the Ford building was to be torn down or the property line altered between the adjacent parcels.
Pensr Cøpi' S/ OD Pt 1
Amended 8/12/96
CITY OF RENTON LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU-337. The periodic review process for required, consistent with zoning, development and
RC zoned sites shall include sufficient public operating code provisions, and environmental
notice and comment opportunities and the ability analysis.
and authority to add or remove conditions to
address new circumstances and/or unanticipated Discussion: Extractive industries within the urban
project-generated impacts. area require regulation to prevent nuisance
impacts from impacting residential and critical
Policy LU-338. Conditions and mitigation for areas. These policies are intended to create a
significant adverse environmental impacts framework to reduce conflicts between these land
associated with mining operations should be uses.
Historic and Archeological Resources
Objective LU-UU: Protect historic and archeological resources in the City.
rcQ' 'T ;; fir
0.
r
1, f
q *.T IA' S
r
ii 1u4 ,
i
rytYt ps' . n
i *.
r "t
A
i ' . P'''All." +-
Am - -
r.,....., .. ,,,, .:,..., . . ,
1 ,0 __ __
Policy LU-339. Historic resources should be Policy LU-342. Historic resources should be `
identified and mapped within the City. incorporated into economic development and
tourism activities in the City. ,
Policy LU-340. Archeological and historic
resources which have not been previously identified Polic LU-343. Ade uate mitigation and buffa•ring
should be surveyed as part of the application should be establishe etween historic resourco s
process for any development. , and other lan uses. Buffers, site p anning,
clustering,transfer of development rights, or o! ier
Policy LU-341. The City should pursue interlocal similar incentives and control should be utilize'1.
agreements with King County and other
jurisdictions to identify and protect historic and Policy LU-344. Historic resources should be
archeological resources.
inte rated into Ian for parks, open space,and
trails acquisition an development.
111-k
SIGNIFICANCE
Builder (s) Renton School District
Architect(s) and/or Engineer (s)
Dates) Built 1922 Present Level of Significance-
I
ost Si nificant Period 1922-Present National _Stat X Local
STATEMENT OF HISTORY & SIGNIFICANCE
The Henry Ford School was one of three elementary schools constructed in Renton
prior World War II, and before the Boeing Company opened its plant there. It had `.
th unique feature o an auditorium with a stage, and was frequently used by other
schools in the is_ricf— n one instance, in 23, the high school graduation cere-
mony was transferred in the middle of the program from the 1911 high school building ;
to the Henry Ford Auditorium. As the ceremony was in progress, timbers cracked and
the high school auditorium balcony sank a few inches. A quiet crowd was directed slow y
out ot,the balcony to the Henry Ford Auditorium.
The Henry Ford Elementary School was built in 1922 to re lace the adjacent Ceri)
ral School which had been built in 1892.j Henry For served south Renton as an elemein-
tary school until 1970. By then, the commercial development of Renton had eliminate
many homes in this area. There were more children being transported from outlying
areas than there were neighborhood children walking to school. When the Talbot Hill,
School was completed in 1970, the Henry Ford School was converted into the Renton ;. I,
Sch Distr
The Henry Ford School ,Is significant to Renton, both for its architectural style
and for the role it played in the Renton School District's early history.
t
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Hazen, Oliver M. A History-Renton School District #403. Renton School District #402 ,
1976, p. 131, 132.
Slauson, Morda C. Renton-From Coal to Jets. Renton Historical Society, 1976, p. 73.
Swift, Mary. "Earlington School: Going, But Not Forgotten," Record Chronicle,Marcl 8,
1978, Sec. A, p. 1.
Interview:
Telban, Ethel. Born 1914. 508 Cedar Avenue S. Renton, WA. 98055.
Interviewed May 30, 1978. Former student at Henry Ford and former employee of
Renton School District #403.
FORM PREPARED BY (PRINT) : Jayne Wissel
Signature J Date 6-4-7)
Organizatio ing ounty Historic Sites Survey
Address 1955 6th Avenue W. Seattle, WA 98119 Phone (206) 284-8& 56
W.w43rrt
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 6
8.Asbestos remediation was done by the district prior to change in ownership and under permit from th
Puget Sound Air Pollution Agency. This involved removing parts of interior walls,electrical
components and roofing materials as well as some supporting structure or framing. Subsequent to th.
work,water has leaked into the structure where roof elements were removed.
9.Both the school district,the former owner, and the applicant,the current owner,enumerated various
problems with the structure aside from any damage done during or exacerbated by the asbestos
removal. The building does not meet current fire or seismic and building codes. The building and its
lot do not provide space for required parking if the structure were renovated,and it is outside of the
downtown core,exempt parking zone. There are some major cracks in the building that are visible in,
the facade that run from the foundation of the building to the roof line. There has been uneven
settlement of the foundation over the years and the walls and floors of the building have pulled away
from each other in locations. Load bearing walls are located throughout the structure which would
complicate any adaptive reuse of the structure.
10. The school district held a public hearing on March 15, 1999.The Minutes of that hearing reflect
generally that the property line runs through the school building and that there were two potential
purchasers:
Debra Aungst explained that the Henry Ford Elementary School was in very bad
shape and would not economically be able to be renovated and meet today's property
codes. Debra Aungst further explained that she felt the new owner would most likely
tear down the Henry Ford Elementary School. Mr.Moran suggested that the District
consider saving the three cement slabs that say the name,Henry Ford Elementary
School(italics in original). Debra Aungst stated that there might be some way to
salvage the historical pieces."
11. The applicant prepared an Environmental Checklist. First it contains the background of the applicatio
which described the proposed project: f':
Demolition of Renton School District Administration Building."
12. The main area in the checklist of concern in this review is checklist item B 13: Historic and cultural
Preservation:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,
national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on
or next to the site? If so,generally describe.
No.
b.Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific,or cultural importance known to be
on or next to the site.
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 7
Sign'Henry Ford School'will be carefully removed and
presented to the Renton School District.
c.Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None."
13. No demolition permit has been issued at this point. No appeal of that permit is under consideration i
this review.
14. The City's ERC report issuing the DNS was issued on September 7, 1999 and published on Septembe
10, 1999. Any appeal was due by September 24, 1999.
15. That report contained such background information as the school was constructed in 1922 and used f•
40 years for elementary school,closed due to declining population,and used for storage and
administration by district. The report noted that the district held meetings to declare it surplus prope
to be sold.
16. The ERC's report stated:
The Henry Ford School Building is not listed on City,County,or State Historic
registers and is not protected for historic preservation. Estimated costs for the
renovation of the structure would far exceed the value of the building. Therefore,
restoration of the building would not be feasible for the new property owners.
Service Linen Supply and the Renton School District acknowledge the building's
significance to Renton's history and have made efforts to reserve historical aspects of the
building. The applicant has indicated that the'Henry Ford School' signs will be carefully
removed and presented to the Renton School District as artifacts intended for display in
the Renton Historical Museum."
17. The appellant has challenged the DNS in the following terms: (The following is a transcription of the
appellant's handwritten appeal documents.)
I feel,based on my studies of(A)State G.M.A(Chapter 36.70 A RCW)and(B)King
County Wide Policies(36.70A.210)and C)City of Renton's own Comprehensive Plan
policies LU-UU,LU-339,LU-340,LU-341,LU-342,LU-343,LU-344)all regarding
Historic Resource Identity,Evaluation and implication of plan-that-Historic
Resources has not been properly addressed particularly in the case of the culturally
historic Henry Ford School and therefor request an emergency study be done before
any final decisions made on school building regarding preservation vs.demolition."
original letter)
I am appealing these decisions based on what I find as the City being in conflict and
inconsistent and also non-compliant in the implementation of state G.M.A., King
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 8
County wide policies and Renton's own Comprehensive Plan regarding non-renewable
historic and cultural resources which will definitely have an environmental impact
effect on local citizens in the loss of neighborhood historic and cultural identity thus
diminishing the quality of our enriched community as we all have known it.
Basis for Appeal
Non-compliance/In conflict/Inconsistent
1.Detetermination of non-significance/no EIS creates lack of indepth study and
alternatives.
