HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1'r
L..
�4
1,
2
Ck
o
`ck
w
o
0
a �
a
4
Q
r l
r
rn
m
z
r
rn
Gi
va
a
m
�n
n A
�w
N
a
o�
a
0
PARTIES OF RECORD
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT
LUA10-082, V-A
Aso Jaff
Bob Rench
Sally Scott
KSI Architecture & Planning
Friends of Youth
1405 N 28th Street
5818 114th Avenue NE
16225 NE 87th Street ste: #A6
Renton, WA 98056
Kirkland, WA 98033
Redmond, WA 98052
(party of record)
tel: (425) 968-8197
tel: (425) 430-6490
eml: ajaff@ksiarchitects.com
(owner)
(applicant / contact)
Dr. Peter Van Breda
Ray Durr
Dave Whitener
1115 N 27th Place
1206 N 27th Place
Clover Creek Homeowners
Renton, WA 98056
Renton, WA 98056
Association
tel: (425) 417-4606
(party of record)
PO Box 808
(party of record)
Seahurst, WA 98062
tel: (206) 242-2279
(party of record)
Updated: 01/12/11 (Page 1 of 1)
i k sm
oil
HIE2
L&
<0<
.9
EXHIBIT 9
... Z N
E _
02y,
S�a�v
eMS4'6--
EXHIBIT 12
cc
Z)
0
U
CD W
0 J
a�
�t
N
irZ
LL
w
5;O
w
z
i
�
CD
w
cc
w
a
0
cc
a
as �
z
g w
a
w ❑
� a
a
w
o
TO
L
z
LL
LL
V
`2
r
7
0
LL
0
CO)V
z
w
EE
LL
LL
0
a
a
d, a 0
0
Ir
LL
ww
20
0a
d
z�
L�
LL CV
�z
0
LL
O�
3
W
y
All
c1 a G
' man-eoan eo dox.-L-,4C �
z�
axx3H narmorn ,fi-,BZ rs a F
iowi �o v.oaon
fssna eo noLa9
o o w -
" o�S
`d L)N=
a - Zz
F,zi
z z O
3r
u�
R N W 0
deal
00004
w
0
W
O
J
U
0
Z
D
z
U
H
O
W O
a
O 0
� o
n z
088
I
t �
s
LU to .2
a
I
EXHIBIT 13
W
C7
co
m
�
�
a
v� zb
lit-
lu
!
ery
C)
0
EXHIBIT 14
ca
W
iu
S w
C3 't
In
LU
co
vi.
0-1
C �
oQ
�
OC
CO)
w
h-
w
CL
0
cr
CL
H-
z
w
U
a
i,
I
z
LL
LL
C'3
2
F—
D
0
LL
0
z
w
cc
LL
LL
0
a
a
U
a.
a
ac
0
0
0
O
wE {3¢
a 5
Z2
w ~ * y
v p
Z 0 0
a=_
>Lu
a
CL LL t
z
a w
Ir
Q
tY
V
0
0
z
W
Cc
U-
d
WJ °z
3!
wui
4_
> w
OS k
� �;
Cl
• GFFI
Q �'a
i
QLU
F 8
cc
o
I."
W #� �ppi��
0 €je
8i � to 1 1 3;
R oy
re
d5a
,4a?�gdgig
E
;k
s,Y.
b
� W
u ro � 'z °�_! � '�e 8� w i �4 zd Sic; Q w'
o=a o ;;d j A Ala da t zr s3:: � 1
t' com �Iz�38 �/ V u�] S4s# S a _ F dl a e el; c �W ; ` uj
F
"r a[9 rn �i t de;si VJ
r. 1
RVIW'
i
Ir
[�F"E
16
IF l�1�7
o
YBgY&g�
� �
a 1b 7
� { � e ;
I g•�T=ry
T� a
Q w
I l I
- - _t j
0-
IMF
C
X
11
_
yQ) .3
�
�ryl�fjll ]J�J
1!
vJ
ti
�
:.
Z.aC?O r�}
'
3
0
tl _
°�'
�] �'
L[::
t �a39i
W
i
p
.kFn3A 33 EYM733Y _.5—,97�
-
S LL
,GCa j0 _N Cd3iri
C7
SSf1a1 iC r+Cllf,•E �—q,s,
-
J
o
z Z
r.
!J
+I t
W
O U
LL' W
_--
II
u•_y4,a
Z q
r
Lj
c7 o z
a
1 MIL
of
0 J
�k
WX 3
o
F7,� r o
Y
U
w
l
m �
w
w E
.._
-
_- ..
_
- -.
_.. -
z
�
-
w w
- --
-
g .--
.......
v
=
__.
- _-
a.
-
F
P
_
_ _—
r
Lo
-
- --- -
-
000
-
�1
-
c
� I
U J
t.
1
�W s
�oP"o
fL��aU z
OZ4�
y
J
e
a
—
_
--
`
_
m
-
U
O W
T
U C7
� w
- -
a
Z U D
50 Z W
W V~1 UD
-
-
U W
O �
--
a
o W z
n o o
-
., v
M :
C
•p uaJ N Y y 0
y ty rz F 'y
abL a�i C5 p $ $ -•o `F „� P
_ [L a ¢ E C 00
�2SZU U - o° ci� s
u 5U �
`r �UoaSnE�E�nia�Yo�� oLCo , u
�' ❑= v E 0..0 0 _oo aria a E U.fl
ZCFyez� ° U o°d c>ohF.
a Wrs7p a�o3r �¢N o 2� tiUro a o��
F a� c a�
Q Z n. s� Z v , o^ �sU Y oa 'oo
0.' W ca Y= Y m V U ,� - c�a 3
a.E Zrv�o aq ti� aN U[� '5a-4a.."a
O (A•r, t�oc-S O aCAi Y) O
°
.�
o
� • � - Q-4
Z
U
M. 3
CE3
Ln
•jU
z U
12
'Dtu maw
a
o
of
z
"Z�i
r ry U
J
CIF
o
3°a3
p�
A
� y
�p�
� 4i
0-0
`gyp ct o y . X C1+ qj
w
c�
m��o-�,°
-o
moo
~
th
t1b �' Q
npC14IU
3
°�
a�
o
aca
�b
.ti
O
f� O
3
Ln
z
b di
Q'•4•
S
A
9PL;
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2011
To: City Clerk's Office
From: Stacy M Tucker
Subject: Land Use File Closeout
Please complete the following information to facilitate project closeout and indexing by the City
Clerk's Office.
Project Name:
Griffin Home Sports Court Variance
LUA (file) Number:
LUA-1(D-0$2, V-A
Cross -References:
AKA's:
Project Manager:
Gerald Wasser f
Acceptance Date:
December 15, 2010
Applicant:
Aso ]aff, KSI Architecture & Planning
Owner:
Friends of Youth
Contact:
Same as applicant
PID Number:
2296500170
ERC Decision Date:
ERC Appeal Date:
Administrative Approval:
March 31, 2011
Appeal Period Ends:
April 14, 2011
Public Hearing Date:
May 17, 2011
Date Appealed to HEX:
April 7, 2011
By Whom:
Dr. Peter van Breda
HEX Decision:
Reversed the Administrative Date: May 31, 2011
Decision - Variance has been '
denied 9
Date Appealed to Council:
By Whom:
z
1
Council Decision:
Date:
Mylar Recording Number:
Project Description: Request for an Administrative Variance from the provisions of RMC 4-2-110B
regulating the size of a detached
accessory structure in the Residential-4 (R-4) dwelling units per
acre zone.
Location:
2500 Lake Washington Blvd N
�: Comments:
k
r A
Denis Law
City of
Mayor tip}
.' t
City Clerk - Bonnie I.Walton
May 31, 2011
Dr. Peter van Breda
1115.N 27th Place
Renton, WA 9805E
Re: Hearing Examiner Decision on Appeal of Administrative Decision
Griffin Home Sports Court Variance (LUA-10-082, V-A)
Dear Dr. van Breda:
Enclosed is the Hearing Examiner Decision dated May 31, 2011, on your appeal as referenced.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or the Development Services Division
staff.
Sincerely
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk
Enclosure
CC' Parties of Record (5)
Jennifer. Henning, Planning Manager
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 R rentonwa.gov
Aso ]aff
KSI Architecture & Planning
5818 114th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Bob Rench
Friends of Youth
16225 NE 87th Street ste: #A6
Redmond, WA 98052
Sally Scott
1405 N 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
Dr. Peter Van Breda Ray Durr Dave WhitenerClover Creek Homeowners Assoc.
1115 N 27th Place 1206 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Pa Box 808
Seahurst, WA 98062
May 31, 2011
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KING }
BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duty 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 this matter.
That on the 31st day of May, 2011, at the hour of 4:30 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 a notification of Hearing Examiner's Hearing for the Griffin Home Sports Court
Variance Decision (LUA-10-082, V-A)
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 31st day of May, 2011.
` r
•ems
_
i (
Y ;
00 z
�•�V•ot'*
�, :O
+—
Cynt is R. Maya
Notary Public in and for the State of
"= sT`••..,
Washington, residing in Renton
My Commission expires: 8/27/2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Griffin Home
APPEAL OF VARIANCE APPROVAL
Administrative Appeal
LUA 10-082, V-A )
Summary
The Appellant appeals the approval of an administrative variance for a 7,200 square foot
roofed structure to enclose an existing 7,200 square foot concrete sports court. The variance
approval is reversed and denied. The variance request was to waive the requirements of RMC 4-
2-110(B), which limits the size of accessory structures on properties zoned R-4 to 1,000 square
feet. The approval is reversed because the Applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship as
required by the variance criteria.
Testimony
Dr. van Breda, Appellant, submitted his written testimony, which was admitted as Exhibit 18. Dr.
van Breda noted that as to the undue hardship criterion, he is concerned that the nonconforming use
status of the building grants the Applicant license to continue to expand contrary to existing
regulations and that the proposed structure is only 600 square feet smaller than the largest existing
building on the site. The proposed structure will be three stories in height.
On the materially detrimental criterion, the project will generate noise late into the evening and will
be an eyesore. The planting of 10 to 12 foot trees cannot hope to shield a 35 foot building. The
building will be the tallest on the site and from his property all buildings within view do not exceed
VARIANCE APPEAL - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
one story. Asserting that the sports court is not visible is incorrect since the court is visible in the
summer months. Dr. van Breda believes that the metal roof will increase noise impacts. Dr. van
Breda noted that the structure would adversely affect home values.
On the special privilege criterion, Dr. van Breda cannot understand how allowing such a massive
structure could not be considered a special privilege. The proposed building is larger than most
building sites in Clover Creek.
Dr. van Breda noted that there is no undue hardship involved because the sports court is not critical
to the future of the stated aims of Friends of Youth. He also noted that the Applicants should build
their court at the running track location of the site, located on the southeast side of the campus away
from adjoining homes.
Gerald Wasser, Renton planner, testified that the campus of the subject site is 5.6 acres in size. It is
composed of four lots. The main campus is 3.4 acres in size and includes two structures for the
care of the youth. There is also a parking area that contains 40 parking spaces and in the northeast
portion is a concrete structure used as a sports court. The current sports court is 60x120 feet in size.
The proposed structure will be composed of two enclosed walls. It was originally proposed as four
walls of chain link fence, but was revised in response to neighborhood concerns. Mr. Wasser noted
that staff did not respond to Dr. van Breda's concerns over property value impacts because they
cannot research that issue. Staff did comment on concerns over light, views and noise. He noted
that the walls will be lined with matts that absorb noise. The roof structure contains wood
sheathing on the inside that attenuates noise as well. Photo simulations are included in Exhibit 16
to demonstrate view impacts. The building would be visible when the deciduous trees shed their
leaves in the fall/winter months. The 22 trees that will be planted will achieve a much greater
height then 10 to 12 feet over the years.
