Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA00-131 June 4,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 172 Council President Clawson advised that if the vacation is approved,there will be an opportunity for public comment during the site plan process. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Minutes of May 21, Approval of Council minutes of May 21,2001. Council concur. 2001 Appeal: Service Linen City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision on the Service Line Expansion, Service Linen expansion site approval(SA-00-131); appeal filed on 5/10/2001 by Jeff Weber, Supply(SA-00-131) Buck&Gordon,LLP,representing Service Linen Supply,Inc.,accompanied by the required fee. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Plat: Stone Castle,Monterey Development Services Division recommended approval,with conditions,of the Ave NE(FP-01-049) Stone Castle final plat; 28 single-family lots on 4.35 acres located in the vicinity of Monterey Ave.NE,NE 23rd St. and Kennewick Pl.NE(FP-01-049). Council concur. (See page 173 for resolution.) Planning: Development Economic Development,Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Agreement Changes,Aegis recommended acceptance of proposed changes to the Development Agreement Capital International&T and with T and E Investment,Inc. and Aegis Capital International,approved by E Investment Council on 8/7/2001,which limited use of the site located south of NE 3rd St., between Edmonds and Monroe Avenues NE to Office and Self-Storage,and imposed specific development standards. Refer to Planning&Development Committee. Community Event:Renton Executive Department requested waiver of permit fees for 2001 Renton River River Days Fee Waivers& Days activities endorsed by Renton River Days Board of Directors. Staff Banner Installations additionally sought authorization to install River Days banners on City light poles from June 25 through August 17. Council concur. Streets:Rename Portion of N Executive Department recommended renaming a portion of N.Riverside Dr. Riverside Dr to Nishiwaki from the intersection of N. 6th St. and Logan Ave.N.continuing north along Lane the Cedar River Trail,to the mouth of the river to Nishiwaki Lane,in honor of the Sister City relationship between Renton and Nishiwaki,Japan. Council concur. Human Services: 2002 CDBG Human Services Division recommended approval of an agreement with King Funds,King County County accepting an estimated$390,647 in Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)funds for 2002. Council concur. Acquisition: Right-of-Way, Technical Services Division recommended approval of the appraisal and the NE Sunset Blvd&Anacortes setting of compensation at$21,593 for the acquisition of right-of-way as part of Ave NE Intersection the NE Sunset Blvd. (SR-900)and Anacortes Ave.NE intersection Improvement Project improvement project. Council concur. Transportation: Maple Valley Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with Hwy(SR-169)HOV/Queue Perteet Engineering,Inc.in the amount of$600,318 for the design of the Maple Jump Project,Perteet Valley Highway(SR-169),HOV/Queue Jump Project. Council concur. Engineering, CAG-01-071 Transportation: SW 7th St& Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with Lind Ave SW Traffic Signal WSDOT to receive grant funding in the amount of$270,000 for the design and Design&Construction, construction of a traffic signal at SW 7th St. and Lind Ave. SW. Refer to WSDOT Grant Transportation Committee. CITY GI-RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA MILL AI#: SUBMITTING DATA: FOR AGENDA OF: 06/04/2001 Dept/Div/Board....City Clerk Staff Contact Marilyn Petersen AGENDA STATUS: Consent XX SUBJECT: Public Hearing Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision: Ordinance Service Linen Supply Co.Expansion Site Approval Resolution File No.LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,AAD Old Business EXHIBITS: New Business A. City Clerk's letter Study Session B. Appeal(05/10/2001) Other C. Request for Reconsideration&Response(04/26/2001) D. Hearing Examiner's Report&Decision(03/26/2001) RECOMMENDED ACTION: I APPROVALS: Refer to Planning and Development Committee Legal Dept Finance Dept Other FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Expenditure Required Transfer/Amendment.... Amount Budgeted Revenue Generated SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal filed on 5/10/2001 by Service Linen Supply,Inc.,represented by Jeff Weber,Buck&Gordon LLP,accompanied by required fee. CITY i i RENTON NAL City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen May 17, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Representative: Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 03/26/2001 approving site plan for a 33,000 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen facility located at 903 South 4h Street. File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA, AAD. To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV,'Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision approving site plan of the above referenced site has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.F.;=within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. - - • NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written.appeal and Other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and - Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence.could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, ;Marilyn ersen;.CMC:. .. City Clerk/ able Manager - Attachment `: - - . - - r• ..sue,• 201 . . . 901 1055 South:Grady Way--Renton,Washington 98055 - (425)430-6510 /FAX (425) 430-6516 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer b4t2 ,; City of Renton Municipal Code; Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body, any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9- 13-82,Amd. Ord. 4899, 3-19-2001) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council-Procedures: (See above for Time for Appeal) 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1- 25-93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If, upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3,and after examination of the record, the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration,or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The • burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) • 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord.4660, 3-17-1997) APPEAL • NEARING EXAMINER VRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAL.�uVER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDA i CITYta9 l t�?K�EI�T,Qom!N CITY COUNCIL 'ILE NO.LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,PO1-021,AAD /0,i C S a,of . • APPLICATION NAME: Service Linen Expansion MAY 1 0 2001 he undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or re ation of the Land Use Tearing Examiner, dated April 26 20 01 . CITY CLERKS OFFICE . IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Name: Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon LLP Address: P.O. Box 957 Address: 1011 Western Avenue., Suite 902 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. (425) 255-8686 Telephone No. (206) 382-9540 SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) • No. Error• • Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No, Error: • Correction: OTHER: No. : Error: _ erroneous imposition of conditions (see attached letter) Correction: J 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: see attached letter Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Q _ 5/(°/6 A ellant/Re res tat PP P SignatureDate • NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 48-110F, for specific procedures, _appeal.doc BUCKCK..FAT 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE l V� SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382.9540•FACSIMILE(206)6260675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PLAUCH( ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP May 10, 2001 VIA MESSENGER City of Renton City Council C/o City of Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on Site Plan Approval for Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Dear City Council Members: We represent Service Linen. Service Linen hereby appeals certain conditions imposed by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the site plan approval for Service Linen's proposed expansion of its commercial laundry in downtown Renton. I. Background. The record in this matter indicates the following:1 A. Service Linen's operations and the proposed expansion. Service Linen operates a commercial laundry facility in downtown Renton in the Center Downtown (CD) zone. Commercial laundries are a permitted use in the CD zone as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 080(A)(18). There has been a commercial laundry operating on the Service Linen site for many I While the conditions being appealed by Service Linen herein are attached to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval, the record for the site plan approval includes the record for the appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval, which was incorporated by reference into the site plan approval proceeding. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC • -2- May 10, 2001 decades. As such, the existing Service Linen facility is a conforming use, which is fully entitled to remain in the CD zone. Service Linen's operations are currently divided between facilities in Renton and Kent. • Laundry is brought to the Kent facility for sorting, and then is sent by truck to the Renton facility where processing (washing, drying, etc.) occurs. The laundry is then sent back to Kent for packaging and delivery to the customer. Service Linen's corporate offices are located at the Kent facility. Service Linen wishes to consolidate its operations in Renton, and thus has proposed constructing an expansion adjacent to its existing Renton facility, to which all of the Kent operations would be moved (i.e., the sorting and packaging operations and Service Linen's corporate offices). This would reduce the impacts of trucks passing through the neighborhood of the Renton facility by eliminating the need for trucks to shuttle back and forth between the two facilities. The existing laundry processing operations would remain unchanged. B. Noise impacts from water heater/boiler in Service Linen's existing facility. At the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, there was testimony from nearby residents that the existing Service Linen facility has negative noise and odor impacts on surrounding residential areas. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant noise impacts of the existing facility are those resulting from the water heater/boiler(since those are the noise impacts that are the subject of the challenged conditions).2 The record indicates that: •Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer and there were some noise complaints from nearby residents at that time. In response to these complaints, the City started a code enforcement action. •Service Linen implemented mitigation measures including modifying the exhaust pipe so that it vents towards the freeway as opposed to towards residential uses. That modification has been quite successful in reducing noise. One neighbor told the City inspector that the problem had been reduced by 80-90%. Service Linen retained a noise consultant to take measurements, which showed that, after completion of the modification, the water heater added a maximum of 1 decibel of noise to the noise already experienced by nearby residential uses. •Because of the proximity of Interstate 405 to the east, the level of background noise in the neighborhood of the Service Linen facility is quite high— indeed, noise levels in the neighborhood in places exceed the limits set forth in the City's noise ordinance even when the laundry facility is shut down. 2'While the piece of equipment in question is sometimes referred to in the proceeding as a boiler, it is more accurate to refer to it as a water heater, as it is not a pressurized vessel. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DOC • -3 • May 10, 2001 •At the time of the hearing, the City had not issued a final decision as to whether the facility was in violation of the City's noise ordinance. Service Linen has continued to work with the City to ensure that the existing facility is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. C. Odor impacts from Service Linen's existing facility. With respect to odor, a number of residents testified that they experienced strong chemical odors as well as a hot laundry type of odor. Clearly, the strong chemical odor is of primary concern. While the Hearing Examiner took the position that this odor comes from Service Linen's facility, Service Linen has not been able to identify the odor as coming from its facility. The record indicates that: •The strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in Service Linen's facility, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. According to the neighbors, the strong chemical odor is intermittent, not daily. This suggests that the odor is not a result of Service Linen's day-to-day operations. •On one occasion, a resident of the apartment building across the street from the Service Linen facility called 911 at 2:28 p.m. concerning a strong chemical odor and also contacted the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency("PSCAA"). The odor dissipated before the fire department arrived (within 3 minutes of the 911 call). PSCAA's investigation determined that Service Linen had stopped washing/drying/handling of dirty linens by noon that day, and that some employees had been ironing at approximately 1:30 p.m. No employees had complained of odor and the smoke alarms and heat sensors in the facility had not gone off. PSCAA did not take any further action based on this complaint. D. Impacts of the proposed expansion. It is undisputed in the record of this proceeding that the proposed expansion would have no significant negative noise or odor impacts. There would be no noise-generating machinery nor any odor-generating equipment in the expansion area. The expansion area would accommodate sorting, packaging, and office uses; the laundry processing operation would remain unchanged in the existing facility. II. The Examiner's decision and Service Linen's objections to that decision. The City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ("MDNS") for the proposed expansion under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). A neighbor appealed the MDNS to the City's Hearing Examiner, who affirmed the MDNS while adding certain conditions. The Examiner also granted site plan approval for the expansion, subject to certain conditions. The City staff and Service Linen moved for reconsideration of some of the conditions imposed by the Examiner. In response, the Examiner deleted certain conditions that he had Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DCC • -4- May 10, 2001 added to the MDNS, clarified one of the conditions on the site plan approval, and added additional conditions to the site plan approval. In particular, the Examiner added the following conditions to the site plan approval: 9. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts nor the hours that those shifts now work. 10. The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 11. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers. If such technology reduces the noise below perceptible levels, the boiler operation hours may be lengthened to begin operation at 3:30 a.m. 12. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the odors created by its operation. Odors should be reduced so that they do not interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas. Decision on Reconsideration, p. 5. Service Linen hereby appeals conditions 9-12 set forth above to the City Council. Service Linen's objections fall into two categories: A. Conditions 9 and 10. Conditions 9 and 10 are modifications to a condition (condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal)that the Examiner had imposed on the MDNS prior to reconsideration in order to ensure that the impacts of the existing laundry facility would not increase as a result of the expansion. While Service Linen accepts the goal of ensuring that impacts of the existing facility do not increase, these two conditions exceed what is necessary to achieve this goal. First, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of shifts. Condition number one did not address the hours of those shifts. There is no evidence in the record that the number or hours of shifts have any relationship to the noise impacts with which the Examiner was concerned, which were primarily the impacts of the water heater/boiler and the impacts from truck loading and unloading. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council either delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that"the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts" (the number of shifts that Service Linen currently operates). Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DOC ti • -5 - May 10, 2001 Second, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. The record indicates that the boiler currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on a daily basis. By contrast, condition 10 provides that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (However, condition 11 allows the applicant to operate the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. as well if the applicant reduces the noise from the boiler below perceptible levels.) As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council modify condition 10 to provide simply that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. B. Conditions 11 and 12. Conditions 11 and 12 both require Service Linen to install "best technology" in order to reduce noise from the existing boiler and to reduce odors from the existing facility. As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council delete conditions 11 and 12. III. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions 11 and 12 (and condition 10 to the extent that it seeks to restrict Service Linen's existing operations)because those conditions are designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. As discussed below, the Examiner lacks authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. In addition, the challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague and violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. A. The Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. 1. The proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. It is undisputed that the proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. The Environmental Review Committee's MDNS precluded any additional noise generating mechanical equipment in the expansion without further environmental review. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner found that "There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision, p. 8. The Examiner concluded that the noise and odor problems described by nearby residents "are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site YAWP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC • -6- May 10, 2001 but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing." See Decision, p. 10. 2. SEPA does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. As a threshold matter, SEPA does not authorize the challenged conditions, as SEPA allows • a governmental action on a proposal(here, the expansion) to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197-11.660(1)(d). Thus, as the Hearing Examiner recognized in his decision on reconsideration, SEPA does not authorize conditions to address impacts of the existing laundry facility. See Decision on Reconsideration, p 2. 3. The City's development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. In the absence of SEPA authority, any authorization for the challenged conditions must derive from the City's development code. As discussed below, the development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. The Hearing Examiner justified his imposition of the challenged conditions on the ground that the development code's purpose sections for various industrial zones require that uses in those zones either not create emissions of noise or odors that extend beyond the site, or be isolated from more sensitive land uses. See Decision on Reconsideration, pp. 2-3. These provisions do not justify the challenged conditions. Both the existing Service Linen facility and the proposed expansion are located in the CD zone, not in any of the industrial zones cited by the Examiner. (A commercial laundry is a permitted use in the CD zone.) Thus, the provisions related to the industrial zones do not apply. The development code's provisions for the CD zone specifically envision expansion of existing commercial laundry uses in the CD zone. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 08O(A)(18). While these provisions set forth certain limitations on such expansion, those limitations relate to the distance of the expansion from the existing facility, the types of uses that can occur along street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District, and the requirement for a landscaped buffer next to residential uses. Nothing in the development code's provisions for the CD zone authorizes conditioning the expansion to mitigate impacts of the existing facility. Indeed, no provision of the development code allows the Examiner to condition a site plan approval for an expansion to mitigate impacts of an existing permitted use that is not part of the site plan and that will not be altered in any way that would increase its impacts. The criteria for review of site plans do not include any provision allowing the Examiner to review the impacts of Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC - 7 - May 10, 2001 existing uses that are not part of the site plan being reviewed. See Renton Code § 4-9-200(E)-(F).3 Thus, the provisions of the development code do not authorize the Examiner to mandate reduction of the impacts of the existing laundry facility. In sum, the Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. Thus, the City Council should revise condition 10 to allow operation of the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and should delete conditions 11 and 12. B. The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague. Even if the development code authorized the Hearing Examiner to condition the approval for the expansion to address impacts of the existing facility, conditions 11 and 12 are unconstitutionally vague. A regulation that requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process of law. Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64, 75 (1993). The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague under this standard. With respect to condition 11, the meaning of the requirement to "install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers" is unclear. Neither the Examiner's decision nor the code defines "best technology," and the term is quite unclear. Would Service Linen satisfy this requirement by using the best available off-the-shelf technology that achieves some reduction in noise? Or would Service Linen need to apply the most cutting-edge, experimental technology that could achieve any reduction in noise? Moreover, it is unclear how far this condition requires noise to be reduced. Would Service Linen need to reduce noise to zero if that were possible? If not, where could Service Linen stop? This open-ended approach contrasts markedly with the far more specific approach of the City's noise ordinance, which provides specific quantitative standards (measured in decibels) and specific means of measuring compliance with those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. Moreover, with respect to the provision allowing the hours of operation of the boiler to be lengthened if noise is reduced below"perceptible" levels, what does "perceptible" mean? Does it mean any noise that can be heard anywhere, anytime? Does it mean noise that can be heard across the street at times of normal background noise? Condition 12 is similarly vague. Again, what is required by the mandate to "install the best technology" to reduce odors? What does it mean to "interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas"? Does interference occur if persons cannot use their yards because of odors? Or does interference occur if anyone can smell an odor at any time? 3 Indeed, the code's site plan review provisions evidence a much narrower approach. See Renton Code, § 4-9-200(G)(12)(c) (restricting Examiner's ability to impose conditions on portion of a site not proposed for development). Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L0509 L.JS W.DOC -8- May10, 2001 In sum, conditions 11 and 12 do not give Service Linen a clear idea of the standard it must meet, nor do the conditions give the City a clear standard to enforce. C. The challenged conditions violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. As discussed above, it is difficult to discern exactly what conditions 11 and 12 require • Service Linen to do. However, as noted above, conditions 11 and 12 could be interpreted to require Service Linen to install any technology(regardless of cost) that would result in any reduction in noise or odors (no matter how small). As such, the conditions could impose an enormous burden on Service Linen(to the point of making it impossible for Service Linen to continue its business) in order to achieve a marginal public benefit. The Examiner was quite sanguine about the ease of eliminating odor problems ("We have entered the 21st Century and the technology exists to clear many if not all of the odors a use such as this produces."). See Decision on Reconsideration, p. 4. No evidence in the record supports this assertion. On the contrary, the record indicates that even identifying the source of odors is quite difficult; completely eliminating them is likely to be a technologically demanding and expensive proposition if it is even possible. In this situation, the conditions would violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. See Kahuna Land Co.v. Spokane County, 94 Wn.App. 836, 842 (1999) (to satisfy substantive due process, land use decision must(1)be aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose, (2) use means that are reasonable necessary to achieve that purpose, and(3) not be unduly oppressive to the landowner); see also Gerla v. City of Tacoma, 12 Wn.App. 883, 889 (1975), review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1011 (1975) (permit conditions must, inter alia, not be unnecessarily burdensome or onerous•to the landowner). D. Existing regulatory processes are adequate to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. Finally, conditions 11 and 12 are unnecessary, as there are already regulatory processes in place to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. With respect to noise, the City has a noise ordinance that contains specific noise standards and sets forth a process for enforcing those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. (As noted above, this ordinance is far more specific and more easily enforceable than the Examiner's proposed condition.) This ordinance applies to the existing Service Linen facility. Indeed, there is a pending proceeding under the noise ordinance concerning Service Linen's existing facility, and Service Linen has been working with the City to ensure that the facility complies with the noise ordinance. With respect to odor, while the City does not have an odor ordinance, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates air quality. Residents in the vicinity of the existing Service Linen facility asked PSCAA to investigate odors allegedly emanating from the facility. However, YAWL'\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DOC -9 - May 10, 2001 pinpointing the source of odors is difficult, and the odor of which the residents complained was too short-lived for PSCAA to ascertain its source. Moreover, in addition to being subject to regulatory oversight by the City and other agencies, Service Linen's existing activities are also potentially subject to challenge in court under principles of nuisance law. In sum, existing regulatory processes are available to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing Service Linen facility. The City Council should let these processes function as intended, rather than attempting to impose after-the-fact conditions on the existing facility through the site plan approval process for the proposed expansion. E. Service Linen has the right to continue to operate its existing facility absent the expansion, in which case the reduction in noise impacts that would result from the expansion would not occur. Service Linen would very much like to consolidate its operations in Renton(which would have the effect of bringing jobs and economic activity to downtown Renton). Moreover, Service Linen is committed to working with the City to ensure that City ordinances are followed and that impacts on surrounding residents are minimized. However, if obtaining approval for the proposed expansion appears likely to result in restrictions that would impede Service Linen's core operations, Service Linen could simply decide not to undertake the proposed expansion, but rather to leave its headquarters and sorting/packaging operations in Kent,where they are currently located. In this situation, any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility would remain unchanged. Indeed, since the record indicates that the proposed expansion would help buffer the residences along Wells Avenue from noise created by the existing facility, an opportunity to mitigate noise impacts from the existing facility would be lost. In addition, the neighborhood would experience greater impacts from truck traffic than would be the case if Service Linen pursued the expansion, since Service Linen would have to continue operating shuttle trucks between its Renton and Kent facilities. Moreover, the jobs and economic activity associated with the expansion would not materialize. Service Linen submits that this would be a "lose-lose" result for all concerned. IV. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in conditioning the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of Service Linen's existing facility. Moreover, the challenged conditions violate constitutional limitations and are unnecessary given the existence of other regulatory processes to address any impacts of the existing facility. In particular, the City's noise ordinance provides a far better vehicle to address noise issues than does the Examiner's Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509 1.JSW.DOC - 10- May 10, 2001 condition, and Service Linen is already working with the City to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council take the following actions with • respect to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval for the Service Linen expansion: •delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that "the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts"; •modify condition 10 to provide simply that"the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m."; and •delete conditions 11 and 12. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Jeff S. Weber cc: Robert Raphael • Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JS W.DOC 4 CIT` OF RENTON �!}t4wx3C Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman April 26,2001 Jeff S. Weber Steve Taylor Buck& Gordon LLP Development Services 902 Waterfront Place City of Renton 1011 Western Avenue 1055 S Grady Way Seattle,Washington 98104 Renton,WA 98055 RE: Reconsideration of Service Linen Appeal Decision File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Dear Appellants: This office has received three Requests for Reconsideration. City staff asked for reconsideration of the conditions imposed by the SEPA review,while the applicant submitted two reconsideration requests-one for the SEPA review and another for the Site Plan review. Staff has asked that Condition#1 be clarified. The condition now states: "The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates." Similarly,staff has asked that Condition#2 be clarified. That condition now states: "The applicant shall not increase the hours in which the truck loading or unloading extended into the normally quiet hours." Finally,both Staff and the applicant objected to Condition#4 which stated: • "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow the windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." Regarding this last condition,it was clarified that the expansion area will not have any windows that open. Staff recommended that monitoring a condition "to use"air conditioning if it were installed would be difficult and suggested that instead,the condition limit opening windows except during an emergency. The applicant also objected,noting that air conditioning would not necessarily remove odor(it merely cools and dehumidifies air)and would be prohibitively expensive in any case. In addition,the applicant noted that is was not a reasonable SEPA condition applied to the proposal,which,in this case,deals with the "expansion" and not the possibly odor-creating,older,existing plant. The applicant then sought a change in Site Plan Condition#8,which dealt with unusual loading needs. This office believes that since the applicant has objected to some of the conditions added as a result of the SEPA appeal review,some of the conditions should be removed from the SEPA determination and applied as conditions of Site Plan Review where they may be more appropriate. Therefore, Conditions#1,#2 and #4 will be removed from the SEPA decision. In their place,the Site Plan conditions will be supplemented with altered conditions. • Accompanying the applicant's request was a Declaration of Robert Raphael in which he indicates the hours that the boiler operates and the unloading and loading occurs: .90k O 1 l 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 ' `= • Service Linen Reconsideration Page 2 "Service Linen currently operates two shifts per day at the existing facility and the boiler currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m.to approximately 10:00 p.m.,with some variation on a daily basis. Truck unloading and loading now generally occurs between approximately 11:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.,though occasionally some loading occurs in the morning between 5:00 a.m.and 8:00 a.m.to accommodate last-minute orders received the previous evening." It would appear that the applicant seeks the utmost flexibility in operating their business,which clearly is in their best interests. At the same time, it is clear from the record that the business has not been the best • neighbor to the nearby residential uses,both single family use and multiple family uses. The sound issues have definitely been tied to the applicant's operation. They have been cited for violations of noise provisions. The boiler operation clearly interferes with the sleep patterns and enjoyment expected in residential living situations. While the odor situation has been more elusive and harder to identify,it appears from the nature of the complaints that they are tied to the applicant's operations. The odors and the intensity of those odors are described as strong,pungent chlorine or bleach-like odors and the overwhelming smell of hot laundry. They seem to be the type of odors that the subject use,a laundry on a commercial or industrial scale,would generate..The nature of the testimony did not make it appear that it emanated from ordinary residential laundries. The flexibility the applicant seeks in a mixed use area is not acceptable when it means that neighboring uses are unduly affected. It seems unreasonable to allow an expansion that accommodates more or even the same impacts without imposing some restrictions. And while SEPA maynot be permitted to cure existing problems,Site Plan review is governed by Zoning and Planning principles that consider a use's impacts. The requests for reconsideration provide this office an opportunity to further review the impacts that affect the community surrounding the subject site. While the.City does not have what is known in Planning as Performance Zoning,it does have criteria that suggest the nature of uses and impacts permitted in the various Zones. By analogy,this can provide a basis in requiring certain performance from uses whether they are permitted in the zone or not. 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: A GENERAL: The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following • sections shall be used to guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to the code. N CENTER DOWNTOWN(CD): The purpose of the Center Downtown Zone(CD)is to provide a mixed use commercial center serving a regional market as well as adjacent residences.Uses include a wide variety of retail sales,personal and professional services,multi-family residential dwellings,recreation and entertainment uses and some light industrial uses.This Zone is intended for the Downtown District only and meets Land Use Plan policy intent for that . area. (Ord.4404, 6-7-1993) Q INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT ZONE(IL): • The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone(IL)is to provide areas for low intensity manufacturing,industrial services,distribution and storage in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.Uses allowed in this District Service Linen Reconsideration Page 3 are generally contained within buildings,and material or equipment used in production are not stored outside.Activities in this District do not generate external emissions such as smoke,odor,noise,vibrations or other nuisances outside the building.Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses in the district are also allowed. R INDUSTRIAL-MEDIUM ZONE(IM): The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone(IM)is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing,processing, assembly and warehousing in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor,glare,vibration,etc.,that are largely contained on site. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. S INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY ZONE(IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone(IH)is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage,construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed.(Ord.4404,6-7-1993) What is clear is that the use creates noises that escape the site and disturb many of its residential neighbors. It appears that it also creates odors that have similar affect. These are the types of impacts that Heavy Industrial uses create,which according to code,requires their isolation from more sensitive uses. The impacts to be contained do not even have to rise to the level of violations of noise or air quality standards. Violations of code are not permitted,in any event. It is impacts that create un-neighborly affects that should be reduced or eliminated. This office understands that the proposed use is permitted by the Zoning Code,but that does not mean that it should not be conditioned so that the use--the entire use--is compatible with its surroundings. Even though it is not isolated from more sensitive uses,it should not spill over in such a fashion as to make residential living,and particularly sleep,difficult or disturbed. The use should not be permitted to expand until it has reduced its untoward impacts on its more sensitive neighbors. It can be a better neighbor because,clearly, its noise generation can be dealt with by appropriate technology,and similarly,its odors can be scrubbed by a unit that is not an air conditioner. It can also alter its boiler hours to be less intrusive in the early hours. The Declaration of Robert Raphael indicates that it runs its boilers at approximate hours and there is daily variation. This means that it is operated solely at the convenience of the applicant,to the detriment of its neighbors. That is not appropriate for a land use in the CD zone in which mixed uses,including residential uses,are to be accommodated. The applicant shall,therefore,be required to limit its boiler operation so that it does not start up until 4:30 a.m.and it shuts down at 10:00 p.m. While this still will undoubtedly interfere with some sleep,the affects will be less and will be more predictable than whenever the applicant happens to fire ' it up. • Service Linen Reconsideration Page 4 • In addition,the applicant's expansion should not be permitted to occur until it no longer violates the noise ordinances, Residents in the area should not have to awake at 4:00 a.m.or 5:00 a.m.to call the City to have monitoring equipment verify that violations are occurring and that they have lost hours of sleep. Similarly,the expansion should not occur if the applicant's business continues to generate odors that interfere with residential amenities. Such interference does not have to rise to the level of violations of air quality regulations to create untenable living situations. We have entered the 21st Century and the • technology exists to clear many if not all of the odors a use such as this produces. Even if air conditioning does not rectify the situation,other methods of cleaning the expelled air or neutralizing odors exist. Therefore,the following conditions shall be the conditions of the Site Plan approval: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review committee Threshold Determination,unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. . 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be :.reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4`1'Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project manager prior to approval of the building permit. 7. The applicant shall be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. 8. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the afternoon or early evening. Provided,however,that the applicant may add orders to its trucks at other times using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site,or by loading orders into trucks that are already parked at the loading docks provided, further,that the Service Linen Reconsideration Page 5 applicant shall employ hand carts with rubber wheels and other noise dampening equipment so that they generate the least amount of noise technically possible. 9. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts nor the hours that those shifts now work. 10. The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m.and 10:00 p.m. 11. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers. If such technology reduces the noise below perceptible levels,the boiler operation hours may be lengthened to begin operation at 3:30 a.m. 12. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the odors created by its operation. Odors should be reduced so that they do not interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas. 13. The applicant shall only load or unload trucks between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m., except as otherwise provided by this decision. 14. The new addition shall not open any windows. The applicant may deviate from this condition in the event of any emergency. If the various parties, including the appellant or applicant, are not satisfied with this decision,they may seek further reconsideration or appeal to the City Council. Either procedure shall be completed within 14 days of this decision. An appeal to the City Council must be accompanied by a fee of$75.00. If this office can provide any additional assistance,please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred J.Kaufna Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services Parties of Record PI BUCK & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PIAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AJCP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/Site Plan Approval LUAO 0-131,SA-H,R,E C F,LLA,P 01-0 21,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Approving Site Plan Dear Mr. Kaufman: • We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision approving the site plan for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number eight in the Examiner's decision provides that"In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition." See Decision at p. 21. Service Linen believes that this condition could be interpreted in a way that would hinder Service Linen's operations and need not be worded so strictly in order to protect the surrounding neighborhood. At the hearing, Robert Raphael(one of the owners of Service Linen) testified that normally trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. See Decision at p. 15. However, occasionally it is necessary to load trucks in the morning with small orders received the previous evening. Id. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry orders out to parked trucks. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 10 (submitted herewith). When the new expansion area is • completed, loading of trucks with such small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Id. Because this process does not involve moving of trucks or use of backup alarms, there will not be any significant noise impacts to nearby residents. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L040I I.JSW.DOC -2- April 9, 2001 Because the need to occasionally load in the morning to accommodate last-minute orders is a foreseeable part of Service Linen's business, Service Linen does not wish to rely on such a situation being classified as an "emergency" in order to fall within the terms of condition eight. Rather, Service Linen requests that the Examiner revise condition eight to read as follows: In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. Provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks at other times by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. This revision would accommodate Service Linen's operational needs while ensuring that residents of the surrounding neighborhood continue to be protected against significant truck noise impacts. In addition, as reflected in the revised condition set forth above, Service Linen requests that the word "late" be deleted before the word "afternoon." The word "late" could be interpreted in a way that would restrict Service Linen's existing operations, and the qualifier is unnecessary given that the neighbors' concerns are with truck noise in the late evening and early morning hours. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP dog Jeff S. Weber Cc: Robert Raphael Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L040I I.JSW.DOC BUCKK &. 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382.9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ter' () 6 U ALIZA C.ALLEN <•• = SAMUEL W.P1AUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM �y ` ADRIENNE E.QUINN , GRAHAM P.BLACKII APR Q 2O i JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON CRY OF RENTON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR HEARING EXAMINER JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/MDNS for Site Plan Approval LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Denying Appeal of MDNS Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision denying the appeal of the MDNS for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number four in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal provides that "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." See Decision at p. 11. For the following reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition number four. A. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Condition four appears to be based on the Examiner's finding that"The laundry will not be air conditioned,which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises." See Decision at p. 8. The Examiner appears to have reasoned that air conditioning would prevent odors from escaping the building by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. See Decision at p. 10. It is somewhat unclear whether the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the expansion area alone, or air conditioning of both the existing facility and the expansion area. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0408(.J5W.DOC - 2- April 9, 2001 There is no basis for requiring air conditioning of the expansion area. First, the Examiner found (and it is undisputed) that there would be no odor generating aspects in the expansion area. See Decision at p. 8. However, the Examiner may have assumed that open windows in the expansion area would help odors from the existing facility to escape. This is not the case. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, such that no odors could escape from them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 11 3 (submitted herewith).1 Finally, given that the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, air conditioning of the expansion area would have no effect on odors. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through the roof. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 4. If air conditioning were provided, the air conditioning units would similarly be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. Id. In any event, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. Id. at¶ 5. As such, air conditioning would not assist in preventing odors from escaping from the expansion area, since the windows will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Thus, Service Linen requests that the Examiner delete condition four. B. SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors. As noted above, the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed. By contrast, the windows in the existing laundry facility can open. However, to the extent that the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the existing laundry facility to prevent odors from escaping from windows in the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize such a condition. First,while the Examiner clearly concluded that the existing laundry facility creates odors, the evidence in the record does not establish that any odors experienced by nearby residents come from the windows of the existing laundry facility. One of the odors identified by nearby residents was characterized as a "dryer-vent" odor. See Decision at p. 7. In fact, all of the dryers in the existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the existing facility. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 7. The other type of odor alleged by nearby residents was an intermittent strong chemical odor. Service Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. See Decision at p. 4.2 However, such an odor would not come out of the windows of the I During the hearing, the issue of air conditioning arose in the context of noise, not odor, so the fact that the windows in the expansion area would be sealed may not have been made sufficiently clear. 2 Indeed, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency inspected the existing laundry facility in response to the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across the street concerning the strong Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0408I.JSW.DOC . 1 -3 - April 9, 2001 existing facility, as this would mean that the odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have ascertained its source. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 11 8. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. Id. Thus, as a factual matter, there is no justification for requiring air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors from windows. More fundamentally, even if odors did escape from the windows of the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning in order to mitigate odors from the existing laundry facility. SEPA allows a governmental action on a proposal to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197-11- 660(1)(d) ("Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal."). Washington courts have held that a government may only impose conditions under SEPA on the basis of specific, proven significant environmental impacts. Levine v.Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 579-80 (1991). Indeed,Washington courts have held that an applicant may recover damages where a government imposes conditions in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 717-18 (1997). In this case, Service Linen's proposal is to construct an expansion of its existing laundry facility. As such, the Examiner may only condition the MDNS in this case to mitigate the impacts of the expansion, not the impacts of the existing facility. The Examiner expressly found that"there would be no new odor-generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision at p. 8. Similarly, while noting the allegations concerning odors from the existing laundry facility, the Examiner concluded that "these are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems." See Decision at p. 10. Since (as the Examiner concluded) the expansion would not increase the odor problem, there is no justification for conditioning the expansion to address odors.3 As such, the Hearing Examiner may not condition the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility. Finally, even if condition four were otherwise authorized, SEPA requires that mitigation measures "shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." See RCW 43.21C.060. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 6. Air conditioning of the entire Service Linen facility (including both the existing chemical odor, and did not take any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this complaint. See Decision at p. 4; Declaration of Robert Raphael at ¶ 8. 3 Finally, even if air conditioning the existing facility enabled the windows of the existing facility to be kept closed, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning would reduce any odor problem. The air conditioners would still vent to the outdoors. As noted above, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 5. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -4- April 9, 2001 facility and the expansion area)would be prohibitively expensive, given the large amount of heat- generating equipment in the existing facility and the large volume of space in both the existing facility and the expansion area. Id. Because of the cost, air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. Id. In sum, requiring air conditioning of the Service Linen facility would not be reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition four. Alternatively, the Examiner could revise the condition so that it requires that the windows in the expansion area be sealed so that they cannot open (or can be opened only in emergencies). The City of Renton, in its own motion for reconsideration, endorsed such an approach. C. Response to City of Renton's Motion for Reconsideration. The City of Renton has also moved for reconsideration of conditions one and two in the Examiner's decision on the appeal of the MDNS, requesting that the Examiner clarify those conditions to make them more easily enforceable. Service Linen is not convinced that further clarification of these conditions is required. However, the only basis for these conditions is to ensure that the proposed expansion does not cause significant adverse environmental impacts in excess of any impacts caused by the existing facility. Thus, the best way to clarify the conditions would be to specifically reference the scope of Service Linen's existing operations. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶1 9-10. Thus, if the Examiner believes clarification of the conditions is necessary, Service Linen proposes the following: Condition One: The applicant shall not operate more than two shifts, and the applicant shall not operate the boiler between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Condition Two: The applicant shall not extend the hours of truck unloading and loading into the normally quiet hours, defined as the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks during the normally quiet hours by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -5 - April 9, 2001 Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Jeff S.Weber Cc: Robert Raphael YAW\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.)SW.DOC • • 1 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 9 ) ) 10 IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF MDNS FOR) No. LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01- SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION ) 021,AAD 11 ) ) DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL 12 ) ) 13 ) ) 14 I, ROBERT RAPHAEL, do hereby declare: 15 1. I am one of the owners of Service Linen Supply, Inc., the applicant for the site plan 16 approval for which the City of Renton issued the above-referenced Mitigated Determination of Non- 17 Significance. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge. 18 2. The proposal in this case is for construction of an expansion to Service Linen's existing 19 laundry facility. 20 3. The design for the expansion area calls for windows that will be inoperable and will be 21 sealed closed. 22 4. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through 23 the roof. The offices in the expansion area will be air conditioned, but the rest of the expansion area 24 will not be air conditioned. If air conditioning were provided for the rest of the expansion area, the 25 air conditioning units would be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 1 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place • 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104.1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile • 1 5. Though I am not an air quality expert, based on consultation with an air quality expert, 2 it is my understanding that air conditioning does not actually remove odors from air. That is, if there 3 is an odor inside an air-conditioned building, that odor will still be present in the exhaust from the air 4 conditioner. 5 6. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air 6 conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. Air conditioning of 7 the entire Service Linen facility(including both the existing facility and the expansion area)would be 8 prohibitively expensive,given the large amount of heat-generating equipment in the existing facility 9 and the large volume of space in both the existing facility and the expansion area. Because of the cost, 10 air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. 11 7. At the hearing in this matter, residents in the vicinity of the existing laundry facility 12 alleged that they have experienced two types of odors purportedly generated by the existing laundry 13 facility. One type of odor was a "hot-laundry" or "dryer-vent" type odor. All of the dryers in the 14 existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the 15 existing facility. 16 8. Another type of odor alleged by nearby residents was a strong chemical odor. Service 17 Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. However, 18 such an odor would not come out of the windows of the existing facility, as this would mean that the 19 odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have 20 ascertained its source. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been 21 experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an 22 odor. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of an inspection/complaint report from the Puget 23 Sound Clean Air Agency concerning the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across 24 the street from the existing laundry facility concerning the strong chemical odor. The Puget Sound 25 Clean Air Agency has not taken any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this 26 complaint. DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 2 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place • 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 9. Service Linen currently operates two shifts per day at the existing facility and the boiler 2 currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on 3 a daily basis. Truck unloading and loading now generally occurs between approximately 11:00 a.m. 4 and 6:00 p.m., though occasionally some loading occurs in the morning between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 5 a.m. to accommodate last-minute orders received the previous evening. 6 10. As noted above, occasionally it is necessary to load trucks in the morning with small 7 orders received the previous evening. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry g orders out to parked trucks. When the new expansion area is completed, loading of trucks with such 9 small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or 10 simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing 12 is true and correct. 13 Executed this 6th day of April, 2001, at Seattle,Washington. 14 /,� 15 i j• IPIBERT RAPHAEL 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL-3 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile r c nTTnrm o�T,w,T. '1�+ AIR AGENCY P,2 ,APR 05 '01 03:01PM PUGS SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCYN INSPECTION/COMPLAINT '-k•RT FO " k [-ROUTING : dcc:ti 1. . 2. 3 7 k! ` - V 14 a CASE# '''' :. t�''� ( )Smoke U Odor (__)Fire (X)Dust/Fallout U WD Stove (__)Asbestos U Other Type(1 A-6B): 2 Fallout dust County: King Date Rec'd: --89f22f2000-- Time Rec'd: Material: Verified: CSR: Location: 903 S 4th St City: Renton Zip: 98055 Info: Operator's Initials: MLL Inspector: EBF Inspection Time: i 1JU Inspection Date: (Q`Z.1 CONTRACTOR#: Name: ResPers: Title: Ph: SOURCE#: 17050(Reg#) Name: Service Linen Supply County: KING Street: 903 S 4th St City: Renton Zip: 98055 Mail: PO Box 957 City:Renton - Zip: 98057-0957 St: WA ResPers: Jerry Fry Title: Chief Engr Ph: (425)864-3406 cell# SOURCE#: Name: County: Street: City: Zip: Mail: City: Zip: St: ResPers: Title: Ph: ASBESTOS INSPECTION LEVEL: 0 U Off Site 1 ( )Pre-Removal 2( )Post-Removal 3 ( )Active Removal GENERAL INSPECTION LEVEL: 1 Off Site 2(___).Compliance 3( )Measurements 4( )Source Test SUMMARY REPORT: U.M,11''i�il rlit{ 0S �L1 t )&' Y/1'l1�i... cMM I • j e4A-6 c4 a a.�f INSPECTION REPORT:-Fr L0(7/Zo DV 11 1 YU✓J - kt �'V titTl c-01101 I -�jy� 14/A 1 r ,DYs caused ca,1Qn'�t (,GYVE GuRCa-f' a,,.e. eS —K/��I' r� ��W- �m � d -pry c o ay ay isK_J1� �-k GeAr 1, r-� i--p, whet I , re_ a(,Ld- �v inocd `s��s Cd I�e(-thNi . u c nc cciyuu�}. I I I Gall nil r &nr fr ('_o> • avl --}�d' P. D. �C� res e -}v � P tolvo tool LA' ( 0 , 1rfe ewes onise, IN Q.S S vwl` +-e._ . 1 to 0 (� UD , �� jIL( {ii '�li' c ail iiPXl 4- W otk (sse(I11t Y . C ��)rimui ry c1-ua t 1 dw J i ►r14c 9 o Z(o 6D /u -, q Wv✓-� . folallA I Dusty Iis�,I s : 00 . (Al • i Sad 411a4- ad- ' I, RECOMMENDATION: Alose Case ( )Deficiency Ltr. U Office Conf. (__)F/U Inspection Date: Other Action: (_)A.O.D. (_J Civil Penalty Amount NOV#/Section: �//� Inspector's Signature4%',,a,_ `0,4 /0 Film No. Page 1 of 1/ COMPLAINANT: ( )Confidential l (X)In Progress (X)Impacting Complainant Name: Dave/Spencer Apts Street: 334 Wells Ave S City: Renton Zip: ,"�98�055 t Home Ph: - Work Ph: 425 227-6666 Complainant Advised: �� V� 0-- tf l falit u //A lb 7,1(0) Comments: Bad odor came from source. Set off fire alarm. Throat problems. Form No. 70-103(Revised 8/1/95) APR 05 '01 03:02PM PUGET, •.1ND CLEAN AIR AGENCY P.3 • Page - Source 272 5Cr7) 1 — • eArL • , ' i j car it cuirtd, ac��y o errs I semcol • Dcattk �H : a &"I'c e- (mot V _.vi _S .i q d tbot 1 . lL� h, 1 , erb dA• ', le, I'i' It . -IT to • I) At(' • '13 • ii/l11M1MMMIEEF• t A A •A ! ' • 4(7, I )/ • I I 1'4 Lt Q,r :fev is wi / F"L arch iv& fc()1, 41. w d tLu • • Alt, •6uI.f.,61Pal e . . _UP Zi I,(� ISve ly - wkt- touftaAluot Flo ag w', frj l vusgleSu vi m .6>2 M i- Club P wxa myth AA I , a rt , r s o s , ►��-� t rail vt, ke, bQ. s ci-- Wilitd-6- def 4,y ,A3eioc9 6/1.cf_exly 40) 191, Gul& .1) rupa Signature /L f Date o/7/7§6' Form No.70.103 APR 2 2001 CITY OF RENTON CITY OFRENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WOR HEARINGEXAMINER MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29,2001 TO: Fred J.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner FROM: Steve Taylor, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Service Linen Appeal Decision • LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD On March 26, 2001 the decision on the Appeal of the Environmental Determination for the Service Linen Expansion and Rezone was issued. Staff anticipates difficulties in attempting to enforce several conditions of approval due to the wording of the conditions. It would greatly assist us in our ability to enforce these conditions if some of the language was more specific and we ask that you reconsider the wording of the following conditions. The specific conditions were related to the SEPA appeal. Condition 1 - "The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates." It would greatly aid in enforcement if this condition stated the hours that the boiler is allowed to operate. Otherwise we could get in a situation in the future where the applicant and the neighbors disagree on what the hours were originally. Staff is unclear how the City could regulate,monitor or enforce a restriction on the number of shifts,and suggest that this be deleted. Condition 2 - "The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours." Similar to condition 1, a more exact statement of the time of the"normally quiet hours"would allow for enforcement of this condition. Condition3 - "Extreme emergencies..." No changes requested. Condition 4-"The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow the windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." It would be difficult for the City to monitor,regulate or enforce the requirement to provide air conditioning. Staff believes that the intent is not to provide a cooler work environment,but to restrict the opening of windows and suggests that the condition be more direct, and limit the • opening of windows to emergency situations only. The applicant can then make decisions on air conditioning,fans, etc.based on the windows being closed at all times. cc: Jennifer Henning March 26,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Bob Moran Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance re Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber) • LOCATION: 903 South 4th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of existing Service Linen facility. Includes a proposal to remove the"P" suffix from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2001 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 27,2001, at 9:06 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file,containing the The Examiner's letter setting the hearing date,maps, appeal,proof of posting and publication, and other Photographs, and other documentation pertinent to documentation pertinent to the appeal. the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: January 3,2001 City memo re Service Linen Noise Survey Results Exhibit No. 5: February 26,2001 City memo re Exhibit No. 6: Sandra Maclean Resume Service Linen—Boiler Noise Exhibit No. 7: Elevation Drawings of current building and new expansion • • Service Linen Expansion and 1—_one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 2 Parties present: Appellant: Bob Moran 425 Wells Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Representing applicant: Jeff Weber 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 Representing City of Renton: Russ Wilson,City Attorney Steve Taylor,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Bob Moran,425 Wells Avenue S.,Renton, WA 98055 expressed his concern about the noise generated by Service Linen. He has submitted numerous complaints to Service Linen and the City about the noise from the boiler,which wakes him up in the early morning hours. He went thorough a process with the City whereby Service Linen did tone down the noise considerably,but it is still at an unacceptable level. Mr.Moran also described chemical odors emitted by Service Linen,particularly in the summer when windows and doors are open. David Guttormson,334 Wells Avenue S,Apt. 101,Renton, WA 98055 stated that he is the manager of Spencer Court Apartments across the street from Service Linen. He finds it very difficult renting the units that face Service Linen. He described the noise of the machinery and what times it takes place. He stated that a jet taking off from Boeing Field makes about one third the noise that Service Linen makes in the morning. He stated that very strong chemical odors are noticed intermittently in the courtyard area of his building on Wells . Avenue and on the alley a half block'off of Main. He also mentioned the hot, laundry type of odor that is often present. He occasionally has noticed his car covered with lint. He has not made a big issue of this with the residents of his building,as he does not want to lose tenants because of it. Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 used the Site Plan to explain the existing Service Linen facility and the various stages of the expansion project. Under questioning from Mr. Wilson,Assistant City Attorney,Mr.Taylor stated that the noise from the boiler is currently above the City's acceptable nighttime decibel level. The expansion project will not increase the size of the boiler. There will be no expansion of existing laundry processing, such as washing, drying, etc. in the new expansion. It will be mostly a sorting,folding,and loading area. The City does not anticipate additional noise impacts from the expansion. There would not be any increase in hours on the shifts that are worked at the present time. The chemical odor should neither increase nor decrease as a result of the expansion. After the expansion is complete, all trucks would load and unload at the loading dock on the south side of the expansion. Mr. Taylor stated that the rezone the applicant is requesting entails taking the"P"suffix out of the CD-P • designation because it is no longer in public ownership. This will not change any underlying zoning use..The expansion is an allowed use for the CD Zone. This project should improve the traffic situation in the area by removing some of the truck traffic from Wells. Service Linen Expansion and hz,..,,ae Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 3 Jeff Weber, 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600, Seattle, WA 98101, attorney for applicant, stated that there is a significant difference between the issue of noise at the existing facility and the proposed expansion. Mr. Weber introduced a City memo dated January 3,2001 regarding noise at the Service Linen facility. Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer. There were some complaints at that time. The applicant hired a noise consultant who made some measurements and recommended some potential mitigation measures. One of the mitigation measures implemented was modification of an exhaust pipe so that it now vents toward the freeway where there are no residential uses. The modification has been quite successful in reducing the noise. The City memo introduced substantiates this. It is not entirely clear as to whether the facility as a whole violates the noise ordinance. The City has not issued a final decision on that question. Russ Wilson,Assistant City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 clarified that the City alleges that Service Linen is in violation of the City noise ordinances,but there has been no judicial determination that this is the case. Service Linen is working with the City on mitigating the situation. Bob Raphael,PO Box 957,Renton,WA 98057, co-President and part owner of Service Linen,presented a brief history of the company at its present location. Mr.Raphael reviewed the processes that take place at the company's Kent location and at its Renton location. At the Kent location,the product is brought in and sorted, then it is sent by truck to the Renton location where all the processing, including washing, drying, etc., is done. The product is then sent back to the Kent location for packaging and delivery to the customer. All the industrial part of the operation is located in Renton. The proposal would not change this. The purpose of expanding is to consolidate all of the operations in one place. All of the operations now taking place in Kent, including the corporate offices,would be moved to the expanded facility in Renton. The expansion will not cause significant environmental impacts to the neighborhood. By consolidating our operations,we believe we will be able to significantly reduce the impact on traffic, since the number of truck trips per day will be greatly reduced. The expansion includes a loading dock for trucks at the south of the building that will be screened from Wells Avenue. Trucks should not be passing residential areas in the morning, since the driveway into Lot A will be changed to allow entry onto 4th Street. In the evening trucks will either be kept at the loading dock or parked in Lot A. The City has imposed conditions requiring the trucks to use the least intrusive backup alarms, and that will be complied with. The expansion will involve the addition of approximately 20 to 30 employees. There should not be a significant impact on traffic from the new employees. Employee trips back and fourth between the Renton facility and the Kent facility will be eliminated with the consolidated facilities. Mr.Raphael went on to address some of the issues raised by Mr.Moran. Regarding the issue of noise at the existing facility, it is not relevant to this proceeding, and there should not be any additional noise impacts added by the new facility. The trucks that start on routes in the early morning hours would be parked in Lot A so that the impact to the neighbors will be minimized. In addition,the trucks will be backed into Lot A so that when they start up in the morning they will not have to back up,hence the backup alarms will not have to be used. Service Linen has a unique situation in that because of the location of the freeway,it is impossible to meet the City's noise requirements. Ambient noise level from the freeway at certain points is higher than allowed by the City. The question becomes, does Service Linen look at its individual noise level,which does meet Code, or does it factor in the ambient noise level surrounding the facility. Since the modification of the rooftop exhaust pipe by pointing it toward the freeway rather than the neighborhood,the number of noise complaints has been greatly reduced. Regarding the issue of odor,Mr.Raphael stated that the Puget Sound Air Quality agency has checked out the facility at the request of neighbors and not found anything. Service Linen wants to work with Service Linen Expansion and riccone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 l,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 4 • the neighbors if there is an odor problem, but we do not believe it is coming from our facility. As with the noise issue, if Service Linen can pinpoint the cause of the problem, everything possible will be done to work with the neighbors. No new equipment will be added to the facility that could potentially generate odors with the expansion. The propane tank mentioned in the appeal is located in the north portion of Lot A. It has been there for ten years, and there has never been a complaint about odor from it. It is planned that the propane tank will remain in Lot A. Service Linen is committed to being a good neighbor. We do not believe there has been any problem from our existing facility that we have not attempted to solve, once we can isolate that it really is our problem. We do not think the proposed expansion of Service Linen will have a significant negative impact on the neighbors in the area.. Responding to questions from Mr.Weber,Mr.Raphael reviewed the issue of reduced truck traffic at the new facility, and described the type of equipment that will be housed in the new facility and what the equipment will be used for. He stated that hours of operation will not increase at the new plant. There should be no immediate increase in the volume of laundry done when the expansion opens. Service Linen hopes to grow over time,but is limited by the size of the building. No significant overnight changes in volume of laundry are anticipated. Mr. Raphael responded to questions from Mr.Moran on the size of Service Linen's vehicle fleet and the amount of truck trips anticipated at the new facility.He described the number of vehicles the company owns and the anticipated truck routes once the new facility is opened. Mr.Moran expressed concern about the particular noise, a low rumble,from the boiler in the early morning hours. Mr. Raphael responded that one of the things that will help the situation will be the height of the new building. Mr.Raphael responded to questioning from the Examiner by stating that doorway passages will be constructed between the old and new buildings rather than walls being removed. The offices will be air conditioned,but the rest of the facility will not be. Mr. Wilson entered a City memo dated February 26,2001 regarding the noise situation at Service Linen as a further clarification of the City's position. Sandra Maclean, 6987 Perimeter Road S, Suite 100, Seattle,WA 98108,noise consultant for the applicant, briefly reviewed her educational and professional background. She stated that Service Linen is a client of her company since 1992, and has a hearing conservation program for their employees. She stated that her company has been doing noise measurements for Service Linen since last August,prior to the mitigation measures they took to reduce the noise levels. Ms.Maclean discussed her findings about the noise levels of the rooftop exhaust pipe,the surrounding conditions,and other noise sources that she observed in a visit to Service Linen this morning. She explained the formula for how decibel level is reduced with every doubling of distance from the noise source. She discussed low frequency noise and how it might be mitigated at the new facility. Jerry Fry, PO Box 957,Renton,WA 98057,engineer for Service Linen explained the backup alarm system for the trucks. With the variable decibel backup alarm, as you get closer to an object,the decibels increase. The range is from about 80 decibels to 112 decibels. The current backup alarms used by Service Linen are the constant decibel alarms,which are 96 decibels. The problem with installing variable decibel alarms is that Service Linen Expansion and Rune Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 5 when backing up to loading docks,the alarm would be up to 112 decibels. If Service Linen complies with the ERC condition to install variable decibel alarms, it would increase the noise level when the trucks are backed up to the docks for loading. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen would comply with whatever the City decides regarding the backup alarms. Ms.Maclean stated that she would be against using the variable decibel backup alarms because of increased exposure of employees at the site to high decibel noise, as well as the surrounding neighbors. She stated that there would be less of an impact to the employees' hearing safety, as well as to the surrounding community with the fixed decibel alarms. Larry Cross, Olympic Associates, 701 Dexter Avenue N, Suite 301, Seattle, WA, architect for the project explained the screening for the loading dock at the new facility, using elevation drawings. Trucks will back up to a sealed door, and all of the activities surrounding the loading area will be contained within the building. Along with the new screen wall,this should result in there being very little noise from the loading area of the facility. There will be a fence with landscaping along the south side of the property next to the WIAA property. Mr. Moran concluded by reiterating his concerns about the noise and the truck traffic. Mr. Wilson, in his closing statement,reiterated that the focus should be on what this project would do to significantly adversely affect the environment. The existing facility has noise problems and traffic problems. The project, as proposed,would improve the site, including traffic and noise problems. At the very least, it will not adversely impact the environment,and probably will improve the environment at the site. It certainly does not meet the burden of an EIS. In closing,Mr. Weber stated his client is aware of the issues, has done a good job in dealing with them and is confident that they will be able to continue doing so. The issue today is the impacts of the expansion. There is no question this will not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Mr.Weber reiterated the expansion's impact on the issues of truck traffic and noise. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 10:32 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: • FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,Robert R. Moran,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed rezone, site plan approval and lot line adjustment for property located at and in the vicinity of 903 South 4th Street. The property is the site of the existing Service Linen complex and its proposed expansion area and parking areas, and a third party office complex that is included solely in the rezone portion of the request. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. • Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 6 2. In processing the preliminary plat application,the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is located both west and east of the intersection of S 4th and Wells Avenue South. The • subject site consists of 6 main properties. The existing laundry building,the converted single family home to its south,the vacant, former Ford School Site,the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA)property, and two proposed parking lots located on Wells and Williams,west of the main parcels. 4. The subject site consists of three rectangular parcels. There is the current laundry block shared with the WIAA bounded by Main Avenue on the east, S 4th on the north, Wells Avenue on the west and S 5th on the south. Then there are two separate parcels that will serve as remote parking lots for the laundry. One is at the corner of Wells and S 4th and the other on Williams, south of S 4th. The property includes approximately 87,718 square feet that would be rezoned from CD-P to CD and approximately 46,868 square feet that includes the proposed expansion area. 5. The subject site has generally flat terrain. A small amount of material,approximately 1,500 cubic yards,may be imported to level some small depressions and provide competent fill for construction. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions: two conditions imposing mitigation fees for fire and roads,one condition related to geotechnical issues for building construction/foundation work, and a condition requiring OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup beepers for trucks used during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 7. The ERC specifically did not approve any expansion which would include any additional noise generating mechanical equipment. The ERC.made.such uses or changes subject to further environmental assessment. 8. The appellant objected to the determination. The appellant objected to or raised concerns about: a. The expansion will generate additional traffic and noise. b. The current boiler begins generating noise at 3:45 a.m. and continues until 10:00 p.m. c. The backup beepers are very disturbing. d. There is exhaust odors from the trucks. e. There is propane odor. • f. There is a bleach or chlorine odor and a hot laundry odor that permeates homes. ' f � 1 Service Linen Expansion and Rezone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,PO I-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 7 g. The compatibility of the industrial use in this area of single family and other residential uses. h. The use is expanding beyond the permissible 100 feet from the original use. 9. The majority of property in the vicinity of the subject site is zoned CD(Center Downtown)and RM-U (Residential, Multiple family). The area immediately south and west of the subject site contains a mix of single family uses and multiple family uses. 1-405 is east of the site and residential and retail uses are north of the subject site. 10. The subject site contains the existing, long-established Service Linen complex, a single family home converted for accessory uses to the laundry,the vacant, former Henry Ford School site and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association property, as well as two parking areas on separate properties west of the main property. The properties are either all developed,or in the case of the vacant school site, were developed with urban uses including parking. 11. The Renton Zoning Code has a specific provision for established laundry businesses operating in the CD Zone: "18. These uses shall be permitted only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. Existing use of this type may be expanded on existing properties,contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within one hundred feet(100')of existing buildings, subject to site plan review.These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the "Downtown Pedestrian District" except for those supportive office and sales uses.Along property lines adjacent to residential uses,there shall be a fifteen foot(15')wide continuous landscaped buffer." 12. The Downtown Pedestrian District extends to just north of Houser,a block north of the subject site. It does not include the subject site. 13. The downtown core area is exempt from parking. The exempt parking area does not include the subject site, ending just to the north of the site at S 4th Street. 14. The underlying Linen applicant's business has been cited for noise violations after numerous complaints by neighbors. The record contains evidence that the boiler noise as it has been described wakes people up around 3:00 a.m.to 4:00 a.m. and disturbs not only sleep but waking hours as well. The noise apparently is a low frequency rumble that has been described as something felt as well as heard. The applicant and acoustic engineers have made modifications to equipment,stacks and vents and realigned equipment in an attempt to eliminate the noise problems. 15. The existing laundry apparently also emits a variety of odors,both chlorine or bleach type odors as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent odors,but on a grander scale. These odors permeate into homes in the area, and are worse during the warmer summer months when doors and windows of both residences and the laundry are presumably open. Service Linen Expansion and A,.L.one . Appeal and Site Plan Hearings ` File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 8 16. The laundry will not be air conditioned,which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises. 17. The new plans show trucks exiting the expanded plant at a driveway opposite the appellant's residence. 18. The Spencer Court senior housing complex immediately north of the subject site, across S 4th, has had trouble renting units due to the loud noises and the odors that the laundry emits. The noise was again described as a low rumbling noise and that jets create about one-third less noise than the laundry The odor was described as "toxic" and "ferocious." 19. It was reported that vehicles are covered with lint due to the laundry. 20. Apparently,the odor or potential air quality problems are more ephemeral and have been harder to document. As indicated,the noise problems have led to citations for violations of the City's noise standards. 21. The underlying applicant and City noted that most of the cited problems are from the existing facility. There would not be an expansion of shift work or hours of operation, although there will be a consolidation of the applicant's outlying components to this site. There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area. 22. The applicant does run approximately 20 to 22 laundry routes. They would be reducing the larger truck runs by moving all operations to the Renton facility. 23. Street loading would be eliminated and the trucks would be loaded in an area with baffles and a housing to insulate loading noises. 24. . The applicant proposes orienting trucks so that they can pull out in a forward direction,which should reduce or eliminate early morning backup beeper noises. 25. An occupational audiologist noted that low frequency sounds are hard to eliminate but that the mass of the new building might help somewhat. They have worked with the boiler manufacturer to reduce noises. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. 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 Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v.Port Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 9 Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' • when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." a. 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 is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS) is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document;an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: a. Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. b. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact....The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." a. Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development,whether an office building or a single family development,may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 8. First,there is no doubt that the laundry is not a perfect neighbor. It is an industrial processor in the middle of generally commercial and retail services and residential uses just south of the downtown core Service Linen Expansion and k eione Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 10 area. It generates noises, odors and traffic. Its traffic may not differ much from some other commercial uses in terms of type but does in terms of numbers and hours. While most commercial uses have one or two delivery trucks a day,the laundry has 20 or more trips and they begin their day very early, around 5:00 a.m., whereas most commercial businesses(supermarkets,aside)probably don't receive deliveries until opening hours of 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. at the earliest. It is clear that the use generates odors, both chlorine or bleach type odors,as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent owners, but on a much larger scale. The odors have been described as noxious and the noises sleep- disturbing. These impacts have created leasing problems for the apartment immediately north of the subject site and completely irritated existing home owners around the site. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. It seems clear that the appellant and others have correctly identified the applicant's use as the culprit. The noises correspond with the starting of the boiler,and the applicant's business has been cited for noise code violations. It would similarly seem that the odors described are more robust than those that might be created by either the apartment's or single family laundering equipment. At the same time,these are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing. Larger trucks will be replaced by smaller trucks since the receiving will be more direct. There will be an increase in traffic but it is not substantial. 9. Second, given these impacts,it is clear that the City Council specifically accommodated an expansion of this business in this location. The Zoning Code was specifically changed to incorporate the language cited above to allow existing laundry facilities to expand in the CD Zone. The use may be expanded on immediately surrounding property or within 100 feet. Staff reports that all of the expansion complies with these limitations. 10. As proposed,the expansion should not greatly increase the environmental impacts of the proposal. The ERG specifically did not review any additional noise generating aspects and left that for another day if there were added equipment. It seems that an additional condition should be added to that aspect of their review. That is that any increase in the number of shifts or an increase in the hours that the boiler operates or truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours should not be permitted by this proposed expansion. Any changes in those aspects of this operation would seem to be such that there would be environmental consequences that would potentially need more exhaustive review. Additionally, it would appear that less odors would escape the site if the plant windows could be closed. Air conditioning would assist in this effort by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. 11. The rezone is not really an issue. It truly is a change of almost no import. The removal of the P-suffix merely reflects a change in ownership that has already occurred and does not alter the uses permitted on the subject site. The property was owned by the school district and sold to two parties,the applicant, laundry operator, and a third party generally not implicated in environmental or land use issues. The removal of the P-suffix will not expand the range of uses permitted on the subject site. The removal will not expand the intensity of uses. The removal removes the flag that says the property is owned by a public entity and the change reflects that the property is private property or"just property." Service Linen Expansion and Rtc.v1ie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 11 12. There is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. Some have already occurred with the demolition of the Ford School. The new building will change the appearance from a now empty lot to a building not unlike the school in bulk, but with a more modern appearance..It is hoped that the new mass will help ameliorate some of the noise problems. It will probably do little about the odor problems. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The ERC for the most part was constrained, as is this office,by the fact that most of the complaints are aimed at the existing complex. The expansion will not increase the most complained about off-site impacts of odor and noise. As indicated, in order to assure the community that the impacts that are most pronounced and significant do not exacerbate the problems,the applicant will not be permitted to expand its shift work or hours of operation that expand the range of noises and odors or the hours in which they are problem. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case to trigger an EIS. The decision of the ERC must be generally affirmed,although with some conditions that clarify and limit off-site impacts. While environmental review may not have produced a result that fixes existing problems,there might be a remedy in Nuisance Law if the current codes are not satisfactory. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is modified to include the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. 2. The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours. 3. Extreme emergencies may be permitted to alter these conditions but shall not continue for more than a day or two at any one time. 4. The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors. ********************************************** Service Linen Expansion and Rezone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 l,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 12 MINUTES: SITE PLAN AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2001 Site Plan and Rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 27, 2001, at 10:37 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA00- Exhibit No. 2: Site and Building plans, Sheets 131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA containing the original A-1 through A-3 application,proof of posting,proof of publication an other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No. 3: Rezone Drawing Exhibit No. 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Exhibit No. 6: Generalized Utilities Plan Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit No. 7: Vicinity Map Exhibit No.8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: Historic Land Use Background Exhibit No. 10: Yellow appeal file, LUA00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD, containing the appeal,proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal The Site Plan and Rezone hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. This project involves the Site Plan approval and a rezone to remove the"P"suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The property in question was the home of the Henry Ford School from 1922 until 1999. The school district surplused this property and sold the northern parcel to Service Linen and the southern parcel, containing the old school administration building,to Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA). The rezone will not change the types of use allowed,but will recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Additionally,the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. The new building proposed on the site contains approximately 29,000 sf on the first floor, and approximately 4,000 sf on the second floor,which will be utilized for offices in the future,only the shell structure is to be constructed at this time. The total of the new building will be approximately 33,000 sf. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance,Mitigated for the project on January 30,2001. The appeal period ended on February 19,2001. Mr.Bob Moran filed a timely appeal of the threshold determination listing traffic,noise,odors and zoning as areas of concern. Mr.Taylor stated that when the Environmental Review Committee discussed the noise impacts and the concern about the backup Service Linen Expansion and Rezone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,PO I-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 13 beepers,they were under the impression that there was an ambient level backup beeper that could sense the decibel level of the surrounding area and hold the decibel level of the beep itself to the surrounding levels. They were under the assumption that this type of beeper is available,because on construction sites a similar type of beeper is used that when the construction noise is louder,the beeper becomes louder as well. Mr.Fry has testified that the manufacturer of backup alarms they have worked with is not aware of the existence of this type of beeper. If that is the case,the ERC condition may have to be modified or operational changes that would eliminate the backup beeper noise problem may need to be considered. Mr. Taylor reviewed the consistency of the Site Plan with Approval Criteria. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies,the CD zoning designation requires balanced land uses that can contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Downtown Policy DT-1 actually calls for a mixed use, including retail, office, light industrial and residential that will create a demand for goods and services. Staff feels that this project is part of that mix of offices and light industrial which creates both a demand for goods and services and provides those services as well. The Downtown Element also encourages maintaining and revitalizing the downtown. This project would certainly provide more intense use of an underdeveloped site as well as provide employment opportunities. Service Linen provides services for hotels,hospitals,restaurants and offices both locally and regionally. Although it is not required by Code,the project includes developing with the WIAA additional 8 parking spaces along the south boundary of the property. Service Linen,with their existing parking Lots A and B, provide for the minimum required 72 parking stalls. Regarding the project's conformance with Land Use Regulations,Mr.Taylor stated that this commercial laundry use is limited to the expansion of existing laundries. Service Linen is the only existing laundry in this area. Under the zoning conditions in the Municipal Code, condition number 18 is specific about where this type of use could be. It is permitted only as a continuation of existing commercial laundry use,and can be expanded on existing properties,contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within 100 feet of existing buildings. The proposed site plan is in conformance with the 65% building lot coverage required in this zone. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot landscaped setback from both Wells and Main Avenues South. No side or rear yard setbacks are required unless the property abuts residentially zoned parcels. In this case,the site does not abut residentially zoned parcels. The proposed building and the existing structure are on two separate lots and are connected by four openings. Because of the separate parcels,the properties could be sold individually at a future date. When properties are in separate ownership,the building either has to be set back from the property line or meet construction and fire code ratings. Staff recommends a restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcel containing the new structure requiring the openings to be sealed according to UBC requirements should the property be sold individually or the use changed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. Staff has made suggestions for increasing the size for six types of plantings in order to provide visual buffering in a much shorter time frame. Staff is recommending that the driveway access in parking lot A be relocated from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street in order to reduce the flow of traffic past the residences on Wells. Fourth Street is stop-controlled at 4th and Williams, so there should be no queuing of vehicles exiting and entering the parking lot. The applicant will also be required to revise the site plan to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. Service Linen Expansion and K,=.,one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA 0 0-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 14 • In terms of mitigation of impacts to the site,the site was graded fairly level after the demolition of the Henry Ford School. It is estimated that about 1,500 cubic yards of fill will be required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. One of the ERC's mitigation measures is that the applicant comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report regarding site preparation and construction. Stormwater from the site will be directed into a storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious • area will be less than the previous school,no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated Staff feels that this project would develop and improve this currently underutilized site. It would increase the amount of employees in the vicinity,and encourage additional development. Therefore the project is anticipated to conserve area wide property values The project would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system, and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is estimated to be$7,875. The parking plan appears to provide adequate aisle widths and back out distances for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Truck hauling hours during construction are limited to between 8:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The proposed building is setback 15 feet from both Wells and Main Avenue and landscaped to soften overall bulk. The design provides for adequate light and air circulation to the buildings. There will be a screening wall located along the Wells Avenue side that will screen the truck loading area, so there will be additional buffering of noise Both the Fire and Police Departments have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. The applicant was required to pay Fire and Traffic Mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff feels that this development will add to the appearance of the surrounding area and will help prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. The proposal includes a rezone to remove the"P"-suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed,but recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Service Linen and WIAA rezone from CD-P to CD. Staff recommends approval of the Service Linen Site Plan Application and Rezone,subject to the following conditions: (1)The applicant must comply with Mitigation Measures required by the ERC. (2) The applicant must record restrictive covenants that tie the two off-site parking lots to this use. (3) The applicant must record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition requiring that building openings be sealed in compliance with the UBC at such time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. (4) The applicant must realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. (5) The applicant must revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. (6) The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. • Service Linen Expansion and Rt nie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA 00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 15 Using the elevation plan,Mr. Cross discussed how the building is separated into different pieces, using glass areas in between to increase the visual impact. The glass allows for light and ventilation, as well as ties the new building in with the existing facility. The use of landscaping, and striation of colors and materials will help to visually buffer the bulk of the building. Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened by the parapets that go above the actual roof line. The building will be constructed of concrete block,which is durable and will help mitigate the noise from within the building. Mr. Raphael stated that it is important for Service Linen to have access on both Wells and Main because of the heavy traffic on Main in the afternoon. Service Linen is willing to work with the neighborhood in terms of which streets would cause the least impact on traffic. Mr.Raphael explained why the present building layout is operationally the best plan in terms of the processes involved. The main issue in the layout of the building is keeping the clean and soiled laundry sections completely separate to avoid cross contamination. Regarding the noise issue with trucks backing up to the loading dock,Mr.Raphael stated that normally the trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. The only time trucks would back up to the loading dock in the morning would be to add small orders received in the previous evening. In regard to the propane tank, Mr.Raphael stated that roughly half the vehicle fleet uses propane, so it is Service Linen's intent to keep the propane tank, at least for the present. Mr.Moran reiterated his concern about the noise and the truck traffic. He also expressed concern about property values in the neighborhood being negatively impacted by a business the size and type of Service Linen. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 stated that the storm water system is seeing some massive improvements in this area. A larger line is being laid south to Grady Way as well as other improvements being made in connection with other projects in the near future. Two way traffic on Wells and Williams Avenues is a possibility that is being considered in terms of long range planning only. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen's facility is a use that is specifically allowed by the Zoning Code. Service Linen has no plans for further expansion beyond the new facility at this point. Regarding the noise issue raised by Mr.Moran,Mr. Weber referenced what was said in the SEPA appeal about the existing operation not being the subject of the site plan approval hearing. Mr.Weber reiterated Mr.Raphael's comments about the Wells Avenue access and the loading of trucks in the morning hours. Mr.Taylor clarified that City staff would like to have the current loading area moved off of Wells Avenue with the completion of the expansion. He reiterated that the traffic situation in the area should improve with the completion of the new facility,and restated that City staff does recommend approval of the project The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:55 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: Service Linen Expansion and h„Lone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 16 1. The applicant,Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber),for Service Linen and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association(WIAA)filed requests for Site Plan review for an expansion of the existing Service Linen's laundry plant and a rezone of the two parties property from CD-P(Center Downtown with a P suffix)to CD(Center Downtown without the suffix). A Lot Line Adjustment for portions of the subject site is being processed administratively and not part of this review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. • 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject proposal encompasses parcels at five locations. The existing Service.Linen property is located at 903 South 4th Street. The expansion area is south of that and is located at 408 and 420 Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot A is located at the southwest corner of South 4th and Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot B is located on the east side of the 400 block of Williams Avenue South. The WIAA parcel,the old School District Administrative Building, is located at 435 Main Avenue South. 