2.State G.M.A. Chapter 36.70A RCW
36.70A.010, 36.70A020, 36.70A,090,36.70A.100,36.70A 210
1,
3.King Country Growth Management and County wide policies Ord. 10450
Page 4 King County 2012
A. The problem(description page 4)
B. The process(description page 4)
C. Growth management Act(description page 5)
4.Renton City Comp.Plan Pg. I-141 Hist. and Arch. Resources
Objective LU-UU
Policies LU 339,340,341, 342
All of the above ordinances I believe have not been properly addressed in regards to
comprehensive planning as determined by State GMA County Wide policies and
Renton Comp.Plan all regarding historic and cultural preservation." (second letter)
18. The subject site was inventoried by King County in 1978. A document,King County Historic Sites
Survey,Inventory Sheet was prepared. That document describes the building, its history,architectura
details and compares it with Renton High School in the nature of materials and style. It closes with t
following statement:
The Henry Ford School is significant to Renton,both for its architectural style and for
the role it played in the Renton School District's early history."
19. The inventorysheet apparently makes the building eligible to be a historicstoric lace. It does not appear
that it actually is on a register of historic places.
20. King County's actions regarding the historic inventory sheet are not binding on the City.
21. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan,which is a basis for the City's SEPA authority, has the
following goals and objectives:
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 9
Historic and Archeological Resources
Objective LU-UU: Protect historic and archeological resources in the City.
Policy LU-339. Historic resources should be identified and mapped within the City.
Policy LU-340. Archeological and historic resources which have not been previously
identified should be surveyed as part of the application process for any
development.
Policy LU-341. The City should pursue interlocal agreements with King County and
other jurisdictions to identify and protect historic and archeological resources.
Policy LU-342. Historic resources should be incorporated into economic development
and tourism activities in the City.
Policy LU-343. Adequate mitigation and buffering should be established between
historic resources and other land uses. Buffers, site planning,clustering,
transfer of development rights,or other similar incentives and control should
be utilized.
Policy LU-344. Historic resources should be integrated into plans for parks,open
space,and trails acquisition and development.
Policy LU-345. Officially designated historical sites should be preserved and/or
incorporated into all development projects.
Discussion: The City of Renton has a rich history as a pioneer settlement and mining
community. As urbanization occurs throughout the Planning Area,historic
structures and sites are in danger of being eliminated. These policies recognize
the importance of historic resources and establish a framework for developing
programs to protect them.
22. In reviewing this matter,this office has attempted to ignore the "self-fulfilling" aspects that make
demolition the most reasonable option. That is,the deterioration which now further drives the desk: o
fully demolish this potentially unsafe structure was furthered by the partial demolition or asbestos
removal effort which removed roofing materials, and opened the structure to the elements. The
removal of drains and gutters may have exacerbated water damage. The question is, ignoring this
added damage which should not have been permitted prior to a full demolition permit,was the ERC
determination regarding any historic aspects appropriate. If they were not,the current state of the
building will be ignored until a proper SEPA determination can be made. If the ERC decision was
proper,then its current state and added deterioration matters little.
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 10
23. The building is the only remaining elementary school of that vintage and architecture in the City of
Renton. The architectural style is matched by the Renton High School building which the school
district is in the process of renovating.
24. The appellant argues that it appears no effort was made to ascertain if funds for restoration might be
available and the issuance of a DNS will foreclose any study of alternatives to demolition.
25. An expert witness who has been involved in renovation of other historic structures such as the Eagles
Auditorium and the Monte Cristo in Everett said that the structure is not unique in the sense that it
represents the only example of an architectural style or even other elementary school buildings. Its
architectural style as noted elsewhere is matched by the Renton High School. While it may be the o •
elementary school building of that age in the city, it is not unique in the area. In addition,the expert
testified that the building does not have exceptional features and is in very poor shape. Renovation f
reuse would be very limited by its bearing walls and its wood frame structure. In addition, some earl r
renovations or remodeling changed some of the original features such as the windows. Finally,the
expert indicated that in his belief it was not feasible to restore the structure.
26. On the other hand it was noted that Renton's history is limited and there are few remnants remaining
demonstrating that history. If nothing, it was suggested that besides the "name plaque"the facade
might be saved to screen the proposed parking lot.
27. The Cityhas not enacted any enabling legislation regarding historic preservation.
28. The applicant indicated that they did consider reuse and looked at possible reuse as an interesting
challenge. Their review showed the building would not economically lend itself to any feasible reus
29. The applicant also noted that in the absence of specific City ordinances setting out standards for
historic preservation, any action to preserve the building could be a taking of private property.
30. The Renton Historical Society was aware of the probable demolition of the building. Apparently the
were mixed reactions and they took no official position on the structure. They have no funding that
would allow preservation of such a large building.
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
indecisionis "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend,93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court
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
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 11
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 of the ERC is affirmed.
3.The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test i
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 DN
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 t
preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement.
6.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. The appellant
did not present evidence that the ERC decision regarding this proposal should be modified.
7.Before continuing, it is necessary to counter any argument that requiring an Environmental Impact
Statement to fully explore the impacts of issuing a public permit would be a taking. Dispensing with
full SEPA review of any City action that would have more than a moderate impact on the environme
would be unacceptable. Any allegations of a taking might follow but should not thwart the review
enunciated in City and State law. Even in the absence of enabling legislation,the SEPA checklist
includes a review of"landmarks or evidence of historic importance" apart from any places that are
officially designated. The Henry Ford School would seem to qualify. It is the remaining brick facad
Gothic Revival elementary school within the City. Therefore, SEPA review cannot be short-circuite I
8.The record would indicate that the building is not on any official historic register. It was surveyed. I
attributes were inventoried. That is where things stand. It appears that the ERC had most of this
information. It discussed the historical significance of the building. It had the school district's minu
of its meeting where the building's potential sale and probable demolition were discussed. Those
minutes revealed that the building was in very poor shape and that renovation was probably not
feasible.
9.It appears from a reading of those minutes and the applicant's testimony that renovation potential ha.
been reviewed and those conclusions were discussed with the school district. The result,the school ,
district knew that renovation was probably not reasonable. It also appears that the Renton Historical
Society was aware of the demolition but has no funding for such properties and took no official
position on the issue.
10. The record discloses that even prior to the asbestos removal,there were serious defects in the buildin
including floors settling and separating from the interior walls,cracks in the facade and foundation
elements,non-compliance with seismic and fire codes,as well as parking constraints. The interior
structure would severely limit potential reuse of the spaces.
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 12
11. What additional information would be required for the ERC to issue a different decision? And what
additional information would an EIS provide to the decision-maker? The poor state of the structure
was disclosed. Adaptive reuse was found by experts in the field to be infeasible. The building was
seismically unsound and does not meet current fire code. The architectural style and its elements we
well known by the ERC. The ERC noted in its determination that the building's history was
acknowledged by the school district and the applicant. This shows that the ERC was also aware of th
building's character.
12. As the Citystated,the appellant's passion was definitely felt. The appeal appears to have been broug
in good faith. The loss of this building will be felt by generations of former students and the general
community. At the same time, as noted,this information was available in a sufficient framework to
allow the ERC to make its determination. The preparation of an EIS probably would not throw more
useful light on the crux issues.
13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in e
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 11
judgment for that of the ERC.
14. As noted above,the building has been poorly maintained and open to the elements since the asbestos
abatement operation. The applicant,however, should refrain from making any changes that would
worsen the current situation during the pendency of any additional appeal periods or remedies.
DECISION:
The decision of the ERC is affirmed.
ORDERED THIS 23rd day of November, 1999.