Mr. Wasser noted that the Griffin home was annexed into the city in 1959. At that time the
property was zoned R-4. An undue hardship does exist because the R-4 development standard was
intended for residential development. Functionally the proposal provides for the same type of use
already at the sports court but just provides protection from inclement weather. The Applicant has
also stated that the sports court would only be used for limited hours. The Applicant stated that the
boys would not be able to use the court during late evening hours. The variance is the minimum
necessary, but it is unknown whether the Applicant has considered building further away from
adjoining homes at the southeast corner of the campus. Regarding the height, the midpoint of the
roof is 30 feet high, which is the height limit for the R-4 zone where height is measured from the
midpoint of the roof.
Bob Rench, Applicant's representative, noted that the Applicant hasn't looked to the southeast
corner of the property because the current site is already devoted to sports court use and a large
portion of the southeast corner is not usable and the sports court would eliminate use of the fields
for soccer and other recreational activities. In response to questions, there are 24 residents at the
facility.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Aso Jaffe, the Applicant's architect, testified about lighting, noise abatement and views. Ex. 4
shows that the lights proposed for the facility are down lights suspended from the building trusses
and are enclosed by a facie that surrounds the roof, which would minimize any light spillage from
the building, especially considering that the building is 30 feet lower than surrounding housing.
The sports court is below the site line of the van Breda residence. As to noise, noise will be
absorbed by the sidewalls which are composed of sound absorbing matts as well as insulation.
Originally the court did not include sidewalls.
In response to questions from the Examiner, Barry Oman stated that the courts are only used during
light hours so that they are used more during the summer. Sometimes lights are used during the
winter until 9:00 pm. The courts will be used whether or not the structure is added. The structure
will improve noise levels. However, it is acknowledged that the structure will be used more due to
protection from inclement weather, but the inclement weather will also serve to buffer the noise.
Mr. Olman did not object to a 10:00 pm restriction on court use. Bedtimes for the kids start as early
as 9:00 pm. There are no competitions with other facilities that would bring in additional court
users.
In rebuttal, Dr. van Breda noted that on the roof height there is a major difference between the slab
of concrete presently used and the proposed three story structure. There are mature trees on the
southeast corner of the site that would serve as good protection to neighboring properties. No
neighbors were consulted about the project beforehand and the variance decision was issued during
the holidays when people did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond. There is no definition
given as to how late the court would be used during the summer months.
Exhibits
The March 31, 2011 staff report along with the 17 exhibits identified at page 4 of the report were
all admitted into evidence during the May 17, 2011 hearing. In addition, Dr. van Breda's written
testimony, dated May 17, 2011, was admitted as Exhibit 18 during the May 17, 2011 hearing.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
1. Appellant. The Appellant is Dr. van Breda.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 1:00 pm on May 17, 2011, in the
City of Renton City Council Chambers.
Substantive:
VARIANCE APPEAL - 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Proposal. The Appellant seeks to reverse a staff decision to approve a request
for an administrative variance. Staff approved the variance authorizing the waiver of RMC 4-2-
110(B), which limits the size of accessory structures on properties zoned R-4 to 1,000 square feet.
The Applicant requested relief from this requirement in order to partially enclose a 7,200 square
foot outdoor concrete sports court with a metal building composed of two walls.
The project site is part of the campus for the Friends of Youth Griffin Home, which comprises four
tax lots totaling of 5.64 acres. The proposed project would be located on the tax lot comprising the
main campus property, which is 3.75 acres in size. The lot is located at 2500 Lake Washington
Boulevard North. This tax lot is developed with a Group I Home, which includes a 2-story, 7,807
square foot educational/mental health services building with group care for 12 youths; a 2-story,
6,000 square foot youth treatment facility; a grass play field and gravel running track; driveway and
parking area for 40 vehicles; and an existing uncovered 7,200 square foot sports court.
The Applicant proposes no change in use on the proposed project site. As part of the proposed
project the existing 60-foot by 120-foot uncovered concrete sports court would be repaved in the
same location and a roof covering would be constructed. The structure would be approximately
30-fect in height (28-feet, 9-inches to the midpoint of the roof and 34-feet, 7-inches to the roof
ridge). The roof would be constructed with wood trusses with plywood sheathing and metal
cladding. The structure would have two metal walls facing adjoin residences in order to mitigate
noise. The walls would be insulated and interior mats would absorb additional noise. The
Applicant proposed to plant staggered rows of coniferous trees along the southwest and northwest
perimeters to mitigate aesthetic impacts. The trees would be planted approximately 10-feet on
center.
Pendant metal halide down -lights would be installed inside the structure. Outside of the structure
three metal halide down -lights with restricted spread would be hung from the roof fascia and
would light an area directly west and south of the plat area. These outdoor lights would be
activated by motion sensors.
4. Adverse Impacts. The Appellant identified four impacts, addressed individually as follows:
A. Aesthetic. The Appellant correctly notes that the proposed sports court would be larger
than any other structure at the site. Although the educational/mental health services
building would have more area, this is because it is a two story structure. The sports
court only has one floor but is apparently taller than the educational/mental health
services building. The fairly massive scale of the structure is confirmed by the photo
simulations in Exhibit 6. The scale of the building is not compatible with surrounding
properties, which is composed of residentially zoned and/or developed properties on all
sides. See Ex. 16 and 17. As noted by the Appellant, the footprint of the building is
larger than the lots in his neighborhood.
The Applicant's architect testified that the sports court is at a lower elevation than Dr.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
van Breda's property and below his sight line. It is unclear how this sight line is
measured, but it is clear from Dr. van Breda's testimony that the sports court without the
proposed building is visible from his property. The Applicant proposes to plant some
trees to conceal the building. There was no evidence presented to show that the trees
would grow taller than the proposed building or how long it would take to reach such a
height beyond assertions by staff.
Although the Applicant has done an admirable job in volunteering mitigation to mitigate
aesthetic impacts, there is insufficient information to conclude that the proposed tree
mitigation will completely conceal the structure from adjoining residential properties.
Further, staff acknowledges that in the fall and winter seasons the deciduous trees will not
conceal the building. The proposed building is out of scale with the rest of the buildings
on the campus and grossly out of scale with surrounding single-family homes. The
proposed tree mitigation may or may not conceal the building from adjoining view in the
spring and summer months and will not conceal it from view in the fall and winter
months.
B. Noise. It is undisputed that noise from the sports court can be heard by adjoining
properties. The Applicant has added walls, insulation, wooden sheathing and sound
attenuation mats to reduce noise, but the Applicant didn't have any information on how
much this would reduce noise since he "didn't know how much noise the kids make
now". It is also unknown whether the Applicant has taken all reasonable measures to
reduce noise, since there is no information on whether noise could be significantly
reduced by completely enclosing the building with walls as opposed to just placing them
on two sides. Noise impacts can be further reduced by adding conditions limiting night
time use of the court. The Applicant testified that even without such a condition the
courts are not typically used during the dark evening hours except for some times in the
winter up to 9:00 pm.
C. Lam. Lighting impacts are not anticipated to be significant. As previously noted,
night time use of the sports court will be limited. There would only be three exterior
lights and these would be metal down lights.
D. Property Values. Dr. van Breda claims that the approval would reduce surrounding
property values, but no evidence from an appraiser or other compelling source is
presented to support this assertion.
25 Procedural:
26
VARIANCE APPEAL - 5
Conclusions of Law
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that appeals of administrative
variances are heard and ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner in an open record appeal. The
Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council in a closed record appeal.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The subject property is designated R-4.
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-8-110(7) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall give substantial
weight to any discretionary decision rendered by City staff in its zoning code. A variance decision
qualifies as a discretionary decision subject to substantial weight. The criteria for variance are quoted
below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary
because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings oj'ihe subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is
found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
6. Renton sets a fairly high standard for its variance by requiring that the applicant establish that
"undue hardship" results from special circumstances applicable to the subject property. The term has
not been construed by Washington State courts, except for one case that essentially concluded that
"undue hardship" is a stricter standard than "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship". See
Cooper -George Co. v. City of Spokane, 3 Wn. App. 416 (1970). In other states, the term has been
construed as requiring a showing that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory or would effectively
destroy the economic utility of the property. See, e.g., Clapp v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 268 A.2d 919,
921 (1970). One Washington treatise notes that the hardship teen is viewed by some commentators
as a means of avoiding constitutional invalidation. Variances, Washington Practice, Real Estate,
Chapter 4(F). Constitutional takings and substantive due process analysis involves a balancing of
private burden verses public benefit in denying a variance. See Preshytery of Seattle v. King County,
114 Wn.2d 320, 331, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
It is telling that the "undue hardship" standard is not mandated by state variance requirements, even
though those standards are fairly detailed. See RCW 35A.63.110(2). Renton could have chosen to
require the more lenient "unnecessary hardship" standard or even not required any showing of
hardship. Instead it adopted the most restrictive standard. This must be interpreted as a low tolerance
for variances in the City of Renton.
In assessing the public benefit of denying the variance, it is useful to consider that it is the policy of
zoning legislation to phase out nonconforming uses. This is because nonconforming uses are
disfavored under the law. McMillan v. King County, Wn. App. (2011, Division 1).
Renton's nonconforming use provisions only allow an expansion of a nonconforming use if the
expansion "moves towards conformity". RMC 4-10-050(A)(4)(b). The size of the proposed structure
is moving very quickly in the opposite direction. There is nothing unique about the Griffin Home's
VARIANCE APPEAL - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
nonconforming use status that merits the use of the variance process as an end run to the policies and
regulations that seek to phase out nonconforming uses.
Combining all of the considerations above reveals that the application falls significantly short of
establishing undue hardship by denial of the variance. The Applicant proposes an accessory building
that is several times the size allowed for accessory uses in the R-4 zone. The sheer bulk and scale of
the building is not only larger than any of the principal structures on surrounding lots, it is larger than
many of the lots themselves. Further, the Applicant already enjoys extensive reasonable use of its
property, including living, educational and mental health facilities as well as outdoor playfields,
sports court and running track. The loss of some recreational opportunities for the juvenile residents
is highly unfortunate, but this loss does not support any straight-faced constitutional argument that
denial deprives the Applicant of all reasonable use of its property or that denial is confiscatory or
would effectively destroy the economic utility of the property. Even under a more lenient
interpretation, the loss of some outdoor recreational opportunities does not create "undue" hardship
given the public benefits in phasing out nonconforming uses, especially for nonresidential uses
surrounded by residential development.
There is also nothing the record to suggest that strict application of the 1,000 square foot limitation of
RMC 4-2-110(B) would deprive the Applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and under the same R-4 zone. No other property in the vicinity would be
allowed to construct a 30 foot tall 7,200 square foot accessory structure on their lot and it is highly
unlikely that any use in any R-4 zone would have this option.
In summary, the application fails to comply with RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a) because denial of the
variance would not create undue hardship and denial would not deprive the Applicant of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not he materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated;
7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project arguably creates several impacts and it is
unclear whether proposed mitigation measures fully mitigate them. However, it can be reasonably
argued that none of the impacts are "materially detrimental" as concluded by staff. Since the staff s
conclusions are reasonable and the Examiner must afford substantial weight to these determinations,
the Examiner concludes that the criterion above is satisfied.
1 Churches would be one major exception to this prohibition if they are a nonconforming use. The Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and constitutional considerations may compel a lenient application of variance
criteria for accessory structures that are considered necessary for religious expression. As to other uses, it is unlikely
that such accessory structures would ever be allowed given the strict "undue hardship' standard adopted by the City
of Renton.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In concluding the project meets the criterion there are a couple other considerations at work as well.