6. The rezone would include the parcels located at 435 Main and the Wells parcels. 7. The various properties are all generally located just south of the downtown core,just south of Houser Way and the railroad right-of-way and between Main and Williams. 8. The subject site is part of the original town site of the City which was incorporated 100 years ago this year in 1901. 9. The area has a mix of zoning districts including the subject site's combination of CD(Center Downtown)and CD-P which would be changed to a uniform CD if the P-suffix is removed. North are additional CD parcels. There is also CD immediately west on the south side of S 4th. West of the south portion of the site is RM-U (Residential Multiple Family). East of the site are the unzoned Main Avenue and I-405 rights-of-way. 10. The uses in the vicinity of the subject site include residential,including single family and some multiple family uses to the west,and an apartment to the immediate north across S 4th Street. I-405 and Main Avenue are east of the site. There are additional single family uses south of the subject site. 11. The subject site consists of the block bounded by S 4th on the north,Main on the east, S 5th on the south and Wells on the north and two parcels, one of which is located on 4th and Wells and the other on Williams south of 4th. The Service Linen complex, including the older factory-type building and a converted single family home, is located at the north end of the block. The next property to the south is the now vacant,former Henry Ford School site. The most southerly parcel,the WIAA building,taking up the south end of the block and involved solely in the rezone request,was formerly the School Service Linen Expansion and kuzone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,POI-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 17 District's Administration building. 12. The applicants, Service Linen and WIAA both request that the P-suffix that is attached to the properties that were formerly owned by the Renton School District be dropped from the CD-P zoning and changed to just CD. This is intended to reflect that the properties owned by these parties is private property and no longer publicly owned property that is subject to special criteria. The removal of the P-suffix would not change in any manner the type of uses permitted on the various parcels. 13. In addition, Service Linen has requested a Lot Line Adjustment that would consolidate the boundaries of the parcels it owns between Main and Wells. This proposal is not before the hearing examiner but is subject to administrative review. 14. The final request,the one of the most substance and the one that would result in changing the use of a large portion of the subject site, is a Site Plan to allow the expansion of the Service Linen complex to the vacant lot to its south. The expansion would remove the single family home that is located immediately south of the existing factory building and replace that and the vacant lot with a modern 2- story addition of 33,000 square feet. It would also develop parking along the building's south margin, as well as redeveloping parking lots located west of the site on Wells and Williams. The single family home that will be removed has been used for laundry office purposes over the last few years. 15. The expansion would extend the building approximately 160 feet to the south. It would run through the block between Wells and Main'and would be approximately 204 feet wide,east to west. The building would be 42 feet tall with rooftop mechanical equipment. Although such equipment would not be visible from the street, it might be visible from the residential areas on Renton Hill east of I-405. 16. The applicant proposes providing 15 feet of landscaped setback along Wells and Main. 17. On the exterior the building will appear like a series of connected buildings. Colored concrete masonry blocks will provide the main walls with horizontal accent bands. The building will provide a variegated roofline with peaks, slopes and flat elements. Structural elements such as cross-bracing will be visible over glass block walls,which should provide visual interest. There will be awning and other trim detail. 18. The applicant will bring the building's parking component up to current code. Code requires 1 to 1.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet for the laundry and 3 to 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space. The total parking required would be a minimum of 72 stalls. The applicant proposes 73 stalls. There would be 38 stalls in Proposed Lot A(Wells lot)and 30 stalls in Lot B (Williams lot). There would be five stalls on the main site. In addition,there will be parking for eleven (11)trucks. 19. Loading bays will be located along the west side of the south facade. 20. The placement of the loading bays will place them closer to residential uses across Wells than if they • had been located nearer Main. The layout equipment in the existing complex apparently dictates this positioning so that the new addition meshes with the existing machinery and internal processes and routing that currently exist. Service Linen Expansion and A..-one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 18 21. In exploring whether truck circulation in the early hours should be directed out to Main in order to lessen the impact on the residential uses along Wells,staff noted that the Transportation Division supposedly did not want exiting to Main. But Transportation was not at the hearing, so it was not possible to determine if using Main at 5:00 a.m. would interfere with traffic. If not,then a Main exit would route vehicles away from the residential uses on Wells, at least as they are starting out,with • headlights and engines directed to the west. 22. Originally,the access to the Wells/4th Parking lot would have been from Wells,which is a one-way street northbound. In order to access the lot, all traffic would have had to use the residential, southerly portion of Wells. Staff recommended that the access be from 4th,a generally commercial,two-way street,to lessen the impact on the residences south of the parking lot. 23. The Geotechnical Report demonstrated no discernable problems with redeveloping the subject site. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of material will probably be imported to support footings and level minor irregularities on the site. 24. The laundry had carried out loading and other operations at curb-side along Wells. These operations will now occur at the loading bays,which will be baffled. The record reflects that the applicant has not always been the best neighbor for the residential uses surrounding the subject site. Apparently,both noise and odors are emitted from the site,which disturb neighbors. The odors are apparently hot, dryer laundry odors familiar to those doing personal laundry, and also chlorine type odors from the descriptions. Noises have been from the loading operations as well as from mechanical venting equipment that emits a low rumble type of sound created by a new boiler. 25. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant proposes loading the trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. This should reduce some of the early morning noises the applicant has generated in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Rezone 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health,safety and welfare and in addition,complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. • Service Linen Expansion and Rezone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-02 1,AAD LUA00-1 3 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 19 The requested classification is justified and should be approved by the City Council. 2. The only issue in the rezone is the change in ownership status of the subject site. The subject site had been owned by the Renton School District. They sold the site to two separate private entities, ending the public ownership. Those owners would like the P-suffix which signifies public ownership to be dropped. The site would be classified CD(Center Downtown) like most of the other property in its vicinity that is also owned privately. 3. The CD rezoning is the designation found in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 4. Since the CD-P was applied to the site, as noted,the site was sold to private parties. 5. Most significantly, again,the elimination of the P-suffix will not change in any manner the nature, intensity or other aspects of uses permitted on the subject site. CD and CD-P both permit the same exact uses in exactly the same fashion. 6. The proposed CD zoning is appropriate given the record. Site Plan 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on:surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property.values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposed expansion is compatible with the goals of developing an urban downtown with a variety of commercial and residential uses. While the use probably is more industrial than commercial,an exception was made to allow this old,established business to expand within its nearby vicinity. It will create additional job opportunities in the downtown area. It has incorporated a number of interesting Service Linen Expansion and ic�Lone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings • File Nos.: LUA00-1 3 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 20 design features to make it more visually appealing,which is also compatible with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The building meets the various goals and bulk standards of the Zoning Code. It provides setbacks that will give it a more appealing street image than the older building. Staff will determine compliance with the Building and Fire Codes when a building permit application is submitted. 4. The use has been made as compatible as an industrial use can be in a mixed commercial and residential area. The position of the loading bays unfortunately locates trucks closer to the residential uses than is appropriate, but the internal design of the existing plant seems to require that. It seems that a little more relief could be offered if the trucks were, at a minimum,to leave the site in the early morning hours via Main rather than Wells. Since Transportation did not provide needed information, it would appear reasonable that trucks exiting the site around 5:00 a.m. would not severely interfere with traffic on Main. Therefore,the applicant will be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. 5. The design looks as if it will be appealing from the street. That should diminish its intrusive, industrial nature to nearby residences. 6. Unfortunately,the older building will remain in a prominent location that is highly visible. But the redevelopment of the remainder of the subject site at the scale proposed should minimize undue impacts on the site and surrounding uses. 7. The redevelopment of the site should not further impact property values. The industrial juxtaposition with the residential uses probably already has had an impact. 8. It appears that with staffs condition on relocating the Wells driveway from Parking Lot A to 4th should provide reasonable circulation for the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9. The zone allows much taller buildings than proposed so that access to light and air should be reasonable. The glass walls should provide light into the building. 10. The site is served by urban services. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the rezone. • DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: • - Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 21 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review committee Threshold Determination,unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. The 'revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project manager prior to approval of the building permit. 7. The applicant shall be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. 8. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. ORDERED THIS 26 day of March,2001. �Qyt. FRED J.KA F AN HEARING EXAMINER Service Linen Expansion and K zone Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 22 TRANSMI[TED THIS 26th day of March,2001 to the parties of record: Steve Taylor Bob Moran Bob Raphael 1055 S Grady Way 425 Wells Avenue S PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98057 Russ Wilson David Guttormson Jerry Fry 1055 S Grady Way 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt 101 PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Kayren Kittrick Jeff Weber Larry Cross 1055 S Grady Way 1501 4th, Suite 2600 Olympic Associates Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle,WA 98109 Sandra Maclean 6987 Perimeter Road S, Ste. 100 Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of March,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts, Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney 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 Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 9,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City ' Hall. • a ' Service Linen Expansion and Rcw.w,ie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA 00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 23 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. ..2: • . • . • ...' • . i • I 01SOL. • Eng • • 1 IV - _., x .„ : . 0, 1 I ..4,,-.p_ 1.41, ,,, If . ___Eimi-........:-.- • KW am ' 3 EC It..3 ..=. 21° 1 1.=Eq.. MOM ''46/4P:#" . ,....::F•P P. kRofirEcrun Fr,,,,,7 ..•.:• .... „.0:..:'.... '„,•" •••:... ENGINEERING ,,..Cf$:',.. i r'Z 5 • MITI. um v,',. : .818 4 11 . E.,eciA 16 ,s . 1.'00 4 1 PLANNING ; ',..,, I %. MANAGEMENT ,,e.' '', s. 5 16,A,,," ,ziellg IT-. uni. .is ea. ..2117,7n...jarr .6 ,•''..::.. . ...7..e: •,• ".,: 701 DEXTER AvE.N . •Wp.:4"1"..: NC I Mb • r5'4e a ifill5 111 86411112 SEATTLE,WA.98109 •,,2 [jZA` '.*-s.`.,gf 41°4.111f I 1 311E1111 . a ,7 iii,7-1, ii Ei. t,,, es.I I 14 En Nu pa,. . Fr- .,,,,......,:... „Aganhh. UM 285-4300 , 1 km.- -,r1,_ • ! , -...-.... - e 1 f alai.,,It" 0. . . ••:',... 0 L Y M F j 1 4-4:rit • „r4------...,. •'',r'llitirrar.i0.,A ,/4 i 17,14-40 li LI „. 4zia 8 13 t31* gailtr..444617, (11 /6d111111111111111116. -rsrers-tn grail ---. MI. . ASSOCIA 3164' s Dt ,......iir,ir ,„ ....,..., op.... .., „rim,?4,gsmrs.,,, Imo.) „ -10 g 1‘ _4410 ...a% .';" Aelk.,• cg 1 Tit ; COMPA • : -.4. 4 • .. k 1.. 4 6IM-'II: AM 3' 2168811 , Sb MO pAlt VAT ,i,s• .41111.iar•PA. 14.- ' ''''' . '" .. -ie.,'.11k•7..... • . sr .-------..,-------.-- ...i — - --.3.9D._-_,.....-„stirA * . /0, , 1 a:—__ I°I AC'u..„ Ilallgiiki.,if idilitaily P- . 7 rR IE.v- 1 441.8 I ‘1441131 ,. Ag riqltiot ffl . tbi---tk_.; • o 41 . ,&. 1.1 11, 1 .1 . SERVICE LIN SUPF tt,ICI-EUM firtigilia 1r• C 1 • 3306illil 01/101, -Itzt.' ' Api ,•4 ! fig 1 I 1 1 ..0, -r6 5.. A .. r t41: . , ••IP lliogprRUM. M_ ..4.• • ..:11..,..!1 IS • igetigig §ifr wpfikar, 2tez:I''..an iTh.i.: 1 1 ' • 4 05 7 ILL,Ie 4111 6 YIN 11201.1.1 -III - ..... 40 1 . IrAll"- ...:....°Ci 'ill: 4....`1.141 ___/ lig; Ca:3 s 13".rtt:- rAci °di* 3 . 1 Pir4V,.."-- ' MC. GNI •:' Aii"VVII -i- 'e, -kJ. •pjai Arc . . .am 1. litel• res 21 -Alt pi. , UPt 60 EU .. •(-,e.7 4 TJ, : . 420 WELLS AVE SC .ram 11 0 cm. ,ffi _tus•-- f o• 1 ....41- 442' Frirli-mi-a 1 i"‘ ''' i'llt a 1 •• -s- IOC 22 IMN .. , iit. M. El 7 liAt\. •_... .. ... 2 I3 ccV RENTON, • •Ei a- a on. riPil 19 Lii 332,,..gp id ..inia sza ' 336'' 4i .g,f0 PRISM, WE IM ••. .......ms Ai itP 714 Mr ..0 3 ti.Vaillicak %2, am, ,6; --• . [2 B 101._ELL. IIM 0 ..711:: .3...zt _...4,, DI tgle-v rip•V ILLI Ma inliZ num Wiin .. ..,•rat n . Iv %mat P It Oft% MD• :0- 'Pug:. ,:t3/ . MI zo :-797---T g" to . •-t..-1 8 in, 4 fk! ;hp. 1(.. 'CZ 3=111iC PK'11111 MI , ..• :. .. ,if Tonkin ParkPa 4 : . eV...N-29 • t % il( 8. th AVE 1*-47.4 • •: Ltj sr % L. . „ • .z. : urril pi e •1;7%.ow. . . x- 1 - 2.1....rd 31110 t° ....t! Eillaalri i•! 1:::: ;::.: ,,-,.' Arfoilhowi'1.- '116r5L _LiniL,:. tot' 116 al r*,, 1 7J..- 11.,7.40e _...-'-'. " - ot '. .410 imp ' Emil 15 • ingim • i i ::. .:: krilIMI , B vA, ...Ir_t•J z . - 1"4.!..?" •;,:-.. :, trosai • e -11:1 - xi. . _ 5:6 liali, Tim rt.F1-"" a ...!" A i',WttAV A •OlyArla;r ir, : anti75'nh. to • .i.,,,, til , E SI ;1". • ...leg.?„0J. . 6 co ISO .vs azo•0 I,....,.....• t oi ::: . i iamNAP1:111iii*, ' 12i—s Es . •al 'is so.1' "r1020ii -1 i .4::: MIC a ga ! ' • ri i...... , ' 0 ova e MAO 5 ED 14,. "r 111313843F:4.:•:•:.:.:.:•::. "c i 1 ...1.:* •' •• 3'2,1 •IA • aT,_:!111 i.! i ,i.EIC:'• - 7 '...7 agli 1 ._.;43 86'6--.. :•-•-• z 1 i .::. • •!1). 8 PE....). •MI6.‘NE• 1 ,WK1..::K::K:K. 1. • ::: ...i EL :• ,„ RE 7 Iv I,,'S\11(4 26 • NEIGHBOIRHO ' dig ‘,11.1,gi.•;•, 5- ruEilErs 14.1-11 . Z 1! DETAIL N 2k• till. aNit " MI8CIPPMA •FOE 5 in . •*.•WI 11 GE•k 5 T . V::::::::::::::. .. :.. ,.1:111136-V•Li...'—,---1 , csa i - tail EFI,r.pe• z,r4!10-1 itlxvc, 4, (2610 , fin,4 'E.M11 it ,f,ka4' War i•:::::::•i•::::::',-• . . VC1131421 WM 50.75.. . 'L\ 25 . .- ,c.r. • •••1 I I-- a 1••••sr 6 1 . a , . • 8. ath AVE 1 ..4'. (0 .4 a II.\ 6747-1 ' a Ma .;a t \ .. . \ pi -,•,iinF.F- • - l• •i ItS is •, . •Gni]F. .R 1531 : 4 sla i;r# \ • I Eiji Eta, nig 74 4,...). ... . tu .co' i A aL.,,. .e-,,, EnT. .I•.144...i .... • ,.. z a n 15_ .'-'2 3 • 'MI. I DB 2 16 1q-1• 61 1.2•'$14.1_, 1 ---- 0 i \II), FLIAElir n ''.."• WIN 1 - • - S-i. 3 • ,, 1E1 3 IS El ___ R19 ,.,,, : ,.. IM) 3 11K1d .111a ----- •---.---• - IN= 21 ain• VI 21 hn. 1 CI:1.gigg). 4 age 1 .t, 4 17*MD • %ra 41. srf6), .' :% 11: ------...- Emi i zo Lpli iirll 20 tit .; ‘-e- ,.. . a.:1710.,19 fal• (I) 7‘Suln• 8 • • :mn : 0 • '1_0 ;.6 07 '.m')i . • I ffil: is gis• cc . ' t • W .10 .7.0i. Lim s gi. ..gm 5- . 5• .‘*.• •i WC • IRO 1 : IV 511/ ! a! ED .... OW I.. 1 41)...,1319 la a it.)6. 44 •',12MI %Aril 1 t 7 Di. ' US 7 14 kW .Iti!.),7 41 db . 1 ',14,...: 14 3 ' -- . . 1 k m 16 Mil• • ,. 1V-'4 1 10 . I 1 ' .cm 7 , a ilk si.. is stip 1--• tho-VA s a,•-•11 •-.. - • •-• .-----e- .323 ... OE 8 8 MI .m.a r il ; '',--4 ' i I II4 • .13 , k .,, ,... .• • ,,,,, .931LI ..., I . alai 9 ' ig- , 9 n 7 ' *,-; A e. • ! II. 535 MI MU EPIE v) 4R a 4 ' -r al io •it ril e '-r31041101jrx 4. Akl?' . ':. i ... ,,, t AVE.& ,, istrup • CO ,..:....1..... 1..loo CI iC ... .5.17-5 HA.STI. • ,,..% . f_k , 31 g .COPTRiG !! 5 r . 6 A' 2 .' ; : .:.: • •,..--r ' PP, A '.2.:: lid . , g . 9- .th•'":514.tre.I.S1."0:5":"1' , (6 i.•1 j, I ite.e---- WO If.es •iwILLIA ‘, 1 '', ° 00,1\ . q1.1 i I. 1 *t''' V '• \/ 11.•:c. . !.. !'• All .31i • dr 1 I: ..? t E o- • ,-, , . : ::i f... ..• [;.. a 1 1 . ill 42. 11= nk_'41'. ".• .abi j • .\s/ A ,...yr, •.,-I .rs, 3 L ' ,,, . "' ......_.. ... .. . ---- •--- . . --- `N, •la) N. , •._, -• r•Rft-U . --1-;1--el \ ! RM- '9), _ ___..•. .. : •____ \ - --,.,, .---- ! c A ( p ) ,_ :R.g-U . -.. • \ \ ---`---- .._ ___'\7- ___ 1-- - -CD --L C-D -- , . , \ \ ,. i 7- i . C D c--D- . \ c DR ( 1 2nd M. I C-D- CD N, . .. • I 1 • .\ /• • . . i . N „.--c • —._ CD --- _70_ - -- - • 0 • ....„.„_.....,..„ / CD — ci 2 ------ - •____ _ .._ . . / ----t1-411111. _ I"......_ --.... IN. NNCNN / • — /// 1 \ .'• ........ • \\\......./(6 ',. 1 ' L..... H CD .. ]:;i .. „-,;- : ,..- -. . . . . iC . i ! ,: . .... --.... ---- ] CD CD(P) •. C-D- , • „ .„ ..... ) .__ __-- r b • / . / ....______ . I 1 .. ',. 1 --., ----,1 .. ; f_;.... iii:___.---.. _-_-.-...bz.1.11.77.-._:_.._.- I. \ ----IRA Clill- A . j , • ___. \ • .--- - ay) ----- , .c Ae , .._ i . , 1. . - - : CD 4.,P. . "Id•44-"Ar • • - AR : 8 --- -— - ---- ilh: s--M--4 id- 4 R.c._x_.._ _.; __. ..• -• . > R •ix (. .$ Fgz_,,,,‘ - --- - -- - -,---- \ \ . _ _lco , ,/, , . • !•• ,.. -- -— :.--1 •i i N : 3 ._-_-____!--7 .__m_ _II,' . ___z ID- --- CO i • --• y \ V ,- . ... i. ____=. _I_Le7-_ .. , ce.__.. in • ---1- -c9- , -ci-+-4)- •- - \ - . .. i \ _ 1 7\ 1 • 1 La . . .._7__ _ ,_..._..----7.[Figup \ i: M i • 4-- -RM—U. :• • r , • - i 7%--..,...,...,. 1 • --C6- \ - .7 - - ;-. - " ii CEI . i r:4 . . ._ . -.- - --cy- col\ ,--- ..... ..,.. ___,. .. --1 \ ' . - ! •', s\\ A•A ---—---. aw• •ipe•-- . , . '4000 • • cr) • , T , • ,,.\• 0 No"pos - --- .-i----.1---- ---..; .4) • 1.- i . ____±tii. ____._i_:_ .' ___ . • • • • • • h.) -----1 MI a:s 1 I • G4 5' 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 ? , 1,0 4r • . . ZONING . 1:4800 P/13/1)* TECHNICAL SERVICES 17 T23N•-c0 W18/01 - R5E . • . • • • . • ARCHITECTURE . ENGINEERING ;.'�:.ra PIAN)6NC e��� �} J L e NANAGEIIENT Sz,. [" I 701 DEXTER AVE.N. _ _ _ _ _ SEATTLE,WA.95109 r•---p•-----4OUT 1 4th STRFFT ------^--.--41 (206)285-4]00 I`sti7 . 5'IMOICMC 01.111111 AADAOCQR � 60 R.O.W. I O L Y M P I C So NOW or MT q rl ASSOCIATES - 1 sir n:•y. rAw .'..• - - - - -' ,:: tG�'° af e:a . 0.O ,,�,. I I COMPANY I 1..4.N u n n N N M • ..... I I I i INI■2oro IMIOw I ' I a i i i XAD1-TIP. �- 1.1r 1 wro eTehlr I „ k 10 •A• [:STUD 7[. [ •- SERVICE L I�- I ►AlUflp RACE-M. I I » �n ` I LINEN eNLDYNI I �• �1 1 1 Lwow.. 31 W TNOC FM■N0 SU IYK[1 M[NEOV1EO /1TIN■NO10■!>050*10I Ii111• •WII' IIaII I ` 71AYICCUNUIOW0 I„[ I7 M(REOV0(D r0RI I 4 � ILiMOMSID WrAN1Yl1I •Wh .WIT o0A4!'IANOlGtP[fU//GADJAC(N710 100»I 01 Y 1 { ':�L�YPM .V�71 IOf i IINUp W ,L : :ii`.Yji•i.`I I be.+I W..•I-�. wl'.0/ ! M • 3/ OQS[ ADO [ , i gg ..............v:::nx::!e::,vnN.i :::.k::^^iil':!Ji.�i :v:n.r m .n 7 W 14 1, II' .. ".:''Si; :;;.,i1;C-'::n'`_`.....?:;i.m„... ,•: ;,IFG::::.::,..... 1 LNl I(OW1[D IMYbIO/W l0 [ 0 ' '%...::.::::•..:.::.:::::::';.: �:,:::'..:�..:ii:v:ri:iii:i:::::�^ ii' : <.i6 lr PEN 0..310,1 I P»•,.I..rL.:•wlllon, 7 .. :'-) 1 V TH I 40WELLS A E SOUv a� q2MWO . I d EY N T fU rA■YWO 'NRN Hr H WA RE 0 , 1 WEN l1 ) ` IE' I, I<�I e '.1�k .. __ -- G "r •I :y�.$:ri:��:}::;i:::�'!::`:.!:ZGni;nfv:iJi�;?%t�:j::i�:�.'`. :r'!:iiY"ii.fiF:�.:�..,t:::, �::. • �+ `�I'• l7nnxe PM2Z1'.° . .•.g0,.+•1 iii t::::.•!::::::;:::'::..:•::::•::::'::K:...::::•:::-r::::•,:.K:i..-:::::.::'fR'u Th'..7.• . I - u a� TOTµ VrOSW[O MW 1100 1l.-Ili N.w'ii:::�:.!).f:�i::i:::!:'::::ii�:::3i:;f1:::^::-i!!%i:!:5:!::�:::;:;�:�:::i MfW!3!0?[I/1.:. DS » » N A ..„ ............P:RQ.R0:0S •J::?::SE.RVI:+5:.'"4i-� ;::,:. ''�; i� ,� ,. list:a: M n (NOT WCLwwO e'UN01C RC eOtlUl) I ^ :;, ('%i: ' ` :• DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE .............. a 1',. ii,.��4�v:iz;::;:a:a;:: r:::L•'3N.Et:Et::811 1 �3'?ti ";:caitF,•'�`?i:::',•:CALF: I/4•.1'-0• 1. ....}. ,...,:... .::::. 6a �w - M.: r . » a iI w.7A. .......... litillaanli r} I B 7 R I IfWO• - �� F' YY ' P I1W D MYW .. ... ...rrpwu , 1„ , �;{i<11`.irii�:�iizi::j�j":i"i':iii!Tii?:':i�'-.`.i:�ii:�C:i�:?�:�i:i:'isS:T:Si:�T::::::6:].i::i!?:�:%!: @y LET A'c-I1,100 sl. all-M. ✓Q1 .:^.:ii:::a:::i:::::::::ii: Y 0 .vwrl viol w-.I af\I■14.0 CONPAR s.; 10•W!M,:ip76rii '�r`io'i!`dr:�i::ier T::i::::;? O.X.: 066wb161v6w6SiI d. rMRNOsr=-M. I tj ,..74iir.'a:iieroin::�f,:,: I I 14 I III IIIIIIIIIIIII . BIA 4: TOrµ tMDSCM(D MCA: 1,777 ff.rooknon!MONO•of /.17i 1/1,01 1 I ; • -._h �,�, ��q,�,' r '••��•7 viP'v,ro y;�^ I X I (NOT wwmNo s•wa7wD Durres) 3_ +r___ ___.. �wp, D'- 0...:..Vill 7 ? IIII C ' L. . a�wr`0.n I IOU PAl1YW0(5)3/34E3(0N S1I1 ! ;0, I w 2 y• - --�--• --r PROPERtt LINER _....1 'n; "-0.::. \4 1 �a 1 I I I :OyM`Y •�; I I • I �1� ag SITE PLAN ROJEGT NST S I WIC X 1.0� N es 0 0 204.42 �! I= P EASEMENT UNE PAR■Ow(4)$4155(w W1Ew/1) I , 3.1 OCCUIMCT 000l1�: I• I I I - , 7T41E1 OR OPEN SPKa ON ILL/DO(S 01 I140W0 u A7611.171111110 M ONr• PMION0 IUOU.ICO PAM TO W10rOX0(IIPMWN: ill.76 LE EUIL6010 NEgNT•15 RC( 000.0 OM WNO■11 NW 1 MCI./1,000 wit. .77.7D7/10o0,1.37A foKO •.I OPOSCO PAINNO N(i0»I• 1/(A 611 11 0 /UN KIL •21557/1003.10•779 SPICO IRO TOR COKE. 1W1 7 SPKE/1.000 wit. •L765/1000.7•15.3 SPK(f ' rrN1�pp7 : 71Ir 5JT'4"'' WA 4.3 SPKC/1,000 w•R •3.7ee/1000..b•12.5 7IKE3 L Wa 7ADN(.0{TT7 NW Wm°It[00E0.31 IPID17 I ( f II,Iwl00 ITTO S1DC•0 FCC? WA PMI0110 REO4M00•41 1PKEI •I,».� so.wpm 1Rr1• TOTAL T PAIN N0 1(0010 0 ION EYNO WIWUW M (71M 0 S1ON: I FXIfTINf1 NMI T ING f4.'1 . EUS/w0 NM1WNOI 22.007 Si./AST ROW R(0'0 Id UUNWr:UN 1 5 M Ip.0 0 1.N .51,701/1000.1•01.2 SPKCS 7:1111l.far R00■ WY III MU/1,000 NIL •01,M2/IOW.y./1.0 SPK[S I ,'I I 7l,000 Il.TOiµ DUMPY TRVQ(f TO NMI p1 IROK■Ir u . P00R01(0/tM0101 :1.715 SY.FAST ROO■ 4,125 if,SEWN) 00N ■ ! rGLHYa / 00Nan. •1,17/10W:7!• 7.01VKSf 32.510 S.I.TON. ., TOT,y MW farm. 11.115 Il. EOM PMNMO REWIRED•73 INGCS (31 IPAC(I 10N War.'too..II S7ALO/W 1WM310N) 'I r-. '� I I ., -� Y MOROCCO 1L00L) NAY MOD)RLOWtED•1011rKE1 • Moo �(�� ran 77.111 t11.2oNm[D,ON910[Or ACTUAL IMYINO PIIOAOEM 1O N" .4 r COw11T�G. a01g.: 411/IUI0N0 IUNKE UNU1 77 SPK[!O P AUTOS_(NOT NCIWWO I SPACES W WdWn I = 1UDO0N((MOM ROW MCA•21,56/w•R) (U1CW0[a I MCI ON f0[LTAUS 7011 PNwKµW W1ICWPCO) 1 UN��p{2yn�.IL1/1 R IW[D ClRI A N(adK 11 SPACM 70N MUCK/ NSV71 1E O/7ASIW na TO O/WNWO R 1NLOW0 GWI LOGOON 0„............... /PMRmOFOSS........ I 0 SPACES ON LTC o11I•wan wa10 Mw. Ap�CEWE��p�I}�'c r}I/.710 I..N.2W1O 21e2.14 OI M Wd(M IS SrAC(1 W Lp,•A•:AOR Weil AL(,fpyM ��� Wt•MI TIC/Iw)pwN1 • o 1001/17 fil[ZONC W{77[01/MKD PRDR 10 011 fPAU1 N lOT 1'-ACII���w[W AV4 IWM I I 274.39' �l� I ICI A IULLOPq R 7 55 �i a1r,a,.MaI W WM joi,MrA or PReRrRrf 1 r r 70.1.71 NR TOTµ M4((MOv(ATY 1•LUCK.)•7,1w 1.r.(oKW0o10 mt.) N I642.3•35•w 240.i o' 'rK/IiII•mi Ei . M ..1[I W(LWR•11.121 S.R IyDIj�mmA.SS1.1.Aynr MIn0501r701e.11 r1.n1/161 7L/1/...n i ar Mo.ulrr IMolwlw.11n TOUTa 5th STRFFj {I'i0�U7t y:mit TA 7ROIXIfr0 FAQ&11I 0f 41,111 Il. L• W .O.w. ----:-.__..J c D v 7 R.� T_ ,� isain r(uSWND DiAca NOT WUA[o. wtrom uuoa ME NOT ONOALIL MI OCC0I/PON DENOUTION NORM. .• j0.170 v.SwcWOn COOED KONEN ..,I•:.• lad 2000163 Lal.1.0 NORTH ppmr r77e«17L17 545405547 liar u SITE PLAN ^^ �_,- N�• - If7GK1l w4LL(uuY Y tmmIRL[I(0 �t Nc WIN Nox cOWVCOOIE o u 70 /0 00 L/--Iw}I'-\-I • P•30 Ni 11 • CREAM COLORED ARCHITECTURE ,✓ CMU WINDOW SILL ;,_ BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED PRECAST CONC.UNTEL -ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- CMU ACCENT BAND ENGINEERING+' . METAL SIDING 'KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED EMU BLOCK BLUE PLANNING ', — -.G��Ci -��-i':':'::;-r-am'-: ., �:107� -�-�- _ 'r-r- '•:, MET FINISHED d MANAGEMEN T •TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK METAL AWNING R IIIIIIIIIilllllllNluIIUBiruMKnll� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII U IIVIIIII IIU, . -._ � hII II�III II IIIIIIIIII IIII III 701 DEXTER AVE.N � ,4 SEATTLE.WA 901 (208 IBS_IJGD ' -e� ��t. ..., 0 .Y M PIC milieu },���: V/ MINN. gem•• •^i\�/y UNN '<wr I�I�.. ; M.Tt.,;_.. ASSOCIATES J •VIEW'. -4;0 1... • 1 n r- :r ;.::1.: SERVICE LIN ,ji. SER IC 1 rC ..'T .' _ � lt ,'.'i' .+ y}^•- L_ _. `;I=..r ,i"e%'si'Il yt`lo JL1!' , •.. . _ SPLR-FACE I.....-............. ,. `•.• EXISTING f<FINISH GRADE---) GREY CMU WATERTABLE TRELLIS SCREEN •• ••--••••-'-"'-' Kg BASE WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED RENTON, WA METAL SIDING 'KHAKI-SPLIT-FACE 'ROSE BROWN'SPOT- BLUE PRE FINISHED FACE BRICK COLORED BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK • TUBE STEEL ^� CMU BLOCK IIII III Illgl I'. -• •gym; • / F \/ 4 i1 9 77J n9 I' 11 M '1 Udall !,%.-' .:f.2 �•I. h�• I 1ry:'''L'-Rr"r; �`r - - •ar':.f': '�'� �r�• s : l!11p :!;;�•r:w,.::. --II' .• s?,r.M,,V.fir.1,, - -- Jr. i1. �n . -• • i 'ua0`v: ,,..:f: �,. ul' ELEVATIONS . -' e-e...V,'• --,...4 i:m'.•;T3{,"' _ ,ter+':.:'• 1�'• a.aYSa: •• _. �i' • '?' ' /7vl '.".`. `�`1 EXISTING @ FINISH GRADE `CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS CMU ACCENT BANS I• - EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE BLUE PRE FINISHED CORRELATED 'KHAKI"SPLIT-FACE 'ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- CAD COLORED METAL SIDING BLUE PRE FINISHED PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK CO CND ACCENT BANG METAL AWNING TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK . II III IIIII irn�� Iu ulgll I IIII Alll' IIIIIII�IpnuPBnullnll III IIII III IIII Illllll IIIIII �I�B i�'; inllll `: II IIVIIIII illlll 1• !EE \/ ti I ... . :.. . .::::.. . ,...,..,:. :t: Y H f 0 P • R'C G IIN'` �I. I ',AEU■,. -aril' a - /` - 'rcrsxl�+•? �13:rf-r1:-cr �•••••• ":'. "� ;,.:.:.A:• dit o o.b ' - a u u u Li Li Liw H.,.. m,..-r 2008155 LOADING DOCK BLUE PRE FINISHED EXISTING 8 FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS A-in EGE— AMETAL DOORS SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION :Roo—was-- H-3 --, I i a- City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: February 27,2001 Project Name: Service Linen Expansion and Rezone . Applicant/ Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) Address: 701 Dexter Avenue North,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 Owner/ SED Real Estate, LLC Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) Address: 903 4th Avenue 435 Main Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 File Number: LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA Planner: Steve Taylor • Project Description: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD)and Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P"suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and . Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking . area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. Project Location: Existing Service Linen Facility 903 South 4th Street Service Linen Expansion Area 408&420 Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot A SW corner of 4th Street and Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot B 400 block Williams Avenue South (east side) • . WIAA.Property(rezone) 435 Main Avenue South. ^ EE Lii'®1. !MUD! LIEICGE3 LG" L23 >�'C• lIQ-2 1311@.• lair!!a® C am% ! ` 4 �.t 1 •.. lTiA17i,3 !W©a rni=1 S+baK^� � : Anil "tr.r,: ' 1'�u!! WU 1 '.._ .a�um+�. ricsa? G!a z:o / •ss"t r,: py •yF ` w+j(}.<f1 - � cOY ran• ssals .¢ Yl i� .vy _ta'K. sr •\�_.- _•_ ,r 1 1—_i,-M •tx y,, l .sit--- SERVICE LINEN �;1'!L r�,`iN' yi//x+t • ?wDbile c� �G�1IT'• / s , SUPPLY .��.E1ti r,i�'.LII::N�, .Dn d� �L. F:�, 1 � � a mobile imitate ,4fis .� ,1• I. �® CIIR Traq. yE•' % JR'!_i?'s �: C •;, ,a: < Ir�1e� 7 t: „__h 1`ni _A :17R rer r� /DNA t �, CICTc �L'�GtZt -�` r" i,' ' •tea :' •m wuu sva a X.: >cic T=� ;am" .71 a_�397r .��` °' .J1 �R.—1 :\: t7 Cy .arc..we tID a •L[ :emu � na a`i!!E �.� s�i1 f��. x'T 4i>•ft 1 R;.ol a F.,:,sQ .r- 7 „ = MC WM 1 i P.108f" il �+ ,sr ♦••••••.:a •AVE t• Sr •- . r :7" S' ' ] CJO liraiE 2111 YpeCt '}' 1� `:' laa N t�as s ti__ s l ii.Q �.\• S=d�aZ==mot S � `� '� 1•-•Q " �-1' -- ["t I,--t.Q.i= 1 J� 'a" NEIGHBORHOODDETAIL MAR l, �1� • LT] 31�a--iiiGii ILE1 �varr v1741aaal��� 741 ,N • Ail :dY •fCi[!-' • � a a� V � xs u a SI .. • • afr.•l4 .• IS5oi • ,-.a, i .1�'_ s c t k L'L''r ELT' W.uEri7_7 '.:: _'[ :AE^..- t • c``"I,40 "� LWEEC a f711 FJ:[ ,t!�R7 •.a i D,1 , ; i"1 ' • tr. rii::lp3,� 1 era ® !►. >31.nX! f It •61 -. 1 all: N V.,C I1PS $! I'' ®t S �_ rr ia.n - -• >v;7 R,„to>�‘,Lt mum a ,an Epq.. e•.• t / V/ _! la O 17fJ �t]F3_: sau_e WV{Md �' 12`• G• r` t �Qth`13 a�.iir _.i p;',O.� s►�e�. y %' t. sr a r isIC b- ' , • •G`",'.l a' I .• }, _e saw=ss n a • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 2 of 10 B. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Project File containing the application, reports,staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2. Site and Building plans, Sheets A-1 through A-3 submitted 1/26/01. Exhibit 3. Rezone drawing showing existing zoning conditions Exhibit 4. Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 5. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit 6. Generalized Utilities Plan Exhibit 5. Vicinity Map Exhibit 6. Zoning Map C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: SED Real Estate, LLC W IAA 903 4th Avenue 435 Main Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 2. Zoning Designation: Center Downtown (CD)and Center Downtown—Public(CD-P) 3. Comprehensive Plan Center Downtown (CD) Land Use Designation:. 4. Existing Site Use: The majority of the laundry expansion area is an unpaved gravel lot that was graded fairly level following demolition of the Henry Ford School. The northwest corner of the expansion area contains a house and covered loading area,which will be removed to make way for the proposed new building. • The WIAA office building occupies the southern section of the block. • Aside from grading a small portion of this property for a joint use parking area, rezoning to remove the"P"suffix is the only proposed change. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North: 4-story Spencer Court—Senior Housing Apartment Complex; Center Downtown (CD)zone East: Main Avenue South and 1-405 South: 2-story W IAA Office building, Center Downtown Public(CD-P)zone West: Single and Multi-family homes on the west side of Wells Avenue S; Center Downtown (CD)and Residential Multi-Family(RM-U)zones 6. Access: Wells Avenue South and Main Avenue South • 7. Site Area: Expansion Area, approximately 46,868-sf. Rezone Area, approximately 87,718-sf. 8. Project Data: area comments • Existing Building Area: 25,355-sf 4300-sf house and metal building to be removed. New Building Area: 32,840-sf N/A Total Building Area: 58,195-sf N/A Service Linen HEXRPT.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department .Jiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 3 of 10 D. HISTORICAUBACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Original City of Renton Plat N/A N/A 1901 Henry Ford School Demolition LUA-99-116 N/A 9/7/99 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts • Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.B: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations—General Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS-OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element - 3. Downtown Element 4. Economic Development G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted an application requesting Site Plan approval for the construction of a 2-story 33,000-sf expansion of the existing Service Linen Commercial Laundry facility. Required parking is proposed both on-site and at two existing off-site parking lots located on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The subject sites are located within the Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown—Public(CD-P)zoning designations. The proposal includes a rezone to remove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. From 1922 until 1999 the Henry Ford School occupied the site. In 1999 the School District declared the building surplus and sold the northern portion of the site to Service Linen and the southern portion, containing the old school administration building, to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), a non-profit organization. The rezone will not change the types of Use allowed but will recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Additionally, the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc • City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 4 of 10 The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel. This parking area is not required parking for the project. The new building contains approximately 29,000-sf. on the first floor, which will house areas for sorting, folding and loading laundry. Approximately 4,000-sf on the second floor is proposed for future office use, only the shell structure is to be constructed at this time. As proposed, vehicles would enter the Service Linen site from Wells Avenue and exit to both Wells and Main Avenues South. Vehicles will enter and exit the parking lots via Wells and Williams Avenues South. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on January 30, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, - Mitigated for the Service Linen Expansion. The DNS-M included five mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 30, 2001 and ended on February 19, 2001. Mr. Robert R. Moran filed a timely appeal of the threshold determination listing traffic, noise, odors and zoning as areas of concern. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. dated May 1, 2000, with regard to any site disturbance,preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved. ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA As per RMC 4-9-200.E, "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to Service Linen HEXRPT.doc r : • -,"City of Renton P/B/PW Department 1, -eliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 5 of 10 discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following": (A) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS &POLICIES The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project property is Center Downtown (CD). Please note that the applicant is proposing a rezone to remove the "P" suffix from that portion of the site zoned Center Downtown—Public(CD-P). The intent of the "Center" designation is to create a balance of land uses which contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and to reinforce downtown Renton as the regional commercial district in the City. (Objectives DT-A and DT-B) The following Downtown Element policies are applicable to the proposal: Policy DT-1. There should be a mix of uses, including retail, office, light industrial and residential, . which generate the demand for goods and services. The proposed use is a mix of office and light industrial which generate a demand for goods and services. Policy DT-5. Redevelopment of the downtown area should be encouraged to maintain and revitalize the downtown core The proposed use will provide a more intensive use of an underdeveloped site and create employment opportunities. Policy DT-16. Uses serving the region, the community and the local area should locate within the downtown. Service Linen provides laundry services for hotels, hospitals, restaurants and offices both locally and regionally. Policy DT-30. The existing supply of parking should be better managed to encourage joint use rather than parking for'each individual business. The applicant is proposing a small joint use parking area with the WIAA. This will improve the parking for the WIAA building which is currently under parked. The proposal appears to conform to the Center objectives, as well as the Center policies contained within the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (B) •CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS The subject site is zoned Center Downtown (CD). The CD zone is established to provide for a wide variety of uses including commercial, residential, entertainment and personal/professional services. Commercial Laundries are considered secondary permitted uses in the CD zone subject to the following condition. RMC 4-2-080.A.18 These uses shall be permitted only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. • Existing use of this type may be expanded on existing properties, contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within one hundred feet(100) of existing buildings, subject to site plan review. These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the "Downtown Pedestrian District"except for those supportive office and sales uses. Along property lines adjacent to residential uses, there shall be a fifteen-foot (15) wide continuous landscaped buffer. The proposed use is a continuation of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry. ,The expansion property was sold by the School District as a single parcel which shares a property line with the existing Service Linen site and therefore meets the definition of"Contiguous". There is no expansion along street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District and a 15-foot landscaped area is proposed adjacent to both Wells and Main Avenues South. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA - PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 6 of 10 The project's compliance with the development standards pertinent to the proposal is discussed below: Lot Coverage — For CD zoned properties that are located outside the Downtown Core Area, the maximum lot coverage for the building is 65%. The proposed structure (including the over hang of the loading area) will cover approximately 30,420-sf of a 46,868-sf site, which calculates to 64.9% building coverage. Setbacks / Landscaping — The applicant is proposing a 15 foot landscaped setback from both Wells and Main Avenues South. No side or rear yard setbacks are required unless the property abuts residentially zoned parcels. In this case the site does not abut residentially zoned parcels. The proposed building and the existing structure are on two separate lots and are connected via four openings. The properties are currently operated under a Limited Liability Company, SED Real Estate, LLC. Because of the separate parcels, they could be sold individually at a future date. When properties are in separate ownership, the building either has to be set back from the property line or meet construction and fire code ratings. Staff recommends a restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcel containing the new structure requiring the openings to be sealed according to UBC requirements should the property be sold individually or the use changed. The proponents have proposed surface modulations to break up the visual appearance of the facades along Main and Wells Avenues. Landscaping will also be necessary to soften and provide additional articulation to the expanse of the wall. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. Staff has made suggestions for increasing the size for six types of plantings in order to provide visual buffering is a much shorter time frame. Additionally the Western Red Cedar may not be an appropriate selection for this space. Staff recommends that a revised landscape plan be submitted and subject to approval of the Development Services Division. Height—A maximum building height of 95 feet is permitted within the CD zoning designation. The proposed building would arrive at a finished height 42 feet. Screened mechanical equipment will not be visible from the street. Airport regulations restrict buildings in this area to a height of less than 179 feet. The building will be well below that limitation. Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations — When a new building is constructed or an expansion of greater than one third added to a building, parking standards must be brought into compliance: In this instance,the required parking for the laundry use is 1 to 1.5 stalls per 1000-sf. • 3 to 4.5 stalls are required per 1000-sf of office space. A minimum of 72 parking stalls are required of this project(31 spaces for the existing building and 41 spaces for the expansion). The project is proposing to provide 73 stalls (38 in Lot A, 30 in lot B and 5 on-site) including four ADA assessable stalls located on site. Additionally, 11 parking spaces are provided for trucks. Staff recommends that the off-site lots be subject to a restrictive covenant to assure they are not developed while still needed to meet the parking requirements of the project. Landscaping of the off-site parking lots must also be brought into compliance with current standards. The conceptual parking plan conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stalls. (C) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USE As proposed, the new structure would be accessed from Wells Avenue South and vehicles could exit the site to either Wells or Main Avenues. Currently delivery trucks are loaded on Wells Avenue South where a portion of the street is designated for loading. Under the proposed expansion, all vehicle loading would take place on-site at one of six new loading bays. For vehicular safety, the travel lanes on Wells Avenue should be realigned and the curb cuts in the existing loading area replaced with curb where needed. This will also allow street parking to be reestablished in this area. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Ci3Iiminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 7 of 10 The expansion,which more than doubles the size of the existing structure creates the capacity for operational increases in the future and is anticipated to create jobs for 10 additional workers. This would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system and therefore is subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. To offset the impacts to the City's transportation facilities, a Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit for the both the demolished single family house and the Henry Ford School was applied. The estimated traffic impact fee is$7,875. The laundry utilizes a fleet of approximately 21 to 23 trucks for delivery. Approximately 10 trucks will be parked onsite in the evening ready for loading the next day. The remainder of the trucks are parked in the off-site parking lots and moved to the loading dock when needed. In order to reduce traffic impacts to the adjacent residential properties along Wells Avenue, Staff recommends the following modifications to the site plan. Parking Lot A is currently accessed from Wells Avenue. Because Wells is a one-way street, all vehicles using this lot must travel up Wells. Staff suggests relocating the access to Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. This would allow employees and trucks to enter and leave the lot without having to utilize Wells Avenue. This should not create additional congestion because traffic moving east along S. 4th Street is stop controlled at Williams Avenue, creating gaps for left hand turns into the parking lot. Staff also recommends that site access onto Main Avenue S. be converted to two-way travel (right in, right out only). This would allow the majority of the vehicles to enter and leave the site without having to use Wells Avenue. The Transportation Services Division considered the possibility of modifying the queuing lanes to allow a left hand turn into the site but concluded that operationally, it would cause increased congestion at the Grady Way/Benson Road intersection. Potential short-term noise and traffic impacts would result from the initial construction of the project. Existing code provisions that limit construction work hours, and the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which indicates proposed work hours from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday,-would mitigate these impacts. (D) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE The site was graded fairly level following the demolition of the Henry Ford School that occupied the site prior to 2000. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of structural fill is required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. Hart Crowser, Inc conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Design Study and the report dated • - - May 1, 2000 was submitted for review. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling four borings at various locations. The site is underlain with loose to medium dense silty sands in the upper 20 feet, with dense sands and gravels below. The water table elevation was observed between 19-22 feet below the ground elevation at the time of the soil borings. The risk of liquefaction is considered low to medium, and settlements are expected to be approximately one-inch. The report indicates that the proposed development can be constructed generally as planned. Building support may be provided using continuous and isolated spread footings founded on structural fill. As part of the Determination of Non-Significance— Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for the project, the Environmental Review Committee has required that the applicant comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report regarding site preparation and construction. Stormwater from the developed site would be directed to the storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious area will be less than the previous school, no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during project construction would be adequately mitigated by the measures imposed by the ERC, as well as City Code requirements for approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the King County Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 8 of 10 Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM)and a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. (E) CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES The project would develop and improve a currently underutilized site. The proposal is anticipated to increase the amount of employees in the vicinity, thereby encouraging additional development. Therefore, the project is anticipated to conserve area-wide property values. (F) SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Vehicles will access the proposed building from Wells and Main Avenues South. Parking Lot B is accessed from Williams Avenue S. As required by staff conditions, Lot A will be accessed from S 4th Street. All streets are served with sidewalk along the property frontage. The development would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is estimated to be$7,875. The parking plan appears to provide adequate aisle widths and backout distances for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The Traffic Planning Section will review construction-related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. (G) PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR The proposed building is set back 15-feet on both the Wells and Main Avenue frontages and landscaped to soften the overall bulk. The design is very open with glass blocks sections to allow the natural light to filter,•into the building. The design provides for adequate natural light and air circulation to the buildings. (H) MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS Neighbors located in the residential area west of Wells Avenues South have expressed concerns regarding the proposed expansion. They state that the laundry is creating impacts at this time and has been the subject of several noise complaints. Their concern is that the laundry is expanding to the south bringing noise and truck traffic closer to the residential areas located on the west side of Wells Avenue South. The new structure will house areas for sorting,folding and loading. The loading dock is located at the rear of the structure. A screening wall is proposed to shield this area from Wells Avenue S. Although the structure is located further south,the new operational areas are fully enclosed. The actual washing/drying facilities are to remain in the existing building. The laundry currently operates two shifts that fluctuate with the seasonal demand. The first shift contains approximately 55-60 personnel from 5 a.m.to 1:30 p.m. The second shift,when needed, has approximately 15- 25 personnel and operates from 1:30 p.m.to 10 p.m. Currently, the noisiest equipment(boilers,washing/drying) is located in the existing structure. But future tenant improvements involving supplemental equipment may result in noise impacts not evaluated under this proposal. Additional noise generators of this nature would trigger additional and separate environmental review. Up to 10 trucks will be parked in the loading dock area each night. These trucks will be loaded first to delay the need for additional trucks, with backup beepers, operating in the early morning hours. Due to the probable noise impacts to the adjacent residential areas from the effects of backup alarms, ERC required that trucks be equipped with ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the alarm level to surrounding decibel levels. Service Unen HEXRPT.doc • 6 -City of Renton P/B/PW Department liminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 9 of 10 It is anticipated that the building expansion will result in minimal additional noise and odor impacts. With the recommended conditions, impacts associated with traffic and activities resulting from the completed project would not increase significantly above existing conditions. (I) AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE Fire Department and Police staff have indicated existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the ERC, the applicant will be required to pay Fire and Traffic Mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Adequate sanitary sewer, water service and other utilities are available in Wells and Main Avenues South and would be extended as necessary to the building by the applicant. (J) PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT The proposal would develop a currently underutilized property. The development of the site is anticipated to increase the overall appearance of the surrounding the area; thereby preventing neighborhood deterioration and blight. H. REZONE: The proposal includes a rezone to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. From 1922 until 1999 the Henry Ford School occupied the site. In 1999 the School District declared the building surplus and sold the northern portion of the site to Service Linen and the southern portion, containing the old school administration building, to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), a non-profit organization. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed but recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Since there are no material changes to the zone no analysis of the rezone criteria is provided. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Service Linen and WIAA rezone from CD-P to CD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Service Linen Site Plan Review Application and Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination, unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb and where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the drive way Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H, R,ECF,LLA 4 PUBLIC NEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 10 of 10 access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by.staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals(SA): Two (2) years from the final approval (signature)date. • • • • • Service Linen HEXRPT.doc 1:11;1--.::: - NN • \N ' /// .. -. • -.-R-Fi-"i7.' u \ NN / ...‘ `• . , 1- ,---i- - ---- --c--:r.- - , RM- ")-\ ...N • •. • •., , ._ _ ----- -• -'-1 - -.! 1 C A ( P )-1 - ,s. . \•\• .__,_____ __J __. .R.M:i.I_ \ \. CD . s C-D--- , • -31,1,, , 2nd Ef.D- 1 ..... N . • .. \ , cD- CD \,,, \\ . .• , \ / . 1.. C El R ( P -, _____ N ;‹ . • . . .., __ CD .--- CD - - -Li — . • ° -- ----„--- • / ,--__•_........./ --_ _ — CD rs. z ,,_ CD -.---- . ' \---- • / -- CD _ .01 0 • 441.1% CD _ ---- a. .....______ . . / N.. / C ....... _..., • , __I I 1 --- I i ....._.-(d. / . , •-, N., ., . . .... . . „. ,.. .... L.... —12:1,. ..c1} ---,....',.:::':•-• *. • /. i • • - - --- - -• • CD CD<P) -. -c-,% C-1).-. " • . . • . ; • .. R c . ...... ‘,...-- .,•• .. . .......,. . ,_ .._ ,, - -\\) / ; . . ,„..„•.,„ A , .,..• : _,.1 CD C•DI • \.7.-1______ -EY. -- \ i- N \ \ . * :L.-. ----- Can „--6)9494'6 •-- i • ' L . - LI itiz.64 ____ _._ „ , ,i CD ..,.... - ,44 • • . . _ : ---- ''' s:s- -R-78 . c - ..„„ ,,,,, -- ----. , \ R--- ----- - --- ..;. 0. m- al-- 4 r him. ..0 N .. .,._ ...., __. .,<* t ,:4_....„EN--\ 4.00 . - r ____,, •i • 61.44.)g- -I- - - --T----. • , , ._. ..____. _ ---i-u.)- -- • A R , v .. ;•r-i ' . 1-4 COJ • -RM-U• )7w.---.. ce , __! • C11).tp, 1--..._ ,.//[ • •-• '-• --- . ...... \ i 1 1 ; , i i. . 4• CI:1' . v-I _CO._ . - R.-J- , r2 . . .__ C. \...: ' 4 ,-- 1W _ • ! ,\, \/1 i•--....., ! • • -. - VA, -----2-±' I • • to O.._ / Ai hal"........4 II i AiM.M.Aii. M ,M 41.Pr I I r 1! I r 1 I r. . 1 . cif) . g i ., .... .. .. . _....Q), . __. __, . G4 . 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 40 • . . )14 ZONING • 1:4800 . • _. . P/B/PW 'TECHNICAL SERVICES . ' so`v 01/18/01 17 T23N • R5E . . R 1 • t • ' • O I. C c. FM -a 11 • — 1.`• gel;i 2 16,i - z .r•I '�, i� • ARCHITECiuRE I 1 - Ei 1ZMIIlia Eigl11 ��jib i.' -. ®i11112111M w, .: ENGINEERING t 6 NW Rom' n tl! 17 • 4`t�''a 4 4 k 10 0 i •••, •:' 1 PLANNING *,E' y', S • ®6 1• DiA �p +{u©� t'7' ��' � . .7.r MANAGEMENT,■' '�• � ! iii MM. 16•At.,A ��r� o -'-_, IS ,Q • diri ,, -- :`-Y'�Ts • :•;,/' - 701 DEXTER AVE.N. - M1k, �.--' �' i� rr. � ------ __ - - surnE�wA Ba1a6 �,n �y �• �{� y-� 106 285-Q00 Ii?J;` i i mar�•ker�!er lut4��y ior i�iY I". KiFi�i�l������� il7lL I F j� •,? -;„. .. 0 L Y M P 1 ' AMA 1 1 1 1'' ��1- •` i.T""�`�/ i i>>fli:>D rig ■m® ua WELIIISKE NMI'.. -* g ASSOCIATE I 1 '!�_ '-h 4� M NMI®11ET1i ��� 11 11 - _R P w��` ••• ill 1 i47 ' '• C 0 M P A N W141 IPE is.'.��. •° NW y Ui pov`, lei' • 1•�. � 3_ 1 ' ST Q�-.,1•�� 4fG4 _ ��•�Q= �J/SPA //y/ A �� 6_ _ rru•nto., '• al — I JSa �gE • 4,,.. Lmif Ai(;�j�i®Id :., �I Ni SERVICE LINE I ` 4= ri6j"^ IQ�� ��1� 1' '►.� ''�t ; I; 1 SUPPL =---•, 2u: - r� v igrumE 50.-4 nrfito, oft/ • 9 uIa ": ®• j.. ` ��yN� ,d • 4 2, --J .I E S `� 16.-Ei- 1 1.'A:.' ,n serf# 3 11S- 7l MI• .�'Arita, -® 1 2 . • r 3} _� 9 e �N. 1173� . v ._ c kl m=- \rr' q i E1F] �� Q 420 WELLS AVE SOU' •® I' II z "°pia un « 0e I It.'\\ • f .._ `L RENTON• V •IOM II el EU• � 11 �t�Dt.., • .332 71 I1 to •4- . Merit, ! Y 51Z f��I E 7V �l\ -•im•-- -=�'— ---3E-_�•--• -® R- (a ©• 'EE7,I.14 KLI I ;R 33a 1 g" •. • !All NINEEE/' En IE:l2[�1 run: `\ -�T -- C1 313 r3 " ®. ®►� I .43: Y Q �►V-:r_ i,•E 3` az tala �iimiv 11''71\ [: ' , _cry __ 51 NIL:.\\ a • . . ST 11 s c'„d Tonkin Parka Park S. 4th AVE I• '°'s1. Lu ST °e rw Rg .'17 .1.1'6 • . -;'-'r-353 313 EA MARI a i! c ? ..:z MI Mg ,Th. N.% ____02 CEO _ ItlK • 1V_,. _ �& Ell EM !.iI.I 'i L ] a ® ',i. ! •r zB _ 1;� Nled I "As' _ •N� �� .��[il+ � •u u ��.}_,�,�p �.� •Ff I•':•INr •.KEKitMi�d %N :ON•17/0 i/N _ 1�jIM � ® • \ � , �{ "i. g:icis cm16 M. a ! ,• :�-ri Ili � •'ff us VitEzzia If1, •IS ,a L ? r I ,•. , L41 ® a `. . ,� and / MIs ` m x I1 - --, NEIGHBORHOOI . 41.1( PAiritfk t• Igl 94117,71i . .Ts 8 itlEn ....4 ^sf,41 }` '; DETAIL MA 4, A i itaiC .ECI 9 12 • ' 1 EE. 3 3 _ '. � V Eli,: .N Q r. 1• r[3 a t6 4N, its. G.n :.I:: 25 ..� •5T i 7 jL+ S..t7th AVE .,; �'• I S grim!`L a:J �� y ~ tip.." � ' $ lE F�'� �`I' .?' ,d u � ® off; Q �4, , i 'tun '{, fib' a 'I 1 1 LL�L� 1� II.fOJ� �� 11 = t } 1 a - al ?a p I It,.; z 23 I.,�1Q 110 z 19 • „; !N '1 ! I 1 f EL `®--a O IV i►''(2) k�' 3 n1�. 771® j mum '® 3 18 oil• [ ' 08 i ' ® 3 ® �' � i ------' •F�!4 21 ®• ui FBI A ! 4 lip ' 4 IO `y • �� �• •� ryi •® �CCc.to Inj �fl1 7D g ® �!j!1}��al 1� ® II I1 16 F�1. ti s B I tea - -- .im 6- 19 Imo' to 'A% ®_2_ 311 1:® _ ®' I• . F�li/ 15� --- �--- e j ®!4�16 ®. N �,r • ® 6 oFFI 5 1? •® :\ �^ • . 1E40 1 1 s® , tt: ,.. i`. I n(�. t� '.® n: 14 ®• •® 7 WI 4' I . .® 7 El y •. I - �' ® �• �1' E� 1]Ili1i} .� . t 8 Mal ® 8 p /y j i^ R Mn 8 I 'EiJ C . I •® ct I 9 16 _ �!'ia M 5 �l . Nib; c• o so ,00 Coro w° `O•-(� b ®8 .�. II .� $® 9 �'I �� "off 1. a 8 E.S ©.y k`°.�ii -__ Y�p- 1 lir 0 R h E 2 I� 10 E m L`I� i.�_Y '. a�l'� E'665 *^ ' �/�' I o0 S.k`6TH��aST I.1`I ��� r-- c o P r R I a II T sr e I i6r" NiK `" IT. l v! r<.n �P Rep • . r,so iso �;— ..,. zoaolss j 2 gff, �� .. WILLIAM�• 12 ! ( e•!i 11 / '. ,` ge- � - -I:29:'I ��. sr, cati„„ 'A r►t777777 I `0 5i m •• /'/1I P o .x 13 ® -- ..� 1 ® Q. n�11 :'rca...4� >q .r. \ 0.55Aa 1X / _1 L� _._..._ ._.__..__. .... ,us •.. ,>,.• ...• • • • • ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING E / PIANMNG y QA I MANAGEMENT s,. 701 DEXTERER AVE.A N. _________ SEATTLE,WA.98109 r H SOUTH 4th STREET (206)785-4300 bP'Aingl 1 5'IANOSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT I 60•R.O.W. I I 0 L Y M P I C TO RIGHT or WAY �0r. US' _ _ _-� i ASSOCIATES - - - - - 0 F °''�'' / ro COMPANY • I •aawl. • I II 9Y R 20'0 PAMIR° SPACE-TYP. e.sN a 18'D COMPACT " "LOT•A• '0 ERRRNG SERVICE !a' I a f I LINEN BUILDING �, SERVICE LINEN mamas comma I 31 Of PARKNG SPKE-Trv. - 7�11 A SM REQURE�TT A NCO .$4y,tltl,.R_ i SUPPLY SERVICE LINEN BUIDINO I -I ,r u +,Y.01 a• j�]V r 7 ARE REQUIRED FORS— „ a U, ' h I PROPOSED E%PMSgN I I U >Kn I l e .. WAu •• 5'GNDSGPE BUFFER ADDCENT ,I , _ •.p{l a^::::C•:.. ::.::':•::::::......>:••:::•.....::::::.v:::)°:::::•x.:::::::;r..;:......:::.x^r;vg.• TO MOM Or WAY +.�"� i;':::'::;: i:^;'ii:5i:;;r :;:'�Si;:;:i;';;>:::¢::;`°;i;:: ::;"Gi :F:;:;::'ii;;,i::.,.. 29 0I MESC KING F RE I ( I' LOT ODD IW --,ARKING w ,.AU-r,n l nual • '• •I 9 le' .::::::::::.::::':;:' ::' • :.... - Q ......:........NI ^::::: :::::r::::::: �.':::.:::::::::;;::::'.#llt II REOUIMD PARKING TOR �i LOT--- 17.230 r03L ,I rr:':�:::':::'::::::t...•:;.::..:: .:..:.::•:.::::::. .. :.:: :K K::::::.:::. :...::: s' .....��^yLF� • PLLWIM (-R,[u®I'I.-RHNWIAAN rX'::::.:'::..::.:.::::::..:::.:::.::::::. �::.:::�.::::.::,.::.::.:.::..::.�..:..::.:.t::.::::.:.: Nl Paovos[D xR+KCE I � S, ;: _ I 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH INf1N d vrNvoN vN RENTO N WA c 3`'1 suR us vARrN A(KE .l V W ) `I- N I�;: I;I 115' I -xtE - ?rr 1—I_I' 3 �I- 3 I•� 11 - 0 '�r • FM TFISRNO RAIDING J01 >n:(A,• .:::::rA+Brrax.rae R6W9:1+::: s. Tar.wrosuPm ARER IA80 s r.-u: X�r ;�'s '' >::51::•5s< :��.%: : ;_;;;y ::y:5t::aaiwHwonT� • I. <$ •- 4 (NOT INCLUDING a .D1D 0 B0Rm) I $ o PROPO,$EDt:SERVIC,E.:::::.:..:...-.:.::..:.: ., 1 e DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE a >� I 1.•,•• •;:: a :.::K:.�:-...N::..:...:. : ....:..Q::::i::i>:>::igRai::'IIII; at, „ �FrS!y.F :;;::.;..at;::::: •;;;.LINEN:_SUILDIifi:•::.:..:.:..::::.:. =Y ,r I *III I '.• �O :. a4 I .+. J R N Is PM'o.7.3E-0m a 9w x 2o•D PMRwD ' . .t�:'' ':::::: ,: ::::!i: :':.: .:_:::...:: :::�::i:: ::� :i::::i:: .""' �AA I ,yo REI L�r sl��[-It.tao z.r. I SPACE-M. n}: :;?::b;":::�.e si:ii'?:;;:;.. RAma�1 IS'w.LOCKING DOCK- .. .........•.•.• _,n IAA R le•0 WMPACT p,jrHl�. 30- BP/E PAVEMENT '!'10a!%F"i:::°:ii::::i.::.:::ji'• '. F � I.C•7Cg PARNNO SPACE-TTP. I k. ::7.;:y:": :.....: .: I 9 9 Rt Rl RI 19•IR 19 100 NI IR'' ({ dHN!-Kle"ip::::.:.: b V.Cr2CGl i II :ii ::i ry]I00 31Y.::. �:,: �b4 Ar 71SCTnc P NDSC l37 1 I .._. - ..::::::i'll— .....::.:.i';'v4 a F 116 TOT.IAN05GPE0.AR ITS S.F.-12a � .■ I I III a, (war wauowc S.LWOSCM[BUFFER) an-o } ✓; m A Q III•C.Q III III 4`41 ; I _� �� ___ _ _.__µ .- F_. ,'\_..TUG ASV SPK[5(ON 5 }� IC*k IO 30 me_ Nr • E PROPERTY LINE1a " `7v II RO r . • '•�� .a 2 X >1i �— a. fr- ') *;:41 I to I SITE PLAN PROJECT NOTES; I I � N 88 2450 E 2ili,R O I7 EASEMENT LINE —PARKING(e)SPACES(N EASEMENT) • F-1 OCCUPANCY I I V,tua1RW '� I I , �� I STREET OR OPEN SPACE ON ALL 4 SIDES Or BULLDN0 Fri: , 9 yp PARKING REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROPOSED EXPANSION: AILO row lE BUIm0 NEWT-9S FEET ROOD FOR G''''''�I 1.5 SPK0/'I.0000.s.R. -22.SB7/1000 ri3-]3,9 SPACES I :I .... I PROPOSED BURDwO MIGHT-42 FEET REO'p FOR OFFICE: INN 3 SPA[E/1,D00 rR IL -2,TBe/1000•3-8]SPACES rcM RKA17T0 RATES; MAX 4.5 SPACE/L000*RUC -2aee/1000.45-'12.5 SPACES 9f IEMM REAR -0 FEET uW PMNwG REQUIREDRE -31 SPACES ((S I) 50E-0 FEET uM PARKINO REQUIRED-48 SPACES I I EXISTING BUILDING N435 I PUP MNG AM,. PARKING REQUIRED FOR dKDNG BUI1pNG AND EAPANSIQN: COS MO DU ENG: 22387 S.F.FIST FLOOR REO'D FOR{ANGRY.MMAT II.S ac()0000°IR.IL •Sl,]0]/1000:19-77,0 SPACES I ,,I - I 2,705 S.F.SECOND FLOOR 25,755 S.F.TOT. DELIVERY TRUCKS TOPARK OH PROPERTY • E PROPOSED BURDKING: 11125 U. SECOND FLOOR REQ.3'U11 OFIICC' MAY 1.5 SPACE/1�000°N.IL -3AB1/1Dg00.0.5-]1.0 SPACES I .I I I 34840 S.F.JOT. ., TOT.ARC:(EXIST. S5,193 SF. MN PARKIN)REQUIRED-72 SPACES (31 SPACES FOR EXIST,BOG.,41 SPACES FOR EXPANSION) I .I n ( I r m cr. 64 PROPOSED eEDQi) YA%PARKING REQUIRED-10e SPACES ' y.. ,�� 55 Rrt[[FF 1NM a:OPrRTY g."'��11. 2010D m.OUTDO[Of ACTUAL PARKING PPOVIOER I I 1 2I DOWNTOWN ROR MG TANS 22. tIIAgri SF3Mtt LNEN 7]SPACES TOR AON (NIT INCLUDING FOR a SPACES N GSEMENT) I` BUEOIR(CROWD FILM AREA.3]Ae7 Agri) (MCWDES.NEW U SITE STALLS r011 PHYSICALLY NANDGIPPED) I 11 SPACES FOR TRUCKS I I HR fl 07 PRTPjR1Y -4ORee OQ SOSO 30 REZWNE 1.0,47 Or PMKINO r0R AU105 P00010 : uU5i1 B OBtAp PN 10 OBGPGE A BUIIDRNG PGuO S SPACES ON SNE ,�SpJ[a�,•4,7e0 r0.1L IONEo p(P AN"ERT ]8 SPACES N LOT-A--;NM WELLS AK.SOUM I I GfOipf ul I 19rmii PRP'.W RE ON WS#eE OBG02o PRgR l0 QOT 3o SPArlS N IDi 4--ACROSS WELLS II:50UM 234.39' I I I OW �w A BUXDNO PERRI. Ir01A��(�a°.i''IK'N' TOT.ARM OF PROPERTY I a I.70.53e NO. 1aN11K'IeING'TOT.MG EPROPdrc I IK FASEWEN�-7,190 S.F.(WCLWWO PAYERS) I N BO°23'35'W 210.16' �RIe e lot MG OF PROPEAtt I i FMEUENr-sl.e2e r9.IL c 1 ••or PROPERn 1.. 2REMOR•75.r))).... 0 0 PROPERTY W/W I:10PN0-13.0K SOUTH 5th STREET 000 N`(Wfy Fry PIIIPPST PoW 95521 0M M 4e,eee 9.I. Tf•PCR GTRpN N.KITTRX:K TEtWGNE 4-)-2000 I_--_---___�_—_ 60'R.O.W. _ -J •COe�,�,s,. I 0 H T• }8dG T r) 10..E4 S.i. wOMAEGN 6F EX SRNs WDCS NOT R�W RE. L SIWO GLIDES ARE Nor :o,_ ~ma• • S, ) ]0,4]0 S.I. NCMKo[s COVERED P01111011 ORIGNAL Bur OttM 0ROu OG ounow WORK. yR,I,y W,y LS,°.�i )]D,gb/u,eee-eLss NORTH • 2000152 aNe 3 FANMNljf Try*e - SITE PL•AN e00 pp PPDD55 ffWW A-1 -iv EK°REAIOR W"ALL5,0FULLY OPROI000E0 m STRUCTURE WAIN NON COMBUSTIBLE N� 0 IS ]0 e0 90 1-.30 at neon- sow. i . T . • • Z . • • ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ,�?, �, -J PUNNING fhs. • ] \IMAGO/ENT , it,., 701 DEXTER AVE.N. SEATTLE.WA.98109 -11/- (206)285-4700 kiln I u 6 ---- = ASSOCIATES A L Y M P I S a p I "`_�' I r� COMPANY r I EXISTING LAUNDRY SERVICE AREA5 NIA �I SERVICE LINEN 6 _ . __ SUPPLY iu 6 - --, 1.1___] STAIR�J LJ I li/� 1 R11L7f. 0. I! I I420 WELLS AVE S. -I{— CO I RENTON, WA c -t SECOND FLOOR(SHELL SPACE -l— - - 1 • 2 i (I ABOVE-OFFICE'TENANT I 1 SE= PARATEE uliu DRY SERVICE AREA +L 1 1 —4 I-f` - 1.----}----H-•---1-- --1- -- E% t I z r l aRi- -1 - f- - --- --J t Cli!!i! --jj- 1 • AIR 1 ; C111T. ELEV 116 I I I I I I AA E r E1fIT— _ I FLOOR PLANS — —' ,- — :EXIT i & SECTION A-A 1st FLOOR PLAN 1 SCALE: 1/16'-1'-0* Ii LOADING DOCK I I I I rI I TRUCK LOADING I I I I ---1------T-------- _ EXIT _J ........�_ ...... I /I OF APPROXIMATE E LOCATION . LOCATION I R00 OP EQUIPMENT I OFPR00 ROOFTOP'EQUIPMENT I• I�AOF PPROXIMATE EQUIPMENT c � •C 0 P Y R I C X T. -I-. cu w 20001 � A-2 .. v - u u u u L_I SECTION A-A' !x,.,.,- „P WU.1. ...• SCALE' I/6--1'-0' • . . • • R CL4U WINDOW SILL litakii0 "5,1111111111111111111!IWO I141111111117 WIT RI jili rom ARCHITECTURE CoEAM COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREC.ATED PRECAST CONC.UFEL 'ROSE BROWN-SPLIT- CMU ACCENT BAND ENGINEERING Pr...4...?.!...11 METAL SIDING BLUE PRE FINISHED •O•IAKI"SPU BLUE T-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED PLANNING BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK • A rrI -% TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK PRE FINISHED mETAL AwNING MANAGEMENT '•,:i; .m2 1‘.. PI IIIII I 1101 701 DEXTER AVE.N. A'-,•• f.4‘...A. PiFlr SEATTLE,WA 98109 ...:".;•:::•:::,..::,•'.,i.,.,..,....,•:,..... ..,;.1..,2•...::.MMFIRERW:5:-:.;:::,...:',...:‘...,..1•:;"NW:::.;•':::;';':'•'':.f..:'::••••::,,.".1',..;;...j::;7:'.:"...'''••••••,. ,'..":.;.:.:.•'...::.....',':'',2:::••,:.:,'..'.:•:.:: 1111111110 11. :II item 110411:0•.:12:Utik (206)285-4300 LC"; , 111j1.11't. IBIT.7 lilIII.:.- ,.I..L.1=1/2 17LIN4111 :7'•:''T . ••. ,..''2,..!L2-,;:.1!-::,.;:..';;;;;,..,;:-.::' :::,::'.-:•:.;.:,.. OLYMPIC i. .....'‘i......... 7:?';:,WM'......',..... MI• .,,;'..1==')..'.-,.:..MIN...'..:.:.IIMMI:'...-:,.7 11111.:.:;::.1.:Mill..:.:..:.:..,'!.:.7.;:.l.....'.....',.-:,,.:S;7:';':::.:.:7,,'..7-1•:c.,,:: ASSOCIATES COMPANY le "::`4.7-::.7...:-.z.....;.....f.:...T. .,.7.7.-....;; WM.;..::::....7--,:.:.,,,... ....7:-.' '.;W, M17--:.:.... ...7.• : :7-..:-....--;-•:-7,•-•::';110.: r-:.t-. .-. -.1 ..... • ",:. ELI NM LIZ ME --- - AZ.0411 i'.,''.'•.-•:-1•-• ..'.••••••••••: ...iwimirAlip•-•.,.:•••.. •'•- '....:'..:.,.i. -J....,......,.7777 =No immi min == ..J.:.. =4-,tiyAl Wilt% ‘,';.-:•••,.....:':,.'•:....: .•:.:','.:.v• 1 mih mi''''• •. .. ..• ... .. .:..........7. -'1':', .,'.:...*::';':'...:':'•• SERVICE LINEN gr 1111311111:777.77:;.,;•, ••• ti'2"-••• •,71.k.•••'.'7't••,:i.,. .,.;_.•:::: SUPPLY ________ — • .t.,.. — 1111 Mitiira[lii•.k ,IngrAll ';',•-::.i.tt!.,.'j ;•.....•- .. KINN,..,:.:,...,..1:: 1 1 . -:...--:....,, ,foilvi 1.... .:i.;,k.,,..:•••.;•,..ire: _ III l'ifkOclerVORAKI: ' %.Wi'-'414tt:f9T,F7777' •Fip;i777 i _— ,— • 14.BMA!`.1.,,B.., ::,1.441.1,0:=4-.",•••- - - - sli.0 ,.. •4'.../aiti:. '''.•••--- -- --- A:,,,P4M.' -L- - s ses.k..• •,',I.•e.m.,• .-'Ix sr•I`L, .V' :•b:' •,.• ,•:. EXISTING&FINISH GRADE—) goSPLIT-FACE ...". CMU WATERTABLE TRELLIS SCREEN I.- WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH BLUE PRE FINISHED CORRELATED RENTON, WA METAL SIDING -ROSE BROWN.SPLIT- KHAKI*SPLIT-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK • • . 1 TUBE STEEL .. . -,• CMU BLOCK IIIIM HIIIII!I I1111 -WIr111P !— il -,--7r777-7,, ' .i..::::,. ...1.;•::.::::"::,•::;•..';'•:.,'..!•;.::.I.. ..n.::::,:: :.11.:',AMPII:.::..:".;:":::..1: ......:•Y':.:;...:ij;: :::4 -'''...:::::-. .s':.:.:::;‘..::::‘!;..'•-•:r..\ /'5......'.,...''.......,.....::::::::.:;.'.:'...:..;:::•!::J.:,•!..,:".,:‘,.;.1.•,.:' :..., .....::::! ..,.....:i':::::.'-:.*:;:Agil:.:•.•::.:••••••:•••.''.....-Y;:. ::;:i•:; lir ;::;';'.1.1::•••••••••:;••••.;1.:•:;;::',1......",....l.*:1.:7..1...-.•S•''':::•••••• . ... . ........ . .„ . .. ....... . . . . • ,...•....I • • •••• . • ••••••• ..,. ....• . I ,::42...:-...:•'-.. .-.L.',2f4141 ::'''.-, . . .., •••• .. . ... . . . . . . . . . • • • .. / • • ....,. •• ... .. .... •. .. ...• '.'.‘.1:• ': .....44:i•-• • '1...'' :•.'....• 11MM •..:'.."- ''.:."::2•-:.•.‘*Z., -41:'7''?'' :-.. .:: ••••• .'-.4 :,,,iniii4.;•...... . L ,.,..,....:,.. ..y.„.. ..,-,.- 1...-..,.....-s.,..,...., .,:.‘ 40-rostwir,..,.-v-A ii,,,-.1 ,..; . 7r. 4. -,11.,•.,t,i, i 4 , ...:,-..i..,,,k...- ':• ELEVATIONS ,.., 9;,•1;•.... ::_,419.1p.-R4,94444;1417, ,,, %,‘„?;.-c• ,A _lc:fp-4; , -:.& '..::..." ,•;'z•-:/ '•=i9•••6 EXISTING&FINISH GRADE CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS CMU ACCENT BANS EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE PRE FINISHED CORRELATED CREAM COLORED BLUE "KHAKI'SPuT-FACE 'ROSE BROWN"SPLIT- METAL SIDING / BLUE PRE FINISHED CMU ACCENT BAND PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK C0.1.93.7.9 \ METAL AWNING TUBE STEEL— CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK 1 • — — :::,....2.' -- ."77:'..1,'...*:.:..•':--.7.. '....:'''..2..f ::::•-••••, ..;.21'.'.."--' 7.±7::::-:' 1111111111Ilmir1111 I — --AI I - ) . .4 '11.111 il-IL ......,...:,:;,......:.,...,:......,...,...,,,.,..,,...i.... .:,::::•,.,;...::.....-..,:,,......-...,:::,,.. ..:••.-•:.,. .::::::.i:.::..i....".:...::::;.-....-:.!::•:....?•••:,•:.:•,.....,.:•:.;.::•..... :•,..:•:... ..:•:-...-...,....:...• ..: . .. — .:.:r;:::::...-::.2':.'''....... .1::::; ':;:.22...::;.::::..:.7.:'"'.;:......:. .:':.....41M.."..'...:':''..'"''".''..''' ....::.:::.:!:•'...";:•::..........::::".:.....:::......:::..:::.:',._/ '-''.1'''..:9,--• -. ....-.i.'47..'' '''''''. .'7;7 0 A -,•„,:r.,.,....::,.. ...:•-„-,..:::....;.......„:..„••„.............„...,....„.„.•:.• ::-,.:„...:v›,....„..........„:„................ ......„.•••:.:•::.-:„......:...,.,......:•••.,..-_,.:.:.,::::::::„..,....i....;:•... ..,:::::::.::::::".::...:::,.:::.,..y:.,....:::•:,...:.::;:•::::::.::::,. :: ::.:: -,..., ...„....„,......,. ,, 0. „.......4i444;,....,..4;,,,4,;:,;,.4, ..,44....,,...,i, :„...,......„.....:.......:...:::,:::::...:...... , -___ __NEE__=...............:....s... ... .,...-_,........,:•:...,..: .: 011------,:-::.---E—mm--.- --.. E.-L:-::.,.....::..:-:::•; „:::.;.:.:;:::•i:,•. ./da . .;:„.:.,..::•:•;:::::.•-::•,. ...,....-..1:::::::: ::'...,.:.: ;,.:::::,:::::•;.. = ••=I... •',V.,..4,• . -:.- - ,Ee.=- .7 -,.,====,_, 7==.7— ,,•1,,,,p Y-A74 ..: t....)..ta...31:m.trj-,-ri,zer . Li Li LI L_, '3 L., t.. • , I. .. • LOADING DOCK BLUE PRE FINISHED EXISTING&FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS ... A • METAL DOORS SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION — ----- H-J .... J • • ) • nJ I ARCHITECTURE ., b ENGINEERING ,iA., _ _ —_ I PUNNING '� f'� _—_--4 — —_S T, MANAGEMENT ' ■ . . y i, 701 DEXTER AVE.N. � I �_—_—.—_—_—. 0__ �_� _ (I ,_ 7 I SUTiIE,WA 98I09 Iill1 1 1 �o r I ; i (206)?.es-, I OLYMPIC LOT A• I I I ASSOCIATES arpuaou aw.enn U(I) j I I I I COMPANY I I I I E uc n I KrtM r.erm•(II) ■ I I j I I � ) gym, j r! 1 I SERVICE LINEN I I , SUPPLY y.a.g�..o IR I O ", T1�)PROPOS D SERVICE I ■ i I nrlr.°r a.uum I u.0.(w LINEN BUILDING 'Ie'uioss.',:'.0 `"��i, a,veaer.,aoronmu(I) I I 0 e .Iaulo•ca(., 1 I/ ■ • I IIe• . o 1—I P;:A r. n. I lewxau wu°wmu lu III v1 o — S I, 00 , 1 ' - _maµcu Iu£nnnu.nl - -I- - - - ---------- - I2:1ikg ,„iui'e:'.r--'►Zd I I 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH ""'".°"®' "" 't(') I RENTON, WA • ....AM. F*�aC MIME I OI ba ..wn- P) I �i.l.•,a,r. (D I (r.,(;,I, cIe man. I w.t aallue..w Iw) "— — I1 I "" • ran mrt-..w() I >p h 8 1,z; Psw-->o...e. fry L„�,, i1;rJ1w Pit R� I . ., ocil:c I 10 'ar IVDIt.Mama(ee) I �VLr.• b.(.). { Illt4 I QQ •L I Ow.wean°...(r) I aum�.e..w(,. L 'Ime j f S _I_ I loxarcmy tac •80• PLANTING LEGEND ,1 - - 1 t�--- i '' • "�'r""°aIn ILI M� 11 I, 4C CONCEPTUAL Haan .w, °""' I97 LANDSCAPE PLAN M.O vv I. I .a�a.a ea<a t ._.° � Id Sienaziwp.'T a) r r µ) i I I °•'In((e) I.POT .•.. I I w^�w"� Itn'ir 9 -- " I - FXIiTINC RUII PIING/�{,5 I-I r u 306.41 de TO owl W.I.ve,n• I :I: I�il eaa a.d comma I eaa atym KV ° > SOWN.dad„n I I I I I I I I II i I I _ as K. I I I I ma.a ..de I ► II I L---- — --- _-1 'C 0 P T R ICH T• CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTH a: "^ » 0 IS 30 60 m rm au 2 1SJ 0 e0 L. .i.... 1 IT L.1 I'sp • • • Strom FAHARCHITECTURE ' ENGINEERING Found 3"brass disk in Storm NH PUNNING ncrele in cane- MANAGEMENT 1/I1/00 Found S brass disk in 701 DEXTER AVE.N. South 4th St. ate in axle- &®, Sewer MH N 88'26'45•W meal. down 0.5' 1/I1/00 SUTfLE,WA.9B109 300.00'maaa.300.15'plat®rim (206)285-1300 iCID OLYMPIC kj 1 �Ta� P^a^e b e Eg ASSOCIATES I 1 \te1e.pole 1 20 fGtw/undgrd droji___t 30' I street tight • CI ^-- I I pole SERVICE LINEN • i a I SUPPLY j(r.1,.,: 2 L1 . : N I• • c 1I T -- 9u E i 420 WELLSRENTON, WA 7 -S�.(NW SANITARY 18 2 I Nm SERVICE E '^ I --QSo^lpole 3 I • > —W-{NEW WATER SERVICE 17 n I' Q.I C 'NEW GAS 4 r I SERVICE 3 e City ol•Renlon (!7 I Lz.�ut /Eosemenl for Roadway -;•--" co � Rea RI9990929001173 ��, -Pi ab�ivT'--LOT 1 — —�o�, - .'.-mot m (5'.10•) • o� (r e va,�11}5 I I o 5 I o' 16 . 5440 I _s., Ui 1. 6 15 wood—�-51 20.31' Lot Line City of enlon y o� Easement for Roadway i ; polo m , r Rec. /19990929001173 >�„ GENERALIZED Mife, y't I (5'alo) a UTILITIES PLAN • 5 88'24'50•E 1- u o J m a° 234.42' 2.1 o w mm 0 7 Easement Iine�--._.- 14 ----- K1 w, �aa T--— m° It wete w a - .—I --._-- Y curbingCon _- Storm Oroin . . E I -_" Manhole • • r. OGity of _o n 8 1 3 Renton Eosemenl for — 1^ Rac.p19991005001770-- -- - 1 ,... ,... 9 12 NORTH 30' 30' ea1{ ily v 25'ent Puget Sound Energy • 10 L0T 2 I 11 easement Rea.{980706054343 1 -City of Renton Easement for •C 0 P Y�R I C= T �' 234. 9' I �.` N 88'23'35•W 240.16' _� roadway(WO) ;^��-' e "'•'fie �, Rec.p1 9 9 91 00 5001 7 70 w•-rsa rug 0001 3 _ '^ South h c GRAPHIC SCALE 't "n Sth St. round lack In lead ice—G— i c e.in coae 1 Found 2-I/4•brae!disk ® S 88'23'35•E macs. 300.17'mess.300.16'Plot El1/I1/00 I L 1 Ta —yvB--- in Gant.in Cale- t d na 1 Elevation datum per City of Renton Benchmark#2123 i we•eo a KW 1.1 eaT May 17, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. , COUNTY OF KING MARILYN J. PETERSEN, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in the outcome of this matter. That on the 17th day of May, 2001, at the hour of 5:00 p.m., your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, Notice of Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision filed by Service Linen Supply, Inc., represented by Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon LLP. (File No. LUA-00-131; SA-H, R, ECF, LLA, AAD). Marilyn . tersen, City Clerk/Cable Manager SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 17th day of May, 2001. J�pNN p. `�,1, SuZnLomb& VQ/0 #, D. It% to NotaryPublicinandfortheStateof ' � Washington, residing at SC a.. f e, V : 2. ve[` ; if •a4 I i ti 'QSN NGG0 r— #01 David Guttormson / i4tic.c,334 Wells Avenue S,Apt. 101 Renton,WA 98055 futhAita: C(4414;() 42,1,1 6- 49"d Jeff Weber Buck&Gordon 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle,WA 98104 Bob Raphael PO Box 957 Renton,WA 89057 Jerry Fry PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98057 Larry Cross Olympic Associates 701 Dexter Avenue N,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 SED LLC 903 S 4th Street Renton,WA 98055 WIAA 435 Main Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 Randy Barber Olympic Associates Co. 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle, WA 98109 Robert R.Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Sandra Maclean 6987 Perimeter Rd S., Ste. 100 Seattle,WA 98108 : ... ,, CITY -IF RENTON � rFf -. f" City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J:Petersen May 17, 2001 APPEAL FILED BY: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Representative: -Jeff Weber,'Buck & Gordon LLP • RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 03/26/2001 'approving site plan for a 33,000 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen facility located at 903 South 4th Street. File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H,R, ECF,LLA, AAD. To Parties of Record: • 'Pursuant to Title IV,Chapter 8,Renton City Code of Ordinances,written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision approving`site plan of the above referenced site has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.F. within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the ' - receipt of the appeal. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will _ be reviewed by the Council's Planning'and Development Committee. The Council secretary will notify all parties of record of the'date and time of the Planning and ' Development Committee Meeting. _If you are not listed m local telephone directories and __:wish to attend.the meeting,please call_the Council secretary at 425430-6501_for_-__ -,_:_._. __ _ _ information. The recommendation of the Committee Will be presented for consideration . by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton:Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the -. " _ • merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner,no further evidence or testimony on . this matter will be accepted by the City Council. 'For additional information or'assistance,please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. .Sincerely ' ' -�M arilYn. eseri` MC • - ._ 'City:Clerk/ able Manager _ - • ttachment -.Y - r mm i f s`•Y _. ij ' — 9 1-� O `1055 South°GradWa .='Renton`Washiii on'98055 -- 425 '430-6510 Y:FAX" 425 430-6516. : :: This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post'consumer ' .. City of Renton Municipal Code;Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body,any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council upon a form furnished by the City Clerk,within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9- 13-82,Amd. Ord. 4899, 3-19-2001) 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: (See above for Time for Appeal) 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony,it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1- 25-93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify,or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If,upon appeal from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section. (Ord.4660, 3-17-1997) • APPEAL - - HEARING EXAMINER . WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXkiviINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDAT �V,�Q ERN CITY COUNCIL FILE NO.LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,PO1-021,AAD g r !1 • `11 • APPLICATION NAME: Service Linen Expansion MAY 1 0 2001 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or reF.aregggation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 26 20 01 . CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Name: Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon T,T,P Address: P.O. Box 957 Address: 1011 Western Avenue,, Suite 902 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. (425) 255-8686 Telephone No. (206) 382-9540 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets. if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) • No. Error • • Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: No. : Error: erroneous iItl sition_of conditions •.• (see attached letter) Correction: 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach, explanation, if desired) • Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: see attached letter Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other • q051.0 ( A ellant/Re rese tat PP P SignatureDate NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures. Ilcappcal.dL)c BUCKK 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE J i� &� SEATfLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382.9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 • ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP May 10, 2001 VIA MESSENGER City of Renton City Council C/o City of Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on Site Plan Approval for Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA 00.131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Dear City Council Members: We represent Service Linen. Service Linen hereby appeals certain conditions imposed by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the site plan approval for Service Linen's proposed expansion of its commercial laundry in downtown Renton. I. Background. The record in this matter indicates the following:1 A. Service Linen's operations and the proposed expansion. Service Linen operates a commercial laundry facility in downtown Renton in the Center Downtown(CD) zone. Commercial laundries are a permitted use in the CD zone as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 080(A)(18). There has been ac.commercial laundry operating on the Service Linen site for many 1 While the conditions being appealed by Service Linen herein are attached to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval, the record for the site plan approval includes the record for the appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval,which was incorporated by reference into the site plan approval proceeding. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DOC -2- May 10, 2001 decades. As such, the existing Service Linen facility is a conforming use, which is fully entitled to remain in the CD zone. Service Linen's operations are currently divided between facilities in Renton and Kent. Laundry is brought to the Kent facility for sorting, and then is sent by truck to the Renton facility where processing (washing, drying, etc.) occurs. The laundry is then sent back to Kent for packaging and delivery to the customer. Service Linen's corporate offices are located at the Kent facility. Service Linen wishes to consolidate its operations in Renton, and thus has proposed constructing an expansion adjacent to its existing Renton facility, to which all of the Kent operations would be moved (i.e., the sorting and packaging operations and Service Linen's corporate offices). This would reduce the impacts of trucks passing through the neighborhood of the Renton facility by eliminating the need for trucks to shuttle back and forth between the two facilities. The existing laundry processing operations would remain unchanged. B. Noise impacts from water heater/boiler in Service Linen's existing facility. At the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, there was testimony from nearby residents that the existing Service Linen facility has negative noise and odor impacts on surrounding residential areas. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant noise impacts of the existing facility are those resulting from the water heater/boiler (since those are the noise impacts that are the subject of the challenged conditions).2 The record indicates that: •Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer and there were some noise complaints from nearby residents at that time. In response to these complaints, the City started a code enforcement action. •Service Linen implemented mitigation measures including modifying the exhaust pipe so that it vents towards the freeway as opposed to towards residential uses. That modification has been quite successful in reducing noise. One neighbor told the City inspector that the problem had been reduced by 80-90%. Service Linen retained a noise consultant to take measurements, which showed that, after completion of the modification, the water heater added a maximum of 1 decibel of noise to the noise already experienced by nearby residential uses. •Because of the proximity of Interstate 405 to the east, the level of background noise in the neighborhood of the Service Linen facility is quite high-indeed, noise levels in the neighborhood in places exceed the limits set forth in the City's noise ordinance even when the laundry facility is shut down. 2 While the piece of equipment in question is sometimes referred to in the proceeding as a boiler, it is more accurate to refer to it as a water heater, as it is not a pressurized vessel. Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091 JSW.DOC -3 - May 10, 2001 •At the time of the hearing, the City had not issued a final decision as to whether the facility was in violation of the City's noise ordinance. Service Linen has continued to work with the City to ensure that the existing facility is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. C. Odor impacts from Service Linen's existing facility. With respect to odor, a number of residents testified that they experienced strong chemical odors as well as a hot laundry type of odor. Clearly, the strong chemical odor is of primary concern. 'While the Hearing Examiner took the position that this odor comes from Service Linen's facility, Service Linen has not been able to identify the odor as coming from its facility. The record indicates that: •The strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in Service Linen's facility, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. According to the neighbors, the strong chemical odor is intermittent, not daily. This suggests that the odor is not a result of Service Linen's day-to-day operations. •On one occasion, a resident of the apartment building across the street from the Service Linen facility called 911 at 2:28 p.m. concerning a strong chemical odor and also contacted the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency("PSCAA"). The odor dissipated before the fire department arrived (within 3 minutes of the 911 call). PSCAA's investigation determined that Service Linen had stopped washing/drying/handling of dirty linens by noon that day, and that some employees had been ironing at approximately 1:30 p.m. No employees had complained of odor and the smoke alarms and heat sensors in the facility had not gone off. PSCAA did not take any further action based on this complaint. D. Impacts of the proposed expansion. It.is undisputed in the record of this proceeding that the proposed expansion would have no significant negative noise or odor impacts. There would be no noise-generating machinery nor any odor-generating equipment in the expansion area. The expansion area would accommodate sorting, packaging, and office uses; the laundry processing operation would remain unchanged in the existing facility. II. The Examiner's decision and Service Linen's objections to that decision. The City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ("MDNS") for the proposed expansion under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). A neighbor appealed the MDNS to the City's Hearing Examiner, who affirmed the MDNS while adding certain conditions. The Examiner also granted site plan approval for the expansion, subject to certain conditions. The City staff and Service Linen moved for reconsideration of some of the conditions imposed by the Examiner. In response, the Examiner deleted certain conditions that he had Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC -4- May 10, 2001 added to the MDNS, clarified one of the conditions on the site plan approval, and added additional conditions to the site plan approval. In particular, the Examiner added the following conditions to the site plan approval: 9. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts nor the hours that those shifts now work. 10. The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 11. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers. If such technology reduces the noise below perceptible levels, the boiler operation hours may be lengthened to begin operation at 3:30 a.m. 12. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the odors created by its operation. Odors should be reduced so that they do not interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas. Decision on Reconsideration, p. 5. Service Linen hereby appeals conditions 9-12 set forth above to the City Council. Service Linen's objections fall into two categories: A. Conditions 9 and 10. Conditions 9 and 10 are modifications to a condition (condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal)that the Examiner had imposed on the MDNS prior to reconsideration in order to ensure that the impacts of the existing laundry facility would not increase as a result of the expansion. While Service Linen accepts the goal of ensuring that impacts of the existing facility do not increase, these two conditions exceed what is necessary to achieve this goal. - First, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of shifts. Condition number one did not address the hours of those shifts. There is no evidence in the record that the number or hours of shifts have any relationship to the noise impacts with which the Examiner was concerned, which were primarily the impacts of the water heater/boiler and the impacts from truck loading and unloading. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council either delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that"the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts" (the number of shifts that Service Linen currently operates). Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.JSW.DOC -5 - May 10, 2001 Second, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. The record indicates that the boiler currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on a daily basis. By contrast, condition 10 provides that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (However, condition 11 allows the applicant to operate the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. as well if the applicant reduces the noise from the boiler below perceptible levels.) As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council modify condition 10 to provide simply that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. B. Conditions 11 and 12. Conditions 11 and 12 both require Service Linen to install "best technology" in order to reduce noise from the existing boiler and to reduce odors from the existing facility. As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council delete conditions 11 and 12. III. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions 11 and 12 (and condition 10 to the extent that it seeks to restrict Service Linen's existing operations) because those conditions are designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. As discussed below, the Examiner lacks authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. In addition, the challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague and violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. A. The Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. 1. The proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. It is undisputed that the proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. The Environmental Review Committee's MDNS precluded any additional noise generating mechanical equipment in the expansion without further environmental review. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner found that"There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision, p. 8. The Examiner concluded that the noise and odor problems described by nearby residents "are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC -6- May 10, 2001 but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing." See Decision, p. 10. 2. SEPA does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. As a threshold matter, SEPA does not authorize the challenged conditions, as SEPA allows a governmental action on a proposal(here, the expansion) to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197-11-660(1)(d). Thus, as the Hearing Examiner recognized in his decision on reconsideration, SEPA does not authorize conditions to address impacts of the existing laundry facility. See Decision on Reconsideration, p 2. 3. The City's development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. In the absence of SEPA authority, any authorization for the challenged conditions must derive from the City's development code. As discussed below, the development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. The Hearing Examiner justified his imposition of the challenged conditions on the ground that the development code's purpose sections for various industrial zones require that uses in those zones either not create emissions of noise or odors that extend beyond the site, or be isolated from more sensitive land uses. See Decision on Reconsideration, pp. 2-3. These provisions do not justify the challenged conditions. Both the existing Service Linen facility and the proposed expansion are located in the CD zone, not in any of the industrial zones cited by the Examiner. (A commercial laundry is a permitted use in the CD zone.) Thus, the provisions related to the industrial zones do not apply. The development code's provisions for the CD zone specifically envision expansion of existing commercial laundry uses in the CD zone. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 080(A)(18). 'While these provisions set forth certain limitations on such expansion, those limitations relate to the distance of the expansion from the existing facility, the types of uses that can occur along street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District, and the requirement for a landscaped buffer next to residential uses. Nothing in the development code's provisions for the CD zone authorizes conditioning the expansion to mitigate impacts of the existing facility. Indeed, no provision of the development code allows the Examiner to condition a site plan approval for an expansion to mitigate impacts of an existing permitted use that is not part of the site plan and that will not be altered in any way that would increase its impacts. The criteria for review of site plans do not include any provision allowing the Examiner to review the impacts of Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509 LJSW.DOC - 7 - May 10, 2001 existing uses that are not part of the site plan being reviewed. See Renton Code § 4-9-200(E)-(F).3 Thus, the provisions of the development code do not authorize the Examiner to mandate reduction of the impacts of the existing laundry facility. In sum, the Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. Thus, the City Council should revise condition 10 to allow operation of the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and should delete conditions 11 and 12. B. The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague. Even if the development code authorized the Hearing Examiner to condition the approval for the expansion to address impacts of the existing facility, conditions 11 and 12 are unconstitutionally vague. A regulation that requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process of law. Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn.App. 64, 75 (1993). The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague under this standard. With respect to condition 11, the meaning of the requirement to "install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers" is unclear. Neither the Examiner's decision nor the code defines "best technology," and the term is quite unclear. Would Service Linen satisfy this requirement by using the best available off-the-shelf technology that achieves some reduction in noise? Or would Service Linen need to apply the most cutting-edge, experimental technology that could achieve any reduction in noise? Moreover, it is unclear how far this condition requires noise to be reduced. Would Service Linen need to reduce noise to zero if that were possible? If not,where could Service Linen stop? This open-ended approach contrasts markedly with the far more specific approach of the City's noise ordinance, which provides specific quantitative standards (measured in decibels) and specific means of measuring compliance with those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. Moreover,with respect to the provision allowing the hours of operation of the boiler to be lengthened if noise is reduced below"perceptible" levels,what does "perceptible" mean? Does it mean any noise that can be heard anywhere, anytime? Does it mean noise that can be heard across the street at times of normal background noise? Condition 12 is similarly vague. Again,what is required by the mandate to "install the best technology" to reduce odors? What does it mean to "interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas"? Does interference occur if persons cannot use their yards because of odors? Or does interference occur if anyone can smell an odor at any time? 3 Indeed, the code's site plan review provisions evidence a much narrower approach. See Renton Code, § 4-9-200(G)(12)(c) (restricting Examiner's ability to impose conditions on portion of a site not proposed for development). Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509I.]SW.DOC -8- May 10, 2001 In sum, conditions 11 and 12 do not give Service Linen a clear idea of the standard it must meet, nor do the conditions give the City a clear standard to enforce. C. The challenged conditions violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. As discussed above, it is difficult to discern exactly what conditions 11 and 12 require Service Linen to do. However, as noted above, conditions 11 and 12 could be interpreted to require Service Linen to install any technology(regardless of cost) that would result in any reduction in noise or odors (no matter how small). As such, the conditions could impose an enormous burden on Service Linen(to the point of making it impossible for Service Linen to continue its business) in order to achieve a marginal public benefit. The Examiner was quite sanguine about the ease of eliminating odor problems ("We have entered the 21st Century and the technology exists to clear many if not all of the odors a use such as this produces."). See Decision on Reconsideration, p. 4. No evidence in the record supports this assertion. On the contrary, the record indicates that even identifying the source of odors is quite difficult; completely eliminating them is likely to be a technologically demanding and expensive proposition if it is even possible. In this situation, the conditions would violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. See Kahuna Land Co.v. Spokane County, 94 Wn.App. 836, 842 (1999) (to satisfy substantive due process, land use decision must(1)be aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose, (2) use means that are reasonable necessary to achieve that purpose, and (3) not be unduly oppressive to the landowner); see also Gerla v. City of Tacoma, 12 Wn.App. 883, 889 (1975), review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1011 (1975) (permit conditions must, inter alia, not be unnecessarily burdensome or onerous to the landowner). D. Existing regulatory processes are adequate to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. Finally, conditions 11 and 12 are unnecessary, as there are already regulatory processes in place to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. With respect to noise, the City has a noise ordinance that contains specific noise standards and sets forth a process for enforcing those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. (As noted above, this ordinance is far more specific and more easily enforceable than the Examiner's proposed condition.) This ordinance applies to the existing Service Linen facility. Indeed, there is a pending proceeding under the noise ordinance concerning Service Linen's existing facility, and Service Linen has been working with the City to ensure that the facility complies with the noise ordinance. With respect to odor,while the City does not have an odor ordinance, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates air quality. Residents in the vicinity of the existing Service Linen facility asked PSCAA to investigate odors allegedly emanating from the facility. However, Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.]SW.DOC -9 - May 10, 2001 pinpointing the source of odors is difficult, and the odor of which the residents complained was too short-lived for PSCAA to ascertain its source. Moreover, in addition to being subject to regulatory oversight by the City and other agencies, Service Linen's existing activities are also potentially subject to challenge in court under principles of nuisance law. In sum, existing regulatory processes are available to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing Service Linen facility. The City Council should let these processes function as intended, rather than attempting to impose after-the-fact conditions on the existing facility through the site plan approval process for the proposed expansion. E. Service Linen has the right to continue to operate its existing facility absent the expansion, in which case the reduction in noise impacts that would result from the expansion would not occur. Service Linen would very much like to consolidate its operations in Renton (which would have the effect of bringing jobs and economic activity to downtown Renton). Moreover, Service Linen is committed to working with the City to ensure that City ordinances are followed and that impacts on surrounding residents are minimized. However, if obtaining approval for the proposed expansion appears likely to result in restrictions that would impede Service Linen's core operations, Service Linen could simply decide not to undertake the proposed expansion, but rather to leave its headquarters and sorting/packaging operations in Kent,where they are currently located. In this situation, any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility would remain unchanged. Indeed, since the record indicates that the proposed expansion would help buffer the residences along Wells Avenue from noise created by the existing facility, an opportunity to mitigate noise impacts from the existing facility would be lost. In addition, the neighborhood would experience greater impacts from truck traffic than would be the case if Service Linen pursued the expansion, since Service Linen would have to continue operating shuttle trucks between its Renton and Kent facilities. Moreover, the jobs and economic activity associated with the expansion would not materialize. Service Linen submits that this would be a "lose-lose" result for all concerned. IV. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in conditioning the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of Service Linen's existing facility. Moreover, the challenged conditions violate constitutional limitations and are unnecessary given the existence of other regulatory processes to address any impacts of the existing facility. In particular, the City's noise ordinance provides a far better vehicle to address noise issues than does the Examiner's Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC - 10- May 10, 2001 condition, and Service Linen is already working with the City to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council take the following actions with respect to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval for the Service Linen expansion: •delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that"the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts"; •modify condition 10 to provide simply that"the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m."; and •delete conditions 11 and 12. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Jeff S.Weber cc: Robert Raphael Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0509 t.JSW.DOC David Guttormson 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt. 101 Renton,WA 98055 Jeff Weber Buck&Gordon 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle,WA 98104 Bob Raphael PO Box 957 Renton,WA 89057 Jerry Fry PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98057 Larry Cross Olympic Associates 701 Dexter Avenue N,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 SED LLC 903 S 4th Street Renton,WA 98055 WIAA 435 Main Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 Randy Barber Olympic Associates Co. 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle, WA 98109 Robert R.Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Sandra Maclean 6987 Perimeter Rd S.,Ste. 100 Seattle,WA 98108 APPEAL FEARING EXAMINER • WRITTEN APPEAL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDArlQ �Q RE j s. CITY COUNCIL FILE NO.LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,#�01-021,AAD ' d f O o'o a`` ? a APPLICATION NAME: Service Linen Expansion MAY 10 2001 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or re garloggation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated April 26 20 01 , CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Name: Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon T,T,P Address: P.O. Box 957 Address: 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone No. (425) 255-8686 Telephone No. (206) 382-9540 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: FINDING OF FACT: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's report) • No. Error: Correction: CONCLUSIONS: No. Error: Correction: OTHER: , . . No, : Error: erroneous imposition of conditions •• • (see attached letter) Correction: • • 3. SUMMARY OF ACTION REQUESTED: The City Council is requested to grant the following relief: (Attach,explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: x Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: see attached letter Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Other Q - . s (a a ( Appellant/Represe tat Signature Date • NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific procedures, heappeal.doc BUCK & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 Al 1URNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP May 10, 2001 VIA MESSENGER City of Renton City Council C/o City of Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision on Site Plan Approval for Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA 00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Dear City Council Members: We represent Service Linen. Service Linen hereby appeals certain conditions imposed by the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on the site plan approval for Service Linen's proposed expansion of its commercial laundry in downtown Renton. I. Background. The record in this matter indicates the following:1 A. Service Linen's operations and the proposed expansion. • Service Linen operates a commercial laundry facility in downtown Renton in the Center Downtown (CD) zone. Commercial laundries are a permitted use in the CD zone as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 080(A)(18). There has been a commercial laundry operating on the Service Linen site for many I 'While the conditions being appealed by Service Linen herein are attached to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval, the record for the site plan approval includes the record for the appeal of the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance for the site plan approval,which was incorporated by reference into the site plan approval proceeding. Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC - 2- May 10, 2001 decades. As such, the existing Service Linen facility is a conforming use,which is fully entitled to remain in the CD zone. Service Linen's operations are currently divided between facilities in Renton and Kent. Laundry is brought to the Kent facility for sorting, and then is sent by truck to the Renton facility where processing (washing, drying, etc.) occurs. The laundry is then sent back to Kent for packaging and delivery to the customer. Service Linen's corporate offices are located at the Kent facility. Service Linen wishes to consolidate its operations in Renton, and thus has proposed constructing an expansion adjacent to its existing Renton facility, to which all of the Kent operations would be moved (i.e., the sorting and packaging operations and Service Linen's corporate offices). This would reduce the impacts of trucks passing through the neighborhood of the Renton facility by eliminating the need for trucks to shuttle back and forth between the two facilities. The existing laundry processing operations would remain unchanged. B. Noise impacts from water heater/boiler in Service Linen's existing facility. At the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, there was testimony from nearby residents that the existing Service Linen facility has negative noise and odor impacts on surrounding residential areas. For purposes of this appeal, the relevant noise impacts of the existing facility are those resulting from the water heater/boiler(since those are the noise impacts that are the subject of the challenged conditions).2 The record indicates that: •Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer and there were some noise complaints from nearby residents at that time. In response to these complaints, the City started a code enforcement action. •Service Linen implemented mitigation measures including modifying the exhaust pipe so that it vents towards the freeway as opposed to towards residential uses. That modification has been quite successful in reducing noise. One neighbor told the City inspector that the problem had been reduced by 80-90%. Service Linen retained a noise consultant to take measurements, which showed that, after completion of the modification, the water heater added a maximum of 1 decibel of noise to the noise already experienced by nearby residential uses. •Because of the proximity of Interstate 405 to the east, the level of background noise in the neighborhood of the Service Linen facility is quite high- indeed, noise levels in the neighborhood in places exceed the limits set forth in the City's noise ordinance even when the laundry facility is shut down. 2 While the piece of equipment in question is sometimes referred to in the proceeding as a boiler, it is more accurate to refer to it as a water heater, as it is not a pressurized vessel. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC -3 - May 10, 2001 •At the time of the hearing, the City had not issued a final decision as to whether the facility was in violation of the City's noise ordinance. Service Linen has continued to work with the City to ensure that the existing facility is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. C. Odor impacts from Service Linen's existing facility. With respect to odor, a number of residents testified that they experienced strong chemical odors as well as a hot laundry type of odor. Clearly, the strong chemical odor is of primary concern. While the Hearing Examiner took the position that this odor comes from Service Linen's facility, Service Linen has not been able to identify the odor as coming from its facility. The record indicates that: •The strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in Service Linen's facility, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. According to the neighbors, the strong chemical odor is intermittent, not daily. This suggests that the odor is not a result of Service Linen's day-to-day operations. •On one occasion, a resident of the apartment building across the street from the Service Linen facility called 911 at 2:28 p.m. concerning a strong chemical odor and also contacted the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency("PSCAA"). The odor dissipated before the fire department arrived (within 3 minutes of the 911 call). PSCAA's investigation determined that Service Linen had stopped washing/drying/handling of dirty linens by noon that day, and that some employees had been ironing at approximately 1:30 p.m. No employees had complained of odor and the smoke alarms and heat sensors in the facility had not gone off. PSCAA did not take any further action based on this complaint. D. Impacts of the proposed expansion. It is undisputed in the record of this proceeding that the proposed expansion would have no significant negative noise or odor impacts. There would be no noise-generating machinery nor any odor-generating equipment in the expansion area. The expansion area would accommodate sorting, packaging, and office uses; the laundry processing operation would remain unchanged in the existing facility. II. The Examiner's decision and Service Linen's objections to that decision. The City's Environmental Review Committee issued a Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance ("MDNS") for the proposed expansion under the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"). A neighbor appealed the MDNS to the City's Hearing Examiner, who affirmed the MDNS while adding certain conditions. The Examiner also granted site plan approval for the expansion, subject to certain conditions. The City staff and Service Linen moved for reconsideration of some of the conditions imposed by the Examiner. In response, the Examiner deleted certain conditions that he had Y.\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.)SW.DOC -4- May 10, 2001 added to the MDNS, clarified one of the conditions on the site plan approval, and added additional conditions to the site plan approval. In particular, the Examiner added the following conditions to the site plan approval: 9. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts nor the hours that those shifts now work. 10. The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 11. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers. If such technology reduces the noise below perceptible levels, the boiler operation hours may be lengthened to begin operation at 3:30 a.m. 12. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the odors created by its operation. Odors should be reduced so that they do not interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas. Decision on Reconsideration, p. 5. Service Linen hereby appeals conditions 9-12 set forth above to the City Council. Service Linen's objections fall into two categories: A. Conditions 9 and 10. Conditions 9 and 10 are modifications to a condition (condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal) that the Examiner had imposed on the MDNS prior to reconsideration in order to ensure that the impacts of the existing laundry facility would not increase as a result of the expansion. While Service Linen accepts the goal of ensuring that impacts of the existing facility do not increase, these two conditions exceed what is necessary to achieve this goal. First, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of shifts. Condition number one did not address the hours of those shifts. There is no evidence in the record that the number or hours of shifts have any relationship to the noise impacts with which the Examiner was concerned,which were primarily the impacts of the water heater/boiler and the impacts from truck loading and unloading. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council either delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that"the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts" (the number of shifts that Service Linen currently operates). Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC -5 - May 10, 2001 Second, condition number one in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal simply stated that the applicant shall not increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. The record indicates that the boiler currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on a daily basis. By contrast, condition 10 provides that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (However, condition 11 allows the applicant to operate the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. as well if the applicant reduces the noise from the boiler below perceptible levels.) As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council modify condition 10 to provide simply that the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. B. Conditions 11 and 12. Conditions 11 and 12 both require Service Linen to install "best technology" in order to reduce noise from the existing boiler and to reduce odors from the existing facility. As discussed below, the Examiner was not authorized to condition the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. Thus, Service Linen requests that the City Council delete conditions 11 and 12. III. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. The Hearing Examiner erred in imposing conditions 11 and 12 (and condition 10 to the extent that it seeks to restrict Service Linen's existing operations)because those conditions are designed to reduce the impacts of the existing laundry facility. As discussed below, the Examiner lacks authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. In addition, the challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague and violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. A. The Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. 1. The proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. It is undisputed that the proposed expansion would not cause any noise or odor impacts. The Environmental Review Committee's MDNS precluded any additional noise generating mechanical equipment in the expansion without further environmental review. Moreover, the Hearing Examiner found that"There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision, p. 8. The Examiner concluded that the noise and odor problems described by nearby residents "are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC •6- May 10, 2001 but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing." See Decision, p. 10. 2. SEPA does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. As a threshold matter, SEPA does not authorize the challenged conditions, as SEPA allows a governmental action on a proposal(here, the expansion) to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197.11-660(1)(d). Thus, as the Hearing Examiner recognized in his decision on reconsideration, SEPA does not authorize conditions to address impacts of the existing laundry facility. See Decision on Reconsideration, p 2. 3. The City's development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility. In the absence of SEPA authority, any authorization for the challenged conditions must derive from the City's development code. As discussed below, the development code does not authorize conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. The Hearing Examiner justified his imposition of the challenged conditions on the ground that the development code's purpose sections for various industrial zones require that uses in those zones either not create emissions of noise or odors that extend beyond the site, or be isolated from more sensitive land uses. See Decision on Reconsideration, pp. 2-3. These provisions do not justify the challenged conditions. Both the existing Service Linen facility and the proposed expansion are located in the CD zone, not in any of the industrial zones cited by the Examiner. (A commercial laundry is a permitted use in the CD zone.) Thus, the provisions related to the industrial zones do not apply. The development code's provisions for the CD zone specifically envision expansion of existing commercial laundry uses in the CD zone. See Renton Code, §§ 4-2-070(M), 4-2- 080(A)(18). While these provisions set forth certain limitations on such expansion, those limitations relate to the distance of the expansion from the existing facility, the types of uses that can occur along street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District, and the requirement for a landscaped buffer next to residential uses. Nothing in the development code's provisions for the CD zone authorizes conditioning the expansion to mitigate impacts of the existing facility. Indeed, no provision of the development code allows the Examiner to condition a site plan approval for an expansion to mitigate impacts of an existing permitted use that is not part of the site plan and that will not be altered in any way that would increase its impacts. The criteria for review of site plans do not include any provision allowing the Examiner to review the impacts of Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.]SW.DOC - 7 - May 10, 2001 existing uses that are not part of the site plan being reviewed. See Renton Code § 4-9-200(E)-(F).3 Thus, the provisions of the development code do not authorize the Examiner to mandate reduction of the impacts of the existing laundry facility. In sum, the Hearing Examiner lacked authority to impose conditions to reduce the impacts of the existing facility, as opposed to the impacts of the expansion. Thus, the City Council should revise condition 10 to allow operation of the boiler between 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and should delete conditions 11 and 12. B. The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague. Even if the development code authorized the Hearing Examiner to condition the approval for the expansion to address impacts of the existing facility, conditions 11 and 12 are unconstitutionally vague. A regulation that requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates due process of law. Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 70 Wn.App. 64, 75 (1993). The challenged conditions are unconstitutionally vague under this standard. With respect to condition 11, the meaning of the requirement to "install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers" is unclear. Neither the Examiner's decision nor the code defines "best technology," and the term is quite unclear. Would Service Linen satisfy this requirement by using the best available off-the-shelf technology that achieves some reduction in noise? Or would Service Linen need to apply the most cutting-edge, experimental technology that could achieve any reduction in noise? Moreover, it is unclear how far this condition requires noise to be reduced. Would Service Linen need to reduce noise to zero if that were possible? If not,where could Service Linen stop? This open-ended approach contrasts markedly with the far more specific approach of the City's noise ordinance, which provides specific quantitative standards (measured in decibels) and specific means of measuring compliance with those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. Moreover, with respect to the provision allowing the hours of operation of the boiler to be lengthened if noise is reduced below"perceptible" levels, what does "perceptible" mean? Does it mean any noise that can be heard anywhere, anytime? Does it mean noise that can be heard across the street at times of normal background noise? Condition 12 is similarly vague. Again,what is required by the mandate to "install the best technology" to reduce odors? What does it mean to "interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas"? Does interference occur if persons cannot use their yards because of odors? Or does interference occur if anyone can smell an odor at any time? 3 Indeed, the code's site plan review provisions evidence a much narrower approach. See Renton Code, § 4-9-200(G)(12)(c) (restricting Examiner's ability to impose conditions on portion of a site not proposed for development). Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC -8- May 10, 2001 In sum, conditions 11 and 12 do not give Service Linen a clear idea of the standard it must meet, nor do the conditions give the City a clear standard to enforce. C. The challenged conditions violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. As discussed above, it is difficult to discern exactly what conditions 11 and 12 require Service Linen to do. However, as noted above, conditions 11 and 12 could be interpreted to require Service Linen to install any technology(regardless of cost) that would result in any reduction in noise or odors (no matter how small). As such, the conditions could impose an enormous burden on Service Linen(to the point of making it impossible for Service Linen to continue its business) in order to achieve a marginal public benefit. The Examiner was quite sanguine about the ease of eliminating odor problems ("We have entered the 21st Century and the technology exists to clear many if not all of the odors a use such as this produces."). See Decision on Reconsideration, p. 4. No evidence in the record supports this assertion. On the contrary, the record indicates that even identifying the source of odors is quite difficult; completely eliminating them is likely to be a technologically demanding and expensive proposition if it is even possible. In this situation, the conditions would violate Service Linen's right to substantive due process. See Kahuna Land Co.v. Spokane County, 94 Wn.App. 836, 842 (1999) (to satisfy substantive due process, land use decision must(1)be aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose, (2) use means that are reasonable necessary to achieve that purpose, and (3) not be unduly oppressive to the landowner); see also Gerla v. City of Tacoma, 12 Wn.App. 883, 889 (1975), review denied, 85 Wn.2d 1011 (1975) (permit conditions must, inter alia, not be unnecessarily burdensome or onerous to the landowner). D. Existing regulatory processes are adequate to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. Finally, conditions 11 and 12 are unnecessary, as there are already regulatory processes in place to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility. With respect to noise, the City has a noise ordinance that contains specific noise standards and sets forth a process for enforcing those standards. See Renton Code, § 8-7-2 et seq. (As noted above, this ordinance is far more specific and more easily enforceable than the Examiner's proposed condition.) This ordinance applies to the existing Service Linen facility. Indeed, there is a pending proceeding under the noise ordinance concerning Service Linen's existing facility, and Service Linen has been working with the City to ensure that the facility complies with the noise ordinance. With respect to odor, while the City does not have an odor ordinance, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency regulates air quality. Residents in the vicinity of the existing Service Linen facility asked PSCAA to investigate odors allegedly emanating from the facility. However, Y.\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L0509 WSW.DOC -9 - May 10, 2001 pinpointing the source of odors is difficult, and the odor of which the residents complained was too short-lived for PSCAA to ascertain its source. Moreover, in addition to being subject to regulatory oversight by the City and other agencies, Service Linen's existing activities are also potentially subject to challenge in court under principles of nuisance law. In sum, existing regulatory processes are available to address any noise or odor impacts of the existing Service Linen facility. The City Council should let these processes function as intended, rather than attempting to impose after-the-fact conditions on the existing facility through the site plan approval process for the proposed expansion. E. Service Linen has the right to continue to operate its existing facility absent the expansion, in which case the reduction in noise impacts that would result from the expansion would not occur. Service Linen would very much like to consolidate its operations in Renton (which would have the effect of bringing jobs and economic activity to downtown Renton). Moreover, Service Linen is committed to working with the City to ensure that City ordinances are followed and that impacts on surrounding residents are minimized. However, if obtaining approval for the proposed expansion appears likely to result in restrictions that would impede Service Linen's core operations, Service Linen could simply decide not to undertake the proposed expansion, but rather to leave its headquarters and sorting/packaging operations in Kent,where they are currently located. In this situation, any noise or odor impacts of the existing facility would remain unchanged. Indeed, since the record indicates that the proposed expansion would help buffer the residences along Wells Avenue from noise created by the existing facility, an opportunity to mitigate noise impacts from the existing facility would be lost. In addition, the neighborhood would experience greater impacts from truck traffic than would be the case if Service Linen pursued the expansion, since Service Linen would have to continue operating shuttle trucks between its Renton and Kent facilities. Moreover, the jobs and economic activity associated with the expansion would not materialize. Service Linen submits that this would be a "lose-lose" result for all concerned. IV. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearing Examiner exceeded his authority in conditioning the site plan approval to reduce the impacts of Service Linen's existing facility. Moreover, the challenged conditions violate constitutional limitations and are unnecessary given the existence of other regulatory processes to address any impacts of the existing facility. In particular, the City's noise ordinance provides a far better vehicle to address noise issues than does the Examiner's YAWP\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC - 10- May 10, 2001 condition, and Service Linen is already working with the City to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. As such, Service Linen requests that the City Council take the following actions with respect to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the site plan approval for the Service Linen expansion: •delete condition 9 or modify it to provide simply that"the applicant shall not operate more than two shifts"; •modify condition 10 to provide simply that"the applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m."; and •delete conditions 11 and 12. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP "4(1(1)41 — Jeff S.Weber cc: Robert Raphael Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L05091.JSW.DOC • CITY IF RENTON NAL ' City Clerk Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen • May 17, 2001 • • • APPEAL FILED BY: Service Linen Supply,'Inc. • Representative: Jeff Weber,Buck& Gordon LLP RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 03/26/2001 approving site plan for a 33,000 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen facility located at 903 South 4th Street. File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA; AAD. • To Parties of Record: ' • Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision approving site plan of the above referenced site has been filed with the City Clerk. ' • In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.F., within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal.. ', NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning'and Development Committee. The Council • secretary will notify all parties of record of the date and time of the Planning and Development Committee meeting. If you are not listed in local telephone directories and wish to attend the meeting,please call the Council secretary at 425 430-6501 for • information. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration • by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Attached is a copy of the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeals of hearing examiner - decisions or recommendations. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. . For additional information or assistance, please feel free to call me at 425 430-6502. Sincerely, ' • Maril ersen, CMC • City Clerk/Cable Manager, • Attachment - • gento • 1901 2001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510 / FAX (425) 430-6516 ., This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer �e'�l teti 1 - • City of Renton Municipal Code:Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110 -Appeals 4-8-110C4 The notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a fee in accordance with RMC 4-1-170,the fee schedule of the City. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4-8-110E8 Unless a specific section or State law providing for review of decision of the Examiner requires review thereof by the Superior Court or other body,any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council upon a form furnished by the City Clerk, within fourteen(14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. (Ord. 3658, 9- 13-82, Amd. Ord.4899, 3-19-2001) • 4-8-110F: Appeals to City Council -Procedures: (See above for Time for Appeal) 1. Notice to Parties of Record: Within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of appeal,the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. 2. Opportunity to Provide Comments: Other parties of record may submit letters in support of their positions within ten(10) days of the dates of mailing of the notification of the filing of the notice of appeal. 3. Transmittal of Record to Council: Thereupon the Clerk shall forward to the members of the City Council all of the pertinent documents,including the written decision or recommendation, findings and conclusions contained in the Examiner's report,the notice of appeal, and additional letters submitted by the parties. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) 4. Council Review Procedures: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. If the Council determines that additional evidence is required,the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of additional evidence. The cost of transcription of the hearing record shall be borne by the appellant. In the absence of any entry upon the record of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony,and a remand to the Hearing Examiner for receipt of such evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. (Ord.4389, 1- 25-93) 5. Council Evaluation Criteria: The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the • record,the Hearing Examiner's report,the notice of appeal and additional submissions by parties. 6. Findings and Conclusions Required: If,upon appeal of a decision of the Hearing Examiner on an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F1 and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record,it may remand the preceding to Examiner for reconsideration,or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. 7. Council Action: If,upon appeal,from a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner upon an application submitted pursuant to Section RMC 4-1-050F2 and F3, and after examination of the record,the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, or that a recommendation of the Hearing Examiner should be disregarded or modified,the City Council may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or enter its own decision upon the application. 8. Decision Documentation: In any event,the decision of the City Council shall be in writing and shall specify any modified or amended findings and conclusions other than those set forth in the report of the Hearing Examiner. Each material finding shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The burden of proof shall rest with the appellant. (Ord. 3658, 9-13-82) • 9. Council Action Final: The action of the Council approving,modifying or rejecting a decision of the Examiner shall be final and conclusive,unless appealed within the time frames under subsection G5 of this Section.(Ord.4660, 3-17-1997) C BUCK & CORDON LLP 902 WATERFRONT PLACE • 1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 ATTORNEYS AT LAW CITY CLERK CITY OF RENTON 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, 7TH FLOOR RENTON, WA 98055 NOTES RECEIPT - DATE SviC4•' •1-01(9,a0X NO. 5237 RECEIVED FROM rC /40,e,0 5 r9p/t ADDRESS Pr) 60)1 �5 7 Pvi ,74 04 67 $ —76 , ab FOR lA � RA cfl- i)n -� 31 u • ACCOUNT HOW PAID AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. 1,1 CHECK 7 00 PAID l 4/� A_L4 BALANCE MONEY BV A�/�.� Pn DUE ORDER c ' CAM NR W` ORM@EIL802 { CITY CLERK DIVISION Send Copies To: Date: 6'7/40( CITY ATTORNEY /4 CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS EDNSP/ECONOMIC DEVELOP. G deaddrti FINANCE/INFO SERVICES / FIRE DEPT/FIRE PREVENTION / HEARING EXAMINER HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK MGMT HUMAN SERVICES LIBRARIES - MAYOR/EXECUTIVE MUNICIPAL COURT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION POLICE CODIFIER NEWSPAPER PARTIES OF RECORD Planning/Building/Public Works: / ADMINISTRATION AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES �,�� � I )( TRANSPORTATION SERVICES / UTILITIES&TE B ERYIyC�ES �prE �� Pe" 9��1r U Jas dP CI'� OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman April 26,2001 Jeff S.Weber Steve Taylor Buck&Gordon LLP Development Services 902 Waterfront Place City of Renton 1011 Western Avenue 1 055 S Grady Way Seattle,Washington 98104 Renton,WA 98055 RE: Reconsideration of Service Linen Appeal Decision File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Dear Appellants: This office has received three Requests for Reconsideration. City staff asked for reconsideration of the conditions imposed by the SEPA review,while the applicant submitted two reconsideration requests-one for the SEPA review and another for the Site Plan review. Staff has asked that Condition#1 be clarified. The condition now states: "The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates." Similarly,staff has asked that Condition#2 be clarified. That condition now states: "The applicant shall not increase the hours in which the truck loading or unloading extended into the normally quiet hours." Finally,both Staff and the applicant objected to Condition#4 which stated: "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow the windows to close and • limit the escape of noxious odors." Regarding this last condition,it was clarified that the expansion area will not have any windows that open. Staff recommended that monitoring a condition "to use"air conditioning if it were installed would be difficult and suggested that instead,the condition limit opening windows except during an emergency. The applicant also objected,noting that air conditioning would not necessarily remove odor(it merely cools and dehumidifies air)and would be prohibitively expensive in any case. In addition,the applicant noted that is was not a reasonable SEPA condition applied to the proposal,which,in this case,deals with the "expansion" and not the possibly odor-creating,older,existing plant. The applicant then sought a change in Site Plan Condition#8,which dealt with unusual loading needs. This office believes that since the applicant has objected to some of the conditions added as a result of the SEPA appeal review,some of the conditions should be removed from the SEPA determination and applied as conditions of Site Plan Review where they may be more appropriate. Therefore,Conditions#1,#2 and #4 will be removed from the SEPA decision. In their place,the Site Plan conditions will be supplemented with altered conditions. Accompanying the applicant's request was a Declaration of Robert Raphael in which he indicates the hours that the boiler operates and the unloading and loading occurs: Z tr 1901 200l if 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6515 ):• � ft . -49..:4r1y •�ra1- Service Linen Reconsideration Page 2 "Service Linen currently operates two shifts per day at the existing facility and the boiler currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m.to approximately 10:00 p.m.,with some variation on a daily basis. Truck unloading and loading now generally occurs between approximately 11:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.,though occasionally some loading occurs in the morning between 5:00 a.m.and 8:00 a.m.to accommodate last-minute orders received the previous evening." It would appear that the applicant seeks the utmost flexibility in operating their business,which clearly is in their best interests. At the same time,it is clear from the record that the business has not been the best neighbor to the nearby residential uses,both single family use and multiple family uses. The sound issues have definitely been tied to the applicant's operation. They have been cited for violations of noise provisions. The boiler operation clearly interferes with the sleep patterns and enjoyment expected in residential living situations. While the odor situation has been more elusive and harder to identify,it appears from the nature of the complaints that they are tied to the applicant's operations. The odors and the intensity of those odors are described as strong,pungent chlorine or bleach-like odors and the overwhelming smell of hot laundry. They seem to be the type of odors that the subject use,a laundry on a commercial or industrial scale,would generate..;The nature of the testimony did not make it appear that it emanated from ordinary residential laundries. The flexibility the applicant seeks,in a mixed use area is not acceptable when it means that neighboring uses are unduly affected. It seems unreasonable to allow an expansion that accommodates more or even the same impacts without imposing some restrictions. And while SEPA tnay,not be permitted to cure existing problems,Site Plan review is governed by Zoning and Planning principles that consider a use's impacts. The requests for reconsideration provide this office an opportunity to further review the impacts that affect the community surrounding the subject site. While the City does not have-what.is known in Planning as Performance Zoning, it does have criteria that suggest the nature of uses and impacts permitted in the various Zones. By analogy,this can provide a basis in requiring certain performance from uses whether they are permitted in the zone or not. 4-2-020 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS: A GENERAL: The purpose statements for each zone and map designation set forth in the following sections shall be used to guide interpretation and application of land use regulations within the zones and designations and any changes to the range of permitted uses within each zone through amendments to the code. N CENTER DOWNTOWN(CD): The purpose of the Center Downtown Zone(CD)is to provide a mixed use commercial center serving a regional market as well as adjacent residences.Uses include a wide variety of retail sales,personal and professional services,multi-family residential dwellings,recreation and entertainment uses and some light industrial uses.This Zone is intended for the Downtown District only and meets Land Use Plan policy intent for that area.(Ord.4404,6-7-1993) Q INDUSTRIAL-LIGHT ZONE(IL): The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone(IL)is to provide areas for low intensity manufacturing,industrial services,distribution and storage in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan.Uses allowed in this District Service Linen Reconsideration Page 3 are generally contained within buildings,and material or equipment used in production are not stored outside.Activities in this District do not generate external emissions such as smoke,odor,noise,vibrations or other nuisances outside the building.Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses in the district are also allowed. R' ' INDUSTRIAL-MEDIUM ZONE(IM):. The purpose of the Medium Industrial Zone(IM)is to provide areas for medium-intensity industrial activities involving manufacturing,processing,assembly and warehousing in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require some outdoor storage and may create some external emissions of noise, odor,glare,vibration,etc.,that are largely contained on site.Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. S INDUSTRIAL-HEAVY ZONE(IH): The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone(IH)is to provide areas for high intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication,processing of raw materials,bulk handling and storage,construction and heavy transportation in areas designated as Employment Area-Industrial in the Comprehensive Plan. Uses in this District may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct their operations and produce environmental impacts beyond their own sites that require their isolation from more sensitive land uses.Compatible uses which directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed.(Ord.4404,6-7-1993) What is clear is that the use creates noises that escape the site and disturb many of its residential neighbors. It appears that it also creates odors that have similar affect. These are the types of impacts that Heavy Industrial uses create,which according to code,requires their isolation from more sensitive uses. The impacts to be contained do not even have to rise to the level of violations of noise or air quality standards. Violations of code are not permitted,in any event. It is impacts that create un-neighborly affects that should be reduced or eliminated. This office understands that the proposed use is permitted by the Zoning Code,but that does not mean that it should not be conditioned so that the use--the entire use--is compatible with its surroundings. Even though it is not isolated from more sensitive uses,it should not spill over in such a fashion as to make residential living,and particularly sleep, difficult or disturbed. The use should not be permitted to expand until it has reduced its untoward impacts on its more sensitive neighbors. It can be a better neighbor because,clearly,its noise generation can be dealt with by appropriate technology,and similarly,its odors can be scrubbed by a unit that is not an air conditioner. It can also alter its boiler hours to be less intrusive in the early hours. The Declaration of Robert Raphael indicates that it runs its boilers at approximate hours and there is daily variation. This means that it is operated solely at the convenience of the applicant,to the detriment of its neighbors. That is not appropriate for a land use in the CD zone in which mixed uses,including residential uses,are to be accommodated. The applicant shall,therefore,be required to limit its boiler operation so that it does not start up until 4:30 a.m.and it shuts down at 10:00 p.m. While this still will undoubtedly interfere with some sleep,the affects will be less and will be more predictable than whenever the applicant happens to fire it up. Service Linen Reconsideration Page 4 In addition,the applicant's expansion should not be permitted to occur until it no longer violates the noise ordinances; Residents in the area should not have to awake at 4:00 a.m.or 5:00 a.m.to call the City to have monitoring equipment verify that violations are occurring and that they have lost hours of sleep. Similarly,the expansion should not occur if the applicant's business continues to generate odors that interfere with residential amenities. Such interference does not have to rise to the level of violations of air quality regulations to create untenable living situations. We have entered the 21st Century and the technology exists to clear many if not all of the odors a use such as this produces. Even if air conditioning does not rectify the situation,other methods of cleaning the expelled air or neutralizing odors exist. Therefore,the following conditions shall be the conditions of the Site Plan approval: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review committee Threshold Determination,unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project manager prior to approval of the building permit. 7. The applicant shall be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. 8. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the afternoon or early evening. Provided,however,that the applicant may add orders to its trucks at other times using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site,or by loading orders into trucks that are already parked at the loading docks provided,further,that the Service Linen Reconsideration Page 5 applicant shall employ hand carts with rubber wheels and other noise dampening equipment so that they generate the least amount of noise technically possible. 9. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts nor the hours that those shifts now work. 10. The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 4:30 a.m.and 10:00 p.m. 11. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the noise created by its boilers. If such technology reduces the noise below perceptible levels,the boiler operation hours may be lengthened to begin operation at 3:30 a.m. • 12. The applicant shall install the best technology in order to reduce the odors created by its operation. Odors should be reduced so that they do not interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas. 13. The applicant shall only load or unload trucks between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 10:00 p.m., except as otherwise provided by this decision. 14. The new addition shall not open any windows. The applicant may deviate from this condition in the event of any emergency. - If the various parties,including the appellant or applicant,are not satisfied with this decision,they may seek further reconsideration or appeal to the City Council. Either procedure shall be completed within 14 days of this decision. An appeal to the City Council must be accompanied by a fee of$75.00. If this office can provide any additional assistance,please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred J.KaufnUi Hearing Examiner FJK:jt cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren,City Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services Parties of Record BUCK CK & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98 1 04-1 09 7 GORDON LLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON Kill BRIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,A1CP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/Site Plan Approval LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Approving Site Plan Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision approving the site plan for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number eight in the Examiner's decision provides that"In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition." See Decision at p. 21. Service Linen believes that this condition could be interpreted in a way that would hinder Service Linen's operations and need not be worded so strictly in order to protect the surrounding neighborhood. At the hearing, Robert Raphael(one of the owners of Service Linen)testified that normally trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. See Decision at p. 15. However, occasionally it is necessary to.load trucks in the morning with small orders received the previous evening. Id. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry orders out to parked trucks. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 1110 (submitted herewith). When the new expansion area is completed, loading of trucks with such small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Id. Because this process does not involve moving of trucks or use of backup alarms, there will not be any significant noise impacts to nearby residents. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04011.JSW.DOC -2- April 9, 2001 Because the need to occasionally load in the morning to accommodate last-minute orders is a foreseeable part of Service Linen's business, Service Linen does not wish to rely on such a situation being classified as an "emergency" in order to fall within the terms of condition eight. Rather, Service Linen requests that the Examiner revise condition eight to read as follows: In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. Provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks at other times by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. This revision would accommodate Service Linen's operational needs while ensuring that residents of the surrounding neighborhood continue to be protected against significant truck noise impacts. In addition, as reflected in the revised condition set forth above, Service Linen requests that the word "late" be deleted before the word "afternoon." The word "late" could be interpreted in a way that would restrict Service Linen's existing operations, and the qualifier is unnecessary given that the neighbors' concerns are with truck noise in the late evening and early morning hours. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Jeff S.Weber Cc: Robert Raphael Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L0401 I.JSW.DOC BUCK & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN ( SAMUEL W.PIAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM �p� #, ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACKlird APR 2001 ]EFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK - OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON CITY OF RENTON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR HEARING EXAMINER JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/MDNS for Site Plan Approval LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Denying Appeal of MDNS Dear Mr. Kaufman: • We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision denying the appeal of the MDNS for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number four in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal provides that "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." See Decision at p. 11. For the following reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition number four. A. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Condition four appears to be based on the Examiner's finding that "The laundry will not be air conditioned,which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises." See Decision at p. 8. The Examiner appears to have reasoned that air conditioning would prevent odors from escaping the building by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. See Decision at p. 10. It is somewhat unclear whether the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the expansion area alone, or air conditioning of both the existing facility and the expansion area. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC - 2- April 9, 2001 There is no basis for requiring air conditioning of the expansion area. First, the Examiner found (and it is undisputed) that there would be no odor generating aspects in the expansion area. See Decision at p. 8. However, the Examiner may have assumed that open windows in the expansion area would help odors from the existing facility to escape. This is not the case. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, such that no odors could escape from them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶3 (submitted herewith).1 Finally, given that the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, air conditioning of the expansion area would have no effect on odors. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through the roof. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 4. If • air conditioning were provided, the air conditioning units would similarly be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. Id. In any event, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. Id. at 11 5. As such, air conditioning would not assist in preventing odors from escaping from the expansion area, since the windows will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Thus, Service Linen requests that the Examiner delete condition four. B. SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors. As noted above, the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed. By contrast, the windows in the existing laundry facility can open. However, to the extent that the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the existing laundry facility to prevent odors from escaping from windows in the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize such a condition. First,while the Examiner clearly concluded that the existing laundry facility creates odors, the evidence in the record does not establish that any odors experienced by nearby residents come from the windows of the existing laundry facility. One of the odors identified by nearby residents was characterized as a "dryer-vent" odor. See Decision at p. 7. In fact, all of the dryers in the existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the existing facility. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 7. The other type of odor alleged by nearby residents was an intermittent strong chemical odor. Service Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. See Decision at p. 4.2 However, such an odor would not come out of the windows of the I During the hearing, the issue of air conditioning arose in the context of noise, not odor, so the fact that the windows in the expansion area would be sealed may not have been made sufficiently clear. 2 Indeed, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency inspected the existing laundry facility in response to the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across the street concerning the strong Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04061.JSW.DOC -3- April 9, 2001 existing facility, as this would mean that the odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have ascertained its source. See Declaration of Robert Raphael atilt 8. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. Id. Thus, as a factual matter, there is no justification for requiring air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors from windows. More fundamentally, even if odors did escape from the windows of the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning in order to mitigate odors from the existing laundry facility. SEPA allows a governmental action on a proposal to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197-11- 660(1)(d) ("Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures may be imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal."). Washington courts have held that a government may only impose conditions under SEPA on the basis of specific, proven significant environmental impacts. Levine v.Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 579-80 (1991). Indeed,Washington courts have held that an applicant may recover damages where a government imposes conditions in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 717-18 (1997). In this case, Service Linen's proposal is to construct an expansion of its existing laundry facility. As such, the Examiner may only condition the MDNS in this case to mitigate the impacts of the expansion, not the impacts of the existing,facility. The Examiner expressly found that"there would be no new odor-generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision at p. 8. Similarly, while noting the allegations concerning odors from the existing laundry facility, the Examiner concluded that"these are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems." See Decision at p. 10. Since (as the Examiner concluded)the expansion would not increase the odor problem, there is no justification for conditioning the expansion to address odors.3 As such, the Hearing Examiner may not condition the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility. Finally, even if condition four were otherwise authorized, SEPA requires that mitigation measures "shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." See RCW 43.21C.060. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶ 6. Air conditioning of the entire Service Linen facility(including both the existing chemical odor, and did not take any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this complaint. See Decision at p. 4; Declaration of Robert Raphael at It 8. 3 Finally, even if air conditioning the existing facility enabled the windows of the existing facility to be kept closed, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning would reduce any odor problem. The air conditioners would still vent to the outdoors. As noted above, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. See Declaration of Robert Raphael atilt 5. Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -4- April 9, 2001 facility and the expansion area)would be prohibitively expensive, given the large amount of heat- generating equipment in the existing facility and the large volume of space in both_the existing facility and the expansion area. Id. Because of the cost, air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. Id. In sum, requiring air conditioning of the Service Linen facility would not be reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition four. Alternatively, the Examiner could revise the condition so that it requires that the windows in the expansion area be sealed so that they cannot open (or can be opened only in emergencies). The City of Renton, in its own motion for reconsideration, endorsed such an approach. C. Response to City of Renton's Motion for Reconsideration. The City of Renton has also moved for reconsideration of conditions one and two in the Examiner's decision on the appeal of the MDNS, requesting that the Examiner clarify those conditions to make them more easily enforceable. Service Linen is not convinced that further clarification of these conditions is required. However, the only basis for these conditions is to ensure that the proposed expansion does not cause significant adverse environmental impacts in excess of any impacts caused by the existing facility. Thus, the best way to clarify the conditions would be to specifically reference the scope of Service Linen's existing operations. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 41 9-10. Thus, if the Examiner believes clarification of the conditions is necessary, Service Linen proposes the following: Condition One: The applicant shall not operate more than two shifts, and the applicant shall not operate the boiler between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Condition Two: The applicant shall not extend the hours of truck unloading and loading into the normally quiet hours, defined as the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks during the normally quiet hours by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -5 - April 9, 2001 Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Jeff S.Weber Cc: Robert Raphael Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L0408I.JSW.DOC 1 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 9 ) ) 10 IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF MDNS FOR) No. LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01- SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION ) 021,AAD 11 ) ) DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL 12 ) ) 13 ) ) 14 I, ROBERT RAPHAEL, do hereby declare: 15 1. I am one of the owners of Service Linen Supply, Inc., the applicant for the site plan 16 approval for which the City of Renton issued the above-referenced Mitigated Determination of Non- 17 Significance. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge. 18 2. The proposal in this case is for construction of an expansion to Service Linen's existing 19 laundry facility. 20 3. The design for the expansion area calls for windows that will be inoperable and will be 21 sealed closed. 22 4. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through 23 the roof. The offices in the expansion area will be air conditioned, but the rest of the expansion area 24 will not be air conditioned. If air conditioning were provided for the rest of the expansion area, the 25 air conditioning units would be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 1 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place • 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 5. Though I am not an air quality expert,based on consultation with an air quality expert, 2 it is my understanding that air conditioning does not actually remove odors from air. That is, if there 3 is an odor inside an air-conditioned building, that odor will still be present in the exhaust from the air 4 conditioner. 5 6. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air 6 conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. Air conditioning of 7 the entire Service Linen facility(including both the existing facility and the expansion area)would be 8 prohibitively expensive, given the large amount of heat-generating equipment in the existing facility 9 and the large volume of space in both the existing facility and the expansion area. Because of the cost, 10 air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. 11 7. At the hearing in this matter, residents in the vicinity of the existing laundry facility 12 alleged that they have experienced two types of odors purportedly generated by the existing laundry 13 facility. One type of odor was a "hot-laundry" or "dryer-vent" type odor. All of the dryers in the 14 existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the 15 existing facility. 16 8. Another type of odor alleged by nearby residents was a strong chemical odor. Service 17 Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. However, 18 such an odor would not come out of the windows of the existing facility, as this would mean that the 19 odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have 20 ascertained its source. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been 21 experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an 22 odor. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of an inspection/complaint report from the Puget 23 Sound Clean Air Agency concerning the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across 24 the street from the existing laundry facility concerning the strong chemical odor. The Puget Sound 25 Clean Air Agency has not taken any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this 26 complaint. DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 2 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place ♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 9. Service Linen currently operates two shifts per day at the existing facility and the boiler 2 currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on 3 a daily basis. Truck unloading and loading now generally occurs between approximately 11:00 a.m. 4 and 6:00 p.m., though occasionally some loading occurs in the morning between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 5 a.m. to accommodate last-minute orders received the previous evening. 6 10. As noted above, occasionally it is necessary to load trucks in the morning with small 7 orders received the previous evening. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry 8 orders out to parked trucks. When the new expansion area is completed, loading of trucks with such 9 small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or 10 simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing 12 is true and correct. 13 Executed this 6th day of April, 2001, at Seattle,Washington. 14 15 i =jj - IERT RAPHAEL 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL-3 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place ♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051 JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile nTrnr.T CAT TwiT.-.=..•N AIR AGENCY P.2 APR 05 '01 03:01PM PUGET-' JUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY INSPECTION/COMPLAINT '.i I RT FO � — i20UTING IST: 0 1. �, 2. T3_ `7�� `j l" 4• . 4 , tl 1 CASE# t,1.'� ( )Smoke (J Odor ( )Fire (X)Dust/Fallout ( )WD Stove (__)Asbestos ( )Other Ty.pe(1A-6B): 2 Fallout dust County: King Date Reed: --08122/2000— Time Rec'd: Material: Verified: CSR: Location: 903 S 4th St City: Renton Zip: 98055 Info: Operator's Initials: MLL Inspector: EBF Inspection Time: i 3to kfr5 Inspection Date: (O fr 1 t(g) CONTRACTOR#: Name: ResPers: Title: Ph: SOURCE#: 17050(Reg#) Name: Service Linen Supply County: KING Street: 903 S 4th St City:Renton Zip: 98055 Mail: PO Box 957 City: Renton - Zip: 98057-0957 St: WA ResPers: Jerry Fry Title: Chief Engr Ph: (425)864-3406 cell# SOURCE#: Name: County: Street: City: Zip: Mail: City: Zip: St: ResPers: Title: Ph: ASBESTOS INSPECTION LEVEL: 0( )Off Site 1 ( )Pre-Removal 2(__)Post-Removal 3( )Active Removal GENERAL INSPECTION LEVEL 1 Off Site2(___)_Compliance L 3( )Measurements 4 C_)SourceL Test SUMMARY REPORT: tipt,Ir 1'A d 1')1.{ 0(,U't [Wr V l� cAu i CM 1. 7 likk.40 le 'G'ilAke--1,,11r . c e� j,INSPECTION REPORT:T G� �� � ���'` Y�1� � y ��1 GC,i'Y�G(f —�jyy(_ C. �1,0�'�t. 1 c tNs Co u d re, allow w r�V�l�-f' o�,�le es —}1i�1' �r1 2�ec�� � -- (( i U 1r -hc d ,fr ceA- G -I- Aer IA 1 j f' i✓e-. S C Lth1'v C ;�l�e,t'Cone Uinaq-- 1'l! cam- InvtioRLI d l �-'fr� V�d S ! -ffiN��t P W 1 vb �1v A 0E1✓e d li, kc ell ft, a_ co pi, iiAl . iocA - .r (� d*. "1, imeS respeow, ► te. a_c S vim` -f-e . io v1 (D as — ut,1 IG. 1 � aF Se rice- �i t 4- w� ekciMe d k lank, . v'v r� 31.0)0('�� U t 'Va6k01,14 Pqv S uo 6D ilt0 C l� \f\,131Wa_ Gip VAILIVI VtiAt) `319 F-00 - MI . -Cnij •Satd- -111a4" C174" sir ri&O PAA-• RECOMMENDATION: lose Case ( )Deficiency Ltr. ( )Office Conf. (___)F/U Inspection Date: Other Action: (J A.O.D. (__)Civil Penalty Amount: NOV#/Section: Inspector's SignatureC% ,._—`DA110 Film No. — Page l of �/ COMPLAINANT: ( )Confidential (X)In Progress (X)Impacting Complainant Name: Dave/Spencer Apts Street: 334 Wells Ave S City: Renton Zip: 98055 Home Ph: Work Ph: 425 227-6666 Complainant Advised: 96- %/I ()`- lr(�l r 4 M. tb 21(3. Comments: Bad odor came from source. Set off fire alarm. Throat problems. Form No. 70-103(Revised 8/1/95) APR 05 '01 O3:O2PM PU SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY P.3 Pad„. \ Source 2 50-z (� — W' Ni i `1�S r.e v a o Vats hat-Seslco✓� Dcatcct, Visa. Lt h 2,vt s le7,4` • c dafit 1W 1,o(7Adot , Mir , % -,c(,i d. d' ham' . b -trul * C kN � ra_ �F rr k WN ,plat a i- Q, w t'l,IZ Cat021vIL, MA11121Ac 1B-J4quina-1--6 AM dal ct, (AC hick . wts 19iarliccart tfAI S • k .0 's ct OV'a�l� LtC ) . . zl - ca til- thoueLOAlrbcf ' Flo ail/ f votcuriLtit fume. S - ha, ` ehenviatirei utit 1Olivvj,t;r + r,Dvjp(,- hir, J. eift011j GAS Ci10/9 AY wk ) be. sue. J I Nti 160- + c, -FLO) r1411/1,66- ,h eidef - AyAr) jI tc 19/, a A& k it‘Fiya, Signature47/ Date *4be) Form No.70-103 al APR 2 2001 CITY OF RENTON cmtoFREntroru PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WOR • _ HEARINGEXA�4INER MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29,2001 TO: Fred J.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner FROM: Steve Taylor, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Service Linen Appeal Decision LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD On March 26, 2001 the decision on the Appeal of the Environmental Determination for the Service Linen Expansion and Rezone was issued. Staff anticipates difficulties in attempting to enforce several conditions of approval due to the wording of the conditions. It would greatly assist us in our ability to enforce these conditions if some of the language was more specific and we ask that you reconsider the wording of the following conditions. The specific conditions were related to the SEPA appeal. Condition 1 -"The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates." It would greatly aid in enforcement if this condition stated the hours that the boiler is allowed to operate. Otherwise we could get in a situation in the future where the applicant and the neighbors disagree on what the hours were originally. Staff is unclear how the City could regulate,monitor or enforce a restriction on the number of shifts,and suggest that this be deleted. Condition 2 -"The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours." Similar to condition 1, a more exact statement of the time of the"normally quiet hours"would allow for enforcement of this condition. Condition-3 - "Extreme emergencies..." No changes requested. Condition 4- "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow the windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." It would be difficult for the City to monitor,regulate or enforce the requirement to provide air conditioning. Staff believes that the intent is not to provide a cooler work environment,but to restrict the opening of windows and suggests that the condition be more direct, and limit the opening of windows to emergency situations only. The applicant can then make decisions on air conditioning,fans,etc.based on the windows being closed at all times. cc: Jennifer Henning AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) �_- uc being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the Aay of >1?�% L ,lie/ , 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. 1 f' Signature: SUBSCW.BakeiND SWORN to before me this,2(0 day of,/Np,...eL , 2001. Sivit o % �� )�, Nota ublic i and for the State of Washington, %, ,k e s p_ Residing at ,therein. Application, Petition, or Case No.: Service Linen Supply Expansion and Appeal LUA00-13 31,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P 01-021,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. r - a� _ r F rr a x s•. N '_.' ♦'r ', tr is R , _ 1 _ „ -- +K,ry;'. •- yr.?Z 4 . 1 t ri. • ^�h 's r r • r 4. �iY 1'aL :•5t • r;,� .g l•'i'�+ f., r �,- ye d p .,,,, T +,tia'. 'ti rr _.,yy : f -t''•L.t.,:...3 .�:. ,�ry ; r 7 1 4 ' S,"f' .t'Y pp 4,�g-.r 3:..- ..r ` -+: it,. b. . •,a • "" ° �4 � .".`a, , «� - t �;. f . �. C V.4 t• JV k!•.-': r ,�+•:4t rw ''' • r° r }. r ` opt '}I ?t .t 4iF �1 n r. .r .14c^r8. i j , 4 - , .a 'iv- 3. - ':.r 5 ti L y• . t'�51 �ti h y�'r . • a sr 4i T;�r S iZp e ra . ram: j r'14 d� "-'1J.s _•- - ;''ti -! .l,r r ' 3 7: J. +S 1 , -t'h t t �' ;i i e1 -e5.•. �t ,•ac F ,''' '-T• .'Ar,. �., r � ern wt E 5 3y 3i k s t.,?, - ,. S • -' "ft` .;.yr- ' ~''�r .l .:. 3S I fa. ' J '"U; hi t,.-r *.e.t - t-V7:-.i, t $ r S� 1 'S * t r7 t..n P c'Y3 fb.. .yk�F.?t, yti t 1:, ? r �,. a ^ , SFR r Y;i S.•i .,r x t, 1 ` 7R,5.+" iF�'--4$,7Y�4.�-:7 +.'� r r t���� i; � ! ♦ A 9"N t+ �1 yt t'�j i } ^.t Y.,il `( t i 5{ 7t t � Ili f t + ��t t F r.�,�,7' i, } � rnt. `?.#,.S y���-;'rye+.q j +s � 3, _ ._ ! ie•• ' ..mod, ir' !.y r r r't S� • / r ° �'. free`r '� • -ti j• w ' y� f ._ ,,-{ �,�6 6 .., 6x' ray .,• k¢ i '` ?._;_'`"' -5x?s.�s" - • t r t+ � �."f Vf'" J" � + fi f,� �i�") � R•';t • k h i� �, tt^- - ' r 'N,. a ? x,fi -. t } . .. A,1.S.gr rra,,� `x_ t:;:,' re"" - •'', - t . *: � ' "' -r 4y ,r ear �t t, � y��" I a ry�x t • t ��• "•' r^.•- .. ! . t. ♦ p Y yt 'x,.+t 't --t 4rt �., y#+„ - • + `t 4, ,. try 'T -,+`cam ?' }" 5 .. a ,v't -i W`' F F+,�`5 Y i •. .t ! yrF' r • X A� 7 y r l��t- b i'�y _'�,i"S1�J r„t-' f `N Z.LS` j , . f� j'h Y- J k , '� s -3 _, Sx 7:i_. 4 �}•.y ra z', 4•l �. 1 r ' ..t �.; + ,r # bt ,.fit ti y,.J rY'e tri+: t J . t P t r .c ,.s +, • a • 'S ri,A Soy _ ,.- _ f, k y, y .*t .F .r v x ? y i -1C T'r t¢_+_t.84,, + . -� •• -'� 'fir 5 x 1 ` t ,,,,. tjy i.� :..f i h A .ti. m` F + '.r t#�,tt','.• " •}g i ,7, i �.tart t 'i tir .•o.,v' '': • t`! ' • -,.a G`9 b e3 7. C rt r-.'1 y�117'+ •..r 5 S,r P. 0 t ,r i L{ z' ,. rt .� `i.E r .J} + --2•�,r�+ ',R,_•.t01., r •�� L •y'' } dra - • . y r { .,'. f ur i -'.§Y .rs, •t+a M,'. ..' r r. r''7.,, c. i T _ 1 r9 s 4r• {c ',1 '. .r.: RF J! 5 ' .` .-x }g » f'%r t er " k '.' yet 'tE4 r,-rt . t-h r ', t • t} 3 r. 1. ' - .3. - ,': ' �'i : .4 a5lii.�.iy . nR -ti ; ro �' ` !':i i 'F 4' d 4. d4. e ,e-r J ti r3�5 ' ', r `ti '.• �7-� y{ :yam aE� i � .x� ,yr !` 5,i Yr713� �i !t'dIW ,' r a�'�t•:�-. h y 7' •f ^ • 1 e� - n��''f�� I. -��#.�m}rir3'.'/�rt :,� .z- :q .s• a�r>o �r r .�5' - ', ' '4 a�" r,. ,. t i '`1 K y Vtt rr� : ••t 5 ar h'L ' '� R 4} 4,-, '� :d ', ,.L, 'b'�F ,- �)1; .;M.'Ff�- � J• {'f hY4' S i t t r �sS ♦ �'�' �€ � V s, ,. � 4 � � 5t �" :�;1, '';,, • T 5 4 �" y.. 24y : ra Svr t 1 .r �,•A+i 4 _ � :, i} a ,t "tTrt „t i. r d .i ,, , 71 ,7+ .' y. Rt jr : t- 1 - ,� rt, ` .."! ` l '� rYy_ t �l rg Y"1f x,,ti• ,�ry Et,1.t.#4 r e '.� t4 fs, n .r -' -r r. •7_5# '''t.LT§ 'h�.At rz 'C" t:.. �� 5 - } - c• a.. , 4 d- -. } !• � }� t c-:� L ' r 1t !'rr� 'z fa 4 5 r. .1 u • t 3 k " MY i '¢Yry„''yL3t 4,-rr..}�' Si �., 3.Yx� t _f {y1- + Z -• • j ?� h' • :. �. ��+ ,� Yy.w 7 iSr '' st i - Ir,, f i, -, e S� i r;. v• y' ivy . t 1 n n t+ �Ff -rv� � t6 r ,1- r_ , J ; Srx . • z 44 4.,y j(,"; i r'?.#,,,A. ,,, s -,, r.r .... i -1 ¥ ;`--41,--•,� ?>.4.i j _ • •- r i, t` ,, S .;'..C.";ct a` 5 •! `+ y• ;' ,C ,r,iL7Y • 66 S L ,r.r v .; ,1,� t,,; r t ri A:', hS- - ,•r t,`V'' y •t ' , � {ti .r • i * 5rt {, xN"i^ .,'T, S ,$' r r, a7,-r.+, �? a `9` J e t? :}': { rtr.-.0 J.r:-. -dry ::::' #h,{r,+; " yt 5 ' i ,,,,56,,..�' �t ;r,,i ` ' ai i r.�y� 4`,' .' a w5;j t -`f } S ', - aJ` ' • �;Aar cif- .�,4 14"r..r,t '.'',� t:" • s s .S 4t } kt Ai r 3 r 4 ', x.,43, s • ' 1 #ts -s a x a' , k i rr 4� r 3' '� «d.ytx4 ia� .^ Y._ - r xs�" '�F l f LYx.E H .{ 'yam - + Ks •Y�C;.. 4 t .r 'y11,� '1 _1,�i' � 5 7 .M �t r � i!3*d 4--. 'fir..rS'.N ,.yrE, t �r 5 1 .. '� ..Y r `• t �3�4 4 Y _ a t t 'S,-�t.j y, n•x {?'� �"'� .7,�r5r, =y • 3. 'S, S 4 i k � r'• . 5 4� -L Y'.e.w�h R:. k 47kS1.t •i +s( k _- '. rt ^,, '+c'3 r ._ ?2 ,y :•— " t 'y li,..;,-„,4 T-•. . i- ? s - .r.X' � ^' * u r c • -'a a - "k r � • ..-, r i 2 k, r ill. � � � . t' ....u +�i 4. � r y • .r r � • �-�: it i k - 'r. i 434 , 'a.t'3-* t •r c 3' rJ - j•, • (. ,r. .;t,�x yf * h i !^ . Ai•.s�♦ ` a 5 4in�:!.h% 'g •J 5 74,E �', , =_b • ,; - J +•; + ? ; v • I` Y r '�„� gr-vsy,, + tA'Mi a'`� _d; Rk.� ri .Y "f'}).. "�� �#A�.J J'.L' 'YL .Fy} t� ' 7 • • •-� Y': ''1 i YY i + fi r . .r ' - t t y l7' • t • Y,,4 t <s: � rr_tt � s.S. R k t y� " r .4'� } �L.�1Y kb L 5" 1 ,.. ' .Y� ,' y r + its. ?Sri r iRT : a. i S.J r '� !t t �.w+! i 4'C yrr r Y .`y 1 j �� : 1 r'. }t ry. i ,t 1 •.nip ?-r r cwl n t '. K r , 5 r,,.S r x e !, -i� F -' i b • i c;--t 1=LL •- ER'�r.. � 'q.a � �'y�•' '1j� � ii}' s .,.t; K { r'e d 5 �. � .. r tk •-iJ. *` _ Jr J �t �� t'_.-{� .•,•0 Y -. �,"_ ' . F, -,r 'r.. '1 i5 r t �:= a'G - 'if'• it t r� '_ ,. t tom., r 4. x r� ; rr• A• f r ,.: 3 •,S F --<, •_y r.1 ', i _� - I,. ` r c °-k; J %Y1 .. �'. - r` r. r a ±' r • +r J a +y '$• .II�, i q r � s 1 �. q+y''t• R- -a• �.a, y,,^ t R..- 4 a• a '�y' to X i y _ *qr �V y ,f� • r I � ; r '3 k .. h xy1 fk _ s.. + f • sw tT J ttrrir-.S - • t., L i , ; v r ,R _ • S r i . .1't ►_7 .'Y 0 .. n 4' .'"4'� t' . _'}.f'_ + '�'-t t s'- C. yam •• rry srf r 4 , r• o .R • �' 1,nti �..Y.;�..y R rb_.- rr: Rw ._ r 1 C r - r e '� r.• t �� 6,31 r tY:- t 3P4 F-;�IEr r_At � r si Sri x � �. i•r3 Y>}._7:3 r .�. `, Y1 --mot j,,,:! i k• : :'.< i 'J ._t +:1M�, i I.. r r • s r`. 'ra r rt �+r " . .{ r , � HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT V.�, ; t ', z, z t• ? �,F�`' � i *`r, '+j vy L`^ � G'��gS j C c} r : ` .r:r 7.( N .+F s e rf4 .i 6'- �. r i -r r /'S;:^- Y• i..r r 7 >! • �'�," ,a,. -�J -t .` � n� t. ,� .3v y• 3,st �i',y 'S �ti:7 — _`�'a' fr s-� d it, • March 26,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Bob Moran Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance re Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber) LOCATION: 903 South 4th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of existing Service Linen facility. Includes a proposal to remove the"P" suffix from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 27,2001 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 27,2001,at 9:06 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, containing the The Examiner's letter setting the hearing date,maps, appeal,proof of posting and publication,and other Photographs, and other documentation pertinent to documentation pertinent to the appeal. the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: January 3,2001 City memo re Service Linen Noise Survey Results Exhibit No. 5: February 26,2001 City memo re Exhibit No.6: Sandra Maclean Resume Service Linen—Boiler Noise Exhibit No.7: Elevation Drawings of current building and new expansion Service Linen Expansion and - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA 00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 2 Parties present: Appellant: Bob Moran 425 Wells Avenue S Renton,WA 98055 Representing applicant: Jeff Weber 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 Representing City of Renton: Russ Wilsonz City Attorney Steve Taylor,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Bob Moran,425 Wells Avenue S.,Renton,WA 98055 expressed his concern about the noise generated by Service Linen. He has submitted numerous complaints to Service Linen and the City about the noise from the boiler,which wakes him up in the early morning hours. He went thorough a process with the City whereby Service Linen did tone down the noise considerably,but it is still at an unacceptable level. Mr.Moran also described chemical odors emitted by Service Linen,particularly in the summer when windows and doors are open. David Guttormson, 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt. 101,Renton, WA 98055 stated that he is the manager of Spencer Court Apartments across the street from Service Linen. He finds it very difficult renting the units that face Service Linen. He described the noise of the machinery and what times it takes place. He stated that a jet taking off from Boeing Field makes about one third the noise that Service Linen makes in the morning. He stated that very strong chemical odors are noticed intermittently in the courtyard area of his building on Wells Avenue and on the alley a half block off of Main. He also mentioned the hot, laundry type of odor that is often present. He occasionally has noticed his car covered with lint. He has not made a big issue of this with the residents of his building,as he does not want to lose tenants because of it. Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 used the Site Plan to explain the existing Service Linen facility and the various stages of the expansion project. Under questioning from Mr.Wilson,Assistant City Attorney,Mr.Taylor stated that the noise from the boiler is currently above the City's acceptable nighttime decibel level. The expansion project will not increase the size of the boiler. There will be no expansion of existing laundry processing, such as washing,drying,etc. in the new expansion. It will be mostly a sorting,folding, and loading area. The City does not anticipate additional noise impacts from the expansion. There would not be any increase in hours on the shifts that are worked at the present time. The chemical odor should neither increase nor decrease as a result of the expansion. After the expansion is complete, all trucks would load and unload at the loading dock on the south side of the expansion. Mr.Taylor stated that the rezone the applicant is requesting entails taking the"P"suffix out of the CD-P designation because it is no longer in public ownership. This will not change any underlying zoning use. The expansion is an allowed use for the CD Zone. This project should improve the traffic situation in the area by removing some of the truck traffic from Wells. - Service Linen Expansion and 1____ne -- ' Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 3 Jeff Weber, 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600, Seattle,WA 98101, attorney for applicant,stated that there is a significant difference between the issue of noise at the existing facility and the proposed expansion. Mr.Weber introduced a City memo dated January 3,2001 regarding noise at the Service Linen facility. Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer. There were some complaints at that time. The applicant hired a noise consultant who made some measurements and recommended some potential mitigation measures. One of the mitigation measures implemented was modification of an exhaust pipe so that it now vents toward the freeway where there are no residential uses. The modification has been quite successful in reducing the noise. The City memo introduced substantiates this. It is not entirely clear as to whether the facility as a whole violates the noise ordinance. The City has not issued a final decision on that question. Russ Wilson,Assistant City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 clarified that the City alleges that Service Linen is in violation of the City noise ordinances,but there has been no judicial determination that this is the case. Service Linen is working with the City on mitigating the situation. Bob Raphael,PO Box 957,Renton,WA 98057,co-President and part owner of Service Linen,presented a brief history of the company at its present location. Mr.Raphael reviewed the processes that take place at the company's Kent location and at its Renton location. At the Kent location,the product is brought in and sorted, then it is sent by truck to the Renton location where all the processing, including washing, drying, etc., is done. The product is then sent back to the Kent location for packaging and delivery to the customer. All the industrial part of the operation is located in Renton. The proposal would not change this. The purpose of expanding is to consolidate all of the operations in one place. All of the operations now taking place in Kent, including the corporate offices,would be moved to the expanded facility in Renton. The expansion will not cause significant environmental impacts to the neighborhood. By consolidating our operations,we believe we will be able to significantly reduce the impact on traffic,since the number of truck trips per day will be greatly reduced. The expansion includes a loading dock for trucks at the south of the building that will be screened from Wells Avenue. Trucks should not be passing residential areas in the morning, since the driveway into Lot A will be changed to allow entry onto 4th Street. In the evening trucks will either be kept at the loading dock or parked in Lot A. The City has imposed conditions requiring the trucks to use the least intrusive backup alarms,and that will be complied with. The expansion will involve the addition of approximately 20 to 30 employees. There should not be a significant impact on traffic from the new employees. Employee trips back and fourth between the Renton facility and the Kent facility will be eliminated with the consolidated facilities. Mr.Raphael went on to address some of the issues raised by Mr.Moran. Regarding the issue of noise at the existing facility, it is not relevant to this proceeding, and there should not be any additional noise impacts added by the new facility. The trucks that start on routes in the early morning hours would be parked in Lot A so that the impact to the neighbors will be minimized. In addition,the trucks will be backed into Lot A so that when they start up in the morning they will not have to back up,hence the backup alarms will not have to be used. Service Linen has a unique situation in that because of the location of the freeway, it is impossible to meet the City's noise requirements. Ambient noise level from the freeway at certain points is higher than allowed by the City. The question becomes,does Service Linen look at its individual noise level,which does meet Code,or does it factor in the ambient noise level surrounding the facility. Since the modification of the rooftop exhaust pipe by pointing it toward the freeway rather than the neighborhood,the number of noise complaints has been greatly reduced. Regarding the issue of odor,Mr.Raphael stated that the Puget Sound Air Quality agency has checked out the facility at the request of neighbors and not found anything. Service Linen wants to work.with Service Linen Expansion and ,..one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 4 the neighbors if there is an odor problem,but we do not believe it is coming from our facility. As with the noise issue, if Service Linen can pinpoint the cause of the problem,everything possible will be done to work with the neighbors. No new equipment will be added to the facility that could potentially generate odors with the expansion. The propane tank mentioned in the appeal is located in the north portion of Lot A. It has been there for ten years, and there has never been a complaint about odor from it. It is planned that the propane tank will remain in Lot A. Service Linen is committed to being a good neighbor. We do not believe there has been any problem from our existing facility that we have not attempted to solve,once we can isolate that it really is our problem. We do not think the proposed expansion of Service Linen will have a significant negative impact on the neighbors in the area.. Responding to questions from Mr.Weber,Mr. Raphael reviewed the issue of reduced truck traffic at the new facility, and described the type of equipment that will be housed in the new facility and what the equipment will be used for. He stated that hours of operation will not increase at the new plant. There should be no immediate increase in the volume of laundry done when the expansion opens. Service Linen hopes to grow over time,but is limited by the size of the building. No significant overnight changes in volume of laundry are anticipated. Mr.Raphael responded to questions from Mr.Moran on the size of Service Linen's vehicle fleet and the amount of truck trips anticipated at the new facility.He described the number of vehicles the company owns and the anticipated truck routes once the new facility is opened. Mr.Moran expressed concern about the particular noise,a low rumble,from the boiler in the early morning hours. Mr.Raphael responded that one of the things that will help the situation will be the height of the new building. Mr.Raphael responded to questioning from the Examiner by stating that doorway passages will be constructed between the old and new buildings rather than walls being removed. The offices will be air conditioned, but the rest of the facility will not be. Mr. Wilson entered a City memo dated February 26,2001 regarding the noise situation at Service Linen as a further clarification of the City's position: Sandra Maclean, 6987 Perimeter Road S, Suite 100, Seattle,WA 98108,noise consultant for the applicant, briefly reviewed her educational and professional background. She stated that Service Linen is a client of her company since 1992, and has a hearing conservation program for their employees. She stated that her company has been doing noise measurements for Service Linen since last August,prior to the mitigation measures they took to reduce the noise levels. Ms.Maclean discussed her findings about the noise levels of the rooftop exhaust pipe,the surrounding conditions, and other noise sources that she observed in a visit to Service Linen this morning. She explained the formula for how decibel level is reduced with every doubling of distance from the noise source. She discussed low frequency noise and how it might be mitigated at the new facility. Jerry Fry,PO Box 957,Renton,WA 98057,engineer for Service Linen explained the backup alarm system for the trucks. With the variable decibel backup alarm, as you get closer to an object,the decibels increase. The range is from about 80 decibels to 112 decibels. The current backup alarms used by Service Linen are the constant decibel alarms,which are 96 decibels. The problem with installing variable decibel alarms is that Service Linen Expansion and 1..—ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 5 when backing up to loading docks,the alarm would be up to 112 decibels. If Service Linen complies with the ERC condition to install variable decibel alarms, it would increase the noise level when the trucks are backed up to the docks for loading. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen would comply with whatever the City decides regarding the backup alarms. Ms.Maclean stated that she would be against using the variable decibel backup alarms because of increased exposure of employees at the site to high decibel noise, as well as the surrounding neighbors. She stated that there would be less of an impact to the employees' hearing safety, as well as to the surrounding community with the fixed decibel alarms. Larry Cross,Olympic Associates, 701 Dexter Avenue N, Suite 301, Seattle, WA,architect for the project explained the screening for the loading dock at the new facility,using elevation drawings. Trucks will back up to a sealed door, and all of the activities surrounding the loading area will be contained within the building. Along with the new screen wall,this should result in there being very little noise from the loading area of the facility. There will be a fence with landscaping along the south side of the property next to the WIAA property. Mr. Moran concluded by reiterating his concerns about the noise and the truck traffic. Mr. Wilson, in his closing statement,reiterated that the focus should be on what this project would do to significantly adversely affect the environment. The existing facility has noise problems and traffic problems. The project, as proposed,would improve the site, including traffic and noise problems. At the very least, it will not adversely impact the environment,and probably will improve the environment at the site. It certainly does not meet the burden of an EIS. In closing,Mr. Weber stated his client is aware of the issues,has done a good job in dealing with them and is confident that they will be able to continue doing so. The issue today is the impacts of the expansion. There is no question this will not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Mr.Weber reiterated the expansion's impact on the issues of truck traffic and noise. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 10:32 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the.Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,Robert R.Moran,filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)issued for a proposed rezone, site plan approval and lot line adjustment for property located at and in the vicinity of 903 South 4th Street. The property is the site of the existing Service Linen complex and its proposed expansion area and parking areas, and a third party office complex that is included solely in the rezone portion of the request. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Service Linen Expansion and k.—dne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA 00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 6 2. In processing the preliminary plat application,the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is located both west and east of the intersection of S 4th and Wells Avenue South. The subject site consists of 6 main properties. The existing laundry building,the converted single family home to its south,the vacant,former Ford School Site,the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association(WIAA)property, and two proposed parking lots located on Wells and Williams,west of the main parcels. 4. The subject site consists of three rectangular parcels. There is the current laundry block shared with the WIAA bounded by Main Avenue on the east, S 4th on the north,Wells Avenue on the west and S 5th on the south. Then there are two separate parcels that will serve as remote parking lots for the laundry. One is at the corner of Wells and S 4th and the other on Williams, south of S 4th. The property includes approximately 87,718 square feet that would be rezoned from CD-P to CD and approximately 46,868 square feet that includes the proposed expansion area. 5. The subject site has generally flat terrain. A small amount of material, approximately 1,500 cubic yards,may be imported to level some small depressions and provide competent fill for construction. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions: two conditions imposing mitigation fees for fire and roads, one condition related to geotechnical issues for building construction/foundation work, and a condition requiring OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup beepers for trucks used during the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 7. The ERC specifically did not approve any expansion which would include any additional noise generating mechanical equipment. The ERC made such uses or changes subject to further environmental assessment. 8. The appellant objected to the determination. The appellant objected to or raised concerns about: a. The expansion will generate additional traffic and noise. b. The current boiler begins generating noise at 3:45 a.m. and continues until 10:00 p.m. c. The backup beepers are very disturbing. d. There is exhaust odors from the trucks. e. There is propane odor. f. There is a bleach or chlorine odor and a hot laundry odor that permeates homes. Service Linen Expansion and I_:_.,ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 7 g. The compatibility of the industrial use in this area of single family and other residential uses. h. The use is expanding beyond the permissible 100 feet from the original use. 9. The majority of property in the vicinity of the subject site is zoned CD(Center Downtown)and RM-U (Residential,Multiple family). The area immediately south and west of the subject site contains a mix of single family uses and multiple family uses. I-405 is east of the site and residential and retail uses are north of the subject site. 10. The subject site contains the existing, long-established Service Linen complex, a single family home converted for accessory uses to the laundry,the vacant, former Henry Ford School site and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association property,as well as two parking areas on separate properties west of the main property. The properties are either all developed,or in the case of the vacant school site,were developed with urban uses including parking. 11. The Renton Zoning Code has a specific provision for established laundry businesses operating in the CD Zone: "18. These uses shall be permitted only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. Existing use of this type may be expanded on existing properties,contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within one hundred feet(100')of existing buildings, subject to site plan review. These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the "Downtown Pedestrian District" except for those supportive office and sales uses.Along property lines adjacent to residential uses,there shall be a fifteen foot(15')wide continuous landscaped buffer." 12. The Downtown Pedestrian District extends to just north of Houser,a block north of the subject site. It does not include the subject site. 13. The downtown core area is exempt from parking. The exempt parking area does not include the subject site, ending just to the north of the site at S 4th Street. 14. The underlying Linen applicant's business has been cited for noise violations after numerous complaints by neighbors. The record contains evidence that the boiler noise as it has been described wakes people up around 3:00 a.m.to 4:00 a.m. and disturbs not only sleep but waking hours as well. The noise apparently is a low frequency rumble that has been described as something felt as well as heard. The applicant and acoustic engineers have made modifications to equipment, stacks and vents and realigned equipment in an attempt to eliminate the noise problems. 15. The existing laundry apparently also emits a variety of odors, both chlorine or bleach type odors as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent odors,but on a grander scale. These odors permeate into homes in the area, and are worse during the warmer summer months when doors and windows of both residences and the laundry are presumably open. Service Linen Expansion and. =_,)ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 I,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 8 16. The laundry will not be air conditioned,which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises. 17. The new plans show trucks exiting the expanded plant at a driveway opposite the appellant's residence. 18. The Spencer Court senior housing complex immediately north of the subject site, across S 4th,has had trouble renting units due to the loud noises and the odors that the laundry emits. The noise was again described as a low rumbling noise and that jets create about one-third less noise than the laundry The odor was described as "toxic" and "ferocious." 19. It was reported that vehicles are covered with lint due to the laundry. 20. Apparently,the odor or potential air quality problems are more ephemeral and have been harder to document. As indicated,the noise problems have led to citations for violations of the City's noise standards. 21. The underlying applicant and City noted that most of the cited problems are from the existing facility. There would not be an expansion of shift work or hours of operation, although there will be a consolidation of the applicant's outlying components to this site. There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area. 22. The applicant does run approximately 20 to 22 laundry routes. They would be reducing the larger truck runs by moving all operations to the Renton facility. 23. Street loading would be eliminated and the trucks would be loaded in an area with baffles and a housing to insulate loading noises. 24. The applicant proposes orienting trucks so that they can pull out in a forward direction,which should reduce or eliminate early morning backup beeper noises. 25. An occupational audiologist noted that low frequency sounds are hard to eliminate but that the mass of the new building might help somewhat. They have worked with the boiler manufacturer to reduce noises. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. 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 Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v.Port Service Linen Expansion and 1_—ne - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 9 Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v.King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." a. 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 is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore,made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway,at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: a. Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. b. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." a. Probable. "Probable"means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development,whether an office building or a single family development,may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 8. First,there is no doubt that the laundry is not a perfect neighbor. It is an industrial processor in the middle of generally commercial and retail services and residential uses just south of the downtown core Service Linen Expansion and ixuzune Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-1 3 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 10 area. It generates noises,odors and traffic. Its traffic may not differ much from some other commercial uses in terms of type but does in terms of numbers and hours. While most commercial uses have one or two delivery trucks a day,the laundry has 20 or more trips and they begin their day very early, around 5:00 a.m.,whereas most commercial businesses(supermarkets, aside)probably don't receive deliveries until opening hours of 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. at the earliest. It is clear that the use generates odors,both chlorine or bleach type odors, as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent owners,but on a much larger scale. The odors have been described as noxious and the noises sleep- disturbing. These impacts have created leasing problems for the apartment immediately north of the subject site and completely irritated existing home owners around the site. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. It seems clear that the appellant and others have correctly identified the applicant's use as the culprit. The noises correspond with the starting of the boiler, and the applicant's business has been cited for noise code violations. It would similarly seem that the odors described are more robust than those that might be created by either the apartment's or single family laundering equipment. At the same time,these are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing. Larger trucks will be replaced by smaller trucks since the receiving will be more direct. There will be an increase in traffic but it is not substantial. 9. Second, given these impacts, it is clear that the City Council specifically accommodated an expansion of this business in this location. The Zoning Code was specifically changed to incorporate the language cited above to allow existing laundry facilities to expand in the CD Zone. The use may be expanded on immediately surrounding property or within 100 feet. Staff reports that all of the expansion complies with these limitations. 10. As proposed,the expansion should not greatly increase the environmental impacts of the proposal. The ERC specifically did not review any additional noise generating aspects and left that for another day if there were added equipment. It seems that an additional condition should be added to that aspect of their review. That is that any increase in the number of shifts or an increase in the hours that the boiler operates or truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours should not be permitted by this proposed expansion. Any changes in those aspects of this operation would seem to be such that there would be environmental consequences that would potentially need more exhaustive review. Additionally, it would appear that less odors would escape the site if the plant windows could be closed. Air conditioning would assist in this effort by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. 11. The rezone is not really an issue. It truly is a change of almost no import. The removal of the P-suffix merely reflects a change in ownership that has already occurred and does not alter the uses permitted on the subject site. The property was owned by the school district and sold to two parties,the applicant, laundry operator, and a third party generally not implicated in environmental or land use issues. The removal of the P-suffix will not expand the range of uses permitted on the subject site. The removal will not expand the intensity of uses. The removal removes the flag that says the property is owned by a public entity and the change reflects that the property is private property or"just property." Service Linen Expansion and I_____le Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 11 12. There is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. Some have already occurred with the demolition of the Ford School. The new building will change the appearance from a now empty lot to a building not unlike the school in bulk,but with a more modern appearance. It is hoped that the new mass will help ameliorate some of the noise problems. It will probably do little about the odor • problems. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter,unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The ERC for the most part was constrained, as is this office,by the fact that most of the complaints are aimed at the existing complex. The expansion will not increase the most complained about off-site impacts of odor and noise. As indicated, in order to assure the community that the impacts that are most pronounced and significant do not exacerbate the problems,the applicant will not be permitted to expand its shift work or hours of operation that expand the range of noises and odors or the hours in which they are problem. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case to trigger an EIS. The decision of the ERC must be generally affirmed, although with some conditions that clarify and limit off-site impacts. While environmental review may not have produced a result that fixes existing problems,there might be a remedy in Nuisance Law if the current codes are not satisfactory. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is modified to include the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. 2. The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours. 3. Extreme emergencies may be permitted to alter these conditions but shall not continue for more than a day or two at any one time. 4. The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors. ********************************************** Service Linen Expansion and '_.��ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 12 MINUTES: SITE PLAN AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2001 Site Plan and Rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 27, 2001,at 10:37 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Site and Building plans, Sheets 131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA containing the original A-1 through A-3 application,proof of posting,proof of publication an other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No. 3: Rezone Drawing Exhibit No. 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Exhibit No. 6: Generalized Utilities Plan Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit No. 7: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No._9: Historic Land Use Background Exhibit No. 10: Yellow appeal file, LUA00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD, containing the appeal,proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal The Site Plan and Rezone hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. This project involves the Site Plan approval and a rezone to remove the"P"suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The property in question was the home of the Henry Ford School from 1922 until 1999. The school district surplused this property and sold the northern parcel to Service Linen and the southern parcel, containing the old school administration building,to Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA). The rezone will not change the types of use allowed,but will recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Additionally,the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. The new building proposed on the site contains approximately 29,000 sf on the first floor,and approximately 4,000 sf on the second floor,which will be utilized for offices in the future, only the shell structure is to be constructed at this time. The total of the new building will be approximately 33,000 sf. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance,Mitigated for the project on January 30,2001. The appeal period ended on February 19,2001. Mr.Bob Moran filed a timely appeal of the threshold determination listing traffic,noise,odors and zoning as areas of concern. Mr.Taylor stated that when the Environmental Review Committee discussed the noise impacts and the concern about the backup Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 13 beepers,they were under the impression that there was an ambient level backup beeper that could sense the decibel level of the surrounding area and hold the decibel level of the beep itself to the surrounding levels. They were under the assumption that this type of beeper is available,because on construction sites a similar type of beeper is used that when the construction noise is louder,the beeper becomes louder as well. Mr.Fry has testified that the manufacturer of backup alarms they have worked with is not aware of the existence of this type of beeper. If that is the case,the ERC condition may have to be modified or operational changes that would eliminate the backup beeper noise problem may need to be considered. Mr. Taylor reviewed the consistency of the.Site Plan with Approval Criteria. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies,the CD zoning designation requires balanced land uses that can contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Downtown Policy DT-1 actually calls for a mixed use, including retail, office, light industrial and residential that will create a demand for goods and services. Staff feels that this project is part of that mix of offices and light industrial which creates both a demand for goods and services and provides those services as well. The Downtown Element also encourages maintaining and revitalizing the downtown. This project would certainly provide more intense use of an underdeveloped site as well as provide employment opportunities. Service Linen provides services for hotels,hospitals,restaurants and offices both locally and regionally. Although it is not required by Code,the project includes developing with the WIAA additional 8 parking spaces along the south boundary of the property. Service Linen,with their existing parking Lots A and B,provide for the minimum required 72 parking stalls. Regarding the project's conformance with Land Use Regulations,Mr.Taylor stated that this commercial laundry use is limited to the expansion of existing laundries. Service Linen is the only existing laundry in this area. Under the zoning conditions in the Municipal Code, condition number 18 is specific about where this type of use could be. It is permitted only as a continuation of existing commercial laundry use, and can be expanded on existing properties,contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within 100 feet of existing buildings. The proposed site plan is in conformance with the 65%building lot coverage required in this zone. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot landscaped setback from both Wells and Main Avenues South. No side or rear yard setbacks are required unless the property abuts residentially zoned parcels. In this case,the site does not abut residentially zoned parcels. The proposed building and the existing structure are on two separate lots and are connected by four openings. Because of the separate parcels,the properties could be sold individually at a future date. When properties are in separate ownership,the building either has to be set back from the property line or meet construction and fire code ratings. Staff recommends a restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcel containing the new structure requiring the openings to be sealed according to UBC requirements should the property be sold individually or the use changed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. Staff has made suggestions for increasing the size for six types of plantings in order to provide visual buffering in a much shorter time frame. Staff is recommending that the driveway access in parking lot A be relocated from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street in order to reduce the flow of traffic past the residences on Wells. Fourth Street is stop-controlled at 4th and Williams, so there should be no queuing of vehicles exiting and entering the parking lot. The applicant will also be required to revise the site plan to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. Service Linen Expansion and'nci;une Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 I,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 14 In terms of mitigation of impacts to the site,the site was graded fairly level after the demolition of the Henry Ford School. It is estimated that about 1,500 cubic yards of fill will be required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. One of the ERC's mitigation measures is that the applicant comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report regarding site preparation and construction. Stormwater from the site will be directed into a storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious area will be less than the previous school,no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated Staff feels that this project would develop and improve this currently underutilized site. It would increase the amount of employees in the vicinity, and encourage additional development. Therefore the project is anticipated to conserve area wide property values The project would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system, and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is estimated to be$7,875. The parking plan appears to provide adequate aisle widths and back out distances for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Truck hauling hours during construction are limited to between 8:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The proposed building is setback 15 feet from both Wells and Main Avenue and landscaped to soften overall bulk. The design provides for adequate light and air circulation to the buildings. There will be a screening wall located along the Wells Avenue side that will screen the truck loading area,so there will be additional buffering of noise Both the Fire and Police Departments have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. The applicant was required to pay Fire and Traffic Mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff feels that this development will add to the appearance of the surrounding area and will help prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. The proposal includes a rezone to remove the"P"suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed, but recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Service Linen and WIAA rezone.from CD-P to CD. Staff recommends approval of the Service Linen Site Plan Application and Rezone, subject to the following conditions: (1)The applicant must comply with Mitigation Measures required by the ERC. (2) The applicant must record restrictive covenants that tie the two off-site parking lots to this'use. (3) The applicant must record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition requiring that building openings be sealed in compliance with the UBC at such time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. (4) The applicant must realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. (5) The applicant must revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. (6) The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. Service Linen Expansion and 1__ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 15 Using the elevation plan,Mr. Cross discussed how the building is separated into different pieces,using glass areas in between to increase the visual impact. The glass allows for light and ventilation,as well as ties the new building in with the existing facility. The use of landscaping, and striation of colors and materials will help to visually buffer the bulk of the building. Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened by the parapets that go above the actual roof line. The building will be constructed of concrete block,which is durable and will help mitigate the noise from within the building. Mr.Raphael stated that it is important for Service Linen to have access on both Wells and Main because of the heavy traffic on Main in the afternoon. Service Linen is willing to work with the neighborhood in terms of which streets would cause the least impact on traffic. Mr. Raphael explained why the present building layout is operationally the best plan in terms of the processes involved. The main issue in the layout of the building is keeping the clean and soiled laundry sections completely separate to avoid cross contamination. Regarding the noise issue with trucks backing up to the loading dock,Mr.Raphael stated that normally the trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. The only time trucks would back up to the loading dock in the morning would be to add small orders received in the previous evening. In regard to the propane tank,Mr.Raphael stated that roughly half the vehicle fleet uses propane, so it is Service Linen's intent to keep the propane tank, at least for the present. Mr.Moran reiterated his concern about the noise and the truck traffic. He also expressed concern about property values in the neighborhood being negatively impacted by a business the size and type of Service Linen. Kayren Kittrick,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 stated that the storm water system is seeing some massive improvements in this area. A larger line is being laid south to Grady Way as well as other improvements being made in connection with other projects in the near future. Two way traffic on Wells and Williams Avenues is a possibility that is being considered in terms of long range planning only. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen's facility is a use that is specifically allowed by the Zoning Code. Service Linen has no plans for further expansion beyond the new facility at this point. Regarding the noise issue raised by Mr.Moran,Mr. Weber referenced what was said in the SEPA appeal about the existing operation not being the subject of the site plan approval hearing. Mr.Weber reiterated Mr.Raphael's comments about the Wells Avenue access and the loading of trucks in the morning hours. Mr.Taylor clarified that City staff would like to have the current loading area moved off of Wells Avenue with the completion of the expansion. He reiterated that the traffic situation in the area should improve with the completion of the new facility,and restated that City staff does recommend approval of the project The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:55 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 16 1. The applicant, Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber),for Service Linen and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association(WIAA)filed requests for Site Plan review for an expansion of the existing Service Linen's laundry plant and a rezone of the two parties property from CD-P(Center Downtown with a P suffix)to CD(Center Downtown without the suffix). A Lot Line Adjustment for portions of the subject site is being processed administratively and not part of this review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject proposal encompasses parcels at five locations. The existing Service Linen property is located at 903 South 4th Street. The expansion area is south of that and is located at 408 and 420 Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot A is located at the southwest corner of South 4th and Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot B is located on the east side of the 400 block of Williams Avenue South. The WIAA parcel,the old School District Administrative Building, is located at 435 Main Avenue South. 6. The rezone would include the parcels located at 435 Main and the Wells parcels. 7. The various properties are all generally located just south of the downtown core,just south of Houser Way and the railroad right-of-way and between Main and Williams. , 8. The subject site is part of the original town site of the City which was incorporated 100 years ago this year in 1901. 9. The area has a mix of zoning districts including the subject site's combination of CD(Center Downtown)and CD-P which would be changed to a uniform CD if the P-suffix is removed. North are additional CD parcels. There is also CD immediately west on the south side of S 4th. West of the south portion of the site is RM-U (Residential Multiple Family). East of the site are the unzoned Main Avenue and I-405 rights-of-way. 10. The uses in the vicinity of the subject site include residential, including single family and some multiple family uses to the west, and an apartment to the immediate north across S 4th Street. I-405 and Main Avenue are east of the site. There are additional single family uses south of the subject site. 11. The subject site consists of the block bounded by S 4th on the north,Main on the east, S 5th on the south and Wells on the north and two parcels,one of which is located on 4th and Wells and the other on Williams south of 4th. The Service Linen complex,including the older factory-type building and a converted single family home, is located at the north end of the block. The next property to the south is the now vacant,former Henry Ford School site. The most southerly parcel,the WIAA building,taking up the south end of the block and involved solely in the rezone request,was formerly the School • Service Linen Expansion and 1_„—ne -- Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 17 District's Administration building. 12. The applicants, Service Linen and WIAA both request that the P-suffix that is attached to the properties that were formerly owned by the Renton School District be dropped from the CD-P zoning and changed to just CD. This is intended to reflect that the properties owned by these parties is private property and no longer publicly owned property that is subject to special criteria. The removal of the P-suffix would not change in any manner the type of uses permitted on the various parcels. 13. In addition, Service Linen has requested a Lot Line Adjustment that would consolidate the boundaries of the parcels it owns between Main and Wells. This proposal is not before the hearing examiner but is subject to administrative review. 14. The final request,the one of the most substance and the one that would result in changing the use of a large portion of the subject site, is a Site Plan to allow the expansion of the Service Linen complex to the vacant lot to its south. The expansion would remove the single family home that is located immediately south of the existing factory building and replace that and the vacant lot with a modern 2- story addition of 33,000 square feet. It would also develop parking along the building's south margin, as well as redeveloping parking lots located west of the site on Wells and Williams. The single family home that will be removed has been used for laundry office purposes over the last few years. 15. The expansion would extend the building approximately 160 feet to the south. It would run through the block between Wells and Main and would be approximately 204 feet wide,east to west. The building would be 42 feet tall with rooftop mechanical equipment. Although such equipment would not be visible from the street, it might be visible from the residential areas on Renton Hill east of I-405. 16. The applicant proposes providing 15 feet of landscaped setback along Wells and Main. 17. On the exterior the building will appear like a series of connected buildings. Colored concrete masonry blocks will provide the main walls with horizontal accent bands. The building will provide a variegated roofline with peaks, slopes and flat elements. Structural elements such as cross-bracing will be visible over glass block walls,which should provide visual interest. There will be awning and other trim detail. 18. The applicant will bring the building's parking component up to current code. Code requires 1 to 1.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet for the laundry and 3 to 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space. The total parking required would be a minimum of 72 stalls. The applicant proposes 73 stalls. There would be 38 stalls in Proposed Lot A(Wells lot)and 30 stalls in Lot B(Williams lot). There would be five stalls on the main site. In addition,there will be parking for eleven(11)trucks. 19. Loading bays will be located along the west side of the south facade. 20. The placement of the loading bays will place them closer to residential uses across Wells than if they had been located nearer Main. The layout equipment in the existing complex apparently dictates this positioning so that the new addition meshes with the existing machinery and internal processes and routing that currently exist. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 18 21. In exploring whether truck circulation in the early hours should be directed out to Main in order to lessen the impact on the residential uses along Wells, staff noted that the Transportation Division supposedly did not want exiting to Main. But Transportation was not at the hearing, so it was not possible to determine if using Main at 5:00 a.m.would interfere with traffic. If not,then a Main exit would route vehicles away from the residential uses on Wells,at least as they are starting out,with headlights and engines directed to the west. 22. Originally,the access to the Wells/4th Parking lot would'have been from Wells,which is a one-way street northbound. In order to access the lot,all traffic would have had to use the residential,southerly portion of Wells. Staff recommended that the access be from 4th,a generally commercial,two-way street,to lessen the impact on the residences south of the parking lot. 23. The Geotechnical Report demonstrated no discernable problems with redeveloping the subject site. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of material will probably be imported to support footings and level minor irregularities on the site. 24. The laundry had carried out loading and other operations at curb-side along Wells. These operations will now occur at the loading bays,which will be baffled. The record reflects that the applicant has not always been the best neighbor for the residential uses surrounding the subject site. Apparently,both noise and odors are emitted from the site,which disturb neighbors. The odors are apparently hot,dryer laundry odors familiar to those doing personal laundry,and also chlorine type odors from the descriptions. Noises have been from the loading operations as well as from mechanical venting equipment that emits a low rumble type of sound created by a new boiler. 25. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant proposes loading the trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. This should reduce some of the early morning noises the applicant has generated in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Rezone 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14,which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis;or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 19 The requested classification is justified and should be approved by the City Council. 2. The only issue in the rezone is the change in ownership status of the subject site. The subject site had been owned by the Renton School District. They sold the site to two separate private entities, ending the public ownership."Those owners would like the P-suffix which signifies public ownership to be dropped. The site would be classified CD(Center Downtown) like most of the other property in its vicinity that is also owned privately. 3. The,CD rezoning is the designation found in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 4. Since the CD-P was applied to the site,as noted,the site was sold to private parties. 5. Most significantly, again,the elimination of the P-suffix will not change in any manner the nature, intensity or other aspects of uses permitted on the subject site. CD and CD-P both permit the same exact uses in exactly the same fashion. 6. The proposed CD zoning is appropriate given the record. Site Plan 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposed expansion is compatible with the goals of developing an urban downtown with a variety of commercial and residential uses. While the use probably is more industrial than commercial, an exception was made to allow this old,established business to expand within its nearby vicinity. It will create additional job opportunities in the downtown area. It has incorporated a number of interesting Service Linen Expansion and ro..one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March,26, 2001 Page 20 design features to make it more visually appealing,which is also compatible with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The building meets the various goals and bulk standards of the Zoning Code. It provides setbacks that will give it a more appealing street image than the older building. Staff will determine compliance with the Building and Fire Codes when a building permit application is submitted. 4. The use has been made as compatible as an industrial use can be in a mixed commercial and residential area. The position of the loading bays unfortunately locates trucks closer to the residential uses than is appropriate, but the internal design of the existing plant seems to require that. It seems that a little more relief could be offered if the trucks were,at a minimum,to leave the site in the early morning hours via Main rather than Wells. Since Transportation did not provide needed information, it would appear reasonable that trucks exiting the site around 5:00 a.m.would not severely interfere with traffic on Main. Therefore,the applicant will be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. 5. The design looks as if it will be appealing from the street. That should diminish its intrusive, industrial nature to nearby residences. 6. Unfortunately,the older building will remain in a prominent location that is highly visible. But the redevelopment of the remainder of the subject site at the scale proposed should minimize undue impacts on the site and surrounding uses. 7. The redevelopment of the site should not further impact property values. The industrial juxtaposition with the residential uses probably already has had an impact. 8. It appears that with staffs condition on relocating the Wells driveway from Parking Lot A to 4th should provide reasonable circulation for the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9. The zone allows much taller buildings than proposed so that access to light and air should be reasonable. The glass walls should provide light into the building. 10. The site is served by urban services. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the rezone. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: Service Linen Expansion and 1...—;ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 21 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review committee Threshold Determination,unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project manager prior to approval of the building permit. 7. The applicant shall be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. 8. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. ORDERED THIS 26 day of March, 2001. FRED J.KA it •N HEARING EXAMINER Service Linen Expansion and.. .one Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 22 TRANSMI FIED THIS 26th day of March,2001 to the parties of record: Steve Taylor Bob Moran Bob Raphael 1055 S Grady Way 425 Wells Avenue S PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Russ Wilson David Guttormson Jerry Fry 1055 S Grady Way 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt 101 PO Box 957 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Kayren Kittrick Jeff Weber Larry Cross 1055 S Grady Way 1501 4th, Suite 2600 Olympic Associates Renton, WA 98055 Seattle,WA 98101 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle,WA 98109 Sandra Maclean 6987 Perimeter Road S, Ste. 100 Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMI 1ThD THIS 26th day of March,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members, Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney 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 Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 9,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure,errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant,and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. Service Linen Expansion and 1_:...,ne Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 23 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte(private one-on-one)communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision-maker concerning the proposal. Decision-makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication.and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • I .I 0 .d �' ril 12 c u+._' '1_I. ,�+tK 12 If1,� :. •I't • J i �,��� :e ARCHITECTURE 1 p1?�r:1 �.J ��� v i , I Q�11� Ip �t i , ,, itS167Is11 n u � �.., 71144 ENGINEERING.. 6 �Q• KM ®2 •12 Os 3 ■•ii( 3 afali '210 �',1lir�' _ • • __ V PLANNING . ®6 1% ® w b 4 Kw, ii-an u Iq .212 a n ] 16 4 k 10 ,,. 1 �• ' :• ih• 4 ,�•'� rr,r MANAGEMENT 1 �� 1�•" 16r•.v. ,tlf'� 16 • a t S`�5 .r;T 701 DEXTER AVE.N. [N " t s 1 s yl �� 6 _ e19 0 701 D X WA.VEIN9 c u (206)285-430D T \.�\AR 1 .I 3 O. 1 7 CM i� 1". • 'I 'u7 it III,..,''. s� �1.-0~..•.�.. DN, 0 L Y M P 1 IAA �I r t !. I a Iris y 31,� ne 4233 _ a 6 .4.� .t / ASSOCIATE • 8 q`I� '��w , * 1���Itii , , 9 ll:. f llEi APE ui° •1. "'tss tri WWII n h a F � •:$ ••• direi4�•3 I bflc 1 C 0 M P A N NF l a SS�ro 0. �y s— as •.• W �Iuj,�al+.E3iIrX> - 4. . 511 . xrr �_J PAS 'r • fi _ Vi n �u.a. �c+ r(0' lia �` i . S. 3R 1 a-- 101 AC.t�..n ST. �..� �_i "'- ===� 0=-=-�.S.v .4., r— •+ �� [ ,��,! i� - SERVICE LINE u �`. s lops � (�I! !� err ( E . �� �tl�` Lmii R,��yII®'Itif w®' r I. >„ r t• aiLA11 HW[1 E I �'r r t d1: A +.A I.' .A ' 1R i (! 1 ~``: SUPPL .'4 1 I *IAN? Whir 55, �� 1�/ 9a92 y� 0 T d� 'firi Z9 '- ►, s,' �. 1 81iF m, riam �4� iW1 •4 ® L2 • ®. Q � ▪(�9 e�MS1• 6IIi 9 a o )� R n i MI UI EU \rr A ! I ,;, Mr i �/ 420 WELLS AVE SOU •® I. 1r.1 21 Q y'�� Qs". '' Il" ,' �1:, ea 60 iE�ii ® tr,,s�` is SL I� �.� C�- RENTON, V :® 1t ®, tri. 14oa y I�SI�i1�'!!�C �v!- hj� 7 1�1' ���V• r_,... — 3O a 171 .5 . f : 3 2121 fib• IEWA -10 AN ® I: —11774 o n13• t,�l4 -1_. cc 3�'rs.1!ll2 `I S\. � D+� . A a .' . :I7 9 s. t 166' 'Le a i,l ,may Q �,� • ST c y s ,.+I Tonkin Pork%Park t3• th AVE r! I o:he ��,�S;Sj�T `���\ • � r�� • rel. 21 m A,N � ��� �!I�F.� �Y � .y i16'i'1�i Ct tai' It�l�\ � cy! _----- • 19 1�! I ��(t�, ; sa 'd _ y\ - • _':a 28 __� �f r CCU �� Ea, Q= lLmll NMI ;f 1LY��:�i s ® ,;•Ano ' ,`r��'�A.7 4011 .�"' ��4 •11 •� 17 1� •Ff Lmug�l .. A f ONATIO 7/A/ : l�urYmi "' ® ' \ N li!!E I `' - 1 �. [_u i Ell I6�. • a OP:f r 4;{��' ,. ' ' w97�61t.�ISO .w5 I • W M a, ,I :•1,, (� LRI -® E \ , - L� ' !! +. i eeo • EI a ® . 7 ta •Q mg 14,E t •:::::;:;:: .: �� . . _ _ NEIGHBORHOO r • W ....ZIPS- gp; ... �i :�. v ®TI �© 26 DETAIL MI ��{{�:�is�,",,� �?' •piTi, .. i rka •® ! . .�.1'n 12 ®.Y;1 ..... r�• 5i �• Ei:+:•;ne -a N .>, ri It t+ cn m• c:� !! r .i..::;.. ' ' Fm� ' cs��! �eo�e` I� � 61� EAn 11 pa 1::. :•.,. " f »� l' �c�\ 25 ►f2!• �t7 2j f/.i�a h "�rs1D ,+a �raa rt, � � f31 •� \ � �, s �5T @ • �� 8. 8th AVE j ..j;: 6 4,..-{ r a� ,„ CI) f Ell C_n MT W t r: lS7 ' ' "� t!"I''Nil el., t j a`'=__-a -...._..._ ......._. .._ I "� ® T fl 64 Z i !+::; ® 2 I9 4,. �I Il�14 i O P got. (2) \ 2rt® • _ 3 1a_ L ale, 1 � �ED 31 r �WI �® �,i1 r,� • , ---- -----:_:: 2t Qg]. 2t R • n,Fit. ® �• T--: . I B ti I, -- �s'I,SS.'• �'� r.__... DI sL 4l.®. a ( » 4 n ® aiH .i R _ : 1 t �' fit--- — ® [� 2D 39 wive 19 ,•4# o I-, ! c : c ktT I E _ NORTH ..� E:� 19 1231• try >;ki� N 't• i _® 6� ® O. .® �. h• -.�-'�O___ 2� 52 M.. M.. a is ®• � l6 r'` • AV ® �Knl. . 'S ®• ,® ' ; i• .O.t 5' . M O i '31 s C 1`.F3 W •ra VA • 6 T it US 7 14 im• •®.m 2 1. e ',? ® r:li ti i r - 1 4B, ict Fi'+ 10 6 gm ~ 6..Z' • 'r$: 4/ IA i SOBMI El��• 4. , p_ r o eo ,00 2000 Soo T. .II b Fin :p II ARC 0 'll a h�( air aP� GSI! : Ao !!j ,r� is g' SP. Y' .loo 1 °3EINC 4`ibr n �f7. • „ §Eh V` I S.Ir-6 •n'' . L 1 .d +(,' 1° -- 'C 0 P t R I :..:I.. .[+Y r .e R rt.tY r"�� ((��O`` eW +I , --1' III" R V il1.._n@ wct�e w "'%aL.:.S r•2 2DThrg w rircita a1� + ' t . Rl la u.n QC' .`/a Er •14 1 IIII :::: `(6� ', ' I ISO ram' r°` 2odd18 I i Y 0 G�`,.a�•� 12 [+�� (1 It I ,,', �-N'i[ I e ' # ,6p ® Q• • il' �>rA \ �. OJSAa i41VJ� L• n o,. RN MID .... N. / .,/ / • i-1- 5: • .e,. it ---'6. 6.- 1---7 N--• \NN //: .-:___ RFV-U iv_ . - — ------L---- RM- '), .\-- • \ ! - \ N _.... . : .__. ....___ •, --- ._.1 •....,. -....\,, . . N....\:\C ( P )m' i .R.N—u ..„. -,.. : \ — 777[5::= _____T___-- -TO ..,,,,, • : - C D CBI— \ 2nd M. I C-D- CD N.,,, \ le . C 1:1 77.____ 1.. ......„ _______ , N . ___ p IC-II- I-- fl .-------. (-) -----_, . ---., -- — 'D 13 CD V ...., ....-- -,,, 4....-- "-- Th CD "r% .____ t -____—__ •iN 1.1/ ct. 0 • ( -- —• - -•------- • ,.. --1 Er --- 1 . , --".,1 „ •401,1, - --:--RCII.41-- / I / • II ..— 1 ---- :......'- . z "....... ' • I .......... ) riz,y ] t__...._ —Lc ..9p -_,....-?,;-.:-. C . ./. i , -.. --,.. .. ._ . . . - --,,,..: ,..... CD CD(P) . li c.1)- /.../ .. •• • R C . •1 il . / , N.., „... .., .., --1---- , __._ -.. -_,I A e - -. rewil. or-___ I- -- e 11 . / .. ,/„._--_\.._.,,, ...._--. ____...:._,__._...i.."..i 1,, , \ s j Vlee-m., (.40t • \ • _....._ Car) 44 - i L . 44 iteEll ----- --- .-.- - --t---‘ 1----- CD 47*. ., ___. . \ ',. _ \ \ ._ . . _.,. R : 8 1 ----- -..:-_-_. .. te-sn- - ' R I \I C0- -6 - \ -IR\ .. NI _--m-.1- _-- ..----. ,N(r. . ., -. _,____ . . •_. ._ _ _ , . _ _ F„,„„,,_. , , (.,..$ __._, ii : .._ ,_ _ ___ ______„_,_ ________„_.__ _ ,_,LL • • ,,. O:)___ ,ci..._,._ LeiN,.._ • • ,i_< •• . ___...... ;\ 7,. , Lc) / co I 1 • -,,, . . -- 1 1 \ . , cx ! I , \ U• ._ -- - ' ! r•••,,,........................ , . --, --1-) •--i ....` I I I - C lk. 0 7 - ! I lic mn 'cv- * CD . -----• - - -11)-• - * — I _ •• IN-'*------.- 1 \-t- 1 , k \ qii _CO_ . . i _-_--(1-. \ \ • I [ \:.\ ' ' \\ )1 n --. ' 1 _ ! „: , , . -,. \I i •. \\ •41111. - - . — • • • Aill 7 • - d••••••• • . . _- : , . c -) _ _.. _ .. , . , . . _co_ . _,,,_, 011.••••••••••••• 1-----..- .."7...: _,.,...) ..._J-- _i_ us jr-- \ -.1.-- - ,\ \ j Cf.) --- 0 c4 -TI , \ • G4 0 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 ?...m.40 . . 0 m ,4' ZONING . • 1:4800 _., P/I3/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES. . -scjiN• 01/18/0I 17 T23N • R5E • • ARCHITECTURE ENGINE I 4 MANAGEMENT ) \ EN. PLANNING a , EN) I 701 DEXTER AVE.N, __ SEATTLE,WA.98109:'^• —RTC.—.__�.—_—.—_—___—___—.—___-I+-, • I— M SOUTH 4th STREET 1 , (206)285-4300 -: #xz s'unseal OWEN.04,00 I 60'R.O.W. I I O L Y M P I C TO WONT Or WAY , it...',,,,=f2r24i`A ) Sr.` ( , -� I Mg ASSOCIATES /' fi I I COMPANY ?'CAA' 0w X 20'D PARKIN° J , i i SPACE-TYP. 1 ,. n ) 1 ♦ O.50 K 1e'D COMPACT ,4 LOT" ' p [OSNN0 SEDUCE . I PMNND SPACE-TYP. I s I LINEN BNWIN0 22�• SERVICE L I, `'I ..ew Donal yy,, rT 00,00 u •.y, WAOOf[3 THESE KRITAKEC ice, • —nM bil PARKIN!!1i0M°UI 8519460 I _I '.k 21• MO 24. y T _ I i I S U F' - 7 ME REDURW FOR— -.. n aM ,` I ..I I A I PROPOSED RE[01CO PON A101 fG vV,w01 W4A h ,xe '' .rwar s'L4NWSCAP[5UR[II ADlACUR ip M011T o1 wAY -•--•+•�• • I . P Je W105+iiT 7::':•Sj`:;: '!::::'iii:;;�Yii:L:n:;i'�:v:: ••I r I- 20 Or TNESE 1100 F ARE r I ' N ups'?..;...SZ(R:LA•,u A uPU I, h y ;z'!;iG.+Cisii;airii'!.:;^::^:yi:Yii`i,iiiiiiiv:^:F'• • • 17 S0, L LOT SZE 2 R PARNMQ f0Aa ii f" .I COVNEDOAN r� RK9I C I �'ii;:�i.:z�:�:;�;;;:�isx��i%a:•:•:•:::•i•;:r:iix%.�:•�;;:�;:;�:t+:t;;i:::::n: ••�;�;;' E. e eA4An LIK 7 PR°POaW BCRNCE I 0.1.wm rA•°rA,s•rra) �71 WELLSAVESOUTH I UNN[%PANS 0 N I o� 420 E 0 wii 4v ,ram y nA:�iisii.'i'`:.i;'i5i;>.iiv1:!ni'r.i)iiii�i:jj i:ii;;e:>.'hi?i%-'::(.i!ti•iyC+•i�iiiiiiii:$.-jy •wRVLus vARKwo •w7 3 RENTON, WA ♦ V‘V t r� AC[) I I ns' • � i a 'S i o d >•,N Gaya;?axx%;;:e:`!% * ,�5.�,.- �y :;.:�;.s:riisa':k<'< ` '::%'i�;'%t':i�ia'i�t�i�GiiS?�:i`.%Gi.' K� a n n i' �i'' A7d'. c, ai.-1t �.'•is��.�a<?r;=::�;;i:;a;:::;i;:€;rrid`.iEi'iy8i:Si;i;%%"'s'i%t;s '�:sua31°°$ v,��, n M n o rorK uNwuvW ARFA .mo R c h {y{� itigtr4 a R I%S�� ' -p „ (Nor INCWOaO 0'UNDSCAR[eur7u) a 0...? °" :T':::FT•l:O,f,.^:Y.\l�.tiE.::!V.'4] 7V5ai i :r i%; '�"::!•.* bn UMPSTER ENCLOSURE n . L _,,-: ;:>::,:;;:..;.: ....::2;:.................,:�.......... .....:......:::.::: .:.�::.::::::::.:::::::'13 :;, s[ • Q � x -4��;!u>°7:„s>:::::a�?:<'> d:t�:istN:�31E:aS1B3c,D]�f�:>:;:;:i:::r;;t�iss;s:?:>i>::rr,..�. ,r •SCALE:1/4'.1'-0• 3 * ::9�G '. I �i I� 7. i I 2' u• [• L4 �i.4. �.rt,i !istp�� ` f: i K•ari+r. $ K I ] �i I vARKa°.3o NnluEs �, e 4.,.wr w Y 'D PARKING a,e...nm w,m-o. , bf ""iwi/ii::?'i::ir:':'i:':':":'iiv:i:�:':vii::i:i:::•:•i!::'::..� �% EDT stt•11,00 S./. 1 SPACE n Ii-cr.-11 p Ow ovrwYbn NMI I .. S LOAD .:::�i�:iCr!Mt;';vi:;::;i'•':e'�i!i iS".:I2 241.r. .SY1,'0 COWACT �i JO'.lOK PAVEY[M :.4.J1ii:;:•in. 1.........:...1:I.,.S,�:.. P. A'TA'j PMrN SPACE-RP. .."....."-•.. .----- {, •.:. .•..•• ........... RX,, ir 5. ;c...:. . $F: IQNQ PMMN°In2 I 1 r.Irl2 iii -" 1Il 1 In'::::::•::::'.,:':: • 1. TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA: 1,]75 Si.-f 3R + 4um fU4[• 7+ 1 • QIII O: (NOT[IC1110IN0 s'LANDSCAPE eurvm) I 1 0A,r,Ni " Q II/AI,1, III a 4`4 p... IS t- - -- KTT,s„ L w. ` TANNIN°(5)SPACES(ON s�E l O T N IL4-- —PROPERTY UNEp rim;;;, 'aa5gl� iab SITE PLAN • I b . I b PROJECT NOTES• I .o�..00 K,..I W N 88.2450 E Y04.42 �� a P . EASEMENT UNE PAw(ao(e)SPACES ON UMW* I-1 OCCYPAICY P,�,,; I I I ' I STREET OR OPEN SPACE ON ALL 4 9DES Or NUMu PARKIN°REQUIRED PMON TO PROPOSED E,IPAMSION: W EIV INO NEWM•05 FEET REQ'D TOII WINDRYI Ya 1 SPACE//1,000 4R.11. •22,507/woo.t.22.e 3PACE3 I n PROPOSED RUN°MOUT 42 FM WY to SPACE/1,000 40.14•22Ae7/1000.1.5•33.S SPACES REO'D TOR OTICLi 05 3 SPACE/1,000 411. •2,7115/IOOO•3•e.3 SPACES = m7 I AOKW Di //'•2�tp;7 IR7p 1"Ru'.RI W2 4.5 SPACE/1.000 70•tt •2,705/1000 a 4.5•12.5 SPACES iPONI•JI i{LT YW PARMO REQUIRED•31 SPACES I I PtC.gi 10R RaOru REM .0 SECT VAX PAR(012 REOU(RW•41 SPACE ovo I MIs,OOSWr1/0 SIDE•0 FEET I Y I (e'•r t • • 1Urt➢INO AM. TOTAL PMK040 REQUIRED FOR EXITING D(ISDINO AN0 EXPANSION: FXISTINO BRRRR f11N(: /415 EIOSUNO 11514311402 22.Se7 Si.FAST FLOOR IU0'0 FOR{ALIRNDRY:POP 1 SVAOE 1.000 0 44. •54303/1000.I.57]SPACES I I • I I 2,705 Sl,TOTALste FLOOR LUX IS SPACE/t,000 F0.11.•sL]07/1000 R,d•77.0 SPACES 25,380 SP.TOTAL 0[NTRY TRUCKS TO PARK ON PROPERTY a PROPOSED DAMS: 20.715 Si.MST FLOOR RW'D NOR OTTK(t Ya]SPACE 1,000,RP1. I,e03/1000•3 20.7 SPACES W — 4,125 4F.SECOND RAOR 0112 43 07200/IA00 p3L •e,50]/1000 a 4.3•]IA SPACES I pI m I I 32.040 Sl.TOTAL o, TOTAL AREA:(EXIST. 50,105 Si. YIN PLUM REWIRED•72 SPACES (31 SPACES FOR Eva.DEDO.,41 SPACES FOR ExPANSIDN) I 7I T— R I I I I. ARm 4 PROPOSED BLOCS.) YAX PARKING PLOWED•105 SPACES •37.550•A.IONED CD.OVT2WE OF AOUK PARIONO MNMOW:(NOT I I z I IMY I DV°0(MD(GROUND RUM Mu•223.00777Oy)s2RNCC LW W (I2j02L000ES 4 NFOCY oM STE SI US FOR PHYSICALLY INXUWGP2P°EDD) II SPACES FOR,RUCKS • O[�L0{ 45.eee n 2a4W W(r A R¢ONE LOCATION OF PACK TOR AUTOS PRQPDEA MUST BC 0�0 MTA°ar0.SNLDrq/(RYT 5 SPACES U1 SIR IRTY/l5N ,a{,,740 40.1E IONED COp AN IRONER AACd�s N LLpp7T A•.Sill MI AV[,SOYM '„'4,N[,405.0 19•7 0.1Ra °P SUSS K4 WRR1ED PRgR TO QSIA OE a EDi T.ACROIS WSLLI AK SWAN i I 234.39' I�I I WOIOO«C I,Ximweu A SQUAW PERMIT. Imo• owe Rum US w,f 7e7K OM Or P45044 Y I•O.70.55E µIS I�TOrK ARG(MNMOITY I USWMf).7.190 El.(INCLUDING PAVIRS) I ` N 66°23'3S'W 240.18' I ram¢Iin,06100rn0 PRO I h rASOIOR S,.u[p.a TOTAL_A1u LIT rR554141Y I I A INNINP 70.I10 MA. R OF PROPERTY VI IINp3lAPT° ALAS SOI1Tp 5th STREET 01461671F N tmrrp r(In r67077 O'""'"'1.[5R OI 4E,s0e si. 6. R.O.W. •C o P Y R•!p�( o N.fir )•]04A4 Sl wargDIII Pa MRCP+K.=PICK/TELEPHONE 4-7-2000 ---------•-- R. .W. — •—•—•—'—• °PE`S. : .�,iirs',�9u a'�r�e rimW 1 ON 4 CaSt040 OP/DES NOT REQUIRED. WSDNO GRADES ARE NOT ISi:.-- p4]0'AZT."'00YOIW PON1ION ORNMV4,RUT OCCUR FROM 0040U110N MIRK. Pn„-I.n 844 2600(63 I ,. /3,4e.I.14■ NORTH ' SITE PLAN MRr 7eNr.] FAPrNON4K!7r,Nr u /I I� '— p galAFVC tl O78p, sTllueTUR[W1M NON fAYSKTeLL 0 15 30 80 00 t—`tILJry {�L� A GTEAIOR W LLS.IIRIY SP 1%30 nu mlcw RP,54 _ • CREAM COLORED ARCHITECTURE •�"'fiG�.': BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED PRECAST CONS.LINTEL CNU WINDOW SILL CMU ACCENT BAND— ENGINEERING � '11Z METAL SIDING —°KRAKI°SPOT-FACE 'ROSE RICK C°SPOT- BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PUNNING .� TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK —�. CMU BLOCK PRE FINISHED MANAGEMENT Ilk inmilli METAL AWNING 701 DEXTER .■■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II �-, IIII 4 4 • OLYMPIC �jill�IIIII I �! II II 1IIII1IIIIIIII + 11u1 II(UY"!4-Bllll(j�j �j SE1 DEX ER AVE.VE. �I ;lily I • 1111�I�I�U111(li 1UI II (20B)2135-4300 -v• t-:�; . ASSOCIATES COMPANY Y t . . . MIMI wttr 41Cy %. I I, tt�� .Wit: 1'^J,.,.'..';`•'' SERVICE Llf's''''''''O i— --- —ter— —tom JjA_T �: '• i,Ys `,/ A.,, 6, - N I n '•:i GREY SPU I -•^-"' EXISTING&FINISH GRADE.--) CMU WATERTABLE TREWS SCREEN "^•--^^^^-- CMU BASER-FACE • WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED RENTON, WA METAL SIDING 'KHAKI'SPOT-FACE —'ROSE BROWN"SPLIT- BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK COLORED • TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK• CMU BLOCK I IIIIIIIIIIBIIII!'' _Tr•�. rr• 't— IIIBI lilll r IIIIIIII IIDIIIIII�IIIljlllhII�■IIII I � • - ___ IIIIIIII 1 IIII Iltll II ■ iT .11., 0 / �i I�i — ...... .. . ....:..n 0 :S Z s . ..........:..,...s.:.:::.,...., ,....:......... ,i..4,,,.. , Ammar ....... „:„..„ --, Amm..... ., Z ..,,.:,I 7.1,;.:;f:k,,g,,i: -- /...7 .. v/s 4 T °: �_ T. "IYr �! — .-..__... ELEVATIONS ��EI ��y ��� 4 i 'arf'E # !/ � 8=t�i AYei' (trJ. �. l�l EWIIM�r t�!r...-�l'I,..�I r. ."J 4,.?Y • EXISTING&FINISH GRADE CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS ' Cull ACCENT BAND EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED 'KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE 'ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- CREAM COLORED METAL SIDING CMU ACCENT BAND PRE FINISHED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK C Il9F A,1E�. METAL AWNING TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK I .:.; -, , , ,: -• � �p p 11r!Olill11Jp 71jIIl�IIIIII 71 HP111111111 1'II ilI, il III� IT �RiI•.I Iq1111 I `/y _ R = Ilw'• T•K _ 1 1: , /y `L+r. C >a,u•�y,� Y•�' `�•�n ��� •��bp�i+elitd�.r4vnv v ,6.aP•','N.1r.�ivnur- .Y. ��.1 — ..,P •'�,.• '• .C • �•.e•Ii`.,y�'aP^��1!P n a!! .Teas • �' N Y 1' 'C 0 P R G _ �, 33 .T' 1Z', 1a:'T d G 11 0 o b - a ' c. T :.{,,;.... ;ic.":':.:'.:';•.. ..1-,.,, "i". • MOW LOADING DOCK --•.. . EXISTING&FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS. "" BLUE PRE FINISHED xr. ir.� METAL DOORS SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION > A-3 Aft CIT' F. RENTON : Hearing Examiner• -.Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman February 8,2001 Robert R. Moran 425 Wells Avenue,South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of Environmental Review for " Service Linen Supply Expansion File No. LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,AAD-P01-021 • Dear Mr.. Moran: " . -Your letter of appeal in the above'matter'have been received'and_a date and time for said hearing • has now been established, .; The appeal hearing will be held'concurrently;with the:hearing;.for Site°Plan approval on Tuesday, February 27,.2001, It 9c00 a.m: in theCouricil Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, at 1055 S Grady Way in Renton.<;:Should`;yo�ti be-;unable;to'attend,would you please appoint a representative to act on your behalf.. We appreciate your cooperation, aidif you have any questions,please contact my secretary., Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufm Hearing Examiner _ FJK:jt cc: Mayor.Jesse Tanner - - _ Jay Covington,:Chief Administrative Officer Larry Warren, City-Attorney Neil Watts,Development Services Director : Steve Taylor,Development Services Karen Codiga,Development Services • Owner Applicant .; sue: 1 OS5°:South Grady Way=Renton; Washington 98055 - (425);430-6515; : :"..: 4 • • ThispiDer Contains'50%.rec cled'material 206/ 'st Consumer., -. "{'l Ye.„102" '' • kATY OF RENTON January 15, 2001 ,3;3a� FEB 0 7 2001 Re: LUA-00-131, SA-H.R.ECF,LLA RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I would like to submit my appeal regarding the Service Linen Supply expansion. 1. With the added expansion, comes added traffic and noise. I am currently listening to a boiler that starts five days a week at 3:45 a.m. and continues until 10 p.m. The City of Renton has already notified Service Linen of violation of the City noise ordinance. (see attached letter). The Spencer Court Apartment residents as well as private homeowners on Wells Avenue South have lodged numerous complaints. 2. With a fleet of 50+trucks, come numerous trips,noise pollution,non-stop back- up alarms on the trucks, employee vehicles parked on streets, exhaust, not to mention the heavy propane odor from the propane filling station located on Service Linen property. This large of an operation does not fit into the "neighborhood". Please keep in mind that the new apartments across from the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train are not yet inhabited. These people will experience what the current neighbors are now experiencing. 3. With the expansion would come additional odors caused by chemicals used for cleaning. These chemical odors already infiltrate our homes during the summer months when windows and doors are open. (see attached letter). 4. Is this size of operation considered a light,medium, or heavy industrial facility? Is this large-scale industry conducive to the vision of the South Renton single family and multi family neighborhood? This company has gone from a small, quiet business to the second largest laundry company in the area. They are currently operating 18 hours a day. They create hazards by moving freight manually on carts from their location on Wells Avenue South to their other location on Houser Way. 5. Center Downtown core zoning says expansion is only 100 feet from existing building for commercial laundries. The proposed expansion exceeds this. The City of Renton needs to decide if South Renton is"industrial"or single/multi family neighborhoods. The expansion of Service Laundry has not even started and it is already impacting our quality of life adversely. This large of an operation does not fit the neighborhood. Sincerely, Viti 77yZez Appellant Robert R. Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 425-255-7055 • . . . • ' . • . ,-,--0.0;'i`-'': -;.,,-::',1:,.0;.0•V,: :.:•'''071,,,:,...,,.....f,,,,,. ;,:,I--.y. ,-A•r.';',,f-:',1,., .,,„ ,,•,,,l'.,,'-, ,:,.t!,15,:,m-',,ir,,....'::',.: ', -,T',,•:....,'Y_Y$-';',t-,;',,, ,0.:,:,4,.;i1St':'7•Z`C:•:'',.. .:.! -:.:";:;ZY-• ';'''' '''' '',"%, 0991 "'clings RECEIPT of 7 -,lee/ NO othE ,--. -: - .: 1.13 - •;0. 9 , RECEIVED FROM AM,./ R.:: ADDRESS 441:37. tdbe.4 Aye. j, ; , • 5-167;--- - --- - - Ac)-i),-, wit :9ko&o-'e qh - 0i97-/V - - & We FOR •.:: ' iisq e-9 . ''aillar' ACCOMMIMMOMMOINHOWOAIDINESNI . : . , '..4 c15:: V:k.417,0;; ';.aligi AcCOUNT , Ai.f.4ifdt ,i4oNty.; eePt/k Of Nif- ti-1,1.a, . '-', BY 't•tri,"“,, :0001ite-; ©1998 " RECiFoRM®8L802 li ...s..k.....o....-n4a.a..........w..............ta3. .,, • • . •• ' . ROBERT R. MORAN • 19-10 408 6468 WDL MPRANRR489KF 1250 425 WELLS AVE. SOUTH 255-7055 4082210 75 0 - . ... • RENTON,WA 98055 : I2 --- -Date _ . . .. . i ._tpay-10 011- ( 'W.).6r60:, "—efe $ 7 5 „.....-- a ideartitr - - ; • - i U.S. BANK 1-800-US BANKS . U.S.BANK OF WASHINGTON,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION • 1: L 25000 L051: 4082 2 L0750111 6468 ii < ' • • , . . • .., If 1412TES CC RECEIPT DATE NO. 0991 — ri- 1.1.1-J 1, C..) RECEIVED FROM ( khi /9 • do rs, 32 ADDRESS 43" 4/).1.1,141 /LOY. i. ? i, • 0 ca—,,, Pi.eA_Z4-A. zwin 9 ges-..5-- 76--eg LLI—a 10 i 2 0-al FOR .. 0 -5 HOW PAID U.] — :0 'T •- ACCOUNT':°.. 3,'.:y."! , '. 0 g CO AMT.OF CASH ACCOUNT EL--7E IP) CHECK ,6-e V • J i u_ <a)c, AMT. 0 CC.-- PAID BALANCE MONEY BY 4,1t../11,t1 Na. t 01(1.,...Zer• DUE ORDER i---' D199'8 RF-.PIFORM®8L802 ... - --- -.4 . • . : ! : ROBERT R. MORAN 19-10 408 6468 . , WDL MORANRR4B9KF 1250 425 WELLS AVE. SOUTH 255-7055 4082210750 , , , : RENTON,WA 98055 0'7— , ... .0a/e :1 g yarlo • : 1,-,,(, ;4..• : , :,. .. .:.:„ :: i IkomOr, --le ._ , g III;BANK , 1-800-US pANKS, ,- U.S.BANK OF WASHINGTON,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION _Opling- nv ___ __ • • I: L 2 S000 L 0 SI: 110a 2 no ? s . coicia ripe MINIM' . . 1 . 1 . . il. aCITY faio F RENTON ma ,s(t, Jesse Tanner,Mayor Hearing Examiner Fred J.Kaufman April 2,2002 Olympic Associates Company Attn: Randy Barber 701 Dexter Avenue North,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 Re: Service Linen Expansion,Rezone Appeal and Site Plan File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LL A Dear Mr.Barber: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision on the above referenced matter,which was issued on March 7,2002 was not appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Please contact City Staff for fmal processing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, HTh-i---------.-__):A (*).1.,- Fred J.Kaufin Hearing Examiner FJK:kw cc: Jason Jordan,Development Services Andree DeBauw,Development Services 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 RENTON �� AHEAD OF THE CURVE :.0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer return to sender 4, fee due 600 , First-Class Mail Postage and Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • . _ CITY OF RENTON l't -irr.'L':l.:.:1/-4;!7''.'::`;.... .::'5-..:.;• 1 "LIL.Er" Hearing Examiner 1 •-• / 4‘s\A,`,-- 1055 South Grady Way- Renton Washingtoriy98105.5 1 1 ''''51i lin 0 TO 2 7 ii!,..i,,..!,:!...E!, ::,:. U R5RT FIRST-CtASS SEA wi\,..afil 031 3102 -"IV .. ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED '' u‘ ' ``----,,'-'-,A ---".. 7113 vie.: L s Pr riirIPF ' L1J - C.) ' cc „ci. UJ LC) David Guttormson U) co : 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt 101 - —I ' Renton,WA 98055 < 2, u) o ttiI 1 FleOi R4M) 5/12/Qc1 k;:': 1:... 0 og AVE SE APT ISA 0: • CL ,.,',. IT:cf D ... .,,,,0:,z,, s• : ..- .. ,BiliSilf P066 . 11114,11114111/41iiii.11811,,1i1.11..111111#11111,111,11111.,11 I4. . . .—CC...1.&ns sCY.ra Glided Caner.20%sag'cnrmintlar r r. 1 N.fi) EAbi 'r ... ,.., 3i.a ADDRESSED "1 l7%\.\\., -.'-' )(MAKE TO FORWARb ..t.„" --.1j I CI) 1 '"ETURN TO SENDE-R 9 . s,„,...-.s.ms- stc; J1,1„hibihnibli,),J,Li.idniiii,h,h1lii ,________________ �i CIS" _,OF RENTON Hearing Examiner Jesse Tanner,Mayor Fred J.Kaufman April 2,2002 Olympic Associates Company Attn: Randy Barber 701 Dexter Avenue North,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 Re: Service Linen Expansion,Rezone Appeal and Site Plan File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LL A Dear Mr.Barber: The Hearing Examiner's Report and Decision on the above referenced matter,which was issued on March 7,2002 was not appealed within the time period established by ordinance. Please contact City Staff for fmal processing. Please feel free to contact this office if further assistance or information is required. Sincerely, Fred J.Kaufma Hearing Examiner FJK:kw cc: Jason Jordan,Development Services Andree DeBauw,Development Services 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6515 R-E N T ® N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) Kelly Williams being first duly sworn,upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 7th day of March, 2002 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: ktQL1D-dgaMIL SUBSCRIBED ANCSWORN to before me this � % day of 2002. •D.l OP m O 001l gr 1- o pu310G a Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington, R1,.,• Residing at le Aok i/4-e-. , therein. tw •....... 'fir P��ov�®tee�® Application, Petition, or Case No.: Service Linen Expansion, Rezone Appeal and Site Plan LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT March 7,2002 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber) Service Linen Expansion,Rezone Appeal and Site Plan File No.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA LOCATION: 903 South 4th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site plan approval for a 33,000 square foot expansion of existing Service Linen facility. Includes a proposal to remove the"P"suffix from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area;the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the January 22, 2002 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,January 22,2002,at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: May 24 letter written by Larry Meckling,Building Official Parties present: Representing applicant: Jeff Weber Buck&Gordon 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle,WA 98101 Representing City of Renton: Russell Wilson,Assistant City Attorney Jason Jordan,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Service Linen Expansion and R.�.,..e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7, 2002 Page 2 This matter was remanded back to the Hearing Examiner on August 6,2001. Neither the City nor the Applicant had any preliminary matters to discuss. In response to questioning from Mr. Wilson,Mr. Jordan stated that during the first hearing the applicant was not in compliance with City noise standards. A letter dated May 24, 2001,written by the City's Building Official states that the applicant is in compliance with the noise standards of the City of Renton. To his knowledge there are no City, State or Federal odor ordinances that the applicant would be out of compliance with. Mr. Weber stated that there has been a question in their mind as to whether the City has the authority to impose conditions on the existing Service Linen facility. They have made the argument that they do not believe that the authority exists. He will not make that argument at this hearing but would like it noted for the record. The main issues are the noise and odor issues. As explained by the City,the last time this matter was before the Hearing Examiner there was a code enforcement proceeding in process. Between the last hearing before the Hearing Examiner and the hearing before the City Council it was finally determined by the City that the facility is in compliance with the noise ordinance. Because the appeal to the Council was a closed record appeal,that fact was not brought to the attention of the Council. The applicant feels that since the City has determined that the facility is in compliance with the noise ordinance the noise issue has been resolved. He has brought an expert to explain some of the additional investigation they have done at the site. Eric Hansen,MFG, 19203 36th Avenue W.,#101,Lynnwood, WA 98036 in response to questioning from Mr. Weber reviewed his background as an expert in environmental noise issues. In his investigation of the facility in question his focus was very narrow. He looked at the hot water heater and tried to evaluate whether it has a discernable environmental noise impact. He visited two offsite locations including the area across the street just north of 4th Street and 425 S. Wells,which is west and slightly south of the Service Linen location. The standard he used to measure the noise from the water heater was simply how apparent it was in the community. The water heater has a steel duct that comes up through the roof. As it goes through the roof it goes up about five feet and then takes a 90-degree turn and exhausts horizontally towards the freeway(I-405). Around the north,west and south sides of the duct there is a shed like structure over the duct. He took two sets of measurements; one in the afternoon and the other was in the morning. He used two types of instruments including a broadband sound level meter and another instrument that evaluates the frequency of the sound. He stood on the roof between the duct and the multifamily unit to the north and took several measurements before realizing that the hot water heater was cycling on and off, something he was unaware of as he was taking the measurements. Mr. Weber was with him when he was taking the measurements and they determined that the only way for him to know whether the water heater was on or off was for Mr. Weber to signal him. He also has measurements from across the parking lot adjacent to the multifamily unit. He did not stand right on the sidewalk he backed up about 37 feet from the curb so that he had a line of sight to the exit of the hot water heater. He stood in the parking lot to determine if there was a difference and once again there was not. They then discovered that sometimes the hot water heater starts before the dryers so they tried to determine if the water heater itself was discernable prior to the dryers starting. On the second occasion he arrived at the site at 4:15 a.m. He went up on the roof briefly but was more interested in what was going on across the street. The engineer working that morning had to tell him when the hot water heater turned on. If he listened very carefully he could notice a difference but if he had not been listening he probably would not have paid any attention to it. Service Linen Expansion and RuLune Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-13 I,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7,2002 Page 3 In response to questioning from the Examiner,Mr.Hansen stated that he does not know if there was a rumbling that may have been sensed rather then a high pitched squeal prior to the enclosure being installed over the duct of the roof. He could discern a small low frequency noise when the hot water heater turned on but it was negligible. There is a low frequency component to dryers that are on the roof. In response to questioning from Mr. Weber,Mr.Hansen replied that in his opinion no further mitigation should be required for the water heater. The City has measurements that show compliance and his visits confirm that there is no significant effect from the water heater. The City of Renton has adopted the State numeric criteria for environmental noise but the Federal Government does not have any criteria that would apply in this situation. He stated that based on his observations there is no need to go any further at this facility. The shed with the absorbent lining seems to be working to keep the noise level down. Kirk Winges,MFG, 19203 36th Avenue W.,#101,Lynnwood, WA 98036 reviewed his experience in air pollution and investigation of odor. He was in charge of taking a look at the odors of the facility to determine if there were odors from the facility and the alternatives that might be available for controlling any odors found. He was at the facility on three different occasions. On two of the occasions he went up on the roof and actually looked at the sources of odor or where they might be released to the atmosphere. He also surveyed the community on all three of the occasions,walked the streets, looked for other sources of odor, and tried to understand how the odors might mix and disburse and how they might impact the residents of the area. There was a faint smell of a clothes dryer observed in some locations including near the facility when the facility is operating. It is similar to what occurs in a home with the dryer is running. He did not detect any difference in the odor he picked up on the sidewalk outside of the facility and the odor from the dryer vent on the outside of his own home. All of the chemicals they deal with are in liquid form not gaseous form and he could not find any odors from those chemicals. They deal with detergents, soaps,mildicide and bleach. In order for these to have some sort of an impact on the facility there would have to be a spill. There are a number of other sources of odor in the immediate area including an auto body shop, an international foods distribution warehouse, a restaurant, a beauty shop and a printing shop. He did not experience any odors from any of these when he was there but they are all potential sources of odor. In response to questioning from the Examiner,Mr. Winges stated that on two of the occasions he did call first and the other occasion was unannounced. Mr. Winges, in response to questioning from Mr. Weber, stated that he does not think there is an established odor nuisance in this case. In order to have an odor nuisance, an inspector from the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has to observe and determine in his judgment where the source of the odor is generated. To his knowledge the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has not been out to this facility. He contacted them and spoke to their representatives and they do not have any record of any complaints from the facility or any problems associated with the facility. In his opinion, although he does not know if the facility was the source of the odor, if there was some sort of a spill or a problem there would not be any technology installed or practices just care in dealing with the types of chemicals used at the facility. From what he saw they had very good practices in that area. He did not see any evidence of any spills. Unfortunately there is no instrument that measures odor. There are instruments that measure what is in the air and they can take samples and have them analyzed in a laboratory but it does not determine which chemicals have odors and how they work together because chemicals work differently together then how they do individually. The bottom line is there is no way to make instrumented measurements of odor. In order to make odor measurements one has to use controlled human observations. One can make controlled human observations for any facility and that is the best way to judge or determine odors. In making his surveys,he did try to look and see if there were odors. When making controlled human observations you try and look at three Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7, 2002 Page 4 essential elements to find an odor. First of all one must look at what it smells like, is it an offensive odor or a less offensive odor. Any odor can be offensive if exposed to long enough and consistently enough. The second thing looked at is the severity. How strong is it? It is usually ranked on a zero to five scale where zero is no odor and five is so strong that one would have to leave the area. The third thing looked at is the frequency,how often does it happen. He would rate the odors of the dryer vents very low for several reasons. The nature of the odor is not particularly offensive it is a common odor. Sometimes you can smell the odor across the street and sometimes you cannot. He doubts very seriously that it can be detected a block away from the facility. He does not believe the dryer vent odor would be a problem for the individuals using the courtyard at the multifamily unit across the street or for individuals down the street because of the way it is configured. The courtyard opens to the west away from the Service Linen facility. The odors currently have to go over the top or around the corner to get in the courtyard. By the time they make that long journey they get mixed and disbursed so he would not expect to smell the odor inside the courtyard. There could be an odor in there occasionally but not on a routine or regular basis. He did come up with two concepts for control that he was able to devise as possible way to control odors. One of those is to use an afterburner device. That is essentially a combustion device that would pass gasses through a hot flame before releasing them to the atmosphere. He is unsure if it would work because it has never been used in this application before. The other is to use some sort of absorption technology where you pass the gases through a carbon filter or silica gel or some other material that would absorb the gaseous odorous constituents onto the media. It would be difficult to do in this particular application because the high moisture content that comes out of the dryers would plug up most carbon filters. There are no State or Federal odor standards that apply to this facility. In his professional opinion he would not recommend any additional mitigation measures to deal with odor at this facility. Mr. Weber in conclusion stated that issue is very narrow. He believes that there really is not any further mitigation justified on the noise or odor issues. He requested that the conditions concerning noise and odor be deleted. Bob Raphael, Service Linen Supply,PO Box 957,Renton, WA 98057 added that the Beauty Salon cleans their own towels and they have their dryers going most of the day. He does not know where their dryer vents out but there is a possibility that it vents out into the courtyard. He does not know if there are dryers in the individual units of the multifamily building. Puget Sound Air Quality has been out to the facility three times based on calls from the building across the street. When they visited the facility there was nothing. The big issue was not the dryer smell there was a chemical smell in the area. He does not know what the source of that odor was,but it was definitely not from the Service Linen facility. The dryer smell was not a huge issue it was the chemical smell,which again did not come from the Service Linen facility. In response to an inquiry by the Examiner,Mr.Raphael stated that several months' back there was a situation that caused the City concern. It was not a spill that occurred, it was improperly mixed chemicals in a controlled environment. When the two chemicals mixed the byproduct scared some of the employees. What was released was pure oxygen. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 9:57 a.m. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7,2002 Page 5 FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. This matter was remanded to the Hearing Examiner to determine "...what technology is available to monitor, restrict, limit, or prohibit the escape of noise or odors from the site..." 2. The applicant's continuing objection to the application of conditions that they believe apply to the laundry operation and not to the new addition were settled by the City Council in its deliberations: "The Committee found that there is a nexus between the proposed expansion and conditions #11 and#12. Specifically,the Committee found that the new building that will be constructed as part of the expansion will be connected to the existing building by four large breezeways. These thoroughfares will act as conduits for the noise and odor generated by the existing plant. The Committee find that the neighborhood must be protected and the best methods to accomplish that is to require the applicant to show how it is either meeting city standards for noise and odors OR(emphasis in original)will meet city standards." "Additionally,the Committee recommends that the Council remand this application to the Hearing Examiner to conduct further inquiry and establish a record regarding conditions 11 and 12, specifically,what technology is available to monitor,restrict, limit, or prohibit the escape of noise or odors from the site involved in the expansion. Any conditions imposed on the applicant should result in the applicant being required to meet city, state and federal standards for restricting noise and odor generation and their impacts on the neighborhood." The remand is not intended to readdress that issue. 3. At the original hearing evidence showed that neighbors complained about noise and that there were noise violations. The applicant was not in compliance with City noise standards when the first hearing occurred. 4. The applicant submitted a letter from the City demonstrating that the applicant now complies with City standards. They noted that they were in compliance with the standards when the appeal was heard by the Council but the closed record hearing precluded the submission of new evidence showing compliance at that time. 5. The City in a letter dated May 24, 2001 determined that the information submitted by Washington Audiology on behalf of the applicant showed that the "installation has been approved and is deemed to be compliant with the City's Noise Ordinance." The letter was signed by Larry Meckling,Building Official. 6. The applicant explained that they investigated the causes of noises that made them non-compliant. They concluded the predominant noise was from the a hot water heater, not the steam boiler or other equipment. The vent or stack from the boiler exited on the roof. The applicant has constructed a shed using plywood lumber that is lined with noise absorbing material. They also redirected the vent and constructed the open side of the shed to direct the muffled noise toward I-405. 7. The testimony from the applicant was that the sounds emanating from the water heater exhaust should be barely discernable at this time as it was rectified in May 2001. Sound tests were conducted on the roof of Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7, 2002 Page 6 the facility and in the street with a line of sight to the exhaust system. Those tests revealed that the equipment was no longer violating noise standards. The testing was done with two measuring instruments including a broadband sound meter and a device that evaluated frequency. The applicant's expert witness indicated that no additional muffling in the way of additional technological improvements is necessary to comply with City regulations. The expert also indicated that they also used a standard that was more subjective to determine how apparent the noises or sounds would be to the adjacent community. 8. The expert did acknowledge that he could discern a small low frequency noise when the water heater turned on but he considered it negligible. 9. The air pollution odor expert visited the site three times. One visit was unannounced. He looked for obvious sources of odors and areas where odor might escape the facility. The areas he checked were on the roof and along the perimeter of the complex. 10. While he detected a"laundry" odor that might be noticed from a home clothes dryer,he did not find any odors that were very pronounced. He noted that he looked at chemicals used at the facility that might cause odor and found none that would create serious odors in the absence of an accidental spill. 11. He also noted nearby businesses and indicated that they could be the source of odors but were not emitting any during his visits. 12. He incorrectly noted that the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency had not visited the site. That agency actually made three trips but was never able to find any odor or other air quality violation. 13. He noted that the main problem with odor complaints is that there is no instrument that measures odors. It is purely a subjective observation by someone with a sensitive or trained "nose." In other words,the odors are sniffed by someone who can determine if it is noxious or not or if it is overwhelming or not. No unusual odors were found on three site visits in and around the applicant's complex. 14. No additional testimony from parties other than the applicant,their representatives or attorney was presented at the new hearing. CONCLUSIONS: 1. It would appear that at this time the sound testing demonstrated to the City that noise violations had been eliminated. It would appear that the applicant took affirmative steps to identify the source of noises that did violate City standards and took steps to attenuate what they believe was the source of the offending noise. 2. They did acknowledge that there is a low frequency sound but did not believe it was the source of complaints. 3. The source of any offending odors was never clearly identified. In addition,there are no mechanical sensors that can identify noxious or offensive odors making it hard to quantify any problems. So rather than a quantifiable problem, it is more along the lines of the "eye of the beholder"but in this case it is the nose that does the sensing. It is very subjective and an expert in the field noted that it is an individual's reaction to odor that determines if a problem exists. It is clear from the entire record that odors of some kind were plaguing the community. The descriptions would appear to point to a "hot laundry" smell commonly associated with drying clothes but more overwhelming than a "home" clothes dryer as well as a Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7,2002 Page 7 more noxious chemical odor more associated with bleach or similar pungent source. It could have come from a surrounding use or from the applicant's business. The investigations were inconclusive. 4. It would appear that at the current time no remedy can be specified,but that does not mean that the subject use should not be held accountable for problems that make it less than a good neighbor. While it was noted. that the soundproofing and alterations should remedy the problem, deterioration or other failures could reinstate the problems. Similarly,odor might be a lingering problem or one that occurs again. If either can be traced to the applicant's use,they should be remedied. The sound issues are more clear-cut. Since noise violations are easier to identify,there can be components of sound that are irritating,particularly in the quiet hours that might not be an outright noise violation. The odor problems are less quantifiable. It seems unreasonable to leave neighbors to remedies under nuisance law but that may be what happens. 5. The City did not offer any remedies nor any assistance in attempting to define better technology. In the absence of such additional help,this office was left with the advice of the applicant's experts. That advice basically concluded that the applicant is doing the best job possible. And the applicant may, in fact,be doing the best job possible and may have solved the major problems. 6. While the use is legal its impacts may or may not be. Be that as it may,this case is a poster child for land use planning principles that over the long haul have found it best to isolate industrial uses or, at least, provide sufficient separation of industrial and commercial uses from residential uses. There is no doubt that delivery trucks would not be starting up for very early morning deliveries in a better-protected residential zone. Nor would an industrial boiler or hot water heater of this size be starting up in what for some is the middle of the night. The chances for noxious odors, at least, on a scale that can upset a neighborhood would be less likely if the use were located elsewhere. There are options that allow such uses to be juxtaposed and that includes concepts known as "performance zoning." The normally incompatible use would not be permitted unless it met certain performance standards that kept its impacts at a level that matches the surrounding uses in the main. In other words,no early morning delivery trucks leaving the factory to disturb sleep. No sounds of large industrial boilers spilling noise and no offsite odors. Unfortunately,this use is permitted and it is hard to identify the problems and respond to them or trace them in a timely fashion. 7. The applicant shall still be responsible for maintaining a nuisance free use. DECISION: The conditions regarding best technology, Conditions 11 and 12, shall be removed and in their place the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining a nuisance free use. ORDERED THIS 7th day of March, 2002. --- Q FRED J.KA N HEARING EXAMINER Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD March 7,2002 Page 8 TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of March,2002 to the parties of record: Jason Jordan Bob Moran Bob Raphael 1055 S Grady Way 425 Wells Avenue S PO Box 957 Renton, WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Russell Wilson David Guttormson Jerry Fry 1055 S Grady Way 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt 101 PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98055 Renton,WA 98057 Kayren Kittrick Jeff Weber Larry Cross 1055 S Grady Way 1501 4th, Suite 2600 Olympic Associates Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle, WA 98109 Sandra Maclean Randy Barber SED LLC 6987 Perimeter Road S, Ste. 100 Olympic Associates 903 S. 46h Street Seattle,WA 98108 701 Dexter Avenue N.#301 Renton,WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98109 WIAA 435 Main Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 TRANSMITTED THIS 7th day of March,2002 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Transportation Systems Division Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Utilities System Division Councilperson Kathy Keolker-Wheeler Sue Carlson,Econ. Dev.Administrator Alex Pietsch,Economic Development Director South County Journal Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,March 21,2002. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment,or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA-0 0-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-02 1,AAD March 7, 2002 Page 9 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. 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. CITE- -.?F RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 9,2001 • Brad Minogue Olympic Associates Company 701 Dexter Ave N.,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 • SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO SERVICE LINEN SITE PLAN APPROVAL(FILE NO.LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA) Dear Mr.Minogue: I am in receipt of your October 30,2001 letter requesting consideration and approval of modifications to the approved site plan for Service Linen. As your letter discloses,these changes resulted from needed plan changes from the approved site plan. The modifications that you are requesting'are summarized below: 1. The second floor level within the new building'has been modified to only include 960 square feet of office space—this was shown in the`original permit set as a shell,space that would be built out in the future as approximately 5,500,square feet of office space. 2. The main floor is revised tp;show approximately 1,200 square feet of office build-out with an open storage mezzanine abover`However,:the overall building footprint is unchanged. 3. No changes have been made to the siteeplan of;°the;building exterior envelope: • Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-200Lallows'minor adjustments to an approved site plan,provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a:ten percent(10%)increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan;.or 2. The adjustment does not:have a significantly greater impact on the environmental and facilities than the approved plan;or 3. The adjustment does not change the:boundaries of the originally approved plan. The site plan modifications as shown in your August 29,2001 submittal have been compared,to the site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner on March 26,2001 and as'modified per a City Council Appeal. Based on our analysis,we have determined that the proposed revisions(to eliminate the office component on the second floor,eliminate the second story,and relocate some office area to the first floor)are within the parameters defined by Renton Municipal Code. Therefore,the proposed modification to the site plan is approved. This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination—accompanied by the required$75.00 filing fee—is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. • Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence,please contact Jason E.Jordan at(425)430- 7219. Sincerely, , ( Y Neil Watts Development Services Director 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer r OLYMPIC . : 3 TRANSMITTAL iAi ASSOCIATES Seattle Phone: (206)285-4300 lia 1 COMPANY Fax: (206)285-4371 O L T M P I C 701 Dexter Ave.N.,#301 E-Mail: bminogue@olympicassociates.com ASSOCIATES Seattle,WA 98109 COMPANY DATE: October 30,2001 JOB NO: 2001157 TO: Jan Conklin • • FROM: Brad Minogue • RE: Service Linen Supply-Building Permit Revision Enclosed are(3)sets revised drawings for review as a second revision to the existing building permit—plan check #B010142. The following changes have been made to the permit approved drawings. • -A portion of the open storage merzanine above the offices(submitted as revision 1 to the permit)has been revised to provide an enclosed second floor office space of 960sf—to keep the occupant load under 10,which requires only 1 means of egress. • No changes have been made to the site plan or building envelope/facade. Parking calculations for the previous storage mezzanine were already based on office requirments,therefore,the calculations and required parking are unchanged. • Revisions are clouded on the drawings. - Give me a call if you have questions or require further information. Thank you for your assistance. • • For Your Information: ❑ Via Mail: 0 Via Fax: 0 For Your Use: ® Hand Delivered: ® FedEx: ❑ For Your Approval: ® Other Courier: • 0 For Your Signature and Return: ❑ • Original in Mail: YES 0 Fax#: NO D Total Pages,including this page: Copy to: OLY . - ' ' • TES COMPANY • ' Brad Minogue,AIA ' • • • CITY OF RENTON ,• RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2001 BUILDING DIVISION p:\service linen(construction admin)2001157-a\correspondence1permit revision 2-10-30-01.doc - - 0 ;; RENTON CIT OF ..LL '? City Clerk . Jesse Tanner,Mayor Marilyn J.Petersen • August 7, 2001 Jeff Weber Buck and Gordon, LLP 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902 Seattle,WA 98104 • Re: Appeal of Service Linen Expansion Application;File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF,LLA, P01-121,AAD (Referred June 4,2001) Dear Mr. Weber: • At the regular Council meeting-of August 6;2001, theRenton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning.and Development Committee.as denoted on the • enclosed committee report: To summarize;the Council found that Conditions 9 and 10 of the Examiner's report exceeded the hours and number of shifts currently operating at the facility; therefore,the conditions were changed to limit operations to two shifts and operate the boiler between only between the.hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Additionally, Council remanded Conditions 1 T'and 12 to the hearing examiner to determine what technology is available to.monitor, limit or prohibit the escape of noise and odors from the expansion site., Filially;'the Council waived the appeal fee should another appeal be filed after the remand. ' • • If I can provide additional information or'assistance,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ' .. virf Man yn f. Iersen City Clerk/"able Manager cc: Mayor Jesse Tanner - Council President Dan Clawson Jennifer Henning,Development Services Division Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner • 1901 2001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6510/ FAX (425) 430-6516 et This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer ' ' ' ' .ten August 6,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 259 previously noted and that is still an option if the full Council wishes to have additional information on which to base its decision. This appeal once again highlights the difficult role that the City Council plays when sitting as a quasi-judicial body handling land use appeals since the changes made in State law on regulatory reform. The Council normally listens to its constituents,often on a one-on-one basis in order to fulfill their jobs as Councilmembers. However,when handling quasi-judicial appeals,no such contact is permitted. In fact,the Councilmembers are limited to the testimony already in the record and cannot consider new evidence,even if they believe that there areas that have been inadequately explored or new issues that were not explored at all. The Committee therefore recommended that the topic of the Council's appellate role in quasi-judicial matters be referred to the Committee of the Whole for review and recommendation. MOVED BY KEOLKER- WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated for the record that there is a substantial amount of material to review regarding this matter. If the report is approved, Ms.Keolker-Wheeler said that the full Council would sit as the appellate body which means that the Council cannot discuss the appeal with the public or receive further testimony. She expressed her frustration with the land use appeal process,commenting that if Council did not hear appeals_and the process was handled outside of Renton, Councilmembers could assist citizens with the appeal process. Council discussion ensued regarding the issue of handling appeals within the City of Renton or having the Superior Court hear appeals. Councilman Corman also expressed his frustration with the inability of Council to talk to citizens about issues because of an appeal. Councilman Parker and Council President Clawson indicated their support for having the appeal process remain within the responsibility of the City. *MOTION CARRIED. Appeal: Service Linen Planning and Development Committee Chair Keolker-Wheeler presented a Expansion, Service Linen report regarding the Service Linen expansion appeal(SA-00-131). The Supply(SA-00-131) Committee convened to consider the appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated March 26,2001, and reconsidered on April 26,2001. The subject property is located at 903 S.4th St. The applicant seeks a site plan approval for a 33,000 square foot expansion of the existing Service Linen facility. The applicant appealed four conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner. The four conditions concerned: 1)not increasing the number of shifts or the hours of those shifts; 2)the hours of operation of the boilers; 3)the installation of best technology to reduce noise created by the operation; and 4)the installation of best technology to reduce odors created by the operation. The Committee found that the Hearing Examiner has committed a substantial error of law related to conditions 9 and 10 in that he imposed conditions that went beyond the hours and number of shifts for the existing operation. The Committee concluded that the language proposed by the applicant for conditions 9 and 10 is appropriate and should be adopted. The Committee also concluded that the Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to impose condition 11,insofar as it affects hours of operation. August 6,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 260 The Committee found that there is a nexus between the proposed expansion and conditions 11 and 12. Specifically,the Committee found that the new building that will be constructed as part of the expansion will be connected to the existing building by four large breezeways. These thoroughfares will act as conduits for the noise and odor generated in the existing plant. The Committee found that the neighborhood must be protected and the best methods to accomplish that is to require the applicant to show how it is either meeting City standards for noise and odors OR will meet City standards. However,the Committee was unable to find in the record sufficient information to modify those two conditions to clarify the meaning of the phrases "best technology" and"interfere with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas" and how that relates to existing City standards. The Committee recommended that the Council modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner as it relates to conditions 9 and 10 to adopt language proposed by the applicant. Condition 9 should read as follows: "The applicant shall not operate more than two shifts." Condition 10 should read as follows: "The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m." Additionally,the Committee recommended that the Council remand this application to the Hearing Examiner to conduct further inquiry and establish a record regarding conditions 11 and 12,specifically,what technology is available to monitor,restrict,limit,or prohibit the escape of noise and odors from the site involved in this expansion. Any conditions imposed on the applicant should result in the applicant being required to meet City, State,and Federal standards for restricting noise and odor generation and their impacts on the neighborhood. Finally,the Committee recommended that the Council waive the appeal fee for the applicant if there is another appeal by the applicant after the remand. MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Responding to Councilman Parker's inquiry regarding the hours of operation, Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler stated that the hours were suggested by the applicant and reflect current conditions. *MOTION CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Ruth Larson, 714 High Ave. S.,Renton,98055,reported that the bridge Citizen Comment: Larson— connecting Mill Ave. S.to Renton Hill has sunk three inches since the February Earthquake Damage to Bridge earthquake,and the sidewalk on the south side of the street has also been Connecting Mill Ave S to affected. She requested the City inspect the bridge to determine if there is a Renton Hill safety problem. Citizen Comment:Manion— Michaelene Manion,608 Tacoma Ave.NE,Renton,98056,related incidents Animal Control Officer that have occurred to her and her family involving dog trespass and vicious dog Funding&Vicious Dogs attack violations. She requested that the City's animal control officer be given additional funding and authority in the handling of dangerous dogs. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,COUNCIL REFER ISSUE OF VICIOUS DOGS AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. CARRIED. APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT Date Q-6' -Of August 6, 2001 ... _ � Serv�ce,Iiue�,Expansfou • File LIJA 00 131, SA H,'R.,=ECF,LLA.,::P01 ;1.21,, .,AD (Referred June 4,-2001) The Planning &Development Committee convened to consider the appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner dated March 26, 2001, and reconsidered on April 26,2001. The subject property is located at 903 South 4th Street. The applicant seeks a site plan approval for a 33,000 square foot expansion of the existing Service Linen facility. The applicant appealed four conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner. The four conditions concerned: 1)not increasing the-number of shifts or the hours of those shifts; 2)the hours of operation of the boilers; 3)the installation of best technology to reduce noise created by the operation; and 4)the installation of best technology to reduce odors created by the operation. The Committee found that the Hearing Examiner has committed,'a:substantial error of law related to Conditions 9 and 10 in that he impose ,conditions that went d, nd-the hours and number of shifts for the existing operation: The Committee concluded that the language:proposed by the applicant for conditions 9 & 10 is appropriate and should be adopted.The CommitteeKalso concluded that the Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to iitipoSe Condition#11, insofar as it affects hours of operation. The Committee found that there is a nexus:between the.proposed expansion and conditions#11 and #12. Specifically,the Committee found that the new building that will be constructed as part of the expansion will be connected to.the existing building by four large These thoroughfares will act as conduits for the noise andfodor generated in the'existing`plant. The Committee finds that the neighborhood must be protected the best methods to=accomplish that is to require the applicant to show how it is either meeting city standards for noise and odors OR will meet city standards. However,the Committee was unable to find I 'the record sufficient information to modify those two conditions to clarify the meaning of the phrases"best technology" and"interfere'with outside use of residential yards and courtyard sitting areas" and how that relates to existing city standards. The Committee recommends that the Council modify the decision of the Hearing Examiner as it relates to conditions 9 & 10 to adopt the language proposed by the applicant. Condition 9 should read as follows: "The applicant shall not operate more than two shifts." Condition 10 should read as follows: "The applicant shall only operate the boiler between the hours of 3:30 a.m. and 10:00 p.m." • Additionally,the Committee recommends that the Council remand this application to the Hearing Examiner to conduct further inquiry and establish a record regarding conditions 11 and 12, specifically, what technology is available to monitor,restrict, limit, or prohibit the escape of noise and odors from the site involved in this expansion. Any conditions imposed on the applicant should result in the applicant being required to meet city, state and federal standards for restricting noise and odor generation and their impacts on the neighborhood. Finally,the Committee recommends that the Council waive the appeal fee for the applicant if there is another appeal by the applicant after the remand. 42/\.erf W11 Kathy Ke•Iker-Whe-ler, Chair • • . / % ' Tern Briere,V ce Chair C."-L.,------ Ratidy Corrigan,Member A ` t, : ,‘°. -1 , t CIT_ OF RENTON Renton City Council Jesse Tanner,Mayor o f RE TON JUN 0 5 2002 July 11, 2001 RECEIVE-�FF�t;E GITY APPEAL FILED BY: Service Linen Supply, Inc. Representative: Jeff Weber, Buck & Gordon LLPCLERK S RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated 03/26/2001 approving site plan for a 33,000 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen facility located at 903 South 4th St. File No. LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA, AAD. To Interested Parties: The Renton City Council's Planning &Development Committee will meet to review the above-referenced item on the following dates: Thursday,August 2, 2001 4:00 PM 7th Floor/Council Chambers City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington This is not a public hearing, but a working session of the Planning & Development Committee. As all Council Committee meetings are open to the public, you are welcome to attend. If you have questions regarding these meetings,please phone Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison, at 425-430-6501. Sincerely, Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Chair Planning &Development Committee Renton City Council Vnto 901 2001 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6501 • L? This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer e1 tetvoN • Jeff Weber Bob Moran David Guttormson Buck& Gordon LLP 425 Wells Ave. S 334 Wells Ave. S, Apt. 101 1011 Western Ave., Suite 902 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98104 Bob Raphael Sandra Maclean Jerry Fry P.O. Box 957 6987 Perimeter Road S, Suite 100 P.O. 957 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98108 Renton, WA 98057 Larry Cross Olympic Associates Steve Taylor Russ Wilson 701 Dexter Ave. N, Suite 301 Development Services City Attorney Seattle, WA 98109 Sue Carlson EDNSP tb.. 1(011 CITY 7F RENTON 1 Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator June 6, 2001 Mr. Randy Barber Olympic Associates Company 701 Dexter Avenue N. #301 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: Service Linen Lot Line Adjustment Project No. LUA-00-131,SA-H, R, ECF, LLA Dear Mr. Barber: Although some of the conditions of site plan approval are being appealed to the City Council, none of the appeal items will effect the Lot Line Adjustment. We are therefore moving forward with processing the LLA. The City of Renton has completed the initial review of your proposed lot line adjustment. The following changes will be necessary in order for the City to approve your proposal: 1. Note the City of Renton land use action number and record number, LUA-00-131-LLA and LND-30-0224, respectively, on the drawing in the spaces already provided. 2. Provide a second tie to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. 3. City records indicate that the taxpayer of record for Lot 3 in Block 16 of the Town of Renton plat is David and Camille Jassny. The taxpayer of record for the other lots involved in the subject lot line adjustment(Lots 4-6 and 15-18) is SED LLC. All vested owners of record must sign the lot line adjustment document,with accompanying notary signatures. 4. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lot. 5. On the final drawing submittal, remove all references to items not directly impacting the lot line adjustment. 6. The address for the new lot is 420 Wells Avenue South. Note this address on the drawing. 7. Note that the"Building"and"Metal Building"are to be removed. 8. The"Aquifer Protection Notice"block should be removed from the drawing, since the subject property does not fall within the boundaries of the Aquifer Protection Area. 9. Note that if there are easements, restrictive covenants or agreements to and between others as part of this project, they can be recorded concurrently with the lot line adjustment. The drawing and the associated document(s)are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The lot line adjustment shall have the first recording number. The recording number(s)for the associated document(s)will be referenced on the lot line adjustment in the appropriate location(s). Fee Review Comments: Lots within or affected by the lot line adjustment are subject to the city's special charges, if applicable. 1901r-2.0o1 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 a � . This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer Once the above changes have been made, please submit two copies of the revised lot line adjustment to me at the sixth floor counter of City Hall. The revised plans will be routed for final review and you will be notified when it is appropriate to submit the final mylars. If you have any questions regarding your application or the changes requested above, please contact me at(425) 430-7219. Sincerely, 4.ov Steve Taylor,AICP Senior Planner • cc: SEDLLC/Owner ' WIAA' Yellow file r E3 July 23,2001 Renton City Council Minutes Page 248 City of Renton logo and will be attached to all current and future grant funded entrance signs and projects,when appropriate. MOVED BY NELSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending concurrence Utility:Water Service Transfer in the Planning/Building/Public Works Department's,recommendation to enter Agreement with Bryn Mawr- into interlocal cooperative agreements with Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Water and Lakeridge Water&Sewer, Sewer District for the transfer of water service to ten residences in the Skyway District area from the District to the City. The Committee also recommended that Council waive the outside City limits charge of 1.5 times the inside City limits charge for the ten properties affected by the transfer of water service. The Committee further recommended that Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreements, and that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) ORDINANCES AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: RESOLUTIONS Resolution#3516 A resolution was read approving the Dalpay Division 1 final plat;4.80 acres Plat:Dalpay,Vicinity of NE located in the vicinity of Redmond Ave.NE,NE 19th St.and Queen Ave.NE 19th St&Redmond Ave NE (FP-01-050). MOVED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER, SECONDED BY (FP-01-050) PARKER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3517 A resolution was read approving the Stone Lane final plat; 1.51 acres located in • Plat: Stone Lane,Queen Ave the vicinity of Queen Ave.NE,between NE 4th and 6th Streets(FP-01-083). NE(FP-01-083) MOVED BY CLAWSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3518 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Utility:Memo of interlocal agreement on impact mitigation entitled"Memorandum of Understanding on Impact Understanding between the City of Renton and Washington State Department Mitigation for I-405/SR-167 of Transportation(WSDOT)." MOVED BY CLAWSON, SECONDED BY Interchange,WSDOT KEOLKER-WHEELER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3519 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Utility: Water Service Transfer interlocal cooperative agreement with Bryn Mawr-Lakeridge Water and Sewer Agreement with Bryn Mawr- District for the transfer of water service to ten residences in the Skyway area. Lakeridge Water&Sewer MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY CLAWSON,COUNCIL ADOPT District THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution#3520 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor to appoint members to committees Police: Jail Contract to negotiate a new jail contract with King County. MOVED BY CLAWSON, Negotiations with King ' SECONDED BY KEOLKER-WHEELER,COUNCIL ADOPT THE County RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Keolker-Wheeler inquired as to why construction has started at Appeal: Service Linen the Service Linen site while the appeal is still pending. Development Services Expansion, Service Linen Director Neil Watts explained that Service Linen was allowed to continue their Supply(SA-00-131) expansion efforts because the appeal is based on operational issues rather than construction issues related to the new building. DF .��..[� rf[)N Y!). Mayor Jesse Tanner November 2, 2000 Mr. Bob Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Service Linen Supply—903 S.4`h,Renton,WA Dear Mr. Moran: Your complaint regarding noise emanating from the above mentioned business was referred to our Development Services Division. Prior to receiving your comments, our Land Use Compliance Inspectors responded to a similar citizen complaint, received on August 15, 2000. This initial investigation determined that the complaint was justified,relating to a new water heating device installed by Service Linen Supply,pursuant to Building Permit#B000178. ' On August 21,2000, contact was made with David Jassny, co-owner of Service Linen Supply. Mr. Jassny stated he was aware of the noise problem and was working on a resolution with his Chief Engineer, Jerry Fry. Larry Meckling,Building Official, and Robert Arthur, Land Use Compliance Inspector, met with Mr.Fry on August 25, 2000, to inspect the installation of the new water heater/boiler. Mr.Fry acknowledged that the noise was a result of the installation of the heater/boiler, and stated he was devising a roof-mounted shield to quiet the noise traveling to the surrounding residences. At this point,Mr.Fry was advised to obtain the services of a certilied audiologist to determine the extent of the noise that would be in violation of the noise ordinance. Mr.Fry contacted the City on the same day and advised that Washington Audiology would be conducting sound measurements the following week. A noise level survey was conducted on August 31, 2000,by David Stern, Occupational Hearing Conservationist for Washington Audiology. Noise measurements were taken between 6:00 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. that day. A second survey was taken on Saturday, September 2, 2000, when the business was closed. Results of the survey,received by the City on September 11, 2000, indicated that noise levels were not acceptable. The City requested that an additional noise survey be conducted,with noise measurements taken earlier in the morning,preferably prior to operating the water heater/boiler. Results of the second test, held on September 29, 2000, and received by the City on October 12, 2000, revealed that noise levels were above what is acceptable. Mr.Fry was sent a letter the following day, advising that he provide the City with remedies to mitigate the noise. A proposal received from Service Linen Supply on October 20,2000, appears to be adequate to mitigate the noise..The proposal included recommendations by the manufacturer of the subject heater/boiler, which involves installation of a 90 degree curve on the stack using an additional ten feet(10') of straight pipe. If the modifications are not adequate, further mitigation measures will be required. Service Linen Supply has been notified that they must cease operation of the heater/boiler prior to 7:00 a.m. daily, until it is modified to operate within acceptable limits. 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500 / FAX(425)430-6523 Bob Moran November 1,2000 Page 2 The City is continuing its investigation into the matter, to assure compliance by Service Linen Supply. I understand you have talked with Mr.Arthur on several occasions,by telephone and in person, on this matter. Please contact him at 425-430-7269 if you have additional information or questions. S' cerely, • Jesse Tanner Mayor cc: City Clerk/Referral#20078-C Renton City Council Jay Covington,CAO Gregg Zimmerman,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Larry Meckling,Building Official Robert Arthur,Land Use Compliance Inspector • :s ''� r ai ,,. �:; �' -' .. _. .. x:t$;?s;:e.::%.`,z:1:',i eye, October 23, 2000. • t :a Senior Housin Assistance,Grou ' P O g P ' Box 1040 i Renton, WA 98057-1040. - To whom it may concern I regret having to move from the Spencer Court Apartments. However, due to ic the constant, intolerable noise from the commercial laundromat across the street the living conditions were made:.unbearable for me to continue._living at Spencer Court (Apt. # 413). This laundromat was not in Operation when I moved in. That is why I signed a two year lease. I was not aware of the impacts it would cause. • x This laundromat ran loud machines.constantly from 5 AM to 9 PM Monday thru •,p. ' Friday. These loud machines caused me to have frequent headaches, sleeplessness, and anxiety. Additionally;, the laundromat emitted strong irritating smells that also gave to have headaches, irritation and allergic reactions. Therefore, due to these intolerable conditions I was unable,to continue to live peacefully at the Spencer Court Apartments. Thad to move. 1 • I moved out on September 24, 2000 and paid for the full month. Additionally, I • .paid a full month's rent for October;even though I did not live there, because I had to -give 30 days notice of.moving. However, I have not yet received a refund of my • deposit. • I request that you please refund my deposit of$250:00. I am attaching a.copy of w; my Move Out Report to show that the conditions of my apartment were left satisfactory r: at my move-out time and all areas and appliances were cleaned. Please refund my deposit as soon as possible. Sincerely, ni aise: Pato kg (Q,-/a. Maya Polonsky .51 Burnett Ave. S. Apt. #406 Renton, WA 98055 . 425-430-5436 . • I OCT 272000 BY: A Wir-k, • , . • t!,':.:4 .v r 14. -0..oetc= 1-7YvvoIn . a e Z / S oh -1)- w7W1( i, z / if Th/l'xe ____ ,27gi_ i il LP. ' -9-9-.19‘6 7 ;12 i'd 77 4 11-1 5-(Iry g 11 1 • <4 1 I 6 Ir- P19, 1-1,f od-od p Poo w r a 4,, ifr- s----,,- .44--4,V '°1(1)-)--r 1/ i _..(7 7 -7*: -r --- rlYrYr---16- ' ), ". , _ftyvy-,Y)-h-74, c , . , i -i",,- frIz. / -i-l/ • c 7—D— r `?' )-x-)-c:-----rz-e-- 7,V7-- __/./---r6 „,_ Lk : , z -/--?- v ti. a • ___ . 7 1....ai 0/7 0:is b- srr V,...,70,......, r• 7 L.a-s c a it 4,t.e. o,.7.//....7 -i...",•e:P-,./.5% ,it 4 p / At,' 7 C,s'71 ',,A., CV ,7c a . /7/ ) ( 2V 4 °111 -- 7 f d '''1/71 / '7g/ - , 21/ 276/ 0/ ...,iy...7A,,,i ? /i i J'4 / S ' 7 r tre. . .../ A.Fc) A/6w s-orco 9f ci-, ...."3-•,-eo;,-, Z'::,9,;,..,>1- '' 7Z, cr ./ A 0• ' ----- -; .s--/ ›i:j'' ,Il -4. ..c, iVe / e• /477-','"'4"' 7 "-• V-74 - ,..74, / / 577 F- 777-.9-7-4- 7e--4e4w --ffrio/ ./) ,e(ii s- 7 57 .V61 • -- - , A:, al , 0. '064,.SE4i 5?.7 .,‘ - _7-.;'? - -7f,:' )7 07 -f c4 7--; :j r "e 'ti i! _ : • ., , : - _ , :, , , . .f " Betty Nokes<Bnokes@ci.renton.wa.us>on 04/13/99 01:48:00 PM X`• To: Lynn Moran/AGInc cc: Subject: RE: Henry Ford School demolition Lynn, we have heard through the"grapevine"that Service Linen is in the process of purchasing the Old Ford School building from the school district. I know the school district has had both of these buildings (Ford School & old admin. office) on the market for the last several months. No formal proposal has been submi ced from Service Linen for this site. Our zoning allows for expansion of the Laundry as a secondary use. It is limited to 100 ft of their existing property. This applies only to exiting uses and is subject to site plan review, so no new commercial warehousing would be allowed in this area. -- Betty Nokes, Economic Development Director From: Steven C. Denison To: Betty Nokes Subject: FW: Henry Ford School demolition Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 9:32AM 3€tty, Can you hip this parson? St ve From: Lynn_Moran@agsea.corn To: Steven C. Denison Subject: Henry Ford School demolition Date: Tuesday, March 30, 1999 3:21PM I understand this property has been sold to Service Laundry. Will they be putting in a warehouse or office building? I live across the street and I am very curious. I know that a builder on Williams is also very interested. He just put in three triplexes and wanted to know if the area was going to be commercial warehousing. Is this part of the revitalization? Thank you. ,11111M �I c . ti tra)..- - - - t'i; - — _ ___ .. _ _ . . .. '! ft--S A 6 7-/Ari,.1) „01--- 106G6 076(50 d 9Q(UMA) i.-7-5\ _r ' . ! � ==1 T 1�c Posi- -r = ,_, ,/e-7-=_S_'_ uL U ►,v e4=W 1 i=1- -_________ I, geCA-P -rj►0, - `TO VeZ L,1416 L_ _ "r0 'e-Tk fot 7\tS 10e-16-htco - A' _ & , � —fiver ' i/Gvaus. Crop e�T-1 trs orL G% 6 r//7,1- Prop erz -rL _ _ • l ! C�t r�L = lD-�_ =_______ _�.zL bvic r�i_•�Gs,.=_l (s zo�v, ►t,I.=--- Cm L, ,J FFee-�- k__LA,-.-Q,;) Pro PeR7L- w,�s Fur?r b-� il 1ny `�11 \ , __\ __ __ _ _il_. ,1rNi._&, ?rp'S'ec-1- Serp,-e_-1-1,71_,----. &re-/2.- .. y /Y = 11 LS-/ISYirii 6u l Lb( _' .. __ 0.._ . .-_ _ _ - 1 . - C 1 C ' V E 0 :• , - , . _ _ _ _ • 1�AR - 5 20a - 1 CITY OF Hem _ _- --HEARING EXAMINER _ --- _-__ __-- I ii . . . . _ - - _ I THIS WAS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING , : WHICH W HELD ONi B FE -RUARY- -27:; 200-1 ; _ - - •- __ - - _ . i III . ,, ., _ ,. ___ __ _ _ ___ . _ _ __ _ _ _._ _ II . ,,. - ,,,F,a, ,n>,. UY:J -4:y=�7-u``::.r �w,>�i W +'ul"+ -Ls�: ; d:t1D-------- -- ------------------------------ : . 1 - ,.....:a AS ...-c - MORRIS v i AVE S -/ 1 ill: mil ""-3 ;� +ate :.y ammil i - .,, ,...1525 -,,P,61P RP E010 ,,V(.11111 tiik-.._ k --,4 L4q1E1:!.,4'enz\SMITNERS , �1/ jg �.� Ell firgl 5 N I�3 R I�P1 i 1•;_ LO �A ,BURNETT AVE: IIS sa o WILLIAMS I. ;AVE II :S d s ®®� 1 15'__\ �� 6g, \LmikII MIN Ed1. WELLS AVEE Al S 8.4. YAM AVE E.i. 6 ` l a/ S a MILL • ,AVE \ .. S r n ��n R §E1 hd g t3 1 &- s ' / �I pe S ...�_ .__ ___ O m���I�� 110 ,iy� wry"` / SI' GBo , 1 P 1:,�;1)' .1 4 m Y 71 •`a 6 1 tj,n ' o� O iVV4g, no m mm oc7-�i;t, i 3° 0 v z - �1 e 41_ �o fl �m -�<0 Gl <z . • • ARCHITECTURE a ENGINEERING j t„�+ PLANNING /'� ) s o/ MANAGEMENT " , A i 701 DEXTER AVE.N. SEATTLE,WA.96109 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT I- ^- SOUTH 4th STREET ' (206)285-4300 < TO RIGHT OF WAY i 44 60' R.O.W. O L Y M P C •�, 1i .fl I �r , --� ASSOCIATES �- 4i,-k,.4,Imsc,TrB-ARE. .0 1 ,6.Le. Fx.o c COMPANY 1" a 2. 2, m . - j j SPACE 30•T'PRDKING s+ 4A R 8.5W%16'D COMPACT I ,v m :�i' EXISTING SERVICE "° `° • ]00 GT SPACE PMN I 15 �'(ram� m LNEN BUILDING - _ -r ' SERVICE LINEN SPACES ARE REQUIREDPARKING FOR EXISTING I s0 ,+IO SUPPLY SERVICE UNEN BUILDING " MI) 2V N y `3yt�^ D n RKdI j O RE EXPANSION FOR 1' a(V y ]]al PROPOSED IXPANSION LAO11 hy. 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT • 0 TO RIGHT OF WAY �� "' PARKING m>0 AUi05 2n1: :::::: :; ;.:;::;:;.::: • e•CM%Id91ui.. S 29 OF THESE SPACES ARE I ' (s mrcr f0 vm-�ss r mual I ��•j _ ::...Dw=P... ::�:::.:..::::::,......c.•.11.11:_::.;::".,: ::::,6� LNK REQUIRED PERKING FOR n LOT 512E 17.250 s9.1l. - F)) :::':.::: ..:..::...:.:::.. ..:.::..:..::..::::.:.::...::.::..::::::::::.:::..:: ::.;:..::......,:..:.,:,;...: i[I I iRwsFO • Y,nRxiEe PROPOSED SERVICE 10 MR*xmn.c s'wanes eurml 1 L1 = n Z . ............ . GAMIC O UNEN IXPAI9SIOry „�+„• N ......................... ,{{� Ru R n I � 1 j pk,:::..:::...:d:::.:::::..:.:..:.:.::.:R::,: :.:::.-:.:..::: :::;:.-::: `1 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH (1 SURPLUS PARKING • s 9 . . �. yy ENTON WA SPACE R W �^ v I- - 115' I 1 74 L- 3 3 �e ITS �W O A.,...‹.I N¢ [ •• e. F%ISRNG PARKING LOT Q O:Doi. �vZ:: h:: ::'::'::::::: ':::'.::::::: :::::::.::::::.:::::::::.: ::XISF>uDs[FOR.•• �� j0 'v TOTAL IFNDSGPED AREA: 1.880 S.F.-11S N EN 41999D929001A7D. .N:I 4n Q F. a 9e m a v ay (n o .J:!::r:^ it:_::ii:�'r'L:�.s::L:-..::..:...::.:.:I+-.::::::.6-..-...;.;l:.:;R .. Ie (NOT INCLUDING 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFER) CIY ... PROP,OS,ED,';;SERVI,CE.(.S/'..r.:: :..�::?:(< • DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE •S I�° =¢I ,+ ,LLI - r:)' LINENBUILDD►NG <':r :'':'::_,;.., ;, os, SCALE: 1/4"=1•-0" 3 �• '+ 3 s. ..:.r:.:::.v......... nW ��� 9 '' u 24 a €`• �Pz'�d 0 m g - I S�9 _ T 8' h ', E of PARKING m}D VEHICLES 0L^ : 0l mean LO 7.10-"s7r. y SWE-EXPPMNING w ^ IWwi Sl2E 11MW S.F. SPACE- vnto.5 MN./ G 15'w LOADING DOCK- �� 112'X 16'O COMPACT 6 o.x,''r }s• OO PAVEMENT ::)UT'-D': 14 I!,(A A LA A A A A A,likr t'1 PPRKNC SPACE-W. o,,, _ I _ ?I I �J1IIIIn1IIIII�II .SL��I II�, ::: ENws FOR-ROM,:.: 1115 A -' Ztx u - ' ..... I.. METRO PARKING LOT 9:� s� TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA 1,335 S.F.-12R �Y .•�- • Ii x k h� I (NOT INCLUDING 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFER) ROE- j 0'S i4.;^T awv sws Rnu. `i UIIIQ W III :`4�\,,"., i vOs[o IE PARKING`5)SPACES(ON SITED\ 2 o . . ¢ _ _ DxEx Uw x ea'x •l=` s5cI x6 2, 1 w o • .1�► �- PROPERTY'INE. f's'vrE Heel M1 '•S I QK SITE PLAN - m • 1 f'J. G z e N 88 24 50"E• 234.42'�- 2 • PROJECT NOTES: I E -EASEMENT UNE PARKING(6)SPACES(IN EASEMENT) [...DE{ • OCCUPANCY I aW�.slm I 20YK STREET OR OPEN SPACE ON ALL 4 SIDES OF BUILDING PARKING' BUDDING HEIGHT PARKING REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROPOSED EXPANSION: ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT m 95 FEET REO'D FOR LAUNDRY:MIN It SPACE/1,000 s9.IL m 22,587/1000 K 1 m 22.6 SPACES PROPOSED BUDDING HEIGHT m 42 FEET .5 SPPLE/_t,OW I0. m 22.587/IOW st.5 m 33.S SPACES I ¢I REO•D FOR OFFICE: MIN SPACE/1,000 sgol. m 2,768/1000 X 3 m 8.3 SPACES CODE RFOUIRFT SIT 84r'XS: MAX.5 SPACE/1,000 sR.fl. m 2,768/1000 5 4.5 m 12.5 SPACES r I - OM F RENTON I. FRONT m 14 FEET MIN PARKING REQUIRED m 31 SPACES REAR m 0 FEET C I(i999�W50R�RWn1 0 SIDE m 0 FEET MAX PARKING REQUIRED m 46 SPACES wI (5.1) EXISTING BUILDING p435 BULL DING AREA, TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND MARROW REO•D FOR LAUNDRY:MINI SPACE/1,000 58.IL m 51,302/1000 5 1 m 51.3 SPACES D,I EXISTING BUILDING: 22.587 S.F.FIRST FLOOR •MAX 1.5 SPACE/1,000 WI. m 51,302/IOW 51.5 m 77.0 SPACES 2.768 S.F.SECOND FLOOR DEFRY TRUCKS TO PARK ON PROPERTY 25,355 S.F.TOTAL W °� PROPOSED BVILDWDi 1 G: 28,715 S.F.FIRST ROOK REO•D FOR OFFICE MIN]SPACE/LOOP 58.N. m 6,69]/1000 s 3 m 20.7 SPACES C I ro I 9,125 S.F.SECOND ROOK MAX 4.5 SPACE/1.000 59.IL m 6,89]/1000•,.5 }I.0 SPACES 32,840 S.F.TOTAL TOTAL AREA:(EXIST. 58.195 S.F. ION PARKNG REQUIRED m 72 SPACES (31 SPACES FOR EXIST.BLDG..41 SPACES FOR IXPANSION) 2 I e'I MS BISO h PROPOSED BLOCS.) MA%PARING REQUIRED m 108 SPACES i0. SFRVIfF IINFN PROPERLY U 2],988 sR.11.,ZONED CD.OUTSIDE OF AQIUAL PENNING PROVIDED. ,,,NN Nm uc OOWDING(CORE AREA. CONTAINS THE EXISTING SERVICE LINEN 73 SPACES FOR AUTOS(NOT INCLUDING 8 SPACES IN EASEMENT) BUILDING(GROUND ROOK AREA m 22,587 50.8.) (INCLUDES 4 NEW ON SITE STALLS FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED) I I a I SERV,IINFN PROPERTY I.46.868 sR.II.20NE0 CO(PI REZONE 11 SPACES FOR 1RUCK5 MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING MR LOCATION OF PARKING FOR AUTOS PROVIOEO I I I8535'PUCE?SWXD ddOY (( 5 SPACES ON SITE ADJACENT PROPERTY VAL 4l REZONE NSFSIFBE OBTAINED PR PRIIJR TO OBYPAWING CEMENT 3036 SPACES IN LOT-82 -ACROSS WELLLS-S A E.SOUTH EASEMENT RFC.T9B070sos.3 A BUILDING PERMIT. I I 234.39' I WY OF TOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY I a II'70.858 s.Il. )ANIKCAPING•TOTAL AREA(PROPERTY II a:EASEMENT)m 7,190 SF.(INCLUDING PAVERS) ` N 88°23'35"W 240.16 FOR ENIoN CR1 dT R LOT AREA OF PROPERTY 0 N EASEMENT-51,628 59.IL 1 RFC./Iv91A00x0177O TOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY 1 II U FASEMFNT•75.616°R II R OF PROPERTY W/LANDSCAPING-1},9R SOUTH 5th STREET JOi FOVFRAFE AIIOWFO FOR PROPOSED PIN DIN(',65R OF 46,868 S.F. E N01F•PER NATREN K.NITIRILN/TELEPHONE 4-7-2000 L--�-_-_-_-___ 60 R.O.W. I s s P-�rR�m�m�, T,v (PROPFAtt II)_W,464 S.F. CIWINDICATION OF COMING GRADES NOT REQUNFD. DIMING GRADES ARE NOT Axxm MS.MP..vR1+X`Aamm.m JOT PRVCRAF.E PROPOSED'}0,420 SF.(INCLUDES COVERED PORTION ORIGINAL,BUT OCCUR FROM DEMOUT1ON WORK. N'IL a 50r[ OF LORDING 000N)30.420/6X.088 m 64.9R 2000I53 ME ZONE] EARTHQUAKE ROOF IO - SITE PLAN e RTH I� rm PROPOSED R L BF I YG RINK FRAMED STPUCNflE WITH NON COMBUSTBLE �-� EXTERIOR WALLS,UULLY SPSTEELERRA .Nma IynFo 0 15 30 60 90 1'=JO nE Rr m•. 2101 AT • • Storm MR ARCHITECTURE Found 3"brass disk in / Storm MH ENGINEERING ///A concrete in I/ PLANNING y/�/' 1/11/00 case a Found 3"brass disk in MANAGEMENTL110$ i ,� South 4th St. c nc to in case 701 DEXTER AVE.N. d Sewer MH "'' N 88'26'45"W meas. m = down 0.5' 1/11/00 SEAITLE,WA.98109 • \. ® 300.00'm es.300.15'plat®rl (206)285-4300 \VCID OLY M PIC �I M ;_o niv pedn q, o u3a .0 G°? ® TV ® ASSOCIATES is iCOMPANY 30' tele.pole 1_____-- 1 20 traffic& w/andgrd drop I 30• j street light SERVICE LINEN pm I pale • h — — — _-. SUPPLY V 2 19 '� -.c I I guy y0 I 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH • j RENTON, WA • 00 ' ' S —...t NEW SANITARY 18 E (.n wrr SERVICE 03 rw pole > —W--NEW WATER SERVICE 7 7 I Q 1 C NEW GAS 4 __M SERVICE 3 1 I City of Renton j Easement for Roadway N Rec #19990929001173 �_i" vt o lcb�typj - ---„�� 9 (5'x10') LOT 1 0{ Re�o1i135 Go,r4 o'I I" 5 SON 16 b 6 411:015 City of Renton a:m 03 o d--.t3 2031• Lot Line Easement for Roadway ' o� > pole 1 r (' Rec.#19990929001173 ra Q GENERALIZED no g1 1 i (5'x10") 1 0 v UTILITIES PLAN wires o I S 88'24'50"E r C m o _ 234.42' 0 �t} ------__—_-- -;° lele ( I 7 Easement line I 14 • .owt Concrete v« __ curbing 6'o ®Storm Drain M E Manhole o,an' 8 I 13 City of Renton Easement for - z I roadway(500) Rec.#19991005001770 9 12 -- —K NORTH 30' 30' I 10 ii 10'x 25'Puget Sound Energy LOT 2easement Rec. #9807060543 10_ 234. 9' Fr City of Renton Easement for „ P �. rv:> tea• N 88'23'35"W 240.16' _ roadway(5x10) W...�0153 Rec.#19991005001770 2000153 n South 5th S ,a GRAPHIC SCALE t. Found tack in lead Found 2-1/4" Are S 88'23'35"E meas. 300.17'meas. 300.16'Plat i. 1/11/00 in case- ' ' �' w.. in conc. in .,..a, oroo • Elevation datum per City of Renton Benchmark#2123 1 oro"so ix • 0 J ARCHITECTURE b J ENGINEERING ,�40,j-/f, , PLANNING 1_ — 4th- _—_S_T ___-11--,I MANAGEMENT // ■ ■ 7E DEXTER AVE.N. AI SEATTEE,WA.9810 b7 9 -" --"s q J-o , % (206)285-4300----------- _ m+G LANDSCAPING 0 --r • OLYMPIC • I E5 �� I ' ASSOCIATES i II �GTA— ,ROR� UA(3)Ii II I E$S jNGE I COMPANY i �+� i _ I _ ■I DAPHNE (7)N I I I SERVICE LINEN j I w BMW ill W i II SUPPLY I I �N J `o' .oli^°'w�„P PROPOS,ED SERVICE ■ = o�w �`• .• LINEN ,BUILDING 1,1,,aIN� - o IoP I a B E a m G I .O RGN p•) 4Ti Nrun(n)l < i o< o > 1,s ..,. 0 0o r;.+i?' PAVERS E"Frounecosa o,c" I HYDRANGEA ACROPNTLIA(5) -�wyy3 1 RNODENDRON�o �'"'o�, ��o e ns' a � ..<,�a< G +wts) °ijFfi r I 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH O o wC.T2RN IWestern TIAALA TA(ed Be). Hv :N� ,. .y- _ °hBxax,w ar,wl`B) I ACER wP"xE-.oriel 440,0e 6(•) - REN TON WA 1L' JOT•B• F%ICIING PANNING LOT H UANTE�Swu,.0) Li_i I,t: UNGSC,aNG NER BLUE JUNIER(., elow DA - F I PAVERS uxo (ic` n0uaxuu wh 1 liciC Gsruw i wl aB) ;o� on(10) •4 I > iii... NEPETA EAASSEN0(47) 0 0 4 F%ISPNO PARKING 10T 1 •_ A.BBNa 09) 711111. ;' w Tx�O R,RNIxG Eor V. :a Q C Q \o•° 1 SMN.a.) DAP,411 PETA TruSEN0(S)(5)te) I "RNU DAM RHODENDRON(0) ... ---T—,s ra o tr'--� Zi 1 00Ha%xuu I -I IPROPER�LINE I JooPLANTING LEGEND �'„� ;,NG�Ea EwEi k I CONCEPTUAL 11.1 L i j41::,c LANDSCAPE PLAN Scene Maple uN (s /i.a `'`' 51 I_ EXISTING BUILDING��435 LANDrE AREASa,TZNAVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM dc I I I I (INCLUDING UNDSW m RTONSS PROPOSED FSE/SEMENT AND PAVER tiros) (NOT IN wG.G B." M METERS) AT ww N a aKING LOTS L _ _ I I II I 1 Il L"--S• ---5 `ti-- S"�• -J 'COPYRIGHT'• CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN NORTH ••M-�-� �a•- 0 16 30 60 90 ;; wart v'to-imo 2000153 Lommr. 