3LA \
rFREDJ. KAUF
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMI ITED THIS 23rd day of November, 1999 to the parties of record:
Daniel Palmer David Dean Joel Gordon
16638 106th SE 1055 S Grady Way 1011 Western Ave,#902
Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98104-1097
Clayton O'Brien-Smith John Giuliani Barbara Horton
1191 2nd Avenue,#1650 812 N 1st 20613 SE 291 st Pl
Seattle, WA 98101-3426 Renton, WA 98055 Kent, WA 98042
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 13
Debbie Natelson Robert Cugini Leslie Nishihira
207 Main Avenue S P.O. Box 359 1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055
John C. Sterling Rebecca Lind Bob Raphael
2003 Rolling Hills Ave SE 1055 S Grady Way P.O. Box 957
Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057
Jerry Fry Debra Aungst Robert Brown
P.O.Box 957 300 SW 7th Street 1220 N 4th
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055
Pat Auten Leonard Smith Marcie Maxwell
14401 SE Petrovitsky,#B-105 553 John P.O. Box 2048
Renton,WA 98058 Seattle,WA 98109 Renton, WA 98056
Arthur Johnson
17650 134th Avenue SE,#J-207
Renton, WA 98058
TRANSMITTED THIS 23rd day of November, 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 Mike Kattermann,Technical Services 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 Betty Nokes,Economic Development Director
South County Journal
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 15 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed i
writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,December 7, 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. T
request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner ma
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 appe
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 C
Hall.
Daniel Palmer
Appeal of ERC's Decision re Henry Ford
School Demolition
File No.: LUA99-135,AAD
November 23, 1999
Page 14
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,thi
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.
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.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the
SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENTON,WASHINGTON
An Appeal Hearing will be held by the
Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular
a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal meeting in the Council Chambers on the
newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months seventh floor of City Hall, Renton,
prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language Washington,on November 2, 1999 at 9:00
AM to consider the following petitions:
continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County HENRY FORD SCHOOL
Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the AAD99-135
The appellant appeals the SEPA determi-State of Washington for King County.nation of nonsignificance issued by the
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County City of Renton Environmental Review
Journal (and not in supplemental form) which was regularly distributed to the subscribers Committee for the Henry Ford School
demolition project(File LUA-99-116,ECF).
during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Service Linen Supply proposed demolition
of the existing school building to prepare
the site for future development. Location:Notice of Appeal Hearing -AAD99-135 420 Wells Ave.So.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
above are on file in the Developmentaspublishedon: 10/22/99
Services Division, Sixth Floor, Renton City
Hall. All interested persons are invited to
The full amount of the fee charged for sai foregoing publication is the sum of$37.38,be present at the Public Hearing.
Publication Date: October 22,1999chargedtoAcct. No. 8051067. Published in the South Coupty Journal
October 22,1999.6758
Legal Number 6758
g Cle , Sout County Journal
Subscribed and sworn before me on this ciAlclay of 1 10Y- , 19.
Notary Public of the State of Washington
residing in Renton
1:
P`,3L.c
o.. King County, Washington
s
yflJ•.
C' ?
6 .ZOr GJ
I
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the
SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL
600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032
NOTICE OF APPEAL HEARING
RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
a daily newspaper published seven (7) times a week. Said newspaper is a legal RENTON,WASHINGTON
newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months Renton Hearing Examine
An Appeal Hearing will be held erathisregular
prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language meeting in the Council Chambers on the
continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County seventh floor of City Hall, Renton,
Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper order of the Superior Court of the AM toington,consideron November 2, 1999ios:a 9:00
PP 9by P AM the following petitions:
State of Washington for King County. HENRY FORD SCHOOL
The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County The app135Theappellant appeals the SEPA determi-
Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers nation of nonsignificance issued by the
during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a City of Renton Environmental Review
Committee for the Henry Ford School
demolition project(File LUA-99-116,ECF).
Notice of Appeal Hearing - AAD99-135 Service Linen Supply proposed demolition
of the existing school building to prepare
the site for future development. Location:
as published on: 10/22/99 ago Wells Ave.So.
Legal descriptions of the files noted
aThefullamountofthefeecharforsaidforegoingpublicationisthesumof$37.38,Serviceseovc are on file in
Floor,
on DevelopmentRentonCity99Division, Sixth City
charged to Acct. No. 80510 Hall. All interested persons are invited to
be present at the Public Hearing.
Publication Date: October 22,1999
Legal Number 6758 Published in the South County Journal
October 22, 1999.6758
Legal Clerk, South Cou y Journal
Subscribed and sworn before me on this ay of v` j 1' 19
Notary Public of the State of Washington
residing in Renton
King County, Washington
j E`
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 02, 1999
AGENDA
4==. I/
COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL
The application(s)listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they
will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner.
PROJECT NAME:Minkler Soil Remediation
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-128,SP,ECF
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The application is for a Special Permit for Grade and Fill to allow
excavation and remediation of approximately 5,200 cubic yards of Petroleum Contaminated Soil (PCS).
The subject property is about 51,200 sf in size and about 30,000 sf of surface area would be excavated to
an average depth of about five (5)feet below grade. The PCS would be transported to an off-site
treatment facility. The remedial excavation would be tested for compliance with the Model Toxic Control
Act(MTCA) Method A soil cleanup levels. The excavation would then be backfilled with clean imported fill
material and the site returned to existing grade. Location: 110 Renton Avenue South, between Hardie
Avenue NW and Rainier Avenue.
PROJECT NAME:APPEAL
Henry Ford School
PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-99-135 (LUA-99-116,ECF)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant appeals the SEPA determination of nonsignificance issued
by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee for the Henry Ford School demolition project (File
LUA-99-116,ECF). Service Linen Supply proposes demolition of the existing school building to prepare
the site for future development. Location: 420 Wells Avenue South.
PROJECT NAME:1:00 PM
Windsong—Major Amendments to Preliminary Plat
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-99-006,PP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposal for a major amendment to the previously approved Windsong
Preliminary Plat. The plat was approved by the Renton City Council in June 1999 for 68 single-family
residential lots. The applicant now proposes to develop the project and record the final plat in two
separate phases. The proposed phasing is considered a major amendment to the approved plat and
requires approval of the City Council. The preliminary plat is bisected by Hoquiam Avenue NE (142nd Ave.
SE)which would serve as the phasing line. Division 1 would be to the west of this street and includes 41
lots. Division 2 to the east of Hoquiam Ave. NE includes 27 lots. Division 1 would be constructed first.
Division 1 contains stormwater facilities to serve the entire plat. Emergency vehicles would be able to
access each separate division from two points of entry. The proposed phasing does not alter or revise any
aspect of the approved preliminary plat and therefore the environmental determination completed
previously for the plat shall apply to the phasing proposal. A new environmental review process (SEPA)
and environmental determination is not required for the proposed phasing. Location: NE 4th Street and
Hoquiam Avenue NE (142nd Ave. SE).
CITY OF RENTON
HEARING EXAMINER
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 11, 1999
To: Mayor Tanner
Jay Covington
Larry Warren
Leslie Nishihira
Applicant
From: Fred Kaufman
Re:Appeal of SEPA Decision on Demolition of Henry Ford School
Appeal File No. LUA99-135,AAD
The attached letter is a clarification from the appellant in the above-referenced matter,
and is in response to my letter dated September 28.
6
GlTY OF RENTON
Q /6/7,7 1 •
k•OG-P7 /S-..)_//-1 .1 e ,
RECEIVED
le .C4- .‘ lt.cr._s--/ 7
OCT 0 5 Ike,
CITY CLERK'S OFFICC.7L..Z'-ram' 7/7s/yC "ice
rAz' c /'/ i2, 7Gilj Cc, lYur../ f!r >PfUm ep
S /s 2-2 C- /ch/! / ' G.
i 0, 2 d V.-? 9 2 cc/ 4' /e (7
e" It-, . -, . -,.-, ....._77: o., v f/C (/
Siii '74' c- .___.--7 c e/ 410 - Z----‘-___4_, _5 .
t==. i s svc-/7 C' :''e
a e c
Z: ---Az,- c ,-, 2.- - ,-/
e---, ,
r--
7 C,. -- re'rn7-
G S Ca. CO c'e i/I
7 ;`--a cDa' f P QQ V Q' 1
7i' 7f.:) 4/^C'0/S/fC7?/Lo.-r D
G'/ r='•.- - d7', z7 d/i C`'c - T
7 r o PSG C'C - S/ 6/7S
a_ S of F>/j C-`_) a 7" -- - i i-i a( Gt S
7e:' c/7›.- 6 '''/rho C cV
c
Gc/)OO -/7 C'6 -7 S'/.S 7 / 7 cN. /5 7
fZd/Z./ - C -----ii-27// 'Q -77 i 7`X(''
r /n ice, co u, i cl'`:
d /, c i,-s a,,,P o c,.'