First, Chapter 8-7 RMC already provides for comprehensive regulation of noise levels. This reflects a
legislative determination of what noise levels are acceptable in the City of Renton and compliance
with these standards should be construed as satisfying the criterion as it applies to noise. Second, the
restriction of property rights based on aesthetic considerations is difficult to defend against
constitutional challenge unless the applicable restrictions are based upon clear and specific
regulations. See Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993). Although no two reasonably
intelligent people are likely to differ on the conclusion that the bulk and scale of the proposed
structure is generally not compatible with single-family development in an R-4 zone, they may
reasonably come to different conclusions on this issue when the structure is shielded by trees and
topography in the midst of an institutional campus. Given the uncertainty of whether the aesthetics of
the Applicant's proposal violate the criterion quoted above, it is safest from a constitutional
standpoint to defer to the staff finding of consistency.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is situated,-
8. As previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 6, the Applicant seeks a variance in order
to build an accessory structure that is several times larger than what any other property owner would
be allowed to construct in the vicinity and zone of the proposal. The proposal would clearly
constitute a grant of special privilege in violation of the criterion above.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose_
9. The desired purpose is to enable recreational activities in inclement weather. The
administrative record does not contain much information on whether this objective could be achieved
by a smaller sports court. However, as noted in the staff report the need for the area covered by the
sports court is evidenced by its long term historical use. Giving the substantial weight due the staff's
determination on this issue, the application is concluded to be consistent with the criterion above.
DECISION
The requested variance fails to comply with two of the four variance criteria. The appeal is
sustained and the staff approval of the variance is reversed.
DATED this 31 st day of May, 2011. \s\ Phil A. Olbrechts
(Signed original in official file)
Phil A. 0lbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
VARIANCE APPEAL - 8
I Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
2
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to closed
3 record appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing
examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing
4 examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed
5 within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
6 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`i'
floor, (425) 430-6510.
7
8 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
VARIANCE APPEAL - 9
C:
•
Hearing Examiner's Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RECEIVED
fY CLERK'S OFPI E
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Griffin Home
APPEAL OF VARIANCE APPROVAL
Administrative Appeal )
LUA10-082, V-A )
Summary
The Appellant appeals the approval of an administrative variance for a 7,200 square foot
roofed structure to enclose an existing 7,200 square foot concrete sports court. The variance
approval is reversed and denied. The variance request was to waive the requirements of RMC 4-
2-110(B), which limits the size of accessory structures on properties zoned R-4 to 1,000 square
feet. The approval is reversed because the Applicant did not demonstrate undue hardship as
required by the variance criteria.
Testimony
Dr. van Breda, Appellant, submitted his written testimony, which was admitted as Exhibit 18. Dr.
van Breda noted that as to the undue hardship criterion, he is concerned that the nonconforming use
status of the building grants the Applicant license to continue to expand contrary to existing
regulations and that the proposed structure is only 600 square feet smaller than the largest existing
building on the site. The proposed structure will be three stories in height.
On the materially detrimental criterion, the project will generate noise late into the evening and will
be an eyesore. The planting of 10 to 12 foot trees cannot hope to shield a 35 foot building. The
building will be the tallest on the site and from his property all buildings within view do not exceed
VARIANCE APPEAL - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
one story. Asserting that the sports court is not visible is incorrect since the court is visible in the
summer months. Dr. van Breda believes that the metal roof will increase noise impacts. Dr. van
Breda noted that the structure would adversely affect home values.
On the special privilege criterion, Dr. van Breda cannot understand how allowing such a massive
structure could not be considered a special privilege. The proposed building is larger than most
building sites in Clover Creek.
Dr. van Breda noted that there is no undue hardship involved because the sports court is not critical
to the future of the stated aims of Friends of Youth. He also noted that the Applicants should build
their court at the running track location of the site, located on the southeast side of the campus away
from adjoining homes.
Gerald Wasser, Renton planner, testified that the campus of the subject site is 5.6 acres in size. It is
composed of four lots. The main campus is 3.4 acres in size and includes two structures for the
care of the youth. There is also a parking area that contains 40 parking spaces and in the northeast
portion is a concrete structure used as a sports court. The current sports court is 60x120 feet in size.
The proposed structure will be composed of two enclosed walls. It was originally proposed as four
walls of chain link fence, but was revised in response to neighborhood concerns. Mr. Wasser noted
that staff did not respond to Dr. van Breda's concerns over property value impacts because they
cannot research that issue. Staff did comment on concerns over light, views and noise. He noted
that the walls will be lined with malts that absorb noise. The roof structure contains wood
sheathing on the inside that attenuates noise as well. Photo simulations are included in Exhibit 16
to demonstrate view impacts. The building would be visible when the deciduous trees shed their
leaves in the fall/writer months. The 22 trees that will be planted will achieve a much greater
height then 10 to 12 feet over the years.
Mr. Wasser noted that the Griffin home was annexed into the city in 1959. At that time the
property was zoned R-4. An undue hardship does exist because the R-4 development standard was
intended for residential development. Functionally the proposal provides for the same type of use
already at the sports court but just provides protection from inclement weather. The Applicant has
also stated that the sports court would only be used for limited hours. The Applicant stated that the
boys would not be able to use the court during late evening hours. The variance is the minimum
necessary, but it is unknown whether the Applicant has considered building further away from
adjoining homes at the southeast corner of the campus. Regarding the height, the midpoint of the
roof is 30 feet high, which is the height limit for the R-4 zone where height is measured from the
midpoint of the roof.
Bob Rench, Applicant's representative, noted that the Applicant hasn't looked to the southeast
corner of the property because the current site is already devoted to sports court use and a large
portion of the southeast corner is not usable and the sports court would eliminate use of the fields
for soccer and other recreational activities. In response to questions, there are 24 residents at the
facility,
KIFIN-1IN Ii1\l TII I I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
011,
21
22
23
24
25
W
Aso Jaffe, the Applicant's architect, testified about lighting, noise abatement and views. Ex. 4
shows that the lights proposed for the facility are down lights suspended from the building trusses
and are enclosed by a facie that surrounds the roof, which would minimize any light spillage from
the building, especially considering that the building is 30 feet lower than surrounding housing.
The sports court is below the site line of the van Breda residence. As to noise, noise will be
absorbed by the sidewalls which are composed of sound absorbing malts as well as insulation.
Originally the court did not include sidewalls.
In response to questions from the Examiner, Barry Oman stated that the courts are only used during
light hours so that they are used more during the summer. Sometimes lights are used during the
winter until 9:00 pm. The courts will be used whether or not the structure is added. The structure
will improve noise levels. However, it is acknowledged that the structure will be used more due to
protection from inclement weather, but the inclement weather will also serve to buffer the noise.
Mr. Olman did not object to a 10:00 pra restriction on court use. Bedtimes for the kids start as early
as 9:00 pm. There are no competitions with other facilities that would bring in additional court
users.
In rebuttal, Dr. van Breda noted that on the roof height there is a major difference between the slab
of concrete presently used and the proposed three story structure. There are mature trees on the
southeast corner of the site that would serve as good protection to neighboring properties. No
neighbors were consulted about the project beforehand and the variance decision was issued during
the holidays when people did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond. There is no definition
given as to how late the court would be used during the summer months.
Exhibits
The March 31, 2011 staff report along with the 17 exhibits identified at page 4 of the report were
all admitted into evidence during the May 17, 2011 gearing. In addition, Dr. van Breda's written
testimony, dated May 17, 2011, was admitted as Exhibit 18 during the May 17, 2011 hearing.
Findings of Fact
Procedural:
Appellant. The Appellant is Dr. van Breda.
2. Hearinm. The Examiner held a hearing on the application at 1:00 pm on May 17, 2011, in the
City of Renton City Council Chambers.
Substantive:
VARIANCE APPEAL - 3
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Description of Proposal. The Appellant seeks to reverse a staff decision to approve a request
for an administrative variance. Staff approved the variance authorizing the waiver of RMC 4-2-
110(B), which limits the size of accessory structures on properties zoned R-4 to 1,000 square feet.
The Applicant requested relief from this requirement in order to partially enclose a 7,200 square
foot outdoor concrete sports court with a metal building composed of two walls.
The project site is part of the campus for the Friends of Youth Griffin Home, which comprises four
tax lots totaling of 5.64 acres. The proposed project would be located on the tax lot comprising the
main campus property, which is 3.75 acres in size. The lot is located at 2500 Lake Washington
Boulevard North. This tax lot is developed with a Group I Home, which includes a 2-story, 7,807
square foot educational/mental health services building with group care for 12 youths; a 2-story,
6,000 square foot youth treatment facility; a grass play field and gravel running track; driveway and
parking area for 40 vehicles; and an existing uncovered 7,200 square foot sports court.
The Applicant proposes no change in use on the proposed project site. As part of the proposed
project the existing 60-foot by 120-foot uncovered concrete sports court would be repaved in the
same location and a roof covering would be constructed. The structure would be approximately
30-feet in height (28-feet, 9-inches to the midpoint of the roof and 34-feet, 7-inches to the roof
ridge). The roof would be constructed with wood trusses with plywood sheathing and metal
cladding. The structure would have two metal walls facing adjoin residences in order to mitigate
noise. The walls would be insulated and interior mats would absorb additional noise. The
Applicant proposed to plant staggered rows of coniferous trees along the southwest and northwest
perimeters to mitigate aesthetic impacts. The trees would be planted approximately 10-feet on
center.
Pendant metal halide down -lights would be installed inside the structure. Outside of the structure
three metal halide down -lights with restricted spread would be hung from the roof fascia and
would light an area directly west and south of the plat area. These outdoor lights would be
activated by motion sensors.
4. Adverse Impacts. The Appellant identified four impacts, addressed individually as follows:
A. Aesthetic. The Appellant correctly notes that the proposed sports court would be larger
than any other structure at the site. Although the educational/mental health services
building would have more area, this is because it is a two story structure. The sports
court only has one floor but is apparently taller than the educational/mental health
services building. The fairly massive scale of the structure is confirmed by the photo
simulations in Exhibit 6. The scale of the building is not compatible with surrounding
properties, which is composed of residentially zoned and/or developed properties on all
sides. See Ex. 16 and 17. As noted by the Appellant, the footprint of the building is
larger than the lots in his neighborhood.
The Applicant's architect testified that the sports court is at a lower elevation than Dr.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
van Breda's property and below his sight line. It is unclear how this sight line is
measured, but it is clear from Dr. van Breda's testimony that the sports court without the
proposed building is visible from his property. The Applicant proposes to plant some
trees to conceal the building. There was no evidence presented to show that the trees
would grow taller than the proposed building or how long it would take to reach such a
height beyond assertions by staff.
Although the Applicant has done an admirable job in volunteering mitigation to mitigate
aesthetic impacts, there is insufficient information to conclude that the proposed tree
mitigation will completely conceal the structure from adjoining residential properties.
Further, staff acknowledges that in the fall and winter seasons the deciduous trees will not
conceal the building. The proposed building is out of scale with the rest of the buildings
on the campus and grossly out of scale with surrounding single-family homes. The
proposed tree mitigation may or may not conceal the building from adjoining view in the
spring and summer months and will not conceal it from view in the fall and winter
months.
B. Noise. It is undisputed that noise from the sports court can be heard by adjoining
properties. The Applicant has added walls, insulation, wooden sheathing and sound
attenuation mats to reduce noise, but the Applicant didn't have any information on how
much this would reduce noise since he "didn't know how much noise the kids make
now". It is also unknown whether the Applicant has taken all reasonable measures to
reduce noise, since there is no information on whether noise could be significantly
reduced by completely enclosing the building with walls as opposed to just placing them
on two sides. Noise impacts can he further reduced by adding conditions limiting night
time use of the court. The Applicant testified that even without such a condition the
courts are not typically used during the dark evening hours except for some times in the
winter up to 9:00 pm.
C. Light. Lighting impacts are not anticipated to be significant. As previously noted,
night time use of the sports court will be limited. There would only be three exterior
lights and these would be metal down lights.
D. Property Values. Dr. van Breda claims that the approval would reduce surrounding
property values, but no evidence from an appraiser or other compelling source is
presented to support this assertion.