30 man L■1 _ ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING —J PLANNING MANAGEMENT , A l 701 DEXTER AVE.N. SEATTLE,WA.98109 9 /��, - (206)285-4300 , d> • " O L Y M P. I C ASSOCIATES ri-ii , t COMPANY EXISTING`UNDRV SERVICE AREA �❑ 1 s SERVICE LINEN �50 0 SUPPLY — WWI __ _�- , it 1 . . STAIR#3T LJ p` f rill 420 WELLS AVE S. 'I I 1 hI RENTON, WA �- 1. SECOND FLO0R�SHELL SPACE r---- ---1—] --.--- 5 g II ABOVE-OFFICE TENANT I IMPROVEMENTS UNDER A =.. ZSEPARATE PERMIT i I LAU 4DRY SERVICE AREA } I P EXtTT 'ok ETTTIT] —1—_ J_e1iIua EXIT I _ I _—- STAIR ;1 I ry E)jIT i ELEV I . E R• EXIT I FLOOR PLANS —_ I — — EXIT -- & SECTION A-A 1st FLOOR PLAN I 11 LOADING DOCK I I 1 iL r- 1 SCALE: 1/16'=1'-0' I TRUCK LOADING _ _ EXIT . APPROXIMATE ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT I OFP T E LOCATION 1 1 SFROOFTOP EQUIPMENT 1ROXIMATE LOCATION OFP ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT rut out nal TaC _ — i - `C 0 P Y R I G H T• N wrt a-i-ao via 2000153 ,J J L I L I IL '�"m A-2 SECTION A-A' . _a� � ,. „O„. SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0' CMU WINDOW SILL -CREAM COLORED ARCHITECTURE U' BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED PRECAST CURT LINTEL CMU ACCENT BAND ENGINEERING METAL SIDING "KHAKI"SPLIT-FACE "ROSE BROWN"SPLIT- BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PLANNING TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK jI� CMU BLOCK PRE METAL AWNING MANAGEMENT 111111111111I111 _ DEXTER AVE.N. ll®RR FINISHED 701 IIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I*? SEA LE,WA.98109 �I I (206)285-4300"/ i,,, � 0 L Y M C � r IIIIj ASSOCIATES 1 F.- - _ COMPANY r I. .I � � • • SERVICE� � * LINEN L � '�:- ::��;` ==h- �., -- - a _ t. ;:;,;r:.'; s�a�� � SUPPLY w =:__ cam �, • SAW ' a zy�.�`�®..iY.i, ..s ��/ •• i ., � tea•, '� — e 1��T✓ �'�."dFt\..�J4��{ ra �� .LAY?,� LS..QP' "�' '. �1' ,� - __Li L�AO, ) ,- +a,, _,--�' -. .. EXISTING&FINISH GRADE— GREMU Y SPLIT-FACE CMU WATERTABLE TRELLIS SCREEN I----------- --------- C BASE WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH BLUE PRE FINISHED CORRELATED RENTON, WA METAL SIDING "KHAKI"SPLIT-FACE "ROSE BROWN"SPLIT- BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK COLORED TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK IIIIIIIIiI1 Il 1."'lmlum — _ Inllln uua111 1 mo w; IIIIIIIIImm�n1111111 IL:.i I � 1 Illbllltllllllulnll 7WAWA:.,.::.1 ':...;.:::.: 7.....ie,oL',':::.'-: i::: :-....•.:. Nirrr ., .. ::-....::.:-.. .....::: :'...'7:- i ‘4 ,,,,...,,,p,,,..., ,..: ....:..:.... .. . ._.„L .:. . ...... ..." . : .„..„,...... ... '\-1111Will7411•77:-',.—• .—H-::-. -..,,i'',77,777 1 ' • '7-'17..7'airl!t.L.'7.719".- ' Eggew, 7-,i,,.. 1,:.,. :, . .....jay.,: s ,2.10..:I..::...., .:: :.: --Il „a r4 ry y <" ' r_ !! „JOB ELEVATIONS EXISTING&FINISH GRADE CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS CMU ACCENT BAND EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED CREAM COLORED BLUE METAL SIDING "KHAKI"SPLIT-FACE "ROSE BROWN"SPLIT- BLUE PRE FINISHED CMU ACCENT BAND PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK COLORED- ---I TUBE STEEL METAL AWNING CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK III I n IM I I l il! II„r, d •: Y11 :.. Krz m a+ i :..:..:. .. fry. — — :•�..�..? •C O P Y R I G H T• F; •.f.-: - - O MO MCI 00 00 00 MCI 00 00 MCI 0 EXISTING&FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS LOADING DOCK BLUE PRE FINISHED METAL DOORS SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION m+`" /�-3 j '1�7 Q i is gill' �I i2 . •• uro 2 �Ir .at,'1• I.ttittioi 16er 4 •L .1, 1 • P .`a �4- ARCHITECTURE "'/,. Q_, -� , 3 u ,✓r.:,'-`'•, ENGINEERING :aw���. - W .®2 3 `•'"I _ �. ros °210 1 !:'i/nn'�. - -- .:: /�% Y-, !!l�R��1 t r. PLANNING EOM 6 5 6 1� ® A 30 war i� n z'�• z12 4 .17 aa. 4 Is A'�ID ✓',.:. 1 • L M-�� ,¢a Y r✓r.✓••. Tz•w MANAGEMENT .= •�'' 16t�,,,,, ,2I6 ILI K t' 218 IS I •.;y q ✓✓ 701 DEXTER AVE.N. (� eis. �, 7 '� SEATTLE,WA.98109 �''3\ I r �-•' i III�WIri \�'a�r. 1 :. --a'. II _ zxs __�l�.-s w�� 0 L Y M P I C , i f1..� .(\� �T r.�a� --4 . I _ ' g ®, tzs' ,°24aa8 13 231' NW a'q� ASSOCIATES i ; ' • to�- t��� +Frs9 �] a 4 ® :3 A4_9•e 23r, JI1( `�108F 3Q; i`wE ' zo COMPANY -rho . ! .,,,, 0 g� A-11z 10 611 s coV $' vo �11 . m v.. gal. % ?id . `. ;%. .,it« I.; 101 AC, Sr• .I-- == Q--�ST.p ^�� �5 S. 3R� x T.,�, E LINEN �o �` P " P IR SERVICW } A •i ��� SM1 , ' .0t, . e,. 0 .® o I I I ,Q° r4x 32�`lZ �r•'421 1 �I� r r i >3� © x ar. _ _ Zsrr 1 • 's3os, fi1i,•• v $! • a__RRa k 3 Tan lik e • E"r" w^ da � I 1 •+�„ �4r-- r. ® /c 00 3 �i•� vm ,.�f" 3 CM �!�� % _ru .i_z a+ 3t0 9 le t( 2 '�''" ME �.,:•:: kiiiltA R G -, 2[❑ � � ��. 3u irArz>c . �� iSi ;`• \ �o i ,e, �� •k� 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH ® 1 ./1, F11 , 21.Z .,�"i323 . ( byYittl� !d /p1 , ` kt� 172 RENTON, WA •® II Ifni tzD 332 I II a. I iu `, A INI��k,?��+ E Ihy r/ IJ�� -)m- - — • •® 12`�r ®• .fa� ! ;:336 2 a _ 1 f;• REM -- -- >i - r IY --3_` -- oiti 'Il 10 g� �1E!INF7 s �/' >S`"Q i111D!•i�.'� 117R�i►7.� NPO i ga Kg go n\\ 4 33 i . 7"29 ST s 00,0 Tonkin Park%Park S. 4th AVE M a,�„e ST a r lint '-0I rM � miQ .461-5.11 It 4 - . ,..swi. s . 5 _ �Ism� TM Ig ! : ":':,9„ WNW ; -: ' '� " ®— \� `L,I — r 1 _i I 4 aii ,..6. /..;E:::. ♦ .� _ 'yY��ns� Era rE .;HEM. .�i•:4 %N :ONAT101�'.• '!N 1— ❑ r �, [{j •, 7% ,Icy 1j��}! al a66{t1�)� �Y L MI aski....::::::::::::::. Ellaila �• ter'• eo • 1•i� ... ' { .: • E'is M k r eoa v s8 r�'b +j' @rSi �' • • Q� rffii I :4nk.....,;,te ®S ,>1,1 n g n ®• i J ® 8 13 r 1►a---a2 7 i Fw 26 NEIGHBORHOOD • J wu ;I :;::::. I DETAIL MAP 7 ,7, - . ; ® —. !f}7 ® 9 3 lei i .`.':. \ENI 12 %0;k -ee --1 ,v al e Ls 10.1 rq I .... ` . 9 1D •I :E.T. urn'• : ::(a;..):;.;::;:::-' - a i, m-,a' �< 25 I Q� ! ! .. r ' 'tom ra -'3 .( (I) .4 �� ' T �� • tt . I S. 5th AVE '...; yg4,-1,,,, ;<, e ,(3) u:ate„ ` I Q 4 i11 4J 24F'n 4o7 W - i 11■ i fi�rm: ..i EiD� 1y7, . fS Ij rill C =�, “g ' a EkO pa• \ 1 1 AEI 73 x , 52 2 23 Z .fig 1 a' 19 ti�v ;,I 12.1,, MN�� a ---+0 �'i e . (21' MI 3 222 k.'_ 3 222® • `ea 3 3 IS wT S0 W f Ezi iYi� tl I�- n` f ° .-. 51 4 21 1a• '.igJl, 21 t 1 _® 4 !!'tCili ills 4 17 © • �h Rl 4 lj a. `' o f '�^. fill 2D 1. Q 4 I n t---- Mig NM in 20 51) -�. - m ,bi • I® 6 �• ® I{'�•`Kl7 a` •. swum. I i NORTH .r wrt- .., , 19 Cam• "+��� I� ,d ® I n_.• �' �: _ - (3- r ' EV) IS 10• �eg 1 • ,,a •® 6 jL,F^ • J 1 . -5 n, , i•,,+► • g :\ , . ®0 1 •.5z s2:,�,u) 8 7 ni• tu F. o� b 7 LIM I •1 .R. k( � Ir, `b ; -,+; '0 7 Dm y ' I -_ - 40) i(: 9 216 ®• Z ...iall.�� i► 8 9 1 52 :Ct * ID I `-©-1 10ii7 l•A, :1�5' z+-'---8 Ita .. 11E) 9 13 Fm, �„ 1, ,asv :- rx-. °O o so ',oa z000 aoo II 1kt ®S � •.�� . e® 9ERM 1., 'n \ . 5360 I MtEr . �fS3 l2 13 z, R 41 R� 10 Ilin 0 6__. `'`3 60 `` E.539 4: wA;.,,' � • 1. fj o0 I ,�/u ! , 1 e, rj rL?I C ,F ill ,sa ,so L°.�. wrt,:-«-mm s.,.,-�ov 2000153 - tka}� I�((` • - s'WILLIAM �. : l': 0 . . w .00 ra1 1, f �' - -I- , — wC • C w I r .„,_ nu k461606' .. ACOND.30s f tr• S r n,..r 6l1 E sr ,pro �. f IS ,s ���EEFIII /a �0 e - 13: -2 J--- j . ® Q. 17 1§ k rta`9,n El'• Ln .®9� .[•.��� , 0.3S Au a .. .. R 1 ..,!.1 L� :an — © uzb nc -. - 'C...' 00— r31 I SPENCER COURT ARTS ROBERT R.MORAN ROBERT B.&JENNIFER N.RAPHAEL 8746 S 113TH ST 428 WILLIAMS AVE S PO BOXC957 SEATTLE WA 98178-3318 RENTON WA 98055-2745 RENTON WA 98057-0957 J ` < JUDITH I.WALLER ROBERT R.MORAN THEODORE L.&NANCY M.NIEMI 410 WILLIAMS AVE S 428 WILLIAMS AVE S 1917 SHATTUCK AVE S RENTON WA 98055-2745 RENTON WA 98055-2745 RENTON WA 98055-4249 e BEN A.&KIMBERLI K.WILSON j MENTAL HEALTH HOUSING FOUND I NEETA B.ROWE 424 WILLIAMS AVE S 101 STEWART ST STE 1102 421 WELLS AVE S C RENTON WA 98055-2745 J SEATTLE WA 98101-1048 RENTON WA 98055-2781 JESSE JAMES SOOY SPENCER COURT APTS LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 508 32ND AVE 8746 S 113TH ST 2110 WESTERN AVE SEATTLE WA 98122-6334 SEATTLE WA 98178-3318 SEATTLE WA 98121-2110 \ 11 l EARL W.&ELLEN PRICE ROBERT C.&BEVERLY A.DE LANCEY SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY INC 8746 S 113ST ST 4242 123RD AVE SE 903 S 4TH ST SEATTLE WA 98178 BELLEVUE WA 98006-1918 RENTON WA 98055-2720 1 r CITY OF RENTON EARL W.&ELLEN PRICE EARL W.&ELLEN PRICE 200 MILL AVE S 8746 S 113ST ST 8746 S 113ST ST RENTON WA 98055-2132 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98178 EARL W.&ELLEN PRICE BENNET BAREI LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 8746 S 113ST ST 614 S 18TH ST 2110 WESTERN AVE SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055-4256 SEATTLE WA 98121-2110 I I LOSH FAMILY LIMITED LOSH FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP GARY L.&SANDRA L.BELL 2110 WESTERN AVE 2110 WESTERN AVE J 36803 SE 34TH ST SEATTLE WA 98121-2110 I SEATTLE WA 98121-2110 FALL CITY WA 98024-9413 LOUIS BAREI DAVID+CAMILLE+RAPHAE JASSNY GARY &LINDA RIFFLE 614 S 18TH ST PO BOX 957 PO BOX 1508 RENTON WA 98055-4256 j RENTON WA 98057-0957 RENTON WA 98057-1508 it J I ROBERT RAHAEL PO BOX 957 RENTON WA 98057-0957 -• Jo CITI DF RENTON N Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • September 4,2001 Brad Minogue Olympic Associates Company 701 Dexter Ave N.,#301 Seattle,WA 98109 • SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR MINOR MODIFICATION TO SERVICE LINEN SITE PLAN APPROVAL(FILE NO..LUA-00-131,SA=H,R;ECF,LLA) Dear Mr.Minogue: I am in receipt of your August 29,2001 letter requesting consideration and approval.of modifications to the approved site plan for Service Linen. As your letter discloses,these changes resulted from needed plan changes from the approved site plan. The modifications that you are requesting are summarized below: 1. The second floor level within the new building has been deleted—this was shown in the original permit set as a shell space that would be built out in the future as approximately 5,500 square feet of office space. 2. The main floor is revised to show approximately 1,200 square feet of office build-out with an open storage mezzanine above. However,the overall building footprint is unchanged. 3. No changes have been made to the site plan or the:building exterior envelope. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-9-200I allows minor adjustments to an approved site plan,provided: 1. The adjustment does not involve more than a ten percent(10%)increase in area or scale of the development in the approved site plan;or 2. The adjustment does not have a significantly greater impact on the environmental and facilities than the approved plan;or • 3. The adjustment does not change the boundaries of the originally approved plan. - The site plan modifications as shown in your August 29,2001 submittal have been compared to the site plan approved by the Hearing Examiner on March 26,2001 and as modified per a City Council Appeal. Based on our analysis,we have determined that the proposed revisions(to eliminate the office component on the second floor,eliminate the second story,and relocate some office area to the first floor)are within the parameters defined by Renton Municipal Code. Therefore,the proposed modification to the site plan is approved. . This determination will be final unless a written appeal of this administrative determination—accompanied by the required$75.00 filing fee—is filed with the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the date of this decision. Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence,please contact Jason E.Jordan at(425)430- 7219. Sincerely, g)616-- • Neil Watts Development Services Director • 19O1 .2�001 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 ? f°�. s: •'ti This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer � •j OLYMPIC TRANSMITTAL ASSOCIATES Seattle Phone: (206)285-4300 Vr 1 COMPANY Fax: (206)285-4371 0 t Y M P IC 701 Dexter Ave.N.,#301 E-Mail: bminogue@olympicassociates.com ASSOCIATES Seattle,WA 98109 COMPANY DATE: August 29,2001 JOB NO: 2001157 TO: Jan Conklin FROM: Brad Minogue RE: Service Linen Supply—Building Permit Revision Enclosed are(3)sets revised drawings and(2)sets structural calculations for review as a revision to the existing building permit—plan check#B010142. The following changes have been made to the permit approved drawings. • The second floor level within the new building has been deleted—this was shown in the original permit set as a shell space that would be built out in the future as offices—approx. 5,500 sf. • The main floor is revised to show approx. 1,200 sf of office build-out with an open storage mezzanine above. The overall building footprint is unchanged. • Perimeter slab insulation has been deleted—(2)sets of revised building envelope calculations are also provided. • No changes have been made to the site plan or the building exterior envelope. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information regarding these revisions. For Your Information: ❑ Via Mail: ❑ Via Fax: El For Your Use: // Hand Delivered: // FedEx: ❑ For Your Approval: El Other Courier: ❑ For Your Signature and Return: ❑ Original in Mail: YES ❑ Fax#: NO ❑ Total Pages,including this page: Copy to: OLY fi T I CIATES COMPANY pr By: g/�•':� Brad inogue,AIA CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED AUG 302001 BUILDING DIVISION \ documentl 1 t After Filing Return To: City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Attn: City Clerk 01®711000776 CITY OF RENT N RCOVE PAGE 001 0 KINGICOUNTY, UA$ RESTRICTIVE COVENANT 0 CJ Grantor: SED Real Estate,LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company o Grantee: City of Renton o Abbreviated Legal Description (lot,block and plat name, or section-township-range): Lots 4 and 5 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington; less the east five feet for alley. Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington. Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the platt recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, WashingtOn; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes- l^ed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Assessor's Property Tay Parcel Account Number(s): 723150-1635, 723150-1640, 723150-1360, 723150-1.3-50, 723150-1373-02, 723150-1370 Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b.jsw.doc • RESTRICTIVE COVENANT his Declaration of Restrictive Covenant is made as of this J�aay of r Q , 2001,by SED Real Estate Company,LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company("Declarant") and the City of Renton("City"). RECITALS A. Declarant owns the property legally described in Exhibit A hereto(the "Parking Property"). The Parking Property is developed with a surface parking lot. B. Declarant also owns the property legally described in Exhibit B hereto (the • "Laundry Property"). A portion of the Laundry Property is currently developed with a commercial laundry facility,which facility will be expanded onto the balance of the Laundry Property pursuant to the site plan approval granted by the City on March 26, 2001,under file number LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD (the "Site Plan Approval"). C. As a condition of Site Plan Approval,the City has required that the following covenant be executed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the granting of Site Plan Approval,Declarant hereby declares for itself, its successors and assigns as owners of the Parking Property and the Laundry Property as follows, and the City agrees as follows: 1. Use of Parking Property. The Parking Property shall be used only for a parking lot to serve the use on the Laundry Property. 2. Termination. If the use of the Laundry Property changes in degree or kind such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property,or if the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property are met by alternative sources of parking such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property, or if the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property change such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property, then this Declaration shall terminate without further action by any party. In the event that this Declaration is terminated pursuant to the preceding sentence,the City shall provide to Declarant an executed document in recordable form acknowledging said termination and releasing this Declaration,which document may be recorded in the real property records for King County. Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b.jsw.doc 3. Enforcement. This Declaration shall be enforceable by the City Council of the City of Renton, and by Declarant and its successors and assigns. 4. Running Covenants. The covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall operate as covenants running with the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind the Declarant's and the City's heirs, successors, and assigns. DECLARANT: 0 0 ® v Attest: Maril r n J. tersen,City Clerk Je Tanner, Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) ASS VI I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatDU�k - is th person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the M q,a . 2 r of SED Real Estate LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: . /± , 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of !• `• ? 9 f Washington,residing at G � , e�cr`?a:�,,:..--.,>-�: .:::,y,;..tea._- �� ""�^~ '` My appointment expires 41 O, Print Name Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b.jsw.doc STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Marilyn Petersen and I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatJesse Tanner is the person s who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation, to cz:1 be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the czy instrument. Dated: June 29, , 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. D. LO 'I vi fit !' �'; ; . NO ARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at Seattle �� •'� ��9;p o,_=`,�o'Z = My appointment expires 9/9/01 it .q4. �Gi_ Print Name Suzann D. Lombard lit opWASS►` Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b.jsw.doc EXHIBIT A ro LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARKING PROPERTY C Lots 4 and 5 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135, records of King County, Washington; less the east five feet for alley. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., City 0 of Renton,King County,Washington. Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b.jsw.doc EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAUNDRY PROPERTY Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington. Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat •l-- recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County,Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 5 East,W.M., City of Renton,King County, Washington. Y:\wp\service linen\a02281b jsw.doc After Filing Return To: City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Attn: City Clerk INEURNIN 77599ThOVEl3_ 00 PAGE 001 OF KINGICOUNTY10UR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Grantor: SED Real Estate, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Grantee: City of Renton Abbreviated Legal Description (lot,block and plat name, or section-township-range): Lots 18, 19 and 20 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington; less the west five feet for alley. Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135, records of King County, Washington. cv Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135, records of King County, Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. • Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number(s): 723150-1706, 723150-1360, 723150-1350, 723150-1373-02, 723150-1370 Y:\wp\service linen\a02281.jsw.doc • RESTRICTIVE COVENANT . ,da, ,This Declaration of Restrictive Covenant is made as of this day of rt2 , 2001,by SED Real Estate Company,LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company("Declarant") and the City of Renton("City"). RECITALS A. Declarant owns the property legally described in Exhibit A hereto (the "Parking Property"). The Parking Property is developed with a surface parking lot. B. Declarant also owns the property legally described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Laundry Property"). A portion of the Laundry Property is currently developed with a commercial laundry facility,which facility will be expanded onto the balance of the Laundry Property pursuant to the site plan approval granted by the City on March 26, 2001,under file number LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD(the "Site Plan Approval"). C. As a condition of Site Plan Approval,the City has required that the following covenant be executed. NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the © granting of Site Plan Approval,Declarant hereby declares for itself, its successors and assigns as owners of the Parking Property and the Laundry Property as follows, and the City agrees as follows: 1. Use of Parking Property. The Parking Property shall be used only for a parking lot to serve the use on the Laundry Property. 2. Termination. If the use of the Laundry Property changes in degree or kind such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property,or if the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property are met by alternative sources of parking such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property, or if the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property change such that the parking lot on the Parking Property is no longer needed to meet the City parking requirements applicable to the Laundry Property, then this Declaration shall terminate without further action by any party. In the event that this Declaration is terminated pursuant to the preceding sentence,the City shall provide to Declarant an executed document in recordable form acknowledging said termination and releasing this Declaration,which document may be recorded in the real property records for King County. Y:\wp\service linen\a02281 jsw.doc 3. Enforcement. This Declaration shall be enforceable by the City Council of the City of Renton, and by Declarant and its successors and assigns. 4. Running Covenants. The covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall operate as covenants running with the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind the Declarant's and the City's heirs, successors, and assigns.jDECL ANT: CITY: Attest: r7J ,' Oliie ' tY M ' n tersen City Clerk JeV Tanner, Mayor • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. • COUNTY OF KING ) a sn I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatDc�,U;d 'SOS is e person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on 0 oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the 1 0.n ct. e t of SED Real Estate LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company,to beihe free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned • a in the instrument. Dated: Jlii-2-.7_. /� , 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. • ;a . �� i" . .e/ ,, NOT Y PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,residing at 44„ r5,2 My appointment expires 1-/-c>7- S/ 1_ _ �; Print Name . i;,- ���.�,� Y:\wp\service linen\a02281.jsw.doc STATE OF WASH NGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Marilyn Petersen and I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatJesse Tanner is the person s who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation,to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: June 29 , 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. N D' £O/,, 131 --4.6„Jfet„.‘e ° �OT'!P� �' _�� NO Y PUBLIC in and for the State of .o Washington,residing at Seattle ' "\V My appointment expires 9/9/01 ', VA, fp,,, -01 ? = Print Name Suzann D. Lombard I% WA5$G` CZt 0 Y:\wp\service linen\a02281.jsw.doc EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARKING PROPERTY Lots 18, 19 and 20 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington; less the west five feet for alley. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., City of Renton,King County,Washington. EA O e-- O 1 C\I Y:\wp\service linen\a02281.jsw.doc EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAUNDRY PROPERTY Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County,Washington. Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County,Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton,King County,Washington. Lino c) 0 Y:\wp\service linen\a02281.jsw.doc After Filing Return To: City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Attn: City Clerk 1111111111111111 20010711000774 CITY OF RENTON RCOVE. PAGE 001 OF 006 KINGICOUNTY, UAa RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Grantor: SED Real Estate LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company Q Grantee: City of Renton Abbreviated Legal Description (lot,block and plat name, or section-township-range): Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County,Washington. Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16, Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street ' purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Number(s): 723150-1360, 723150-1350, 723150-1373-02, 723150-1370 • Y:\wp\service linen\a02281c.jsw.doc RESTRICTIVE COVENANT This Declaration of Restrictive Covenants("Declaration")is made as of this 15 aay of fru. he_ , 2001,by SED Real Estate LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company("Declarant") and the City of Renton("City"). RECITALS A. Declarant owns the property legally described in Exhibit A hereto (the "Existing Laundry Property"). The Existing Laundry Property is developed with a commercial laundry facility. B. The Declarant also owns the property legally described in Exhibit B hereto(the "New Laundry Property"). The commercial laundry facility on the Existing Laundry Property will be expanded onto the New Laundry Property pursuant to the site plan approval granted by the City on March 26,2001,under file number LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD (the "Site Plan Approval"). cs C. When the commercial laundry facility on the Existing Laundry Property is expanded onto the New Laundry Property pursuant to the Site Plan Approval, there will be four openings in the wall between the portion of the building on the Existing Laundry Property and the portion of the building on the New Laundry Property. D. As a condition of Site Plan Approval,the City has required that that the following covenant be executed. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and in consideration of the granting of Site Plan Approval,Declarant hereby declares for itself, its successor and assigns as owners of the Existing Laundry Property and the New Laundry Property as follows, and the City agrees as follows: 1. Restriction on Transfer. Declarant shall not transfer all or any portion of its interest in the Existing Laundry Property or the New Laundry Property, unless it transfers an identical interest in both properties to the same transferee simultaneously, or unless the openings in the wall between the portion of the building on the Existing Laundry Property and the portion of the building on the New Laundry Property are sealed in conformance with the requirements of the version of the Uniform Building Code then in effect in the City. 2. Change in Occupancy. If Declarant changes the occupancy(as that term is used in the Uniform Building Code) of the portion of the building on the Existing Laundry Property or the portion of the building on the New Laundry Property in a manner that triggers a requirement under the Uniform Building Code to seal the openings in the wall between the Y:\wp\service linen\a02281c.jsw.doc portion of the building on the Existing Laundry Property and the portion of the building on the New Laundry Property,then Declarant shall seal said openings in conformance with the requirements of the version of the Uniform Building Code then in effect in the City. 3. Restrictions Limited. These covenants shall in no way prevent the Declarant from encumbering the properties with any security instruments which Declarant deems appropriate. 4. Termination. This Declaration shall be automatically terminated,without further action by any party,in the event that the openings in the wall between the portion of the building on the Existing Laundry Property and the portion of the building on the New Laundry Property are sealed in conformance with the requirements of the version of the Uniform Building Code then in effect in the City, or in the event that the portion of the building on either the Existing Laundry Property or the New Laundry Property is demolished. In the event that this Declaration is terminated pursuant to the preceding sentence,the City shall provide to Declarant an executed document in recordable form acknowledging said termination and releasing this Declaration,which document may be recorded in the real property records for King County. 5. Enforcement. This Declaration shall be enforceable by the City Council of the v City, and by the Declarant and its successors and assigns. 6. Running Covenants. The covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall operate as covenants running with the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind the Declarant's and the City's heirs, successors, and assigns. N DECL• ' • : • kj1/43 CITY: Attest: Marilyn etersen,City Clerk Jes Tanner, Mayor STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) Y:\wp\service linen\a02281c jsw.doc ."(c`ssA� I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatDa.0 i'dk. is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the , ¢! of SED Real Estate LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company,tb be thee and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: c 34*-2.o_ /.S; , 2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. ;.• ��• • 'Fi `'°' NOTARY UBLIC in and for the State of '• : Washington,residing at y r,,� s,2 My appointment xpires 1'-e7 .,� Print Name STATE OF WASHINGTON ) r ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) c • Marilyn .Petersen and I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatjesse Tanner is the persons, who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated.that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the = Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Renton, a Washington municipal corporation,to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the a instrument. N Dated: June 29 ,2001. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year above written. Ma- i'^ pZA�j, ';� NOT Y PUBLIC in and for the State of :a v : Washington,residing at Seattle � �°Z; My appointment expires 9/9/01 i 9.09- 0 Print Name Suzann D. Lombard r�I OF Vi Y:\wp\service linen\a02281 c.jsw.doc EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING LAUNDRY PROPERTY Lots 1,2, 19 and 20 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County, Washington. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., City of Renton,King County, Washington. C- C- 0 CD CD CD CD N Y:\wp\service linen\a02281c jsw.doc EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF NEW LAUNDRY PROPERTY Lots 3 through 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16, Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135,records of King County,Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Situate in the southwest quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North,Range 5 East, W.M., City of Renton,King County, Washington. CD N Y:\wp\service linen\a02281c.jsw.doc 1 Hon. Fred J. Kaufman 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER 9 ) ) 10 IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF MDNS FOR) No. LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01- SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION ) 021,AAD 11 ) ) DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL 12 ) ) 13 ) ) 14 I, ROBERT RAPHAEL, do hereby declare: 15 1. I am one of the owners of Service Linen Supply, Inc., the applicant for the site plan 16 approval for which the City of Renton issued the above-referenced Mitigated Determination of Non- 17 Significance. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge. 18 2. The proposal in this case is for construction of an expansion to Service Linen's existing 19 laundry facility. 20 3. The design for the expansion area calls for windows that will be inoperable and will be 21 sealed closed. 22 4. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through 23 the roof. The offices in the expansion area will be air conditioned, but the rest of the expansion.area 24 will not be air conditioned. If air conditioning were provided for the rest of the expansion area, the 25 air conditioning units would be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 1 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place ♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104.1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 5. Though I am not an air quality expert, based on consultation with an air quality expert, 2 it is my understanding that air conditioning does not actually remove odors from air. That is, if there 3 is an odor inside an air-conditioned building, that odor will still be present in the exhaust from the air 4 conditioner. 5 6. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air 6 conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. Air conditioning of 7 the entire Service Linen facility(including both the existing facility and the expansion area)would be 8 prohibitively expensive, given the large amount of heat-generating equipment in the existing facility 9 and the large volume of space in both the existing facility and the expansion area. Because of the cost, 10 air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. 11 7. At the hearing in this matter, residents in the vicinity of the existing laundry facility 12 alleged that they have experienced two types of odors purportedly generated by the existing laundry 13 facility. One type of odor was a"hot-laundry" or "dryer-vent" type odor. All of the dryers in the 14 existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the 15 existing facility. 16 8. Another type of odor alleged by nearby residents was a strong chemical odor. Service 17 Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. However, 18 such an odor would not come out of the windows of the existing facility, as this would mean that the 19 odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have 20 ascertained its source. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been 21 experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an 22 odor. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of an inspection/complaint report from the Puget 23 Sound Clean Air Agency concerning the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across 24 the street from the existing laundry facility concerning the strong chemical odor. The Puget Sound 25 Clean Air Agency has not taken any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this 26 complaint. DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL- 2 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place♦ 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile 1 9. Service Linen currently operates two shifts per day at the existing facility and the boiler 2 currently operates from approximately 3:30 a.m. to approximately 10:00 p.m., with some variation on 3 a daily basis. Truck unloading and loading now generally occurs between approximately 11:00 a.m. 4 and 6:00 p.m., though occasionally some loading occurs in the morning between 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 5 a.m. to accommodate last-minute orders received the previous evening. 6 10. As noted above, occasionally it is necessary to load trucks in the morning with small 7 orders received the previous evening. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry 8 orders out to parked trucks. When the new expansion area is completed, loading of trucks with such 9 small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or 10 simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. 11 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing 12 is true and correct. 13 Executed this 6th day of April, 2001, at Seattle, Washington. 14 15 16 ERT RAPHAEL 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAPHAEL-3 BUCK&GORDON LLP 902 Waterfront Place• 1011 Western Avenue Seattle,Washington 98104-1097 (206)382-9540 Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\P04051.JSW.DOC (206)626-0675 Facsimile nTrda P o/1Tr%TT\ 6T .. •y AIR AGENCY P.2 • .APR 05 01 03:01PM PUGET JND CLEAN AIR AGENCY . JSPECTION/COMPLAINT ' 1•'RT FO'' _ X �� � 4 Ali: a 1T1OUTING : V t 1, Zed 2. J 3- mar ijl % I . / a CASE# '1 L �.��'�� ( )Smoke U Odor (_)Fire (X)Dust/Fallout U WD Stove ( )Asbestos ( )Other Type(1 A-6B): 2 Fallout dust County: King Date Rec'd: 2000- Time Rec'd: Material: Verified: CSR: Location: 903 S 4th St City: Renton Zip: 98055 Info: Operator's Initials: MLL- Inspector: EBF Inspection Time: IUD 1U' Inspection Date: 100 CONTRACTOR#: Name: ResPers: Title: Ph: SOURCE#: 17050(Reg#) Name: Service Linen Supply County: KING Street: 903 S 4th St City: Renton Zip: 98055 Mail: PO Box 957 City:Renton - Zip: 98057-0957 St: WA ResPers: Jerry Fry Title: Chief Engr Ph: (425)864-3406 cell# SOURCE#: Name: County: Street: City: Zip: Mail: City: Zip: St: ResPers: Title: Ph: ASBESTOS INSPECTION LEVEL: 0( )Off Site 1 ( )Pre-Removal 2( )Post-Removal 3 ( )Active Removal GENERAL INSPECTIO11N LEVEL: 1 td,. Off Site 2( )Compliance 3( )Measurements 4(__)Source Test SUMMARY REPORT: UUN 4 ' 1 0 f' L Oh ' Y'Y\ .1 ' l ' ' I ALL,/ . Is .,1•r• . _0 .t ' i f'At.J INSPECTION REPORT: (D ✓' — 1,_= ',`y I Vci c4fll CI# / rel OA 1 -11. /0(AU ILL El i-i GP.( tie►4t-I- :ri PE�Jt � /I J ✓e-. �l Irlf� oL I ; 1 G /.R�i�JI</,1L'�. t[[/,' •, . Wit i - Ioz1VU 11y 1, - , A 1 R� 1 ' . D, yes ► Ie ,. 6 • tO vb •- A Al.d, I 'VI , . g., l 7,6 A is , . .A . I , iL' PSI!Di -CAD . _ Inn ' i ' Seff� L'i eA l 4- W' ` . c is ' i _,alb. 1. �111 I I �c,r, I r.�L,L�i !.. I I MN El Mall IN ar _ ral f, IL 1 1 i •ir •tii I, b' f u . / ' _'i 0 '4`ia, I•. w e xiil-. RECOMMENDATION: ,.Close Case (__)Deficiency Ltr. (__)Office Conf. ( )F/U Inspection Date: Other Action: (_)A.O.D. (_)Civil Penalty Amount: NOV#/Section: / Inspector's Signatures` _ ..._._ `��1 idj) Film No__— -=_ -•- Page 1 of 2/ COMPLAINANT: ( )Confidential (X)In Progress (X)Impacting Complainant Name: Dave/Spencer Apts Street: 334 Wells Ave S City: Renton Zip: 98055 Home Ph: Work Ph: 425 227-6666 Complainant Advised: 96- 00,-- VD irdikoi, PA. lb AO Comments: Bad odor came from source. Set off fire alarm. Throat problems. Form No. 70-103(Revised 8/1/95) APR 05 '01 03:02PM PUGE- '"""JND CLEAN AIR AGENCY P•3 Page. _24 Source d 501) tOtOljeiC ci)eAYL 1 h rili • Mir' J Say 6�`s _bitce4 fn&pl w tt- --m -Oyes ' Aet d, a.rrns Iv+semso�s pcala W v►r - ('i s 6,44` rnrt ,Dl_u(av , Mir , fr 5 e, 1/1 riL . a� tr C4, c �pt v -- L, /44_- i Jd a pia `iia e o%, i i/IpA / L sai`ct �"� � ha& coLui L road(L -HAtt was parilkfla, . • At A-P 5 C l LOv)4/e, L[,, 15 , )l Z� 1,07) - CaL .S-- touftalingA , No cuAsmie,y, L4 UU1 wit l Meslu S m ,' -} ei a onk-1-00- .cnj. gift Q-0, gv-im .-14o-h`c-cs- triw . 0-- 1r ate- -14/Itv f 19e. Gy f Li ot, . - HJ) nthw • tniai 4w by i 9ikcfAy k 0J • • Signature 4/ Date t�v7/1� Form No.70d03 7 • BUCK1 K & 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE GORDON LLP SE9540 WASIMILE(2 98104-1097 (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL BRENT CARSON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/Site Plan Approval LUA00.131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Approving Site Plan Dear Mr. Kaufman: We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision approving the site plan for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number eight in the Examiner's decision provides that"In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition." See Decision at p. 21. Service Linen believes that this condition could be interpreted in a way that would hinder Service Linen's operations and need not be worded so strictly in order to protect the surrounding neighborhood. At the hearing, Robert Raphael (one of the owners of Service Linen) testified that normally trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. See Decision at p. 15. However, occasionally it is necessary to load trucks in the morning with small orders received the previous evening. Id. This currently occurs through the use of hand carts to carry orders out to parked trucks. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 11 10 (submitted herewith). 'When the new expansion area is completed, loading of trucks with such small orders generally would occur by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or simply by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Id. Because this process does not involve moving of trucks or use of backup alarms, there will not be any significant noise impacts to nearby residents. Y.\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L04011.JS W.DO C - 2- April 9, 2001 Because the need to occasionally load in the morning to accommodate last-minute orders is a foreseeable part of Service Linen's business, Service Linen does not wish to rely on such a situation being classified as an"emergency" in order to fall within the terms of condition eight. Rather, Service Linen requests that the Examiner revise condition eight to read as follows: In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas, the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. Provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks at other times by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. This revision would accommodate Service Linen's operational needs while ensuring that residents of the surrounding neighborhood continue to be protected against significant truck noise impacts. In addition, as reflected in the revised condition set forth above, Service Linen requests that the word "late" be deleted before the word "afternoon." The word "late" could be interpreted in a way that would restrict Service Linen's existing operations, and the qualifier is unnecessary given that the neighbors' concerns are with truck noise in the late evening and early morning hours. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP Wel74 Jeff S.Weber Cc: Robert Raphael Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L04011.JSW.DOC BUCKK &T 902 WATERFRONT PLACE•1011 WESTERN AVENUE �x SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98104-1097 GORDON LLP (206)382-9540•FACSIMILE(206)626-0675 ATTORNEYS AT LAW ALIZA C.ALLEN , i SAMUEL W.PLAUCHE ALISON D.BIRMINGHAM A� { ADRIENNE E.QUINN GRAHAM P.BLACK . APR 9 2001 JEFF WEBER WILLIAM H.BLOCK,P.S. PETER L.BUCK OF COUNSEL • BRENT CARSON CITY OF RENTON KITTERIDGE OLDHAM JAY P.DERR HEARING EXAMINER JOEL M.GORDON PROJECT MANAGERS AMY L.KOSTERLITZ BRADLEY J.S.LILJEQUIST,AICP KEITH E.MOXON ANNA MARIE NELSON,AICP April 9, 2001 VIA MESSENGER Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 Re: Service Linen Expansion/MDNS for Site Plan Approval LUA00-131,SA H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD Request for Reconsideration of Decision Denying Appeal of MDNS Dear Mr. Kaufman: • We represent Service Linen, the applicant for the above-referenced site plan approval. This letter serves as a request for reconsideration of one condition contained in the Examiner's March 26, 2001, decision denying the appeal of the MDNS for the Service Linen expansion. Condition number four in the Examiner's decision on the MDNS appeal provides that "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." See Decision at p. 11. For the following reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition number four. A. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Condition four appears to be based on the Examiner's finding that "The laundry will not be air conditioned, which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises." See Decision at p. 8. The Examiner appears to have reasoned that air conditioning would prevent odors from escaping the building by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. See Decision at p. 10. It is somewhat unclear whether the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the expansion area alone, or air conditioning of both the existing facility and the expansion area. Y:\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC - 2- April 9, 2001 There is no basis for requiring air conditioning of the expansion area. First, the Examiner found (and it is undisputed) that there would be no odor generating aspects in the expansion area. See Decision at p. 8. However, the Examiner may have assumed that open windows in the expansion area would help odors from the existing facility to escape. This is not the case. The windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, such that no odors could escape from them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶3 (submitted herewith).' Finally, given that the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed, air conditioning of the expansion area would have no effect on odors. Ventilation in the expansion area will be provided by fans that vent upward through the roof. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶4. If air conditioning were provided, the air conditioning units would similarly be located on the roof and exhaust upwards. Id. In any event, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. Id. at 11 5. As such, air conditioning would not assist in preventing odors from escaping from the expansion area, since the windows will be sealed closed even without air conditioning. Thus, Service Linen requests that the Examiner delete condition four. B. SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors. As noted above, the windows in the expansion area will be sealed closed. By contrast, the windows in the existing laundry facility can open. However, to the extent that the Examiner intended condition four to require air conditioning of the existing laundry facility to prevent odors from escaping from windows in the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize such a condition. First, while the Examiner clearly concluded that the existing laundry facility creates odors, the evidence in the record does not establish that any odors experienced by nearby residents come from the windows of the existing laundry facility. One of the odors identified by nearby residents was characterized as a "dryer-vent" odor. See Decision at p. 7. In fact, all of the dryers in the existing facility vent directly to the outdoors, so no such odor could come out of the windows of the existing facility. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 11 7. The other type of odor alleged by nearby residents was an intermittent strong chemical odor. Service Linen has never been able to identify this odor as coming from the existing laundry facility. See Decision at p. 4.2 However, such an odor would not come out of the windows of the 1 During the hearing, the issue of air conditioning arose in the context of noise, not odor, so the fact that the windows in the expansion area would be sealed may not have been made sufficiently clear. 2 Indeed, the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency inspected the existing laundry facility in response to the complaint by the manager of the apartment building across the street concerning the strong Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.]SW.DOC -3 - April 9, 2001 existing facility, as this would mean that the odor would have been experienced inside the building and persons inside the building could have ascertained its source. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 118. In fact, the strong chemical odor alleged by nearby residents has not been experienced in the building, and Service Linen has not been able to ascertain the source of such an odor. Id. Thus, as a factual matter, there is no justification for requiring air conditioning of the existing facility in order to prevent the escape of odors from windows. More fundamentally, even if odors did escape from the windows of the existing facility, SEPA does not authorize conditioning the expansion to require air conditioning in order to mitigate odors from the existing laundry facility. SEPA allows a governmental action on a proposal to be conditioned only to mitigate the environmental impacts of that proposal. See WAC 197-11- 660(1)(d) ("Responsibility for implementing mitigation measures maybe imposed upon an applicant only to the extent attributable to the identified adverse impacts of its proposal."). Washington courts have held that a government may only impose conditions under SEPA on the basis of specific, proven significant environmental impacts. Levine v.Jefferson County, 116 Wn.2d 575, 579-80 (1991). Indeed,Washington courts have held that an applicant may recover damages where a government imposes conditions in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 717-18 (1997). In this case, Service Linen's proposal is to construct an expansion of its existing laundry facility. As such, the Examiner may only condition the MDNS in this case to mitigate the impacts of the expansion, not the impacts of the existing facility. The Examiner expressly found that"there would be no new odor-generating aspects in the expansion area." See Decision at p. 8. Similarly, while noting the allegations concerning odors from the existing laundry facility, the Examiner concluded that"these are, unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems." See Decision at p. 10. Since (as the Examiner concluded) the expansion would not increase the odor problem, there is no justification for conditioning the expansion to address odors.3 As such, the Hearing Examiner may not condition the expansion to require air conditioning of the existing facility. Finally, even if condition four were otherwise authorized, SEPA requires that mitigation measures "shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." See RCW 43.21C.060. Because the existing laundry facility and the expansion area will be connected, air conditioning either of these areas would require air conditioning both of them. See Declaration of Robert Raphael atilt 6. Air conditioning of the entire Service Linen facility(including both the existing chemical odor, and did not take any enforcement action against Service Linen based on this complaint. See Decision at p. 4; Declaration of Robert Raphael at 118. 3 Finally, even if air conditioning the existing facility enabled the windows of the existing facility to be kept closed, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning would reduce any odor problem. The air conditioners would still vent to the outdoors. As noted above, there is no evidence in the record that air conditioning removes odors from air, and in fact it does not. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at 15. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -4- April 9, 2001 facility and the expansion area)would be prohibitively expensive, given the large amount of heat- generating equipment in the existing facility and the large volume of space in both the existing facility and the expansion area. Id. Because of the cost, air conditioning of laundry facilities is not typically done in the industry. Id. In sum, requiring air conditioning of the Service Linen facility would not be reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, Service Linen respectfully requests that the Examiner delete condition four. Alternatively, the Examiner could revise the condition so that it requires that the windows in the expansion area be sealed so that they cannot open (or can be opened only in emergencies). The City of Renton, in its own motion for reconsideration, endorsed such an approach. C. Response to City of Renton's Motion for Reconsideration. The City of Renton has also moved for reconsideration of conditions one and two in the Examiner's decision on the appeal of the MDNS, requesting that the Examiner clarify those conditions to make them more easily enforceable. Service Linen is not convinced that further clarification of these conditions is required. However, the only basis for these conditions is to ensure that the proposed expansion does not cause significant adverse environmental impacts in excess of any impacts caused by the existing facility. Thus, the best way to clarify the conditions would be to specifically reference the scope of Service Linen's existing operations. See Declaration of Robert Raphael at¶11 9-10. Thus, if the Examiner believes clarification of the conditions is necessary, Service Linen proposes the following: Condition One: The applicant shall not operate more than two shifts, and the applicant shall not operate the boiler between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 3:30 a.m. Condition Two: The applicant shall not extend the hours of truck unloading and loading into the normally quiet hours, defined as the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; provided, however, that the applicant may add orders to its trucks during the normally quiet hours by using hand carts to carry orders out to trucks parked off-site, or by loading orders onto trucks that are already parked at the loading dock. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Y:\WP\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC -5 - April9, 2001 Very truly yours, BUCK& GORDON LLP )+11111 Jeff S. Weber Cc: Robert Raphael Y.\W P\SERVICE LINEN\L04081.JSW.DOC APR 2 2001 ftj CITY OF RENTON CITY oFRENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WOR <-.-. HEARING EXAMINER MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29,2001 TO: Fred J.Kaufman,Hearing Examiner FROM: Steve Taylor, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Service Linen Appeal Decision LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD On March 26, 2001 the decision on the Appeal of the Environmental Determination for the Service Linen Expansion and Rezone was issued. Staff anticipates difficulties in attempting to enforce several conditions of approval due to the wording of the conditions. It would greatly assist us in our ability to enforce these conditions if some of the language was more specific and we ask that you reconsider the wording of the following conditions. The specific conditions were related to the SEPA appeal. Condition 1 -"The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates." It would greatly aid in enforcement if this condition stated the hours that the boiler is allowed to operate. Otherwise we could get in a situation in the future where the applicant and the neighbors disagree on what the hours were originally. Staff is unclear how the City could regulate,monitor or enforce a restriction on the number of shifts,and suggest that this be deleted. Condition 2- "The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours." Similar to condition 1, a more exact statement of the time of the"normally quiet hours"would allow for enforcement of this condition. Condition 3 - "Extreme emergencies..." No changes requested. Condition 4- "The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow the windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors." It would be difficult for the City to monitor,regulate or enforce the requirement to provide air conditioning. Staff believes that the intent is not to provide a cooler work environment,but to restrict the opening of windows and suggests that the condition be more direct, and limit the opening of windows to emergency situations only. The applicant can then make decisions on air conditioning, fans, etc.based on the windows being closed at all times. cc: Jennifer Henning F \ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) :-uc being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the. ay of Vx."Lej--- ,Yee/ , 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: SUBSCWarsAAND SWORN to before me this a2.bcday of , 2001. �0 31r1$ I 0 N vr�?1 ' o % 0/J." ' 2% Not ublic in and�forr the State of Washington, � C` Se-G'-H e_ ��,���.= ,p: Residing at ,therein. Ob Application, Petition, or Case No.: Service Linen Supply Expansion and Appeal LUA00-13 31,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P0 1-021,AAD The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT March 26,2001 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Bob Moran Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance re Service Linen Expansion File No.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-121,AAD APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber) LOCATION: 903 South 4th Street SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of existing Service Linen facility. Includes a proposal to remove the"P" suffix from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non-Significance PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file,the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 27,2001 appeal hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday,February 27,2001, at 9:06 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal, Exhibit No.2: Yellow appeal file, containing the The Examiner's letter setting the hearing date,maps, appeal, proof of posting and publication, and other Photographs, and other documentation pertinent to documentation pertinent to the appeal. the appeal. Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: January 3,2001 City memo re Service Linen Noise Survey Results Exhibit No.5: February 26,2001 City memo re Exhibit No. 6: Sandra Maclean Resume Service Linen—Boiler Noise Exhibit No.7: Elevation Drawings of current building and new expansion Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 2 Parties present: Appellant: Bob Moran 425 Wells Avenue S Renton, WA 98055 Representing applicant: Jeff Weber 1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2600 Seattle, WA 98101 Representing City of Renton: Russ Wilson,City Attorney Steve Taylor,Development Services 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Bob Moran, 425 Wells Avenue S.,Renton,WA 98055 expressed his concern about the noise generated by Service Linen. He has submitted numerous complaints to Service Linen and the City about the noise from the boiler,which wakes him up in the early morning hours. He went thorough a process with the City whereby Service Linen did tone down the noise considerably, but it is still at an unacceptable level. Mr. Moran also described chemical odors emitted by Service Linen,particularly in the summer when windows and doors are open. David Guttormson, 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt. 101,Renton, WA 98055 stated that he is the manager of Spencer Court Apartments across the street from Service Linen. He finds it very difficult renting the units that face Service Linen. He described the noise of the machinery and what times it takes place. He stated that a jet taking off from Boeing Field makes about one third the noise that Service Linen makes in the morning. He stated that very strong chemical odors are noticed intermittently in the courtyard area of his building on Wells Avenue and on the alley a half block off of Main. He also mentioned the hot, laundry type of odor that is often present. He occasionally has noticed his car covered with lint. He has not made a big issue of this with the residents of his building, as he does not want to lose tenants because of it. Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 used the Site Plan to explain the existing Service Linen facility and the various stages of the expansion project. Under questioning from Mr. Wilson,Assistant City Attorney,Mr.Taylor stated that the noise from the boiler is currently above the City's acceptable nighttime decibel level. The expansion project will not increase the size of the boiler. There will be no expansion of existing laundry processing, such as washing, drying, etc. in the new expansion. It will be mostly a sorting,folding, and loading area. The City does not anticipate additional noise impacts from the expansion. There would not be any increase in hours on the shifts that are worked at the present time. The chemical odor should neither increase nor decrease as a result of the expansion. After the expansion is complete, all trucks would load and unload at the loading dock on the south side of the expansion. Mr. Taylor stated that the rezone the applicant is requesting entails taking the"P"suffix out of the CD-P designation because it is no longer in public ownership. This will not change any underlying zoning use. The expansion is an allowed use for the CD Zone. This project should improve the traffic situation in the area by removing some of the truck traffic from Wells. Service Linen Expansion and R,1,„..e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 3 Jeff Weber, 1501 4t11 Avenue, Suite 2600, Seattle,WA 98101, attorney for applicant, stated that there is a significant difference between the issue of noise at the existing facility and the proposed expansion. Mr. Weber introduced a City memo dated January 3,2001 regarding noise at the Service Linen facility. Service Linen installed a new water heater at the end of the summer. There were some complaints at that time. The applicant hired a noise consultant who made some measurements and recommended some potential mitigation measures. One of the mitigation measures implemented was modification of an exhaust pipe so that it now vents toward the freeway where there are no residential uses. The modification has been quite successful in reducing the noise. The City memo introduced substantiates this. It is not entirely clear as to whether the facility as a whole violates the noise ordinance. The City has not issued a final decision on that question. Russ Wilson,Assistant City Attorney, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 clarified that the City alleges that Service Linen is in violation of the City noise ordinances,but there has been no judicial determination that this is the case. Service Linen is working with the City on mitigating the situation. Bob Raphael,PO Box 957,Renton, WA 98057, co-President and part owner of Service Linen,presented a brief history of the company at its present location. Mr. Raphael reviewed the processes that take place at the company's Kent location and at its Renton location. At the Kent location,the product is brought in and sorted, then it is sent by truck to the Renton location where all the processing, including washing, drying, etc., is done. The product is then sent back to the Kent location for packaging and delivery to the customer. All the industrial part of the operation is located in Renton. The proposal would not change this. The purpose of expanding is to consolidate all of the operations in one place. All of the operations now taking place in Kent, including the corporate offices, would be moved to the expanded facility in Renton. The expansion will not cause significant environmental impacts to the neighborhood. By consolidating our operations,we believe we will be able to significantly reduce the impact on traffic, since the number of truck trips per day will be greatly reduced. The expansion includes a loading dock for trucks at the south of the building that will be screened from Wells Avenue. Trucks should not be passing residential areas in the morning, since the driveway into Lot A will be changed to allow entry onto 4th Street. In the evening trucks will either be kept at the loading dock or parked in Lot A. The City has imposed conditions requiring the trucks to use the least intrusive backup alarms, and that will be complied with. The expansion will involve the addition of approximately 20 to 30 employees. There should not be a significant impact on traffic from the new employees. Employee trips back and fourth between the Renton facility and the Kent facility will be eliminated with the consolidated facilities. Mr. Raphael went on to address some of the issues raised by Mr. Moran. Regarding the issue of noise at the existing facility, it is not relevant to this proceeding,and there should not be any additional noise impacts added by the new facility. The trucks that start on routes in the early morning hours would be parked in Lot A so that the impact to the neighbors will be minimized. In addition,the trucks will be backed into Lot A so that when they start up in the morning they will not have to back up,hence the backup alarms will not have to be used. Service Linen has a unique situation in that because of the location of the freeway, it is impossible to meet the City's noise requirements. Ambient noise level from the freeway at certain points is higher than allowed by the City. The question becomes, does Service Linen look at its individual noise level,which does meet Code, or does it factor in the ambient noise level surrounding the facility. Since the modification of the rooftop exhaust pipe by pointing it toward the freeway rather than the neighborhood,the number of noise complaints has been greatly reduced. Regarding the issue of odor,Mr.Raphael stated that the Puget Sound Air Quality agency has checked out the facility at the request of neighbors and not found anything. Service Linen wants to work with Service Linen Expansion and Roue Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 4 the neighbors if there is an odor problem,but we do not believe it is coming from our facility. As with the noise issue, if Service Linen can pinpoint the cause of the problem, everything possible will be done to work with the neighbors. No new equipment will be added to the facility that could potentially generate odors with the expansion. The propane tank mentioned in the appeal is located in the north portion of Lot A. It has been there for ten years, and there has never been a complaint about odor from it. It is planned that the propane tank will remain in Lot A. Service Linen is committed to being a good neighbor. We do not believe there has been any problem from our existing facility that we have not attempted to solve, once we can isolate that it really is our problem. We do not think the proposed expansion of Service Linen will have a significant negative impact on the neighbors in the area.. Responding to questions from Mr. Weber,Mr. Raphael reviewed the issue of reduced truck traffic at the new facility, and described the type of equipment that will be housed in the new facility and what the equipment will be used for. He stated that hours of operation will not increase at the new plant. There should be no immediate increase in the volume of laundry done when the expansion opens. Service Linen hopes to grow over time, but is limited by the size of the building. No significant overnight changes in volume of laundry are anticipated. Mr. Raphael responded to questions from Mr. Moran on the size of Service Linen's vehicle fleet and the amount of truck trips anticipated at the new facility.He described the number of vehicles the company owns and the anticipated truck routes once the new facility is opened. Mr. Moran expressed concern about the particular noise, a low rumble, from the boiler in the early morning hours. Mr.Raphael responded that one of the things that will help the situation will be the height of the new building. Mr.Raphael responded to questioning from the Examiner by stating that doorway passages will be constructed between the old and new buildings rather than walls being removed. The offices will be air conditioned, but the rest of the facility will not be. Mr. Wilson entered a City memo dated February 26,2001 regarding the noise situation at Service Linen as a further clarification of the City's position. Sandra Maclean, 6987 Perimeter Road S, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98108,noise consultant for the applicant, briefly reviewed her educational and professional background. She stated that Service Linen is a client of her company since 1992, and has a hearing conservation program for their employees. She stated that her company has been doing noise measurements for Service Linen since last August,prior to the mitigation measures they took to reduce the noise levels. Ms. Maclean discussed her findings about the noise levels of the rooftop exhaust pipe,the surrounding conditions, and other noise sources that she observed in a visit to Service Linen this morning. She explained the formula for how decibel level is reduced with every doubling of distance from the noise source. She discussed low frequency noise and how it might be mitigated at the new facility. Jerry Fry,PO Box 957, Renton, WA 98057, engineer for Service Linen explained the backup alarm system for the trucks. With the variable decibel backup alarm, as you get closer to an object,the decibels increase. The range is from about 80 decibels to 112 decibels. The current backup alarms used by Service Linen are the constant decibel alarms, which are 96 decibels. The problem with installing variable decibel alarms is that Service Linen Expansion and R2-,.nie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 5 when backing up to loading docks,the alarm would be up to 112 decibels. If Service Linen complies with the ERC condition to install variable decibel alarms, it would increase the noise level when the trucks are backed up to the docks for loading. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen would comply with whatever the City decides regarding the backup alarms. Ms.Maclean stated that she would be against using the variable decibel backup alarms because of increased exposure of employees at the site to high decibel noise, as well as the surrounding neighbors. She stated that there would be less of an impact to the employees' hearing safety, as well as to the surrounding community with the fixed decibel alarms. Larry Cross, Olympic Associates, 701 Dexter Avenue N, Suite 301, Seattle, WA, architect for the project explained the screening for the loading dock at the new facility, using elevation drawings. Trucks will back up to a sealed door, and all of the activities surrounding the loading area will be contained within the building. Along with the new screen wall,this should result in there being very little noise from the loading area of the facility. There will be a fence with landscaping along the south side of the property next to the WIAA property. Mr.Moran concluded by reiterating his concerns about the noise and the truck traffic. Mr. Wilson, in his closing statement, reiterated that the focus should be on what this project would do to significantly adversely affect the environment. The existing facility has noise problems and traffic problems. The project,as proposed,would improve the site, including traffic and noise problems. At the very least, it will not adversely impact the environment, and probably will improve the environment at the site. It certainly does not meet the burden of an EIS. In closing,Mr. Weber stated his client is aware of the issues,has done a good job in dealing with them and is confident that they will be able to continue doing so. The issue today is the impacts of the expansion. There is no question this will not have a probable significant adverse environmental impact. Mr. Weber reiterated the expansion's impact on the issues of truck traffic and noise. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The appeal hearing closed at 10:32 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS &DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant,Robert R. Moran, filed an appeal of a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for a proposed rezone, site plan approval and lot line adjustment for property located at and in the vicinity of 903 South 4th Street. The property is the site of the existing Service Linen complex and its proposed expansion area and parking areas, and a third party office complex that is included solely in the rezone portion of the request. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. Service Linen Expansion and R= _ e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 6 2. In processing the preliminary plat application,the City subjected the application to its ordinary SEPA review process. The City, in the course of and as a result of its SEPA review, issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the project. The Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)was conditioned by the City. 3. The subject site is located both west and east of the intersection of S 4th and Wells Avenue South. The subject site consists of 6 main properties. The existing laundry building,the converted single family home to its south,the vacant,former Ford School Site,the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association(WIAA) property, and two proposed parking lots located on Wells and Williams,west of the main parcels. 4. The subject site consists of three rectangular parcels. There is the current laundry block shared with the WIAA bounded by Main Avenue on the east, S 4th on the north, Wells Avenue on the west and S 5th on the south. Then there are two separate parcels that will serve as remote parking lots for the laundry. One is at the corner of Wells and S 4th and the other on Williams, south of S 4th. The property includes approximately 87,718 square feet that would be rezoned from CD-P to CD and approximately 46,868 square feet that includes the proposed expansion area. 5. The subject site has generally flat terrain. A small amount of material, approximately 1,500 cubic yards,may be imported to level some small depressions and provide competent fill for construction. 6. The ERC imposed five conditions: two conditions imposing mitigation fees for fire and roads, one condition related to geotechnical issues for building construction/foundation work, and a condition requiring OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup beepers for trucks used during the hours of 10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. 7. The ERC specifically did not approve any expansion which would include any additional noise generating mechanical equipment. The ERC made such uses or changes subject to further environmental assessment. 8. The appellant objected to the determination. The appellant objected to or raised concerns about: a. The expansion will generate additional traffic and noise. b. The current boiler begins generating noise at 3:45 a.m. and continues until 10:00 p.m. c. The backup beepers are very disturbing. d. There is exhaust odors from the trucks. e. There is propane odor. f. There is a bleach or chlorine odor and a hot laundry odor that permeates homes. - Service Linen Expansion and Rs.;-.A.e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 7 g. The compatibility of the industrial use in this area of single family and other residential uses. h. The use is expanding beyond the permissible 100 feet from the original use. 9. The majority of property in the vicinity of the subject site is zoned CD(Center Downtown) and RM-U (Residential,Multiple family). The area immediately south and west of the subject site contains a mix of single family uses and multiple family uses. I-405 is east of the site and residential and retail uses are north of the subject site. 10. The subject site contains the existing, long-established Service Linen complex, a single family home converted for accessory uses to the laundry,the vacant, former Henry Ford School site and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association property, as well as two parking areas on separate properties west of the main property. The properties are either all developed, or in the case of the vacant school site,were developed with urban uses including parking. 11. The Renton Zoning Code has a specific provision for established laundry businesses operating in the CD Zone: "18. These uses shall be permitted only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. Existing use of this type may be expanded on existing properties, contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within one hundred feet(100') of existing buildings, subject to site plan review. These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the "Downtown Pedestrian District" except for those supportive office and sales uses.Along property lines adjacent to residential uses,there shall be a fifteen foot(15')wide continuous landscaped buffer." 12. The Downtown Pedestrian District extends to just north of Houser, a block north of the subject site. It does not include the subject site. 13. The downtown core area is exempt from parking. The exempt parking area does not include the subject site, ending just to the north of the site at S 4th Street. 14. The underlying Linen applicant's business has been cited for noise violations after numerous complaints by neighbors. The record contains evidence that the boiler noise as it has been described wakes people up around 3:00 a.m.to 4:00 a.m. and disturbs not only sleep but waking hours as well. The noise apparently is a low frequency rumble that has been described as something felt as well as heard. The applicant and acoustic engineers have made modifications to equipment, stacks and vents and realigned equipment in an attempt to eliminate the noise problems. 15. The existing laundry apparently also emits a variety of odors, both chlorine or bleach type odors as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent odors,but on a grander scale. These odors permeate into homes in the area, and are worse during the warmer summer months when doors and windows of both residences and the laundry are presumably open. Service Linen Expansion and R e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 8 16. The laundry will not be air conditioned,which might lead to fugitive odors and additional fugitive odors escaping the premises. 17. The new plans show trucks exiting the expanded plant at a driveway opposite the appellant's residence. 18. The Spencer Court senior housing complex immediately north of the subject site, across S 4th,has had trouble renting units due to the loud noises and the odors that the laundry emits. The noise was again described as a low rumbling noise and that jets create about one-third less noise than the laundry The odor was described as "toxic" and "ferocious." 19. It was reported that vehicles are covered with lint due to the laundry. 20. Apparently,the odor or potential air quality problems are more ephemeral and have been harder to document. As indicated,the noise problems have led to citations for violations of the City's noise standards. 21. The underlying applicant and City noted that most of the cited problems are from the existing facility. There would not be an expansion of shift work or hours of operation, although there will be a consolidation of the applicant's outlying components to this site. There would be no new odor generating aspects in the expansion area. 22. The applicant does run approximately 20 to 22 laundry routes. They would be reducing the larger truck runs by moving all operations to the Renton facility. 23. Street loading would be eliminated and the trucks would be loaded in an area with baffles and a housing to insulate loading noises. 24. The applicant proposes orienting trucks so that they can pull out in a forward direction,which should reduce or eliminate early morning backup beeper noises. 25. An occupational audiologist noted that low frequency sounds are hard to eliminate but that the mass of the new building might help somewhat. They have worked with the boiler manufacturer to reduce noises. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. 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 Non-Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Service Linen Expansion and Rcwue Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 9 Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v.King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267,274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." a. 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 is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have,therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test,the "arbitrary and capricious"test is generally applied when a determination of significance(DS)is issued.In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: a. Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. b. (2) Significance involves context and intensity...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. 5. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." a. Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring,but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short- term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development,whether an office building or a single family development,may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. 8. First,there is no doubt that the laundry is not a perfect neighbor. It is an industrial processor in the middle of generally commercial and retail services and residential uses just south of the downtown core • Service Linen Expansion and Roue Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 10 area. It generates noises, odors and traffic. Its traffic may not differ much from some other commercial uses in terms of type but does in terms of numbers and hours. While most commercial uses have one or two delivery trucks a day,the laundry has 20 or more trips and they begin their day very early, around 5:00 a.m., whereas most commercial businesses (supermarkets, aside)probably don't receive deliveries until opening hours of 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. at the earliest. It is clear that the use generates odors, both chlorine or bleach type odors, as well as those familiar to most as dryer-vent owners, but on a much larger scale. The odors have been described as noxious and the noises sleep- disturbing. These impacts have created leasing problems for the apartment immediately north of the subject site and completely irritated existing home owners around the site. It was pointed out that it can be hard to distinguish the I-405 ambient noises from those generated by the subject site. It seems clear that the appellant and others have correctly identified the applicant's use as the culprit. The noises correspond with the starting of the boiler, and the applicant's business has been cited for noise code violations. It would similarly seem that the odors described are more robust than those that might be created by either the apartment's or single family laundering equipment. At the same time,these are, • unfortunately, existing problems of the existing laundry. The proposed plans are not anticipated to increase these problems. Laundry that was received and sorted off-site but processed at this location will now be received and sorted here. There will be no change in the processing. Larger trucks will be replaced by smaller trucks since the receiving will be more direct. There will be an increase in traffic but it is not substantial. 9. Second, given these impacts, it is clear that the City Council specifically accommodated an expansion of this business in this location. The Zoning Code was specifically changed to incorporate the language cited above to allow existing laundry facilities to expand in the CD Zone. The use may be expanded on immediately surrounding property or within 100 feet. Staff reports that all of the expansion complies with these limitations. 10. As proposed,the expansion should not greatly increase the environmental impacts of the proposal. The ERC specifically did not review any additional noise generating aspects and left that for another day if there were added equipment. It seems that an additional condition should be added to that aspect of their review. That is that any increase in the number of shifts or an increase in the hours that the boiler operates or truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours should not be permitted by this proposed expansion. Any changes in those aspects of this operation would seem to be such that there would be environmental consequences that would potentially need more exhaustive review. Additionally, it would appear that less odors would escape the site if the plant windows could be closed. Air conditioning would assist in this effort by allowing windows to be closed during the warmer months. 11. The rezone is not really an issue. It truly is a change of almost no import. The removal of the P-suffix merely reflects a change in ownership that has already occurred and does not alter the uses permitted on the subject site. The property was owned by the school district and sold to two•parties,the applicant, laundry operator, and a third party generally not implicated in environmental or land use issues. The removal of the P-suffix will not expand the range of uses permitted on the subject site. The removal will not expand the intensity of uses. The removal removes the flag that says the property is owned by a public entity and the change reflects that the property is private property or"just property." Service Linen Expansion and Rc�iiile Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 11 12. There is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. Some have already occurred with the demolition of the Ford School. The new building will change the appearance from a now empty lot to a building not unlike the school in bulk, but with a more modern appearance. It is hoped that the new mass will help ameliorate some of the noise problems. It will probably do little about the odor problems. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The ERC for the most part was constrained, as is this office,by the fact that most of the complaints are aimed at the existing complex. The expansion will not increase the most complained about off:site impacts of odor and noise. As indicated, in order to assure the community that the impacts that are most pronounced and significant do not exacerbate the problems,the applicant will not be permitted to expand its shift work or hours of operation that expand the range of noises and odors or the hours in which they are problem. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case to trigger an EIS. The decision of the ERC must be generally affirmed, although with some conditions that clarify and limit off-site impacts. While environmental review may not have produced a result that fixes existing problems,there might be a remedy in Nuisance Law if the current codes are not satisfactory. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is modified to include the following additional conditions: 1. The applicant shall not increase the number of shifts or increase the number of hours that the boiler operates. 2. The applicant shall not increase the hours in which truck loading or unloading extends into the normally quiet hours. 3. Extreme emergencies may be permitted to alter these conditions but shall not continue for more than a day or two at any one time. 4. The applicant shall air condition the plant in order to allow windows to close and limit the escape of noxious odors. *********** :: ********************************* Service Linen Expansion and R.:i,"..e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 12 MINUTES: SITE PLAN AND REZONE The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2001 Site Plan and Rezone hearing. The legal record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 10:37 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The following exhibits were entered into the record for the preliminary plat hearing: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow land use file, LUA00- Exhibit No.2: Site and Building plans, Sheets 131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA containing the original A-1 through A-3 application,proof of posting,proof of publication an other documentation pertinent to this request Exhibit No. 3: Rezone Drawing Exhibit No. 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Exhibit No. 6: Generalized Utilities Plan Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit No. 7: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 8: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 9: Historic Land Use Background Exhibit No. 10: Yellow appeal file, LUA00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD, containing the appeal,proof of posting and publication, and other documentation pertinent to the appeal The Site Plan and Rezone hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055. This project involves the Site Plan approval and a rezone to remove the"P" suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The property in question was the home of the Henry Ford School from 1922 until 1999. The school district surplused this property and sold the northern parcel to Service Linen and the southern parcel, containing the old school administration building,to Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA). The rezone will not change the types of use allowed, but will recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Additionally,the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. The new building proposed on the site contains approximately 29,000 sf on the first floor, and approximately 4,000 sf on the second floor,which will be utilized for offices in the future, only the shell structure is to be constructed at this time. The total of the new building will be approximately 33,000 sf. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance,Mitigated for the project on January 30,2001. The appeal period ended on February 19,2001. Mr.Bob Moran filed a timely appeal of the threshold determination listing traffic,noise, odors and zoning as areas of concern. Mr. Taylor stated that when the Environmental Review Committee discussed the noise impacts and the concern about the backup Service Linen Expansion and Ric.viie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 13 beepers,they were under the impression that there was an ambient level backup beeper that could sense the decibel level of the surrounding area and hold the decibel level of the beep itself to the surrounding levels. They were under the assumption that this type of beeper is available,because on construction sites a similar type of beeper is used that when the construction noise is louder,the beeper becomes louder as well. Mr.Fry has testified that the manufacturer of backup alarms they have worked with is not aware of the existence of this type of beeper. If that is the case,the ERC condition may have to be modified or operational changes that would eliminate the backup beeper noise problem may need to be considered. Mr. Taylor reviewed the consistency of the Site Plan with Approval Criteria. Regarding consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies,the CD zoning designation requires balanced land uses that can contribute to the revitalization of the downtown area. Downtown Policy DT-1 actually calls for a mixed use, including retail, office, light industrial and residential that will create a demand for goods and services. Staff feels that this project is part of that mix of offices and light industrial which creates both a demand for goods and services and provides those services as well. The Downtown Element also encourages maintaining and revitalizing the downtown. This project would certainly provide more intense use of an underdeveloped site as well as provide employment opportunities. Service Linen provides services for hotels,hospitals,restaurants and offices both locally and regionally. Although it is not required by Code,the project includes developing with the WIAA additional 8 parking spaces along the south boundary of the property. Service Linen,with their existing parking Lots A and B, provide for the minimum required 72 parking stalls. Regarding the project's conformance with Land Use Regulations, Mr. Taylor stated that this commercial laundry use is limited to the expansion of existing laundries. Service Linen is the only existing laundry in this area. Under the zoning conditions in the Municipal Code, condition number 18 is specific about where this type of use could be. It is permitted only as a continuation of existing commercial laundry use, and can be expanded on existing properties, contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within 100 feet of existing buildings. The proposed site plan is in conformance with the 65%building lot coverage required in this zone. The applicant is proposing a 15 foot landscaped setback from both Wells and Main Avenues South. No side or rear yard setbacks are required unless the property abuts residentially zoned parcels. In this case,the site does not abut residentially zoned parcels. The proposed building and the existing structure are on two separate lots and are connected by four openings. Because of the separate parcels,the properties could be sold individually at a future date. When properties are in separate ownership,the building either has to be set back from the property line or meet construction and fire code ratings. Staff recommends a restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcel containing the new structure requiring the openings to be sealed according to UBC requirements should the property be sold individually or the use changed. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. Staff has made suggestions for increasing the size for six types of plantings in order to provide visual buffering in a much shorter time frame. Staff is recommending that the driveway access in parking lot A be relocated from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street in order to reduce the flow of traffic past the residences on Wells. Fourth Street is stop-controlled at 4th and Williams, so there should be no queuing of vehicles exiting and entering the parking lot. The applicant will also be required to revise the site plan to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 14 In terms of mitigation of impacts to the site,the site was graded fairly level after the demolition of the Henry Ford School. It is estimated that about 1,500 cubic yards of fill will be required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. One of the ERC's mitigation measures is that the applicant comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report regarding site preparation and construction. Stormwater from the site will be directed into a storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious area will be less than the previous school,no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated Staff feels that this project would develop and improve this currently underutilized site. It would increase the amount of employees in the vicinity, and encourage additional development. Therefore the project is anticipated to conserve area wide property values The project would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system, and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee of$75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is estimated to be$7,875. The parking plan appears to provide adequate aisle widths and back out distances for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Truck hauling hours during construction are limited to between 8:30 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The proposed building is setback 15 feet from both Wells and Main Avenue and landscaped to soften overall bulk. The design provides for adequate light and air circulation to the buildings. There will be a screening wall located along the Wells Avenue side that will screen the truck loading area, so there will be additional buffering of noise Both the Fire and Police Departments have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal. The applicant was required to pay Fire and Traffic Mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff feels that this development will add to the appearance of the surrounding area and will help prevent neighborhood deterioration and blight. The proposal includes a rezone to remove the"P"suffix,Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed,but recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Service Linen and WIAA rezone from CD-P to CD. Staff recommends approval of the Service Linen Site Plan Application and Rezone, subject to the following conditions: (1)The applicant must comply with Mitigation Measures required by the ERC. (2) The applicant must record restrictive covenants that tie the two off-site parking lots to this use. (3) The applicant must record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition requiring that building openings be sealed in compliance with the UBC at such time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. (4) The applicant must realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. (5) The applicant must revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. (6) The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 15 Using the elevation plan,Mr. Cross discussed how the building is separated into different pieces,using glass areas in between to increase the visual impact. The glass allows for light and ventilation, as well as ties the new building in with the existing facility. The use of landscaping, and striation of colors and materials will help to visually buffer the bulk of the building. Mechanical equipment on the roof will be screened by the parapets that go above the actual roof line. The building will be constructed of concrete block, which is durable and will help mitigate the noise from within the building. Mr. Raphael stated that it is important for Service Linen to have access on both Wells and Main because of the heavy traffic on Main in the afternoon. Service Linen is willing to work with the neighborhood in terms of which streets would cause the least impact on traffic. Mr.Raphael explained why the present building layout is operationally the best plan in terms of the processes involved. The main issue in the layout of the building is keeping the clean and soiled laundry sections completely separate to avoid cross contamination. Regarding the noise issue with trucks backing up to the loading dock,Mr.Raphael stated that normally the trucks are loaded in the afternoon hours. The only time trucks would back up to the loading dock in the morning would be to add small orders received in the previous evening. In regard to the propane tank, Mr.Raphael stated that roughly half the vehicle fleet uses propane, so it is Service Linen's intent to keep the propane tank, at least for the present. Mr. Moran reiterated his concern about the noise and the truck traffic. He also expressed concern about property values in the neighborhood being negatively impacted by a business the size and type of Service Linen. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services, 1055 S Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055 stated that the storm water system is seeing some massive improvements in this area. A larger line is being laid south to Grady Way as well as other improvements being made in connection with other projects in the near future. Two way traffic on Wells and Williams Avenues is a possibility that is being considered in terms of long range planning only. Mr. Weber stated that Service Linen's facility is a use that is specifically allowed by the Zoning Code. Service Linen has no plans for further expansion beyond the new facility at this point. Regarding the noise issue raised by Mr. Moran,Mr. Weber referenced what was said in the SEPA appeal about the existing operation not being the subject of the site plan approval hearing. Mr. Weber reiterated Mr.Raphael's comments about the Wells Avenue access and the loading of trucks in the morning hours. Mr. Taylor clarified that City staff would like to have the current loading area moved off of Wells Avenue with the completion of the expansion. He reiterated that the traffic situation in the area should improve with the completion of the new facility, and restated that City staff does recommend approval of the project The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak. The hearing closed at 11:55 a.m. FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS&DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter,the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: Service Linen Expansion and Rdwue - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 16 1. The applicant, Olympic Associates Company(Randy Barber), for Service Linen and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association(WIAA)filed requests for Site Plan review for an expansion of the existing Service Linen's laundry plant and a rezone of the two parties property from CD-P(Center Downtown with a P suffix)to CD(Center Downtown without the suffix). A Lot Line Adjustment for portions of the subject site is being processed administratively and not part of this review. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report,the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit#1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee(ERC),the City's responsible official, issued a Declaration of Non-Significance- Mitigated(DNS-M)for the subject proposal. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. The subject proposal encompasses parcels at five locations. The existing Service Linen property is located at 903 South 4th Street. The expansion area is south of that and is located at 408 and 420 Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot A is located at the southwest corner of South 4th and Wells Avenue South. Parking Lot B is located on the east side of the 400 block of Williams Avenue South. The WIAA parcel,the old School District Administrative Building, is located at 435 Main Avenue South. 6. The rezone would include the parcels located at 435 Main and the Wells parcels. 7. The various properties are all generally located just south of the downtown core,just south of Houser Way and the railroad right-of-way and between Main and Williams. 8. The subject site is part of the original town site of the City which was incorporated 100 years ago this year in 1901. 9. The area has a mix of zoning districts including the subject site's combination of CD(Center Downtown)and CD-P which would be changed to a uniform CD if the P-suffix is removed. North are additional CD parcels. There is also CD immediately west on the south side of S 4th. •West of the south portion of the site is RM-U(Residential Multiple Family). East of the site are the unzoned Main Avenue and I-405 rights-of-way. 10. The uses in the vicinity of the subject site include residential, including single family and some multiple family uses to the west, and an apartment to the immediate north across S 4th Street. I-405 and Main Avenue are east of the site. There are additional single family uses south of the subject site. 11. The subject site consists of the block bounded by S 4th on the north,Main on the east, S 5th on the south and Wells on the north and two parcels,one of which is located on 4th and Wells and the other on Williams south of 4th. The Service Linen complex, including the older factory-type building and a converted single family home, is located at the north end of the block. The next property to the south is the now vacant, former Henry Ford School site. The most southerly parcel,the WIAA building,taking up the south end of the block and involved solely in the rezone request,was formerly the School Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 17 District's Administration building. 12. The applicants, Service Linen and WIAA both request that the P-suffix that is attached to the properties that were formerly owned by the Renton School District be dropped from the CD-P zoning and changed to just CD. This is intended to reflect that the properties owned by these parties is private property and no longer publicly owned property that is subject to special criteria. The removal of the P-suffix would not change in any manner the type of uses permitted on the various parcels. 13. In addition, Service Linen has requested a Lot Line Adjustment that would consolidate the boundaries of the parcels it owns between Main and Wells. This proposal is not before the hearing examiner but is subject to administrative review. 14. The final request,the one of the most substance and the one that would result in changing the use of a large portion of the subject site, is a Site Plan to allow the expansion of the Service Linen complex to the vacant lot to its south. The expansion would remove the single family home that is located immediately south of the existing factory building and replace that and the vacant lot with a modern 2- story addition of 33,000 square feet. It would also develop parking along the building's south margin, as well as redeveloping parking lots located west of the site on Wells and Williams. The single family home that will be removed has been used for laundry office purposes over the last few years. 15. The expansion would extend the building approximately 160 feet to the south. It would run through the block between Wells and Main and would be approximately 204 feet wide, east to west. The building would be 42 feet tall with rooftop mechanical equipment. Although such equipment would not be visible from the street, it might be visible from the residential areas on Renton Hill east of I-405. 16. The applicant proposes providing 15 feet of landscaped setback along Wells and Main. 17. On the exterior the building will appear like a series of connected buildings. Colored concrete masonry blocks will provide the main walls with horizontal accent bands. The building will provide a variegated roofline with peaks, slopes and flat elements. Structural elements such as cross-bracing will be visible over glass block walls,which should provide visual interest. There will be awning and other trim detail. 18. The applicant will bring the building's parking component up to current code. Code requires 1 to 1.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet for the laundry and 3 to 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet of office space. The total parking required would be a minimum of 72 stalls. The applicant proposes 73 stalls. There would be 38 stalls in Proposed Lot A(Wells lot)and 30 stalls in Lot B (Williams lot). There would be five stalls on the main site. In addition,there will be parking for eleven(11)trucks. 19. Loading bays will be located along the west side of the south facade. 20. The placement of the loading bays will place them closer to residential uses across Wells than if they had been located nearer Main. The layout equipment in the existing complex apparently dictates this positioning so that the new addition meshes with the existing machinery and internal processes and routing that currently exist. Service Linen Expansion and Rw.: .e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 18 21. In exploring whether truck circulation in the early hours should be directed out to Main in order to lessen the impact on the residential uses along Wells, staff noted that the Transportation Division supposedly did not want exiting to Main. But Transportation was not at the hearing, so it was not possible to determine if using Main at 5:00 a.m. would interfere with traffic. If not,then a Main exit would route vehicles away from the residential uses on Wells, at least as they are starting out,with headlights and engines directed to the west. 22. Originally,the access to the Wells/4th Parking lot would have been from Wells,which is a one-way street northbound. In order to access the lot, all traffic would have had to use the residential, southerly portion of Wells. Staff recommended that the access be from 4th, a generally commercial,two-way street,to lessen the impact on the residences south of the parking lot. 23. The Geotechnical Report demonstrated no discernable problems with redeveloping the subject site. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of material will probably be imported to support footings and level minor irregularities on the site. 24. The laundry had carried out loading and other operations at curb-side along Wells. These operations will now occur at the loading bays,which will be baffled. The record reflects that the applicant has not always been the best neighbor for the residential uses surrounding the subject site. Apparently, both noise and odors are emitted from the site,which disturb neighbors. The odors are apparently hot, dryer laundry odors familiar to those doing personal laundry, and also chlorine type odors from the descriptions. Noises have been from the loading operations as well as from mechanical venting equipment that emits a low rumble type of sound created by a new boiler. 25. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant proposes loading the trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. This should reduce some of the early morning noises the applicant has generated in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Rezone 1. The proponent of a rezone must demonstrate that the request is in the public interest,that it will not impair the public health, safety and welfare and in addition, complies with at least one of the criteria found in Section 4-8-14, which provides in part that: a. The subject site has not been considered in a previous area-wide rezone or land use analysis; or b. The subject site is potentially designated for the new classification per the Comprehensive Plan; or c. There has been a material and substantial change in the area in which the subject site is located since the last rezoning of the property or area. Service Linen Expansion and R.wite Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 19 The requested classification is justified and should be approved by the City Council. 