C6 .-C7 4,' e a, cz- a —
r D /7 - e co cz 6
z7s r- c a'7 c( 7`c /'/
Qc- 5c2 )/' C cam , Cam.)t "c• cam,'/(' c/
o` e' ??;. c 7` : 0 rl l . C-c ,/
7/A,c) 4 s s 07/
2
A 4 a/' AO Oo/ 7--Or/C
s
E
G?'fry I --> /- 5 h i g P QUa--ZT
c==pc./ Co /-71 --
7'7-7 v T j Q S cjv
A 0 _ v t'=) Ac h C.`1 s`7
C 1
Jo N - co en p(i0.n
o
f 0C7`i s
c C$ (V1 ram) C, f' 36. 76
36. 70 1 020
G- 70 f O 0
D6. 7o A) 2I
c.) C 0 11-1? flick 0_9firt ert,
c
rrloir r
o ,k_ O, 0 (-1 S a
r 4o6 / Li
3 . 7fc.- OCE55 6 1/`) - `1
C 6)t It liqck
cpt
A4- g c+L.7 7 el. t ?
V39 4, -7= 1 `f 14/ s /. 9r cfir,.
soc>r S
Z v - L v
Qo/" = ICJ - -3 3 ?'
3 y
CU - 3 (R
71 e ck._ Gdvc
0 cd'/ -, Q ' G /
A e e
e ss e . c=t_
f'f9 /9 c c .z 7(idoleo l`C
cp 7/C c c-/(
7fc) C o,/ ice
3r.Cj
C61‘f CP--1177 tc'rr
66 3 Ss 70 c 74
70 y CA) C .28OJ
7r0 2s ) 2c 7Y
J
o, , CITL RENTON
NJ./ 4' Hearing Examine'
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman
September 28, 1999
Mr. Daniel Palmer
16638 106th SE
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Appeal of SEPA Decision on Demolition of Henry Ford School
Appeal File No. LUA99-135,AAD
Dear Mr. Palmer:
This office has received your appeal of the above-referenced matter dated September 24,
1999. A hearing has been set for Tuesday,November 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m.
In order to process your appeal, further information is required. Enclosed is a copy of
General Procedures for Appeals of Environmental Determination which sets forth
guidelines in the appeal process. This office needs to know if you are filing an appeal of
the SEPA determination,the issuance of the demolition permit, or both. Please add as
much detail as you can to your clarification. The issues that will be covered in the appeal
hearing will be limited to those in your appeal letter. Please file your clarification no
later than October 5, 1999.
If you have further questions, please feel free to call this office.
Sincerely,
6-(Aic\dN
Fred J. Kau an
Hearing Examiner
cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Leslie Nishihira, Development Services
Applicant
1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515
Ac ( 1U )
I
no u
o o
S n o ) 0/) /a.ram,/ 4 J„ /70
2L7,// ' y
D / 5 -z„ , o
72 _,-, ,5-rao JS>/J cW 2 -C'1- 6,-- b
ok ,10 .=:.19 a vo 59
i')i/d Z----e-'° c-->-0 6 •5 do 47J GIZ.
7) 7, Z 247 4-1 ' / 0/ ° 75
1,,y 5- .//27/ 51 cC3-2 7)el
d
SY, a y y/ i-'o l n ._D)>,Qb
3" -77 s-c)._)., r-D 0.__S-- g/ J /, Gy_s-'.. /7/
2 Z / ./ m 1„-••-6:: , -e), .>/
l/
u-.' Ito` „ fin/ y_ L-a,X7t '2_
1__Y f.
7- nZ7h u
J n CDS J,i./ O S'/
oib &J /i -.hE-
n7(4I.tC0n (fir J ‘ ,1cU 0Sa,) D 1 lod
c /S!/ ayo1" C /.ticD G/M67 Se 52 `a
4 0
2 ;,dip )... 4.'?2 ( 0' OZ 19E) CR
glii ;59 _5---../p z (:y (,)) /(--)3 h)41.„-c-):7 ‘.-z___\/ &I
i CrY),_)b/ 6/ 04 ' E tea,/'4y°.7
U/ 12 1 ' --25- 0 as 0 3-
i
I z._,, c2/6::4. 7.4.74::::y c--e-/
o-b a / a S vow„ , 1 ` ,4
61v ,ps-Rr, 1a,/ w- 7- - G66[ iti Z d3Sj
NOlNt:1 JO ALTO
cP c/i u-x =l e!i bc U e..
o i d v0 1-- o-> S/Ja 0 GiaS- - a cy
e, - // /.; ./L.,
r, ' : qu04/
cOole-, (\e Rivvl (cD1/'
0 6.'"(- 11 Ss-C ,
c SS
s..) 2 '2
NOTES
RECEIPT DATE 9/917//9
NO:. 4410
RECEIVED FROM 69`h le I Palmer
ADDRESS I&1a 30p jiIO JC clo gc
g
75. 0o
FOR 411144 Lt(y /" /1/(P
ACCOUNT HOW P
AMT.OF
ACCOUNT CASH 7 5 vo
AMT.
CHECK
PAIDJy/
Q/,( Q fBALANCEMONEYBY1/11 `_, `„-f' - '`.'"'`.
DUE ORDER
1998 REDIFORM®8L802
1
tl
it
1
Melissa McCain
From: CityClerk Records <CityClerkRecords@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Josef Hamden; Kelsey Marshall
Cc: Jim Seitz; Martin Pastucha
Subject: FW: [GovQA] New Request - Public Records Request/C000451-090921
Importance: High
Below is a new request from Mason Orr, with The ACES, Inc.for PW—Transportation records. PLEASE READ THE
REQUEST IN ITS ENTIRETY.
Please provide a status update by Noon,September 15th (how long it will take to gather records) so that tF
City can provide a timely response to the requestor.
Please call me to discuss the types of records you may have that would be responsive to the request.
Please let me know if there are others who should receive a copy of this request.
Please search for paper files and electronic records on shared drives/databases and any other location within
your Department/Division that may contain records.
Electronic copies of responsive records can be saved here: Q:\City Clerk PRR-Internal\C451 -The ACES
If you have no responsive records, please reply to this message "no records".
Please let me know if you have any questions-
Thank you,
Melissa
x6507
From:City of Renton - Public Records<rentonwa@mycusthelp.net>
Sent:Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:39 PM
To: CityClerk Records<CityClerkRecords@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: [GovQA] New Request- Public Records Request/C000451-090921
ICAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless
you know the content is safe.
I
a A request has been assigned to you
1
I
IPublicRecordsRequest / C000451 -090921
Request Information
1
Assigned City Clerk Records
Staff:
Status: Assigned
Requestor: Mason Orr
The ACES Inc.
Create Date: 9/9/2021 12:38:36 PM
Type of Other/Unknown - (Provide description below)
Record:
Address or S 43rd St & On ramp to NB 167
Location:
Timeframe of 02/22/2019
Record(s)Traffic signal timing and phasing data/phasing map for the intersection of S 43rd St &
Requested: On ramp to NB 167 on 02/22/2019 at 1815hours. Thank you. If you have any
questions please contact us, reference our case#21-DCW-363.
Access the Public Records Center to View the Request
This is an auto-generated email and has originated from an unmonitored email account. 0
Please DO NOT REPLY.
1
1
1
2
y
I
I
t
4
4
a
ti '
011
Y
Y
I. _.+
1,
f
4
qrrattic /
al
1 - '
a'
i. ,
1
s- ,--,
t
it,,.: .;;;. . • . -
i',
t
v
v.
J •
4 •
t
i
1
A
f-'-•''$•
14,
4
144i,,,
f1..r4'.•..
4f,'
f.t„
i,
tiei,
4i.4%f.,'.,
i,.,•,
i.,../•.'
f•
1/f r•
t,:xi'
i.,:
k,
as41to0;,,.,I
i,1,,
r e,
41
I,.,.,
7.4,
e,/ii...
t
1.
1..I.