Procedural:
VARIANCE APPEAL - 5
Conclusions of Law
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that appeals of administrative
variances are heard and ruled upon by the Hearing Examiner in an open record appeal. The
Examiner's decision is appealable to the City Council in a closed record appeal.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The subject property is designated R-4.
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-8-110(7) provides that the Hearing Examiner shall give substantial
weight to any discretionary decision rendered by City staff in its zoning code. A variance decision
qualifies as a discretionary decision subject to substantial weight. The criteria for variance are quoted
below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary
because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is
found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in
the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
6. Renton sets a fairly high standard for its variance by requiring that the applicant establish that
"undue hardship" results from special circumstances applicable to the subject property. The term has
not been construed by Washington State courts, except for one case that essentially concluded that
"undue hardship" is a stricter standard than "practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship". See
Cooper -George Co. v. City of Spokane, 3 Wn. App. 416 (1970). In other states, the term has been
construed as requiring a showing that the zoning ordinance is confiscatory or would effectively
destroy the economic utility of the property. See, e.g., Clapp v. Zoning Bd, of Appeals, 268 A.2d 919,
921 (1970). One Washington treatise notes that the hardship term is viewed by some commentators
as a means of avoiding constitutional invalidation. Variances, Washington Practice, Real Estate,
Chapter 4(F). Constitutional takings and substantive due process analysis involves a balancing of
private burden verses public benefit in denying a variance. See Presbytery of Seattle v. King County,
114 Wn.2d 320, 331, 787 P.2d 907 (1990).
It is telling that the "undue hardship" standard is not mandated by state variance requirements, even
though those standards are fairly detailed. See RCW 35A.63.110(2). Renton could have chosen to
require the more lenient "unnecessary hardship" standard or even not required any showing of
hardship. Instead it adopted the most restrictive standard. This must be interpreted as a low tolerance
for variances in the City of Renton.
In assessing the public benefit of denying the variance, it is useful to consider that it is the policy of
zoning legislation to phase out nonconforming uses. This is because nonconforming uses are
disfavored under the law. McMillan v. King County, Wn. App. (2011, Division 1).
Renton's nonconforming use provisions only allow an expansion of a nonconforming use if the
expansion "moves towards conformity". RMC 4-10-050(A)(4)(b). The size of the proposed structure
is moving very quickly in the opposite direction. There is nothing unique about the Griffin Home's
VARIANCE APPEAL - 6
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
nonconforming use status that merits the use of the variance process as an end run to the policies and
regulations that seek to phase out nonconforming uses.
Combining all of the considerations above reveals that the application falls significantly short of
establishing undue hardship by denial of the variance. The Applicant proposes an accessory building
that is several times the size allowed for accessory uses in the R-4 zone. The sheer bulk and scale of
the building is not only larger than any of the principal structures on surrounding lots, it is larger than
many of the lots themselves. Further, the Applicant already enjoys extensive reasonable use of its
property, including living, educational and mental health facilities as well as outdoor playfields,
sports court and running track. The loss of some recreational opportunities for the juvenile residents
is highly unfortunate, but this loss does not support any straight-faced constitutional argument that
denial deprives the Applicant of all reasonable use of its property or that denial is confiscatory or
would effectively destroy the economic utility of the property. Even under a more lenient
interpretation, the loss of some outdoor recreational opportunities does not create "undue" hardship
given the public benefits in phasing out nonconforming uses, especially for nonresidential uses
surrounded by residential development.
There is also nothing the record to suggest that strict application of the 1,000 square foot limitation of
RMC 4-2-110(B) would deprive the Applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property
owners in the vicinity and under the same R-4 zone. No other property in the vicinity would be
allowed to construct a 30 foot tall 7,200 square foot accessory structure on their lot and it is highly
unlikely that any use in any R-4 zone would have this option.
In summary, the application fails to comply with RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a) because denial of the
variance would not create undue hardship and denial would not deprive the Applicant of rights and
privileges enjoyed by other property owners.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public we fare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated;
7. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project arguably creates several impacts and it is
unclear whether proposed mitigation measures fully mitigate them. However, it can be reasonably
argued that none of the impacts are "materially detrimental" as concluded by staff. Since the staff s
conclusions are reasonable and the Examiner must afford substantial weight to these determinations,
the Examiner concludes that the criterion above is satisfied.
' Churches would be one major exception to this prohibition if they are a nonconforming use. The Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and constitutional considerations may compel a lenient application of variance
criteria for accessory structures that are considered necessary for religious expression. As to other uses, it is unlikely
that such accessory structures would ever be allowed given the strict "undue hardship" standard adopted by the City
of Renton.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In concluding the project meets the criterion there are a couple other considerations at work as well.
First, Chapter 8-7 RMC already provides for comprehensive regulation of noise levels. This reflects a
legislative determination of what noise levels are acceptable in the City of Renton and compliance
with these standards should be construed as satisfying the criterion as it applies to noise. Second, the
restriction of property rights based on aesthetic considerations is difficult to defend against
constitutional challenge unless the applicable restrictions are based upon clear and specific
regulations. See Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993). Although no two reasonably
intelligent people are likely to differ on the conclusion that the bulk and scale of the proposed
structure is generally not compatible with single-family development in an R-4 zone, they may
reasonably come to different conclusions on this issue when the structure is shielded by trees and
topography in the midst of an institutional campus. Given the uncertainty of whether the aesthetics of
the Applicant's proposal violate the criterion quoted above, it is safest from a constitutional
standpoint to defer to the staff finding of consistency.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is situated;
8. As previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 6, the Applicant seeks a variance in order
to build an accessory structure that is several times larger than what any other property owner would
be allowed to construct in the vicinity and zone of the proposal. The proposal would clearly
constitute a grant of special privilege in violation of the criterion above.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
9. The desired purpose is to enable recreational activities in inclement weather. The
administrative record does not contain much information on whether this objective could be achieved
by a smaller sports court. However, as noted in the staff report the need for the area covered by the
sports court is evidenced by its long term historical use. Giving the substantial weight due the staff's
determination on this issue, the application is concluded to be consistent with the criterion above.
DECISION
The requested variance fails to comply with two of the four variance criteria. The appeal is
sustained and the staff approval of the variance is reversed.
DATED this 31 st day of May, 2011.
hil A. Glbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
VARIANCE APPEAL - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the decision of the hearing examiner is final subject to closed
record appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing
examiner's decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing
examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing a examiner may also be filed
within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7`h
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
VARIANCE APPEAL - 9
16
EXHIBIT 18
171h May 2011
Appeal of Administrative Variance Decision
Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
2500 Lake Washington Blvd. N
I have reviewed the documents signed by Mr. Vincent and dated 315' March and
wish to comment as follows:
E. Consistency with Variance Criteria:
a. It is stated that "the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is
necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property"
I would concede that this might be the case when the City annexed the
property. This is history and the existing buildings are grandfathered in.
However, I take issue with the fact that this entitles the applicant to continue
to erect structures that are contrary to the City's zoning regulations.
The fact that the applicant is applying for a variance that is of such a size
which cannot be considered "appropriate" given the size of the other
building on the site.
Does this mean that the applicant can continue to cite the "special
circumstances " and "undue hardship" when next they want to erect another
building?
Furthermore, the size of the structure is a mere 600 sq. foot smaller than the
largest building in the site. It seems extraordinary given the size of the
building being proposed. Not only is the 7,200 sq. foot large, but also it is
three stories in height
An explanation of what the applicant means by "undue hardship" This after
all is a Sports Court.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental.
While I agree that there has been a sports court at the proposed site for a
long period of time,
Firstly I do not know how this assertion can be made that it does. not affect
the surrounding neighborhood.
1
The noise level emanating from the Sports Court, sometimes even late in the
evening does disturb the residents of Clover Creek. Added to that is the
cursing and shouting that does affect us
Secondly, there is no comparison between the existing sports court and the
proposed enclosure. There is a large difference between what the status quo
presently is and the erection of a major structure as is proposed.
Thirdly, the erection of the enclosed structure of this size will affect the
values of the homes that abut the property.
Fourthly, even although it is down slope from the abutting single-family
homes a structure as large as is being proposed is significant and will be an
eyesore. It must be noted that from the vantage point of the homes in Clover
Creek we can only see a one-story building (northwest side of property)
Furthermore, the surrounding residents are only allowed a two-story
structure so the proposed sports court would contravene that provision
Addressing the assertions by the applicants:
Greater visual and acoustical isolation - there is no upside for any of the
residents of Clover Creek or the apartments to the East of the applicant.
The value of the homes that overlook the structure will be detrimentally
affected by the commercial size structure proposed
The statement that the proposed building would provide " even greater visual
and acoustical isolation" is just erroneous - how can the existing sports court
be compared to a 60xl2Ox35 foot structure?
It is obvious that the staff has not fully taken my concerns into account
because they write " the negative impacts on the surrounding properties
particularly because of the disruption of views towards lake Washington,
introduction of additional lighting, and the potential for increased noise
levels"
Nowhere in any of my previous correspondence with the City do I make
mention of the fact that the proposed building would affect our views of lake
Washington
Analysis of concerns: (see Exhibit 10)
1. Aesthetics/ Views: Planting of 10 to 12 foot trees cannot hope to shield a
35 foot building
Given the length of the summer it would mean that the proposed structure
would be exposed for a majority of the year
"during other times of the year, the existing trees screen the views." That
is totally incorrect as having lived in our current home for the last 7 years
we can still see the existing sports court even in summer. So the proposed
structure would be visible throughout the year - just less visible in
summer
The simulation of the trees is totally incorrect as they show trees that are
taller than the proposed structure which is totally incorrect as the trees to
be planted are 10' to 12' foot in height
2. Lighting: It is erroneous to suggest that the proposed court would not be
used in the evenings - the existing court is presently being used -
sometimes up until 10:00pm in the evening.
The motion detectors would therefore activate the outside lights at night
as the residents make their way to and from the court
My concern is validated by the statement in the following paragraph which
states, "...the proposal could increase the amount of time that the court
could be used"
3. Noise: I would reject the assertions made in this regard and quote the
statement " noise impacts are difficult to ascertain ...."
Enclosing two sides of the structure and given the fact that the roof is
metal will more than likely increase the noise level not reduce it.
As previously stated the trees are to be 1o' to 12' in height - the building is
35' - how can the trees then reduce the noise?
4. Summary: Based upon the above, I would therefore state that the
conclusions reached are erroneous and that the proposed project
impinges on our rights as homeowners
When we purchased our home, I inquired from the city as to the applicant
plans and was categorically told that no further development would be
allowed on the current site.
3
To state that the project "would not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and
zone" is incorrect given the above statements.
The question to ask is how can a structure like this not materially affect the
surrounding homes - values, aesthetically - lighting - noise etc.?
5. Other issues from previous correspondence not addressed:
a. the value of our homes would be detrimentally affected with the
erection of such a structure
b. While 1 can understand that Friends of Youth probably do a good work,
it is after all a juvenile detention facility that caters for offenders and
houses Sexual Offenders as well, The fact that sexual offenders are
housed there does cause concern for the residents of Clover Creek,
especially given the fact that there a number of young children in the
neighborhood
c. There are 65 homes in the Clover Creek development, all of whom pay
substantial amounts in taxes while the Friends of Youth are a tax-
exempt organization.
Arising out of that I would question how they could be exempt since
their property is over the S-acre limit?
Furthermore, how can the objections of the taxpaying residents be
summarily dismissed is beyond me.
c. That approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege
This is a granting of special privilege because the applicant is apply for a major
Variance of the existing city code
I cannot understand how the staff would assert that this is not a granting of a
special privilege given the fact that a structure that is 7,200 sq. foot and 35 foot in
height is now being erected.
There is absolutely no comparison between the two.
Furthermore to assert that the proposed Sports Court is similar to the other
building developed is not correct. The proposed building is an incomplete
structure with only two walls and as previously stated 35 foot in height - taller
than any other building on the site.