2. The only issue in the rezone is the change in ownership status of the subject site. The subject site had been owned by the Renton School District. They sold the site to two separate private entities, ending the public ownership. Those owners would like the P-suffix which signifies public ownership to be dropped. The site would be classified CD(Center Downtown) like most of the other property in its vicinity that is also owned privately. 3. The CD rezoning is the designation found in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. 4. Since the CD-P was applied to the site,as noted,the site was sold to private parties. 5. Most significantly, again,the elimination of the P-suffix will not change in any manner the nature, intensity or other aspects of uses permitted on the subject site. CD and CD-P both permit the same exact uses in exactly the same fashion. 6. The proposed CD zoning is appropriate given the record. Site Plan 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposed expansion is compatible with the goals of developing an urban downtown with a variety of commercial and residential uses. While the use probably is more industrial than commercial, an exception was made to allow this old, established business to expand within its nearby vicinity. It will create additional job opportunities in the downtown area. It has incorporated a number of interesting Service Linen Expansion and - Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-13 1,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,S A-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 20 design features to make it more visually appealing,which is also compatible with the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The building meets the various goals and bulk standards of the Zoning Code. It provides setbacks that will give it a more appealing street image than the older building. Staff will determine compliance with the Building and Fire Codes when a building permit application is submitted. 4. The use has been made as compatible as an industrial use can be in a mixed commercial and residential area. The position of the loading bays unfortunately locates trucks closer to the residential uses than is appropriate, but the internal design of the existing plant seems to require that. It seems that a little more relief could be offered if the trucks were,at a minimum,to leave the site in the early morning hours via Main rather than Wells. Since Transportation did not provide needed information, it would appear reasonable that trucks exiting the site around 5:00 a.m.would not severely interfere with traffic on Main. Therefore,the applicant will be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. 5. The design looks as if it will be appealing from the street. That should diminish its intrusive, industrial nature to nearby residences. 6. Unfortunately,the older building will remain in a prominent location that is highly visible. But the redevelopment of the remainder of the subject site at the scale proposed should minimize undue impacts on the site and surrounding uses. 7. The redevelopment of the site should not further impact property values. The industrial juxtaposition with the residential uses probably already has had an impact. 8. It appears that with staffs condition on relocating the Wells driveway from Parking Lot A to 4th should provide reasonable circulation for the site and surrounding neighborhood. 9. The zone allows much taller buildings than proposed so that access to light and air should be reasonable. The glass walls should provide light into the building. 10. The site is served by urban services. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the rezone. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: Service Linen Expansion and R.,--..e Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 21 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review committee Threshold Determination, unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue and replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the driveway access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project manager prior to approval of the building permit. 7. The applicant shall be required to use Main for exiting the site for any of its traffic that leaves the site prior to 7:00 a.m. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. 8. In order to reduce impacts on the residential areas,the applicant shall load its trucks with clean laundry in the late afternoon or early evening for the next day's delivery. In the event of an emergency they may depart from this condition. ORDERED THIS 26 day of March, 2001. -u. q / FRED J.KA •N HEARING EXAMINER Service Linen Expansion and RuLuiie Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26,2001 Page 22 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of March, 2001 to the parties of record: Steve Taylor Bob Moran Bob Raphael 1055 S Grady Way 425 Wells Avenue S PO Box 957 Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Russ Wilson David Guttormson Jerry Fry 1055 S Grady Way 334 Wells Avenue S,Apt 101 PO Box 957 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98057 Kayren Kittrick Jeff Weber Larry Cross 1055 S Grady Way 1501 4th, Suite 2600 Olympic Associates Renton, WA 98055 Seattle, WA 98101 701 Dexter Avenue N#301 Seattle, WA 98109 Sandra Maclean 6987 Perimeter Road S, Ste. 100 Seattle, WA 98108 TRANSMITTED THIS 26th day of March,2001 to the following: Mayor Jesse Tanner Gregg Zimmerman,Plan/Bldg/PW Admin. Members,Renton Planning Commission Neil Watts,Development Services Director Larry Rude,Fire Marshal Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney 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 Larry Meckling,Building Official Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100G of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.,April 9,2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen(14)days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record,take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV,Chapter 8, Section 110,which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of$75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department,first floor of City Hall. Service Linen Expansion and Appeal and Site Plan Hearings File Nos.: LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA,P01-021,AAD LUA00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA March 26, 2001 Page 23 If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants,the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. 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. • , .�Q wirings" rll �i — ,iNE ,,,,,, 1 I61� = '2 Jc • . . ,— � • ARGHIiECTURE. I Z �Q. • >h3. J ER3 LtbFi r 1 17 ®• 311Z1-- �' rr._ ENGINEERING =.�.r� ® IMI13:1 '',,//� to 17 • .t Y"i 4 Da , 4',10 61 .;+ 1 PLANNING ®6 1� W ��I kw Lin 17 i17' )� xt• MANAGEMENT �� ® 70 1 ,�.- I �� Q IS Q �°-�•y� '•'�/I! 701 DEXTER AVE N. �1; F IIIE r° "I•'' •"�- SEAREE.WA.98109 a� • ,_. ;�IlkiraO yr. L"6 MAC rk MEEK �{1i1�6nn'a ° fib l .• TTLE. A 98109 ' ,Zi iiitiEllCi2n Q i17l U P ��� .• . ' ace , :i,Cri 0 L Y M P I 1 1 1111111/ilt ur_ o� ' I �.c.U'arr [ F.7M !j�'s"1g y_ EI® ¢? MOM- .,1�-"- t • t ASSOCIATE' OSM PI ATE li i 11�.' _�` I-1'r� ia•7'il1 .���Ifi® r^ �r�51FLEE Nt,�• jI11�'�, B P • �/'iii, .j f47i i a•�3e '.,1`�r.n�..\ i Maio. V . •Ewa E3iIN. v':Y+f tlhfi:FYf171t1i(,) . ) pAGlpto ••`°. � -Ent I -s,' a MI " I -IJ''a • EE . �.1 i�77 /.iviri LICA1ioige tC4' SERVI E INEI �r?�l_ Q��' IN a111 r g�,�pa�!rma • ��_ aina ' '_.i 1 . I d� • , _ I 191/• • % 4°98 f4i r Ol'i 0 YI19.4 J dr. *e C �mi l#1.1 - 0♦ 'Lie '` " • 321igiMSE �g.�MN , \R e r," I . F]Tla �� 0 420 WELLS AVE SOU1 •® I. ® 21 •gip.. °z° '°ei li eo .MO� 6o il�ilu.\ II' �� RENTON. W •® II IL/ o" . 332 1. It . `. ms, WM 2EZ f • ® 1 : -ar--y- — 3..-_ • .® t- Q IP)•. ). rl� iIiilr����Iri�!- 336 2 e cif* r �:I 1i u 1 1 -LEI 1 . ------ ® 8 Q18 El•• ®p MC"as - .: INE35.1.,iir h51 Q7•� ,4LI....„ IC nti EIVI ENE EN 1 '''''l ItQ 11CHEI. !IFT--3 -.77?''':•Ii: ... --. .WV r ... :: alt au E . • iv Tonki Park 8. th AVE 1`2 g • lu ST' • �1.g qg m W...-e �_ I T ill151. aging; i Q ii(r'1;7��13Na' ,:1\\T\ __.Q ,-i _ _._ al is •11 r .m 1� ql� �2 i�'ljEMI ' , { Lai' ilir $ ® �\ _y5• r�ir 11:.= ....�+:o, < iFr r•:;;�,1A :•srex: a iN oNAiro /N ® \ �, t2 E ° i m: 15 • - a��s' � .i��„ -'��aL1 !ice .� ® °� `�s�•'•' °� � �• �' �v� ••� {��,�,,�, - 60 �� /•►aa:Lit .u6 '� :� •1s A gl. 1` �11 �1{ LL1 ® ♦rile ,.P .a ±i�} 6 ca• 7 1,{Ez• 11 •`t It 141* a 9 :44 _ ; . � . s ® � © 26 NEIGHBORHOOL 4* F 'i !l W 8 .vlia b-A®•d l ;df r"•:: .c i v1 ,, ®7i •1 DETAIL MA ,ice . .,, t1 t •® 9 . •\�1 t [� 3 m.:.....„,:., \ m1 0,,,, sae ,a 60 1tr,,,igi i�'4ilit A :E e , . u er �C➢- MOM \ 25 g)� I:i7? tiW IJ aI `i a "®7rsla n eft, �!t G.n' lE: S ` .5T ST• • , 8. 6th AVE t k.-1 1 )Q til C']I' ''� ds. � � I■�IF.C1tli F-'• �`.'r� ti 21 ! i� F � Y F':� t E 4 ' i 2 19 ki• R 1 1.1&•_- a O ' Am ItilEllTli® 2 Y! - L Y ® 117 •iT! O. • 19 Gal• tf71 CAV ® VIM I t!� 6 ®• _ ".® o ••1 k--- - 2+� NORTH ei9 .".., ..�.... I, ! i' I. ti nl 15` 4- I ®. .7I1 ® ` lim 16 ® • `TFg1 I .r �. •® .4 • s• \ �^ ®O i }J 5i ! sza I`�3►� 1`.3+ ti '� mu 1^� 3 7 14 ®• .Ili 7• ; a, 4. . IID T ii13 p I • - •_ I�L•1 16 ®• Z 1,. pp, rY='T 8 13®. 8 s' 1 a 8 - • I •®an .. ilk F:I& to a I\ I(-`iJ1eV .ra:Ill L ® '0,„ l MI t" y � 1 •; a. •,p- o so Ioo 2000 goo :Q T. II 14 ®: y� 3® 9 ����!�' �,MEMI T tom` !r.�li I 1. • so 9AVE.S ©�19�_ L _ x ft r.ioo i v. Epi [^ U. it IC ■li"-J m fi p a��-dQ• _'E'nf . OM. n y,•1'I"" L� 1 : `. 1� _+ L, ' S.4-67- ST 1. Wim--, �j 1 LJ 1____- •C P = R I vc:w S Ir e*_ 'k E t !_ _L �. a.:I:I sr . Q ,54 1 6C "1F F .�7�' ��!g ' `' I",.;iT'J urr ��C' Yip 1 . I so u I Lrn 1 � ma M°[.r AC7DND. �.UM �% 'r 7{ Y �, '•� � '^ 13 --- ,• --- is, ® Q. Q -'ELM mil' :4444 131 Arili, 0.95Aa M • ----i -•-'-- ----._....._.. .. . .,i ... ,m,,. .... ;-# - La: ___ -------1 .-1:: NN ` ,/,..// \I • ' ' ° C--...D- ..-R-7-14'7LU , - _-,- -- \-- ,...._ ....... Rm: C D ;_---DL S H—U --1 ,---- 2nd -Srt / , / ,., _. . . .4... \ C;:i .N 's. 1 .. N .„, ... . N \ , , . . . C-D— N)'" .\ z 4tia' N • .• 1 ..... , CD- CD N \ • . „ C A ( p ) .. . . . c D.R ( p 1 • ••=••••, amam.....alima... N. ', • . . CD :___--- fli — c.) ________ _,_ ._._ , ...,____Th /---____/ CD •— -c)-- --- / .___Agir4ai. C • . . RC--.. -T 1- , . 4 ,/ 0 I. I dl P .-„.... , t • I , .._ , • -i .Ny //' \ ,.• . : . • . „ R c ---• ..., ...... . ] -.•4 GD- , / ---00.--- . . b ' I i I . ., _ .. A -... rfpol. . \:-.----:, .____cz. ._... I \ j ..p.m., • , , \ \. •MIIIMINP, --. — —---— C Erip.. ),114 ' . i \ \v.*. ..::: - --L. ..—• ''.. . .--•---. CD------ ii. -.._. +NV i i AA"-, 41.4 ,...N., :s* \_......_ , ...._. ..._...._ . . . .„ \ R -co --6 - \ 7. , • RC _ II 4._ . , --- ---—- • • ),. ..„ 7\7 il-tovl -.,- -4-ul. --- ....____ 7,- - _____f;:-_-.1-1. _i_ LCD - -C°- Zi--!--,Q)- • - ii, \,_ / R• .4. _ _x..I__ ........____!.‘ i ' CD • _cc_ .1x. --(1)----- - ',.\ _ \ 1 . $ _ :, : _ ___,• •MINX , . . ,X. • CO 1 LL : Ce ! . ... Cqi), -I '........ 4, ..... .. ! -+—) C __.. •--i....‘ , i ; 1 //1 • - I':-- .._...__.: __ .._.,.,_.(1)_. __ . . ....___ 1 _.._.:. -j.-.2-1.--.--7i RD' ‘.,41 8 .1 Ii" CD , . A C I:1 • v-I _031_ ! I-1-1 - - -- -.- - -.IX- CO \/ z • I IN \\ 4 _ -ce_ A , . „,........., i. IF --sx.- -ix- ..- : .. .. ! . , i i .• ..A 111.**111.1111111 cy) .- . . . T 71 0.-.....0). ; . ...... ,..._ ....._.„ 4-) . .___i-- -co- -uj---- • III • • • • . 6 Icn i ccs ---- ce ri-- 1 N \ G4 . 20 T23N R5E W 1/2 ? , 1,0 4?0 1:4800 P/B/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES , 01/18/01 17 T23N . R5E • • . ARCHITECTURE • • ENGINEERING � , J• PLANNINGNG o NANAMANAGEMENTE r J II 701 DEXTER AVE.N. t id SEATTLE,WA,98109 • 4 SOUTH 4th STREET 1 I (206)285-4300 I ; 5•LANsroH or DSCAPE wJ.r BUFFER ADJACENT i 60'R.O.W. I I OLYMPIC • i ; i i Pwo ASSOCIATES 9,.4• �------•---- 1 O_._ q a ] �- C 0 M P.A N Y I le o' l ]ID _ I BM Y 20'D PARKNO SPACE-rte. e.SW Y 10'D C014PACi i ,• .10T•A" " I EXISTING SERVICE I I . PARKNG SPACC-M. I ] - i UNEN MALTING -j� 'x-' SERVICE L I..".. &LONG COM& I SPACES ARE RE01ARE0 R < '] �R r P I PAAKWO FOP EIO"Du NG I^ I44. MO 24 jJI {�1- I I Su" SEANCE UNEN O FoR P y� ARE REWREO IDR---,-- h • i PROPOSED EXPANSION I 1J MG I I C]V 00.1Pp»AA """ S'rGtHrOV IJUFFTA ADJACENT " E3 T OF WAY +.--W O RIOH Yi�`%::'::i:':>ti5ii:�iii<iiii:s;`isii':`+i'f`i';ii�;':y;:''in:�:in:::;;::j:?:!:fS':'`i'�x•::.`.:'s�;t�4i4:»:...F I . I 29 OP MESS SPACES ARE i ' (i�ii.n10ro] AAUTOaS or»W '� I Ia'L ;:.:::::1R/'-V�:!R::i:`Y:::::P�::::8 ^:;:::::::d::i::::::.'M:`t' 1 ,L T SIZE.,7250•.IL I' A < �: • CMA»LAK DARNING FOR LO K4NS10Ru PROVOSED SERNC[ 4m1 AVEOUTH L WELLS A EEWER EKP I '� 420 iK�I SulU+W ,.a ADE) I_11F.7sn6' I3'D - 4i� O ) \::�;is4�.;..isi%jvii:!irv:i:!':?:vii:ii�: !j:!�.:i•:':!4:iii':'!isc:�::.t'.'1�1i.'•'iii:•`:<f::��:v:�..:::�$:`:::::!:vri�.a » a 0000. 7 N :x. ::.r::19 WF&iOOW 01'. 7 $, `i. •'. T TK LARGSGPCD AREA: ,e5D SI.-I IR Y`':is U.:!::::::!:.::::]ip:,:L:S:/::�;:'ket ipi::}isL:::: ::::.:::::�:S:.Y-�:.:{I '.E�MDA]wP7E7. .. p �C1 n » Y a (x07 WCLUDWO 5'LARD50APE BY1FER) 0 O iii::i F.;'ROP.Y..J V..i RVI'YC S,��I:.iiii:ii%:ii::�::.: k DIJMPSTER ENCLOSURE " �LOT R ::.::::::::tg::::.: ....::;...,fi.e t:it.U.t........ r.a:.''5 es " ;'',','`:':?''`'':'':.`?L1M;Etf::?;;BUItDlIf4:;at >:<;'?;'i;%iII:;; •SCALE: I/4.1-0 3 n r'.4 'I I }$. . h x• `oaI" x• "5 p u I j 8 PARKING•30 VCMttES � �^ K'!Sri:':ti.':i75:iiiiiiti�i:?!<iirriiri�r�':':i'`;^:.i iii^%((r..:::::::::::::r.:::c.:::::::.r:::::::::::::: ppp 4 III SIZE-4wa•Jn»t0w1a FW K20'D PARKWO ' b` ....................:..:.......:... ......................... I T SPACE-1YP. ,Pf ..F.::•::::":::J.:ii:::i4iiiii:i::::•:iiiid::::;: �},p; ^ LOT 512E.11,100 S.P. I , :::"::}•::;:i:`:i::iiii7... „� .......v+RrWP weft."... IS'W.VE PAO DOCK- jij:3G1!iY]vii3•?.� 20 14. FARM"9G.. ' k3 pA' SJC•, 30•(.BWE PAVfYEM -::::4[ ::^iii:�jas�:}::..::.:....-:ii ..:.:.:..•. g.I ro to CO ID ro w ID ro I�h R4� I .enr'bef.'wrtmJ':::::.e:�:.i;:.'a: I LANDSCAPED115 • AL I 7SS /21s101 PARKING IAT A ^ 1E1C.d1�K•Anid� •. ] •• :'••S:;' Moi WQUR140 5'ARIANOSGPE SUFFER).F.-t2R ]xs•-D• 1 I V•+"f >; Pw.a01 ••.,♦p•I IIIIII� Q llllillq,14��y• J 1 I p I ,•0�; \_PARKING(5)SPACES(ON SITE I8y k I W p I� a 4 r P •ROPERTY IINEb]• . .1 N .Ia h2;,I Iz:D SITE PLAN 0 IKD1Ia i,•uVA.AP N 88 24 50 E 2274.42 PROJCECT NOTES: EASEMENT LINE -PAPNWc(0$PACES 0.0650*E r) L g F-1 OCCUPANCY I I » I 1 STREET OR OPEN SPACE ON ALL 4 SAES OF BURDINO Mall PARKING REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROPOSED EKPAN510N: µLW BUItJKNO NEIGH.S5 F0ET REQ'0 FOR LAUNDRY:MN II.SPAC /%000�YR•IL •22.587/ 000.13•SJ 9 SVICES I I 1:I I PPOPOSCD BURDWO MEIC11i-43 ET ILE REOb FOR OFFICE: lox 3 SPACE/1,000 wit. •2.785/1000 K 3•8,3 SPACES O' GM OF gOrtON jf'MF RFMIIIprn 5R RArIR• YAK 43 SPACE/1,000 mil .2,768/1000 r 4.5.12.5 SPACES I -I [noon 1"1 ww•AY P I I iRDH 11 L4E1 qPC Er4iw]001P0 REM .0 FEET YW PARNWO ROARED•Jf SPACES (SYI(C) . SIDE•0 FEET NM PARKNO REQUIRED•40 SPACES I 4I OYI�TjN(:Bon NINEJ(415 I BDR nor,ARM. TOTAL PARING REQUIRED FOR DUSTING BUILDING AND E%PAJSION: REDID FOR IAUNCH:INN 1 SPACE//1.000 AR.IL •51,302/1000 K. .51.J SPACE$ I I I I CosrPIG=ZING: 22307 S.F.FIRST FLOOR LNK 13 SPAGC/1,000 mil. •51,302/1000•13•7).0 SPACES 2.700 SY:SECOND FLOOR DELIVERY TRUCKS TO PAIR ON PROPERTY 23355 SP.TOTAL O PROPOSED BUILDING: 28,716 Si.FIRST FLOOD 4,125 Sr.SECOND FLOOR REOb FP 0R10E• K I3NL /,000 0w IwL IL :6093/182 K J.5 2037.0S PSPAE I E I o I I 32,840 SY.TOTAL TOTAL AREA(CYST. 50.195 Si. low PM90/10 REQUIRED•72 SPACES (31 SPACES FOR EXIST.BO.,41 SPACES FOR EYPAJSION) I 2I R I I• I . 0R, R'nv k PROPOSED OLD05.) NAY PARKING MOORED•100 SPACES 5uCPr,,,z,s0.-&giSvt" --..SNtta," T7U3Sfp ( SPACES INMEAT) I I ZI I '... AP1r . WO NE ON NE STALLS FOR PITYSICALLY 11.4110 ) II SPARS DA TRUCKS ri.1 RJWM vMPPRIZR1 40A00 R0.14 ZOxEO P A SaS'W L0 0)0 OF PAIRING RR AUTOS PROADCP I I I Ii YU BE OBtAN P1011 TO OBTAINING A BALDING 3 SPACES ON S0E C,xe'ru0[i mw0 Lx1Am ApJACC1J}PRIOLTt M5ENrs}J 4760 PR.11.20NE0 CO P)AN GSE4IEH is SPACES W LOT•A•-nil',TM AK.SOUM I I , 50WOES A[C./11070w]4] IPPKOv.LL k 10441. YUST BE O�iANED PRgR 10 OBiAroxO JO rpm W LOT•B•- ',TM AVE SOUM 234.09' I I tr A BURDWD PERMS. Orr or Ay ff W 5 1"1 TOUR ARM OF MOPDITY I Y I.70336 w.I4 N�R(APW IOTK AIRG MOVONY D k(ASIOAENT)•7,1913 Sr.(WCLUDWO PAVERS) ` N 88R23'35"W 240.18' R=/i»1005. • lAt IAFA OI'PROPGTY 5 0 FK[YIXT-sl.e2e wJL en�LTV RNA MCA Pr PRnPrRtt 1 n Y rAenorea;70.818 4R.IL ■OF PROPERTY w/LANDSCAPING•13.9R I 1]Cf jY 5 h_rerq (M[p1yyEEAIr A 10000501)01000) 05i 0/"Au S.F. �_� 60' R.O.W. I •C 0 P » R I T }PROPIAEY r)•.10,461 T.F. f•P.p�yOR PFR IGYI1[N K.rOTTR1CK/TEEPOo E 1-)-I000 -_-__-_-_-_-. _ _-_-__.________ • y I Q w ORIW IC.0 x urt�FR A5Cu AK. E10411NT RLNEs ARE NOT •� R'w • jQ7L4ix ) ,i2'/4eeee 5.5Sos*ES Q°'• 'am PaTbx NORTH • fi1 2000153 SITE PLAN SIRS TONY 3 /AOMOR8a znNE 16 PIM 0M w 5R(0Pp¢FD N/v!000INO•STEEL NULE0 STRUCTURE N'IM NON C0 918 115 10 1 A, LYIEAIOR WA44.IVLLY SPRIKKLERED. 0 15 30 80 90 m•A" 1,30 RN nn w•L u1](R CMU WINDOW SILL CREAM COLORED ARCHITECTURE BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED PRECAST CONC.LINTEL CMU ACCENT BAND ENGINEERING -ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- METAL SIDING 'KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED PLANNING BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK PLUE .\ TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK PRE FINISHED MANAGEMENT -- �- METAL AWNING Iljlllllll11111 111 UUU������� -,•� 701 DEXTER AVE.N.[), A 4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4� 'll,it r SEATTLE,WA.9B10B • J�'. !I (206)285-4300 OL Y M P I C ASSOCIATES ..,: COMP ANY MIMI + •'�::7l:•_ -n •••:t-Gia''- c?•ct• :;.::ir�-nom I SERVICE E LIN F NI�� �� �� � I _ SUPI WV:l�e�(y T\:�T�'11,de1's'✓.t'�_ �\A .•.!'/V: ___ ��../'sa.-... T . GR I____..-. '-• EXISTING k FINISH GRADE----) CMEY CMU WATERTABLE . TRELLIS SCREEN ---•• ---- - U BASE SPLIT--FACE BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH RENTON, WA METAL SIDING 'ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- BLUE OLORED CE FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK • \ TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK IIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIII 1111!II IIIIII III • I i IIIIIIIlIIR!�IIIIII II III I IIGIII I III!mu I I .............. y\ y\ 4 ..... : , n, , ,..c.,:„,,,.:::,....:_:...I.,...:...:.........,...4..,::,..,,,,..,:......:.,./:..,...,:,.....,.:.:::::.;...,:::: V M1f+ - I ~,t :,,,,...,..,,..:,..... ...............,..:.::::,...:::;,...,..,......,......: „..,(:,::::.!....,.../..,......,...::::,..:.:.,......,::::..::,....:...''''''''',...,....,.".::,..:„.;,,.,......:..„..:...: 41.0,;.,.:,. ..:2::„..:.:,::::. :...;....:.:,..„....L.......;..:.:.,...:..;.:::: :,:,..--„,i1a2s.t.::‘,.,..1.,.::_,::....,..._.,"..,..p......: • ..,,......,,:.:.. .....,...... ...„. 1,,z,„,„, :,,,. ...:... ._13g..„. :.....„.",:;i;kWot1114::,•:- ..:, ';,. ...,.... I 'a .� �I r N. rr-� _ !. T. IIITIr n .;1.. _-....___.--------•---- ELEVATIONS 0,:-.3,Y',A�_.•Z!'9!�b. G. ,•Eg is 4 tr •• `. t7- .ry giii:7:. ',f" ,,,••�04 EXISTING&FINISH GRADE CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS CMU ACCENT BAND EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED CREAM COLORED BLUE METAL SIDING 'KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE "ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- CMU ACCENT BAND - PRE FINISHED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK CO REL . METAL AWNING TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK -- - -- - - - ---• .. II III III 11111__mI I II II I — —I r I I III 'Ijil;j"iiai I I IIi� fill 11 I,I!H I I'd M I I .f.. .. WI :mow��• �: nal Oro lug. . may ��_i_T-_ .__.—___- ___ __—_ __ ___ _ ____ _ _ +Y,l;j,--• _ O : it • r L• .:f. v"^w• _ �I . . e?ts+u.! +!4xRv't +.+`+?? Y R I H T' +v- 'C 0 P C —:ii Y}:/-a -— —• y, . , _ ' F,��a.a.4i.iu:SY F. T..iu ween �n s`im'R c43 .... �'c~ •,L�•Q � o'b' � o t�� n o' ••••o! u G�: `�d,`t1 u 200 ISS LOADING DOCK BLUE PRE FINISHED OEM h FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS ,EM nr.v METAL DOORS SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION A'3 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Barbara Alther, first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the I NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL s — — DETERMINATION , ENVIROOM NTALE REVIEW - 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 RENTON,WASHINGTON The, Environmental Review a dailynewspaper seven times a week. Said newspaper is a le al of Non-Significance-Mitigated has issued a Determination tthe publishedCr) 9 of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six f r following project under the authority of months prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the the Renton Municipal Code. English language continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, ' SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION Washington. The South CountyJournal has been approved as a legal Lnviron entalA`H;R ECF CLA 9 PP 9 Environmental review for expansion of newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King , commercial laundry facility. Location: County. . ,->c; 408&420 Wells Ave.So. The notice in the exact form attached,waspublished in the South Appealsa of the environmental determination must be•filed in writing County Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to on or before 5:00 PM February 19, the subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 I ' application fee with:Hearing Examiner, i Service Linen Expansion ' City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way; Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of as published on: 2/5/01 Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110. Additional information regarding The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of Ithe appeal process may be obtained $59.38, charged to Acct. No. 8051067. Ifrom the City Clerk's Office,(425)-430- I6510. A Public Hearing will be held by, the Renton Hearing Examiner in ° Legal Number 8694 Council Chambers, City Hall, on February 27, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed site plan and al 2 ,�� a(14" r ll ee.lfe the Et of thimpu lic%('(/%y///� Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public Legal Clerk, South Count Journal i hearing. Interested parties are invited gY to attend the public hearing. _. I Published in the South County Journal February 5,2001.8694 } Subscribed and sworn before me on this - *ILf F day of 6 r , 2001 .___—____ 0%�utnir,ii,i %%eE N M M. F4�i,,, —: �' NOTA/11) ��;H i : (ii-e-6&-i—g^R\-Clel-air LA •'o '�U8 Ctin Notary Public of the State of Washington '.�•s9>•.C? ® •p?�` residing in Renton ep•••. 1•..•',.,�% King County, Washington i i;"� W A S'AN;`‘‘` • CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the day of ieb , 2000, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing R p ii H 811-Awukclocuments. This information was sent to: Name Representing [74:k\d-I 13ti.vbe— 0 l,ti v Api c, S4m _ SL DLLC Bob W\o-vo-are (Signature of Sender) 1v,c4t a_ f(- S ='P�r-4 -- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that , rAYe. * P" signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for t u es and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Date - > / AM No ary Public in � d or the State of Washin STATE OF WASHINGTON Notary (Prf MARILYN ►t,�MCHEFF nt) 'b_ �1�idT EXPIRES:6�403 COMMISSION EXPIRES My appointment expires: JUNE 29, 2003 Project Name: & v '/tom, Lt vie p0.h Si 6-in Project Number: LUNY - O0 — I3/ , sW- ti , R , LLA , t' NOTARY2.DOC I • i \i t-neE, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION&PUBLIC HEARING POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry fatally. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown(CD)and Center Downtown Public(CD-P).The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the"V suffix.Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen end WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment Is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking Is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which Is not required parking for the proposed expansion.Location:408&420 Wells Avenue South. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC)HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19,2001. Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 48-110.Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430.6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting In the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,Washington,on February 27,2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed site plan and rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. 9 as a y Sa.' -..y'nE#® ''°oie �'4► V 7 1Iq v t p Dori k1r 1,pl s fi• . yS .x ! a, ( .wn. riA.;.,,. .,_,_,,,..:,........ . c.,,, ,.;„,„,,. , : al ' f ,i / a� is rig li Ili; I .— ' zS' . i nos N- - FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,PLEASE V SOONTACT THE N AT(425)4 I 7 OO OF RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERDO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION IPlease include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION I, P( r-. l Js ),,,„, , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on 1.) . -Z( ?sic,, • Signed: & _._,o ATTEST: Subcribed m�before me, a Nortary Public, in and f fate of Washington residing in y�� , on the 62 n d day of / MARILYN KAMCHEFF TARY PUBLIC � �� AE OF WASHINGTON ISSION EXPIRES -.n JUNE 29, 2003 1l�MYI�1 . . . . ,. NfY APPOINTMENT S:6-2,�- 3 CITY OF RENTON :. • HEARING`EXAMI N:E:R PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY.27 2001 : :AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9 OO.AM;: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7.TH..FLO.OR, 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: APPEAL Greene Lot Line PROJECT NUMBER: AAD-01-001 (LUA-00-153,ECF,LLA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the SEPA Determination of Non-Significance. Appellant is requesting additional environmental analysis. The proposed lot line adjustment is intended to create better lot design for Parcel A, allowing for construction of a single-family home on the Lake Washington shoreline. Location: 3011 Mountain View Avenue North. PROJECT NAME: Service Linen Expansion &Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-131,SA,ECF,R,LLA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project calls for Site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south, which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. Location: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South. • Documentl City of Renton PUBLIC Department of Planning/Building/Public Works HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Public Hearing Date: February 27, 2001 Project Name: Service Linen Expansion and Rezone Applicant/ Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) Address: 701 Dexter Avenue North, #301 Seattle, WA 98109 Owner/ SED Real Estate, LLC Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) Address: 903 4th Avenue 435 Main Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 File Number: LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, ECF, LLA Planner: Steve Taylor • Project Description: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD)and Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P"suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south, which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. Project Location: Existing Service Linen Facility 903 South 4th Street Service Linen Expansion Area 408 &420 Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot A SW corner of 4th Street and Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot B 400 block Williams Avenue South (east side) WIAA Property(rezone) 435 Main Avenue South. ,11. II' N1 !mom use , . r E1Si ® IAp >�r u 11 aafE] 11�1^ l Y3y Simms,_ 111p ss IR!az sem w ' ''.iea+l a � 5.,./'y!�1t a 1r11a ! r< gip'•.. ,A lit U CO Flo • SS9dil K y f° j� N >..m w! •.e at pour HtEi+tlO ..._,�,.... ,, ,/e �_ ASSOC Id I, v'S i�k211 ,aK'�.. 354 te,511 oi�.77.i..,Tri" ce , wee ,e. cov�an� A.- sr • .. = —=39,9 —, rY/ S 38 w y III tinged Wy`toY a 1iilitglig E�ntl: a - di, FN:% r ` -.tca i:d V elf' SERVICE LINEN naela 1 I Mindylltl¢MR I�IG�It9 /��fi, 3 F7 SUPPLY s LtEOii 7A1.11 ' LAIR woos a �E /y''� / s n d Ji "lfy,3 e ® 3 -�-- ,,,,!!ee"� a e c er MU/ i.\ ? �.� r 0 xa wensAVE SOUTH +T y_ 'W�1,p p "� RENTON.WA ..IrL•'NJ '�Iiw.R s.;d lem tin ci,-+, ®. L °T sr n nVwYe PC. 6.PAVE r::: ' J\ JW 'IIs I1I ! TI L4rD � �..L. WA1:5312 4sal mu �l0 0 NEIOHBORMOOD rp i1�'y if ni�• "'�l�cri `1� Iya-T�`�i ; \� —_®T, y \\\..za DETAIL MAP. 0 5T a �ST • • a.aen AVE . a • I era � :J �►Z �T at l� Zj ELF' 41 a E-jel :Edit C �" a� nil i21, .,► o i\�.y i ci!t 1:211 ,® a® ��:..fJeei ®1 a Ni L''1 I< ICI Nei • i; u�,• kJ We m El n r,• 'a e r tti ®?03 ® .c QS ®-S` LLazI ® ' E, UN ' ,,,--A, f LT M -- -- Ito " 'tom �n DWI= ® I� e. 7�..�9J A _��,�,���..�u W v �I 3^'� t"Zl � ® e' ; __ y®�"`'k' J,awn ar To ' �^lr '� - . ecrc 0 'AID,.- ri'u"ice F a A?,*o To a .^ 1 . T�P z.-fc. 4►� 1�, 3 qy Nom. L':_rN L„,,..e 1 'wRu.....,. . '".,"c.G f0 -v. 4 E ►=1-,,+ ,.11 —:_S .- City of Renton P/B/PW Department - Pr_ at),Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27, 2001 Page 2 of 10 B. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1. Project File containing the application,reports,staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2. Site and Building plans, Sheets A-1 through A-3 submitted 1/26/01. Exhibit 3. Rezone drawing showing existing zoning conditions Exhibit 4. Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 5. Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Exhibit 6. Generalized Utilities Plan Exhibit 5. Vicinity Map Exhibit 6. Zoning Map C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: SED Real Estate, LLC WIAA 903 4th Avenue 435 Main Avenue South Renton,WA 98055 Renton, WA 98055 2. Zoning Designation: Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown—Public(CD-P) 3. Comprehensive Plan Center Downtown (CD) Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: The majority of the laundry expansion area is an unpaved gravel lot that was graded fairly level following demolition of the Henry Ford School. The northwest corner of the expansion area contains a house and covered loading area, which will be removed to make way for the proposed new building. The WIAA office building occupies the southern section of the block. Aside from grading a small portion of this property for a joint use parking area, rezoning to remove the"P"suffix is the only proposed change. 5. Neighborhood Characteristics North: 4-story Spencer Court—Senior Housing Apartment Complex; Center Downtown (CD)zone East: Main Avenue South and 1-405 South: 2-story WIAA Office building, Center Downtown Public(CD-P)zone West: Single and Multi-family homes on the west side of Wells Avenue S; Center Downtown (CD)and Residential Multi-Family(RM-U)zones 6. Access: Wells Avenue South and Main Avenue South 7. Site Area: Expansion Area, approximately 46,868-sf. Rezone Area, approximately 87,718-sf. 8. Project Data: area comments Existing Building Area: 25,355-sf 4300-sf house and metal building to be removed. New Building Area: 32,840-sf N/A Total Building Area: 58,195-sf N/A Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pr._.__;Pary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27, 2001 Page 3 of 10 D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Zoning N/A 4404 06/07/93 Comprehensive Plan N/A 4498 02/20/95 Original City of Renton Plat N/A N/A 1901 Henry Ford School Demolition LUA-99-116 N/A 9/7/99 E. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (RMC TITLE IV): 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts Section 4-2-070:Zoning Use Table Section 4-2-120.B: Commercial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations—General Section 4-4-060: Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations Section 4-4-080: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Environmental Element 3. Downtown Element 4. Economic Development G. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted an application requesting Site Plan approval for the construction of a 2-story 33,000-sf expansion of the existing Service Linen Commercial Laundry facility. Required parking is proposed both on-site and at two existing off-site parking lots located on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The subject sites are located within the Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown—Public(CD-P)zoning designations. The proposal includes a rezone to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the WIAA site. From 1922 until 1999 the Henry Ford School occupied the site. In 1999 the School District declared the building surplus and sold the northern portion of the site to Service Linen and the southern portion, containing the old school administration building, to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), a non-profit organization. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed but will recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Additionally, the applicant proposes a Lot Line Adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pn, _ at)/Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 4 of 10 The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel. This parking area is not required parking for the project. The new building contains approximately 29,000-sf. on the first floor, which will house areas for sorting, folding and loading laundry. Approximately 4,000-sf on the second floor is proposed for future office use, only the shell structure is to be constructed at this time. As proposed, vehicles would enter the Service Linen site from Wells Avenue and exit to both Wells and Main Avenues South. Vehicles will enter and exit the parking lots via Wells and Williams Avenues South. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21 C, 1971 as amended), on January 30, 2001 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance, Mitigated for the Service Linen Expansion. The DNS-M included five mitigation measures. A 14-day appeal period commenced on January 30, 2001 and ended on February 19, 2001. Mr. Robert R. Moran filed a timely appeal of the threshold determination listing traffic, noise, odors and zoning as areas of concern. 3. ERC MITIGATION MEASURES Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposed project, the following mitigation measures were issued for the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. dated May 1, 2000, with regard to any site disturbance,preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. 4. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address site plan issues from the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of the report. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA As per RMC 4-9-200.E, "The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon site plans based upon comprehensive planning considerations and the following criteria. These criteria are objectives of good site plans to be aimed for in development within the City of Renton. However, strict compliance with any one or more particular criterion may not be necessary or reasonable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to be inflexible standards or to Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pr_..: :ary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 5 of 10 discourage creativity and innovation. The site plan review criteria include, but are not limited to, the following": (A) CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ITS ELEMENTS & POLICIES The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation for the project property is Center Downtown (CD). Please note that the applicant is proposing a rezone to remove the "P" suffix from that portion of the site zoned Center Downtown—Public(CD-P). The intent of the "Center" designation is to create a balance of land uses which contribute to the revitalization of downtown Renton and to reinforce downtown Renton as the regional commercial district in the City. (Objectives DT-A and DT-B) The following Downtown Element policies are applicable to the proposal: Policy DT-1. There should be a mix of uses, including retail, office, light industrial and residential, which generate the demand for goods and services. The proposed use is a mix of office and light industrial which generate a demand for goods and services. Policy DT-5. Redevelopment of the downtown area should be encouraged to maintain and revitalize the downtown core The proposed use will provide a more intensive use of an underdeveloped site and create employment opportunities. Policy DT-16. Uses serving the region, the community and the local area should locate within the downtown. Service Linen provides laundry services for hotels, hospitals, restaurants and offices both locally and regionally. Policy DT-30. The existing supply of parking should be better managed to encourage joint use rather than parking for each individual business. The applicant is proposing a small joint use parking area with the WIAA. This will improve the parking for the WIAA building which is currently under parked. The proposal appears to conform to the Center objectives, as well as the Center policies contained within the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (B) CONFORMANCE WITH LAND USE REGULATIONS The subject site is zoned Center Downtown (CD). The CD zone is established to provide for a wide variety of uses including commercial, residential, entertainment and personal/professional services. Commercial Laundries are considered secondary permitted uses in the CD zone subject to the following condition. RMC 4-2-080.A.18 These uses shall be permitted only as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use. Existing use of this type may be expanded on existing properties, contiguous properties, or on properties a portion of which is within one hundred feet(100) of existing buildings, subject to site plan review. These uses shall not be expanded on the ground floor along street frontage in the "Downtown Pedestrian District"except for those supportive office and sales uses. Along property lines adjacent to residential uses, there shall be a fifteen-foot (15) wide continuous landscaped buffer. The proposed use is a continuation of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry. The expansion property was sold by the School District as a single parcel which shares a property line with the existing Service Linen site and therefore meets the definition of"Contiguous". There is no expansion along street frontage in the Downtown Pedestrian District and a 15-foot landscaped area is proposed adjacent to both Wells and Main Avenues South. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pn.......7.ary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 6 of 10 The project's compliance with the development standards pertinent to the proposal is discussed below: Lot Coverage — For CD zoned properties that are located outside the Downtown Core Area, the maximum lot coverage for the building is 65%. The proposed structure (including the over hang of the loading area) will cover approximately 30,420-sf of a 46,868-sf site, which calculates to 64.9% building coverage. Setbacks / Landscaping — The applicant is proposing a 15 foot landscaped setback from both Wells and Main Avenues South. No side or rear yard setbacks are required unless the property abuts residentially zoned parcels. In this case the site does not abut residentially zoned parcels. The proposed building and the existing structure are on two separate lots and are connected via four openings. The properties are currently operated under a Limited Liability Company, SED Real Estate, LLC. Because of the separate parcels, they could be sold individually at a future date. When properties are in separate ownership, the building either has to be set back from the property line or meet construction and fire code ratings. Staff recommends a restrictive covenant be recorded on the parcel containing the new structure requiring the openings to be sealed according to UBC requirements should the property be sold individually or the use changed. The proponents have proposed surface modulations to break up the visual appearance of the facades along Main and Wells Avenues. Landscaping will also be necessary to soften and provide additional articulation to the expanse of the wall. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan that shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. Staff has made suggestions for increasing the size for six types of plantings in order to provide visual buffering is a much shorter time frame. Additionally the Western Red Cedar may not be an appropriate selection for this space. Staff recommends that a revised landscape plan be submitted and subject to approval of the Development Services Division. Height—A maximum building height of 95 feet is permitted within the CD zoning designation. The proposed building would arrive at a finished height 42 feet. Screened mechanical equipment will not be visible from the street. Airport regulations restrict buildings in this area to a height of less than 179 feet. The building will be well below that limitation. Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations — When a new building is constructed or an expansion of greater than one third added to a building, parking standards must be brought into compliance. In this instance, the required parking for the laundry use is 1 to 1.5 stalls per 1000-sf. 3 to 4.5 stalls are required per 1000-sf of office space. A minimum of 72 parking stalls are required of this project(31 spaces for the existing building and 41 spaces for the expansion). The project is proposing to provide 73 stalls (38 in Lot A, 30 in lot B and 5 on-site) including four ADA assessable stalls located on site. Additionally, 11 parking spaces are provided for trucks. Staff recommends that the off-site lots be subject to a restrictive covenant to assure they are not developed while still needed to meet the parking requirements of the project. Landscaping of the off-site parking lots must also be brought into compliance with current standards. The conceptual parking plan conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stalls. (C) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND USE As proposed, the new structure would be accessed from Wells Avenue South and vehicles could exit the site to either Wells or Main Avenues. Currently delivery trucks are loaded on Wells Avenue South where a portion of the street is designated for loading. Under the proposed expansion, all vehicle loading would take place on-site at one of six new loading bays. For vehicular safety, the travel lanes on Wells Avenue should be realigned and the curb cuts in the existing loading area replaced with curb where needed. This will also allow street parking to be reestablished in this area. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Prcc:... ary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 7 of 10 The expansion, which more than doubles the size of the existing structure creates the capacity for operational increases in the future and is anticipated to create jobs for 10 additional workers. This would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system and therefore is subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. To offset the impacts to the City's transportation facilities, a Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit for the both the demolished single family house and the Henry Ford School was applied. The estimated traffic impact fee is $7,875. The laundry utilizes a fleet of approximately 21 to 23 trucks for delivery. Approximately 10 trucks will be parked onsite in the evening ready for loading the next day. The remainder of the trucks are parked in the off-site parking lots and moved to the loading dock when needed. In order to reduce traffic impacts to the adjacent residential properties along Wells Avenue, Staff recommends the following modifications to the site plan. Parking Lot A is currently accessed from Wells Avenue. Because Wells is a one-way street, all vehicles using this lot must travel up Wells. Staff suggests relocating the access to Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. This would allow employees and trucks to enter and leave the lot without having to utilize Wells Avenue. This should not create additional congestion because traffic moving east along S. 4th Street is stop controlled at Williams Avenue, creating gaps for left hand turns into the parking lot. Staff also recommends that site access onto Main Avenue S. be converted to two-way travel (right in, right out only). This would allow the majority of the vehicles to enter and leave the site without having to use Wells Avenue. The Transportation Services Division considered the possibility of modifying the queuing lanes to allow a left hand turn into the site but concluded that operationally, it would cause increased congestion at the Grady Way/Benson Road intersection. Potential short-term noise and traffic impacts would result from the initial construction of the project. Existing code provisions that limit construction work hours, and the applicant's construction mitigation plan, which indicates proposed work hours from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Friday,would mitigate these impacts. (D) MITIGATION OF IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN TO THE SITE The site was graded fairly level following the demolition of the Henry Ford School that occupied the site prior to 2000. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of structural fill is required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. Hart Crowser, Inc conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Design Study and the report dated May 1, 2000 was submitted for review. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling four borings at various locations. The site is underlain with loose to medium dense silty sands in the upper 20 feet, with dense sands and gravels below. The water table elevation was observed between 19-22 feet below the ground elevation at the time of the soil borings. The risk of liquefaction is considered low to medium, and settlements are expected to be approximately one-inch. The report indicates that the proposed development can be constructed generally as planned. Building support may be provided using continuous and isolated spread footings founded on structural fill. As part of the Determination of Non-Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M) issued for the project, the Environmental Review Committee has required that the applicant comply with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report regarding site preparation and construction. Stormwater from the developed site would be directed to the storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious area will be less than the previous school, no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated. Potential erosion impacts that could occur during project construction would be adequately mitigated by the measures imposed by the ERC, as well as City Code requirements for approval of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) pursuant to the King County Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pn......::ary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 8 of 10 Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) and a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to issuance of Construction Permits. (E) CONSERVATION OF AREA-WIDE PROPERTY VALUES The project would develop and improve a currently underutilized site. The proposal is anticipated to increase the amount of employees in the vicinity, thereby encouraging additional development. Therefore, the project is anticipated to conserve area-wide property values. (F) SAFETY AND EFFICIENCY OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION Vehicles will access the proposed building from Wells and Main Avenues South. Parking.Lot B is accessed from Williams Avenue S. As required by staff conditions, Lot A will be accessed from S 4th Street. All streets are served with sidewalk along the property frontage. The development would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system and therefore would be subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. The traffic mitigation fee for this project is estimated to be$7,875. The parking plan appears to provide adequate aisle widths and backout distances for the safe and efficient circulation of vehicles. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The Traffic Planning Section will review construction-related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. (G) PROVISION OF ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR The proposed building is set back 15-feet on both the Wells and Main Avenue frontages and landscaped to soften the overall bulk. The design is very open with glass blocks sections to allow the natural light to filter into the building. The design provides for adequate natural light and air circulation to the buildings. (H) MITIGATION OF NOISE, ODORS AND OTHER HARMFUL OR UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS Neighbors located in the residential area west of Wells Avenues South have expressed concerns regarding the proposed expansion. They state that the laundry is creating impacts at this time and has been the subject of several noise complaints. Their concern is that the laundry is expanding to the south bringing noise and truck traffic closer to the residential areas located on the west side of Wells Avenue South. The new structure will house areas for sorting,folding and loading. The loading dock is located at the rear of the structure. A screening wall is proposed to shield this area from Wells Avenue S. Although the structure is located further south, the new operational areas are fully enclosed. The actual washing/drying facilities are to remain in the existing building. The laundry currently operates two shifts that fluctuate with the seasonal demand. The first shift contains approximately 55-60 personnel from 5 a.m.to 1:30 p.m. The second shift,when needed, has approximately 15- 25 personnel and operates from 1:30 p.m.to 10 p.m. Currently,the noisiest equipment(boilers,washing/drying) is located in the existing structure. But future tenant improvements involving supplemental equipment may result in noise impacts not evaluated under this proposal. Additional noise generators of this nature would trigger additional and separate environmental review. Up to 10 trucks will be parked in the loading dock area each night. These trucks will be loaded first to delay the need for additional trucks, with backup beepers, operating in the early morning hours. Due to the probable noise impacts to the adjacent residential areas from the effects of backup alarms, ERC required that trucks be equipped with ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the alarm level to surrounding decibel levels. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pn_:__ _ary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131, SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 9 of 10 It is anticipated that the building expansion will result in minimal additional noise and odor impacts. With the recommended conditions, impacts associated with traffic and activities resulting from the completed project would not increase significantly above existing conditions. (I) AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED USE Fire Department and Police staff have indicated existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the ERC, the applicant will be required to pay Fire and Traffic Mitigation fees prior to the issuance of building permits. Adequate sanitary sewer, water service and other utilities are available in Wells and Main Avenues South and would be extended as necessary to the building by the applicant. (J) PREVENTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD DETERIORATION AND BLIGHT The proposal would develop a currently underutilized property. The development of the site is anticipated to increase the overall appearance of the surrounding the area; thereby preventing neighborhood deterioration and blight. H. REZONE: The proposal includes a rezone to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen site and the W IAA site. From 1922 until 1999 the Henry Ford School occupied the site. In 1999 the School District declared the building surplus and sold the northern portion of the site to Service Linen and the southern portion, containing the old school administration building, to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA), a non-profit organization. The rezone will not change the types of use allowed but recognize that these properties are no longer in public ownership. Since there are no material changes to the zone no analysis of the rezone criteria is provided. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Service Linen and WIAA rezone from CD-P to CD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Service Linen Site Plan Review Application and Rezone, Project File No. LUA-00-131,SA-H, R, ECF, LLA subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant is required to comply with the Mitigation Measures that were required by the Environmental Review Committee Threshold Determination, unless modified by the Hearing Examiner upon appeal. 2. The applicant shall record restrictive covenants on the parcels containing the two off-site parking lots. These covenants shall limit the use of the parcels to parking lots until such a time as they are no longer required as parking for the Service Linen project. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 3. The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant on the parcel containing the proposed addition. This covenant shall require that building openings be sealed in compliance with the Uniform Building Code at such a time as the new and existing buildings are under separate ownership. Or in the event that a change of use is proposed in one or both buildings. Draft covenants shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division Project Manager and the City Attorney. 4. The applicant shall realign the travel lanes on Wells Avenue replace the curb cuts in the existing loading area with curb and where needed. A design showing these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by Development Services Division prior to approval of the building permit. 5. The applicant shall revise the site plan to relocate access to Parking Lot A from Wells Avenue to South 4th Street. The site plan shall also be modified to create a two-way travel lane at the drive way Service Linen HEXRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Pr_ .:Pary Report to the Hearing Examiner SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA PUBLIC HEARING DATE:February 27,2001 Page 10 of 10 access onto Main Avenue South. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit 6. The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans increasing the size of the landscape plantings to those recommended by staff. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager prior to approval of the building permit. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approvals(SA): Two (2)years from the final approval (signature) date. Service Linen HEXRPT.doc .111 \•N •.\ /....,/,, ‘ I V / N..,, N.s. ' .. ... R.. .m7u —RM \. -)... \.. " . : . ____ : . ._ : ._...._. - __,., _ \ : \. N4 1 C A ( P ) __.... • . iR.K-u -._ \ -CD •\,,),•.--, N... , 2nd Sf.D- li . CD- cD \ \\ \ . • ,N, \ in • 1.. ' C DR ( P _, . _41=••••••• N ?‹.N-. ------ ..,„- CD — CD 11 IT — ) . / cD CD 7:L.: .s...;_ ____.___ ,a_es o • ....„ ,, ..„--- ----- ---- , ....„ -fri.< II/ / --•-1.,: ._ • !...._.... Hg2 :51V ---,..•"..: :- 1: ' *,,.../. ' - --- , : .: . • ,.., . -...•....... i ,CD CD(P) ' CD-. • • , -, R c -..• ..,:.........._ . . _. / D ..._ .._ 1 . . / / - •••••• •••••••• - .--- , ___ . I. - --.,-i ....__... _.. _._. ---- _.. . ...,....____ .. __. ..7....._______.. \,... i \ .->.- vxlq. CiD....._• lig 4 ' • A j -Avie.,..• ,,,,, . \ _. rill ...__.. cnn )99,149s - • . 1 . \ \ • \ \ .... .... ___ mg/ itizE4 1 • CD ....--- VV., \ \-- R 8 i'' ,.. 16.6.46- --- — ... ...._ _ . . .-., \ RC v_i_ ....._co_ .:_ci__L. ._.i1.1.......4_)(1)...... ._........LC/).. -------_'C4.. i11.-..rdf ---.1--(1)- 1-- ._ " I RiviU. ,,, \ I .7 I 1... .C1C5--i_...._. _ ---\\ • -ct. --fx. --(1).--1--=4 c ) .___ I - CO \ ' - - 7 --- • . --i.-- -- -..=:•;-11 -= \ co ;I 1 • _____LI____I ce ! R _ i.,/, . ... i.. _...... cqi).6.- 1 ._ „ ., ,..c./ . •••• '• ... _al_ \ / Cri- , C 0 . -9 __-•wi. f: - - ----• ..._.... \lee \ ..., .., .,, , , .... k. \\N 11 II .............._ ... \' i ---------- aa e /ki I 1020A I. .. . '. ..1 : , —"TN 1`,. . , .-----.... ----; -4-) --j-- -CCI- Oa— \ \ 1 111 111.••••••• • • • • • • ' I cn ry.), - cg 1 i 1\ 1 \\ \ G4 - 20 T23N Ft5E W 1/2 () e. ZONING p - . 1:4800 TECHNICAL SERVICES . ,# 01/18/0I 17 T23N . R5E , • •� -- '2 - 2 .1 - .aer'i 2 IV Z .Iz : , .v°, it i �, � 7Q gam. .�' r � �,: ARCHITECTURE//i 714 1 •. 5 ,.i I�tf. I tri ;�g� LIME" (1 '-` EIJCINEERINC :::" W _ !!���� A PLANNINGi • t 6 rilm ; 6 A ® el , Imi R,�i- "ailli 11 E,7• , MI 17 C.e4 �_ 41', 10rrc 61Y ,✓• rr.rMANAGEMENT t �� • I V" I © 16r1,.R,.4 �� F •Foci15 © :nR q ✓..•. ::"A•' 701 DEXTER AVE.N. , -4 Ii! iiii. IN Illf US' ��� �#rgISBILINIE y .� �! 0 L Y M P�' li�iZ RCM z:9' J.' OEM ® 11.W.iFi� B / ..� I _ -- ASSOCIATES 1 1 4 5'~` ' `� EF 9 EMI �Ii© r31• � �ar�V7 W' 111:1O B F o.•;••: �•3 MI ;Mc : r'O COMPANY ffiD _ t $1�� �S ate ti9 '"' 0 WIC 111r'ICE itTIGZ.AGSW/91ti illLl!.J % pi& :: .• .. wr•, L., I OI AC. CJi a as sf. rce h 1eo' . .��t — — "' —� D— �STP, lye S 3RP s__ r..,r ST • rigglik!" i it ma` -1 ' . i AIREIM I L�° = SERVIC LINEN ►� �]�]� 1 Z �r; P- :O,J �+ •��� h Z REE 'r , , I o, .�__—_.� ! ry 5 � �3lf ' la909� ' �'j NI� 4 Wi'1,a,i �• k a • /L • 3 st • } 3 li�„!�' NZ, ;. \; rw� 2 ie� /€m� p uT rrsz i — b,•' . \R. G cm, ' xe 4,, fie pt Q 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH yz3 60 WO II4! .EY [r' RENTON, WA •� II �.._.f � �40Q .� 1 h .4.6G •� il.�l ��,!�,/���k,�3i�S��1 •� �L•?���1\ ---gym•--�=�-- 3(-k`r • ® i ligall I. ® -i'• .a Ti j 0,qua. .' 11� MOEivi fig I .' Marl:gal if. 1::: R11111.r.,` ------y El' i. _--- pia+ !'am, ® ! 11111E VW � 9 /` 4 Nar e W ST , 2 • ST s n�,,e Tonkin Park$Park 3y4t�h��AVE �E I`or.„ �j� � • \ l l _ f„, '' n tt,s 3,11.r2 20 Iliiilll Y 1 4162�, r_iivk __.. � ®i� •-- -, 1905 l.iit 19 ��, rJi�l _ \\--3" .'9H 28 si; .11 �' 4E34 E Lr, c agi l8°f®• a ®- � i., �i: •_ •tY7u•,`�r.�.�Tf. �� SGt7•6 t61�+" IIR ÷ �� 'FY I1:;l,TE: ::KEK• $• /N :ONA7/0ii,.;/M _ 1- � ® • •i ,FS[tL i 4:af '- ri I 0 , 1 276®.�ENO Cif vi ;'5'>:' . �y �\ ]� so *+.. ,' mcs VIy nn F'+J �� u W W :: itYlz M 03 .,.o �� iih ,u6 `ago. a� > ��. _, • � � 5 D• - 7 7 rc.(Eau 14, • ••-,,,i F:4:':c:'?i::. < it, *• 3-fir_ 1 E�;fC • ®8.at g en 16. ® .1 ® 8 --.1 7 ® 26 NEIGHBORHOOD •��,{{l,��,.� 71j�•� ® 9!■ • •J6liaW p:, ;::`. J .� -i7i �. ' — - -' DETAIL MAP ` G to•1 maIll . ...;,.7 �.y..:.......,:. • :;. F+ ,DIFID 00--ra:. 25 . 5T ..... $ S. 5th AVE • �.; E57;r:-{„ t ���oi_I ti" ,q1.‘' ,.• rl` I •• G�1EAR r. - m �I!1� � ���"' _3 ' ('�I�iat!7r ; er 1 t�, it��M I= .® •i a Z r N r AM a 73 i o® 2 23 - L '® 2 19 I'31. �1 12 f Me UM ---{ -� (z) — 1r 3 !. 72 F.n• ,k'`II rr>� rill 1 E] 3 sot _�--j IZi W LEI t�: �` .� `� - F': • 51 4„ 21 ®• r�J1 ©f ® 4 PM 114 11 Q . h� 4 Ira Q I�RIR ;� ® 6 9 ( 1,�i' 2� :9r1_--2_ 4 i® _6 ® II W • \: ti �;.16 15,E].• �'—� �---�a �3 NORTH .� ry —� ---,, -- ®: 18 ® �� ® 6 • �1� 5 �. n1 l{ S' Ii, � hal ..,... B R Gm. W E fl ' 3111111 02Ira 1 14 ©• i-"b'Jilr , ¢n 7 14,� •., ". ' i� �9 16 ®• �l:� i* I I3�ID, Fir �� , R ��g l3 1 �a� 1 ® rr C a1: to IS iM.r ' ram Mae in=JlQfi/ �q/.i1 �' E 1ys� d,'� 11•• 536 MI •®,x z o w 'Co 2000 200 '0 re:„ .11 !4 ®$.�``..?�� MO 41 1 9 5E' IFffir i q`j12' i1 . 6o 8AYEwn®•9. h•�'-- K 32 - , I IDE.) °� , 451. II) 1121J' M. re ., E.sr 1.. 5 . . pi T ! ■�� ®� B S.Ir6TH.-ST 1 4°I. /� I- 21- o P r e c H T. J/ ate •; o•.• Il�•� I,,F7 re..sf �0 u� • ' pi ® , ° w!---'��, r.,,, ,wei ..m..41,7,. m�P• ':— 20/� r �t'°1�j a, I` O. '"" Z[.Y •� +�t,`f r a+&-)'1 —f : a . . ISoLmo uv�.�m2000153 n. T. 0fE � •. rca-,It • f 1 E 67)•- rt • 5! 5 : - 0 13: 6tl ®_ J- C gym v ti 1 ® Q�/ QI eta k rcu'rr®' .�NI �.4\`'�•�• 0.95Aa , ,..07r,; _i -y'i `- © :6 rcax,r „. ARCHITECTURE P,e '^ ENGINEERING' r)),..0„ S 1/ PLANNINGS I I / MANAGEMENT l ` 701 DEXTER AVE N. _ _ _ _ _ -_, SEATTLE,WA.98109 .�. r---—W------SOUTH 4th STREET ----------- ;II (206)285-4300� ° 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFER ADJACENT i \ 60'R.O.W. I I OLYMPIC TO ROOT OF WAY 15' r : : - a--- ( , ASSOCIATES - �a — I i F,w 0- BBWE%I6'0 COMPACT i L I. I OT"A• a° - {) I DOSING UNEN SEEDWGE SERVICE LINEN M.A.CO.. I 3AROFGTHESE PARKING I I I 3t SPACES ARE REQUIRED S-. .17, v �,R I -� SUPPLY PARKING FOR EXISTING I 1S L •,m 91' j,l SERVICE LINEN REQUIRED FOR T yl]r N ;35�^ , 7 ARE EDEXA FORS- ,• yll u iA:, L Ti., I PROPOSED EXPANSION I I I H. n PPE. 5'LANDSCAPE BUFFEA ADJACEM „ l'%�V;Ce -. T°RIGHT OF WAY :.:F_: 1•11f1 ::?•'1 A•[TM°GE II PARKNC•38 AUTOSnn '.i:::..::_:i:::_.:; isi':•ii:i::::::::::::11_ •<AC,I 29 OF 1NESE SPACES ARE I ...::::::::...•....:..:: ::..•:... ......:....•. L f=- REDUWED PARKING FOR , n LOi 5¢E 17.250 a4.IL ,-. PROPOSED SERVICE 0•,•plu4Yw°inr%••m) ,E� ,WNYORu ita W I ; ::;.;;::(:: '%':'( < '.:::i6':3f:ii+: :z, x:` `', =� 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH LINEN EXPANSION >l • , • , a 1 • - - P W ( I SURPLUS ARN G I E O WA aa R NT N SPACE N 115' I I S I � m 3 - 115 > O N CC - - .- /X15RNC.PARKIN.,1 I IQ K O1"��� }1� :: .... .. ORKOAANY 0R R.: &•' 99 I M. . . . . . . n M. TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA 1,880 S.I.-IIX ' N 1,.;..:i:::C 9:....::.:.:d:5:'.':.:..';.•';: :.';.` :.:....:.::..i R9909x940 I7J _ D N ...,.: ....:.:.:-:.:. f �, a LOT B I (N01 INCLUDING 5'UNOSCARE BUFFER) I U, ..::.::::::::;�::":..PR�JP.O$ED;.;SERV..10E;;; r' :_.:;::.;::;r •g I • DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE N :;..::,;::::?:!.::::::::::.::.,.........:..:::. ,.....:........................,...,„:::: • a , SCALE: -r'-0 I 3 f IN.EN;8UJLI)I FG`:;;` ?;ii:;i'ji ';'ii:a':a •I/O • / 3 `. Au =k I• I I I ' 30 VE1aCLE5 W% PARItWG SPACE-1YP. e t5 LDr s12E-1l too sF. �8 I (•a,-vma r M�•X A,..m I 1s'w LOADING DOGK- ":�`.'•:�'_�:.=�i:'::17%=:::': �N���YA] B.5'w%In COMPACT "�.,p�N-s,^"� ]0'ABOVE PAVEMENL '` OM PARKING SPACE-IMP. <:,_ .. ...................... 1[I IG tq Kl(cl lq fcI 21 fO(A(q I 3 }k .�w� .w.�- :..'ph/tE9f19tb1::::::. •. I b O,-; :F/S[YWfsa9,re7 3su'I '•�:: 115 i = ,Z4'`v .... : }(Sz14, •� E5STINQ PARKIN.,I I `D•�) ... ..: TDTAL uuosfum AREA 1 SSs s.F.-12x g .t ��.■ 71 ...DIP0,\•2; I = (Nor INCLUDING s'LANDSCAPE BUFFED) vs-o I S {..r - i� �Q III1I�18 318 11(I 4 :4,E I1 �T — • o i of PARKING(5)SPACES(ON sRa Al' I N i r wo '••- 2 PROPERtt LINEN rF'Iff;':,;(:"" • �`:,y} ap I . _ , • a m • II a I1,c�,� 6.''' !z. SITE PLAN f N 88 450 E 234,42'- PROJECT NOTES: I I ...... EASEMENT LINE PARKMc(B) ACES oN EISENEN 9' F-1 OCCUPANCY STREET OR OPEN SPACE ON ALL♦SIDES OF BUILDING 2ARNW0 BAN DING HFIf.HL PARKING REQUIRED PRIOR TO PROPOSED EXPANSION: ALLOWARIE BU4DWG HflCH(-95 FEET REND FOR UUNDPY:IYiA%11 SPS ACE 1.00 .p FL -22�5�81 ;000•t.5-33 9 SPACES I .I p I I PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT•42 FEET CE of REO'O FOR OFFICE MN 3 SPACE/1,000 a9.fl -2,769/1000•3•8.3 SPACES I ^I �,Ort"E OR A I I m 5ET RACKS. WS 4.5 SPACE/1,000 soil •2,768/1000 a 4.5•12.5 SPACES F1i0MR-011 FEETc11 9010OSO4t770 YIN PARKING REQUIRED•Al31 SPACES SIDE-•0 FEET FEET 14AX PARKING REQUIRED-46 SPACES (a'i1) • . flu of.AREA: TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR EXISTING BUILDING AND EXPANSION: M I EXISTING BNII DINT: N435 REO'0 FOR LAUNDRY:LON 1 SPACE/1,000 24.0. -51,302/1000 K 1•51.3 SPACES I I I EXISTING BUILDING: 2,0568 S.F.SECOND iTDOR LUX 1.5 SPACE/1,0.E4AL •51,302/1000 21.5•77.0 SPACES 25.]55 Si.TOTAL DELIVERY TRUCKS TO PARK ON PROPERTY/ - PROPOSED BUILDING: 2E1,715 1 f]5 S.F.SECOND FLOOR ROOD FOR APACE' 1Y0IN03 SPSPACE/ 000 af4.it. -6,893/1000 A 1.5-31.0 SPACES I PI m I I -- 3E,B10 Si.TOTAL TOT.AR.At (BLUGSJ 58,195 S.F. IONLUX PARKING REQUIREDREQUIRED • 2 SPACES (31 SPACES FOR COST.BLDG..41 SPACES FOR EXPANSION) I I 'oU I I. I w. ow 411m, SPACES SEANCE IINFN PROPFRPI 1 23,988 aa.IL,ZONED CD,OUTSIDE OF ACTUAL PARKING PROVIDED: DOWMOWN CORE AREA CONTAINS THE EXISTING SERVICE LINEN 73 SPACES FOR AUTOS(NOT INCLUDING B SPACES IN EASEMENT) O BUILDING(GROUND FLOOR AREA•22,587•4..) (INCLUDES 4 NEW ON SITE STALLS FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED) I I Z I I no MN Ma tr. DUST B IINFN PROP RIO 8;I6.B68 aQ.Tt.ZONED CO(P7 A RQONE II SPACES FOR TRUCKS MUST BE OBTAINED PRIOR TO OBTAINING A BUILDING R LOCATION OF PARKING FOR AUTOS PROVIDED: I 5 SPACES ON SITE ABJACFNT PROPFRtt EASEMEM l.]80 e43t.ZONED C0(t AN EASEMENT 35 SPACES IN LOT'A•-ACROSS WELLS AVE SOUTH I • /� •10U.mM vEG 19m,Otasu APPROVAL PE REZONE I5I BE OBTAINED PRCR TO OBTANut 30 SPACES IN LOT•B--ACROSS WELLS AVE.SOUTH I I 234.39' I I GD. A BUILDING PERMIT. M REM LANFACAPINGL TOTAL AREA(PROPERTY II h EASEMENT)•7,190 SF.(INCLUDING PAVERS) N 88°23'35•W 240.16' (sl o'1�' TOM AREA OF PROPER',1 I.ly 703355•4.IL I Ic[G 11091A0050017]0 OT AREA OE PROPERtt 0 0 FASEYEM-51,628 34.1E ' :73.818 WIt, x OF PROPERTY W/WIDSCARWG 13.9x SOUTH 5th STREET 1ro9TACOVERAf,EFARlOWE11 FOR PROPOSED RI11101Nf•64x OF I8,868 S.F. L-0._---_-_-_- 60' R.O.W. -_-_-_ --� •3 C 0 P Y_R I G H T • (PROPERtt o)-30,181 S.F. 00MW NOW PER ROTTEN K.KITTRCK//TELEPHONE 1-7-2000uc°�OT•.•• . na .on�ww,e,ei IRIICATCN OF E%ISURG GRADES NOT u WORK.. FASTING GRADES ARE NOT '•^ '41°0'm JOT COVERAGE PRGPoSFO.30,120 Si,(INCLUDES COVERED PORTION ORIGINAL,BUT OCCUR FROM DEYONDON WORK. INt1 -n 1Fx[ Of LOADING DOCK)40.120/N6.ORN•61.9x NORTH - 2000153 3 SITE PLAN M� - TIRE ZONE E1RT flit.S EENF 10 emw vs E TERIORO XW 1ALl S,RNLLY SPR NNLERF D m STRUCTURE WITH NON COYBUSRBLF � m� A-1 0 IS 30 60 90 1••30 MT Ka190AL KDr Wu • • atCHRECNRE 1 ENGINEERING —J PLANNING VVV MANAGEMENT f 701 DEXTER AVE.N. ,'", SEATTLE,WA.98I09 - (206)285-4300 "' O L Y M P I C 0 p p _� _—_— o I ASSOCIATES I L� COMPANY rJ-i z EXISTING LAUNDRY SERVICE AREA • 1 i SERVICE LINEN w� U SUPPLY 1 it [ I _ ______ __,..,_„, 4._________ - __________._,....._ ..„ L—...„.— , EL ° .i I siae®3 J ��/, RIIhGIE/, II I L r 420 WELLS AVE S. I (nil RENTON, WA __9 I_�S——— ABOVE D—FOFFIC STELNL ANT ISEP TE PEM PACE _ _ + — __• II 3 ' ARA A S I • LAU DRY SERVICE AREAII I z I I a extlr .1 4 r— L — — — Q II I 7gil. ,1 —_ T ---_ .„ EXITI —1 _—_ _ I _t____ IL STAR I E1SIT I , ELEV '/1 I r. Ear EfIT FLOOR PLANS ———'——,— — — — :EXIT & SECTION A-A 1st FLOOR PLAN LOADING DOCK 1 — SCALE: 1/16".1•-0' If I I I L. F I TRUCK LOADING I I I —— ——————T EXIT I_,_........,, APPROXIMATE LOCATION I II APPROXIMATE LOCATION I I II APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT � OF ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT l . •cen.0 P j R I C R T• 2000153 MP Mai • IliR ..... °`°u° q_2 SECTION A-A' n,,4„_,,.,, „1....,.,• „„w, SCALE: 1/8".1'-0- . • . • • ARCHITECTURE CREAM COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED PRECAST CONC.LINTEL will.n.''--1!11.11.1.1!,11.1.1:1,!1.1,1.1.1.! CMU WINDOW SILL "ROSE BROWN"SPUT- CMU ACCENT BAND ENGINEERING f- --, PLANNING - METAL SIDING "KHAKI"SPUT-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED CMU BLOCK PRE FINISHED ' MANAGEMENT A ' ' ' N , TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK METAL AWNING . . -.. -, 701 DEXTER AVE.N. 44 -.. -T , ' IIifFir in SEATTLE.WA.98109 ., . . (206)285-4300 &Ad . •:-"'.:•*.:•••••••-....,:•,.....,::.:•.':::;::.../....':•::;-: ..._.,.. . ........, ..., ... .......•,\..,,,•.... . _ ••••• ... , : . ,. • .. , .•.. • ! ..‘.: OLYMPIC#•::.. .,L.'.;„."-*1--'--.'-•,::,\--/- /4:• ..:,- -=-;• .-.. - •- --/;4... --4-..7.7-7.,...,..„..,..„...., . ,.....r.... ,.:,..,,,,.......,._ _ IN. __a.m._-h ASSOCIATES COMPANY . . ..,.... • to •,•. _ . 2- —7.':7.-.':•17.7. --.'7.7..".T.: 7/.7 4111ft :::7./.7...:-J.:.i..:7:,-,-....:..,..:.I •.,•-• ... •—• . ... . - • . • : • , : . .. • ,. NI= /Ain- - - - • - -- --,,,1,-I-.•;•77:-- '7-•-.-..,-::tr- in NI NMI In.= Iml. ,:•!,:•'..1':.-, ?.7 S','+'.'41;i:", .,..-... ,:;::•':,-:.:';:.,'','•':• ;\IRAIII'...: ".:c•• • .3T:-.'...."..' ...--..,...:.:.".''-'- -:.441-V..:'.4" "?.-.'.--... .' SERVICE LINEN . ' -4t--.-t'..Y.''' ' ''''•,'..7.- -7T-. - - SUPPLY 0 _ ,, ...„.,... i... - Ai1.'1:,,MIWAlik .':-:". " [ - -— ' -. - • ...• •• . . . „.,, 4-) .. . . . • w, ',-;?5, tket,k,;:-.,•••: rf /,-,.:-. i I e• _ .. ,_ ., . —..„.:' .. EXISTING&FINISH GRADE--) GREY SZeEIT-FACE CMU WATERTABLE TRELLIS SCREEN '- __- ..- WEST (WELLS AVE.) ELEVATION 420 WELLS AVE. SOUTH BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED RENTON, WA METAL SIDING "ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- -KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE FACE BRICK COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED CmU BLOCK TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK . \ • ....••.•••..... ,..." • . .,. • ...........•„..- •..•••...- .. .,... ... . . . . . . .., . , ........1..:••:......:...._,.:.......-1,.,‘,..,.,.,•-:-...•••••••;..... Ir....:;Y:,1.r.:.•::'.'11:-:::•1:::',.....::',..42,.:',-,'• „...........-•-\ : :"...•." .. .: " .____. ,,", I - --L- - '-',•-:y• -;-, . ,T A, ,,,,,,..:-,...:..-.--...,...,..-'!''''''',",- .:-.,..4.:-,.-...:..,;., i .:,..„:„:.;4....:....:.,::.,...„..::....::::....,.:.!.s.y::„..:::;:: .wd .......:.,_...:,,,.,::::::....,.,,;.:y:.:.-3....,..:,:i„..,.....:.„.,....:,...,.;:..y..:.....,.,::::: ,;..........::::::::......:„ :4z..,:i:•.,....:::.:;:.;:r...y.:::: ::::. .4;', ELEVATIONS 7';1'77''' '-'7'''.10.7"00;77,;7. 0,4,10%4,11e iiklir7:77 :.-Oft.-'0., . •.r.:g•• ••:'.-2., ;:.:47,,, -.-,iti.7,ttiy,f1/ :_...•..,-•:•,•,%,,,,-..,, ••••' ..--•:- ...17-- '•.i";:4,4.A4,4,1f$'',1,/i 4Y.,.%.- .: _.N...g:-;-.--•-,.., ,-,-,,,,4-,,;••, . .t.ft. •••:. • -• EXISTING&FINISH GRADE CREAM COLORED TRANSLUCENT GLASS CMU ACCENT BAND EAST (MAIN AVE.) ELEVATION BLUE PRE FINISHED CORREGATED "KHAKI'SPLIT-FACE ROSE BROWN'SPLIT- BLUE METAL SIDING CREAM COLORED BLUE PRE FINISHED BRICK COLORED FACE BRICK CO,a13.EQ____, .PRE FINISHED CMU ACCENT BAND TUBE STEEL CMU BLOCK CMU BLOCK 1 -1 METAL AWNING \ I 1 I —--'''' i 1 1 ii 1111:111riTi!ill 1 . .......... ....,:... ' ' ' - . ... ',."••'•• <:.•;• ....::.::::: ,..... •''' -----.- 7 ,Ft.•.=--.5..7,'"F".'''T.', .COPYRIGHT. - ...•.,, .• '. Iffm,..`"rn.....74.141=3....."1...r..0..1...m -.,-,-,-,4•1:4-4-4,,..+-k7'. ,, ----'.-.4I-', 4. , ./IL.:.7.,.........„,..,-.4,+-I,•I• ;34.1.-.1..,...-.-=7 : m ' M m m I=1 0 6 •-i= o O o.' C5 .o o o o o o o (.. . EXISTING&FINISH GRADE TRANSLUCENT GLASS METAL DOORS A et LOADING DOCK BLUE PRE FINISHED SOUTH (LOADING DOCK) ELEVATION — — i-a • 11.0.1.1-3-11-1.0 MP SCftli, PM ilt • • } of ARCHITECTURE d I ENGINEERING PLANNING —..- I MANAGEMENT I ■ Tl 701 DEXTER AVE.N.- ' �_ _—115' _—_ _�� j �r 1 I I SEATRE,WA 98109 IQ ' ; I E>I. (206)285-4300 4 j '- Mil --i I 1 II OLYMPIC i I I 1 1�rA I ASSOCIATES _HMV.."c'°P» a) ' I COMPANY LINEN EUILDINO i 1 1 n •ruSSErm(1e)t I ■ I I` I I 1 d,.,:J j0 • SERVICE LINEN I w .o NeS 5 j� 1 • ,:,=10)PROPOSED SERVICE j I . SUPPLY oI 1 I Nn=eLufn,NPERm I .`? °N55 ° LINEN $UILDING °w ,w° .ra Cp to �� oomo.)(0 w j IIII • I420 WELLSAVESO vFRs 3E5.0.E I 049aE u.NI[NSwU(w) ni( I WPM E..�,e On ry�j�'q�j� 1 �� w E ; m WO.(,e) • I NEI eW uaPW(_) I • o a�NE P. iiiilitir ' fnurs59ve HQ_ _t15 .1Nf PMKNf LOT ^ if MIfuSU ( )n w,( 'pww51 IWUC : • i f 4) • a V 0. 4.1 ieNEKTA.own.0) Nelwu i]r—I-- I�- i—P •uRPN •• — ROPE PLANTING LEGEND j uw' —" — O ii55un,Nc EASEMENT LINE • KPET rAk Po SPY. fdt•11t� I •¢R But...PW III " 'If { I CONCEPTUAL ILO Po LANDSCAPE PLAN IN 1 I NoaN.P yaymP�..(')• (IN;r Ki J-- " I POSTING pull DIN(; Ya'+5 ri _ 1 Ne0 f MCAT.5.51E„. I L I NEN I I I I I 7,..190 wmw wi°w.vm v°Rroa a�ivm P�n u,Ei.S) 1 TuC a S.PE°MNERf�.1 EN PNWP LOTSj I! I 1 I I II j j j I I NA j I I I 1I I j ,m ■ Vth sTi NORTH *COP Y 5 1 c H T. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN N , T• i_i_,___,___, to-= z000lss 0 IS ]0 60 90 Li • • • Storm MH ARCHITECTURE Found 3"brass disk in Storm MH ENGINEERING . Crete in case- PLANNING 333 1%11/00 Found 3"Dross disk in South 4th St, MANAGEMENTV \/ c to in case- 701 DEXTER AVE.N. Sewer MH\ "'i.�4 N 88'26'45"W meas. down 0.5' \ 1/11/00 SEATTLE,WA.98109� / • ©1.0 ' 0 300.00'meas.300.15'plots rim ` (206)285-4300 1; � Tsv pnone -"�' CD OLYMPIC 1 N X'. mly Red 1, Do 'Ib Q [^_�® ASSOCIATES S1 Tv pd ® COMPANY • I i w 30' tote.pole I 1 20 I I raffic& w/undgrd drop 30• I street light SERVICE LINEN ❑wm I I pole ° — —— — — -- --1 Is o SUPPLY 2 I 19 E— N ;I ) I s I I gam E I 420 WELLS AVE SOUTH 0 --S JN W SANITARY 18 TV g j RENTON, WA (/) m SERVICE f 1 -1of LoNe 3 I • j ,..._ale _ ---_.- - --__---_ —W--NEW WATER SERVICE 17 To I Q C .NEW GAS 4 __cii SERVICE 3 I� 1 City ol"Renton cn I `�� vi I/Easement for Roodwoy • --��;' N 1 c � __—_- o� ry Rec.g19990929001173 I u� I D\•��--_ OS -_..on ® I (5'x10") �I.i I — L 0 T 1 0� eN.,,i pa 5 1o`N 16 a I II 1 - � n� - ------ ----- Ul J. 6 16 75 a . City of Renton ix 0) o d—+�3t f2031' rLot Line i Easement for Roadway \ pole 1j)ifI( Rec. 19990929001173 Q GENERALIZED wires o m UTILITIES PLAN S 88'24'S0'E rb� E so a }T _ 234.42' ..p ,' tele. I --7--- Easement line '"----------i 4------ m vault I Concrete r. I --- —� _---_-- curbing @ w '^ Storm Drain . A E _ I - --- La Storm • o N $ I 13 City of Renton Easement for z roadway Rec.b1999100597005007770 • --- 9 12 e... ".>e --- -------- - I NORTH 30' 30' I 10 LOT 2 1 11 10.K 25'Puget Sound Energy easement Rec.#9807060543 Itt- 234,r39 -City of Renton Easement for ..e0 P..p �", N 8823'35"W4`• roadway(5.10) _ , 240.16' 1 Rec.y19991005001770 osr-amoe aura � 2000153` w, South 5th St. T Found lock in lead GRAPHIC SCALE Found 2-1/4"brass disk S 88'23'35"E meas. 300.17'meas.300.16'Plat 1/11/00 in case- 0-1.-.1-1" 't tx rent, in cone.in case- t ' n. '"°°t° �— Elevation datum per City of Renton Benchmark#2123 ikn•m f CITY (; j� .RENTON ..LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 1, 2001 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on January 30, 2001: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA , ` The project calls for site plamapproval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property:is Center Downtown (CD)and Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P"suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the.underlying parcelsiof:the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well'.as two`off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will_'also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south';which is not`requiredparking for the proposed expansion. Location: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8.-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee,jitil Steve Taylor Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe(Ordinance) US Army Corp. of Engineers ageecyltr\ 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 0 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and W IAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also:improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South;. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Cromer, Inc.' dated May 1, 2000, with regard to any site disturbance, preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The.,Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m.to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131;SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment,is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South • Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only,,they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations: ....::. :.:::. _. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow;:is 5500 GPM, one,hydrant is required with in:150 feet of the structure and five additional hydrants are required 300 feet of the structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$17;180'is required based on $.52 per square'foot of the building square footage. Credit may be given for thedemolished buildings.at the same rate. 3. Separate plans and permit are,required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals used or stored on site. PLAN REVIEW WATER • 1. The System Development Charge shall be $ 7,392.00. (The rate is $0.154 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. A redevelopment credit will apply for existing water service connections. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,500 gpm. In order to attain these flows, a looped system linking the facilities on Wells to Main Avenue will be required. One hydrant is required to be within 150 feet and five to be within 300 feet of the building. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Stortz"quick disconnect"fittings. 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. Applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation. Bales Commercial Center LUA-01-009,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 4. Building exceeds 30 feet in height. A backflow device must be installed on domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) will be $5,088.00 (the rate is $0.106 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge has been paid in full. No additional fee is owed. 2. Applicant must provide water quality treatment fort the new impervious surface area subject to vehicular travel and show connection to the City's storm drainage system. No detention calculations are required for this project. 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. TRANSPORTATION 1. Travel lanes on Wells Avenue S."should be realigned;-and curb cuts replaced as a condition of site plan approval. 2. Sidewalks, curb &gutter,storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to'the Renton'Drafting Standards. 2. All required utility, drainage and,street-;improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City_of Renton drafting standards by a;licensed Civil Engineer. . 3. Separate permits for side sewers, driveway cuts, water-meters and backflow device will be required. When plans are complete three. "copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall besubmitted at the sixth floor counter. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266;,for afee estimate generated by the permit system. 4. Separate permit to cut and cap of existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. PLANNING 1. The subject site is designated Center Downtown (CD) zone. The project is subject to all development standards for this zone. 2. Project requires a public hearing for site plan approval. • 3. The site is located within the City Center Sign Regulation Area. ADVISORYNOTES N CITY 1 '+ RENTON „L Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator February 1,2001 Mr. Randy Barber Olympic Associates Company 701 Dexter Avenue North#301 Seattle,WA 98109 SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion Project No. LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA Dear Mr. Barber: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental"Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject, project. The ERC, on January 30, 2001, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of the environmental;determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00..application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City'Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. • A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 27, 2001 at 9:00 AM.to consider the proposed Site Plan and Rezone. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to-do so. If you have any questions or desire - clarification of the above, please call me at(425)430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, * 4ita 4637 Steve Taylor Senior Planner cc: SEDLLC/Owner W IAA/Owner Olympic Associates Co. Enclosure dnsmlotter 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer V CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and W IAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as"two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will elk) improve'an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: ` 408&420 Wells Avenue South:;, MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Crowser,. Inc.',,dated, "May 1, 2000, with':regard,-;:to any site disturbance, preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the ;.appropriate'Fire,.Mitigation; Fee::equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The-Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic"Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. . 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided'in'conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information"-only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental'determinations FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5500'GPM, one hydrant is required with in 150 feet of the structure and five additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$17,160 is required based on $.52 per square,,foot of the building square footage. Credit may be given forthe"demolished buildings At the same rate. -3.. Separate plans and permit are, required'for the installation of-the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible`liquids and any hazardous chemicals.used or stored on site. PLAN REVIEW WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be $ 7,392.00. (The rate is $0.154 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. A redevelopment credit will apply for existing water service connections. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,500 gpm. In order to attain these flows, a looped system linking the facilities on Wells to Main Avenue will be required. One hydrant is required to be within 150.feet and five to be within 300 feet of the building. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Stortz"quick disconnect"fittings. 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. Applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation. J ' Bales Commercial Center LUA-01-009,SA-A,ECF Advisory Notes(continued) Page 2 of 2 4. Building exceeds 30 feet in height. A backflow device must be installed on domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) will be $5,088.00 (the rate is $0.106 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge has been paid in full. No additional fee is owed. 2. Applicant must provide water quality treatment fort the new impervious surface area subject to vehicular travel and show connection to the City's storm drainage system. No detention calculations are required for this project. 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. TRANSPORTATION 1. Travel lanes on Wells Avenue.S. should be realigned and curb cuts replaced as a condition of site plan approval. 2. Sidewalks, curb&gutter,`:storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the.Renton Drafting Standards. 2. All required utility, drainage an& street..improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City"ofRenton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, driveway cuts, water meters and backflow device will be required. When plans are complete,three.copies .of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266.for a fee estimate generated by the permit system. 4. Separate permit to cut and cap of existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. PLANNING 1. The subject site is designated Center Downtown (CD) zone. The project is subject to all development standards for this zone. 2. Project requires a public hearing for site plan approval. 3. The site is located within the City Center Sign Regulation Area. ADVISORYNOTES i ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION & PUBLIC HEARING POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P"suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at • on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. Location: 408&420 Wells Avenue South. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner at his regular meeting in the Council Chambers on the 7th floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on February 27, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed site plan and rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed,the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. l riE ®• wa I1D" it Its 3r11e_. ---1117E1 a ura ylu Em 1l N aN . -.:,..:,,,,,,„„Ni rank .rim 1!4➢M17![ .!•cID4i S11ra r° C✓„Le /lr:e r'��J,�7tltl W rEyi xMM �(1yy 1MS FiQC dS ]]1R, 4f1 +�'�x 4+G7 y f�'�•c,• SERVICE LINEN �QIu�7 !I''�t7N�• :/:Ir1QMR 7�ICIR '�llfk� !1' /(��j•,�.a�7 1 '1 Q SUPPLY I C'-7 '=, UR 1s E if m _h r-VE ,fir gaitFfr; a i- © 4 -- .,..aH.. -- !, , b �y t.�l.liar ar.-- I LAB �, sr a .. r . W sT • L" �_ W( =Y �.r6y a�u cu ,1CJ r ..,, k rlonr? �\ a .y Q IC �X* 1 F LC 116[rI 11i1 s. 1r1n — }r �'M{.Sj 1 >�E �" IRY7 E us.z I. ia'i Ie B • ( �f r�l� 1Zgf1 A� Laa [ .c Q Ir-Is 1�1�3.d� 1 1 ,� ,-- NEIGHBORHOOD rl 1`4S�[' Y c • m rE V 11+ �1S1wo Q10 DEL,MAR I 'i1:1 M.' I31 ,11L�LUan3 l AVu I 1CV `+L\ +.a PJMt IEEr_7- �_10►:►1 ��,p,% : ICE =.OQ Tao . LLl r7P. EPt %rmi'%E m M Elk O7 c 1+✓}.I^� . f�Er.[ `;rsRS1 ® � +�1}'�I 3' i »pp��, �+� ,.• 1,_ N u S ¢L.a 0 ®'?.f�.*1 �t'� of T l 1 l-Eyaql] O n ' L M . C �l Z Yf.3 A S ° U Iv[ tO 7.7►.� 'YEW II✓OL'r slfif"! Crlr{ P*E]� 11_.` ALL QR:h�� ..-1L�F'.i�'ILZ.i� P�'t. -L�S� Y sr FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION ' Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. I I \ NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON • The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA Environmental review for expansion of commercial laundry facility. Location: 408 & 420 Wells Ave. So. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers, City Hall, on February 27, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed site plan and rezone. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing. Publication Date: February 5, 2001 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P"suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south, which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19, 2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: February 5, 2001 DATE OF DECISION: January 30, 2001 SIGNATURES: Z e 2 ifie/0/ Greggim er an, sor DAT De artmen of lar$fn /Building/Public Works P 9 //3CVG( J m Shepher , Admi istrator6 DAT community Services Lee h e7er;Fire Chie/4/17stet DATE Renton Fire Department dnsmsig CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. dated May 1, 2000, with regard to any site disturbance, preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. MITMEASURES CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,LLA,ECF APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) PROJECT NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 408 &420 Wells Avenue South Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5500 GPM, one hydrant is required with in 150 feet of the structure and five additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$17,160 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. Credit may be given for the demolished buildings at the same rate. 3. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals used or stored on site. PLAN REVIEW WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be $ 7,392.00. (The rate is $0.154 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. A redevelopment credit will apply for existing water service connections. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,500 gpm. In order to attain these flows, a looped system linking the facilities on Wells to Main Avenue will be required. One hydrant is required to be within 150 feet and five to be within 300 feet of the building. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Stortz"quick disconnect"fittings. 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. Applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation. Service Linen Expansion LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA Advisory Notes (continued) Page 2 of 2 4. Building exceeds 30 feet in height. A backflow device must be installed on domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) will be $5,088.00 (the rate is $0.106 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge has been paid in full. No additional fee is owed. 2. Applicant must provide water quality treatment fort the new impervious surface area subject to vehicular travel and show connection to the City's storm drainage system. No detention calculations are required for this project. 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. TRANSPORTATION 1. Travel lanes on Wells Avenue S. should be realigned and curb cuts replaced as a condition of site plan approval. 2. Sidewalks, curb &gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, driveway cuts, water meters and backflow device will be required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate generated by the permit system. 4. Separate permit to cut and cap of existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. PLANNING 1. The subject site is designated Center Downtown (CD) zone. The project is subject to all development standards for this zone. 2. Project requires a public hearing for site plan approval. 3. The site is located within the City Center Sign Regulation Area. ADVISORYNOTES STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE January 30, 2001 Project Name Service Linen Expansion Property Owners SED Real Estate, LLC and Washington Interscholastic Activities Association (WIAA) Applicant Olympic Associates Company, (Randy Barber) 701 Dexter Avenue North,#301 Seattle, WA 98109 File Number LUA-00-131, SA-H, R, Project Manager Steve Taylor ECF, LLA Project Description The project calls for site plan approval for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown (CD) and Center Downtown Public (CD-P). The project includes a rezone proposal to remove the "P" suffix, Public zoning designation from both the Service Linen and WIAA properties. A lot line adjustment is proposed to consolidate the underlying parcels of the Service Linen expansion area. Required parking is proposed at on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south, which is not required parking for the proposed expansion. Project Location Existing Service Linen Facility 903 South 4th Street Service Linen Expansion Area 408 &420 Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot A SW corner of 4th Street and Wells Avenue South Service Linen Parking Lot B 400 block Williams Avenue South (east side) WIAA Property(rezone) 435 Main Avenue South Exist. Bldg. Area gsf 22,380—sf (4300-sf. house and Proposed Service Linen metal building to be removed) New Bldg. Expansion 33,000-sf Area gsf Site Area Expansion area: Total 52,380-sf 46,868-sf Building Rezone area: Area gsf 87,718-sf. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated. ERCRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PW Department Environmer,La,Review Committee Staff Report SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA REPORT OF JANUARY 30,2001 Page 2 of 6 B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF X DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. X Issue DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. dated May 1, 2000, with regard to any site disturbance, preparation, or development activities. 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of $75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. The required mitigation shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 5. Future improvements, in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. FIRE 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5500 GPM, one hydrant is required with in 150 feet of the structure and five additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structures. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$17,160 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. Credit may be given for the demolished buildings at the same rate. 3. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals used or stored on site. PLAN REVIEW WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be$7,392.00. (The rate is $0.154 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. A redevelopment credit will apply for existing water service connections. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,500 gpm. In order to attain these flows, a looped system linking the facilities on Wells to Main Avenue will be required. One hydrant is required to be within 150 feet and five to be within 300 feet of the building. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Stortz"quick disconnect"fittings. ERCRPT.doc City of Renton F/B/PW Department Environmenwi Review Committee Staff Report SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA REPORT OF JANUARY 30,2001 Page 3 of 6 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. Applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation. 4. Building exceeds 30 feet in height. A backflow device must be installed on domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. The Sewer System Development Charge (SDC)will be$5,088.00 (the rate is $0.106 x total square foot of property). This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge has been paid in full. No additional fee is owed. 2. Applicant must provide water quality treatment fort the new impervious surface area subject to vehicular travel and show connection to the City's storm drainage system. No detention calculations are required for this project. 3. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. TRANSPORTATION 1. Travel lanes on Wells Avenue S. should be realigned and curb cuts replaced as a condition of site plan approval. 2. Sidewalks, curb &gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, driveway cuts,water meters and backflow device will be required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate generated by the permit system. 4. Separate permit to cut and cap of existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. PLANNING 1. The subject site is designated Center Downtown (CD) zone. The project is subject to all development standards for this zone. 2. Project requires a public hearing for site plan approval. 3. The site is located within the City Center Sign Regulation Area. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. No environmental impacts are anticipated with either the rezone or the lot line adjustment(extinguishing interior lot lines on the site). The following impacts are related to the proposed expansion and modifications to the existing off-site parking areas. ERCRPT.doc City of Renton F/B/PW Department Environmenta,review Committee Staff Report SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA REPORT OF JANUARY 30,2001 Page 4 of 6 1. Earth Impacts: The site was graded fairly level following the demolition of the Henry Ford School that occupied the site prior to 2000. An estimated 1,500 cubic yards of structural fill is required for building foundations and to bring grades up to the level of surrounding streets. Hart Crowser, Inc conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Design Study and the report dated May 1, 2000 was submitted for review. Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling four borings at various locations. The site is underlain with loose to medium dense silty sands in the upper 20 feet, with dense sands and gravels below. The water table elevation was observed between 19-22 feet below the ground elevation at the time of the soil borings. The risk of liquefaction is considered low to medium, and settlements are expected to be approximately one-inch. The report indicates that the proposed development can be constructed generally as planned. Building support may be provided using continuous and isolated spread footings founded on structural fill. Potential impacts that could occur during site preparation and construction would largely be mitigated by City Code requirements for a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) and a Construction Mitigation Plan. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report prepared by Hart Crowser, Inc. , dated May 1, 2000,with regard to any site disturbance, preparation, or development activities. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance(SEPA) 2. Surface Water Impacts: Stormwater from the developed site would be directed to the storm drainage system in Wells and Main Avenues South to SW 7th Street and subsequently to Springbrook Creek. New stormwater facilities are scheduled for installation in Wells Avenue South during the second quarter of 2001. Since total impervious area will be less than the previous school, no significant adverse impacts to the downstream system are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are recommended. Nexus: N/A 3. Fire Services Impacts: The proposal site is located within the Renton Fire Department service area. Preliminary review indicates fire standards would require a fire flow of 5,500 GPM for the proposed structure. The proposal would add new construction to the City and would impact the Fire Department's ability to provide service. To offset this additional obligation, a Fire Mitigation Fee should apply to all new construction at a rate of $.52 per square foot of building square footage. An estimated fee of $17,160 would be applied to this project based on 33,000-sf new construction. Credit may be given for demolished buildings. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee equal to $.52 per square foot of new building square footage. The Fire Mitigation Fee is payable prior to issuance of the building permit. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance, Environmental Review(SEPA) ERCRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PWbepartment Environments.,:zview Committee Staff Report SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA REPORT OF JANUARY 30,2001 Page 5 of 6 4. Transportation Impacts: As proposed, the new structure would be accessed from Wells Avenue South and vehicles could exit the site to either Wells or Main Avenues. Currently delivery trucks are loaded on Wells Avenue South where a portion of the street is designated for loading. Under the proposed expansion, all vehicle loading would take place on-site at one of six new loading bays. For vehicular safety, the travel lanes on Wells Avenue should be realigned and the curb cuts in the existing loading area replaced with curb where needed. This will also allow street parking to be reestablished in this area. The expansion, which more than doubles the size of the existing structure creates the capacity for operational increases in the future and is anticipated to create jobs for 10 additional workers. This would result in an increase in traffic trips on the local street system and therefore is subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. To offset the impacts to the City's transportation facilities, a Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per average daily trip attributable to the project. Credit for the both the demolished single family house and the Henry Ford School were applied. The estimated traffic impact fee is $7,875. Parking is provided both on-site and at two off-site lots. City code requires 72 parking stalls be provided. The applicant is proposing 73 car stalls, plus 11 truck stalls. Additionally, the applicant is proposing that 8 additional joint use parking spaces be provided on the WIAA property. Although not required of this project, it will help the WIAA facility that is currently under parked. The laundry utilizes a fleet of approximately 21 to 23 trucks for delivery. Approximately 10 trucks will be parked onsite in the evening ready for loading the next day. The remainer of the trucks are parked in the two off-site parking lots and moved to the loading dock when needed. Truck hauling hours are limited to between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. under the Development Guidelines Ordinance in order to avoid conflicts with peak hour traffic. The Traffic Planning Section will review construction-related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall be required to pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee of$75 for each average daily trip associated with the project. This fee is payable prior to issuance of building permits. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting Ordinance, Environmental Ordinance (SEPA) 5. Noise Neighbors located in the residential area west of Wells Avenues South have expressed concerns regarding the proposed expansion. They state that the laundry is creating impacts at this time and has been the subject of several noise complaints. Their concern is that the laundry is expanding to the south bringing noise and truck traffic closer to the residential areas located on the west side of Wells Avenue South. The new structure will house areas for sorting, folding and loading. The loading dock is located at the rear of the structure. A screening wall is proposed to shield this area from Wells Avenue S. Although the structure is located further south, the new operational areas are fully enclosed. The actual washing/drying facilities are to remain in the existing building. The laundry currently operates two shifts that fluctuate with the seasonal demand. The first shift contains approximately 55-60 personnel from 5 a.m.to 1:30 p.m. The second shift,when needed, has approximately 15-25 personnel and operates from 1:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. Currently, the noisiest equipment(boilers,washing/drying) is located in the existing structure. But future tenant improvements involving supplemental equipment may result in noise impacts not evaluated under this proposal. Additional noise generators of this nature would trigger additional and separate environmental review. Up to 10 trucks will be parked in the loading dock area each night. These trucks will be loaded first to delay the need for additional trucks,with backup beepers, operating in the early morning hours. Due to the probable noise impacts to the adjacent residential areas from the effects of backup alarms, it is recommended that trucks are equipped with ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the alarm level to surrounding decibel levels. Additional review of access and circulation issues will take place during site plan approval. ERCRPT.doc City of Renton P/B/PIN Department Environmei,Ea.--,review Committee Staff Report SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA REPORT OF JANUARY 30,2001 Page 6 of 6 Mitigation Measures: 1. All trucks used at this site between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. shall be equipped with the least obtrusive OSHA approved ambient sensitive backup alarms that limit the sound produced to the decibel level of the surrounding area. 2. Future improvements in the expansion area which result in the addition of noise generating mechanical equipment shall be subject to separate and additional environmental review. Nexus: Environmental Ordinance(SEPA) E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental/Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM February 19,2001. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. c ue ed: red.° Ex - _q'► j-- ,. D 4 �, � I� — NA �2K� �IhM{IZ ��, - �'It(�17lVL7R rAs CEN ma S6 tv -, d Y y{}�pry �yl�r �� om•' iOICR 9ND�cR �ti J�� I IN 11R N7 '+ ! E� 1E4➢17![NY14A9tLN Y11.�1 cY/i, E... ! �'` SZ i �57. ,., �P7I�jy`., ItyY .M N Llfll� No: EL y'� ,Id`a'� ,- SERVICE LINEN ,��4Y7 ll-7n. y.LPN 1'q WANE 7RI }'� �J aA� �I E ,O SUPPLY Ta IA9 yT 7 i.A 9'�-a[RIR 0�'i...�C ,t %Q'�' y m .® • C ,_c1 a t�c l ru 7 p pR 61 AZ\ ci t }t9 . .,.. .E.roa.. .,.., Fn tR» ary _ ,,: Nogg al, 1!,90 ®. '- VI:" F '' 5T ". ii 2�'ev . ,¢¢�I Ps€ p- slA.a ca spa LI ncrec 7, reO1F^ ,� - - E' Lb' �.., d ip¢i ••CIF.. S / �1 Q m m ' - 'nr� __ .\\ CIF '— y r,� al I s.:i ...z._.3 kj Z . II //' ,�7� a��'�rI 1 J r.1 Ell I J''�tl ®J9 2 NEIGHBORHOODMAP nFlf`.S� , E IT13 lc mi F L79a1,. DETAIL MAP I• il6.1 .iRom.'. rA IW altar' .. � a . s 37 rST d lSfaH a WM n /.0i I EI ate' ou m a, Y , ,qF7!]� 3��_ .-. .i AMC>!a mcr rter ' Iwo o' , ,R G 11 .- - _. iM o .,,W-'T2.Ii e,l; WI WI -. . CI 0$ I.•••! = /1L CM � T.PLiIiZ.i ylP rp i + @ jp,ieg Am ., :i", ,... .1. ERCRPT.doc CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 22, 2001 TO: Steve Taylor FROM: Jan Illian X7216 SUBJECT: SERVICE LINEN LUA 00-131 Corner of Main Ave South and South 2"d Street I have reviewed the application for Service Linen at 901 S. 4' Street the and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER 10-inch water main in Wells Ave S and 14-inch and 16-inch water main in Main Ave S. Pressure zone 196. Within Aquifer Protection Zone 1. Fire flow available (derated) 2,500—6,000 gpm. Static Pressure is 65 psi. SEWER 8-inch sewer main in Wells Ave S. and 8-inch sewer main in Main Ave S. STORM Storm facilities are in Main Ave S. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. The System Development Charge shall be $ 7,392.00. (The rate is $0.154 x total square foot of property) This fee is payable with the construction permit. A redevelopment credit will apply for existing water service connections. 2. Preliminary fire flow is 5,500 gpm. One hydrant is required to be within 150 feet and five to be within 300 feet of the building. Existing hydrants will be required to be retrofitted with Stortz "quick disconnect" fittings. 3. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. Applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing location and installation. 4. Building exceeds 30 feet in height. A backflow device must be installed on domestic water meter. SANITARY SEWER 1. The System Development Charge shall be $5,088.00. (The rate is $0.106 x total square foot of property) This fee is payable with the construction permit. SURFACE WATER 1. The System Development Charge has been paid in full. No additional fee is owed. 2. Applicant must provide water quality treatment for the new impervious surface area, subject to vehicular travel and show connection to the City's storm drainage system. No detention calculations are required for this project. TRANSPORTATION 1. No additional traffic mitigation fees are required for this expansion. 2. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm and street lighting will be required if not already in place. PLAN REVIEW -GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards 2. All required utility, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 3. Separate permits for side sewers, water meters and backflow device are required. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 4. Separate permit to cut and cap existing utilities to existing structures on site will be required as part of the demolition permit. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of the project. 2. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance and proper removal of the erosion control facilities is required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 3. A construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. Haul hours shall be restricted to 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. unless approved in advance by the Development Services Division. cc:Kayren Kittrick PRO TY SERVICES FEE REVIEW #2001 - ® DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ❑ PLAN REVIEW ROUTING SLIP ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET ❑ OTHER APPLICANT: SE'R(Jt CE G/NC/1/ RECEIVED FROM 01 o/ JOB ADDRESS: '/36- r 4,91/./ 4 dES WO# (date) NATURE OF WORK: cK PA-yUS/ON GREEN#_ a SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES APPLIED NEED MORE INFORMATION: 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ❑ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONNECTION FEES ESTIMATED 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 VICINITY MAP ❑ NOT APPROVED FOR APPLICATION OF FEES ❑ FRONT FOOTAGE 0 OTHER ❑ VESTED 0 NOT VESTED O This fee review supersedes and cancels fee review# dated ❑ PARENT PID#(subject to change)_ SUBJECT PROPERTY PID# 723/S-0—/370e /373 ❑ King Co.Tax Acct#(new) It is the intent of this development fee analysis to put the developer/owner on notice,that the fees quoted below may be applicable to the subject site upon development of the property. All quoted fees are potential charges that may be due and payable at the time the construction permit is issued to install the on-site and off-site improvements(i.e.underground utilities,street improvements,etc.) Triggering mechanisms for the SDC fees will be based on current City ordinances and determined by the applicable Utility Section. Please note that these fees are subject to change without notice. Final fees will be based on rates in effect at time of Building Permit/Construction Permit application. The following quoted fees do NOT include inspection fees,side sewer permits,r/w permit fees or the cost of water meters. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT PARCEL METHOD OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS — NO. NO. ASSESSMENT UNITS OR FEE Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)WASTEWATER Latecomer Agreement(pvt)OTHER Special Assessment District/WATER Special Assessment District/WASTEWATER Joint Use Agreement(METRO) Local Improvement District Traffic Benefit Zones $75.00 PER TRIP, CALCULATED BY TRANSPORTATION FUTURE OBLIGATIONS SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WATER #OF UNITS/ SDC FEE _0 Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd(Ltd Exemption) VI Never Pd SQ.FTG. Single family residential$1,105/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$885/unit in park Apartment, Condo$665/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.154/sq. ft. of property(not less than$1105.00)X 4' ? DO 0 £7/ 392 •DO Boeing,by Special Agreement/Footprint of Bldg plus 15 ft perimeter(2,800 GPM threshold) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-WASTEWATER ❑ Pd Prey. 0 Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) ■ Never Pd Single family residential dwelling unit$760/unit x Mobile home dwelling unit$610/unit x Apartment, Condo$455/unit not in CD or COR zones x Commercial/Industrial, $0.106/sq. ft. of property (not less than$760.00)X L/f'000 c S; U 8$ . D O REDEVELOPMENT CREDIT: (New-Old Flow)/New Flow X Above Fees Sip 4 7 AAA SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE-SURFACEWATER 0 Pd Prey. ❑ Partially Pd (Ltd Exemption) # Never Pd Single family residential and mobile home dwelling unit$525/unit x All other properties$0.183/sq ft of new impervious area of property x t/&"141 (not less than$525.00) /MPERV S — O — PRELIMINARY TOTAL $ /2) y gD.O 0 'j-•- '//4/ #LESS J DEiVEGopsy,+ it o Signature of Reviewing Authority ept. DATE �D�r A/ 0 *If subject property is within an LID, it is developers responsibility to check with the Finance Dept. Gfor paid/un-paid status. **The square footage figures used are taken from the King County Assessor's map and are approximate only. EFFECTIVE January 4,2001 m Q C N- m 0 • City of Renron Department of Planning/Building/Public Works • ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:pL Ri 4ltu)--Warty OMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 C�O� p APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 JAN 1 2007 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South eilILI °d vt.4 u1 VI�S/ SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. ON SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water _Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation • Environmental Health _Public Services • Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature •ri'rector or Authorized Representative Date Routing / Rev.10/93 • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: S, , „ ,®I W�teu tI COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,200C� OF be. APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor hfIrrI"° PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 JI •LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South kith 1) �ja� SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities 'Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS —"At- • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where ad' bnai information is needed to properly assess this proposal. dr 1 / 23/0 Signature ."'d irector or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10193 • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: MtSt, Orl"..azt►011 COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor C, PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 ,-",, RWN' ''',� ON AV 420 Wells Avenue South , 9 S �..... ?00 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commerLi6k! tjgdry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to rem P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is propo caoll site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health P• ublic Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation • Airport Environment • 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS je, � � We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additio information is needed to properly assess this proposal. //23/d/ Signature of D' for or Au orized R resentative Date Routing Rev.10/93 jr &C).et :...:. - • . l®J O . _ ' r� -NT }'}:•rr'•i-S::a:.. ..,... ::..r..v .................................:.....?•}'a: ....}.n.::.....v: .v�.vx.:wr....r •vx••v:vv-:•-••v n a;.}'.}:vi•:i•}}:{:?:ii.4:,;:•v{f}y:-u.::;. ..v{vv+•:.{?:•vvs�::s{:r}.,v,r.:::.Ti:::R-{.. Y.?{i•}:vvi}}}:•:i-}}:�.}':•T:3:{ry.T'f}:•}}::{}' .r.3}...v}..... ..}:sn\n...nn.....r{v...:: ..::} . .is•:::.:Y.;;}:;:::x:.}...ev;,.rrv.:. .. ..r{r.rr,:r.:{.:F,....{:...:}.....?r.r}.v........v.vv.....fv}':...n:�v:-::::v.�;}:{..r..........,y....,v.{r.:p..v...s.k\;.:},,}r.::$?->:}'}•nr?v:n•4•�{v:.v{}:{}�•:�•{:r};{:.,.}•y^vk,••v0 •yy .�:;'in::•'•::;{:rn>:i>:?`;A/.t;:4,{. ;- .vv, { •...;A}n2'}2}3{ ::,.,5,;:�M,,;•.{ ::..��. ,f`�. r�. ,. ..�T. ...RTA`�`l.�N::::: � � � :'tQN:::.L•+:. i.�<:2.r. .:f::.:{:'.--v..r,.,:. xr�i•::••x}::{r! •:!\::.::v:}}.v'i•:•. rf}.fT::::•:•r• •:>.:}•$i•::r: rn£?si.••Y w:h}i}.....:lv...r..lf:........ vn:%:}'f....v...... .s.".'....v vy 4 .v •. ... v..' ... �.vn r.::.::....x:n.::{v.}}.}}}'Sir:.vn.':v.':x:..'•}}::r}T}:^T:f:}}}.-rn:v:::r.::{{nv.:,..xv:x:x:.,$�sr::x{•}:G•l.••}}Y%•}}}:fsr:ffv:•Y.•}n.. 'T:•}:^:fri Project Name 5E2NICE LINE14 Project Address c\0 '3 5. 3 r A Contact Person iodoiJy ZREtSE ? Address 701 'becrele ./ AV KI #3o/ 6EI477ZE t'J4 Phone Number 2010- 285- -/300 Permit Number 1..oPc 00 - 131 Project Description 33,o00 f A&)iTlalt) 7D aU,S77 CoMM il11G L Way /Alt w1 S betioLmoN OF / &,UGE F4 f/G/ . 3,Q1W S F OF 1kte►.Atl Met aAi sat-Doc... QIs172-1 T `4D►2 S1bR444E wag Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: idv+n ENTIo►J ❑ Residential ITE Trip Generation Manual ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study ‘S►.'GriAL. LSD 1NusA-1 ,1 Non-retail 0 Other• Caton P� 'l9 Calculation: L0,97 --mTs to000 33 X to,`11 = Z 30 -i-Rkrs • Cctsb"s 1 5C12 Cry 104A'‘ Cz‘o s%6e-.m SL ? +tr' s 23,3ou`6 WISE/ bFFtct✓S C rG G44^6e00 .4.1t4 23.3 X q.9b=`15.S7) 41.Ste + 1%5,5'7=42. , tb-rut_ 230-. 125 = tOS TrzkV'S \OS Xg15 =' -7875, oa Transportation Mitigation Fee: 46 1e`7S• 0-® 1 Calculated by: •K. K� Date: 1/30 2•c701 Account Number: 1 Date of Payment City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: FA rG rrre uttAtf(TV\ COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JAN 00 p n nq :\ APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Ste r [I V PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 7877 I j LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South ` JAN — ZUUI ` SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 3 ,000 q.ft.CITY GF iii�dTOP� SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Sery e Linen cblizenrgabBIAM facil' . • . Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a a o remove a"P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth I Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare . Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services , • Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet a � g �- ac iSo4/B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /ty C. CODE-RELATED COMMENT it, A, 4, Cee a Udiofitent We ha e reviewed this application j ith particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas here additional' format,.'j. needed to properly assess this proposal. bt/Alf2=c, .- .4.4 Sl tune of Director or Authonze. Re resentative Date Ro ng Rev.10/93 �Y �. O ® , CITY OF RENTON 4?t, re FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 10, 2001 TO: Steve Taylor, Senior Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal (1 SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion, 420 Wells Av. S MITIGATION ITEMS; 1. A fire mitigation fee of$17,160.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the new square footage. Credit may be given for the demolished building at the same rate. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and five additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of the sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemical to be used or stored on site. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Cityof Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public I P ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: (moo`tce• COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P,, suffix, Public zoning designation, and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services ✓ _ Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation _ Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet • 7 if aJ tea B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. cc d• / Signature of Director or Auth rid Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: yuauv, Sew Ice& COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 0/4. APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor . REjyr el PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 08 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South 8Lip 2Opi SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. fvd6r SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial launc}��cility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water _Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMEN6 } 1ta, G- 1 9 91 e� . ; b v 1 t of i v', c o cd, e in e ff ec� C cns+ruc1 ow +%ip IVa I )ow aJ(e. a�ca , -F ;� � wal � d:s-lar►ce �a prcpqer41 1:'4a j Sc'C skeold be c.lar:-eicd . QR [°cc'n1I»end a .--o T a ) Sv t L-5 2 eo s(no.-) lcL bt" rro <<o wec4 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. (I P'/a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 S61/%1 ai City of Re..._.. Department of Planning/Building/Public b ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Fyoreg4.1 S�vVIC,CB COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8, 2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 it^ LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South l.►�i1/ 0 SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. JAN 9 sq.ft. C/T 2u/J,f U77fOh SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft. expansion of the existing Service Linen comm�fb}a facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone propos 6Avgove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation, and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS 5t1 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • CITY OF RENTON PLANNINGBUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: January 19, 2001 TO: Steve Taylor FROM: Sonja J. Fesser `c SUBJECT: Service Linen Lot Line Adjustment,LUA-00-131,LLA Format and Legal Description Review Bob Mac Onie and I have reviewed the above referenced lot line adjustment submittal and have the following comments: Comments for the Applicant: Note the City of Renton land use action number and record number,LUA-00-131-LLA and LND- 30-0224, respectively, on the drawing in the spaces already provided. Provide a second tie to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. City records indicate that the taxpayer of record for Lot 3 in Block 16 of the Town of Renton plat is David and Camille Jassny. The taxpayer of record for the other lots involved in the subject lot line adjustment(Lots 4-6 and 15-18) is SED LLC. All vested owners of record must sign the lot line adjustment document, with accompanying notary signatures. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lot. On the final drawing submittal, remove all references to items not directly impacting the lot line adjustment. The address for the new lot is 420 Wells Avenue South. Note this address on the drawing. Note that the"Building"and "Metal Building" are to be removed. The"Aquifer Protection Notice"block should be removed from the drawing, since the subject property does not fall within the boundaries of the Aquifer Protection Area. Note that if there are easements, restrictive covenants or agreements to and between others as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the lot line adjustment. The drawing and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The lot line adjustment shall have the first recording number. The recording number(s)for the associated document(s)will be referenced on the lot line adjustment in the appropriate location(s). \H:\FI LE.S YS\LND\3 0\0224\RV 010112.d o c January 12, 2001 Page 2 Comments to the Project Manager: Sheet A-1 of the Site Plan for the proposed expansion shows a new two-way driveway(to Wells Avenue South) plus eight parking spaces over a portion of the WIAA property to the south of the Linen Service property. Is the proposed easement between Service Linen and WIAA a requirement of this lot line adjustment? If so,the last paragraph noted above applies. Fee Review Comments: Lots within or affected by the lot line adjustment are subject to the city's special charges, if applicable. CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: January 16,2001 TO: Steve , for FROM: Ow D • n(#6576) SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion The proponents have proposed surface modulations to break up the visual appearance of the facades along Main and Wells Avenues. Landscaping will also be necessary to soften and provide additional articulation to the expanses of wall. As proposed, the landscaping plan shows relatively small plantings that will have little visual impact for some years. We suggest the following revisions to the planting legend. Plant Name Proposed Size Revised Size Viburnum Davidii 1 gallon 5 gallon Rhododendron 2 gallon 5 gallon Hydrangea Macrophylla 1 gallon 5 gallon Hetz Blue Juniper 2 gallon 5 gallon Acer Capillipes 1"-2' cal. 2"-2.5" cal. Thuja Plicata 1.5"-3" cal. 2.5"-3" cal. Since the parking lot adjacent across Wells Avenue S. is included in the project site, we also recommend that the proponents replace the trees along the street frontage as part of the landscaping plan. cc: Betty Nokes \\CENTRAL\SYS2\DEPTS\FINANCE\ECON_DEV\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\GREEN-F\Service Linen Exp.doc\od City.of Ren Department of Planning/Building/Public Wor s ' ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: CD1/1UtM lc. �CV2lOPW1eI3OMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Ta for PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 , 'A' t LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South ,JAN 9 2001 SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq. E .nni NCIG4 ORH OC .. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen mtf�l�tiiia�� Ntea_ura_OLf rl Lky. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove suffix,Public zoning designation, and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wher ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 5/0/ Signature of D r ctor o uthorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Worlcs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Payks COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 r S c;; LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South Jr" - SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial tilaundryEfa illity. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposplttoj`f&r Ve the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet ykre,-&-a2iafia-2- 7 hitc2";404,-ffer-/ A a:1'4k /),70,7, B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS ig44 • C. CODE-RELATED�CO/�MMENTS jiae /077/2a 1 4 We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where add'tional information is needed to proper! assess this proposal. �._ / 2- �/ Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public WOiKs ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:Atrp COMMENTS DUE: JANUARY 22, 2001 APPLICATION NO: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA DATE CIRCULATED: JANUARY 8,2001 APPLICANT: Olympic Associates Company PROJECT MANAGER: Steve Taylor PROJECT TITLE: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION WORK ORDER NO: 78775 LOCATION: 420 Wells Avenue South SITE AREA: Laundry 46,000 sq.ft./Off-site parking 27,750 sq.ft. I BUILDING AREA(gross): 33,000 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property is Center Downtown Public(CD-P). The project also includes a rezone proposal to remove the"P" suffix, Public zoning designation, and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels. Required parking is proposed on- site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and Williams Avenue South. The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area on the WIAA parcel to the south,which is not required. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code)COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet _ — _.>C 14,000 Feet B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS • C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this •••icafion with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas w -re additional i ation is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4 I� / , lALLI&w 1'0 ZOO Signature if Director or Authorized Representative Date Routing Rev.10/93 • _ _ __ a _ A Of . , ..... fic --:::-:-:---:---:-:-H-H-:-=::---:-.7 N . '11. .1. Nk), 1 ; ii ;lirli I tip` ‘-' --f--... -4 - t YA JX •-----YIJY'X1 \ M• . ktvoliikv. E ;m_ ....,,__,__. t. . .., t 11.4 Si :-:------:-:-:------------ -- :••:••:-....I:"""•••=7.-:---:-.-::r:::-:-:-7.------H..:::.•..a.:ra..7.•:-.:-_-_= zm•xpisima Milk ,- . . ,,,, P'N111114.-- :':-----".."=1*:r:.':r ...:"..E21krihriatng "Vi. I let El '-a ''- '.- a ir . _, ...• C=E::::::::"5:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7:::::::::::::f;M:SIETF:E7EF....:3:::::EEZ:ii_EE.:.*.}::::M.::::::71:1::::::::"E3:::::.::.EE_EEEA k g . A_N.t-1 L 4 1". 1 r Old sm.. Art, itil.--:-77:7-:t61::::::::::::_E-::::3-:::::_:::v-:::::::::;E:E:-::_v.-_E;_-_:::::17::::::::::;E--__aE::::::::::::; 1-6.1-24.:_ , .k--, 1 :-.. , .10 1 —7-..,:: L.. n. ,. ' ..iiii;ii...,710 4_._. .: 4;i_ itE3lc\ •• .S14--p-rt::::::::::-_::-:-:-:-:-.7-:-:-H-:-:-...:-.:-:-.1:::::::::-- ::-:_:-.:-:_:_:-:-:'01 : E j 5.1476i i.,,l- ,b',"11111,...._,T,4__"_:1':11.13211.1i:;L07:?14t47:4;..en‘PA'"' -Int- 31L 1 ' 4V,‘'\0h.-.ZVt....... NN...:.44 :\::::_:::_:::::::-..--:::::::::::::::::::K:E:h.::::::-:-:::::::::::-ZA:_ ; REF i ili '1.' P. IIrgr, -., . 11„ 1 0 Atze,N13-3.•->__ ,Cia a-a il Irv,PI' a-I p!... .. it 0, , ,,,L„ . . ii. fl-. �. IM11- - a-. a-i Y 6 u f • ' ••il ii , cill_._i,i.int, " - 1 .41/ ..--a.li _ W. I I- ,,,,. -a - CEICI • _ EDIY:Igr i" ' \lI lc- % ~` , 1 cow .a 1 .1 . a_s. ,,,- ►� �! .a. ,I,xoF Lt I 4 , - , w . ramp \ MEM' ,.a : , FU ijornmarrhi, ,, i :,. ,1 %it LI :jpat '. 7_00N•x=mi i :i ),1,,_ .-__...„,..1 ,:_ ._,. y - ,r. 4 r mils-. 11 11 ../1. . (1 aa \o ❑. �MIN11y A 4w �( •! I� HU � tSN „ ; -I r71 "_�_ • s;(6p Y% " a-1e ),IeM\ T�'! � k rffinfo......., 4.1. k.'.0.--4 / I ili i •' te UM_i . � ,®` � � U/• 11) Q_ � � � mm - dII�L � � wwu o ris Ea ,I' ._,,,w1 i ... 0l...\iir-i;..i11-4a0...m...1111.i1..1m1.p..fti1.0N ,oi,llaik,N.°. N_1.I44 1,(6)Z2,„;•,_,_„. .�f .... -ikt-4„a,1;.P-1A-'.4'..1;,tA., igr3i vin_*.my......i.l.Idm 3ima:::"nfiil lipi.ii®�©fir t,aVA ili.t',-1-k-1pit1,: 10 ' > i0,.0iooi... i q,P.i.f1..i.1 7.• --..A"i_5_7-1, / d • 1 rr o.«d p, 1- '11F •• -ram ,�_ ` '''' "4"011.5-rii. I a-. 0, 2,:"..\ lie 1-11 et,,.saNy i \\A--neric.el ri 0{ , - ., ..... . .,. . ,4,4 it, 11 . N "'f ��A W I ,1 iigp.,,..1- L Y • may .... 1, 411 . c° limp ira:.. _ scv, IttT(1.1g7:;.• — .- I IiIPAA_ . gel .. i r, T 1 ._. .1-'1 .. - IN 7 iiir .....:,. r,:iii ,,,. ,, jil NI IL__, . .. 1111114 ..-,, ., , . .1--],1 .40 Tiv ifg,ai, 7:14q1 ic . xi 1 ...:. .:.,, tii, -.. .-41 I 7 " al . I . mei_,Q) I e . 1-1 11 WI 11 11-ling 1 4 iiimi 11:. D ! " " 'I' ',. .•*-' t "I .. a. 1111-„,,.,; ;) . w w r+ / Dl 6 /!• M a , 7 uliklia l^ Y O RON ® ®a E IV E D i JAM 2 2 2001 BUILDING DIVt6ION January 15,2001 I would like to submit my appeal regarding the Service Linen Supply expansion. 1. With the added expansion, comes added traffic and noise. I am currently listening to a boiler that starts five days a week at 3:45 a.m. and continues until 10 p.m. The City of Renton has already notified Service Linen of violation of the City noise ordinance. (see attached letter). The Spencer Court Apartment residents as well as private homeowners on Wells Avenue South have lodged numerous complaints. 2. With a fleet of 50+trucks, come numerous trips,noise pollution,non-stop back- up alarms on the trucks,employee vehicles parked on streets, exhaust,not to mention the heavy propane odor from the propane filling station located on Service Linen property. This large of an operation does not fit into the "neighborhood". Please keep in mind that the new apartments across from the Spirit of Washington Dinner Train have not become inhabited yet. These people will experience what the current neighbors are now experiencing. 3. With the expansion would come additional odors caused by chemicals used for cleaning. These chemical odors already infiltrate our homes during the summer months when windows and doors are open. (see attached letter). 4. Is this size of operation considered a light,medium, or heavy industrial facility? Is this large-scale industry conducive to the vision of the South Renton single family and multi family neighborhood? An example of hindsight would be the refuse station located in Renton Highlands that the City would like to have moved because it is not zoned properly. 5. Center Downtown core zoning says expansion is only 100 feet from existing building for commercial laundries. The proposed expansion exceeds this. The City of Renton needs to decide if South Renton is"industrial"or single/multi family neighborhoods. This large of an operation does not fit the neighborhood. Since Robert R. Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 425-255-7055 . _ CITY RENTON , , Mayor Jesse Tanner November 2, 2000 Mr. Bob Moran 425 Wells Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Service Linen Supply—903 S.4th,Renton,WA Dear Mr.Moran: Your complaint regarding noise emanating from the above mentioned business was referred to our Development Services Division. Prior to receiving your comments, our Land Use Compliance Inspectors responded to a similar citizen complaint,received on August 15, 2000. This initial investigation determined that the complaint was justified, relating to a new water heating device installed by Service Linen Supply,pursuant to Building Permit#B000178. On August 21,2000, contact was made with David Jassny, co-owner of Service Linen Supply. Mr.Jassny stated he was aware of the noise problem and was working on a resolution with his Chief Engineer,Jerry Fry. Larry Meckling,Building Official, and Robert Arthur, Land Use Compliance Inspector,met with Mr.Fry on August 25,2000, to inspect the installation of the new water heater/boiler. Mr. Fry acknowledged that the noise was a result of the installation of the heater/boiler, and stated he was devising a roof-mounted shield to quiet the noise traveling to the surrounding residences. At this point,Mr.Fry was advised to obtain the services of a certi lied audiologist to determine the extent of the noise that would be in violation of the noise ordinance. • Mr.Fry contacted the City on the same day and advised that Washington Audiology would be conducting sound measurements the following week. A noise level survey was conducted on August 31,2000,by David Stern, Occupational Ilearing Conservationist for Washington Audiology. Noise measurements were taken between 6:00 a.m. and 7:15 a.m. that day. A second survey was taken on Saturday, September 2, 2000, when the business was closed. Results of the survey,received by the City on September 1 I, 2000, indicated that noise levels were not acceptable. The City requested that an additional noise survey be conducted, with noise measurements taken earlier in the morning,preferably prior to operating the water heater/boiler. Results of the second test,held on September 29,2000, and received by the City on October 12, 2000, revealed that noise levels were above what is acceptable. Mr.Fry was sent a letter the following day, advising that he provide the City with remedies to mitigate the noise. A proposal received from Service Linen Supply on October 20, 2000, appears to be adequate to mitigate the noise. The proposal included recommendations by the manufacturer of the subject heater/boiler, which involves installation of a 90 degree curve on the stack using an additional ten feet(10') of straight pipe. If the modifications are not adequate, further mitigation measures will be required. Service Linen Supply has been notified that they must cease operation of the heater/boiler prior to 7:00 a.m. daily, until it is modified to operate within acceptable limits. • 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425)430-6500/ FAX(425)430-6523 Bob Moran November 1,2000 Page 2 The City is continuing its investigation into the matter,to assure compliance by Service Linen Supply. I understand you have talked with Mr.Arthur on several occasions, by telephone and in person, on this matter. Please contact him at 425-430-7269 if you have additional information or questions. S' cerely, Jesse Tanner Mayor • cc: City Clerk/Referral#20078-C Renton City Council Jay Covington,CAO Gregg Zimmerman,Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Larry Meckling,Building Official Robert Arthur,Land Use Compliance Inspector • October 23, 2000 Senior Housing Assistance Group P.O. Box 1040 Renton, WA 98057-1040 To whom it may concern: I regret having to move from the Spencer Court Apartments. However, due to the constant, intolerable noise from the commercial laundromat across the street the living conditions were made unbearable for me to continue living at Spencer Court (Apt. # 413). This laundromat was not in operation when I moved in. That is why I signed a two year lease. I was not aware of the impacts it would cause. This laundromat ran loud machines constantly from 5 AM to 9 PM Monday thru Friday. These loud machines caused me to have frequent headaches, sleeplessness, and anxiety. Additionally, the laundromat emitted strong irritating smells that also gave to have headaches, irritation and allergic reactions. Therefore, due to these intolerable conditions I was unable to continue to live peacefully at the Spencer Court Apartments. I had to move. ' I moved out on September 24, 2000 and paid for the full month. Additionally, I .paid a full month's rent for October,even though I did not live there, because I had to give 30 days notice of moving. However, I have not yet received a refund of my deposit. I request that you please refund my deposit of$250:00. I am attaching a copy of my Move Out Report to show that the conditions of my apartment were left satisfactory at my move-out time and all areas and appliances were cleaned. Please refund my deposit as soon as possible. Sincerely, PAO IA4 cc e. Maya Polonsky 51 Burnett Ave..S. Apt. # 406 Renton, WA 98055 425-430-5436 • D I OCT 27woo BY: - ' - — - . - -•'. - '' 1 '''. , ' ,-b'.'.:f--;•-i- 1 0 - e- 7i4- %s /: 4721/ e ( . . . p/. ,.,.---.,.,. .. -___7_.'"_. ..:E .;.., ::::1. ° i • i A//, : :_:.:4:i• : -/44. 1_:1:_Ziie4"1-/-.,,L,":/7C..,1 .7 ,...../1-17 • /2 D3... A/c/1.5 4:2.4ec e or / J' 7i 4 -v/._:,6..k...z_i.,_,.a.7.,v-.. , .._6.6) ,` ye Le r. A p 7L, . . Alm.v cia./ 71---4,-;',.f 1.- ,' d a.y ..?,6 oi.__: 1,...570•.-.7., _-?Z.4,--..,-, / 74-/3 1 .` ,s' / frci I r(/ A c_ 7.ci,&-/. -. 7e0: . p/.. ,,..-„ic//k-c57,234, //e4.17 /7 ,1 a We) r j9C S ,. C . o ; g e.Ae 74 eV. /.5.0 Z ,',v / di, // ....5i4o"r"..-.:‘,/07 eV(C70,,ii,. ro.ve v:41-` ; .2i0.45 4 jr21.0. /C 71:1 '".'' - — -- - -.0.er,-- frA..4-c-i— °6-- ; '. - 2J ) -- 4 a o__ : ilis--bje.15 1W1- / #/ 7 ,( of/ -7 !e-a., s _202 • g . ffr- t3I . /02 M aj Po-to n-i k-- --it Li I 3 _ I 7) 111.64 /0 ail i-G }ill- , . t-L_ ),..78:4,x,e t:i\I-c.17 /40 15 . - a , 21.(1/8 ......-- /c aZ(A'1. /6-7,e,r—H-0--k-- 4/ 1(.. . _ / 7 ye: 'A/04 -(4- 1-104-7 / ? ...7- -f. c pier° 1-c k . 3O-3 / 9 0 -6siztAA"_ c;),470.0.(.: - -i la4- ti . ..4,.. King County Wastewater Treatment Division DEVELOPMENT PlAN�11NC� Department of Natural Resources CITY OF RENTON King Street Center 201 South Jackson Street i A 6 2000 Seattle,WA 98104-3855 do January 11,2000 RIVE® Steve Taylor\Project Manager City of Renton 1055 S. Grady Way Renton,WA 98055 RE: Service Linen Expansion LUA-00-131, SA-H,ECF,R,LLA Dear Mr.Taylor: The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the January 8,2001,Application for Determination of Non-Significance,Mitigated for the expansion of the laundry facility.King County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the sewer system,any reconnection within five years of a disconnection,or any change in use or building remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new construction;however,some sewer districts and/or the cities that represent them have neglected to report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures. In an attempt to remedy this problem,we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Service Linen Expansion.We ask that you forward this reminder to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms: Please be sure that a Non-Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above project be completed and sent to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be sent to Eunice Verstegen,Capacity Charge Program,KSC-NR-0501,at the address above. If you need additional forms or have questions about the program,please call Eunice at(206) 684-1740. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Barbara Questad Environmental Planner cc: Eunice Verstegen, Capacity Charge Program • CLEAN WATER -A SOUND INVESTMENT 1:111hiiitlithlipiellialligeggyopEf341600Rilisil$iiiiiiiiiiligliiiiiiiiliolglio;.:i'iiiiiiiiiiip.i.:i8p:Iiil iiiiii>>>:::: >iiii > <iliNg>gillDEVE1miV1E. T SERyi.00§...DlU1S1. ....... ................... °3 1.O.f et o<: he .:'ubjecf. ssin.<' > <> < > > < > ' - t t t� e.:>.:::>:<:>::>::.:>:::::::>.:.<:<::;:::.:;>�>�::.<:::::>:.<:>::>:.:>.�.<;.;.>..:...:..>:::..>.:..«.>..>.::..<:.<:>w�thin.. p. ..fee... f...h sub ec. . it .................... .................. ................. .............. PROJECT NAME:l//e. — 6AIE`U 7�E-- DEC .DEVCLI�YQF R NTONNIN® APPLICATION NO: LUV .00 • 13I 251R- H , E( 1 R , LLA DEC 2. 2,2000 The following.is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the.subject site. The Devaireepigtes Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. - NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL g1 1L3T-11 St NUMBER i u.car C A our�- pes - s eorr+te..,W 18178-331 g 12515d-12`10-OZ-o0 1 e141- $, Dora - 423 W l u-bo 5. ze A a,-1. IN A oViO`52-I45 1123150 -1/oSC-o I 12z141 -6. I/ Ill Imo ` 4,1 $05?- 09�� 2.3147 - 17-o6- b!o . -3'4!:`0 1: Wear" • 4'1 o Id u,�.ta4.ts �u e.-2� 7231V0" ((026-®$ n �.er `g'. -or u- 4z8 Wiu.l�µs� • N, I/l/�k I2 7-2, 5O--1 DSO- 00 1`,o c e. 1.1. � >� 1914 S��Tr u.9 8 Z49 '�231�'O- r(o45- 04 �ri�l%NNt�-' Rem , WA 12315O - 1to -o-0(„ Wi'- R L .. ,6v)1P • �naewsli,4 9/-�1 8 '�"2.315v- 1�9® - ag 1,,tecTIN13 ,oar. 42./ WOU-S live - . qtS( - 14 4E- o6- geArzsAi, 0101 gto55-20! c44 .,,ap .32^��,1-vE. 'Z3150-l49 '= D3 SeATi 044 98122-&334: Ls0 k (L`( �,-!-p 1�zro as 2t(o ki:s`i d 41E ' -2315e3- I T35' aM ,sP , PO 9f/7/-2l10 4- gt,u;k.1 pie LCe- 5. /L3 91517P 3160- 1315'- 03 igtytv 1- C -DI-LAP4eLY 4 d'2 /2 vE SE. ; 2..s. - Hozo-03 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) 1 (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL V`IGE. 4r-1 1 ei'Y 9d3 s- ¢ NUMBER F�2. S, genic/, WA ` as-3=2120 12315.0 -1}20 02 • G rI—t k a-ra r..l • �.cv i� !.l ie 5. . ,e p ,/re, ,/xi 9100-212 3 123150- 127-5- 01 f÷ ,,,F,ld Pig Ie,E- b�¢� S. !/3'� 9 7 23/50- /345--45 / eA-2��V14•riztc.IG SE�Tf , l�d�i4 7 a3/ o-1 3/0 -08 61 _W 1,1g1. re(c. , • . . . . •? 00-/ -DO.0 60J vE441,1&I eel t s �23/5�-/ -05-000t4 ,4Z5 Applicant Certification. .. .. , .. I, / '/LID 4 6,�. •, hereby certify•that the above list(s) of adjacent property , ' ,(Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: V . . ,.IK title Company Records: • • • •. '"D; King County Assessors Recdrds Signed Date e���l oz, 1r (Applicant) . : , NOTARY . . . . - .. • ATTESTED: S cribed an worn bef e.me,-a Notary Public, in`an• • the State •f Washington', residing at on the 3/ day of_ ' 4�1 , 2 . • , Signed . , (Note lic . .................................................................................. **** :..:. ,i ..,.bfi deite :. :<:::>::::::>::»>:::«<:<:::<:»:<::�:::<:<::<:;::«::<:>:<:>::<:;<><::>:<>:<:::>::>;:«<:<::»::>:<:::;<;:...... . flf Renton•tJse;.;;:.;:.;:.:;:::.;:.;;:.::.:;:.;:.;;;:.:.;;:.;:.;.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::.;;;:.;:;.;;.::;.:�>;>:;:.;:;:.;;:. :.;:.;;:.: v N .... .... .. ... i" rebYB.::reifythai~notces.of:ahe:::Pfpp6..; I�?��:M ....iv.::::.�::.�.::�::::: toe ::: ::::::::::::::::: :::::: .::::.�::::.�:::::.�::::::::::::.�::,..�:::::::::::.�::::::::::::::.:::::.:...::::::::::::: :. ... ..;.....::::... :..O.�.�....:,.;:.;•::.�:::::.�.:.:..:.:. each:::::iilli :>:ist;:::>:>':;:;::::r::>::>:>.:e;:>:::;::;::z:>:::::diii::>:iiii:0:ii',:<:> :<::<::::.'::>::::::»;<;:;:><:::»:::::::<»::::::::::::: :. JUNE. ' .:: '.:::. ;: � .. ::i: ::. .::i:;;:�:!`:i»:;;.a.;�; .:.:;•;;>:•;:;•:•;;>;.�;:nt.>:;;:.5:•;:•;;:s::;:>o-::::o:.>o-:.>r.;::::::: �.....F.... ....................' •:::::.;:;::r:.:.> :.11 ted.: r..o .ert.:.�wner.on:::::.::::.�#.::�.f.. .::,.. :�.:.-. .::.�.�:-��.:.: ... Signed . ..... ..... ie. ... .. .. ::>::»:::>:: ,;Date .....:: ..::.::::.:.:::..:.:::::.::::.::,:.:..,::.:.::.:::;;:;.;;::.;;::.:::; >::.;:<:::;:;:::<:.; N TA .:..:g... "...5.....bscribe...:antl:.swacn.:i§..:.:... m a Nota gog , to and forttte State of It ashen ton resldmd 154i,:fp;ieoklsiilg:zi:::::iw.::nt:.iu:..o.rt-,.thitil!:rI.Miitf.4:§6.tg::g,Ail:EM:gni::iiiiigigt;ttieiiiginn:igii;igilig1"iii]g 111.1.7011.1ilie..::.::.::.:::::::::::::::..:: .... ......................... .:......... p.doc REV 03/00 IIAARII.YN KAMCHEFF •' - •REV 03/00 ' • MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-29-03 2 ...................................... .. I T OF SURROUNDING ;PROPERTY OWNERS:::::::: PROJECT NAME: APPLICATION NO: The following is alist of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division-will notify these individuals of the proposed development. r - NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL L,541. 64A11Pi P4CTN NUMBER 1Z1��1�08 LIT 2 l l 0 Itltsfi�,L9o�lAUE �., 6663 ae. .34'd cc c- j�v�b r c. �y -4- PO BoX 961300-/6¢0..09-00/ �.v�I S �! iP���i 6,IT /St4 "°4330'4)4 etAR 4-LAt4DA- l0'0aox 108 3/56 -1 320 o G' geA/ro,./f it/4 91052,42B' tb • PO x q57 7Z3r� l ob^ty. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC 2 2 2000 • • (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) • . • (Continued) • NAME ADDRESS 0 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL - NUMBER • • • • • • • • • • Applicant Certification ' • • • • • - . I, P.is,td.b./ 3A2bee., • , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property ' (Print Narbe) owners and their addresses were obtained from: -.• •••.: iVF itle Company Records • '• .••-. •• _ , f Li King County Assessors Records • Signed • • Date' 0//3/7cfe) (Applicant) •. . • • • NOTARY. ATTESTED: Subs 'bed an sworn bef,re-me, a NotaDi Public, in andor ttle-State te ofAashington, residing at p on the...5/ day of p ,e„L;tt • Signed 4D (Notary Public) - • 0 - • •• . • • . . For City of Renton Use CERTIFICATION OF MAILING .............................. -,.176LtNidifAitA4a0.0tietiObb9tettifyilhfaCtOtied.WitifithOlteiffiti§4diAj011ebtibit were itiditedieNOTARY winoAmi ............................................................. ......................................... NFWggiiiii*41.0000000140gW0f4401,0f01i#1§ *140:t4tVR0§110t0AfPf....0:01110.:f:§;100ititiNIVO'stiltligtottite$idtriM,.. listprop.doc REV'03/00 • • 2 • Ol�Y O4 1`I ' NAIX- • I�154n1P Comments on the above application must be submitted In writing to Steve Taylor,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on January 22.2001.This matter is also scheduled for NOTICE OF APPLICATION • a public hearing on Marche 2001,at 9:00 AM,Council Chambers,Seventh Floor,Renton City Hall,1055 South Grady Way,Renton.If you are interested in attending the hearing,please contact the Development Services Division,(425)430. AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- 7282•to ensure that the hearing has not been rescheduled.If comments cannot be submitted in writing blithe date Indicated above,you may still appear at the hearing end present your comments on the proposal before the Hearing SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M) Examiner.If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a pady of record and receive additional information by mall,please contact the project manager.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and MI be notified of any decision on this project. DATE: January 8,2001 CONTACT PERSON: STEVE TAYLOR(425)430.7219 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-00-131,SA-H,ECF,R,LLA APPLICATION NAME: SERVICE LINEN EXPANSION I ' ' i I PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project calls for a 33,000 sq.ft.expansion of the existing Service Linen commercial laundry facility. Current zoning on the property Is Center Downtown(CD)and Center Downtown Public(CD- P).The project Includes a rezone proposal to remove the'P"suffix,Public zoning designation,and a lot line adjustment to consolidate the underlying parcels.Required parking is proposed on-site as well as two off-site locations on Wells Avenue South and W lliams Avenue South.The project will also improve an 8-stall joint use parking area an the W IAA parcel to the south,which is not required. PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 420 Wells Avenue South,with two off-site parking lots on Williams Avenue South and Wells Avenue South I i r• x k 0 Mara 'w r OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE,MITIGATED(DNS,M):As the Lead Agency,the City of 11` �[. �,��. P tr. LT. � v►.. ! / ✓ Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result iron)the proposed project Therefore, I 4 1I i WIy1! y,cop SU}. IjSp i g,-r�` / ��/� as permitted under the RCW 4321C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a `414 IMAM A[ a "au C?[)v NM r�3 lore- .. .,- - DNS-M is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project end the proposed DNS-M are integrated Into a single i tt{ ISM.'�i�C 7 ri3 Eau-,© 1c yaw Ilt1 b� --.r.'gy p,, comment period.There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non- i W/? II C7111..I�ui A'�� Significance Mitigated(DNS-M).A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. �7 ,���-- '�'•��0 r y% ,,,211;- r-e. el'I711MJ�t.i; '" i75'L 57 .•.M' s T11 n ro^`r r a;Y .:a ' PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: December 22,2000 -- •-— ✓ / frh2.[y`tr I�yi K •', Ij3f�fz+s ..O�IF P IYlC ,d� fl, , °�p� `'�} NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: January8,2001 �%� Lt1!'3 =GMR -I�IGN ��r /ate ;i ` o T�0iFri T 7A 3 LRR 95 (C♦ ___r Permits/Review Requested: Environmental(SEPA)Review,Site Plan Approval,Rezone,Lot Line 1=01 ]D !%yurr4ics p a• ® _j,-_[. Adjustment I i�� cG x i� ')11.'r '.]Y iR„rmu 7 u'o \ x k. Other Permits which may required: Demolition Permits,Construction Permit,Building Permit I LEI Qt FH j 9 I 1 _ a '-1 . -_ i➢'�c '" Requested Studies: Geotechnical engineering report,surface water drainage analysis. + L W Q _:is•7—II, - e MA f S'Ou . 'sr .+m .. F.7_. y, ST •a •,�� 2�9 Location where application may �"oil C A •7-� ?mu us 3 f7 y f3>!C .,T3i0I'1f". C _ be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department ¢ (;.i �1 Chi o�EC 1 Era *dom, i w MA Pi ���i — , 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 NI w �� �.1 pEI In1(3l) • I Lu:.1a i1 a`•-��"�( — 5 vi. aLT: P 1 r i 10 1 t PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing scheduled for March 8,2001 before the Renton Hearing Examiner .}"- ;4.f,S,ti I ! a,y=Ia n 4 NO t a I J �t30 ±—' in Renton Council Chambers.Hearings begin at 9:00 AM on the 7th floor of the I 1 I l3y�I1 Z S:D P EZSIai_ ! I 1�FPQJ new Renton City Hall located at 1055 Grady Way South. [ ,,,, t urI= C t CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: le.SY f �� Bak+1ae mar. I IM 11 I -41�D�M. v lea 11 S r Li]ITC3 ,,IQj zap I S:�D yaw O. os Land Use: The subject site is zoned Center Downtown(CD)end Center Downtown Public , 57 W ri7 „� L Al w aAil O L5' .1. `"' �2 , (CD-P ."® ® ouE art '31Lr'e J73J I LE CIE ' V ( ) 2 La_ m '1IPC-� I !M O7 . s Environmental Documents that I ' , 1T•1 ..�✓ ©� '7 1 IM cam o 'S.[?c'- Evaluata the Proposed Project: None known •is co re Ott•11P2 . 7 M3 �` ^. i r 13_133' ®fie_ y___ WF� Lr ! .01 a E Development Regulations I Rs 1.. =U mitre 1c kr cc 132 - ' Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,City of Renton Municipal C : ®f Io..Y.tlrn°7 '�e�+ n m :d r�C' + ''plrl . Code,Uniform Building Code,Uniform Fte Code,ling County Surface Water Cr 2 1011171s.� TI MIM1 y 7'f � m I1 l - 3 `1 5 I Design Manual and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. �' ii� 'Ill"C:'i 1 -p'yO',$ $ ,fieff r L ,.. r �_ ll��u4 Proposed Mltlgatlan Measures: _i I ir ��WIN ,Wit.,, _ 0: V`eS �] I 3 �, 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Design Study dated May 1, ; rr.1Z! ..:m•/ e•1 `yA .r Big t °' ;El-Eg- 2000byHartCrowser,Inc. I _ _ __-_- _ _ ___ _ _ _—_ _ 2. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee based on$0.52 per square foot of new construction. ' • 3. The applicant shall pay the appropriate Traffic Mitigation Fee based on$75.00 per each new average daiy trip attributable to the project CERTIFICATION • I, A fee_ 'D,34_,,,c,,J , hereby certify that -3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on . r c_n °► 7 v . Signed: 4:.„6-Ze‘,... A1"1'1,ST: Subcribed and sworn before me,a Nortary Public,in and for the State of Washington residing in o ?p,,4., , on the JO 7- day of s,„"). r:vic, J ,, A/. 9LYN KAMGHEFF �i NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON . COMMISSION EXPIRES ftRARILYN CHEM JUNE 29, 2003 IVY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES:6-26-03 ,34-r CITY C ' RENTON 'A I Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator January 8, 2001 Mr. Randy Barber Olympic Associates Company 701 Dexter Avenue North#301 Seattle,WA 98109 SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion Project No. LUA-00-131,SA-H,R,ECF,LLA Dear Mr. Barber: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. - The Environmental Review Committee -tentatively schedules it for consideration on February 6, 2001. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, on March 6, 2001 at 9:00 AM to consider the proposed Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report,will be mailed to you one week before the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Please contact me, at(425)430-7219, if you have any questions. Sincerely, W& 47 ol.7 Steve Taylor Senior Planner cc: SEDLLC/Owner W IAA/Owner ACCEPTANCE 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 Cp This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer ......:.:..........................:..................... ....::...............:.......:...... �� TY... .....RENT. .t>t......................... ;;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.;:.::;.;.;;:.::.�:._::::::............. ::>>:::o>::<s<::::::< :::>::::»:<:>:: ::>;:::< .;:><>:::>::::::::::>»:<:::: :;>:::: :: ::::::l]!:...<>> C MENT SERtIIC>rS:>•:kVl:St:O:N><: :»:':...:... :> <i> <»>'.'<:;>:::« >« : «: >::. >> »:`s": :;: OP:R y:Ro ` <.::. :..;..:. ' < <:>:iim:<<>»: > >< ::>:<:;«:>•::>:>::»>:::;:<:::>:;<:::::> PR . ..ERTY WNE S . <:..«:: <::«:::::>::.»>:.;;::. .. V.: : . � .:••«<:::::>:<<»::».>::;>.; .:.>: :::::.: Note If there>a,;morethan;;p..9:gal'owner:please.;atttach:;anrr>adtfitionai notanzed:Master Appfication for eactt.owner .. ... .. .;:fi::::::gi.:0;:;: i:i PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: �L1.- daR (.J�) f sF.�!I LI► e,t.L / J(AA. . NAME / L -t' Lim E A DJ U yrrtie,r�c7—i (2eo1e W(A Cps- ) - ,�vlc� Li ADD I11oN __ S. - - PROPE TY/PROJECT_DDRESSrS1rLOCAT L7N- ,i - ADDRESS:1 . - 4.„- �4\U1f k1 g Gjc3 5 `7" . ' . '5.�:tA 1 hi AV F S ( ') • ' � A LIB' - 1 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT_NUMRER1S1: _ -" \L CITY: igE./4'Ro4 ZIP: C'tt)05S TELEPHONE NUMBER: 42.5' Zs'c Be060 CA) EXISTING LAFIISUSE(S) - - - -- --- --_____ • 426 &t 7 85 VA -r- p. ;vco LOTS I APPL CA,<.:T>1:Fititlie:: hattti .: ir :* > >::<:; :::-,: LICAiVT („f o,fher tEtan owner}•:;::„::;::;,.:::•.... PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: P, SeUN? C • tS-TiNfo 1NI0 Z;Y2 N" . J CFfLC.,-- s COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: OLD{Ivl'(C. aGt/-DES Co GENTS �'S v`�t�1T c5 tI • ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): . 0 ( fix-ram. v6 f` 4-30 l AJ/4 DEVELOPMENT P CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: CITY OFREM-O�N)NG 4-rTl q�I� Cti (h) DEC 21200 . TELEPHONE NUMBER: o PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): RECEIVED Zr-7o �' iov ie E® SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): _ _ - - = NAME: le-A-1--1 Di .4(2P,e 12- ES A1TP FD 1-V;9, COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: - -- --_ --- -- sa.AAE' vas Arr�ovi I,11A ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? 'JES 'Rd> 15- 2. CITY: ZIP: • IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? IM At4 is.jzEA, G'F Gc,/-1G12.ez:14 Oe. TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: fyAdiE, b(9E._ "['O se.ISNIIG AS.crt'tr.( r i►►►-lot-r, odynkpicnssocJia-�eS - t.'ravf. ._ _t;..i:f::::.ne.cessar ......:»::::::;:.::.;:<:>:>;:. T . • Iiiiisinnosessir ': e k 'all'''a,•,."lication::.:;... th ..:.;'. ,.„.:,.; c es. at:>: .;'....,.:.__ :.:,:;:: . ..;:::,>. ::;;; ; , <: : :;.;; ;> ;«`a> >'>ga> '' >iiiigin � > : • • _ANNEXATION $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT "$ -REZONE $Sdrj,pV ✓COT LINE ADJUSTMENT $.1,Z5,00 SPECIAL PERMIT $ _ SHORT PLAT $ . TEMPORARY PERMIT • $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • $ — PRELIMINARY PLAT $ i S1TE PLAN APPROVAL $ d•f _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ ' (FROM SECTION: ) PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ FINAL WETLAND PERMIT $ _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: • • _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT . $ _ CONDITIONAL USE $ VARIANCE $ EXEMPTION . $No Charge ✓€NVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • .Qp REVISION $ I, (Print Name) , declare that I am (please check one) the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statemegta,and•arswers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and baf+e \CKY fj ?10_e .eZ; :i\A S.7.. 410a /' `" : ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to befoerlg, a Not�yf�ubl�. r��i�i 111 • for th State �( residing at`° a> • �4 • fQ X: (n 9 zoos. 7 . �,00 ��'2> (Name of Owner/Re resentative.) �i�eV ( ava-lf-, , on the /� � y f � p> • Signature of Owner/flepresentative) ` °CTiD�e (Sig ture of N ary Public) I Ap V/d •l1O :.;:.;;:.;:.;:.;;;:.;:.;;CI...::.:Fi1e:::.Numbei:>�:..:; :.:.�:C -�>>(:::'�::�::::<::::>:«::<::.. :;>::>�"•'D:::>[:€:BSP.;:.:;.: � ... ...... ...... . ... ..A }� 1,,1 .... A:_�' :::: ..1 .. 1 1::�: ��:.:•::.. 1 i_I 1.�::: '~.:i::v� :.:..T :.jyi:?:::'.:::::::::::' r::i::: �::.:;.>:I�i:ll::;::._4:I:?I;�a;o.•:'�;::ir:il.::v:'..+':% .�V :.�i»:SM. ... :o>::o�:. .::.:s>: .�. t"�.:: ::�::>: MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 03/00' :::::: :: : :: : :: : ::: ; :: :: ,ADD U . . . . .. . P•EA 1T NSA ` I ` I ` :::: : :•: :: :: : :::•:•: :•:•:::•:•: `ER Note:::;If thereEis more:than o'ne?legal Owners'please'attach'an ad itiional notarizerf:Nlaster Application for each.:owner . .; >`" ::: ":>:.; `'>:; PROJECT OR A� DEVELOPMENT NAME: . / NAME: 17 LLC. �Po..tzc£L �' dYii�v iC- Vl;,r-f 1✓o '�V�l (AA ki I A-A- ( ccL r`2F zoME �Q 3 tJ �Tµ � ` PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: ) ` 2.0 44 L..LS A _ . S. (a, 43s MM -t. I . s_ (1 ) 43 s M.41 1,t a . s_ CB) CITY: ZIp: KING COUNTY ASSERSS 1T01-( • (50j5 "4-2,3LSO-1373 -- 02 CA) TELEPHONE NUMBER: 2.55 66 (A) gO - O C? EXISTING ► 3 1 - O p C e)c..tsa • 425 et57-- oS (6) L. LICANT..(if o#her than,owner):; C�Frt Cam) PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: N/itic COMPANY (if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: 0 CST ®,,•�,�-r���1 ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): 101 bac-r- Argo- I 501 1.(.4 CITY: ZIP: DEV (�Q y V� EXISTING ZONING: ELOP�ENTp T'r � l D l c.a ) C/7yOFREDoNNl1yG TELEPHONE NUMBER: DEC 2 2 20n /_ ��� ��� PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): SEC IVE SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: 1'11))( 1� 128 4.(0, g5o I COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: 5A.,(P- c 4Ov� N14 ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? 7"ES �o► 2- CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? 1 r t -boo l ArIaEA OF C01.10FZ.a Foe. TELEPHONE NUMBER and E-MAIL ADDRESS: 3::".1. 64e, bus -to ISAAIL AcriV(T,( .....:.:::::::::::.. €< 1ttO�L I ES:I,. TIO01 OF<PRO tjtif t'hrttacti`>ae,- , ......::::::.....::::::.:. _ANNEXATION • $ SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT $ • - _ REZONE $ _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $ _ SPECIAL PERMIT $ , . SHORT PLAT $ _TEMPORARY'PERMIT $ _TENTATIVE PLAT $ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $ _ PRELIMINARY PLAT - _ $ • SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ _ FINAL PLAT $ _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT $ (NO. CU. YDS: ) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: $ _ VARIANCE $ (FROM SECTION: ) _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER $ _ FINAL WETLAND PERMIT $' • _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: $ MANAGEMENT PERMIT $ _ BINDING SITE PLAN $ SHORELINE REVIEWS: • _ SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ • _ CONDITIONAL USE $ _VARIANCE $ , _ EXEMPTION $No'Charge _ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ REVISION $ ` AFFIDA\/IOF:<O:WNERSHIP> : » ><::>»°'':.` > ;: I, (Print Name)/I1I L 4 LA)I e1'C,_declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application, the authorized representative to act for the property owner(please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answer herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Pr 65 ( f w ^-/� ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and IAA) for the State of iv,4 residing at (Na.• •- if 0 jr er/R-.• -sent. ive) Re/d./4e— , on the 4- day of 2004. A. (Sig ature of 0 er/Representative) (Signa ure of Notary Public) F.PUD:.:FP:.p ::::R.V,;M:P:.::..SA ,4:. SA.H .SHPLryA;::::SFLFL..N...SP_. Sly(L...SM.... TP. a/.:A. . . : MASTERAP.DOC REVISED 03/00 SERVICE LINEN REZONE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW PROPERTY ADDRESS CTY.ASSESSOR'S# SITE AREA Existing Service Linen Facility 903 S. 4th Street 723150-1360/723150-1385 23,988 Service Linen Expansion (former school) 420 Wells Avenue South 723150 1373 02 • 40,868 Existing House and Loading (lot 3) 408 Wells Avenue South 723150-1370 6,000 Service Linen Parking Lot'A' S.W. Corner 4th Street and Wells Ave. S. 723150-1706 17,250 Service Linen Parking Lot'B' 400 Block Williams Ave. S. (east side) 723150-1635/723150-1640 11,500 W.I.A.A. Property 435 Main Ave. South 723150-1375-00/723150-1391-00 46,850 O m C7 r rn Cm') O - 0 N.' mmm zIV --I� N ----III rn C. Oz ® ® ZZ Z G) Service Linen Rezone Legal Description Parcel A—Service Linen Expansion Property(does not include Lot 3 in rezone) Lots 4-6 and 15-18 in Block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of plats,page 135, in King County,Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording No. 9807211996; Parcel B—W.I.A.A. Property Lots 7-14 in Block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of plats,page 135, in King County, Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording No. 9807211996 DEVELOPMENTCITY OFENTONING DEC 2 2 2000 RECEWED Service Linen Site Plan Review Legal Descriptions Existing Service Linen Property Lots 1, 2, 19 and 20 in block 16, Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats, page 136, in King County, Washington. Service Linen Expansion Property(includes property occupied by existing house) Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats,page 135, in King County, Washington; except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Parking Lot A (off Wells Ave.) Lots 18, 19 and 20 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats, page 135, in King County, Washington; less the west five feet for alley. Parking Lot B (off Williams Ave.) Lots 4 and 5 in block 19 of Town of Renton, according to the plat recorded in Volume 1 of Plats, Page 135, in King County, Washington; less the east five feet for alley. • Cpri of om Gfri ` N ® zZ 0 -�4 • > ::.;., S ° --- PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the • agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether•an EIS is required. • INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist- asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary •delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that•will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. • USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and.programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. DEVELOPMENT PLANING CITY•OF RENTON DEC 2 2 2000 REGIME ; - Environmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed proje ,•if applicable: tzvicg Lc 14 kaki a,A I2E.-Eoi'E - jCp L OF 5V12iltC6 ? 1 2. Name of applicant: oc y NAP i(-- 4.5so c.bescrEaS 601-a.4'a.NY C R.aNVY 136-32:5E2) 3. _Address and hone number of applicpnt and contact person: 10 I _Dag-rag. 4E-. ►`l . 1 WA- 981o1 Am. 2e* 4300 4. Date checklist prepared: • I 2000 5. Agency requesting checklist: tarry of r-troM —IlaVELoPMEI/7' 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including ph sing, if applicable): Zt ft1/4"412rt✓e- 20° bernJNmc ci 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. do 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. pmefrrili 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any governmental aRprovals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SiT£ 'lDLAi4 J 11� Scat-Di/gip f'BgM/T 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. PLAarr exPAAIsro.! P,Qopery Aegsew .ems F'•e®•er 7xrr APgnrrooiO ,7G##oaL 25isr ./tar ,j o,,/ tG®o.e ,4.C&21 x Zf. 7I5. se) glrco#a picog AREA al tic sp (To rA c.v-3Z►1O - sP) ,Zo...fe 6T S r 1E .4-ezA P 46efet2 sF Lerr- co ve sZg4,E •s , 4Zo/4(v�$(T O9 EreVEOGur Ago wz ) - Low /IcwC coves cr L 2 Environmental Checklist 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. i. . IICt, Lir4 i PAce.c.E.L is Arr 4Zo WWu6, z.S, W 14,4 res. is 435 M.44P4 A . So. . l .tzae.L.35 evy W r s 4,1s. S. ,, .. 5*-�'��-r MAI.N Air-S_ 4 -rum s)i ui./4s-V `�-ev icy Liusq B. 2.NVIR-Lf ELEMENTS 6075 5 LS Si EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one)(a) rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, • other b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope.?) a c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. a'JD d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. iJc.) e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 4.pn,2ox i mA7 .1Y /,-Soo .y oP e.g.'Rl Cq AAlrL'.lUorI Ca s42EA5 ate -re) ���^t D�tiPPG/6�2 S vc�F .ds c c) . gouge& W ILL J.d<i4-Y 5-revile WAY. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or. use? If so, generally describe. �a g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: AkettAL -SAFE*UARDS LOLL. 8e ur[c.t g.b b leisl4 de sr 1)64.7" . 3 Environmental Checklist 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. /VexeniAC 'Cdk 4 EcQo/PA4EA? EMr55/ow/S d(lPinl4 Co•l/STEO?.7/a.✓, A U7-0 1 7 .UC.+v eoi/SS/o^/S O PE•E477sW d'O 4'RS. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. 'Jo. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: do../6. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there anyisurface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. //a. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. ,J/A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. IJo 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. Aio 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. //o 4 Environmental Checldict b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. ,'hiJ c. Water Runoff(including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm..water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so;,describe. Sro,e,,, wsErst .eui/oFF Eaed.m,c. ro P.eEv/o4 e/5,. {•/.d rEk k(/t i. SE -DI•eec»'o Ta C.4rai" T dism is Ana, Go vay eD 7Z - Cirri �r 4,'.✓4g— 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4p7ss/r!o w 7b .GoP,ES a,e..,4/A/.6¢E- Coc.L6G-r/oos! 3ysreots .a u.Q/N!'4 rr1a" Zase4,4/ ,P sE.. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree:fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants; cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other . other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. pia d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: y L4 Ay) � .44- s cAP Ey Arita GeT`1 ��aZU/ate. /��/f�l'�' W/G L. d 4" /.JCL:vP e-P 5 • Environmental Checklist • 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: A1TA Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver,other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Lrd�•ra SrJ.pED AREAS 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood,stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. eA /alW6.¢ a AvAr'a�� gsfs W/LL 71! U D Foe ,114d,'/4 Qriiv4/ D PLA .I/P, 5/1/1." syST€nts . b. Would your project,affect the potential use of solar energy by.adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.: c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control ei.ergy impacts, if any: $iii..D/A/* "pm- ./A /•/ ULaa'Tioa'% L/ y</T/i+/f 7 iyt5, E rc. W/. $ SL GT77) pp,e E.4I R'i� co.egs 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. ' Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. A/c, 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. doA/E 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Zile- OE yva/a ,Jo, en.44 641Arry eiezcoilerioAls f'o a 77//S 7f fE o l 8 u-s'/Ness. 6 Environmental Checklist b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?// 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ' /Uo,e 11.4- T [/SE. Cee,4770A1 err /4.DDTlo w/AL ;claI* i s .ale• P.�r�a 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: -rectal• ePE,QA7 forms W zGG 640" WtTZF/N FEQIE c7- tra 8o4w/G4P1ES. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 1 sl7a /5 V.A 4.i/r,' 4ckiAeE-Ad r- iw/c[.uDC E' EW. r' /4 Lr.JEA/ t-�4uvaty Sui�ai.J4 aovo �- co-ricers Foie. roc u b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. A/6 c. Describe any structures on the site. °'��— T o 6.92444 37-Rue_c YV 5 S G Gcu Ay /�C wF-•ter d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? Oratz-z) w/C¢4 Iola- f3E .a6e',a L/Ss,4ED P41" of 77/s P2cjec7: e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? CD0-) f. .What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program c ;gnation of the site? /J/d h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: A/o i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 44A7- Ak- - /o A Me /.q,lL PEOPLE- 7 Environmental Checklist j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? . /-lo JE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: --41€ tit7PCt #EA/5/✓E •dam/ Bn!CoLI 4C ES 770ieACcoavaaA7-/on! aF AE-4/OVAL- eoir.meRciAL use /A/ f C iN7lr,Q65T Ot Go#11-2//5077A/4 7 7114" .SAID EOon/oM/c WOAL-7H OF INC C17Y. 9. HOUSING • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Ala c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: '.0. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. AVV/"NNW 4/4`74wl A5 AA/Tic/ostre° .r -95Z P££T: I h-L.L ,7A TZ-Z/AG$ ACE Afi+/?ie-/A47 b 74-0 6.../c.e‘7to AleisoAmy dA/ir5. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? AloAte c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: E ferEQioQ F/n//s/!ES AM-1 8. 03E ./ /P.47 8 .e- (n//ri, 5cI CUA/b##4 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 04 AfiA/I AtV«/ oc &.terae/00Z /fifer/d4 /. exptcr . 77,46" 61od-EAT/on/ 7-24,c,<% oa/ /7E , 74? Aeodc/G6 50'//E gtat BO7 /Jor- $. y oA/D Mee E 3CPEGTED AZ04/07. • b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? iv 8 • Environmental Chec!dist c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: /ELDcD Gerva eme. [./yAdiast/EI ThuCx 4.44 ✓UE,Yts.../.✓4 w/ /A/ ' o.JE S 41402y) PossisE- usE af' .d e-AEA SA/ W44.4.. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? nlo,vE b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe. "I/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or, control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities-to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: A//A 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. rJv b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: "//A 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. .fit i.TV 4 1"72cIL',f .4eae.5S k!/LL BE d/a4 .DRt l/ES ow/ PVEJ /-. 4i'E• S. 4 /k4/A/ 4/E. S. A 70 , W1WF1' PP441W., COri FPOM tiggih "s6 y• s (x)1I,6 'w4 Ave'. S b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes: A .''w 7d,A.✓ahvt-rA7/cA/ -rar- t/A44L /s /=.i.AA/.vep �(171I/A/ WAt LIUA/* DI S7-4.JCE_ o ?%E P2cJleG'r. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? A 7-o -A t_ cg- 3 ee '4e Ater .4 v.4/L AM'Lg ./a/c1..N2/A/* lv 1VE ' s",,44-s . DOES WoT INav! eritrce, qP lle� Z e A' ?Y. Environmental Checklist - - • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? At,Alf A01TT/G/"4 r b. II0( Ac parr PAreixt, tc1S W I LL ge M oIl?ED 70 Cevipty t11H GUR 'T- STANDW05 e. Will the project use (or 'occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. A/) f. . How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known,b� indicate when peak volumes would occur. N /Ale eAS,t= tn6 'w de&+ oA• ri a /S E PEe.7131D. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Al/A 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. /Jv b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. &I(4 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ilectricity, natural gas, water, refuse service,telephone, sanitary sewerrseptic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. go /JeW cc/W./T/e$ 4R,E A rI..,P.4 o . C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non- significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 44-eirdt/a/A. Name Printed: l2An/a Y .1340el8Et • • Date: // `-3 10 ' Rezone Project Narrative The proposed project will add approximately 33,000 sf of commercial laundry space to the existing facility being operated by Service Linen. The project site is bounded by Wells Ave. S. on the west, Main St. on the east, the existing Service Linen facility to the north and the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association to the south. Current zoning for the proposed expansion site is Central Downtown Public (CD-P). Purpose of rezone is to remove the P suffix. This rezone application is been submitted to the City for consideration on both the Service Linen parcel and the WIAA parcel. Both sites have been transferred from public to private ownership. Surrounding property is zoned CD and Residential Multi-Family Urban Center(RM-U), and the project site is outside of the Designated Downtown Core area. The proposed Service Linen expansion is to be located on a now vacant parcel, formerly the site of Henry Ford School. The zoning designation allows for commercial laundries as a continuation of an existing use, with continuation of an existing use expandable to a contiguous property allowed by code. It is anticipated that ties will be made to existing utilities lying in either Wells Ave. S. or Main Ave. S. The project site has no special features, such as wetlands or bodies of water within or adjacent to its boundaries. The project is within zone 2 of the City's aquifer protection area,as well as within seismic zone 3. ®FVoet ®Ec? 'K aQ WED • rAl O I M PIC A5;S:OC.IATES `r' C O M. .P A N Y Site Plan Approval Project Narrative—Service Linen This site plan approval application is being submitted on behalf of Service Linen, 420 Wells Ave. So. The project will add approximately 33,000 sf of commercial laundry space to their existing facility.. The project site is bounded by Wells Ave. S. on the west,Main St. on the east,the existing Service Linen facility to the north and the Washington Interscholastic,Activities Association to the south. Current zoning for the proposed expansion site is Central Downtown Public (CD-P). A rezone application has been submitted to the City for consideration,as the parcel where the existing building lies is zoned Central Downtown(CD). Surrounding property is zoned CD and Residential Multi-Family Urban Center (RM-U), and the project site is outside of the Designated Downtown Core area. The proposed expansion is to be located on a now vacant parcel, formerly the site of Henry Ford Elementary School. An existing house currently used as part of the Service Linen facility and a covered loading area at the northwest corner of the site are to be removed. The zoning designation allows for commercial laundries as a continuation of an existing use, with continuation of an existing use expandable to a contiguous property allowed by code. The project site has no special features, such as wetlands or bodies of water within or adjacent to its boundaries. The project is within zone 2 of the City's aquifer protection area, as well as within seismic zone 3. The soils investigation performed by Hart Crowser in April 2000 indicates loose to medium dense silty sands in the upper 20 feet, with dense sands and gravels below. The water table elevation was observed between 19-22 feet below ground elevation at the time of the soils borings. Liquifaction is not considered to be a concern, and settlements are expected to be around one-inch. Dewatering is not anticipated, and standard underslab and wall drainage methods and materials will be utilized. The plant expansion will be on the order of 33,000 sf, including office and laundry spaces. At this time, a steel-framed structure with concrete masonry unit walls is anticipated. The height of the building will be established by the required function, and is expected to be around 42 feet. The height, in any case, will be less than the maximum allowable height for this zoning designation, 95 feet. A straight wall facade will be utilized to meet the functional requirements of the building operation. Fenestrations and landscaping will be commensurate with the zoning requirements and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting will most likely occur at the building, and will be considerate of both the safety and security requirements of Service Linen, as well as the surrounding property uses. Lot coverage will be within the 65% maximum allowed by RMC. The building will be designed to meet current building code and zoning requirements. The total estimated cost of construction is in the range of$1.5M-$1.8M. Parking for the new facility will utilized existing Lots A and B on Wells Ave. S. and Williams Ave. S. respectively, as well as new spaces being added on the south end of the project site. A total of 73 parking spaces will be provided, which is more than required by code and does not include 8 spaces proposed in easement @ WIAA property. Access to the on-site parking area will be via an existing driveway on Main Ave., and a new driveway to be added along Wells Ave. S. All truck loading and unloading will take place in the parking areas on the south side of the building. Sidewalks are anticipated along the landscaped areas on both of these streets. Utilities for the new building will be connected to existing water and sewer lines in either Wells Ave. or Main Ave. No utility mains, street extensions or reconstruction are anticipated to be part of this project. No trees are to be removed as part of this project. No land, other than that prja,ri OtidEdiRPIiiMtNING be dedicated to the City as a part of this project. CI OF RENTON DEC 2 2 2000 RECEIVED At this time the need for a job shack/trailer is not anticipated. Space in the existing building will be used for a construction office/job shack. Justification for Rezone: Service Linen, along with the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association, is requesting a rezone on lots 4- 6 and 15-18 (Parcel A), as well as lots 7 thru 14 (Parcel B) described in the attached legal description. The areas described lie on the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map within that designation described as Center Downtown (CD), with the public space (P) suffix due to its former use. The parties seek the removal of the P suffix from the parcel's zoning designation as the properties have transferred from public to private ownership. The site, formerly owned by the Renton School District, was the location of Henry Ford School. The RMC states that zoning maps are to be updated annually. Assuming an update has not occurred since title transfer, we believe it appropriate to remove the `P' suffix for the reasons stated. Wells Ave. South, S. 4th St.,Main St., and S. 5th St. bound the parcels on the west, north, east, and south sides respectively. The current development in the area consists of retail, professional services, and light industrial. Service.Linen seeks to expand their existing facility on Parcel A and enter into an easement agreement with WIAA to allow use of a portion of Parcel B. As such, we hope the removal of the P suffix to be a formality. The nature of the area will not change from its current functional character, and title of the area has been transferred from the Renton School District to Service Linen. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON DEC222000 RECEIVED r1 Architecture • Engineering • Construction Services f) a701 Dexter Avenue North #301,Seattle,Washington 98109 1 Tel: -m (206)olympic@oac-intl.com /Fax: (206)285-4371 E-mail: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES COMPANY December 20,2000 Steve Taylor, Senior Planner,AICP Development Services Division City of Renton Planning/Building/Public Works Department 1055 South Grady Way Renton,WA. 98055 pEVECITY LOPMEIVfOF PLANNING RENTON DEC 2 2 2W1 RE: Service Linen Supply m� , File No.LUA-00-131,ECF,LLA,R, SA-H ' ~"" ' " n Dear Mr.Taylor: In response to your letter dated 10/23/00, we are resubmitting the land use application package for the above referenced project and the following revisions have been made: • The lot line adjustment between the Service Linen and WIAA properties, to provide additional property ownership to'Service Linen, has been deleted from this application. As an alternative, the property owners will execute an easement agreement to allow use of this property by Service Linen. We are still submitting for coordinated rezone, environmental and site plan reviews. Additionally,we are including a lot line consolidation(adjustment)to remove the interior lot lines on the Service Linen property. • The master application forms are updated and an additional $300 in environmental review fees is provided with this resubmittal. • Project narratives are updated and corrected to reflect the current application. • Neighborhood map is revised to show all properties and the rezone area shaded. • The environmental checklist is updated. • Existing conditions map is revised to reflect actual conditions and coordinated with the site survey. • The property line between the new and existing Service Linen buildings is to remain and with the lot coverages for these buildings considered separately,the proposed new building footprint is below the maximum allowed. • Off-site parking lots are revised to comply with current city standards for stall size, drive width and landscaping. t"-- r� 1 �1 I II 1- `,,"'''. ' ' )) 2000153 f� c ! 1-1 Steve Taylor December 20,2000 Page 2 • Other discrepancies between application materials have been corrected. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information regarding the application resubmittal. Thanks for your help with this project. Very truly yours, -YMPIC ASSOCIATES COMPANY • Brad Minogue,AIA Project Architect Enclosures • 2000153 Service Linen Construction Mitigation The following is provided regarding construction mitigation for the Service Linen plant expansion. The construction is expected to begin no later than early second quarter 2001, with completion scheduled by the end of March 2002. Anticipated hours of operation are expected between 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday. Hours can be modified to meet City and/or neighborhood requirements.. At this time, fill to be brought to the site would be expected from a local source. Haul route would be confined to major thoroughfares to minimize impacts to residents. Due to the nature of construction, dust is not expected to be an issue, as completion of any site earthwork will go quickly and slabs place shortly thereafter. Utility connections are available in the adjacent streets, so traffic disruptions will be minor and of short duration. With the existing neighborhood operational and traffic volumes,noise from the construction effort is not expected to pose any problems. Should concerns arise, we will work with the City and neighborhood residents to come up with a solution that works for those concerned. EVEggoF a004,�G DEC 2 2a 9 ra, 0 L Y. IAP I C AS: S.O'CIAT.ES `SIC O M P. A N Y Lot Line Adjustment(Consolidation)Project Narrative—Service Linen Service Linen is applying for a lot line consolidation to their parcel in Renton, WA. They wish to remove the interior lot lines presently subdividing the property. The property currently is legally described as follows: Lots 3,4, 5, 6 and 15 through 18 in block 16 of Town of Renton,according to the plat recorded in volume 1 of plats, page 135, in King County, Washington;except that portion conveyed to the City of Renton for street purposes by deed recorded under recording no. 9807211996. Removal of the interior lot lines is proposed in advance of development of the above property with an expansion of the Service Linen facility. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING CITY OF RENTON • DEC 22206n RECEIVE 0) roilO I Y Yu1 P f C A5` SO:C1ATE:S `r�•C 0 ;M P .A N: Y • • ern,of /:Pf pi • MEMORANDUM Aiv '2 2oo0 • Lai�1.111% �� ON DATE: TO: Construction Services, Fire Prevention, Plan, Review, Project Planner FROM: Jana Hanson, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: eV/(F' e ibezo,s/ 71 LOCATION: 90/ 5, ' e PREAPP NO. OO -02 A meeting.with the applicant has been scheduled for 102 00 .4/h , Thursday, , in one of the 6th floor conference rooms (new City Hall). If this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the•MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11:00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You will not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit. application.submittal. • Please submit your written comments to ii zajje.-'Lt at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. • e _ DEVELOPMENT PLANNING fik CITY OF RENTON • DEC 2 22000 • 7)/(e-e-iLPI Va.21az) . i-ECEIVED • Preapp2 m - - �: _ +I ® + CITY OF RENTON �N2C FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: January 17, 2000 TO: Elizabeth Higgins, Planner FROM: Jim Gray; Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion, 901 S. 4th St. Fire Department Comments: - 1. The preliminary Fire flow is 5500 GPM which requires one fire hydrant _ within 150 feet of the building and five additional hydrants within 300 feet of the building. This is based on the square footage listed on the plans for the main floor areas. We need the total square footage of the second floor areas to determine the final fire flow and mitigation fees. 2. Provide'a list of any flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are to be used or stored on site. 3. A fire mitigation fee will be calculated on the square footage of the new addition minus the square footage of the demolished buildings. 4. Separate plans and permits are required for the fire alarm and sprinkler system installations. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. • r. , City of Renton InterOffce Memo To: Elizabeth Higgins From: Kayren K.Kittrick Date: January 26,2000 Subject: Service Linen Expansion PreApplication Review NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of.Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information - contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by.official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner,Boards of Adjustment,Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is existing 8-inch waterline to the south,4-inch and 10-inch in Wells Av S., and 14-inch and 16-inch diameter water lines in Main Avenue S. The derated fire flow in the vicinity is _ modeled at 2500 thru 6000 gpm with a static pressure of 65 psi. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within 300 feet of the nearest corner of the building. 2. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) would probably be offset by the existing 2- inch and 1.5-inch meters on the site. Any meter not to be used in the new building will require a service kill application and fee. An SDC fee would only apply if additional meter, hydrant or connection is required. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is an existing 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer on both sides of the parcel. There is an existing side sewer connection. 2. If demolition occurs, the side sewer is required to be cut and capped. This is.an over the counter permit which may be applied for at the same time as the demolition permit. SURFACE WATER .. 1. A limited level one drainage study is required. No retention/detention calculation are required for this project. Water quality treatment sized for the new impervious surfaces subject_to vehicular access is required. It is unlikely that any additional surface water work is required as the entire site is impervious at this time. A narrative from a licensed engineer verifying this in accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual is required. 2. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervious surface square footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage by$0.129. Service Linen Expansion PreApplication Review 01/26/00 Page 2 • TRANSPORTATION 1. The traffic mitigation fee of$75 per additional generated trip shall be assessed with a credit for the current use. This fee will be determined when final plans are submitted. • 2. Full street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sidewalks, curb &gutter, street signs and street lights are required to be brought up to City of Renton standards, if not already in place. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. PLAN REVIEW 1. A construction permit may be required for any additional connections for either sewer or water. When plans are complete three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage narrative, a construction estimate and application fee shall be submitted at the sixth floor counter of city hall. CC: Neil Watts CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: January 27, 2000 TO: Pre-Application File No. 00-02 FROM: Elizabeth Higgins, AICP, (425)430-7382 SUBJECT: Service Linen Building Expansion Preapplication Comments Applicant: Azaria Rousso, Architect Project Name: Service Linen Building Expansion Project Address: 901 South 4th Street .General: We have completed a preliminary review of the preapplication materials for the above-referenced development, proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the preapplication submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and on the Codes in effect on the date of the review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (Hearing Examiner,.Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code and the City of Renton Development Regulations. The Renton Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk's office and the Renton Public Library. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of Renton City_Hall. • Project Proposal: The project proponent, Service Linen, wishes to initiate three land use actions. One is to adjust a lot line to change the size and dimensions of existing tax parcels located between South 4th and South 5th Streets and Wells Avenue South and Main Avenue South in the City of Renton. The second action would be to remove the 'P' suffix from the zone district • overlay, thereby changing the zoning from CD-P to CD. - CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM January 27, 2000 Page 2 The third action would be to obtain site plan approval for an addition to the existing Service Linen building located at.901 South 4th Street. Zoning: The property is in a Center Downtown - Public (CD-P) District. It is the site of the former Henry Ford School, which is currently being demolished in a separate action. Since the property has been sold by the Renton School District, it will be necessary to remove the "P" suffix (denotes publicly owned property) by action of the Hearing Examiner. The abutting zone to the north is Center Downtown (CD). A Residential zone, Residential Multi-Family— Urban Center (RM-U), is adjacent to the west. Commercial laundries are allowed in the CD Zone, as a continuation of an existing commercial laundry use (4-2-080A18). The existing use may be expanded on existing property or contiguous properties. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation is Center Downtown. The property is outside of the Downtown Core, and is therefore subject to CD development standards, including parking requirements. Land Use Permits Required: A Lot Line Adjustment will-be required to reconfigure the tax parcels. The requirements for a Lot Line Adjustment are included with this memo. The fee is $450.00. A Hearing Examiner approval of the removal of the `P' suffix (Publicly-owned land designation) will be necessary. The fee for this action is $2000. Site Plan Review and Approval is required for all projects in the Center Downtown Zone. Projects larger than 25,000 gross square feet undergo Hearing Examiner review at a public meeting. If the building addition is less than 25,000 gross square feet in size the Site Plan Review would normally be an _. administrative process. Because of the necessity for removal of the `P' suffix, however, the Hearing Examiner will review the request to remove the `P' suffix and the site plan simultaneously. More information from the applicant will be necessary before making a determination on project size. . . An environmental checklist review and environmental determination by the Environmental Review Committee will also be required because the project is more than 4000 sf in size and is a change of use (from a school). CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM January.27, 2000 Page 3 The Environmental Review Committee makes a determination of non- significance, determination of non-significance with mitigation, or a determination of significance. The Environmental Review Committee may also determine that a public hearing will be required regardless of project size. An appeal of the Environmental Review Committee's determination would also result in a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. See below for fees. The purpose of the Site Plan Review is to ensure that the site plan of proposed uses is compatible with existing and potential uses and complies with plans, policies, and regulations of the City of Renton. The Site Plan Review criteria are: 1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements and policies; 2. Conformance with existing land use regulations; and, 3. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties. The processing time for the Environmental Review Committee decision and Administrative Site Plan Approval is approximately 8 to 10 weeks, assuming no appeals are filed. The fee for the combined process is $2500 ($2000 for the Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and one half the Environmental Review fee of$1000), plus $0.33 for each mailing label. The applicant will be provided with a complete Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval application package with a copy of this memo at the Preapplication Conference. Building and Utility Construction Permits Required: A building permit and a utilities construction permit will be required. At the applicant's option, these permits may be submitted simultaneously with the site plan application. The processing time for a new building permit is approximately 6 to 8 weeks. Timing for the construction permit is less. Lot Dimensions and Coverage: There is no minimum lot size,lot width, or lot depth in the Center Downtown (CD) Zone. The maximum lot coverage for buildings in the CD Zone is 65 percent, or 75 percent if parking is within the building or within a parking garage. Setbacks: The CD Zone requires a minimum setback of 15 feet from the street when the building is over 25 feet in height. There is a zero setback if the building is below 25 feet in height. The applicant has not provided building height • . • information. There is a maximum front setback of 15 feet for buildings 25 feet or less in height and 25 feet for buildings more than 25 feet in height. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM January 27, 2000 Page 4 There is an arterial landscaped frontage setback requirement of 10 feet (along . Main Avenue South). Landscaping: There is a minimum 10 foot landscaping strip required along streets. All parking areas, including off-site areas, are subject to landscaping standards (RMC 4-4-070). Underground irrigation systems that provide full coverage to planted areas are required in all landscaped areas. Landscape plans for the parking areas must be submitted at the time of application. Parking: All parking must be on site, no parking,on public streets is permitted. Parking layout plans for all parking areas used to meet required parking must be submitted,at the time of application. The amount of parking both required and provided must be shown on submitted plans. The parking requirements for these uses are: Office space: minimum 3 and maximum 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (gsf) Warehouse space: 1 space for every 1,000 gsf Commercial laundry facility: minimum 1 space for every 1,000 gsf and maximum of 1.5 spaces for every 1,000 gsf Delivery trucks must also be accommodated on the property and not park on the public street and/or sidewalks for loading or unloading. Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for parking must be met. Sensitive Areas: The site is indicated on the City's Sensitive Areas maps as being within an area of high concern for potential damage from seismic activity. A geotechnical report will be required. Transportation: A traffic study will be required. If a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan is required (more than 100 employees) and one has not been submitted,a CTR Plan may be required with the submittal. Environmental Mitigation Fees: Typical Environmental Mitigation measures include the required Fire Mitigation Fee of$0.52/square foot of building (less building area for the demolished structure) and Transportation Mitigation Fee of • $75/new trip generated by project, based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th ed. CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM January 27, 2000 Page 5 cc: Azaria Rousso Bob Raphael Jennifer Henning - _ 4 - CITY OF RENTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25,2000 TO: Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Rebecca Lind STAFF CONTACT: Owen Dennison(ext. 6576) SUBJECT: Service Linen Expansion The site is designated Center Downtown in the Comprehensive Plan. While comments offered for the 1998 preapplication submittal for the same proposal continue to apply, it appears that issues raised at that time are generally being addressed. • Loading and delivery is limited to off-street areas which will be screened. • Landscape screening is proposed for parking areas. • The cover letter notes that "attention will be given to building facades and landcaping fronting adjacent streets". It is expected that this will include some degree of building articulation along these facades. cc: Betty Nokes • H:\EconomicDevelopment\STRATPLN\PLANNING\PREAPP\CD\Svclin00.doc\od 00 - ( 3) CyJ rc A M E R S I � 1111.PnirOogrill‘. *C- `81.\\41 First American Title Insurance Company DEVELOPMENT EVIO FR OCTYE �VIVG DEC 2 2 2000 RECEWED COPIES OF D O C UMENTS LA kTLE A \I f: 2101 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 800 * SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121-9977 BUILDER/DEVELOPER DIVISION SENIOR TITLE OFFICER: DICK CAYS PHONE: (206) 615-3072 E-MAIL: dcays@firstam.com FAX NO.: (206) 615-3059 SPECIAL PROJECTS DIVISION SENIOR TITLE OFFICER: LANCE LEWIS PHONE: (206) 615-3257 E-MAIL: Ianlewis@firstam.com FAX NO. :(206) 448-6248 SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO. 506918-9K LIABILITY: $1,000.00 TAX: $17.20 FEE: $200.00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY, SUBJECT TO THE LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH BELOW AND IN SCHEDULE A GUARANTEES SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY HEREIN CALLED THE ASSURED, AGAINST ACTUAL LOSS NOT EXCEEDING THE LIABILITY AMOUNT STATED ABOVE WHICH THE ASSURED SHALL SUSTAIN BY REASON OF ANY INCORRECTNESS IN THE ASSURANCES SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. NO GUARANTEE IS GIVEN NOR LIABILITY ASSUMED WITH RESPECT TO THE VALIDITY, LEGAL EFFECT OR PRIORITY OF ANY MATTER SHOWN HEREIN. 2. THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY HEREUNDER SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL LOSS SUSTAINED BY THE ASSURED BECAUSE OF RELIANCE UPON THE ASSURANCE HEREIN SET FORTH, BUT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY EXCEED THE LIABILITY AMOUNT SET FORTH ABOVE. 3. THIS GUARANTEE IS RESTRICTED TO THE USE OF THE ASSURED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING TITLE EVIDENCE AS MAY BE REQUIRED WHEN SUBDIVIDING LAND PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 58.17, R.C.W., AND THE LOCAL REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SAID STATUTE. IT IS NOT TO BE USED AS A BASIS FOR CLOSING ANY TRANSACTION AFFECTING TITLE TO SAID PROPERTY. Page 1 SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE ORDER NO. 50691 S-9K SCHEDULE A THE ASSURANCES REFERRED TO ON THE FACE PAGE ARE: A. TITLE IS VESTED IN: SED REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS TO PARCEL A; AND WASHINGTON INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, A WASHINGTON NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AS TO PARCEL B B. THAT ACCORDING TO THE COMPANY'S. TITLE PLANT RECORDS RELATIVE TO THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING THOSE RECORDS MAINTAINED AND INDEXED BY NAME), THERE ARE NO OTHER DOCUMENTS AFFECTING TITLE TO SAID REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, 'OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN BELOW UNDER RECORD MATTERS. THE FOLLOWING MATTERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE: 1. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS, RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF. 2. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER. 3. TAX DEEDS TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. 4. DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO MINERAL ESTATES. DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: LOTS 4, 5, 6 AND 15 THROUGH 18 IN BLOCK 16 OF TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME I OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9807211996. PARCEL B: • LOTS 7 THROUGH 14 IN BLOCK 16 OF TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME I OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET PURPOSES BY RECORDING NO. 9807211996. Page 2 ORDER NO. 50691S-9K RECORD MATTERS: GENERAL TAXES, WHICH AMOUNT CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 2000. YEAR: 2000 • AMOUNT: SI0,782.94 TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723150-1373-02 ASSESSED VALUE OF LAND: S286,000.00 ASSESSED VALUE OF IMPROVEMENT: S543,700.00 (AS TO PARCEL A) 2. DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES. YEAR: 1999 AMOUNT BILLED: S4,763.16 AMOUNT PAID: NONE , AMOUNT DUE: S4,763.16, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723150-1373-02 (AS TO PARCEL A) 3. LIABILITY, IF ANY, FOR PRO-RATA PORTION OF 2000 TAXES WHICH ARE CARRIED ON THE KING COUNTY TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723150-1375-00 (AS TO PARCEL B) • WE NOTE CONSERVATION CHARGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $5.00, WHICH CANNOT BE PAID UNTIL FEBRUARY 15, 2000. 4. DELINQUENT GENERAL TAXES. YEAR: 1999 AMOUNT BILLED: S2,092.28 AMOUNT PAID: NONE AMOUNT DUE: S2,092.28, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723150-1375-00 (AS TO PARCEL B) 5. LEASE AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF AS DISCLOSED BY MEMORANDUM OF LEASE: LESSOR: SED REAL ESTATE, L.L.C. LESSEE: SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY, INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION TERM: 10 YEARS DATED: OCTOBER 1, 1999 RECORDED: OCTOBER 5, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 19991005002491 (AS TO PARCEL A) SAID LEASE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, PROVIDES FOR AN OPTION TO RENEW FOR A PERIOD OF ONE 5-YEAR OPTION. 6. UNRECORDED LEASEHOLDS, IF ANY, RIGHTS OF VENDORS AND SECURITY AGREEMENTS ON PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND RIGHTS OF TENANTS AND SECURED PARTIES TO REMOVE TRADE FIXTURES AT THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM. Page 3 • ORDER NO. 506918-9K 7. CONDITIONS, NOTES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND/OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9710209015. 4=e EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: JULY 6, 1998 RECORDING NO.: 9807060543 IN FAVOR OF: PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. FOR: GUY WIRES, GUY POLES AND ANCHORS AFFECTS: THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE EAST 25 FEET OF LOT 11 EASEMENT. INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: OCTOBER 5, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 19991005001770 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: PUBLIC ROADWAY AFFECTS: THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF THE EAST 5 FEET OF LOTS 11- 14 OF PARCEL B; AND`BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE 100 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A LINE PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 5 FEET, THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE A DISTANCE OF 10 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY ALONG A LINE PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EAST LINE TO AN INTERSECTION WITH SAID EAST LINE, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING vJ I0. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 29, 1999 RECORDING NO.: 19990929001173 IN FAVOR OF: CITY OF RENTON FOR: PUBLIC ROADWAY AFFECTS: EASTERLY PORTION OF LOTS 15-18 OF PARCEL A DATED: • January 27, 2000 AT 8:00 A.M. TITLE OFFICER PS/EJH Page 4 - ORDER NC C2 /.-7/C- NOTICE SUBDIV!SIG,_ 1oc W ak- 2[ 1-r'ti This Sketch is furnished u a courtesy only by First American RCUG NO./VOL & PG. I' —l 3.' Title Insurance Company and it is NOT a part of any title N QTR 56v SEC 17 TWNSHP Z3 RNG commitment or policy of title insurance This sketch is furnished solely for the pure of assisting in locating the premises and does not purport to show all highways, roads,or easements affxtin the property. No reliance should W M'`•. rya}'. E be placed upon this sketch for the location or dimensions of the '''• ' property and no liability is assumed for the correctness thereof. s v D *mime s7r4d 4 I h 3 112P a° �oo°13h 4 ii Cr �° 6 f us •5°s 7w 4 a 9 ��h 1 I !zo zo ,aj R.a,� h i•- e • 1 /20 • /Z0 /20 Na9-07-30W tr . %0 75001303ZZ + .. S. 4TH • ST 4 fit' k>:edA0. T c�� (--51./3523 (4m' a✓6. IZ o Z., I Izo 20h ° iZ� 1S � o vaII a 'o , 20A Ii ire°11 20 13/• 3 ei' 1e �a / ,304o� t ♦ 370/31 ` ILO ia • • . . . . Pi \.. 19 : 2 • 19 2 017 19 r 10' f3" I. *A 4 \ 3755/437 • ..........,i 8 > . 3 I h • L,11•.rot. 18 ' ` 3 l,�1° 18 ` • , //ir ��• s `,ti t H. +. 4 TO81 D.LC. NO. 17 OOO 'ZO1 p-- : 5 40 1h° y° 5 ' o Ss , > ,'ma• y • . �® 1 • 5 ' 6 1b4 • ST qo 15 h cn •6 I6�10 15 1 rho 14 : lot 7 ill 5�° . m huh ey 14 i,i ' 7 ��' 14 ' • 410 51t'O. 4 13 8 5?5°�s�l \,�h1�°� 13 : 8 . • 13 : , 3 ao 2 • ,11 ,- 9 5 lit' h��� • 12 • v, 9 ti'1 12; $$ r . . . . fl 0 Z }. o ;' h h 10 55I1o�h : I ,IS 1 l t° w h 10 • `�1h • I I o }t ♦, I0 __ /20 _ /Zo — 3 ..J.�%2,. . ,��1Zo '� o c9 ♦ ,io t NA,-o7-..o x/ 1 AP . r• ♦. . . .. o > S. ' 5 T H ST. o •• /3�4.9 i /Zo Z • (57a' ✓t) N) ♦ . a is J/L0�7 0o /Zol 40 Go / °Ass f♦. Zo . 0 h h I V t9 dell O tt,20 n h I II r ,�fl � : 1 IN2 t, t� cfltr� �Got Ss,� ♦1 O 1 t D �/° �66 • 0 a 2 b°Zy tD�to 19 ' o 2 � >< 4 '�� 16e20, 1 1 4 k _ 1 t� go o I9 ' 3. 3 l5g 418 t 3 kti \ Q 4 v 6 18 , • 1 • • • u! 3i q a a oa z5 ORADY WAY (an SIS) I [ :: :TTT:T 7g I I =' L ± ! • Ia I -1- 1-,- I 9� IOa0�015 I 1 Ivor I i-9-/ i r • ::: I ....; i a i G _� 1 I =g 1 N 104 N 01TY0}'E ----- 1 ^ WELLS AVE a 'i1 629.S7(N—•0.3•E--st-4 o. (MEAS'o TO CALC'O W IERSECTION) lo`1 =i 1 1_� L it E SYSTEM NAD83/91 GRAPHIC SCALE n a s Kie w -0) 2693.26'(CALC. SURFACE) •.'NTROL STATIONS ( a ExrI,) I bob - 50 it. • NOTES •MONUMENT CASE 1. INSTRUMENTATION FOR THIS SURVEY WAS A 5 SECOND THEODOUTE + 'NAY WEST OF ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT. PROCEDURES USED IN THIS SURVEY WERE • FIELD TRAVERSE. MEETING OR EXCEEDING STANDARDS SET BY WAC 332-130-090. ' 2 THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE RESULTS Of A SURVEY TE MONUMENT MADE IN DULY 1997, AND SHOWS THE GENERAL CONOI110N EXISTING AT THAT 11M .:T AND RENTON ' SW V4, SW 1/4, SEC. T/ , T. 23 N, R 6 E, W.M., KNCI COUNTY, WASFNGTON INCONCEPT ENGINEERING, INC. RECORD OF SURVEY 'S' I Noce, 27 200 a92-6055 F55(20 NOV RENTON 791—eons FAx(za)oe9—moe FORREN 1 ON OVM. BY DATE JOB NO. SCHOOL DISTRICT SRA I0-01-97 97236 CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET DL/Dtt I'-50' 1 OF I • OgM • U a:^ r g 0im sco.ls(u) oaN o,�72s�—_3:4 MAN AVE S(SR 515) go gIDD.d2•(C ,3D'(p) S •40.10'C 00'P �4DY WAY � )N 01K7'29• E ._. :,,::. , 6_,.,:..?!...... ,8 ._ . :. 1 z.:, 1 :. 1 ',r: I ... 1 :-: i i.. I I 0ImzoN I8' .- , • u 1 I. ..x I I 1 I 1 INayo s1IP... u i OI vI I a^ VK 50.00.(C 4) — 0P281B' E' —II 090I1I— .i — I — I I '`•- I I — — I o $ L_ _ _ I —I— CI -I= ofof I a I 1 :I' I I N s 1.1 I ,D¢ 7l+or }. r I I z r IIn I I :3 $o 1 �� __49.9e'(c),w( 0.91'(C) 350(P N 01K9'03'1 `NELL.g AVE S. L .tj!!: _. 1lI S(n 559.03'(YEAS'p TO CALC'O IN _ *SiR - - WELLS AVE•�.S y. .a a �0.(P) TERSEC710N) N 0179'0-- z12^ k 3 629.57•(u) N 0179'03'E-� 6 • u (YEAS'D TO CALC'D 3%q 8 il ." IN rERSECTION) o a $8 0 �R ,l' 4 a g ui Wr 2 of a�I.: &ills :1 ^ ..3P a\=S REFERENCE SURVEY& RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDING NO. BOOK 79, PACE 31 . RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDING NO. BOOK 14, PACE 111 N: WASHINGTON COORDINATE SYSTEM NADB3/91 — NORTH ZONE LEGAL DESORPTION BASIS OF BEAF1�ICe& N 0020'03" E 2693.21'(GRID &1AEASURED) 2693.26'(CALC. SURFACE) LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16, 17 & 18 OF BLOCK 16 OF THE TOWN OF IRE,N_TON, BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON HORIZONTAL CONTROL STATIONS ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OF THE RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR 0 KING63 AND 418; J COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARKING LOT STATION: 63 NOTES (S. STH STREET &WELLS) BRASS DISC STAMPED 804/BRN 123 IN MONUMENT CASE 1. INSTRUMENTATICe IN RIGHT WEST BOUND LANE C•F S GRADY WAY WEST OF ELECTRONIC DIET T 40 E TS 1 h 2, B OF REN TO INTERSECTION MI TH W4LLIAMS AVE S FIELD TRAVERSE, IN VOLU OF P 5, IN KING C SHINGTON. 2. THE INFORMATtOf STATION: 418 MADE IN ,A1LY 15 -e 13 1tETTR' THE WEST 80 FEET OF LOTS I & 2. BLOCK I7. TOWN OF RENTON. ACCORDING TO I/4- BRASS PIN SET ON CASED CONCRETE MONUMENT ` THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, PAGE 135, IN KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. 11' SOUTH OF INTERSECTION OF S 7TH ST AND RENTON 4-0 c A.r,,,e^f AVE S SW v4, SW v4, SEC, n , �T Laf 3_B/k /(i 4a.r.: ')i* . RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE riled for record We _day of _19_al _M This mop correctly rpresents•a survey made by meirri RECORD OF SURVEY :n book __of_at page _ot the request of or under my dlrectlon In conformance with the I David L Hill requirements of the Survey Recording Act at the /r 1' O. FOR RENTON request of Renton Scholl Diet. in June , 19 97 111 / "A'f '` SCHOOL DISTRICT Mgr• Supt. of Records S,gnotarr/(/p•++(`.��Gruneale No.28101 oeo,rn4M • FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: PUGET SOUND ENERGY.INC. Real Estate Department,OBC-11N P.0 Box 97034 Bellevue.WA 98009-9734 PC SET o SOUND ENERGY • W EASEMENT REFERENCE tr: GRANTOR: Renton School District G E: PUGET SOUND ASSESSORS PROPERTY TAX PARCEL: 1375 O k i G ' NAL SHORT LEGAL: Lot 11.Bak 16,TOWN OF RENTON For and in consideration of One Dollar(51.00)and other valuable consideration,the receipt of which Is hereby • Uj adusawtedged,RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.403('Grantor'herein).hereby grans.c nveya and warrants ,`45 CD to PUGET SOUND ENERGY,INC.,a Washington Corporation CGrentae'herein).her the purposes hereinafter (J set forth.a perpetual easement over,across and under the following described real property(te"Property herein) Q in KING COUNTY.Washington: • iNr LOT 11,BLOCK 10,TOWN OF RENTON AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS,PAGE 135;BUIO A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, <k TGWNseiP 23 MORTd,RANGE 5 EAST,W.M. Except es may be otherwIse set forth herein Grantee's rights shalt be exeresed upon that portion of the Property(the'Easement Area'herein)described as follows: THE SOUTH TEN(10)OF THE EAST 25 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LOT 11, i1. • •hit. 1. Purpose. Grantee shaft here the right to construct maintain,repair,replace.Improve,remove,enlarge and use guy wires,guy poles and anchors over,on and/or under the Easement Area together with at necessary or conven.ent appurtenances thereto. 2. Access. Grantee shall have the right of access to the Easement Area over end across the Property to • enable Grantee to exercise Its rights hereunder.provided.that Grantee shall compensate Grantor for any • damage to the Properly caused by the exercise of said right of access. 3. Grantor's Use of Easement Area. Grantor reserves the right to ate the Easement Area for any purpose . not inconsistent ware me rights herein granted.provided.that Grantor shell not construct or maintain any building or other structure on the Easement Area. 4. Successors and Assigns. Grantee shag have the right to assign.apportion or otherwise trar&er any or all of Its rights.benefits.privileges end interests arising in and under this easement. Wrrrout limiting the generally of the foregoing.the rights and obMpetlan of the parties shag inure to the benellt of and be binding upon their respective successors and assigns. 12/96 Anchor TS-A0001r9e507C0•onto ,.. 235-67 Itr EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED KiritCsacordi Dtnlbn �. %. ,ow/ • 5.. Abandonment The rights herein granted shall continue until such time as Grantee ceases b use the Easement Area fw a portod a five(5)suassslw years.In which event ens eaeuerwt shall term:new and tl rights hereunder shall revert to Grantor.provided.that no abandonment shall be deemed to have occurred by reason of Grantee's failure to needy nsix6 its faclltes on the Easement Area within any period of time from the date hereof. ,..,•, DATED the I/ day of 1998. GRANTOR: RENTON SCHOOL� DISTRICT NO.403 • BY: 'ONJ f�"`" ' BY: Ter O N STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS • GD COUNTY OF KINGCrl ) . On this day personals appeared before ma 4,-es ,JT 6,1k,ls to me known to be the indivldwl described In and MAID executed the within and foregoing instrument end Is atAhatzed lo do such on behalf of the RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.403 end acknowledged that .T/Se signed the same as be v free end voluntary ad and deed,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Witness my hand and otltial seal hereto affixed the day and year In this certificate above written. l iG%s/r .41:%st%O U a :r� Print Name ec c lw• Notary Public In end for the State of Washington, : • �'/�� ' ..h b.: .r Residing et l Y"'"(2'/ • Y, •9p ,•o• eot= My mission expires //-/41-9' • NOTARY SEAL HERE? iro k • • • • • SS • • 2• ; :Yq s�-.. • • • • • • Qin • • • EXHIBIT A 2. LIABILITY, IF ANY. FOR PRO-RATA PORTION OF 1999 TAXES WHICH ARE CARRIED ON THE KING COUNTY TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT. TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723 1 50-1 375-00 (AS TO PORTION IN BLOCK 16) SPECIAL CHARGES FOR 1991 IN THE AMOUNT OF$5.90 HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. 3. LIABILITY, IF ANY,FOR PRO-RATA PORTION OF 199 TAXES WHICH ARE CARRIED ON THE KING COUNTY TAX ROLLS AS EXEMPT. • TAX ACCOUNT NO.: 723150-1391.00 (AS TO PORTION IN BLOCK 17) 2 SPECIAL CHARGES FOR 1998 IN THE AMOUNT OF$5.00 HAVE BEEN PAID IN FULL. 4 4. LIABILITY FOR ADDITIONAL GENERAL TAXES(ROLLBACK TAXES) AND INTEREST WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO RCW 84.36.810 UPON CESSATION OF THE USE FOR WHICH THE EXEMPTION WAS GRANTED. ACCORDING TO RCW 84.36.812,THE COUNTY SHALL NOT ACCEPT AN INSTRUMENT OF CONVEYANCE (FOR RECORDING) UNLESS THE ADDITIONAL TAX HAS BEEN PAID. 8. CONDITIONS,NOTES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND/OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9710209015. _? 9. EASEMENT, INCLUDING TERMS AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN: RECORDED: JULY 6, 1991 RECORDING NO.: 91A7060543 • IN FAVOR OF: PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC. POR: GUY WIRES, GUY POLES AND ANCHORS AFFECTS: THE SOUTH 10 FEET OF TICE EAST 2S ITZT OF LOT 11, BLOCK 16 • • 14993722981369 cw.cMCa "2 • r,RIT of(VICM“tD • �, , • ." 2 I, t •..7,tS•11 J _ _ • • • 1991110050e1776 Illh111111II1IL¼ k 1 Return Address: CITE OF MOON 11 ~ City Clerk's Office City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98055-3232 • EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED Pang Co.Racordt Orvalon • Title:EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY Property Tax Parcel Number:723150-1375 PRM 04-0014 Main Avenue S. S lth Streets Grantor(s): Grantee(s): 1. Washington Intercollegiate Activities I. City of Renton,a Municipal Corporation Association Grantor for and in consideration of Ten Dollars 010.00)and other valuable consideration the receipt of which ea hereby acknowledged.does by these presents.grant,unto the City of Renton,a Municipal Corporation,Grantee herein.its successors and assigns.an casement for public roadway purposes with necessary appurtenances over.under,through.across and upon the following described real estate.for rightbf•wa7 purposes Situate in Section 17,Township 23 North.Range) Foss,W M in the County of King.Stale of Washington LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following 2 portions,identified as Parris A and B.of the following Tract: Lots I 1 through 10.Block 16,Town of Renton Addition according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume I of Plats.page 135,records of King County,Washington, LESS that portion deeded for public road as recorded under King County Recording Number 911072I 19% Parcel A. The south 10 feet of the east 5 feet thereof. Parcel f3• Beginning at a point on the east line of said parcel,100 feet north of the southeast corner: thence westcrl a'ong a line perpendicualr to said cast lint,a distance of 5 feet; thence northerly parallel with said east line a distance of 10 feet: thence easterly along a line perpendicular to said east line to an intersection with said east line: thence southerly along said east line to the point of beginning. Contains an area of IOU square feet For Use purpose of constructing.reconstructing.installing.repairing.replacing.and maintaining a public Right-of Wu This easement shall run with the land descnbcd herein.and shall he binding upon the panics.Their heirs.successors in interest and assigns from date hereof This easement shall run with the land described herein,and Shall be binding upon the panics.their heirs.successors in 'nicest and assigns Grantors covenant that they arc the lawful owners of the above properties and that sties hate a good and lawful right in execute this agreement. IN'A•ITN WI'[ER)'r if,said C'ransor has caused tins in,trurlscns 10 be rsccutcd this alas Grantor:.W'prlftoftoo Intercollegiate Activitef Association ' BY' t Lf/( �G Page I or? • .0I • Notay Seal muss be within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS COUNTY OF KING ) • On thus_ f 0 day of ) 19 y7.below me personally appeared O to me known tc be �u f�..?.s G'if Y�r orate corporation(hat executed the within rnstrumcnl,and eckmntcalge the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation.for the rases and purposes therein mentioned.and each on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instnrrrsmt and that the seal aNxed is the corporate seal of said corporation Notary Pub is in and for the State or Washington Notary(Print) ,< '* c-e r X: rt'-rr/i My appointment expires: eji.4 i a7c'oc Dated: -:r 'r7 • • •LITY OF REHTOMRENTOWRPMrPRPW COMMONS'DIVISION.SVROPSERVIFOR1.IS1FASEMENT DOCI Page 2 FORM 03 00004sCA2-21-97 1eVe100500177e ••�` ' - K f ghTY1 CITY Sc 11114TPs [AS I.MP • . . . • • • • 1?i'liirr:;Wan." • CH!.