I1 i;
t I:
it..
k.i
r:
ir
a1i
it
1
1
fi
1t._
UFIUALuk tt wells A vey
1
PINGCZ
w1hV
r--%-- o
EXISTING Lj
BlJ ,_DING 2
I a 40BSE
a_ -+ 19 u.ELL5
EXILING FORD SCHOOL
a u I a_
23,300 5F
ADDRE55r-- i-TYPE V-NICONSTRJCTION a COvERED LOADING:
BUILT 19221 I
u NIL.BUILDING
ZONING: Cb(P) I I
I STORY I1Y AUDITORIUM
41'-o'
PL.50D'
5 CARS
i I
I I
I ASPHALT
IFIRE LANE
L
22'-0'
LINE CF AUDITORIUM I
I
Z
I
J
IV
I I
J I ASPHALT PARKING
roMrerr...
le
4
4..4 • °
in-
41# 0 * •'
111P i ii.. rIP 1
11* • OM 0
4 # • °
imil
i OW'...,
01,14111%t;' x 1141I
gr. r.- -
k
b.. _
Jo ha Ini .
0111
4..
ili '‘r
404. I 4
v; .,,k. . .. •
li 1t;,‘.;
ir,
I
IDEQfA1.IC w e 11 t A ve'
PING O i
a_-1
EXISTING 6
VHOUSE 6
BUIrDING 2 ILELLS
KI-
EXI4'ING FORD SCHOOL
a _I Q_
23300 Si:
ADDRE55F
a COVERED LOADINGTYPEV-NICONSTRiCTION
BOIL' 19221 I
U MTL.BUILDING
ZCNrrG: CD(P)
4i'-0'
I1STORYuYAUDITORIUMPL.500'
I I
5 CARS
I ASPHALT
Nt (FIRE LANE
L
22'-0'
LINE CF AUDITORIUM
T J
Q
I
I
I ASPHALT PARKING
El!
IN '
4
A +.. .
1
I
nias
r
A
0
I1
SIN•.` '''.
161111MIIII1111011111111111111111.
11111111.
1.
111111.
1.
1
4.
4.
AN.
ems
allit
j
w- _.__,___
F.
AJY
s
1j
i
11
fit,
U1 ;.
1
111111L .
I ,
1$ ,
441,
E
L
1
v-
1
It
j
M
t ' ,
lir :
4 *
I
i
f
j. _,
1
1.
1164rtii
i
If! .
r.i.
1,..: ,,
rtf.
itc,t:
i
a •
a . • .
I
3nlba
rJo
1 }
iii-
r
111
1
p
3NV1
3291d
1
i
f.
i!!
l
r
N
J
2
0
9
N
1ldHdSV ,
i—
ii
f4
xeu
UJ
l';', :
1
111
w
SOLI
ld
i
b
l
7 ?
J77
I
I ?
JV7I
1
I?
JV7II?
I1u1i
h1
1 ,
i1111 .
r . ' .'
I
3Nl321I4
7 .
0..„,
F
I
1lVMdSV
I
I
r
1
hill
li - .
1
Ills'
4
rt
i
for
I)
rill
I
11-
1
t.-
i
1#
11121111111111111111
ell
L
41'
iIIIiII1IIIIIII1Iii
i1I
z
m ,
z _
8
1
1
1
y
Z
s
J
o
1
k
a
L\
trl
1
4
t_
iR
1_
4_
g
I
I
3
2.-
0'
3C
4
I
I
1-
1
E 04
1
t
1,
111,
1. ; :
I, .
g
a
1
t_
I
S."
i \
I
I.
N \.,
i
A
ASPHAL
T
I '`
i
AI
1
4-
I
A
FIRE
LANE
I
14'
t
4
4
4'-
0'
i
6
t
I
I
cRs.....
4
i
I
I
CAR
I
Ii
I
CAR
I
I
CAR
L
6--`
I
rflg2
0
f-
i
A
FL
I20Z'
m
I I
t
t-
ASPHALT ".
1
6
a
q
2
0
P 0
b
i6-
to
X
cp
m
r_l
Z
Ca<
DRIVE
1
I
II
J
A
F
8
FIRE
LANE
6
I .
4
Mb
A,-
0 . .—..,
4 .
N
air
litti-
4: .
4.
1tpli:
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,
ii
1___
2.....
I '
0
i
N •
1
0
r
II
ililiiiI
4
i
16.,
P.
i
1 '
Lk '
II•
i ---- \
a, • •••
ti
s ,,.. .
iii
tA
t . ,
4--
I
1\
I
iii.;..
1
i.
i
t, •
Iii
4isiiiiisi
isisiiiisit.
is
1i
I
LL1,
1
1111111101111111
I
4:
1,
44,,..
iii‘s,
11.
oil
L
I
aft • . -
v
1r'
1
41111.
11111.
111
1*
1 -
iiiiiiirsimitmimmssoismare
r
t *
r,
1
e
lir
1
41
i.,.. -% •
I.
iiipill
t:
a,
1,
filpfil:.
6
A
It . .
I'
16.,
i.
41...i 1.
b
i,
4.
Alilli
tI;
NA
k
Do '
t•.
1
4„ \,
N
ito
I
1111111
it :
t
K'
ffi*
V4
0!/' ,
OIL . .. .. .
b .
i \
t
f
r
W
1
10.
sr'•
I
It
t
1 +
4.
11111111111
re
A .
r.
1111/
4111111186.
iiit,,/,
L.
may'
i •
enc .
4
11-
4
4,
4 \:\
111\
10,..'
ir
w
3 `
t
s
Jv /
ousiminallialleltlifi
a •
11
1
i
i
I!
Ma; '
IA
ill!
Ili:
vitt:
11
tiilistirit:$
114
I
i*
I-
1-
ili
it
111
ilt/
III
TA
ill
II
1111
i
I
1111111
II
litil
iii
I
iiiiiiiilit
Ilyrillit
yollilphipishloyils
t ,
ii
li:
1141111:
114111:
11111111111Y11 11111
I /
1191111111111911i1111.
11
1
II:
1111
ILItIlitilltillig
I
0
1 -
I
I
i
I
I/
I
Alt,
y9111101
114 -
ii
4.
11111111
14
IiiiiiiiPtilitill .
l- ,
ta
III
I
4
littliliiiii
1
t
1
1
i
1
1
1
I
4
I
i\
l'
hiilt
iiitt
ill
II*
Ill
1
1
1
I
I
1
attii ‘
viii
ill
talus
iittitittiiiiii10.
00111010itYsititIOVibi
1'
N•
LAVVOIALY11111411111111111111111
i
III
ft
i
i
101
1,
11111111411
011111.
11111,
111111111 •
if
i
i
iili '
pi.
1
1
1 '
m41011000
I
1111111,
11111$
11111011111
II .
stot101,;!
141Milltiki!
laivihadithh,
11
g
i
I
I
I
4141 -
41
I
I
I
t—
r-
3AINCI
ONO
ql
MA/
1
32ild ,
I
t
Q
2
Tr-
1
tici9V -
0—
1
r
iii, ,,,
2
a
k)
c..-
trn3_,.
ced
a -
A'
2 ,..) :,:
i,
w
51
I -
I
11-
i
1-
ya
Ois
vt4 ,
I .
I
I
1
1
00ZI
7c1
1
a
1.
4
tr—
s,,
j,
1
atr
1
I—
aro
1
1 ?
Ir
1
I .
6 .
0.
37p
i
I
k
1
i
1
1
1
3Nvi
3zsu
1
iivticisr
1
341114t
ill
I =
1
I ..
i -
I
1
1
titIll
17 -
1
2
a
It
r' '.`
11,..........$
1
i
l'"
4
t
I'
l
I "
I
vt
k
fl
iJa4
il °
ii
1 *.
1711
t
1
6
1 -...:1
u
s? --
i--
g - - - ;
1- ---
1 .
F._
6
4
0
2% `
n
j
iii
q
a • ..
t
a
1
I „
4 '—.)
L
1
4
no
elk.,.. '.."
0•
4.
14CZ-,
1
7 •
1
4R‘
I
111
0 '
i •
t
41
I
at
a
i
o.