4
At present the only building we can see is a partial view of the northwest corner
of a structure that from our vantage point is only one story in height
As stated the proposed building is larger than the sites on which the single family
homes are constructed.
d. The approval as determined by the Administrator or Designee is a minimum
variance:
I cannot understand how this assertion can be made as there is a major difference
between a slab of concrete that acts as a Sport Court as currently being used and
a structure of the size and magnitude as being proposed. .
How are the two even comparable?
Furthermore, how can a variance from an allowable 1,000 sq. foot structure to
commercial size building of 7,200sq. foot not be considered a major variance?
Conclusions:
1. Zoning; The proposal would meet the development standards of the R-4
zone with the exception of the maximum size for an accessory building.
The maximum size of the building as previously stated is 7 times the
allowable size and therefore how can it not be a material issue?
2. Administrative Variance:
a. Undue hardship - to assert that this is the case is not true - the proposal
is for a Sports Court - and therefore is not critical the future of the stated
aims of Friends of Youth.
b. Not injurious - is again incorrect - the proposal is detrimental to our
views and property values and therefore is a material issue. A
commercial size building that is 7,200sq. foot and 3 stories in height will
not be aesthetically pleasing
c. The approval is not a grant of special privilege - I would refer you to the
statement made on page 5 in which the following is stated, "the applicant
contends that special circumstances apply to the subject property..."
The proposal is doing just that - granting special privilege and therefore I
refute the statement
5
d. The approval of the variance is the minimum to accomplish the desired
purpose. Again I would stress that there is a major difference between an
outdoor Sports Court and a large 60x12Ox35 foot structure
3. Existing Surrounding land uses: While it does not affect the surrounding
land use it is prejudicial to our continued use and enjoyment of our homes
4. Topography: There are other "fiat sites" which would have a lesser impact
on the surrounding homes
5. Existing site conditions: This is not the case as the buildings are not
complementary in any way - there is no continuity of structure, style or color
6. Building Proposal: This again is not true as the other buildings exteriors
are all different. Furthermore the existing buildings do not all conform to a
particular "cohesive design" The paint colors used on the exterior are even
different.
Furthermore, how can the City assert that the building would "complement
existing site development" when only two walls are being built and the
other sides of the building are steel poles and wire mesh?
7. Revisions: As stated above the revisions are inadequate.
8. Views: See comments above
9. Public Comment: I do believe that the staff have not taken the concerns of
the public into consideration - see comments above
I have canvassed my immediate neighbors and none of them knew of the
following:
a. this hearing
b. the fact that the Administrative Variance had been granted
10. Recommendation: I object most strongly to the recommendations for the
above stated reasons which are numerous
I do believe adequate notice of the objections
G. Decision
As previously stated, the trees will do little to mitigate the issues raised.
a. the trees will do little to shield 35 foot building
r:
b. The proposal to mitigate the noise will not help as the building will not be
sound proof
c. The building is too large given the surrounding building and the residential
properties that will be impacted by the decision
Why has no consideration been given to the possibility of erecting a structure
on the existing soccer field? The soccer field is more secluded and with the
large tress that surround it will readily shield the structure from the abutting
properties.
d. I do not waive my rights to retain the services of an attorney should this
matter not be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
Submitted by:
Dr. P. M. van Breda
1115 N27th Place
Renton
7
Denis Law City 4f _ 1
Mayor f
Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
April 29, 2011
Dr. Peter van Breda
1115 N 271h Place
Renton, WA 98056
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE DECISION
Griffin Home Sports Court Variance, LUA10-082, V-A
2500 Lake Washington Blvd. N
Dear Dr. van Breda:
The appeal hearing you have requested before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner in the above matter
has been scheduled for Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 1:00 pm. The hearing Will take place in the Council
Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
If you need further assistance, please contact me at (425) 430-7382 or Rwasser@rentonwa._gay.
Sincere-}y,
v
Gerald C. Wasser
Associate Planner
cc: Phil Olbrechts, pro tem Hearing Examiner
Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Larry Warren, City Attorney
Garmon Newsom, Assistant City Attorney
Stacy Tucker
Aso Jaff -Contact
Bob Rench, Friends of Youth —Owner/Applicant
Parties of Record: Ray Durr
Sally Scott
Dave Whitener, Clover Creek HOA
Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
-16
Gerald Wasser
From: Gerald Wasser
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:14 PM
To: *petervan2004@gmail.com'
Cc: Chip Vincent; Bonnie Walton-, Jennifer T. Henning
Subject: Griffin Home Sports Court LUA10-082,V-A
Hello Dr. van Breda:
We are in receipt of your letter (dated April 3, 2011 and received April 7, 2011) addressed to the Planning Director
stating that you wish it to be considered as a formal appeal of the Proposed Griffin Home Sports Court Variance, LUA10-
082, V-A. Page 10 of the Administrative Variance Report & Decision of the Griffin Home Sports Court Variance specifies
the procedures for filing reconsideration requests and appeals. Those procedures are copied below:
Land Use Action Request for Reconsideration, Appeals & Expiration
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the
effective date of decision.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the effective date of decision, any party may request that a decision
may be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) may modify his
decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there
was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision -
maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the
appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal
timeframe with the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall — 7tt' Floor (425)430-6510.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 14, 2011. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day
appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). 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, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be
filed in writing, together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to
Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made
in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested
parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in
writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
EXPIRATION: The variance(s) approval will expire two (2) years from the date of decision if not implemented.
A variance one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-2506.17.
As stated in the procedures above, appeals must be filed with the Renton City Clerk's office. Additionally, the appeal, in
writing, together with the required fee must be addressed to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady
Way on or before 5:00 pm on April 14, 2011. The fee is $250.00. Your appeal request was not addressed to the Hearing
Examiner and the appropriate fee dims not accompany the request. Therefore, your request did not follow the
procedures specified above.
We understand that you are traveling abroad. This email is being sent to you as a courtesy in case you check your emails
remotely. The required appeal fee of $250.00 must be submitted to the City Clerk's office on or before 5:00 pm on April
14, 2011. Please keep in mind that you do not have to personally submit the fee and that you may have someone
submit it in your absence. If the fee is not received before the appeal deadline, the appeal cannot be considered
complete.
Also, as a courtesy, I will be calling you at (425) 417-4606 and will leave a brief message stating that the appeal fee of
$250.00 must be submitted to complete your appeal.
Sincerely,
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7382
FAX (425) 430-7300
gwa sse r@ re n to nwa .gov
Gerald Wasser
From: Gerald Wasser
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:34 PM
To: Jennifer T. Henning
Cc: Chip Vincent; Bonnie Walton
Subject: FW: Griffin Home Sports Court Variance LUA10-082,V-A
Jennifer:
I am sending this email to you in order to document my telephone conversation of a few minutes ago with Dr. van
Breda. As I mentioned in the last line of my email to Dr. van Breda below, 1 called him immediately after I sent it. I
called him at (425) 417-4606 and he answered the phone. I asked him if I was speaking to him in China and he said yes.
I told him that a $250.00 appeal fee must be submitted to the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor of Renton City Hall on or
before 5:00 pm on April 14, 2011 in order to have his appeal considered complete. I told him that both the email I sent
and the telephone call were done as a courtesy. I also told him that he did not have to personally submit the fee and
that he could have someone submit it on his behalf before the appeal deadline.
Dr. van Breda expressed his displeasure with the appeal period timeframe. I mentioned to him that the appeal period is
specified in State law and is also stated in the Administrative Variance Report & Decision for LUA10-082, V-A.
Jerry
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7382
FAX (425) 430-7300
gwasser@rentonwa.gov
From, Gerald Wasser
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:14 PM
To: 'petervan2004@gmaii.com'
Cc: Chip Vincent; Bonnie Walton; Jennifer T. Henning
Subject: Griffin Home Sports Court LUA10-082,V-A
Hello Dr. van Breda:
We are in receipt of your letter (dated April 3, 2011 and received April 7, 2011) addressed to the Planning Director
stating that you wish it to be considered as a formal appeal of the Proposed Griffin Home Sports Court Variance, LUA10-
082, V-A. Page 10 of the Administrative Variance Report & Decision of the Griffin Home Sports Court Variance specifies
the procedures for filing reconsideration requests and appeals. Those procedures are copied below:
Land Use Action Request for Rec—sideration, Appeals & Expiration
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the
effective date of decision.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the effective date of decision, any party may request that a decision
may be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -maker) may modify his
decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there
was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision -
maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the
appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal
timeframe with the Renton City Clerk's office, Renton City Hall — 7'h Floor (425)430-6510.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 14, 2011. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day
appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). 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, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. Appeals must be
filed in writing, together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to
Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made
in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested
parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in
writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
EXPIRATION: The variance(s) approval will expire two (2) years from the date of decision if not implemented.
A variance one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B.17.
As stated in the procedures above, appeals must be filed with the Renton City Clerk's office. Additionally, the appeal, in
writing, together with the required fee must be addressed to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton,1055 South Grady
Way on or before 5:00 pm on April 14, 2011. The fee is $250.00. Your appeal request was not addressed to the Hearing
Examiner and the appropriate fee did not accompany the request. Therefore, your request did not follow the
procedures specified above.
We understand that you are traveling abroad. This email is being sent to you as a courtesy in case you check your emails
remotely.. The required appeal fee of $250.00 must be submitted to the City Clerk's office on or before 5:00 pm on April
14, 2011. Please keep in mind that you do not have to personally submit the fee and that you may have someone
submit it in your absence. If the fee is not received before the appeal deadline, the appeal cannot be considered
complete.
Also, as a courtesy, I will be calling you at (425) 417-4606 and will leave a brief message stating that the appeal fee of
$250.00 must be submitted to complete your appeal.
Sincerely,
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
(425) 430-7382
FAX (425) 430-7300
gwasser@rentonwa.go�
Mr. C.E. Vincent,
Planning Director,
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
1115 N 2 7th Place
Renton WA 98056
3rd April, 2011
City of Renton
PIR11r)ir-'g Dkfisian
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Vincent,
fli I-E� CCR I_ RV/ E 0
I have just read through the Administrative Variance Report and Decision with a
great deal of dismay.
It is incredulous that the city can completely disregard the objections of the
residents who will be most impacted by the decision to allow the Friends of Youth to
go ahead with building a Sports Court.
I therefore would wish to register my strongest objection and would request
that the decision not only be reopened, but rescinded in its entirety.
Consider this as a formal appeal as prescribed in the document dated 3151
March, 2011. ( Page 10)
1 unfortunately am traveling, leaving for China on the 4th April and returning on the
16th April and therefore cannot access any "further information" as you stated on
page 10 of your document.
It has amazed me how this whole process has been handled:
1. The original notice going out on the 15th December and we were given until
the 29th December to object ( right in the middle of the Christmas period)
2. The project was put on hold without any of the residents being notified of
that fact. ( I only heard of this after the fact )
3. The final decision being made on Thursday the 315t March. I received the
letter Saturday the 2nd April. In other words we have 9 business days to
object.
In fact it seems the decision had already been made a long time before any
objections were even entertained from the residents affected.
As previously stated there are at least 65 owners and tax payers in the Clover Creek
neighborhood who feel strongly about this decision. Furthermore, I am sure the
tenants of the apartments to the South East cannot be happy with the decision.
Sincerely.
+ r
Dr Peter van Breda
rn
DEPARTMENT OF COMh ITY Ciof ,
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION
A. SUMMARY AND PURPO E O R QUEST _ w _
REPORT DATE.