(I cri.s()nice .... (.11 iil Renton 1053 South(*and, V.a% 19894)929001773 Itcloon\‘.s,./X0:;5.:2 1: 111111111M11111 Pe0"1/2grtnril OF 13r6Z KING COUNTY! UN' CITY OF NTON ENS III in / — -- — — 711 "It: EAS4:)1EN-1 FOR ROA11NVA'V 1 Property Tilt Parcel Numhyr:723150434K..a-7,2-],657.,,„4- ,.„,,„ —,... ..i„..,,, Mrautirrikit (:rAnlec( ): . i 'il I)Real I .111.:. I I ('..1 11 asItinglinv I l it of Itettioti.a Municipal Corporation II I muted I ialiilit?. ( ipiipall -- ---_i !!- 7!„. ,i,i,. , ,..,,,,,te7.,, ,,iii 1,,,i),;717.1s in i in!...a iiitio,ainalite,iiiip.1; p•.iiin Ia..I. 1C.C11.1.11 V.11.:111,111.1.11, 1....:1 1,..1...-.! •I....•II, IIIi,11,....:111, 1:1,11.111110!Ile I 11!III RC111.111 .E\limi..arel I....r.“.al a..n.1.,•,.1,•,•I,•i/..fa .1. .. •It,••.,•.1.1.1 I-•..II.• .1:1 CA-01.011.o rtlilt. toad.1.•p.iii•.-K,tt'ill I.....-.I:,.q.I.•,1,,•1,,k• •i:, 11,1,, Ilt••••ii.l. ...i.•• :..r.1•11•••••M.1..11•••.i:::•do,.11 .,ic..1.-•:.11,. .1111.11.;tli••,.,I i..1 i I- I..\a11,1111` '\,..1(111 Ii.1..a.:i•.I 1-1 \\ \I III:II.1....II!, . 1.11 kin: Slat:..1 M...11,1w1.•11101nvitl..‘1,t.,• roll,,, , , "1 lit\I 1)1•••1 RI I'1111\ the 1"11'."ri1:1"1110,1`tti I iik I,ilipincli I K.ISI,n.l.In,I 1/1111 III Kl.1111111 A11,11111111.1,:ClIT1111114 It,the phi thereol re,orkleil III‘plume I or Plat,.pay,c I,4.records Pt Kini:(ontit . II.ashini:tiiii. I I...,that ppitian deeded lus pithily load el',resiiiilea under I:inc Omni,Recording Siiiiiihei 11/ I 1,/,/f• It.. 1,illItIt•.,1.11,,,111 011 die t.,•1 1,11e t.1...11.1 ii.116.CI I I'It'd 11111111 01 the••••IIII1C.1,1 t.11111a. I111:114.1:iii.ierk liii:.: ai,peipen,h,pit, iii..,11.1e.ia liVx..1,11,1.111,C,•1 ,Icel. 111C116.1:Ili.1111•31t r.II.111e1 it illis,n,1 c,r.,line,i,11.1.11:,.• . 1, ••1 1.,kil 11101,C.1•411k.11..;P:.1 lice iv'pe.hli.til.o 1.1•.nil 1.-.1.1 line hi ui trueriettion Pith sap(east line. . . theii,, -mai,ii,aIpii: ...ii,:..1,;!we I. ti,....r.••,II••I 1,, .,,,,in..: \•1) \1,..., i t.-2intlint:at a;.,,,,,t,•,1 the e.1.4 1111.0 01...lid pm,el. I, led moil of the sotithe.i.t,orticr. ihenee Pc‘ierl.akin,. a'ape rei recd..ii iii i.,..11.1 i.1-.1 line..1.11.1.m.i ol A lee!. [hem.:tioril.crl!.p.11.111e1Ttli satil....1st Ivic.,‘11,1...ii,- ; -i II .....t iltcn".e.1,11:1 Is•111.111:.i line pet IN.711tIlit11,11 Co..iiii C.i,1 hue to An intcr...vklioli is ilb..aid c.v..'!Inc i iivr.,,. ...tali:11..16,11r•.et,1 v.'s(lute In the paint ol 1Taininic . I P 1 ,.• .• :. -.•.. ...- .., ,• . ....,-,• •.. : ..11111-• lir.....t.• ..: 1..,,,,,• .01. 81e.i.11,1.11.i. .a 1*.1.111.1.114i...:\1 E i . 1 . • .i i I . i1 4 1 i • i 1 1 •-•• - - - ____ __, . . . . . . . . .... ._ . , , .. , . • _._..., 1 . ....' . .....-. . • • • . . . . . . . • . , • ________ 1 . •_• , ---/e-t• . 1 . ,..„11\1.......1%111 lil 1)1 ..44.:1.1 Into,11 l•..411.....11141.1,1•11,1414,,,....I,:4.‘.',141....1 III, 91 . • . . Apprined and Accepted 1,,: . I l;rontor:Sill It cal F:state.1..1J% ........-7 ! . •/ L (-7,..„.1 , ,, /_______ ) _. • 0(/..„(i...„6.... ,. --- . . / , . • • ___J • . . .._ gErNt.M.%r'MI.ts)Ril or I I'41t 14)11 ihnG.lit.%7 ‘...'.., s I.... •1‘.11 1,1 %%\sill`,.1.11 I\ ,,...., 1 1 Il 115-1 n .,i ,,, .., ,.,.,,. 1 141.,....•1 1.4,..'At.od.!I qi .,r.1,11‘:114,4i 1:Xii.'( jti 951 7 ci .ula,),...1(hd,he Mc, ,...I.,t etc .4141111.weilit.iNC•Illt:Ihe tostr union dih1 • .4.i.ii..1.;.4,:.:,....ilw 4.1 144 144.ilw 110.:,r1{41*4iiiiril.14 ...1 1,1•IlLil I.HI,j..11117•I,II,.:11,0 Atia 1,1111,,,,,,,111C1111.•Ilid 111:be i:1,[n11114:111 '. • l.1:4)le • 4 /2•/( 1,,,f/i, -, Nolnit hibli.:it)and loi the tilarc 04%%asil) don \01.11 t I Prild v .';I,( . /* 7).// y,../.11.L'i i \It appolidincid c‘pite. ,Ti, tl'S --1 I . • . . .. _ Rik,' 1/-7_,/ N • -- • ,.. i 1 . . i 1 . . ! I ... i 1 . 4 . .....,•;;•:;...I.,.•1 19990920001773 I A.' t, .,!;1:1 PAGE I•7__OF 113 ,:.,.-;''1' ,, •i 1.1 • rtzt,...1„3,22 CITY Cf REMTOO EPS' II 14 • G;GOtor r lit . _. • . . A.itg • • Ill1.1,11:c,711 \.111,I11- g ki/\„,1 I) I g • ittot • 1,1•10, .1..11•1,11/t lit.11 • • • • " " .I• I.be Ilit• .14.1 •1101 t•[O.I. e.I 111.• t•ttfr:•••:,litetittont.1 III,.ill•itittit••tet • isq y),,• 01,, ,bik Ill.L11,110, Niate:r1T; shin.bai • — • \h appolion col e•pir es ? _ I rail m if A‘111111.11( 1.‘1 %;11”1.1,1 '••I 111 (II \(;;,,\ I\\ • t (hal I lt.ov•ill•1.11.101.....bki.tr .22/./4441./ .3./././//e/••• /Y/141,q•%tit lit,. ••::1.XF • (11A/1.... ,•.t• .1.01t1,1,,1,1 I...,rettto Iiç tto..titimetti,111,1 1..,10A1 I.I.Ili. 11.1 . ; • . ________ 'soca out lot thy',Lae ol ouirI l'r int i‘.11(),..1111111011 V‘111,.."' <-0 oak,' . ••• , 1991092110e1773 !!. PAGE 111•3 OF Oil ; • 011/19/1A11 13.52 KING COUNTY. WA CITY OF REIGON E5 18 88 • JEW NIEW... . • • NNW • TAM • 491 A. Return Address: Joseph L.Lawrence 1K1NG f OUNT/? � Attorney at taw Suite 1710,City Center Bellevue tAsrti7lCE LE Mel 500- 108th Ave.N.C. Bellevue.Washington 98004 KING COUNTY AUDITOR/RECORDER'S INDEXING FORM B. Dneumen:T1tle(s)(or transactions cnntained therein): • Memorandum of Lease for Recording C. Grantor(s)(Last name first,then first name and initials): SF.D Real Estate,L.L.C. 0 Additional asses oa peer of document. I D. Granter(s)(Last name first.then first name and initials): • Service Linen Supply,Inc. Additional'sines on peas of documcat. F.. Legal description,(lot,block.plat or section,township,range.qtr./gtr.): I.o's 4-6.Lois 15-18 of 131k 16.Town of Renton as recorded in King Counn•Plats. Volume I.Page 135.State of Washington. 0 Additional kill Is oo psis of doeueet. h. Reference Num beets)of Documents assigned or released: • ❑ Addutonat nssbere ni pole of docannest • G. Assessor's Property Tan Parcel/Account Number-723150.1375-00 f ❑ Property Tan Parcel ID is not)et assigned t ❑ Aodltionai parcel numbers on page adornment • • / _. V • • • • ....r u ,% o4rotmtyy;N-. ', N ublic in a d fvr the State of Washiytonr • . U cd Name of otary�i i.1'+,�'� !*��1. ••1-L1.1 nu: Residing ,+Uq ( ,,/�f'l./ . ''I .Pj:••.!:.H o`'•' : Title: 1�,L EL.t� f) 1I:%"('•. .... • '' My Comm. x expires -4 r <�, . • ,,...,,,,,---cMwrs�=- P . . . . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 1 ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On thisday of,S.P poi. 1999 before me.the undersigned.a Notary Public in and for • the State of Washington,duly o6mmissioncd and sworn.personally appeared DAVID JASSNY,to ' me known asa Manager of SED Real Estate. L.L.C..the limited liability company that executed the foregoing instrument,ar.d acknowledged the said limited liability company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the company seal of said limited liability company. . . w11NESS my hand and offtcial.seal hereto afti the day and year first ye written. _G��..A.�F91r -- ++y ;,: N Public in rot the S of Was Eton �•�� y•` �Printed Name otary �' a �C to •.2 � Residing a 1119� J o 13 ' = g t..4+LSr11r1Gt_:' Title. 11' My Comm.expires • t 1 t9991geSee2a91 • 1 • •. '� DaC2 Ce5 a sets+ 18,05,1999 15 So Ktrc COVET`'. LP 1 L4PCICC LC 12 M ei • • • a.el= • STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) COUNTY OF KING On this•27 day of 1999 before me.the undersigned,a No tary the :state of Washington, dul commissioned and ;worn Public in and for RAPHAEL. to me known as Co-President of Service Linen Supply.personally appeared cooed ROBERT executed'the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said co corporathe tion that and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he is authorized to xecute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. %1TNES$ry ,band and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first ab5 written. U 2. ,. Q f N 'Public i an for the 'tate of Washings ''1 .�:, noted Name f, tan r . ice. ' 9C1/�. `h, Or•�•;;ti,, Residin • �� ,`, • Title: u _ STATE OF WASHINGTON My Comm.expires • • 1 • ) sg. 1 ' COUNTY OF KINC i On this day of — , 1999 before me.the undersigned.a Notary Public in and for 1 the State of Washington, d ly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ROBERT RAPHAEL.to me known as a Manager of SED Real Estate,L.L.C..the limited liability company I that executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the said limited liability company, for i the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said 1 instrument and that the seal affixed is the company seal of said limited liability company. I Y WITNESS m - I hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year fern above written. d . • d 1999180509249I Vail Old or we 1er-�ee'1»r'17w se c l GQ/rt , iraworcc lr 12 M • aNMI • • • 411111010 • • • • • LESSOR: SED Real Fstate By Robert R had as a Managing Member BY _ David 1 sny,as a Managinetifember i1 LESSEE: Service Linen Supply.Inc. BY — • • David lassny as its Co-Pre dent • Robert Raphael es its Co-President S fATE OF WASIIINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING On this day of \t, „', 1999 before me.the undersigned.a Notary POI**,,in and for . the State of Washington.duly commissioned and sworn.personally appeared DAVID JASSNY,to me known as Co-President of Service Linen Supply. Inc. the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument. and acknowledged the said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed a day and year first above 'nen. , , • s No lic in and or th .State of Waslinglon o tU •u, ;.1 P ' ed Name iC t u1 4 i : v,: :•U i Residing c� �K�t • Title: A/ 4 of I1,9 •'.,9, My Comm.expires M •_,1 •f -2- 19991007002691 PAGE OW Of M 19'U5,1999 IS 30 l E KING Cann. NA IZ 00 - • I t • 3.911 MEMORANDUM OF LEASE FOR RECORDING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made the 1st day of October. 1999 between SED • Real Estate. L.L.C..having its office and principal place of business at 903 South Fourth Street, Renton. Washington 98055. and Service Linen Supply. Inc. a Washington corporation. whose • principal place of business is 903 South Fourth Street.Renton.Washington 98055. WHEREAS. SED Real Estate. L.L.C., a limited liability company. having its office and principal place of business as 903 South Fourth Street. Renton. Washington 98055, hereinafter called lessor; and Service Linen Supply. Inc. whose principal place of business is at 903 South • Fourth Street.Renton. Washington 98055.hereinafter called lessee.did on the 1st d. . of Occcl.l.. 1999 make. execute and deliver a certain lease, wherein and whereby lessor leased to lessee the following premises. Lots 4-6.Lots 15-18 of 131k 16.Town of Renton as recorded in King County Plats,Volume I.Page 135.State of Washington. For the term of 10 years to commence from the 1st day of October. 1999 and to end on the 30th day of September.2009 with one 5-year option on the part of lessee to renew the said lease. NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETI I that lessor has leased and hereby does lease to . lessee the premises hereinbeforc described for the term above stated with rights of renewal as above set forth upon the conditions and covenants contained in the said lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF lessor and lessee have respectively signed and sealed this Memorandum of Lease effective as of the date and.year first above written. • L9991005002491 f PAGE 1112 o e417 1ex05,1999 15 S0 r1NG COJ4T . Ip LPaRCgCr LE 12 00 t ' • • • • • • r • Return Address: --' City Clerk's Office City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South tip Renton.WA 9 8055-2 1 89 • 4•; DEED Property Tax Pared Number: 723I50-1375 Pmject File I: PRM 04-0014 Street Intersection: Main Ave S®S 5th St Grantor(s): Granleefs): I. Renton school District No.403 I. City of Renton.a Municipal Corporation LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That portion of Lots 11 through 18,Block 16 Town of Renton.accordin f to the plat thereof recorded in Volume I of Plats.page 135.records of King County.Washington lying east of a line Col beginning at a point on Lie south line 5.77 feet west of the southeast corner and running northerly to a point on • the north line 5.58 feet west of the northeast corner of said parcel. Contains an area of 2272 square feet.or 0.0522 acre.more or.less. The Grantor.for and in consideration of ten dollars(S10.00)and other valuable consideration conveys.quit claims. dedicates and donates to the Cramoe(s)as named above,the above described real estate situated in the County of King. State of Washington.under threat of eminent••- , for road right-of-way.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.1 have •- • . i ). •and sail the day and year as written below. Approved and Accepted By: Apr(% y% Crantor(s):Renton Sc .• a ct NJ& egrain a1: City of Renton $� esse anne • City Clerk • '`( Nolan Seal must he within box STATE OF WASHINGTON )SS • F; COUNTY OF KING ) `' I certify that I know o.have satisfactory evidence that M4PS s Sht6... _ t. : signed this Instrument.on oath stated That belihe/hey way.Tre outhunted to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the • and cf _to be the free and • voluntary act of sud.•is party/parties for the sues and purposes menhoord in the • instrument Notary Public i nd for the State of Washington l. Notary(Print) 2teRT Iv... SS."���=-� My appointment ea pines: 4 Et) Dated: 2 C_ S4 Eib?_6267 07/2O/9A .00 .00 .r, . • • EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION: LOTS 4, 5, 6 AND 15 THROUGH 18 IN BLOCK 16 OF THE TOWN OF RENTON, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF RENTON FOR STREET PURPOSES BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9807211996. SUBJECT TO: 1' CONDITIONS. NOTES AND PROVISIONS CONTAINED AND/OR DELINEATED ON THE FACE OF THE SURVEY RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9710209015. 19990805002343 111 pacE 0B3 or 0u 00's,t999 I! 13 KIM(,CLUTty Iq rII15T eKIII[.N u0 IB Ile i • 4. 13F4 • FAST ArtQin.6,13 702146771 1 • g.11 AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: • WASHINGTON INTLRscHOIA3TIc ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION 435- lam: auZ-s w Att, , WA- q f Bow ' lifistill:01 NM Si OF Hi • Filed for Ream!at Request of First American Title Company _ ,. Mt American Escrow Number. 33T759DI fwwressce C'oratpeny Statutory Warranty Deed Oraror(i); RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT OrsMec{s):WASHINGTON INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION AbbreviatedLepti: LOTS d-te-BLOCK 1 c IATS 1-2 BLOCK 17, 1-iy Awe wea+ 80.- of 04 Additionui!gaga)on page: Aasaser's Tax Price!Number(s):723 50-1375-00 6 723150-1391-CO THE GRANTOR RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO KING COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 7 • for ad In coruiderasion of COMMENT TRANSFER WAC 458-61-420 in hand paid,conveys and warrants to WASHINGTON INTERSCHOLASTIC ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, A WASHINGTON NON-PROFIT CORPORATION the following described real awe,situated la the County of KING Suf�rtpatpn; THE' NB9T 80 PEET' OF Lars 1 AND 2 IN BLCICI( 17 AND LOTS 7 1 19 IN BLOCK 16 OF TOWN OF RENICN, ACOMDING TO PLAT REYEO ) IN MAMA 1 OF PLATS AT PAGE 135, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THAT ICRTICN CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF Rt3d1CN FOR STREET PURPOSES BY REO:RDING NO. 9E07211996. SU8.I T 1O: SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORFCRATED HEREIN Q� . Dated this d0�li, day ofil, /99 9 1�`AM_ / �/�By RENTON SCHOOL DI By • ay -!/sat- ay STATE OP County of i I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that hak.,-ps r7 6.phtba,r ------——------- -the person Lwho append before me,and said person 2_C acknowledged that signed this imtrument,pa oath stated that L,a., authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledge It ss 5 to be the free and an,d'voluntary act of such party for the uses and pur�poaca me tionedinn this immanent. j 1 Dated: , fl9. C1 i ae" Notary Public In and fox the Shoe of alga , • Residing at My appointmentappointmentexpires: //-//o-t y t 1 Ns I L a•to .yam • • • tom' 3 \ll%t1111111$t �� - TY AFTER RECORDING NAIL TO: E, 64 None_SERVICE LINEN 4,131,3S Y. rtur N/aa/Iata IB:Si IC NO COUNTY• UP Address P. 0. BOX 957 saLa - $463,4/1.am ' POcc NI OF NI City/Stac REMCN, WA 98057 ' Statutory Warranty Deed •{ First.4merieart Tine '' THE GRANTOR RENTON CHCCL DISTRICT N0. 403, I Insurance Company LTCCYS.SC12 IN INTEREST TO KING C<JGNPY SCBGOL DISTRICT NO. 7 for and to constdcrauon of :SAC 458 61 420 (1) GOVERMENT NT 1ST AM-do MANSFERS to hand paid.conveys and warrants to SED REAL ESTATE, y��� / _ 5/< L.L. .,. A WASHINGLON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY : rnu mace r,,ad, mama+.u,uvr, the following described real eatue,situated in the County of KING .State at Washington: LEGAL..DESCtIP ICN AND SUBJECT TO PERMITTED DICED ICN5 ATTACHED ilEliE.TO AS aHIBIT "A" AND BY THIS REFEREIJ= MAX. A PART H RE,CF: • • assetiwr .Pruoern r.0 P3rcctaaCcount Numocnu 722150 75-•)0 :...'TS 4-6 S 1=-13, 3LCC3 16, :CMN 3F RENTCN, VOL. 1, P. 35. Dated ULt a7 .19 NICN 3C1COL 7ISTRICL NC. 402. S(iCC-SCR iN :NTERFST p KING rofJNTY SC•100L DISTRICT NC. 3Y: e//iL!/// ITS: Superintendent • ) MED • ( • fisa • • STATE OF WASHINGTON. } .-ACKNOWLEDGMENT-InOnedual ' 55 County of • On this day personall;.appeared beinf — Us int n . — 1 to he the Indistellialtst ikserthed in India hs,aicecuilcd life...thin and fniegning instrument.and ad nots ledvil that • signed the same 33 free and•0111Sfarse J.:I and deed.Mr the use•and purposes itzivin mentioned • (IIVEN iinder cci hand and in In tal seal this _ _ _ • • Pshin in and i.:;••11:•qa1, nikne If • — • • sTA W.kSIIINGTOti. 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT•Corporate countsan KING rk,n tat n JULY .19 99 .ticlrct Inc.the unrkrsiened J Noiary l'ohlo‘in and an he'talc a‘hinc.g..n.Outs rm....All. goer-veil .7)741....e.....c _.(C, — _ xxxx In me Inossn 1,.,do ra•le • L 1"`""g0Cettt1541-tielft? ocREtringiri Sg8t. -- Mc..olv.1.1111,11 Mar cnctnlcd the Inrreninsi insisernenr.aml aknoskdgcd the,aid instrument hi twine and solunl.11. iLl and deed it....1togIVCJI10.1.14.1 tic LINCsarSLI pciq'.n*nlhcnemn roe moral.and no men inletS that SHE AS aiiihoored I.i elf.vie he sold gre..inowng.1.1 that the seal alfiSed II ani I is he g at.of sant cOrpOralion hand..n.1 g at cal herrh,air.sed he des and sear lint ahose.rinen • • • , ••••• '• Nowra Pair dnd fur i.e Rare.1 14 aiONNeoN. 'maim I Jet...4 Nit•peuintriarm capire, WA-46A 1 I VOI • . Thin Jura(is pag-: ol_ and is attached to dated 1999e803002343 PAGE Bea Or 083 0145,19/9 15 IS KING GOurITY c5e5T nrilLV ICier WV to OW — ; • • •. ti / 5 (ry Geotechnical Engineering Design Study Service Linen Supply Expansion Renton, Washington NMI : ... s v Delivering smarter solutions Prepared for Service Linen Supply May 1, 2000 J-7163-01 DEVELOPMENT PL,,nlNING CITY OF RENTON DEC222000 . RE COVED • • P ,vw.rfarto;rowse.:coif'? g,.,47 : pp Delivering_vaarter so ut;Jn: May 1, 2000 Anchorage • • Mr. David Jassny Service Linen Supply Boston P.O. Box 957 Renton, WA 98057 Re: Site Drainage and Erosion Control Chicago Service Linen Supply Expansion Project 901 South Fourth Street Renton,Washington J-7163-01 Denver Dear David: This letter provides a brief summary of our assessments concerning site drainage and erosion control for the proposed Service Linen Supply Facility in Renton, Washington. We Fairbanks developed the conclusions and recommendations based on our understanding of the development plans provided by Mr. AzariaRousso. We also discussed the permit requirements with Ms. Kayren Kittric of the City of Renton on April 17, 2000. Additional information and recommendations on site conditions is provided in our Geotechnical Jersey City Engineering Design Report dated May 1, 2000. The site cover prior to the proposed development consisted of primarily impervious materials such as asphalt pavements and concrete floors. Based on the development plans provided to us, we do not anticipate any significant change in site cover conditions Juneau following the completion of the project. In particular, there will not be 5,000 square feet of additional impervious surface cover at the site. Additionally, the site is relatively flat, which aids in limiting runoff at the site. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the proposed development plan is exempt from all core requirements as referenced in the King County Long Beach Storm Water Design Manual. We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface water within the construction zone before stripping begins. The selection of an appropriate drainage system pbrtland will depend upon the water quantity,.season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods. Final decisions regarding drainage systems will likely be made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or Seattle 19IC Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 9 3 1 02-3 699 Fax 206.320.5581 MI 206.E_4.9530 ESE Service Linen Supply J-71 63-01 May 1, 2000 Page 2 ditches placed around the work area will adequately intercept surface water runoff during construction. The contractor will be responsible for erosion control at the site. A typical erosion control program will include catch basin protection and road cleanup. We anticipate that silt fences, hay bails, and straw mulch will be sufficient for erosion control during construction. We completed this assessment in accordance with generally accepted practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed.We make no other warranty, express or implied. We trust that this letter-adequately addresses the city's concerns regarding site drainage and erosion control. Please feel free to contact us if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. 4�' `js• C-`F 00/ � • � 74:4L x�� Q153 � 1/ a 60 .;; !EXPIRES 09-09-7ed f I DOUGLAS D. LINDQUIST BARRY S. CHEN, PH.D., P.E. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Senior Associate F:\Docs\obs\716301\Sitedrainage(Itr).doc CONTENTS Page • PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY 1 Purpose 1 Scope 1 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 Soils Consist of Loose to Medium Dense Silty SAND over dense SAND 4 Groundwater Encountered in Borings 5 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Foundation Support for the.Structures 5 Excavations and Filling 7 Drainage Considerations 9 Lateral Pressures on Permanent Backfilled Walls 10 Pavement Sections 11 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES 12 THE USE OF THIS REPORT 13 FIGURES 1 Vicinity Map - 2 Site and Exploration Plan APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS Explorations and Their Location A-1 The Use of Auger Borings A-1 Standard Penetration Test(SPT) Procedures A-2 Hart Crowser Page i J-7337 ....,.,.....,..,.,......._.......... ....:-...._...,_....,,. ,. ..,.• ., ,........,:...........:.... .•ter.,•. .,, ,.,.,..,.:.,,,:,::,,,.,....,,,....,;,,•-•.....,n,,..<.,,..,,.,., .,..,.:,,:,,....---•,,::.,,,...::,:,..,,.,,:,.......,.,,.,..,., ,.. CONTENTS (Continued) Page FIGURES A-1 Key to Exploration Logs A-2 through A-5 • Boring Log B-1 through B-4 ;.14 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Soil Classification B-1 Water Content Determinations B-1 Atterberg Limits(AL) B-1 Grain Size Analysis.(GS) B-2 FIGURES B-1 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System B-2 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report B-3 Particle Size Distribution Test Report fi. 6. • Hart Crowser Page ii 1-7337 • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN STUDY SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY EXPANSION • RENTON, WASHINGTON This report presents the results of our subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Service Linen Supply expansion site located in Renton,Washington. • We have organized this report into several distinct sections. In the first several pages we present a summary of our key conclusions and recommendations.The summary section should be.used only as a reminder of the information discussed in the text.The main body of the report presents our design level results.The appendices present the field and laboratory test results. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY We have prepared this report based on the scope of services outlined in our proposal dated March 16, 2000. We have received your written authorization to proceed dated April 6, 2000. Purpose The purposes of this study were to: ► Assess the site subsurface conditions; ' Assist the design engineers in developing criteria for site preparation and foundation design; and ► Provide geotechnical recommendations relevant to design and construction. Scope The scope of the study included the following: ►. Reviewing geologic literature and previous explorations in the site vicinity; h ► Completing field explorations at the project site; ► Conducting laboratory soils tests; Service Linen Supply Page 1 J-7163-01 . _ v C ► Identifying the geotechnical engineering considerations and performing . analyses; and ► Preparing this design report. The field explorations consisted of four hollow-stem auger borings. Laboratory soils tests included visual classification of the soil samples, and grain size, Atterberg limits, and water content determinations on selected samples retrieved "$ from the explorations. We used the tests to help classify the site soils and to estimate the geotechnical engineering properties of the materials. Our engineering studies, analyses, and recommendations for design and construction are based on the field and laboratory test results, engineering analyses, and our experience on similar projects. • SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the principal conclusions and recommendations contained within this report. Refer to subsequent sections of the report for further discussion of each point, as well as for other recommendations. Results of Field Explorations A Vicinity Map and a Site and Exploration Location Plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. ► Subsurface conditions consist of primarily very loose to loose SAND and very silty SAND to approximately 12 to 16 feet below grade. ► The foundation soils are mostly granular and settlements of footings or floor slabs are likely to be completed shortly following their placement and loading. ► Borings B-1 and B-2 encountered a layer of medium stiff, very sandy SILT and sandy SILT, respectively, from 12 to 16 feet below grade. The silt is typically more compressible and settlements occur over a longer period of time. Because this layer is relatively deep and thin it will not adversely impact the • performance of the building foundation. ► Groundwater was encountered from 19 to 22 feet below grade in three of our four borings at the time of exploration. Groundwater was not encountered in boring B-4. Service Linen Supply Page 2 J-7163-01 Foundation and Slab Design ► Overexcavate at least 2 to 3 feet of loose sand and replace with compacted structural backfill prior to placement of footings. :. ► Design foundations using continuous and isolated spread footings founded on structural fill with maximum allowable net bearing pressures of 2,500 pounds per square foot(psf) for the proposed building addition. _ ► Footings designed according to the above criteria may experience total post- construction settlements of less than 1 inch. Maximum differential settlements could be one-half to two-thirds of the total settlements. Additional long-term, post-construction settlements of the structure are expected to be minimal. ► Overexcavate at least 12 inches of loose sand and replace with compacted structural backfill prior to placement of floor slab. Miscellaneous Recommendations ► We interpret the on-site soil conditions to correspond with a seismic soil profile type SD as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. O. The risk of soil liquefaction during an earthquake is low to moderate at the 2. project site because most of the loose to medium dense sand appears to be above the groundwater table. • _ ► Design subgrade walls backfilled on one side for pressures estimated using equivalent fluid weights of 35, 50, and 300 pounds per cubic foot(pcf) for active, at rest, and allowable passive conditions, respectively. • ► Much of the native soil may be reused for structural fill if construction occurs during dry weather periods. • ► Construct permanent slopes at 2 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (2H:1V) or flatter. ► Temporary cut slopes within the fill and loose to medium dense sand should stand at a maximum slope of 1.5H:1V.Temporary cut slopes should be made the contractor's responsibility. • Service Linen Supply Page 3 J-7163-01 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site of the proposed addition is located immediately to the south of the existing Service Linen Supply property between Main and Wall Streets.The • addition is accessible from both Main and Wall Streets. At the time of our visit most of the site was vacant. However, an existing home/office building and another smaller building on the northwest corner of the site had not yet been demolished. Our understanding of the proposed structure is based on project information and development plans provided to us by Mr. Azaria Rousso.The structure will consist of a one-story concrete tilt-up building with a slab floor loaded to 150 psf and ceiling height of approximately 32 feet.The building will have rails attached to the steel roof for material transportation.The southern 36 feet of the building will be two stories with a smaller rail system.The site grade is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 8 to 11 feet. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS • We interpreted the subsurface soil conditions at the site based on materials encountered in our four auger borings. Soil properties inferred from the field and laboratory tests at this site formed the basis for the foundation design and construction recommendations contained within this report. The subsurface conditions at this site are generally consistent between the four • borings we advanced at the site. Although the conditions are generally consistent, some variability is possible and may not become fully evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, it may be necessary to re- evaluate the recommendations of this report.The design team in consultation with the authors of this report should make any such re-evaluation. Details of the conditions observed at the.exploration locations are shown on the logs included in Appendix A and should be referred to for specific information. Details of laboratory tests performed on samples at this site are included in Appendix B. Soils Consist of Loose to Medium Dense Silty SAND over dense SAND The soils encountered in the upper 20 feet of our borings consist primarily of loose to medium dense, silty SAND. Our borings encountered dense to very dense, sandy GRAVEL gravelly SAND, or silty SAND from 19 to 28 feet below grade to the termination depths of explorations. Service Linen Supply Page 4 J-7163.01 • In each exploration,the upper 12 feet consisted of very loose to loose, silty Sand. Below these loose sands, medium dense sand was encountered-between 12 and 16 feet below grade. Silt was observed in borings B-1 and B-2 from approximately 12 to 16 feet below grade. Groundwater Encountered in.Borings We observed groundwater in three of our four borings at the time of exploration. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 19 to 22 feet in borings B-1 through B-3. Groundwater was not encountered in boring B-4, which was advanced 24 feet. Note that fluctuations in groundwater level and seepage occur because of variations in rainfall, temperature, seasons, and other factors. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following section includes five main subheadings addressing foundation support, excavation and filling, drainage considerations, lateral earth pressure on backfilled walls, and pavement sections. Minor subheadings introduce specific topics.The recommendations given should be considered design-level and can be incorporated into the excavation and foundation plans for the structures by the design engineers. Foundation Support for the Structures We recommend shallow footings and slab-on-grade floors for the support of the proposed building addition provided that foundation subgrade is properly prepared. Our design recommendations are discussed below: Footing Design • ► Overexcavate at least 2 to 3 feet of loose sand and replace with compacted structural backfill prior to placement of footings. ► Design foundations using continuous and isolated spread footings founded on structural fill with a maximum allowable net bearing pressures of 2,500 psf for the proposed building addition. ► Construct isolated column footings with a minimum width of 2 feet and continuous footings with a minimum width of 1-1/2 feet. Place the base of - footings at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Service Linen Supply Page 5 J-7163-01 ► Allow an increase in the allowable soil bearing pressure of up to one-third for loads of short duration, such as those causedby wind or seismic forces. ► Found footings outside of an imaginary (1 H:1 V) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of adjacent footings or utility trenches. ► Estimate resistance to lateral movement by using an allowable equivalent passive fluid weight equal to 300 pcf and an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.35. Foundation Settlement We expect the foundation soils to behave primarily elastically with settlements occurring quickly.The settlements are expected to occur as the loads are applied. Assuming proper subgrade preparation and preliminary column loads typical of one-to two-story buildings, we expect footings to experience total post-construction settlements of less than 1 inch. Maximum differential settlements are estimated to be one-half to two-thirds of the total settlements. Differential settlements will vary based both on construction procedures and varying loads. Hart Crowser should review the final foundation layout to assess footing interaction and to review our settlement estimates once the actual column loads and layout are available. Foundation Construction The foundation settlements given herein assume careful preparation and protection of the exposed subgrade will occur prior to concrete placement. Any loosening of the materials during construction could result in larger settlements than those estimated. It is important that foundation excavations be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to placing any concrete and that there be no standing water in the foundation excavation. • We recommend removing any existing asphalt pavement and proof-rolling the subgrade prior to the placement the footings.The depth of overexcavation can be adjusted based on the results of proof-rolling. We recommend that a representative of Hart Crowser be present to observe each foundation excavation prior to placement of any concrete. Floor Slab Design We recommend overexcavating at least 12 inches of loose sand and replacing it with structural backfill prior to the placement of floor slabs. Service Linen Supply Page 6 J-7163-01 In addition, the floor slabs should be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean drainage fill.This layer serves as a capillary break and is intended to reduce the potential build-up of hydrostatic pressures beneath the slab (see Drainage Considerations section). Following excavation and footing construction it is likely that some loosening of the soil near the surface will occur. Loose areas should be recompacted or kt' removed to provide a dense, non-yielding surface for the placement of drainage fill or for slab construction. Excavations and Filling Open Cut Excavations We expect that excavations can be open cut. Cut slopes should be properly protected and should be no steeper than 1.5H:1V. The actual temporary slopes are the contractor's responsibility.The temporary slopes may need plastic • sheeting or more substantial protection from loosening caused by precipitation and excessive drying. Construction equipment,workers, and materials should be kept at least 5 feet back from the top of slopes.We anticipate that excavation can be completed using conventional heavy equipment such as large bulldozers and backhoes. The top of temporary cut slope should be at least.5 feet away from any footings of the existing buildings. If this minimum setback distance cannot be maintained, temporary shoring should be installed to facilitate the excavation. Because of probable precipitation runoff during excavation, the contractor should be prepared to provide temporary drainage, such as sumps, to maintain the excavation in a workable condition. Permanent Fill Slopes Permanent slopes constructed with compacted structural fill should stand with side slopes of 2H:1V or flatter.To reduce susceptibility to erosion and increase stability, plant and maintain vegetation on the permanent slope surfaces. Structural Fill The suitability of excavated site soils for compacted structural fill will depend upon the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed..As the amount of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve) increases the soil Service Linen Supply Page 7 J-7163-01 becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about five percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense non- yielding condition when the water content is more than about two percent above or below optimum. The near-surface site soils generally contain a moderate percentage of fines (12 to 30 percent), making them sensitive to small changes in moisture content.We expect that, in general, the site soils will be near their optimum water content coming from the cut, and compaction should be possible with limited moisture conditioning assuming the soil stockpiles are protected with visqueen and favorable weather. Because of their moisture-sensitivity, most site soils should be • excavated and placed as structural fill during an extended dry weather period. We expect most fill used at the site will need to be imported. We recommend importing high quality, pit-run sand or sand and gravel with a maximum size of 4 • inches and a maximum fines content of 5 percent.This will allow the broadest use of the material at the site. We make the following recommendations concerning structural fill: ► Place all fill beneath footings, slabs-on-grade, pavement areas, or behind basement walls as structural fill; ► Place structural fill in lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose thickness and compact to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557; ► If the impact of vibration to the existing buildings becomes a concern during construction, we recommend using static rollers and small lift thickness (such as 4 inches in loose thickness) unless the contractor can demonstrate achieving the desired compaction effort; ► Within 2 feet of rigid concrete subgrade walls and deeper than 3 feet beneath pavement sections, compact structural fill to 92 percent of the maximum ASTM D 1557 value. Adjacent to concrete walls and existing buildings, use small hand-operated equipment to avoid subjecting the wall to excessive lateral pressures resulting from "overcompaction"; ► If fill is placed during wet weather, use an imported clean, well-graded sand • and gravel with Tess than 5 percent by weight passing the No.'200 sieve - (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction); Service Linen Supply Page 8 J-7163-01 ► Use well-graded sand and gravel with a fines content of less than 3 percent (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction) within 4 inches of slabs-on-grade (drainage layer), 18 inches of backfilled subgrade walls, and around all drains; ► Before structural fill placement, remove, recompact, or dry all disturbed, loose, or wet subgrade areas; and ► Remove all organic surface materials before structural fill placement. Before fill control can begin, the compaction characteristics must be determined from representative samples of the structural fill. Samples should be obtained from the site or import borrow area as soon as work begins. A study of the compaction characteristics should include determination of optimum and natural moisture contents of these soils at the time of placement. . Drainage Considerations Groundwater seepage was observed in three of our four explorations. However, it was encountered relatively,deep at 19+feet below grade. Significant groundwater seepage is not anticipated for shallow excavations. No temporary dewatering other than ditches and sumps should be needed at the site. Regardless of whether significant water is encountered during the construction phase, it is a proper precaution to provide some type of permanent drainage system and pressure relief behind all subgrade walls. The following recommendations for a drainage system below slabs and behind subgrade walls are general and intended to protect the walls and floors from the detrimental effects of water. Floor Slab Capillary Break. As a precaution, we recommend that all slabs be underlain directly, everywhere, by a 4-inch-thick capillary break consisting of a clean (less than 3 percent fines based on that portion passing a 3/4-inch sieve), well-graded sand and gravel. Backfilled Wall Drainage. Walls with soil backfilled on only one side will require drainage, or must be designed for full hydrostatic pressures.To provide drainage, we recommend: ► Backfill within 18 inches of any backfilled retaining or subgrade walls with - clean (less than 3 percent fines based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction), well- graded sand and gravel; Service Linen Supply Page 9 J-7163-01 ► Install drains behind and at the base of any backfilled subgrade walls; and ► Envelop.the drains behind the wall with the drainage fill. The drains (with cleanouts) should consist of 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe placed on a bed of, and surrounded by, 6 inches of clean (less than 3 percent fines based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction), well-graded sand and gravel.The drains should be sloped to carry the water to a sump or other suitable discharge location. Alternatively, the drains can be replaced by weep holes at the base of the wall. Water behind the wall will encounter the drainage backfill and then flow through the wall onto the ground. Nevertheless, the perforated pipe drains should be provided for all below-grade backfill wall and column footings. Waterproofing. Note that the described subslab and wall drainage system is designed to prevent a damaging build-up of hydrostatic pressure.The recommended systems may not result in a totally dry subgrade wall or slab. If waterproofing is required below grade,we recommend placement of a heavy plastic liner against the walls coupled with full coverage of a drainage medium such as miradrain.Alternatively, Volclay panels may be used. Slope pavement and sidewalks to drain away from the building and provide adequate runoff disposal. Do not tie the roof drains to any of the subgrade wall drainage pipes. Lateral Pressures on Permanent Backfilled Walls We do not know at the time of this writing how the subgrade walls and footings will be configured. If footings or other foundation components are founded inside of an imaginary 1 H:1 V plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the subgrade wall, then a lateral surcharge will influence that wall. For Hart Crowser to evaluate these types of conditions,we must know the foundation sizes, loads, elevations, and locations with respect to subgrade walls. We make the following recommendations: ► Design walls backfilled on one side with structural fill, to withstand active or at rest lateral pressures using an equivalent fluid weight for the soil equal to 35 and 50 pcf, respectively; Service Linen Supply Page 10 J-7163-01 ...:....,.t:i.vM,.,.: .....,...t v....\..........,.t:.... ............: .1.. ,t....,...,,,..R.G'...M:l,:.,-..\. ... ....1?.,.. ,,.. ..,... \.. .. ► Add a surcharge component to the lateral pressures to represent loading from other foundation elements, if applicable:Simple area surcharges can be estimated by taking the applied load within the influence area and • multiplying it by 30 or 50 percent for the lateral pressure increase under • active or at rest conditions, respectively; ► Add a seismic earth pressure component that acts over the entire back of the wall and vary with the back slope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. Based on a design acceleration coefficient of 0.30 and a wall height of"H"feet, we recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as a uniform active and at rest pressures of 5H psf and 10H psf, • respectively; and ► An appropriate passive resistance would be based on an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf(including a factor of safety of at least 1.5). Note that the use of active and passive pressure is appropriate if the subgrade wall is allowed to yield a minimum 0.001 times its height. For a non-yielding or restrained wall use at rest conditions. Sliding friction between the footings and slabs and subgrade may be determined using an allowable (FS > 1.5) coefficient of friction of about 0.35. Pavement Sections • We recommend that all pavement sections be constructed over a subgrade surface consisting of either non-yielding compacted native soils or compacted structural fill. It has been our experience that proof-rolling with overexcavation of near-surface soft soils prior to pavement construction works well. As an alternative, however, at least 2 feet of fill soils containing organics should be overexcavated and replaced with well-compacted structural fill.This would reduce the potential for long-term settlement and pavement distress associated with the settlement. We recommend Hart Crowser observe proof-rolling of all pavement subgrades to confirm that a firm and non-yielding surface exists for pavement support. Given the on-site subgrade conditions, we recommend the following pavement sections: ► Car Parking Areas. Three inches of Class B asphalt concrete over four • inches crushed rock base course. - Service Linen Supply Page 11 J-7163-01 • ► Driveway and Truck Traffic Areas. Four inches of Class B asphalt concrete over six inches crushed rock base course. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES Before construction begins, we recommend that Hart Crowser: ► Continue to meet with the design team periodically as the design plans become more complete; ► Re-address the expected foundation settlements on the basis of the actual foundation plan when it is developed; ► Review any surcharge conditions on subgrade walls, if applicable; and ► Review the final foundation and excavation design plans and specifications to see that the geotechnical engineering recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented into the design. During the construction phase of the project, we recommend that Hart Crowser observe the following activities: ► Excavation to foundation elevation to confirm subgrade conditions; ► Preparation of foundation, slabs-on-grade, and pavement subgrades; ► Placement and compaction of all structural fill; ► Installation of subslab and wall drainage; and ► Other geotechnical considerations that may arise during the course of construction. The purpose of these observations is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, or recommendations and to allow design changes or evaluation of appropriate construction measures in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Service Linen Supply Page 12 J-7163-01 • .., .v.,z...................... . ....,...,,.,.•�.•., ,.,. a.. .... ....v,...... .. _.. ...> , -.. .. ... ,,:tat,..vo,mr:a ,.;r^,... ,. .. „na; .....,.,,,,,...:-,a .. :, • THE USE OF THIS REPORT • Our report is for the exclusive use of the Service Linen Supply and their design consultants for specific application to the subject project and site. We • completed this study in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed.We make no other warranty, express or implied. We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with geotechnical consulting services on this project. We trust that this report meets your needs. Please call if you have questions or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, HART CROWS ER, INC. • 4JWAS/4 /� SlifeD 34053 --VS/ stIC' °NAL • E:'PiRES .09-09-Z-061 DOUGLAS D. LINDQUIST BARRY S. CHEN, PH.D., P.E. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Senior Associate F:\Docs\Jobs\716301\GeotechEngDS(rpt).doc • 3v Service Linen Supply Page 13 J-7163-01 Vicinity Map. t: .....t.. a.�Ntr__It, _.�_.t, 'e{ 1'• �tea' rn "3 {•, ;l '. rti(,• Y c',.,m _ wV..4-li t r �t ' �A'� • -•-: 1.> tq4 )•' :. it ` ),-Y:LId.','�--,,,,..,1.91.4:1.,�'T i''' tl i n"uIN W't �l.+ "lT� - 4>�. ), t.. _::,:,�,v',�L ! aR - .'S�i ei.,i.•4, V A` t49-• 'R �' +� v w•�w f -�r,. ..a.:smr. ,�".= !ks �,•.x;.` dtL$'P;' _ ,;4. :� - %•QG,Q, a..,,l� ;if.ry� ,Py-ett°:h d ;?G: �ffi4Vilm'�eiv.'I" 1J_...J''•' :'. .- ..f.,5•:.lr ._k (.�� »3:t,,,, ,�S..;r. •:e „ ,,.-,....„.:1..- "} y .� �... .a 6�,:.t .s . c.`.�;�';:t'''`�j{ �kE P��`~y t� �k. - - .'�w•-:� [t' i'` \ ? `OFF +, :` w rS h -0_:7` x(^? �`s rah .'-'' •:'-�- �`<° z;'� > r+-'a`:;ats .�,��� `xt� �y �;, r..:n s .+k. �»(�,.�a= ,f yry ri „ — .� 2 ,TV s :ft;i?! }Alt., c Jca',. iV 1.5^"i 0_.. r�•c�/- +e .ys . 0.', .. :,5,. �1�t L=L...L l3sn,y t. <�,�•:.•3, °rr. .'r t, .i t s+'W; j a r'S..,'�' 17 1.�'� s> T,<ox p,�; ��•,•" "r V • '=.i1''. i 6�9r rg ,,3L.ti. s; =�'•t t,..:1,,,—,1,..,'i -c � .i }i J ,r;af,et,'•,Z; •,y ,x;. ,,,:f; •�•1-.a. . t.I S S..('{�i 7H 1"' Sr )• 1• ,s• t bin{P 4 ii�>,i ,l. -2, t F,S : W, i.L.�''" `.'b'''',"'_ {�.., '•�').ny,g.1 ialtt1{'/Z' n�L." »pt 1 w F ; '!:;,eylw't 4 1Y'R 514 LLL .9 . ' R . w;`' .. �'4. -, • ,- �S i.L % i'_b' '" -.> !. it:t .; „ l '§.- Wa •+r (;'' fix` :i:. c '•r } t y_ a e . �� +i 'rZ%.Lq�\• r :. .,�;,Qt� `S ^ ,t> Ffr 4, „a. :'•�;,z h�' 4,t.,F t j.`rt` ch t , h1eA ':. �tj s tar„ n p ' �I j'zlltti. 1r r!`;, , �v �' {x ;Tia:e g{a ws x 1 :r k,, ti t �Niw F,,a,k ( T. xta 4 ..,,yt*C'" • N,, p 14, ,•• t 1�3a'' :.'f y ;`� r Y', -'W.4--'•• ' ., ( may t ,} . .. i ,rs- `Y. t_ t :C;i2.i%r% , ' g }15, 3t t -t= o >s-4"" �{y',�4 5. CF.. - .E"'': 3=... __ .. _�1; r 5 _ sl{9 #• _ <,' >'^ } ".., ,'` (57.•, J �y1jG < ,< Y ) y tY %(, ,_- ;J"+_HE; t:, p-' 1 ..i l S �;G; c i c `"`n liN �� 1.+>7D t< (, >.Y:,, • � ?� kt7tt9 ,>Z'aT -.\`r fi ^�U` , ,,td eiky \-> �`CII. S fclQ *., ,,y. , - t, cr<:S?SZ`'t5 \� 2, ..,: '2icEi(<¢ L7Fl-t jj • pj S t ',S' ,-, } ., f� I t �¢ ,� .�p�.;t iZ.?,;;�, .<#pt A.�f ='"Yt•�t? .r., t,7y7 > �',';<�r�$.`�.d<.p(y .Y'.:'.>.e• 'rr`n,• ''»:Cirf,FfE,i Ic•f �r'� Lure:i F :t�,i ) .'sr j 2 5;:lG�„^��. 4iv c^`•�``,7(r i; • rlt r*?'' Jf t >: -:{', 1.4r .,,},{:'`.. .d,. ,P'SrN'c -:r ,:j.F::,S + t ,1 "+�, ,• •�,t_ .r •J � x U�<2„S�j: >•S f> •@ ►. ,,S7tlSB`.1.. '� �,.rkL?k'j'sY 2 }4 c ,:,�,;.ah�i.:<��;�f,,;'�i,7} ;it;`':; .d5r`A�YkSr. . , ,,r- i`u' t -r rflQ..,,3`:•;ar�' .>jcti..'0', �, N5p, .. ..i,. .?.'.;.-•[Srase�tta'i ._,:fy.'.. .(,;,,Y >,, 43 .. ;2i /'` .` .inwi ;Atria ' -}9r;9 �I YA1 .-5 •P.�: :, JT,' • �,.1.. >!',.i Te S Czr > ,�.,Ytt..,;i:, ��•s�rxtc. '-fit vr$u .--'� .s" �y<S. %-„r. :IS ^�. tiS'w.,; arR.., i ='F„u:`d;i��?:-a.:.. .�SStS,.,$S,.>, c,< (Y ~'ti � -' r��.�r'� r ) Ss S< � "R`?'�g'"��• � A.1. '-f L. <..,.2��Ct�tr�,...�(.,t, _.t 2 _ • • .--s%4 4 "' •'.- . !t^�d '3'f 1 t ,•:2i�v '.ig. _ t Y<ir3:'JS:;:2i.`.`, S i.i tier ��ria[N. ali r rr ',r aF T s5 °ti`•:.' .,...,,,_. .....,........: Lirrt, .:I;='.., ,b• • a%x:,,h�•�`-.�:5���:s,`%�:,�. lV�• ':i`.'�.'�±;.f>.4 _ ieS>�.: {`%''1'T • • 'R S` ,�>4 Ei• .F%i: }r .,i; .its �.., 14 e c `.,6='�.yi. ter,,:: ..•i•,_'r.Y ' ti: :5:11,a -+p ;;.,tr' •':-z;>• zy `, -1 a_. >��� s. , m zk'k� `S��Tw `<4�r .n,:�,s�e::.:.7 :•: -'.?�>. < 's P 4x 37`,' .- ':'7'F](;'6.i2?3:,. .t:»:',?`�l;;ate_4.�..+`� • .a:•{.�^' 'c+a t�r';�.,c...wr ,�: ..N't,�v.4y.`;zX�''�u�:; rm Yai 2 f:...tr',( :. k; ;;'.. ,3`�y:�,52 ,.( - .i�r `R' .k.>,:'.2 'gyp ` 4_•r r ,: t.•4.• E. 'n.l• t2 ' 3.`F�_ a.' ,: .p' ;;`' ,S `,,<a ,".as.,.•>:s.x» `„.,, a. „ I.:• s' ..t.. .',L'i -.:'Si•.: iGltrd�'''r i ityv •k.<., ".,Y4' Ss^;f�,a ,,,i.;r' T�I > nY',..,��.�rz•�.-,.„ � ,rr �3 Ti � `�• j�' �> ( ... SE sikt� t ti•I ).2Ah}; .i # ",•.$ .}<' , - N q,�c{� ,• ,-,-.:,,,,,,"S 4 a, � j:>1: d. S CFI'. Y L' r )_�:;:'ii•i?:'.'. C r h,f ,-� y iY m at [:.•�? ;E,.rMr ¢' rr .t2> ',5, ' LIA •NPL> '''i>t,i•••-k: -i 2l•-,` S,"?, %,• •f ,q,!y.}, ,. { "�,i »,,.Fi,�, ,`f` .'>t.g, :Irr, • �' '�iATAY:�C�dn;i'.:}ax � z m � __-� ;,, e+,':'-" `fixv.;.�`�•';. �, (�'C.,.,S- � _ `�..q:p->: „e;Bey z} a" r rIte•�_:-,>;r-'�,-,`-';,':r ,. ,,,z,, �•S ?,,,. i--. ' ,..,_0'.,y!, 'a, �+�"'� ;��"( S `^.,�!��dt� l,qgi �o Yt^-� yt°�'e<�r>.'`.F,%t:),1 i >;;: -' �,;:., � x^N;.> ,�:. Y � �� !� ,Y� tc'@ �f�` i ;��.,r-',,.: - {" �'S S, Ct:..j.. y t ,h�� trd; j ....<<.,.,t:},...ai. •••cs i r {, s z1.a,. ,r -G: .a Y,.:?:,:..1 'T '',,,..4 v.sf:?t, rcai"y<.S,$,i` ,,,h•F,,. ',,'' �.i. Vr 1 gt.,."�, t •. •- .„ M S .') ,,., t,I S•, !Yf' J .3y,+, ti:tj•;, ",.•,`'' ,�, �sr - ,,,';,••*" ',n>:= 16',`•'�h °." ? t �>,7, if ,'µ.�sct D" .{,Jss�tir,.,,,y""'S 3. �} '�¢�.,y�'�. ` x : ,,.;i sc '2 '4•,, - 9 ,. .§ art r R ,r,:ii,•..�,<<`" #;�3 rn,%, ',s,a kr t•,' �.#.. =�j—s � ,r y(.I�'�Ctt+'�'�,F."F' ;y; �p't��l,t,?F:��;q;•,r.t��'�.,r 1r. ,, S rt,D ��. y:�.��'�( ,;t..�-r g 5', ' ,s. r 3C - I�3"1fe ! i k .sz *Fc'+, 3..Si:.:` ,; ''rEnyv 1 zy x•` q't.r c� ,� �:.. :.> ,i:t".,s >J(s. lI .b �t, � _, < i }. y . e t`t,' ;iM;` •nl•';'1!s�; ,,i,e6.t't { ,' 2'„..40♦ , , . ,. F v: .,,,Sµ. " �er�gg •• .iq,4, ...t r t . t r .7 ,� ''p }.,..m>,4TI 'j.,' ' 4' c iklf L '�< ;, r, 4 .t'' i� 5 �iie '> k'. k„ k }?n.:S, E'> r r yw !'s 'Av-'._.!. " r �i l!,: �,�4y,� j; Z �ik'- I.CjL -,�' S'��.;'�`;4 ' 'ti J ( �; F is "'issF F L L S'".' r�� 4'st '::y;s 1 A7; 'fir." • , a 'Sr• a ,s; ..,,(- --.t+., a s C t • t%� 'P•L"f R c"'.Se .;4.(' .:c'S'•.zw. a3 f - rt, 'f'•. [ ar..{, . 2 { { ,'4C z%i >. j ; ;,,• ',z r:'ztr 3¢ zu., -i'' `.,-Ja�3P' Es'4...:•b- ''6':;••"s = �[ z:cs,,t,,4 C ''C- A �t�i;^i :1 I .. ( >,,, 4�• ��, } Y MR v, °S.s �+ 'SJ:r , . •:"•, ,.- ~ .i,• ? ',r y:y. aD• is?k,� ~•!z� [ h:. F , 4�e C 2 C'3- `' ,� t lt"p '23 v' •{.,.`' .: S j'A...:r•:.1 r d •;t x r sci y 'f. 2 bt "`.'X =,- , a: '�. tip ' �`p: J -=xc . .,z ,."i-�,ys•' i"`�'S': ^,�F. Sy t' S.1u � 4., :2 .5 � .x W�>y'•� '`• '4 �..�,` a 'Y ,5e ..b,;1-A.1 `iS`7`e2,V:Y`jr,=t. .•E.,." .x yi.,4•4•y a x�' ..1y a`:: cr!li t1T' t>;,� .*tf: ,i ..':A. ,47 bqx� ii., _•r+r."'-'�` Alt nc!,';�,' -E t z4(,}lm,4.g ,,, > IA u ti ,° x,: -4 sr`A y .¢.. fF�hY �,644(iS r'.. Y u<<� •� Y•p� S,� ahi7.i �'%• �' "+.w.' rC@JL�''S vl'��'- ,�i i j.�JF: .�,�Z,'r-�� � ,:h 'tOi� � J':.>'Ei....:c,�� $,.,. ,..-4, J.,w„SA'-3 ..rs[r' SAS 1 } 'T; aR 'r:.J: �4f0, f a.-',, s , sr. s . j„r a ,Ti,'x. I.: L' �' �r•,�; 1`i ,q ,: ,�-�a'J>�I;`�aM:.i�" Ste• .1N ,fit>` . .., k` }.i �R 31r 3, Y •, a sa ,�`'3i' l" ,t4 • '; .IN ' ,•%: '-��`i. '+ $Pdfar''f 1-1 '*•, _� 'r`j'�' <.' : i '4 e �� ., .l��i.. .gd. t „.,-1,..,' 4 y .r<v-,t rf. '�' r y a<' � :�� '�cen�;s.`�, f v ::a,y '`fi< 2e tq ' G. e e 2 rtr '. a,a ' Lr...CS?" Stria. • u ` '_{j'� ;�j,'��gy,' ��;�.�a'y.m w�.s'•.'l•y,.cc'SI •� ';i4 • 't',v��y` 1 ; '��8 ''''':;1' . ..y:a"h^Z::''`�`hl.r� .«r9.3 u}-;��mtlf rlr. 4. ?t'�b"`N��''�"'} Scfy. ,P-r '11 , .:i.r-3'y _ L R' n i•p F' t".7*.z "' . # -4 tlr r.y N,-7„r a" >31'5;_?`Y. `=3,.. at;:.t?'' '"g.� »''e3rtt '.'•" i±sh ;ztS :i ..ii..s:9•�,°3,`Sv:":: 3:x{; ..• �Cd as`M::. .,,,,_y' • _.f-_, ' 4n L OvXi 1 ` `,L f .r,:; a+ k. tj. �'; Vt''p,a fr7as. _..t�2L Y � '•[.c 1'`a.ti�C7 �4 ` ! w �5Ei2 q f to _s 1 ,A1• $ y = ,l r� 'turu ". 7,4,,, _,, -;s ; V - y}7 r`"�`§, � sExisLer. 3 ��yy:�K�,1,=f,.�. ; ,:3ss.>.1,2YA,k4 ';'o$ A„ :` r::S'-'!,y4l:-.'. r ;,;.'s ail.^••. ',.:l 4 Si 3 Sri.'{', S.. �.F,+-.'`'".2 �, 45,_;, •i4..A `w}.. .I"a"):: i r-..''�� v-y t,. ". 9> s'i.';tea s,�.t .lEFfIP+'[! r,1 'Y m. Ti• r2,_ y y�-,r. 'w ... t .r 1�`:�1'..i,};J, I S3_,K �{ '.6 ,4 a G».. .I>.'a:..�...,:r., " - 2 ;-I-''' _fib-- .• rx., !u.""�, i:tG ;.5ikJ�$C t itjh , •So yhi-i+.. � i ! o-t `i 3 Sz L:!mt 3t� Q �j r_F 'a ' ` '"'*`e(e'="Qi• t.a y''.=.S,}:;,-,5'vr i,'.' w- '4 .,d :i. k�l• sj ��1,�°l*.r, SE 7b074 -,,: F rr ', x ^.. y..>••+r'""' Sl w' i.. ;. u ( p:2. r. SaFSl11$ei .L sr •, u .-,--1'2..'• d 0'x tF3 is'C 4 a',:�;.•• _c".f.:,�i.fir,,;y ,6. {}`> ,,, ,. ,*.,,rt�It tt l , r 1 ;:;'Ts"gt i.. ..,. `t4 y11 y t sE, r lltaw. Yn it r " ,5 I ` rryi4..F yy J t�.ti :_•;I1• .,4 {p i. •' `'`'F,ixb'S.` S2,"� ' ey,t„ ;{ 4''t- SE 465nt a.- — :-.:, ,:••>�-•,t•-' YE 11 *K .;.cr +,m? srL:x'r, t p < c ?h f t}.,t `+� S.N :a' m tan sr *(C aC5, z sr''{]��].'',n � t or 'qVn' • �r ::[-( U •- s.'0 s§4t j '1 . a $.5 aR t 3EG yf x{r 'tM1` •'rr•.'�,k.' n r C 1 � �. "�" .EL ` ark{, ;• s S IS ,� > ,.+ ,.-d3 s s, rtu 1 ! ''s r»'s ' �L"`�� .< . 1• la-, •14 tt .-i w.,.. NCuls L 1...' 1 4 , A>r.»r. "t1,11 .1.. l .IZ SIL -3` �' ` f 53 i 7 Ya - p :asy^ vy£,'3. _x�.qy �; ��t � 3w•'�>,i°7 • �I r �R � t 'ny - k rJ t $ Fr,'..s,;z k %a,--Re,i xskt-3ani �:,,�t , ., .k �(I::. (. S.. „' 'r 3s:>'r-"b - +Ys;n .+. L7i1- . 1, I zr' to<;.4 ';:.e'' n3;:`•''✓�"?3 FC"�34 .<.,�.cn• ��`' , i1k[„ L7 ^� - -'-`� tti +r,[fail :7: t[w' , r', ;�, ,_;_.r93 JYY-.th A: -9 ;"'^3 -`y- Itt:&';'er.''''-e;i's,.,..':•4'''.''''A';',';'74 t �s L- 1� z > ' STr s rt� `Sr-c.r,' .}%",r"'jr, �,sh.{..s:. ;`r ..`;4`,,. .,,,:t t'`°;'sr„11.:g....r.: nrj-•X4, z'?;t" � ,,,,=cami„." - r< '^ 5E ik• i� i' e .., ..- y�{K" 4P4�0�<;.-c.4,tl,td .'".1: i S.<'_la �C 04•I ,�, +C'h 911 ', �M j'.72 [., SL 5-..i57 T ^' _� _� �L 67rti 4t J-}t '•7LYF7 na6 "s., dt a.. _..- _y.F; D:.,=c EMI", 'rr � • K • tf `l;rvx rs,i x k. 4 t 4 a 'Y`.t f, S' in'' o t'''*,s•''.. Pt'` ''• ,�.(,t } s Y r , • _'" :••ti' ' F41 it m ;ir ;, 1 h •,� eS 4 x,.>.4:. d 3,.0,.. ,kv. ,. c ! a y 7 #r L H1 __sl_,. : r I�7^•1 { t�, i?r}: p':ati:caa^�x� .,,..•/<..tt ) :'^4",NI.: 1"r':ix} a)£•}6 'a s.�t;r 4,�Jw,ti }�, t 10.y7 _ 2 ,21¢5 Sr-. t t 2:3 r v YrtI a w �'��„..e ,..r.,11.,. ,< ;;;.?.' e9•, ..�,` cit.:eSt }4'',' : V+ y.;....F. z> a25y iO�,�r" _ '. ': IV! "..c J^I .Li NI[•',' 7 # .- Au ')a;;'.,,,,,,,,,t '^.r`f,rz;.b� S :s, s ,.k;.�^,;,t.• , ,}'i yr Sf 3rsi7 !.a t- i. G ST U-cia:.?C' ',7: ?i v. '.. ,;t 7'.z v�' J.t• 0.4 ck, .` •.rr nt t''' '�>..G ice'• .'uW - S.r r,a,.urn...._....'r. ::^..�r.. r :1 :{:. '' ar.; ..r. :2:{z %�fa .. I a c�. c, 4,".. , ., 1 .;z2tm , 0 • 2000 4000 • ik Scale in Feet • • 11 HARTCROWSER J-7163-01 5/00 Figure 1 Site and Exploration Plan • • SOUTH 4TH STREET ..) at Existing Building • I_ F- C D O I D co I B-4• I < m Z Z w C rn Q I CD I IJ C L I Proposed Addition •B-1 I B-2• I I Platform Area I I Loading and Truck I I Parking Area I - B-3• J .} Parking 0 50 100 Scale in Feet o •B-1 Boring Location and Number • - U cci — o Note:Existing floor elevation to be maintained.This will Ili (c. required some fill.Preliminary note to city mentioned N. Washington State Certified Quarry Spauls 1-1/4-inch '7/�/TI L.RO f ER o compacted to 95%density. o J-7163-01 5/00 Figure 2 • F� IELD'EXPLORATIONS.METIODS AND ANALYSIS. . :,.. H • APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser uses in determining the nature of the soils underlying the project site addressed by this report.The discussion includes information on the following subjects: ► Explorations and Their Location; ► The Use of Auger.Borings; and ► Standard Penetration Test(SPT) Procedures. • Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project include three hollow-stem auger borings. The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the'drilling (or excavation), sampling, and testing data.They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 -Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining • the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of explorations, located by hand taping or pacing from existing physical features.The ground surface elevations at these locations were not determined at the time of our explorations.The method used determines the accuracy of the location of the explorations. The Use of Auger Borings With depths ranging from 19.5 to 34.5 feet below the ground surface, four hollow-stem auger borings, designated B-1 through B-4, were drilled on April 18, 2000. The borings used a 3-3/8-inch inside diameter hollow-stem auger and were advanced with a truck-mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The drilling was continuously observed by an engineering geologist from Hart Crowser. Detailed field logs were prepared of each boring. Using the Standard Penetration Test(SPT) and thin-walled Shelby tubes, we obtained samples at 2-1/2-to 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5 at the end of this appendix. • Hart Crowser Page A-1 J-7163-01 Standard Penetration Test(SPT) Procedures This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency.To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other ' tests.The SPT(as described in ASTM D 1587) was used to obtain disturbed samples.This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free-falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches.The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance.This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils.The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split-barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into water tight jars.They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. In the Event of Hard Driving Occasionally very dense materials preclude driving the total 18-inch sample. When this happens, the penetration resistance is entered on logs as follows: Penetration less than six inches.The log indicates the total number of blows over the number of inches of penetration. Penetration greater than six inches.The blow count noted on the log is the sum of the total number of blows completed after the first six inches of penetration. This sum is expressed over the number of inches driven that exceed the first 6 inches.The number of blows needed to drive the first six inches are not • reported. For example, a blow count series of 12 blows for 6 inches, 30 blows for 6 inches, and 50 (the maximum number of blows counted within a 6-inch increment for SPT) for 3 inches would be recorded as 80/9. • `= F:\Docs\Jobs\716301\GeotechEngDS(rpt).doc • . Hart Crowser Page A-2 J-7163-01 Key to Exploration Logs - Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual—manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as an identification guide. Soil descriptions consist of the following: ' Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. Density/Consistency . Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the test pit logs. Standard Standard Approximate SAND or GRAVEL Penetration SILT or CLAY Penetration Shear Resistance (N) Resistance (N) Strength zi$� Density in Blows/Foot Consistency in Blows/Foot in TSF Very loose 0 — 4 Very soft 0 — 2 <0.125 Loose 4 — 10 Soft 2 — 4 0.125— 0.25 Medium dense 10 — 30 Medium stiff 4 — 8 0.25 — 0.5 Dense 30 — 50 Stiff 8 - 15 0.5 — 1.0 Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 — 30 1.0 — 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Moisture Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Dry Little perceptible moisture Not identified in description 0 — 5 Damp Some perceptible moisture, probably below optimum Slightly (clayey, silty, etc.) 5 — 12 Moist Probably near optimum moisture content Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly 12 —30 Wet Much perceptible moisture, probably above optimum Very (clayey, silty, etc.) - 30—50 Legends Test Symbols Sampling Test Symbols .GS Grain Size Classification BORING SAMPLES CN Consolidation y ® UU Unconsolidated Undroined Trioxial Split Spoon CU Consolidated Undroined Triaxial 7 \ Shelby Tube , CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial Cuttings QU Unconfined Compression I 1 1 Core Run DS Direct Shear * No Sample Recovery K Permeability PP Pocket Penetrometer P Tube Pushed, Not Driven Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF TEST PIT SAMPLES TV Torvane ® Grab (Jar) - Approximate Shear Strength in TSF • CBR California Bearing Ratio ZI Bag MD Moisture Density Relationship Shelby Tube AL Atterberg Limits I--F—I Water Content in Percent Groundwater Observations I L. Liquid LimitNatural Plastic Limit Surface Seal PID Photoionization Detector Reading CA Chemical Analysis 7. o • Groundwater Level on Dote DI In Situ Density Test (ATD) At Time of Drilling i', z = OM m NW = Observation Well Tip or.Slotted Section Q Groundwater Seepage L,��.ay�j����p.� n z (Test Pits) r1/�Ii�\..1 t�LLY :, J-7163-01 5/00 Figure A-1 Boring Log B-1 • PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB Soil Descriptions • Depth TESTS in Feet Sample • Blows per Foot —0 1 2 5 _10 20 50 100 • • 3 inches of Asphalt over very loose to loose, moist, brown, very silty SAND. - - • - S-I l _ • —5 • • S-2X 1 —10 Medium stiff, moist, brown, very sandy SILT. S-3 -GS . —15 Medium dense, moist, gray, silty SAND. • • _ �7 S-4 _ • -� Dense, wet, brown, very sandy GRAVEL. — ATD Bottom of Boring at 19.5 Feet. —20 Completed 4/18/00. - - —25 • • • • —30 • • Z. —35 • • • —4 0 • I 2 5 10 20 50 100 • • Water Content in Percent t1 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions I and symbols. • 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive RTCRO WSER and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling J 7183-01 • 4/00 (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A 2 Boring Log B-2 r PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB Soil Descriptions Depth TESTS Sample in Feet • Blows per Foot —0 I 2 5 10 20 50 100 Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND. 1 r47. - S-I I _ A • ki`v —5 — Grades to very silty. _ i • - S-2 _ • . —10 Medium stiff, wet, gray, sandy SILT. - - S-3 X _ H -AL —15 Medium dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, - - gravelly SAND. x _ S-4 _ • ,\ • -:-20 Dense to very dense, wet, brown, - - gravelly SAND. _ _ - ATE) • ;,::: - x _ S-5 _ • . \ • —25 S-6 •_ • —30X • - S-7. X - • A Bottom of Boring at 34.5 Feet. —35 Completed 4/18/00. —40 - I 2 5 10 20 � 50 100 • • Water Content in Percent tv 1. Refer to Figure A-I for explanation of descriptions IlLit and symbols. �/ R� 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive HA rROWSE[® ' and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling J-7163-01 4/00 (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-3 Boring Log 8-3 . - PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB Soil Descriptions Depth TESTS in Feet Sample •Blows per Foot _O I 2 ' 5 10 20 50 100 • Loose, moist, brown, slightly silty, • • gravelly SAND. (FILL) - - • _ S-I X _ • - —5 / - - - / . Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND with interbedded silt layers. - - S-2 Z - • —10 • . Medium dense,moist to wet, brown, very - S-3 X _ • gravelly SAND. —15 _ S-4 •X _ • . • —20 ATO _ S-5X • . —25 Very dense, wet to moist, gray to brown, - - slightly gravelly, very.silty SAND. - S-6 X - • 52/10 —30 -Very dense, moist, gray and orange, - slightly'silty SAND: - S-7 g - • •50/5 Bottom of Boring at 33.4 Feet. - - - Completed 4/18/00. —35 • • —4 I 2 5 10 20. 50 100 • • Water Content in Percent ' t1 1. Refer to Figure A-I for explanation of descriptions and symbols. • �/�+JER 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive • TCROI� and actual changes may be gradual. 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling J-7163-0/ 4/00 (AID) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A-4 r,.>•........1:.,.S:,i ..i ..,[...,tc..'t.:..... ....................:i+,:.,}.:....l.i........1....:.:...... .... .. ......:1......, :':S:`5.:..i,..:.. :........ ..... :.......:..1^:}:��:'... }.: . .. ,.,..:.t-. .,.i,.,t:i';, .i, ,:.. ..,. ,.. ...,.... • .Boring Log B-4 .. • PENETRATION RESISTANCE LAB Soil Descriptions Depth TESTS • In Feet Sample ♦ Blows per Foot —0 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 Loose to very loose, moist, brown, silty • to very silty SAND. - - . _ S-1 _ • • :;6 —5 X . _ 5-2 Z _ • —10 - Medium dense, moist, brown, slightly gravelly SAND. - - S-3 X _ • —15 Loose, moist, brown, very silty SAND. S-4 X _ A, . -GS —20 -.- Very dense, moist, tan and orange, slightly silty SAND. - - ° _ S-5. Z - • 50/6 Bottom of Boring at 24.0 Feet. Completed 4/18/00. —25 • —30 - r-• . • .. —35 —40 1 2 5 10 20 50 100 • . • water Content in Percent NW 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions • It and symbols. �� 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive TCROIrJER and actual changes may be gradual. • 3. Ground water level, if indicated, is at time of drilling J-7163-01 4/00 (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Figure A.-5 P- - • • A PEMDIX..B • • " .. : •: ': :LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM...... r � .' .•.. • ,.. t Crowser Har 1 7163,01 • APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM • A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic • index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were tested.The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. Water contents were not determined for very small samples nor samples where large gravel contents would result in values considered unrepresentative.The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing.These are also presented on the exploration logs. Atterberg Limits (AL) We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples.The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84.The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized in the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figures B-2.This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit.The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other • test results. Hart Crowser Page B-1 J-7163-01 Grain Size Analysis (GS) Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve.The size distribution for particles smaller than the No. 200 mesh sieve was determined by the hydrometer method for a selected number of samples.The results of the tests are presented as curves on Figure B-3 plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. F:\Docs\)obs\716301\GeotechEngDS(rpt).doc • • Hart Crowser Page B-2 J-7163.01 -a•... ...._^:.i,.,d.:;'•.:.^i.-.....:...r:;:•.,n.v...:....n.... ...q 1.. ..o ......,.,. ,..L ........,..i .. .,sv.-c.. .-.. e......i•"c:.. , .... v. ... yid.. ,.. v...II•n..•,...v .oq'. Unified Soil Classific-- ion (USC) System .. Soil Grain Size ''Size of Opening In Inches Number of Mesh per Inch • Grain Size in Millimetres (US Standard) N d CO CO 0 00 0 O W V' N cm E. V cu r- ,) C O O O co O O O — — O • I III I i 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 11 1 1 1 11111 1 1 I I 1 1 I ILIA -I 11 1 11111 1 1 1 I 11111 1 1 I I 111.111 1 I 1 I1111 1 1 I I 1 0 0 O O O 00 0 O W W V• CO N r W W V' C7 N CO W V• CO N W Co V' C' N 0 CD CO W .0" CO N Q. Q. Q. Q. O 0• O O O O O 0.C, N Grain Size in Millimetres COBBLES GRAVEL SAND ,SILT and CLAY Coarse-Grained Soils Fine-Grained Soils Coarse-Grained Soils G W GPGM G C S W S P S M S C Clean GRAVEL<5%fines GRAVEL with >12%fines Clean SAND<5%fines SAND with>12%fines GRAVEL>50%coarse fraction larger than No.4 SAND>50%coarse fraction smaller than No.4 Coarse-Grained Soils >50%larger than No.200 sieve D60 >4 for G W /(D30)2 G W and S W — &1< <3 G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting D10 >6 for S W \D10 X D60 — requirements for G W and S W G M and S M Atterberg limits below A line with PI <4 G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with PI >7 *Coarse-grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases required use of dual symbols. D10,D30,and D60 are the particles diameter of which 10,30,and 60 percent,respectively,of the soil weight are finer. Fine-Grained Soils ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt SILT I CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic I Highly Organic 7. Soils with Liquid Limit<50% Soils with Liquid Limit>50% Soils Fine-Grained Soils>50%smaller than No.200 sieve 60 I I I I I I I I 60 50 — CH — 50 x 40 — — 40 a) c C L ��,e .� 30 — r- — 30 ca m 20 — MHorOH - 20 10 — CL- ML ML - 10 0 I I I P I I I I 0 0 • 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 N1 Liquid Limit J1F1 E HARTCROWSER 0. J-7163-01 5/00 Figure B-1 LIQUID AP PLASTIC LIMITS TES' ZEPORT 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate // upper limit boundary for natural soils // / 50— / o // ° . SZ // G 40— / / • X / w / Z / v30— // / S.) // / _ . 20— /,-' �Q' / / /' G>.° 10— 4__ ////%) 4V///// ML or OL MH or OH 10 30 50 70 90 110 LIQUID LIMIT Location+ Description LL PL PI -200 USCS • Source:B-2 Sample No.: S-3 SILT 35 28 7 ML Remarks: Project: Service Linen • Client: Service Linen Supply Location: Renton,Washington �it J-7163-01 4/27/2000 Hi% I CROWMai Figure No.B-2 _a...: ...........•..,v,..:.d:...:.hi....ud,.:...u.,..,:..,..�µ.;}v.,�.v:.t;..�...T,.t;', •.......1_._...... ..., ...... ...,. .. ..,. .. .. , ,lR.,,..�.,. ..,. ,C..'.. ,..._.,.......,......� :`Bf PARTICLE (- ,_EE DISTRIBUTION TES REPORT r en £ r � s e o 8 ° to en w 4 4 i ala 1: a « s 100 • • • r • 80 .- - ■ 70 . a 4. +. �— F • W 60 - Z Li • Z 50 - - - - - - W 0 CL a 40 4 30 - 20 • 10 0 200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 -- GRAIN SIZE- mm . GRAVEL %SAND % FINES CRS. FINE CRS. MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY 0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.9 2.7 41.0 54.7 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 50.8 49.1 X LL PI D85 D60 D50 D30 D15 D10 Cc Cu O 0.248 0.111 O 0.181 0.0981 0.0767 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS NAT. MOIST. 0 Very sandy SILT ML 30% ❑ Very silty,fine SAND SM 29% Remarks: Project: Service Linen 0 o Client: Service Linen Supply `, 0 Source:B-1 Sample No.: S-3 ... 0 Source:B-4 Sample No.: S-4 A ' ILI J-7163-01 4/27/2000 - HiuiTCRoWsER Figure No. B-3 f. **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R0007294 Amount : 300 . 00 12/22/00 10 :23 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #12036 OLYMPIC A Init : LN Project # : LUA00-131 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Total Fees : 3 , 734 .24 This Payment 300 . 00 Total ALL Pmts : 3 , 734 .24 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 .345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 300 . 00 RFNIONN�NG 0Ec2� � • . • CITY OF RENTON• PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: February 6, 2002 TO: File (LUA00-131, SA-H. ECF, LLA., AAD) FROM: Jason E. Jordan9 • SUBJECT: Revised Landscape Plans The landscape plans have been modified to eliminate Weeping Deodoar Cedar and replace it with Weeping Alaska Cedar. In addition, the revised plan would replace the Creeping Mahonia with Kinnickinick. Lastly, the plans have been modified to include three Edith Bouge Magnolia trees along the eastern boundary of the Service Linen parking lot adjacent to Wells Avenue South. • H:\DIVISION.S\DEVELOP.SER\DEV&PLAN.INGUej\steve's old projects\service linen revised landscaping plans.doc\st �.h r OLYMPIC MEMORANDUM VA:114 ASSOCIATESSeattle Phone: (206)285-4300 COMPANYFax: (206)285-4371 oE I C 701 Dexter Ave.N.,#301 E-Mail: bminogue@olympicassociates.com ASSOCIATES Seattle,WA 98109 COMPANY DATE: February 4,2002 JOB NO: 2001157 TO: Jason Jordon FROM: Brad Minogue RE: Service Linen Supply Attached is one copy of the revised landscaping drawings with plant substitutions noted—this change was necessary due to a couple of plant types that were not readily available. Also,to address the city's concerns over the trees removed along Wells Avenue at the parking lot,we propose to add(3)6—8'high Magnolias to match the plantings provided along South 4th Street. Existing trees were,not shown to remain along Wells Avenue,nor required per the permit approved drawings. Service Linen,however,is willing to include the Magnolia trees as part of the final landscaping. Please confirm that this will satisfy the outstanding issues with the city and will allow for final sign off and approval of the landscaping. For Your Information: 0 Via Mail: Via Fax: For Your Use: ® Hand Delivered: ❑ FedEx: For Your Approval: Other Courier: For Your Signature and Return: 0 Fax#: Total Pages,including this page: Copy to: OLY .r S I CIATES COMPANY By: B •d Minogue,AIA \\pyramus\pub\service linen(construction admin)2001157-a\correspondence\landscaping revisions 2-4-02.doc SEE DRAWINGS) ,t �di;F�Ci(�`v�1Jfi�tC`'sn T rii ? ` :1 �1 ,� Jr cam. r, CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: January 3,2001 TO: Neil Watts,Development Services Director CC: Jennifer Henning,Principal Planner Larry Meclding,Building Official OW FROM: Robert Arthur,Code Compliance Inspects SUBJECT: SERVICE LINEN NOISE SURVEY RESULTS The manufacturers suggested exhaust modifications to the new water heater boiler.installed at Service Linen, 903 S. 4th Street, have been completed. Service Linen personnel have also completed installation of roof mounted buffer modifications to the area surrounding two sides of the exhaust apparatus. Service Linen, subsequent to complaints and, pursuant to Notice of Infraction C00-0500 issued August 25, 2000, consulted Washington Audiology Services, Inc. to provide sound level measurements of the newly installed equipment. Washington Audiology's Occupational Hearing Conservationist,David Stern, completed four(4)separate sound level surveys,August 31,2000,September 2,2000,September 29,2000 and December 21,2000. The results of these surveys are attached for your reference. Hopefully,in an effort to make some sense of the findings,I have compiled what,I feel, are the relevant sound levels in a comprehensive comparative manner. This was done to show the differences between the background ambient noise levels as compared to the levels when the water heater/boiler was off and then when it was operating both prior to installation of the exhaust modifications and after installation of the modifications and the roof-mounted buffers. Sound measurements were taken at the following locations and will be numerically indexed in the graph below: 1. East side of Wells at 425 2. West side of Wells at 425 3. NE corner of 4th and Wells 4. North side of 4t°and 920 S.4`s. 5. North side of 4th at the east corner of Spencer Court Apartments. 6. SE corner of 4th and Main • 7. NE corner of 4th and Main • January 3, 2001 Page 2 SOUND LEVEL SURVEY PLANT SEPT.29,2000(3:45am-4:45am) DEC.21,2000(4:00am-4:30am) CLOSED Heater Off/Heater On dBA Heater Off/Heater On dBA SAT. difference (modifications installed) difference (9/2/00) 1. 53.3 53.2/60.8 +7.6 57.3/57.5 +.2 2. 55.5 54.0/59.2 +5.2 58.2/58.6 + .4 3. 58.7 58.9/64.5 +5.6 61.7/60.3 - 1.4 4. 59.5 58.8/64.8 +6.0 61.5/62.5 +1.0 5. 61.2 57.0/64.1 +7.1 63.5/62.2 - 1.3 6. 65.1 66.1/66.9 +0.8 57.3/64.2 +7.1 7. 64.4 64.0/63.0 +1.0 58.2/64.5 +6.3 You might try to make a comparison between the background noise levels of Saturday, August 21", when Service Linen was closed and the latest survey which was completed on Thursday,December 215`. What must be taken into consideration, which is pointed out by Mr.Stem, is that there were extreme variabilities in levels when a vehicle would pass by. The third paragraph of Mr. Stem's letter, dated December 21, 2000, is significant as to whether or not Service Linen would be considered in compliance. As an aside. Mr.Moran,who lives at 425 Wells Ave.S.,has personally advised me that the noise level is 80% to 90%better. He went on to say that he still detects a low vibration,however,the overall sound level has been significantly reduced. Speaking to the low frequency noise or vibration that is still present. Mr. Stern stated that no amount of buffering or modifications to the exhaust system will totally eliminate this type of noise. Mr. Stern went on to say that this low frequency noise or, as some would say vibration, should be dealt with by an Environmental Engineer. Mr. Stern added that this low frequency noise is much like the omni-directional effect of a sub- woofer on a stereo system. No matter where you are, you will feel the effects of the output. Distance is the only mitigator. I have the complete file on this matter and can discuss the findings. SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY; 20b 231 49:JU; 6ep-11 -uu :Ui-livii rage ‘4/o . :• : : . • , : -*- WASHING TON AVDIOLOGI :SERVICIS INd r.:-..,... • . ... .. - .. • . . , .; .......:......... . .. . - - ...- ...-. ..-.. .-... -- ...S.outid.Leyotg&vey ..- --.• :; - I 1 . ; :.,.. • ::. • . - - , . :1 - - • " I -, . -- -.:Client :.•.*Service.LinetiiSuigy•-•-•:-:---.. ....---.:-:-• . - : Survey Date -•Auktfstibi.;-2000. ..: ::i.: .1 1, : •Y - - ...-.-.Addres$•-...-po•.430.X:•957:::::-::-::t:*-:.:::::•:'.•::...•••.i-- ...*::* • -:' Tune . •• • : .- 6:00ain :-.7:1.5am••••I •-. 1 . . . • • . . . .. .. . 1 ::i• .. ....... . • .. .: . :Renton; WA:9057.45957:::. :...----.. .-:•...--- -.::.:- Surveyor-:••:.: David Stein- - 1--- i • • • . ...• Contacf•-:lvir.::Jerrij Fr3i..::::--!:•••;:•-.--- :-.. - ...-... -• ••-Report •September 6, 2000I -- 1 - .. ••. -.. ...... .. ... t- :f . -.....Instrumentation Quest lgtoti•Type I Sound Level Meter, /1.Jr.ri)103000.6.!': • • • 1 .11: • ; :f . ..... . . . 1 •-3 i > • . .. • . j :3 . • • • •:•• • : • • •:..' •::... ....• I Sound Level Readings (dBAy-.-..-:. • . 3 • 1-EQUIPMENT/AREA.•••••• Hot Water Hot Water Plant Closed . •• COMMEN7S :._ • - .... • • • .. . . ..ei .... ,. • - : -. '•-•Heater Off Heater On (9-2-00) :- - 1 ...i. .. . . .. .- " -::• . . . 1- i•i• . ---• :.E side of-Wells•at 425 .: --:•-••• :•:- 585:-:. : .•'.i••••60.5 ." ...5 .3 :•:• .1 .• - :: • • .. , , _ • -.•• ' -W side of V4-11S'ai 425• . '•-• -:. • ••• - -**.i.:61.3 • - 55.5' - : • ':.i t -:.? -•- -11i side of Welts at 419 ...:.-:: -- -. . ..- .-.. .;.••6017' -. - -.- • I .. :i . . -*: • •W side fef.•'iVells:iit 408— -.....-...-_•.:..••••:::.::.-.----: . .••-• _ ....i.-..66.3_. _..- • - • -• . . .. . • .. '. .:- I. il • .. .. . : ••; ...- SE coiner Of•Wells&.4-ilv.:-.• ••••••:•• 666-. ..•.656 • • . 588- • 1 . • 2. ; 4 • - ..NE corner of Wells &4tii.....-.. ...-:.:67..0..:1... - : ::::::68.1 ......•-• • . •--.58.7.. :• • .. ; • i .4 • ...- . - ... •:.... , .' II side.cf 44. :at-920: - -.• . •::-....-.:.:••::•••.7.1.3•••• -• -- :- -.731.5 -•••. .. . -.5 9:5 .•: 1 ::•ii- . ._ . •- • •• • •• • . ... • . :• .N side of 4,;.georner of;.... . ••:-..`.• • . -•••• •-•'•• • • :.., .. . -. ...• :-.- ..66.9. •• • ----70,3- • •-• 61-2•. ., . . . ... ••- -••apartment building.•. ---. --•-•-• -f-*••• -.. • .--:-r._,.. -; & ;.' •• -' • ' -•. .. • • • - • • • I i I ..••-. --S•sicle•of 4.'-it:920 ......-•-•...:...:•:.:::-.-:68:9:.-.11-.... ..-.•'-......71:0... • ••-60:B.. -i • ••. -..S. ide of •E:corner of.•:::•'• -- - -• • --. .: . i :f • - - - •apartment building .•: -....-- ....670-: • _.•;._•70:9 . :59:1 - • :i 1 :4 - •?, - • - • -..... . . . . . . . . •I ::. SE corner Of 4th&•Maim...••••..; -...--:-72.2'- . .•-..:.:.15,2 •.•.••65.1. . •. .:! I I :.j. •.. .. NE corner of 4' Main ' '. : • 70..9•'.' . H68..7 • • 644 •- • .• 1 :: • ,.. Apt#26.7•10ing.roonff-••••::::;-: :•:.•........ ..•_• : . 1.•62.8 - - • : •Wmdov Icompletely cpenl. • . . . •. . Apt#207-liiing:iOoM..... -:-..-: •... . 50:1' • - i_56,2 - . . • Windo , open 1"•.. Apt#207 living:room :- • ...• --- - ;..so.i - . - . .- .windoNti;:ploikt 1 1 1 . Apt/207-bedroomi - ... ..•- . -7.- .• . ..:.59:0 ' • .WindosJi open 6" I 4. •_.., +- ..1 -F. . Apt#207 bedroom : . . . • ••••.-.--..---- •-• ••• : : i 5CY1) - - • - •• : NVindovil closed I ... II* . .. ..Apt#407 living:415°m. --... ••••:.:68 -3 •-•...- • -.•••••i:sp:i . Wmdov completely 9peti-4. . • - • . . • 1 i, .. . Apt..11407.1iving room i• :.:::: ...% ..571 .-. . ..1:57.8 • • - Windo 'closed 1 1 • • i; •- SL.S..roOfto.p: NE corner ••• *.-.-.••••••••i33.4 - • : 'ef•k3r7 • . - • : Machin ry on roof.rul.ning . . r ir----- SLS rooftop:,across-from•.... ••• '.' •• • • -- :.! • . . .•.. --••• •••71.6 .••••- .-...J.. 79.9 • .. . - . Ma -i iiy.on roof rut_nintt ....corner cif-apt b.iiilding••• -- -;.•.:.•:•••.'.- •. *. ;.:•.• : :frt7-- -' :. 3LS-rooftop: across•front.:-. ... •- • • • • . • • •• -----71.5 .... -: :." .- :74 8 •• - • Machinery on roof - .• • •31.3-rOoftOp SW corner ,....: -....: ..71- :•- -• :.- •:::•74..4...- -• :-7 Exhanst i:(ati running-rilearb: • . - -r---1 .. . •• . i, i . . -.. . • . ... .. . .. . • • - • . , 7 - • . . .. .. ... . ••• . ,. . .: ! - • WASHINGTON AUDIOLOGY SERVICES.; INC. Sound Level Survey Client Service Linen Supply Survey Date September 29, 2000 Address PO BOX 957 Time 3:45am — 4:45am • Renton, WA 98057-0957 Surveyor Rick Uncangco Contact Mr. Jerry Fry Report Date October 9, 2000 Instrumentation Quest 1800 Type I Sound Level Meter, SN HP 1030006 Hot Water Hot Water EQUIPMENT/AREA Heater Off Heater OD COMMENTS (dBA) (dBA) E side of Wells at 425 53.2 60.8 W side of Wells at 425 54.0 59.2 SE corner of Wells & 4th 53.7 64.2 NE corner of Wells &4th 58.9 64.5 • N side of 4th at 920 58.8 64.8 N side of 4`b; E corner of 57.0 64.1 apartment building S side of 4'b at 920 58.0 65.4 S side of 4t; E corner of 58.7 64.8 apartment building SE corner of 4th &Main 66.1 66.9 NE corner..of 4`b &Main 64.0 63.0 Traffic had more impact than _,_ .__.... heater at this location...— SLS rooftop: NE corner 62.0 65.6 SLS rooftop: across from 63.9 73.0 corner of apt building SLS rooftop: across from 69.4 72.0 920 SLS rooftop: SE corner 62.0 72.3 SLS rooftop: SW corner 63.5 - • 1/2000 09:55 2067644760 WA AUDIOLOGY PAGE 03/03 WASHINGTON AUDIOLOGY SERVICES, INC. Sound Level Survey Client Service Linen Supply Survey Date December 21, 2000 Address PO BOX 957 Time 4:00am - 4:30am Renton, WA 98057-0957 Surveyor David Stern • Contact Mr. Jerry Fry Report Date, December 21, 2000 Instrumentation Quest 1800 Type I Sound Level Meter, .SN TIP1030006 September 29, 2000 December 21, 2000 EQUIPMENT/ got Water AREAHot Water Hot Water Hot Water Off Heater Heater Heater On Difference Heater off Heater On Difference (slow (slow (dBA) . (slow (dBA) • dBA) (slow . dBA) dBA� dBA) E side of Wells 53,2 60.8. 7.6 57.3 57.5 0.2 at 425 W side of 54.0 59.2. 5.2 58.2 - 58.6 0.4 Wells at 425 NE corner of 58.9 • 64.5 5.6 61.7 60.3 -1.4 Wells & 4th N side of 4m at • 58.8 64.8 6.0 61.5 62.5 1.0 920 N side of 4d`; E corner of • 57..0 64.1 7.1 63.5 . 62.2 -1.3 apartment• building• SE corner of 44 66.1 66.9 0.3 57.3 64.2 7.1 &Main • NE corner of 4th&Main 64.0. 63.0 -1.0 58.2 64.5 6.3 CITY OF RENTON JAN fl 4 2001 �a�vatV UI VISION Mr. Jerry Fry December 21, 2000 SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY PO BOX 957 Renton, WA 98057-0957 • Dear Jerry: Enclosed are the results of the supplemental noise level survey performed on December 21,2000. Its purpose was to add to the data already gathered on August 31" and September 29th by measuring the average noise levels of the areas both before and after the new hot water heater first turns on at roughly 4am each morning. Static noise levels were measured using a Quest 1800, Type I Sound Level Meter; serial#HP1030006. Calibration of the equipment was performed both prior to and following the study. Static noise level measurements were measured at various points around the perimeter of the property, both with and without the heater on. Measurements were taken along 4th St.,between Wells St.and Main St. Please refer to the enclosed chart that indicates the measurements obtained for all of the areas tested on December 215t. I included the results gathered on September 29th for ease of comparison. It can be seen that the levels on December 21'with the heater off were all above those measured on September 29th. The variability between both days when the hot water heater was off was most likely due to differing environmental conditions(weather,traffic,etc.). The main point to consider however,is that the difference in sound levels when the heater is on versus off is on average only +/-1.5 dBA on December 2151,With the exception of the measurements taken on Main St. This is an improvement over the average difference measured on September 29th,which was on average+/-6.3 dBA. I have included these differences in the chart for convenience. One thing to keep in mind when measuring sound levels on a street is the extreme variability in levels when a vehicle passes by. Every effort was made to obtain levels when no vehicles were present, however it is important to note that levels would typically increase to 70-75+dBA when a car would pass by. In closing, I hope this report has helped to answer the questions you have had. If I have created more questions or not answered those you had sufficiently, please feel free to call me at (206) 764-3330. . Thanks again and we always look forward to the opportunity to working with you for any hearing conservation program and noise monitoring needs you may have. Sincerely, • David Stern Occupational Hearing Conservationist WASHINGTON AUDIOLOGY SERVICES, INC. CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2001 TO: LARRY MECKLING FROM: NEIL WATTS kit() / / SUBJECT: SERVICE LINEN—BOILER NOISE I agree with your recommendation to request further remediation action by Service Linen in response to the excessive morning noise from their boiler. Any increase over the ambient levels is unacceptable when the ambient levels exceed the minimum allowable noise levels. The improvements they have made to date have reduced the noise level outside of the building,but have not been adequate to bring the situation into compliance with the City's noise regulations. cc: Jay Covington Gregg Zimmerman Jennifer Henning • EXAZ i! �til SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA 6987 Perimeter Road South, Suite 100 • Seattle, Washington 98108 Phone: (206) 764-3330 • Fax: (206) 764-4760 • E-mail:smaclean@aol.com EDUCATION Post-Graduate Studies in Audiology, University of Washington and Western Washington University. Master of Arts in Audiology, Western Washington University, December 1978. Bachelor of Science in Speech & Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, May 1977. OWNERSHIP & AFFILIATION Alaska Occupational Audiology & Health Services, Inc., President, Owner, and Occupational Audiologist, August 2000 to present. Washington Audiology Services, Inc., President, Owner, and Occupational Audiologist, April 1982 to present. MEMBERSHIPS ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, Professional Member since 1991. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF AUDIOLOGY, Fellow admitted 1989. AMERICAN AUDITORY SOCIETY, since 1978. AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST ASSOCIATION, Alaska Chapter, Member since 2000. AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION, Member since 1976. Hold Certificate of Clinical Competence in Audiology since 1979. Certificate of Appreciation, awarded November 1990; Special Interest Division, Hearing Conservation and Occupational Audiology (HCOA). Member since 1990; "ACE" Award for Continuing Education,June 1992; Elected to Steering Committee, Hearing Conservation and Occupational Audiology Division, February 1991, re-elected October 1996. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS, Alaska and Puget Sound Chapters, Member since 1990. COUNCIL FOR ACCREDITATION IN OCCUPATIONAL HEARING CONSERVATION, Certified Course Director since 1988. SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA PAGE 2 MEMBERSHIPS (cont.) NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, Associate member since 1996; Appointed as a Principal Member of the Technical Committee on Fire Service Occupational Medical and Health, May 2000. NATIONAL HEARING CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION PSO Member since 1985; Participant of all NHCA conferences since 1987; (except 1998) Elected PSO Delegate, 1991; Appointed Member Services Chair, 1991; PSO Newsletter Editor, 1992; Committee Chair for Employment Criteria For Hearing Critical Jobs, 1991-; Contributing author to Spectrum - NHCA publication, 1991-1996; Voted into the position of Secretary by membership, 1993-1995; Golden Lobe Award, March 1995; Nominations Committee member, 1997-; Ethics Committee Chair, 1999-; WASHINGTON SOCIETY OF AUDIOLOGY, Member since 1982. EMPLOYMENT August 2000 to Present Alaska Occupational Audiology & Health Services, Inc., Anchorage, AK. President/Owner and Occupational Audiologist. Duties are the same as for Washington Audiology Services, Inc. June 1982 to Present Washington Audiology Services, Inc.,Seattle,WA. President and Occupational Audiologist. Providing hearing conservation programs and sound level surveys to industry and government. Responsible for consultation services in hearing conservation, including claims review in forensic Audiology as well as management and employee training. Consultation provided in workplace communication assessment. Course Director for Council for Accreditation in Occupational Hearing Conservation (CAOHC). June 1979 to June 1982 Washington Otology-Neurology Group, Dr. Matthew Wong, Seattle, WA. Diagnostic Audiological Assessment, Hearing Aid Evaluation, Counseling and Fitting, Hearing Conservation, Electronystagmography. SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA PAGE 3 EMPLOYMENT (cont.) September 1978 to June 1979 Northwest Hospital Speech & Hearing Clinic,Seattle, WA. Duties involved Hearing Aid Evaluation and Fitting, Diagnostic Audiological Assessment, Tinnitus Evaluation, Director of Neonatal High Risk Hearing Screening Program, Nursing Home Audiologist, Mobile Van Hearing Screening. 1976 to 1982 Hearing Conservation Consultant to Emerson G.M. Diesel in the Seattle area; Noise Level Studies and Hearing Conservation Services. LICENSES & CERTIFICATION American Speech Language Hearing Association;Clinical Certificate of Competency in Audiology since 1979; No. 00969873-02 (National Certification); Licensed in Audiology in the State of Alaska, Cert. No. A-38; Licensed in Audiology in the State of Oregon, Cert. No. 83 21188; Licensed in Audiology in the State of Washington, Cert. No. 1728 PRESENTATIONS Washington Society of Audiology, Industrial Hearing Conservation Programs;Seattle, WA, September 1989; Washington State Logging Safety Conference, Hearing Conservation;Tumwater,WA, January 1990; National Hearing Conservation Association, Director and Speaker, Excellence in Hearing Conservation; Seattle, WA, April 1990; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Fine Tuning Your Understanding of Hearing Conservation (Short Course); Seattle, WA, November 1990; American Society of Safety Engineers, Hearing Conservation for the '90's; Seattle, WA, November 1990; Prima Conference, Hearing Conservation Programs for the '90's; Tacoma, WA, March, 1991; Hearing Conservation Workshop, Training the Trainer; Seattle, WA, July 1992 and December 1992; International Forensic Audiology Meeting, Development of Criteria for Employment and Retention Standards for Employees in Hearing Critical Jobs; Vancouver, BC, August 1992; North Pacific Fishing Vessel Owners Association Conference, Hearing Conservation for the Fishing Industry; Seattle, WA, October 1992; SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA PAGE 4 PRESENTATIONS (cont.) American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,Appeal for Universal Consistency- Employment Criteria for Hearing Critical Jobs (Mini-seminar); San Antonio, TX, November 1992; National Hearing Conservation Association, Development of Criteria for Employment/Retention of Employees in Hearing Critical Jobs; Albuquerque, NM, February 1993; National Hearing Conservation Association, Director and Speaker, Excellence in Hearing Conservation; Philadelphia, PA, September 1993; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Forensic Audiology;Anaheim,CA, November 1993; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,Current Audiometric Criteria in Law Enforcement: Where Do We Go From Here?; Anaheim, CA, November 1993; Acoustical Society of America, Hearing Conservation for the '90's; Seattle,WA, May 1994; National Hearing Conservation Association, Director and Speaker, Excellence in Hearing Conservation; Costa Mesa, CA, September 1994; Weyerhaeuser, Training in Sound Level Measurement and Dosimetry; 1994; Weyerhaeuser, Hearing Conservation Training & Fitting Workshops; 1994; CAOHC Training Courses, Audiometric Technician Certification courses (20-hour); 1988-1994; National Hearing Conservation Association, The Americans With Disabilities Act- Recruiting, Retaining and Protecting Workers With Hearing Impairments;Cincinnati, OH, March 1995; National Fire Protection Association, Fire Service Section Regional Meeting, Hearing Conservation Programs; Tacoma, WA, September 1996; Oregon Pulp and Paper Workers Safety & Health Conference, Effective Hearing Conservation Programs (short course); Eugene, OR, December 1996; Washington State Logging Safety Conference, Hearing Conservation; Olympia,WA, January 1997; National Hearing Conservation Association Annual Conference, Hearing Critical Situations; Orlando, FL, February 1997; Oregon Governors Occupational Safety and Health Conference, Noise and Hearing Loss (short course); Portland, OR, March 1997; SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA PAGE 5 PRESENTATIONS (cont.) International Association of Fire Fighters-John P. Redmond Foundation Fourteenth Biennial Symposium on the Occupational Health and Hazards of the Fire Service, Invited plenary session speaker, Hearing Loss/Conservation (Hearing and Communication Needs of Fire Fighters); Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 1997; National Hearing Conservation Association, Excellence in Hearing Conservation Seminar, Hearing Critical Jobs and Accommodating the Hearing Impaired Worker; Seattle, WA, September 1998; Washington State Council of Fire Fighters,Spring Seminar Hearing Loss/Conservation in the Fire Service(Hearing and Communication Needs of Fire Fighters);Yakima,WA, March 1999; State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries, Meeting of the Minds Workers'Compensation Conference, Hearing Conservation;Seattle,WA,June 1999; Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington, Hearing Loss Seminar, Hearing Loss; Bellevue, WA,June 1999; National Hearing Conservation Association, 25th Annual Hearing Conservation Conference, Moderator & Presenter, Forum: Hearing Critical Jobs; Denver, CO, February 2000; Associated Builders and Contractors of Western Washington, Seminar Hearing Loss/Worker's Compensation; Bellevue, WA, September 2000. American Industrial Hygienist Association Employee/Supervisor Hearing Conservation Training Workshops; 1982-present; PUBLICATIONS & PROCEEDINGS Crossing The Line: Another Approach To Employment Criteria, Spectrum (NHCA Publication), Vol. 9 (4), Fall 1992. Hearing Conservation and the ADA, Washington Society of Audiology Newsletter, Nov.-Dec. 1994. Hearing Conservation and the ADA, Spectrum (NHCA Publication), Vol. 12 (1), January 1995. Employment Criteria in Hearing Critical Jobs, Spectrum (NHCA Publication),Vol. 12 (4), November 1995. Hearing Standards in the U.S. Military, with co-author Col. Richard W. Danielson, Spectrum (NHCA Publication), Vol. 13 (1),January 1996. • SANDRA C. MACLEAN, M.A., CCC-A, F-AAA PAGE 6 PUBLICATIONS & PROCEEDINGS, (cont.) Hearing Critical Situations, NHCA Annual Conference Proceedings, February, 1997. Hearing Critical Jobs, with co-author Michael Nilsson, Spectrum (NHCA Publication), Vol. 14 (3), August 1997. OSHA Record-keeping—An Update,CAOHC Update (Newsletter of the Council for Accreditation for Occupational Hearing Conservation), Vol. 11 (3), Winter, 2000. REFERENCES Available upon request. Rentonnetgity Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerlc/index.cfm?fiseaction=showdetail&REC=16 - 1 ,i [ , ,, 1 . CitV Clerk card File 4 . 't e ; : , Record 16 of 22 Eit i !Title: PERMIT, SERVICE LINEN/WELLS ST LOADING '66 fEffective Date: Jan 1, 1966 --1 Date Entered: Jan 18, 1985 by User: CC Date Modified: Mar 22, 1991 by User: CC Narrative: I 10/4/66 -Service Linen -Revocable permit to load and unload Wells ! St. • SEE ALSO: CAG 073-85 i • RES4.2076 ' • SA-032-77 1Keywords: • PAG-66-1066 ' ; • SERVICE LINEN I • WELLS ST i - - - --- , . Location: MICROFILMED FRONT FILE CABINET .... . _. . ., Return to Rentannet C • bt .4i- _g- 7-i- 1 of 1 , 02/22/2001 4:16 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=22 aty Clerk Card ile 7 - r •Fry,71,..e'ree..ar4 41ttew•S e a rcrf") Kesu -1st, , .346,1.4.4mAme;oww,ow.4 Record 22 of 22 is Title: SA AZARIA ROUSSO,SERVICE LINEN 89 Effective Date: Jan 1, 1989 Date Entered: Apr 10, 1992 by User: CC ,Date Modified: Aug 10, 1992 by User: CC4 'Narrative: II 9/19/89-Site Approval for Azaria Rousso for Service Linen Parking Lot 'Keywords: I ROUSSO AZARIA 89 • SA-89-106 II SERVICE LINEN PARKING LOT 89 Location: MICROFILMED/STORAGE Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/200 1 4:17 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnetlweb_sites/intranetlCityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=21 City Clerk Card File e to . eirbhp 1e a11s i Record 21 of 22 E. fl Title: SA,SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY CO 94 .Effective Date: Jan 1, 1994. !Date Entered: Dec 12, 1994 by User: CC5 !Date Modified: Dec 28, 1994 by User: CC5 Narrative: • 10/13/94 Application from Service Linen Supply Co.for changing from retail operation to distribution center, and for future. construction. Site address: 801 Houser Way South. • 11/08/94-ERC Review. Determination of.Non-Significance. ,Keywords: •. HOUSER WY S 94 • SA-94-138 • SERVICE LINEN.SUPPLY 94 Location: CABINET 5 Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:17 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=17 ti Card' File ; tcl ; FinAiriast Record 17 of 22 ci wit Title: RE, SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY INC 93 Effective Date:. Jan 1, 1993 Date Entered: Sep 1,1993 by User: CC Date Modified:" Apr 7, 1994 ,.. by User: CC5 `Narrative: ■ 05/27/93-Release and reconveyance of parking easement and agreement between Service Linen Supply, Inc., Lauren Jassney, David Jassney and Robert B. Raphael and David Jassny and Camille B.Jassney and Robert Raphael,Grantor, orig.-ease#8512110625, " -i release agreement#9305270483. IN SEE ALSO: SUBSTITUTE PARKING ■. EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT ■ #9305270482. ■ SA-91-140 and CU-85-039" Keywords: ■ 9305270483 RE ■ JASSNY 93 ■.RAPHAEL 93 III 9305270483 l.RELEASE OF E&RECONVEYANCE 93 - _t SERVICE LINEN 93 'Location: VAULT Return to Renton:let 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:16 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=18 City Clerk Card File ,l!I` Searcl1 I csulls List Record 18 of 22 al fi Title: RE,SERVICE LINEN SUPPLY INC 93 Effective Date: Jan 1, 1993 Date Entered: Sep 2, 1993 by User: CC `Date Modified: Feb 22, 1995 by User: CC5 Narrative: ■ 05/27/93 -Release and reconveyance of parking easement and agreement between Service Linen Supply, Inc.,Jassny and Raphael, and replaced by Substitute Parking Easement and Agreement. Recording No.9305270483. • See also: 9305270482 Substitute • SA-91-.140 • CU-85-039 ■. CU, SA-92-013 ;Keywords: • 9305270483 • JASSNY 93 • RAPHAEL BOB 93 • SERVICE LINEN 93 • SPENCER COURT APARTMENTS 93 • SPENCER CT APARTMENTS 93 Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:17 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfrn?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=15 City Clerk Card File t _.. yr ., ..�r's Record 15 of 22 El 'Title: ORD 1769,SERVICE LINEN'59 Effective Date: Jan 1,1959 Date Entered:. Aug 6;1987 by User: CC Date Modified: Mar 23,1994 by User: CC5 Narrative: •;ORDINANCE 1769-Rezone from P-1 to B-1; Service Linen R-59-NO# • 06/09/59;adopted ■ SEE ALSO: R-59-NO# . Keywords: ■ ORD 1769 • SERVICE LINEN ;Location: VAULT Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:16 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=14 so e to City Clerk Card File 11euuf e rch 961.1*Lt., Record 14 of 22 Title: ORD 2632,R-71-673/SERVICE LINEN '71 . Effective Date:. Jan"1,1971 IDate Entered: Apr 2, 1985 by User: CC. Date Modified: Dec 27, 1993 by User CC5 .. Narrative: ■ ORDINANCE 2632-Changing the zoning classification of certain',,' properties within the City of Renton from.Public Use District(P-1):to Business District(B-1); Service Linen R-71-673-Main Av:S;' ■ 05/10/71 adopted ■ 05/19/71 effective ■ SEE ALSO: R=71.673 Keywords: I MAIN AV S • ORD 2632 ■ S 4TH ST ■ S 5TH ST • SERVICE LINEN Location: VAULT Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:16 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfin?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=8 City Clerk Car File 40 Seam Record 8 of 22 Title: EASEMENT,SERVICE LINEN '85 Effective Date: Jan 1, 1985 Date Entered: - DecE 15, 1986 by User: CC :Date Modified:.` .Sep 1, 1993 by User: CC Narrative: ■ 11/21/85-Service Linen -Parking easement and agreement ■ Recording#8512110625 ■ Release and reconveyance of parking easement and agreement# 9305270484 Keywords: ■ 8512110625 E • E 8512110625 I.SERVICE LINEN ,Location: VAULT Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:15 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=3 •• City Clerk Card File 40 : • t , r set , , . triisp,...Tr,E.- 3 ist.' *,...4.4.40,..44.0.,..&411 Record 3 of 22 0 wit .Titie: . CONDITIONAL USE,S 4TH ST 87 ;Effective Date: Jan 1, 1987 ' ;Date Entered: Feb 11, 1988 . by User: CC ;Date Modified: Mar 29,1994 , by User: CC5 , 1 !Narrative: • 10/23/87-Azaria Rousso-Conditional use permit to allow the ' expansion (adding 2,800 sq ft to 2nd floor)of an industrial,use on , property zoned B-1, Business Use; in addition applicant will remodel 2,775 sq ft on 2nd floor and a new roof over 4,500 sq ft of work space; permit concerns only the 2,800 sq ft addition to 2rid floor; property located at 903 S.4th St. i • 2/9/88 Application withdrawn by applicant . . Keywords: • S 4TH ST 87 • CU-87-096 I ROUSSO AZARIA 87 .. . - ,. ii S 4TH ST 87 • SERVICE LINEN 87 Location: MICROFILMED ii Return'to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:14 PM Rentonnet City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction—showdetail&REC=2 , , ,. I Cat' v Clerk Card File 1 , . , , . . ,t --ap dal:- 1 ,„111,eit-il'''.List Record 2 of 22 ifix in Title: CONDITIONAL USE,WELLS AV S 92 Effective Date: Jan 1, 1992 Date Entered: Sep 29, 1992 by User CC4 1 Date Modified: Aug 15, 1994 by User: CC5 ; Narrative: • 7/1/92 -Application for CU for existing nonconforming light' • industrial use in the B-1 Zone. Proposal includes closure of the existing loading area at NE corner of the building, construction of a new covered loading area on the south side,and relocation of the lunchroom,offices and guard's residence to an existing residential building immediately south of the main facility(903 S.4th Street and 408 Wells Ave. South). . • Public Hearing: 08/25/92 U. HE report-9/8/92-CU denied • Appeal 9/15/92 Keywords: • CU-92-013 - • SERVICE LINEN 92 * ; • V-92-013 (SEE CU) • WELLS AV S 92 Location: MICROFILMED/CABINET 5 Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:14 PM Rentonnet.City Clerk Card File http://rentonnet/web_sites/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fiiseaction=showdetail&REC=4 Renton City Clerk Card File ew, earc esu -is Record 4 of 22 0 Es ;Title: CONDITIONAL USE,S 4TH ST 85 [Effective Date: Jan 1, 1985 !Date Entered: Oct 14, 1985 by User: CC [Date Modified: Mar 29, 1994 by User: CC5 !Narrative: • Service Linen -Conditional use permit to allow commercial laundry expansion in a B-1 Zone within 500 ft of building located at 903 S. 4th St. • 7/30/85 Hearing • 8/08/85 HE denied • 8/22/85 APPEAL • 10/7/85 Council approval; HE overturned -report modified -see Planning and Development Committee report. [Keywords: • S 4TH ST 85 • CU-85-039 1 • SERVICE LINEN 85 t Location: STORAGE Return to Rentonnet 1 of 1 02/22/2001 4:15 PM Neil Wags-Proposed Service Linen Expansion Page 1 Y From: Jay Covington To: Lind, Rebecca; Watts, Neil Date: Tue, Feb 20,2001 3:58 PM Subject: Prop'osedSeivice.Linen>Expansion The Mayor asked me today whether Service Linen's proposed expansion onto the former School District property was allowed by current zoning. I was able to lead him through our zoning table that shows the "commercial Laundry"as a secondary use,with conditions (note 18 on page 2-77). He wants to know three things: Is Service Linen's proposed expansion within the conditions spelled out in our code? If so, are the conditions sufficient enough for us to require noise compliance and other current nuisance issues/violations? If not, can we get compliance through SEPA? Larry Warren has written a memo to the Mayor and Council that confirms a yes answer to the first question, so'Neil, vould you provide us with an answer to the other two? Thanks CC: Carlson, Susan; Zimmerman, Gregg p-0P I