Ill
r....... ....
0.
0
i.'.'
i
1
i4..
j.
q
Io
iii;
i"
1
is1
I
I
t
ii1111'
11
fi'
I {
siiiri1191!
iiii1Pf
il'
s
k
r
Q_
Za
z
1
r ,
t
i1
1iii
liii'
i'
i {!
i
iiit
htliilrt`
o
I
k
9
I
M
i
1111
III
I
III
III ,, ,
1r
1
Fi
f
ll
t .
I
ILL
f
E
Hr . ' ',
Imo
I
4_ _
N
I
t1
111111*
I
i :
t
111
its
Ill
11i{
tt
Cif29
I
1-1,
14
A .
bit.
li
I.
Jr
7°
4A
I
I
ASPHALT
u
1
FIRE
LANE
I
f
r7
t.
i
I /
f:?-,' '
44'
0'
d
I
I
j '
iflF.
4‘
t ,, , .. ,
1
r10".
1
iI
CARI
liI
CAR
I
1
GAR [
Ci_
R!_
iii
I;
1 } !
if
PL.
I20 '
10
t
f!: ,
al
r
41
v'
a
m
I
RI
r
1-
I -
J
i
t
ASPHALT FIRE
LANE
0
t
g_
GONG.
DRIVE
1
f
t .'
III .
1.. ,
e •,,,,,' ,
trth.:
rilL
I'
s
1
i
t
ffic
f
1
inn
lid
r
14•'
Ail "11
I
1
Ii ,, .
h1.:
r.
1%.
t....
111414
t
Illtt
ltl1{
t
1
tl
illllt! !
Il
j -
4
Y'
lj
ltelti
1 ,
1 :
1I
a.
i.
l
Ishiilily
11
1{
Ill,
IIIIII
Ij,
l
1;' ,
ii,'
t{
t
I
r ,. '!
r
11
I
To
t+
E
t
ll{
t
1 {
tis
till- '
I
4r
f,'
ti •' .''
1
tI
A
f;
Ir
a,..
1
I
i , .
r
atIll1
i., ,
I
t
1
j
01
1 ,
1142-
pti
II'
4b
I''+,, ?'
t111111
MI
MI ,, •
I
II
olio
illiki
tot
ttl
IIgI"
IIil
1
1full
t
I
fipple -
I/
I
I •
i •
iiii
a,"
Y
I1!
lltt !{
giil
rtlhjl
two . :
11-.
a1
a;
7 74.1r•-aS110,4"—
t ,•
I
1104. •
1 •.
1
4110
41"411P
0 • -
apiow
4
10".
Vitt
10 • ••••4 1
r fee.
4Alr ,,, • "ob
4,4•
S
I,
et.•
i
iiiiiiiii
4.
Iiiiii:
111
1
ill
le
irg
11 ,..
till•
I
f
t4i..• . . „..
t. _
4.-
11111ilrilliii14Ia
tli
I
II
Aril
jilt
iittiiti.
iiiiisig
it.
ffltlktiiiVht
P-411,
0,
11
1
j.
il
r .,.
4 .
k `
S
1,c.:
6..
e
0..
toJ "
si
ill,
r '
I
3
RI4'
7P107
2
ei.
I
awl
32114
m
OJ
p -
r
1lrldgY
l• •
I`
o•
1
W
Pi
Ln
a
s
Aer
0"
Irma-
Tel
it
1;
sio-
1
II
oh.
0,
i
ak'+
I
3NV13?!
Id
I
I
I .
m-,
bb
y
I
1lVMdSV
I
I
i
T
S
I
I4 - _
illiist...
A .
1••
1.
1
I
Fiti
1
1
I
y. -
may, ,, --. -
x-
E .
O-.
zf
u
I
0 - -
k
I
w.!
N
1 .
I
2O
5
r
it ,.,
ak,
A;
r.•
0
wA :
w,
y,
r
0 •
0 .
11,
0 •
N.
4
c' . , ,-- '
t'\:
L* ' \
a
k. .-
1 '. '
1000.
4
s
1
t..•
N..
AillL
Ar
4
11\
1111
lika
I
V
1M
wto
y
r
p
PI
i
P '
01,
0.
111
fs
10.
vt•••
IIIPIIL
41.. "
01
4Z,
11 ...
et
i
i.., ,
PO'
Ilk
I:
4) •
44.
4,
Vt*- •
sk•
as- -'
4
vw
IS,
r,
4,:
ittpt
II
v.,.
iv
110,
14
iiii:
k.
4:
Illik .•
litiolk,
ith.
t
VICifil-
dly
1
It •
4
ii
to
fris41
I
i
4,•
t
A
V•
r:'•
411.
41
1. '
0 !
v
r
4 . p;
1 . ,_
4
t...--'
r.,
4$
0
11/44,
f
Vef; ".
i' .---.., •
I
IS,
14.
111r1
i I,
011
I
e.
4,
6.•
001110,, ,...
4
4`..
4 .
it
i
4
e
II
4
1
1.
i
i •
f
r •
dal
1111111111'
14, ,
III.
11
I
1
i
i - • . it i.... .
II,
lk.
tii... . ...„.f.. .. ,, 0
A -
411 a ,i •
I.
Ja
11
i . 1 ill :, ...it I
2 iIII
ill i it I;•11 °II ' 1 i
I i
4
0.
o,,
11 illi I III I 111 , ;
r- i,
1.
L * 1
4 : •
lki,iik,z.,.. L.V ' t.1, k
If
r, . .
P ? :
ft., i' .
r 1
I
x . k
I it '
v!,
i "
i
irk,li.-..i • . f 1 i - f , ' . 1
s ', : % . • • . t i : 4 I
r.
I i
r
Nor
114404 i
i,1111111H000440404iiir
1,,4.44,4
44,
h, 1111111SIII ..,
4'.
ti
r'
il*"..' ..
am. :'I llrIIIII. ' .„, •
w elf r `A vex r
463-,
EXISTINGri p
a HCUSE r~w.i r.i nar
i .--
1.1.1
Qd7
U
19 408 w r.."..n
SIJILDING 2 1 uELLS
akilillitH•
s 1.1KIsiINGFORDSCFIOOL
Q it IIVIaO+
7DRE55r--
PE v-NICCN5TRJCTION I as COVERED LOADING r
IP-
JILT 19121
U MTL.BUILDING 4 . w.
IIIIIN11111111.11111WI W.
iTORT uY AUDITORIUM
0 MI
r
r....„......
a .
I
5 C.ARS
I
I 0 I1 4 aIvIASF'NALT
FIRE LANE 11I
L II
111. 4
I
22'-0'
11114*dE CF AUDITORIUM 1
K
I a
1
1 1 t1 A a, T 0 10VII.,
4 100P
iiiiali 111Iit,
1,
1
Jr
is
Viral
Tiirr
k..,,,
II1 .
a 1
1, 1
i , )
i
i .
r.
ii, .1
or
1
L;is ilivii%;#-:7 .'''7"-— .
r,i•:
r
Iiiiik
111111111.C ie:„ Imo• ,fie...
f*
I N51 ' . '
4 r r r-
tiny+
1 V 'lip,,,.
WALK 1 W E'1/ + ‘Ave e
ir - -
46
r-,,--- i a c.f.*•
W EXI5TINC tj
r w
a HOUSE
a d7
u
kli 408 u
3UILDING 2 o U.ELL5
XISTING FORD SCHOOL. LL V
3300 i.4y
1
DDRESSr
K COVERED LOADING
1 PE V-NICCN5TRIGTICN Q
UILT 15221
U
MTL.BUILDING '' ', .'
7r1NG: cb(P1 I
41' a'
STORY AUDITORIUM
s.
PL.50ID'
A.
U.,01 - t
I
5• ARS
J
1
91.
i ASPHALT
I
I
FIRE LANE
L I _
zz'-eY
i
NE CF AUDITORIUM
g:
4Itv
Q Er_
4
I
1
MI MA I
fr it..
k.
1
I 'ii
r.
t 1 'L....