, 2011 JCGtV C- Hcz" 3l, 7C l
Project Name:
Griffin Home Sports Court Variance
Owner:
Friends of Youth — -
Applicant:
Aso Jaff
KSI Architecture & Planning
5818 114th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Contact:
Same as applicant
File Number:
LUA10-082, V-A
Project Manager:
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Variance from the
provisions of the Renton Municipal Code regulating the size of a detached
accessory structure (RMC 4-2-110B) in the Residential - 4 dwelling units per
acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing
uncovered 7,200 square foot concrete slab sports court with a new
concrete slab sports court covered with a 7,200 square foot metal roofed
structure. The proposed structure would be partially enclosed by the
provision of walls on the northwest and northeast elevations. The variance
would be to allow a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a
maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
Project Location:
2500 Lake Washington Boulevard North
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
13,807 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area 7,200 sf
(footprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (grass): 7,200 sf
Site Area:
163,291 sf (3.75 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 21,007 sf
fK
DEPARTMENT OF COMN ITY City of
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - f.� `� r;
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE REPORT & DECISION
A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST
REPORT DATE:
March 31, 2011
Project Name:
Griffin Home Sports Court Variance
Owner:
Friends of Youth
Applicant:
Aso Jaff
KSI Architecture & Planning
5818 114th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Contact:
Same as applicant
File Number:
LUA10-082, V-A
Project Manager:
Gerald C. Wasser, Associate Planner
Project Summary:
The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Variance from the
provisions of the Renton Municipal Code regulating the size of a detached
accessory structure (RMC 4-2-110B) in the Residential - 4 dwelling units per
acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing
uncovered 7,200 square foot concrete slab sports court with a new
concrete slab sports court covered with a 7,200 square foot metal roofed
structure. The proposed structure would be partially enclosed by the
provision of walls on the northwest and northeast elevations. The variance
would be to allow a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a
maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
Project Location:
2500 lake Washington Boulevard North
Exist. Bldg. Area SF:
13,807 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area 7,200 sf
(footprint):
Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 7,200 sf
Site Area:
163,291 sf (3.75 ac) Total Building Area GSF. 21,007 sf
City of Renton Department of Commun Economic Development vinistrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 30, 2011 Page 2 of 10
Project Location Map
ti. j• � � ��- Fes^ �.. TT �:��••�� I .r7�• -. �,[ ' �5 • �_ Q 'E: � �a �f4,1 /
1 3
i ti j _ ��.�'� stir c� {•�'.. uL-���" �. i" — '_
}
Friends of Youth variance Report
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 3 of 11
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
The Friends of Youth Griffin Home property consists of four tax lots (APN 229650-0170, 229650-
0165, 229650-0180, and 229650-0185) which comprise a total of 5.64 acres (245,678 square feet).
The proposed project would be located on the main campus property (APN 229650-0170) which is
3.75 acres in the northeastern corner of the campus. The parcel is developed with a Group I Home
which includes a 2-story, 7,807 square foot educational/mental health services building with group
care for 12 youths; a 2-story, 6,000 square foot youth treatment facility; a grass play field and
gravel running track; driveway and parking area for 40 vehicles; and an existing uncovered 7,200
square foot sports court. The property contains areas of protected slopes (greater than 40
percent) however, no work is proposed in these areas. The property slopes downward from east
to west with the existing outdoor sports court located on a flat area.
The applicant proposes no change in use on the proposed project site. As part of the proposed
project the existing 60-foot by 120-foot uncovered concrete sports court would be repaved in the
same location and a roof covering would be constructed. The structure would be approximately
30-feet in height (28-feet, 9-inches to the midpoint of the roof and 34-feet, 7-inches to the roof
ridge). The roof would be constructed of wood trusses with plywood sheathing and a metal
cladding. The roof would have a slope of 4.5:12 and would be beige in color to match the other
roofs on the Griffin Home campus buildings. The northeast elevation of the sports court structure
would have skylights near the peak of the roof. The applicant originally proposed that galvanized
chain link fencing and metal supports would comprise all sides of the structure (Exhibit 4). In
response to the concerns of surrounding property owners (Exhibits7, 8, 10, and 11), the applicant
submitted revised building elevations on March 16, 2011, which propose to partially enclose the
structure by providing walls on the northwest and northeast elevations in order to prevent noise
from traveling upslope to the adjacent residential development (Exhibits 13 and 14). In addition,
the applicant proposes planting staggered rows of coniferous trees along the northwest and
northeast perimeters of the sports court structure. Such trees would be planted approximately
10-feet on center to buffer noise and screen views of the structure from neighboring properties
(See Exhibit 14).
The covered sports court is intended to provide a protected play area for residents of Griffin Home
to use especially during periods of inclement weather. Pendant metal halide down -lights would be
installed inside the structure. Outside of the structure three metal halide down -lights with
restricted spread would be hung from the roof fascia and would light an area directly west and
south of the play area. These outside down -lights would be activated by motion sensors.
The proposed structure is designed to match the character of the existing structures on the project
site in that the roof materials and colors would be consistent with those existing structures.
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 4 of 11
C. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing project application, staff and public
comments, and application materials
Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit 3: Site Plan (Sheet A2, March 16, 2011)
Exhibit 4: Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Section & Elevation (Sheet A4, November 30, 2010)
Exhibit 5: Elevations (Sheet A5, November 30, 2010)
Exhibit 6: Project Images & Perspectives (Sheet A6, November 30, 2010)
Exhibit 7: Letter from Dr. Peter van Breda (December 23, 2010)
Exhibit 8: Letter from Dr. Peter van Breda (January 15, 2011)
Exhibit 9: Images & Photo Simulations (January 30, 2011)
Exhibit 10: Letter from Dr. Peter van Breda (February 15, 2011)
Exhibit 11: Letter from Clover Creek HOA (February 21, 2011)
Exhibit 12: Topographic Map of Griffin Home and Adjacent Properties (January 30, 2011)
Exhibit 13: Revised Floor Plan, Roof Plan, Section & Elevation (Sheet A4, March 16, 2011)
Exhibit 14 Revised Elevations (Sheet A5, March 16, 2011)
Exhibit 15 Letter from Dr. Peter van Breda (March 24, 2011)
Exhibit 16 Aerial Photo
Exhibit 17 Zoning Map (Sheet D4, W %)
D. FINDINGS
Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now makes and enters the following:
1. Bockground/Zoning: The subject site is located at 2500 Lake Washington Boulevard North.
The site is located in the Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant has
requested approval of an administrative variance from RMC 4-2-1106, for a 7,200 square foot
covered sports court in association with an existing Group I Home. RMC 4-2-110B allows one
accessory structure in the R-4 zone up to a maximum of 1,000 square feet in size.
2. Administrative Variance: The applicant's administrative variance submittal materials comply
with the requirements necessary to process a variance request. The applicant's site plan and
other drawings are provided as Exhibits 2 through 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17.
3. Existing Surrounding Land Use:
North — single-family residences (R-8 zoning);
South — multi -family residences (RM-F zoning)
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-0$2, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 5 of 11
East — single-family residences (R-8 and R-4 zoning)
West — Lake Wash. Blvd N, BNSF RR, Gene Coulon Park, Lake Washington
4. Topography: The subject site contains some areas of protected slopes and generally slopes
downward from east to west. However, the proposed project is located on an existing flat
area of the site and the proposal is exempt from State environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review.
5 Existing Site Conditions: The site is developed as the Friends of Youth Griffin Home. Two
residential structures, Matsen House and McEachern House, surface parking lots, a hard
surface sport court, and walking paths comprise the 3.75 acre lot. Large coniferous and
deciduous trees exist primarily in the center of the site.
6. Building Proposal: The project initially included the repaving of an existing 60-foot by 120-foot
sports court and the construction of a covered structure over the court with galvanized chain
link fencing comprising walls and metal supports (Exhibit 4). Revisions as noted in "7." below
were submitted altering the proposal.
7. Revisions: The applicant submitted revised building elevations (Exhibits 13 and 14) on March
16, 2011, changing the building to include solid wall sections on the northwest and northeast
facades as well as adding coniferous trees adjacent to those facades.
8. Views: The applicant has submitted photos and photo -simulations which show the visual
effects of the proposed project (Exhibits 9 and 12).
9. Public Comment: Comments were received from surrounding property owners, and those
letters are included as Exhibits 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15.
E. CONSISTENCY WiTH VARIANCE CRITERIA
Section 4-9-250B.5.a. lists 4 criteria that the Administrator or designee is asked to consider, along
with all other relevant information, in making a decision on an Administrative Variance application.
The Administrator or designee shall have authority to grant an administrative variance upon
making a determination, in writing, that the conditions specified below have been found to exist:
a. That the applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found
to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners
in the vicinity and under identical zone classification:
The applicant contends that special circumstances apply to the subject site as the result of
annexation to the City of Renton. Griffin Home was developed under King County's jurisdiction
and in conformance with County codes priorto annexation into the City. The property was
assigned City of Renton zoning upon annexing making the Friends of Youth Griffin Home a legal
nonconforming use under the City's zoning regulations.
The current zoning is Residential - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (R-4). While the proposed
structure would constitute a building larger than is permitted for an accessory structure in the
R-4 zone; the regulations were intended to apply to single family residential lots and
residential accessory buildings such as garages and sheds. The size of the proposed sport court
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Administrotive Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 6 of 11
structure is appropriate given the large size of the site, and the level of development that has
thus far occurred.
The proposal would allow the use of the area as a sports court to continue, and would provide
a shelter from inclement weather so that the existing sports court could be more fully utilized.
Therefore, Staff agrees that special circumstances apply to the property, in that the subject site
at 5.64 acres for the campus and 3.75 acres for the lot is larger than a typical 8,000 s.f. R-4 lot.
The proposed structure, while 7,200 square feet in size, is an accessory structure on the
Friends of Youth Griffin Home campus. The primary structures, Matsen House and McEachern
House, located on the same lot would continue to be the primary structures. Furthermore, the
covering of the sports court allows for the continuation of a legally established use on the site.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property
is situated:
The applicant contends that the sports court has been an existing use on the Griffin Home
property for over 20 years, and has coexisted with surrounding property owners. Further, the
applicant states that the existing sports court is visually and acoustically isolated from upland
properties because it is surrounded by tall trees and is down slope from abutting single family
residential properties. The applicant states that the proposed roof structure for the sports
court would provide even greater visual and acoustical isolation of the court from surrounding
properties as well as providing a better play experience for the residents of Griffin Home.
Revisions, submitted by the applicant, indicating walls on the northwest and northeast facades
as well as proposed landscaping (Exhibits 13 and 14) would further screen the proposed
structure both acoustically and visually.
A neighboring property owner and the Clover Creek Homeowner's Association have submitted
comments expressing concerns (Exhibits 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15) that the proposed project would
have negative impacts on surrounding properties particularly because of the disruption of
views toward Lake Washington, introduction of additional lighting, and the potential for
increased noise levels. Each of these concerns is analyzed below.
Aesthetics/Views. In order to properly consider the aesthetic and view impacts of the
proposal, staff requested that the applicant provide photos and photo -simulations of the
proposed project in relation to neighboring property (Clover Creek). Those photos and photo -
simulations (Exhibit 9) indicate that the proposal would change views from the upslope
properties during certain times of the year. Existing trees would provide screening between
the properties. During the times of the year (late fall and winter) when leaves are off of the
trees, the existing sports court is visible from upslope property (Exhibit 9). During other times
of the year, the existing trees screen views to the sports court. By incorporating two full walls
to the proposed structure and planting large coniferous trees (Exhibits 13 and 14), the views
would be further screened and the activity on the court would be less evident than under
current conditions. Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant shall install
at least 22 coniferous trees which are a minimum of 10 to 12-feet in height as indicated on
Exhibits 3 and 14 prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the proposed
structure. The tree species selection shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 7 of 11
Planning Division Project Manager; the tree selection and planting plan shall be submitted at
the time of building permit application.
Lighting. Proposed internal lighting within the structure would be motion -activated. The
proposed walls would screen views into the structure, and the internal lighting would not
affect off -site properties. Down -lighting installed on the exterior of the structure would be for
security purposes and would have cut-off shields. This would prevent off -site light or glare
impacts to surrounding properties. In addition, no use of the court is anticipated during
nighttime hours due to the schedule that residents adhere to.
Noise. Noise impacts are difficult to ascertain, however, it is expected that use of the court
would increase during periods of inclement weather. Since the proposal initially did not have
solid walls, it was expected that noise would travel beyond the structure and could impact
surrounding residents. Even though the sports court had been in use for many years before
the abutting homes were constructed, the proposal could increase the amount of time that the
court could be used.
The applicant, in response to the concerns expressed over increased noise levels, submitted
revisions (Exhibits 13 and 14) which indicate that solid walls with sound insulation would be
constructed on the northwest and northeast facades in order to reduce the possible noise
impacts to off -site residents. Planting of large coniferous trees on the northwest and
northeast facades of the proposed structure would aid in reducing acoustic impacts, especially
during fall and winter, when deciduous trees have not yet leafed out.
Summary. The revised proposal for the sports court structure (as indicated in Exhibits 13 and
14), would reduce view, lighting, and noise impacts of the proposal. Staff concurs with the
applicant that the revised proposal would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone. Once established, some
impacts, such as noise, would be reduced to less than those of the existing uncovered sports
court.
c. That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated:
The applicant contends that the proposed project would not constitute a grant of special
privilege because the existing sports court is already located on the property; therefore, a new
use is not being introduced. The Griffin Home is currently a legal nonconforming use in the R-4
zone.
Staff agrees that approval would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated because the
sports court is an existing use and the overall use (Group I Home) is unique to the subject
property. In addition, the site is large, with 5.64 acres for the campus, and 3.75 acres for the
immediate site. Other uses occupying a campus in the R-4 zone, such as a school or church,
would be granted a similar variance for the size of an accessory structure, provided the
property was of an adequate size to accommodate the use. The scale of the building is
appropriate given the development of the campus. The proposal would be similar to the other
buildings developed on campus, and would mirror the style and use consistent materials and
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Reportof March 31, 2011 Page 8 of 11
colors. Surrounding development in the R-4 zone is detached single-family homes, on lots
which can be as small as 4,500 s.f., but typically are about 8,000 square feet.
d. That the approval as determined by the Administrator or Designee is a minimum variance
that will accomplish the desired purpose:
The applicant contends that the request for increased building size to accommodate a covered
sports structure is the minimum variance needed, as there would be no increase in the size of
the sports court.
Staff agrees with the applicant and supports the variance to exceed the maximum size of 1,000
square feet for an accessory structure in the R-4 Zone. The requested variance would allow
the construction a building to cover the existing 7,200 square foot sports court, thus
accomplishing the applicant's purpose.
F. CONCLUSIONS
1. Zoning. The proposal would meet the development standards of the R-4 zone, with the
exception of the maximum size for an accessory building, for which the variance is being
sought.
2. Administrative Variance: The applicant's proposal for a detached accessory structure greater
than 1,000 square feet meets the four criteria to be considered in making a decision on a
variance request as specified in RMC 4-9-25013.5. (a) The applicant suffers an undue hardship
and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances that apply to the property,
most notably the size of the site, and existing location of the sports court. (b) The granting of
the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the surrounding area as the project revisions (Exhibits 13 and
14) respond to view, lighting and noise concerns. (c) The approval is not a grant of special
privilege as similar campus developments of a sufficient size in the R-4 zone would be granted
such a variance to increase the size of an accessory structure. (d) The approval of the
variance is the minimum to accomplish the desired purpose as the building covers the existing
sports court and is not larger than needed.
These criteria are discussed in Section E: Consistency with the Variance Criteria within the
body of this report.
3. Existing Surrounding Land Uses: The proposal will not result in changes to the existing
surrounding land uses, which are residential.
4. Topography: The project will occur in a flat portion of the site and will not impact any steep
slopes, or result in extensive grading.
S. Existing Site Conditions: The proposed sport court structure would complement existing site
development through cohesive design, compatible scale and materials.
6. Building Proposal. The proposal would result in the construction of a building that would
complement existing site development through similar design, roof pitch, building materials
and landscaping. The proposed metal roof and matching siding on the northwest and
northeast elevations would be similar to those on existing buildings on the project site.
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Menton Department of Commun Economic Devefopment iinistrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 9 of 11
7. Revisions: The revisions (Exhibits 13 and 14) submitted by the applicant on March 16, 2011
respond to comments from the public and concerns expressed by the City.
8. Views: The applicant submitted photos and photo -simulations (Exhibits 9 and 12) which
illustrate the impact of the proposal on the site and as viewed from surrounding locations.
The building would be visible during the late fall and winter when leaves have dropped from
trees. The proposed walls on the northwest and northeast portions of the building and
installing additional ornamental coniferous trees (Exhibits 3, 13, and 14) would further screen
views to the court.
9. Public Comment: Comments received from the public focused on the topics of views, lighting
and noise. Staff has evaluated these comments in relation to the revised project proposal and
found that the project responds to the concerns. Exhibits 13 and 14 illustrate the project
proposal.
10. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from RMC 4-2-110B
to allow an accessory structure exceeding 1,000 square feet within the R-4 Zone as presented
in Exhibits 3, 13, and 14 and subject to the condition of approval.
G. DECISION
The Administrative Variance for the Griffin Home Sports Court, File No. LUA10-082, V-A, is
approved subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall install a minimum of 22 coniferous trees with a minimum height of 10 to
12-feet and planted as indicated on Exhibits 3 and 14 prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for the proposed structure. The tree species selection shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Planning Division Project Manager; the tree selection and planting plan
shall be submitted at the time of building permit application.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
C.E. Chip" Vincent, Planning Director
3 3� 1i
Date
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development Administrative Variance Report & Decision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 10 of 11
TRANSMITTED this 31" day of March, 2011 to the Owr?er/Applicant/Contact:
Bob Rench Aso Taff
Friends of Youth KSI Architecture & Planning
16225 NE 8th Street 5818114thAvenue NE
Redmond, WA 98052
Kirkland, WA 98033
TRANSMITTED this 31" day of March, 2011 to the Party (ies) of Record:
Dr. Peter van Breda Ray Durr Sally Scott
1115 North 27 h Place 1206 North 27th Place 1405 North 28`h Street
Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056
Dave Whitener
Clover Creek Homeowners Association
PO Box 808
Seahurst, WA 98062
TRANSMITTED this 315` day of March, 2011 to the fallowing:
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Carry Meckling, Building Official
Koyren Kittrick, Development Services
Fire Marshal
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning
Renton Reporter
Land Use Action Request for Reconsideration, Appeals & Expiration
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of
the effective date of decision.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the effective date of decision, any party may request that a
decision may be reopened by the Administrator (Decision -maker). The Administrator (Decision -
maker) may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original
decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the Administrator (Decision -maker) finds sufficient evidence to amend the
original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take
further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal timeframe with the Renton City
Clerk's office, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor (425)430-6510.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the
Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on April 14, 2011. An appeal of the decision must be filed
within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). 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, Renton City Hall — 7th Floor, (425)
430-6510. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner, City
of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057.
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
City of Renton Deportment of Commun Economic Development ninistrative Variance Report & Derision
GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT VARIANCE LUA10-082, V-A
Report of March 31, 2011 Page 11 of 11
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one)
communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the
initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the
decision/approval date must be made in writingthrough the Hearing Examiner. All communications
are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication
and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could
result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
EXPIRATION: The variance(s) approval will expire two (2) years from the date of decision if not
implemented. A variance one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250B.17.
Friends of Youth Variance Report.doc
KSI ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING cts.com
EXHIBIT 2
William Strouse AIA �.���.. Of
� P 2t7ta1j
NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP
—I st
P- CLOVER GREEfS =
..
PROJECT SITE
Y
y5
Y
``
4`t. �
�•� ... -
IN
SCALE V - 200'
0 200' 400, 800,
ksi@ksiarchitects.com 5818 114th Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033
\\Ksi_ntscrver\ksi projects%SUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT 10032\Such Griffin Neighborhood Detail Map.doc
pgIofI
ph 425,968,8197
Print Date: 11/4/ 10
a
1
EXHIBIT 3
1
�f
+¢
x
1
aHim
v aj9
r= r ffiss 5 RE
Wt7 H 4I, V I �I ]N I fg -,Ii cn n
I'1
I j 1, u8h�'
, 'IT V--11 /— �— I P.-I
F-A -
t3 12 SO
--c
LJ
CO
ISJU ADON JO dDl
jQuu J, IMDJUIH
,snei as mouou
z
Z.
P
X,
lla cof LL"j
(DOS
'qZT7777:;;;7
J
0,
z
z
Lo CL
of
1
7
IM
eL
0
0
I-
t
LL
0
Lj in
cL
a 0
III
iu�
z
(Dee
-Tj-
F7
EXHIBIT 4
- - -- -----------
E
;
Pil
34f 'IOU
LD
sz
ol
J.
L2
Li LD
0-
EXHIBIT 5
\} ���
`B§U\�
� ]� § �|� !)i}
4,1
N",
EXHIBIT 6
EXHIBIT 7
1115 N 2711, Place
Renton WA 98056
23rd December 2010
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser
I wish to register m. strongest. objection to the proposed Sports Court.
Already we have to see an unsightly outdoor court from our home. Added to that is
the noise level at times. Finally then there are floodlights that are on - sometimes
late into the night.
I do not believe it is in keeping with a residential neighborhood to now add a 60 foot
by 120 foot metal structure which violates two Renton Municipal Codes in a
significant way.
In fact, the whole issue of having a juvenile detention center which at times houses
sex offenders right in a neighborhood, is beyond comprehension.
To add to that the notorious young burglar Colton Harris escaped from the facility -
which merely confirms that a facility like the Griffin Home should not be imbedded
in a local neighborhood which have single family residences, apartments and
condo's bordering on the facility.
I would urge the City not to allow this project to go forward as we already have one
unsightly massive structure imbedded in a neighborhood - namely the Seahawks
Training building.
Finally, allowing a structure such has been proposed will greatly diminish the value
of my home as we directly look over the current Sport Court and therefore I will use
all means at my disposal, including the courts, to stop this project
Please keep me apprised of any further developments, including proposed public
meetings. EM AGD
Sincerely,
DEC 27 2010
Dr Peter M. van Breda O v Of gin
ECDn01-ni �evElopment,
Nelghborhoud5 & Strategic Planning
City of Renton
Piarning Division
EXHIBIT 8
Mr. Gerald Wasser
�ECE(V�D
1115 N 27�h Place
Renton WA 98056
15th January, 2011
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser,
Thank you for your letter dated 4th January, 2011.
The reasons for the Sports Court that you outlined in your letter are the specific
issues I have and hence my strongest objection:
1. A structure that is over 34 feet in height at the roof ridge in a residential area
2. The structure would be metal and hence the noise factor would be elevated
3. The court is not enclosed - again the noise factor
4. Providing a covered court would not only increase the noise level, but extend
the time frame when the court will be used - again contributing to a
disruption for the neighborhood
S. The size of the structure is 7,200 sq feet, which is larger than the majority of
individual Iots in the Clover Creek subdivision
6. The lighting, because the structure has no side walls, will be intrusive
7. With regards to the application for variances -- there is not just one, but two.
Furthermore, having Griffin Home in a residential area must mean that they
already have been granted other variances to erect the current buildings.
Having read the King County Department of Assessment files on Griffin
Home, there are already at least three ( probably four) major structures on
the site. The interesting thing is that the quality of the buildings are stated as
"average or low/average"
Now, another two variances, what is the point of the Renton City ordinances,
if major variances as proposed by "The Friends of Youth" are approved?
I am absolutely positive that if a homeowner in our sub -division applied for
the kind of variances they have applied for they would not be granted.
It must further be borne in mind that the Clover Creek subdivision contributes
a substantial amount to the Renton City coffers via taxes etc.,
A quick calculation, based on the number of homes in this subdivision alone
amounts of well over $250,000 per annum while "The Friends of Youth"
facility is an exempt organization and contributes nothing. Surely, as
residents of Renton, who contribute substantially to the coffers of the city, we
have a right to object and have our concerns, not only heard, but acted upon.