1
I'
ll
IN 1
I
I
i I
11
t i': ' ^
0.
r 1,
4/
I
1
1
el
1
1
1 1
ill. . ig ' : ......irt... , , -1
1
1
A .•
1
I
i \
4t 11111"
ge""'Alie. ,
1
1 1
1
Mr
1 a411 II iii.,
1 .
i t
110i
POI"
i
4..
i1
I1
f
r I
14
hi I
t
4 Alt.N
71(
7
k
f. r
R h1
1 +IP
li
7:4-,.4.
4:
ef-, . N
4 I ...000".
s
4,
1.w
loot4,1144,1,1)
y
JS°4
J\ >stPj• 'i of-.
mow*
Y
lb, •
1111 .
4... 7 ir
lit
vo • 1#
4,V..
4' ilr .• f 1 I'.
1
V* - , fif •
r 11I4i Sir..f ,_
s .4.
f
11, vt ,
1 i. •S'
lli(
ratik'
41
f• i :II _.V144
I
14164 111 ,-"\ k
4 No%
i. \ i 1111111 i
a
f,' ; ?. '' 4 ihiihiii ..
N4,
J •
1
4` • i' .:
ri , ., ------0: II,
p ,....
4 4 I
0
1 '
1:‘-'‘. ...i-.
4'•
Ow ,
i ' ,:. .--- - -t.
4.'•- .- . •
II
a i ' I if Ili111111115 'Ir.. • h
A ' Illiff - : •— -
0...i r Illar
I u ii..irsilt .
lipliiiiilligir .I 1.11/I '‘.Jai
4 ,
A
I Is
1
y. ,.11/j
t .
y
t% I y;4
i
Ic•+
4
10
T'..
Ar !
iir7 ,7,,:\A,,- „,ill i ,11
WI
til'I1 11'i1111I1111il1irliq 1
l t 1—),,`A, _ t,,,.,. , .,llfl,r.4f f,f fiy!.;i,tr - i11111•i11111111r1 f11f11111 i• i
iii
r P
di% -:-II t.
s.Vill'1' e 111 1
s
I..,.;. N l411111r1 ?t ' 4
1
11
r
1 lil l tilil ••'4• .1 !1'j/ 1s
T1 itljlp l_r
ft
4
ti'. f 1
lit:, 111111111
1.
1bie
11 1 M
ri. 7,4 II
4 I .
It tit,
do ,L.
bp
vyik. a
f
I
I 11111 III I 116it1111i I 1 I th %hieilysiiiimlyyo.titeoutpitot Ne,D. \I" 111611111!IIIIIIWNIVII!"N "\ ' '
V ' t Willi ECM Ai 11111110110001atteil h ‘ ,v,„‘ \,,
IP! tiiiHHHHHHHHHIMOViiiN‘ikikim•tr\''\`-'‘vi '*-
kitl 1 l k
a n11 a
4 •
1 i . to, -
111.111ratimim
lol ; : : Lt \ ,1 111
id
t: : jk Ilk '.4
f`I 1 If ,tf
1l(t,'
I'
14
111pl 1lf
4.1ein 1Ilk111la11II°
I.
511:4I'!a!! t .`*
i i t i• ...‘1t f
II I I;'tiI'I IiIil I 'I'PI'Ie1'I'i'r11I ,
A,, .. I,II II,II II;IIIII;III1,. ;IIIII;IIIII;IIIII r
r . ;t J' meal' lh l l l l l i l'b I I I l l l l4k-r4 11 I I I I1 I l
p 1 11i1111 i 1FIII=IIIIItii IIIII I '1iIIII, 'lull' Ill
H 1 I I I I'1 I I I I I
i' IiIiIiPiiiiiIIitiiii jiIiJiIiIi! ,
I`
1 Ii
1 III IIII 14 +=: .' 1.11;1'11111•1!1!1illtllihl!I!Illrill
ear '. t'-' ti 1.1111:101 'IIIII ifi ;;11I11 III I 44114
i 1i . .;,,fli'- %!11 •IIil; it1 y
ask-
ir •
1t1 1,l c 1 t I•I f•i 11 1 ,. 4))i j .
11i1r},,.t,t,:l,:11 1lrifili l fl l ,` .
t.' "
r
1 4111.111: l i '11111111j111 Ij II 11 f1 '. It . `i:. 1` 1 ' 1 ; ;11 1 1•t l l•i t f h1 1 1= 1 . '` '`
i ii4i1 1 1 1!f i1110111i l fi i
r .1- .i: 11 Ittftltlliltt It1! § j111,111110as. t 1, •> > 1.1 11•ih l r ltt..t.i,ti1!te!tt t Iitiitlftitl 1iliqu' lilfttltf lptflft-tj tl Ill total 111 11 t 1•i•' j, 1 1
rill! 'lal_t. thll!it11lei!IiII iti f iiftjt til 1 i : `\
Iry ' tutu ralliiiiiiiiiiiliijijiiijliiiliillli iiii14.1l1.1 t4111.1.1.i.1,11ilil LII , . . I
III Its ti ; I.., is itl t`' t t•,., . A
Lis aik..ti t
ill
L1....i.a_f.l.r.riili4
s0•,•r.M70,. .fIPrIll nfl?inIll
1111='IM r
1I 111lilliniIII
4 111111iiiii ti i
J
I t 1 •
r
E a
HENRY FORD
GRADE SCHOOL
9.
t' I
f...,A
Fr
an MOM.OMRMO•UMW.ONIMOOPMN MO
IN NMI.r
MI OM
MI IIIIMMIN
w 1 r
Jul11!;III
ii {
MII'S
t . li.
4,11 elii silml ,
1 I f 1 : ,.
gr . Sig . E.
11111tli f• ll ,
q..0,..,.i.,.,-,,11,,1eili 11.1.
till,.11If„,,ri-lA, ,.1 fill I,II . .SJ I IJ
1 -
LI..
1 1,44 . i
Pf' I/i 7lj! 1`Iij:j::.1 s
w...l,
4 1.11111iIIIIIIII
Ithl.t pIl l
i,
e 0; ,U
11'';ill
11111
1
Ij il'
I1
Ali•
ii)
ii
L " :
A
T11I11111Mi.
iIiI IIIIr.111111it11
IIII 'I11,.
i ,,.1,1
1iii11
i
1.
iiiib
i ' .. :
Im1A1%
1.
111111111111111.11'1111
ter.ijiI91111911111111111 1 ;,
11i11111111
L,1
rfl.ii
IIII1I1*l* 1IIi1'1.,t''' '
s
4lip3
I, ,' . L.
ti
11
e 141f11
IIII 'III1I I
III/II 1
1 4,
t! I•.
iiiiiiigI• I GI 4
0
III11 't
IIIII:
E111l1 I11 1l111 1 111 11 1, 111111111111111111fI1'{;IlljtflII,1111`l11111i11111 IIIII II111 01.1110, I01111111IIIII1111111111111111111111111111111 ,alill1l111l11 11 ' Il ll lf ll ll °
1 If11111111111111t1111111111111111111 If 11 l l Illil 11,
1--1 1 I;1 1I1;IiIi1i1i1I1!Iljl0,,,,,,.,,.i lj!i<<111 III lit ;
1
j'
4t4
t,i
toe.1
ma
t
t lita
I,a
t. .
Ili•
I r ,
11I
I 1 1..
11111' 1:1:11,0,11,11:11,11;1111 ili giffirepTirrill, -,
11. hi 1,1,
1,01,1,ii 1 . YIII111111"1,1...1.141111 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1• 'wl
1-1-• i'i,i.,"1.01 iiii-i-iii 1 iii 11.1 111.1 iiiiiiiihil'1.'.1 111111111.11111i1"1 '11,'' 111. Y1.'1116111111111 11111 iiiiiiiiiiiirool 1 I
liiiiiYiiiiilijiliiiiiii,i
6.0 10 iii,..1;•„
1 1.,i ill')to le I I I I r. ii, .110 IlAii,:„v. ,, ,,i . I I •..,.!. .'- '
ifI,
WIN I 1.106111illyillyiliehlidibbililolidile,hlillyillyily iiiiwropi
1110111111110,1t011110111101101111111101 111111111111f
11011111941 10,10e00000011 1,1 ye, ro
iii 1 1-
1.0.1,10,10114.0,1,,,y0,10,1 01 Ilii 1 1 , sii
III 110 110.109,1110,10,,1,0 ,tiy,10,1,, 1 1 iii II
t 1,-11 II 1 pil Id 1 pi 1 pi I I.111.1 . ,,•,1., 00,
i. 1 voilo tbo,1000000,1,10,1,0110,114,0,0hypeo, Aft
141
1 1 1.11 IR111119111.11111.1111aillifilliliggpitapilibishh him
t lilts-1;611i a_ e_i_. .
11.7i1. -..t.d. .d..•11.1!eilet:olvtriirri
d
t— L I I.•
III111 1.1
bpi i,
i
NII1
pi
nil 1 ! ,q,
l it h C' ,. r .,
tiit tilllh,11 Illtplj,
1 7,tN 11)I!V11411111`IIIIj1111 fit!' ' 1.1;1,rg i Nt 1 11 it Itlll IIIIP,61t 1 a , 1-t ,4
i. l,. it 14 t ti 1 itithitit Itllltll!Il,tt l ! l''to d1 t ,ay.;1 rl j 1'`' •PP PPPN1 1,)11l tlll 1'1.1 t\.11 1' it •-i ,tj' 1 M1q 11i111110t; tr., • i ,
H11{41 L11114.1 .,f1tt,\1 ,: t1 tti;'lh 1'1 .4. rs ','ntttttl,tilltclrtt
Ail 111•
t 1 tttt 11• 1
ttitlriii1rtMtjUt't UN}, . . I,'1111I llla 1 ,•'t'Itrt:it,t.,
1
s:
a
ri,....
II 1
I
l• Ill 1
rr i
1.
U
t
t,it .,
r
Sti:
J 1. .,r.',..
Y1.•111:.1- .1.1''1'11'1 1'1 I.l
1
r 1
1 1°1.111
i r rP11r`1r,1,1,r r1
t:
rr:
i . .i 1111f3 11y '', • I110I.'
f;' 1 fli4hlf
i :
ii 1t11
f r 11111111
fiti
1r .f f•11111.i 4it11 101111111kr , 11I 461
L .1 ili`
Iti
i1111111t
1 n
1 ,I
11 1 1'';
I . il'1'1,1r1 11rrt
I % 1.1.1...,..
1 . ' 11 1 ' ltltt ttIt1 ,1 / itril =
11t.11l111e'1 'II 11t111111111111111. 1100111111111r:
r• vtfrl i1 tit.' 111'111'1Ib lti tt , 1^
ur11` 11 *t1 1tt111t11tttt11t1d11lt1ittitt111t11"
l'i; ii fi l tttltltttltttltltttirtttttltttltit11tI-
1 i' 111,11 .t 1bith11!t11h!t1ttl!ttt1tl14hi1'th
I
4
dm/F.II
r
F
1
1
Y {
ice '
r \•
i
1
r.r
1. '
i '
mil.. I`F
r.ir.
I
IlIIaMI
U 7
O ' i
1 Y
r O=r
i L3
MI NI r
MO
0
III ,
04
7,,,...
P, ' NE' • .
4,,,,'. :• . . ' .'.-"
s'
41 -
e 41 : 0 • ,.* 4'.:.7••
1r"!1
L.. .. Ef., _ , v : 7...r7.=-,_:,
i
r .' : •
7.--r.:-i•-•-'3•1• -----.
Ai•
r'
11Ftcf- ' '. ...-t• .. '
4„, ...- .c-•...- • , • • . .• , .. .1....`2, „, 10 • •11,
a.4., ,... ._,
4 .
r a.,...., ,
4,ir 4 t : 'A•
S. Oa
1••••• ,,
i ..•_4?-;•'‘...41,4•,,,e/....v 77,,:i..„-,-./././,/,.,,.„,..,/,, ,..4„
rip,.. 4.1 • .p 4.6,•1••a•tg,an.ta„ .• ..,, .t,„ p • P
I
4 g•Ve‘4 '••• W 1
0•••••.4I0 4 0: $:,..141,4:1/.400.44.44.4..„vow,
0 4,4_440•••••••.4A.•••.,4,••... ,, . I
1$
0.1 I1,
4 1••••••:•••:::
I •••••••••7•
A I"••.•AP•••••4.:../.•t•
A.4.4:
4114 P.''.;ii.'. . •..' .-.. . .-
V.V.•....... .. '.. A P ie tif 4 %.:.akt pilk N 1'i.
P 40,.••••••••• ',
S\ % V''
44....4°.PAS•.VP,.•A. . ,,•, ..• 4 7*...1,:...,•, Tht, ,...
A,•.
r.di•••.
16.•••
I.•,41,07•40:4•eq..A,:I,%.:AA,', .
s ,
cis,,W,„, _.1* ei,„ .s . ..
ANet, 40044, ' .`,.';'%. `,,.' - ., -
al.• • •
4,•
k ' '''''
41110., ''' ••••' 1".•;`, Nit •-• . c-_
i . ,
1.A e.•
411, 4`.•4. '.'t ' -11'.'.•''' • .
4i. -P. -•
4'• 5111.4„..Z• a
I 44 -11
4.,.. P‘• .' ••••• '"'t -
6itr,p ':•
r.g... ...v.a.mot to a•eprooc.a:Val oe....,CK GGLO ARCHITECTS o+ge+ei.w.ia r.rr
WELLS AVENUE
s-- -
I 0 DRIVE DRIVE
iYf c@ Cl9
CANOPY
EXI3iIN.SnJEWALK a I
1
I - - PL.350PJ'1—
s-- - -
r 0 `i4i-- PL.1500'
I LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING 19
ce
I I I1 u
0 , a
2ND STORY LINE
1r- 0 I
BUILDING 3 1 EXISTING u _
ti1 I 1 a i u ei 4014m5E8 u
Q EXISTING SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BUILDING- 2
a_ i° WELLS BUILDING I
ADDRESS: 435 MAIN VENUE 1
a 2 a I_j ADDRESS: 903 4TH ST.I EXISTING FORD SCHOOL u LILIOODFRAMECCNSTTION
LL
EXISTING SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY
ZONING: CD(P)BREEZEWAY 23300
SFADDRESSr I
J. 24,500 SF.LEVEL Ili
I i VERED LOADING* 3400 SF.LEVEL 4
LL1 TYPE V-NICCNSTRJCTIGN a I
WI19BUILT19221 !
U hTt BUILDING CrIU ANDGCNSTRUCTIGND FRAME
I Q
1
CZ
i i C< i ZONING: Cb'P) I I Lid
8 I Al'-0' ZONING:CD 9I _ _ u I STORY IL'AUDITORIUM PL.50' 0 I-
I
n' e e 5AIIIIR$L `n I-
I 1 r
I I BREEZEWA` I I I ASPHALT
X
an
TRANSFORMERS I v IFIRE LANE XI1
I 22'-0'
I LINE CF AUDITORJJM I e
I J
I
J
I
I 9
N u _
g_
a
l}u a,T_ a.
oI 1 ASPHALT PARKING I i-SCREENED
I 2 GA I
r ASPHALT PAWINGDUMPSTER
B Im cans AREA 1
j))1 N `
PL_4mm ' I _ _ I
m `%
LANDSCAP!NG L-ImmID'\
c e— ExISTING SIDEWA _ - -
I '
1 i TRANSFORMER
DRIVE DRIVE 0 DRIVE DRIVE
MAIN STREET
SITE PLAN a,..\
7
GGLO Drawing Issues: Project Name:Foixe Nara,
NOTES SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY 9 IikahiledureandInteriorDesignI.76.98
T14I5 SITE PLAN R=PR5ENT5 INFORT'IATION OBTAINED FRCt1 VARIOUS RECORDS AVAILABLE TO GGLO,PLLC Preleuianal limited liability Coeval Drawing TItIC:Su.eANDDOESNOTREPRESENTANACTUALSURVEY
1191 Second Arenw,Suite 1650
PL. PROP=RT7 LINE 4s te
r`7ii Ji FLAN
Phone (206)/67-6e28 see:.u:oer.