8. As I previously have stated, the erection of a building as large as has been
proposed will in fact lower the value of our homes - and that in an already
depressed property market
Finally, I would reiterate my position, I will have no hesitation in pursuing this
matter further in a court of law as I feel the proposal to build a Sports Court is, as
stated above is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Please do not read this as a
threat, however, I feel that I must protect the value my major investment and that is
my home and therefore will resort to any legal method to stop the erection of this
proposed imposition on our neighborhood
There is a huge difference between an uncovered Sports Court as is currently the
case, and a 1Z0' x60' x34'-7" covered facility.
Sincerely,
Dr Peter van Breda
`
|
I
|
m§ S| .��
■ |
|
4..
|
[■§
■|w �
§
z
§
�
&
EXHIBIT 9
ck
Y Ofpe �
'jfn ,n
g �; �tslorl
rUli
Mr. Gerald Wasser
EXHIBIT 10
1115 N 2711, Place
Renton WA 98056
15, February 2011
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / i.UA10-082, V-A.
Mr. Wasser,
Thank you for your recent letter with the enclosed photo -simulations.
1. This does not change any of the comments I made in the previous letters,
including the most recent dated 8th February, 2011, except to bear out and
reinforce why I have so strenuously objected to this project.
2. 1 would wish to comment on the specific photographs and simulations:
a. Summer view -- (photograph 1) - I cannot comment on this except to say
that the recent winter storms have "cleared" some of the vegetation
between Griffin Home and our house. Only when we get to summer, will
be actually be able to ascertain if this is a true representation.
Notwithstanding that, there are numerous other factors (as previously
stated) that I have previously commented on.
Furthermore, the photograph is from the ground level and does not take
into account a 3-story building.
The view from the Sports Court, in my mind is totally irrelevant. It is our
home that is impacted dramatically and it is what we are being asked to
condone which is the issue at stake
b. Winter view - (photograph 2) -- as can be seen from the Sports Court
there is an unobstructed view.
As previously stated, the photograph is from ground level and does not
take into account a 3-story building. If there is an unobstructed view
with no structure in place, can you imagine what it will look like with a 3-
story building?
I wish to point out that the view from the Sports Court is irrelevant. It is
the impact on our home that is relevant and it is us who are potentially
being impacted by 3-story building.
C. View of Griffin Home from 111S N 27th Place (photograph 3). I do not
know how this "photograph was obtained as we have never given
permission far anyone to ever come onto our property to take such a
photograph.
In fact the first we knew of the project was when we received the
notification from you dated the 15th December.
By the way, I do not know if it is standard practice to send out such
notifications over the holiday period with only a 14-day period in which
to respond.
d. Artists rendition (number 4) -- I do not believe the rendition is correct
and does not accurately reflect the situation or the impact the court will
have on our home or community
In this regard I would like to emphasize that the sheer size of the building
is absolutely outside what would be considered appropriate for a
residential neighborhood.
e. Rendition #5 - this bears no relevance to the objections already
submitted.
Finally, I would like to know when the public is allowed to come to a City Council
meeting to address the Council on an issue such as this one?
Since
7
ti
Dr. P.M. van Breda
Clover Creek HOA EXHIBIT 11
February 21, 2011
Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner
Department of Community and Economic Development
Renton City Hall - 6th floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Email: GWasser@RentonWa.gov
Subject: Notice of Application
Griffin Horne Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Mr Wasser:
The Board of Directors is aware that the time of input is past. However, due to the severe and
irreversible impact this project will have on our 65 Homeowners and their property values, we
would like this letter to be included in the City's decision making process.
The Clover Creek Homeowners Association is a community comprised of 65 lots and is directly
adjacent to the Griffin Home. Comments have been received from the general Membership
and we provide them to you and your Department for review.
1. The size of the proposed court that is going to be covered is 7,200 sq ft - that is bigger
than most of our home lots!
2. The proposal of a steel building will add to the noise, not lower it, as the building will
not be insulated in any way (no side walls)
3. Because it will be covered it will mean that the court will be used even more extensively
than previously - adding to the noise and disturbance levels
4. Because of no side walls the lights will still be an issue
5. They are applying for two major variances which would not normally be, granted to the
"regular" homeowners
6. Because Griffin House is in a residential neighborhood, it may already be operating
under variances; this would be additional to the original variances, i.e. variances on
variances.
Location: N 27tb Place / Williams Avenue N
Office: 2o6.242.2279 — Fax_ 206.248.1844
Mad: Post Office Box 8o8, Seahurst, WA g8o62
Email: DaNidW@Whitenerinc.com — Web: www.Whitenednc.com
Clover Creek HQA
The noise factor - with a metal roof added the volume would increase substantially.
Already four-letter "sports -talk" is audible at several homes. Any increase in noise must be
mitigated and decibel levels measurably REDUCED. Perhaps a large hedge of Italian Cypress or
Photinia would block the view and may reduce noise transmission.
7. The floodlights would be intrusive.
8. It would dramatically affect the value of our homes along the same side of street as
ours.
9. The Griffin Home should not even be in a residential area as the buildings already
exceed the size and scope of normal dwellings as allowed under the Renton Municipal
Code.
10. Griffin House pays no taxes. Each Owner in Clover Creek pays around $5,000 each year.
SUMMARY: For those reasons we request the City of Renton not grant this variance request
from Griffin Home.
Sincerely for the Clover Creek HOA,
Its Board of Directors
CC: Griffin Home / Julie McFarland, Principal / JulieM@friendsofyouth.org
2500 Lake Washington Blvd. N. / Renton, WA 98056
Location, N 27ffi Place / Williams Avenue N
Office: 206.242.2279 — Fax: 2o6_z48.184q
Mail: Post Office Box 8o8, 5eahurst, WA 98o62
Email: DavidW@Whitenerinc.00m — Web: www-Whitenerinc.com
u
T. XYKSfM'1M
'h 3aY i:?nnnv =
�P
cc
a. U
" co w
�• _ r�ca
a
O N
LL
s> O
Q
w
co
w
EXHI6L 12
a:
w
0�+
e
cs m
Q.
z
w
7
a
�
W
�
a
�
W
z
�
Q
a
�1
n
w
� N
i
�
�5
O
■
z
LL
U.
V
2
LL
z
w
LL
}
LL
a
r i
C
2
P
a
a
N
v
a
�R
2N
O
LL ir z
w�
5;0
F--
L61
1--
Z
2
O
cc
LL
wLU
20
Oa
z-1
IL
Z
LL N
Q Z
U'
LL
O
2 � 1
2!:CLLLJ
wl
� co � x
GS �
o
fC
J =
tiq
� 26
i qLU
E9 y
a
K;
m
-
S
30TH AMU iD 401 [-,qi: I
W
1� 3;Dmmn
,i;nd JO 11110dnE1f
o R, N ID
ssneu do rvauoe „p-,ql
? O p to i
_CZ,
�o
a #_
7 O p 21!)
4 N w ��
LJ 0 z
7_0
0
o �
000ao
0
ooc
W
U
al
m
a�
U
O Oz 2
z o
- z
_ z
U W
r
D
- W
c O 1
N z
g
OQO
-I
EXHIBIT 13
LO O
a . a U)
LU
Z
P�
4
p
7
0 N La LJ2
La m:2
ti
0
00000
0
EXHIBIT 14
pity of Renton
Plar ?irk Division
EXHIBIT 15
� �CIEU V Eia
1115 N 27th Place
Renton WA 98056
241h March, 2011
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser,
I recently received further correspondence from your office regarding the above
project
From the notice 1 received I gather that the project, after being placed on hold,
is unfortunately moving forward.
I would once again wish to register my extreme disapproval and alarm at the whole
project.
With the changes they have not addressed a number of my major concerns -
namely:
1. The height of the building - I would like to know how it is possible that,
effectively a commercial structure is being allowed in a residential area?
After all the structure is 120x6Ox35 foot
As previously stated, 7,200sgft is larger than the majority of the lots in Clover
Creek
Then it being 35 foot in height [3 stories in height] - how can that be
reasonable to expect the residents to be happy with this proposal?
2. The proposed walls on two sides of the building will do nothing much to the
sound as it now creates a tunnel effect; and in fact would amplify the sound
3. The proposal for planting the tress, to be honest, is absolutely worthless.
10-foot trees attempting to hide a 35-foot high building - how can that be
seen to address the issue at hand?
Furthermore, I have those same trees in my yard and they are not really fast
growing at all
4. Again I simply would like to know how we as taxpayers be supposed to
condone and find a project like this acceptable in a residential neighborhood?
As opposed to the owners of Griffin Home, we as the taxpayers, pay a
considerable amount to the city for our taxes, while they are a tax-exempt
organization.
5. With a court like they are requesting, it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that they would have tournaments and other activities there
which will also result in a disruption to the neighborhood and even the traffic
out on Lake Washington Blvd.
6. Once again, as I previously requested, when does the Renton City Council
meet so that I can come with my attorney and address them regarding this
issue?
7. Mr. Wasser, I do understand that as a city official you have to process all
requests for permits and so I do sympathize with you, because I can imagine
you are placed in a very difficult position with a project like this. However, I
am appealing to you and those who will make these type of decisions to
please do the right thing.
This project is beyond the norms of a residential development.
Sincerely
Dr. Peter van Breda
EXHIBITl16
0
0
N
�
Q
CN7
t7�6
c m 2 U a rt
m m m
7K
Z
O
U
O a A m
m H r m 3 Z
y
W LU 0
mN Y z m w H a c7 m
oD
V N
x
cL07i
v
L N
N
mCA
�
-�
r
a
C
D
n
O
a
m
O m
Z. w
S�z
m -6 o
Q
c E T j
Q
m y m Z
E E o Q
lu
E m LL
m c
E � cmvn
I
cc
Rc dui
12
� (u
CL
no0
s z
DCL
@
m
N
-6 T
w �
m m =
d � �
C �
m T
N C
D
� v
m
n�
E
C4 - 32 T24N R5E W 1/2
ZONING MAP BOOK
PW TECHNICAL SERVICES
PRINTED ON 11/13/09
ro•�x��ar.�an.,.a:ne ex, ,wrT
rr.: .cn •�r<�e.a r« orvsw�rw,w�.mr
E4 - 08 T23N R5E W 1/2
0 2DO 400
Feet
1:4.800
EXHIBIT
05 T23N R5E W 1/2
5305
ZONING MAP BOOK
; t zJ- I c N MUM—
74 f. 92 93 455. 456 459 1 L.461
-----
s 1 �-
B 2
3B7
- B,
B 6-
25T24N R4E 25 T24N R4E -a�
30 T24N RSE g T24N R5 90 T24N 95E, 27T24N
t R5E,- 2T24N R'
5E
$194W4455W415 64
_
_,_C C2'
_
iC7
3$ T24N R4E 36 T24N R4E 31 T24N RSE... P2WR5E
35164N RSE
306 I;'I'i,r,,_307 — 408 3C 9 ~.: — t 8 : 0, 01
_j
6.T23N R5E � �NfiSE • i ' 4 T23N R5E � '. -3,-(23N R5E 2 T23N R5E
.6 $66'I `j $06
r _ 54", rE s B I= 7
rl
1 T R4E 12 T23N R4E j, 1, I I i
T23N R5E 3N R5E 9 T23N R5E. I T 10 T23N R5E — 4i -T2 N R5E „
3`26) _ 1
_ 327 _ I 370 II_ 8.1 1 - 8 - I
rs.I,. _
f
F.
_I F4 5 -{J
14 T23KACE~, R4E : j� 18 f23N R5E -
17 T2 W 16 T23N R5E ,: 1 -T23N R5E 14 T23N 1
\ 335 336 33 .. i 371 815 _ 816 —
2-���G4
,
"GI
?3 T23N R4E 24T23t� R4E f ` 1 "'i > 20 T23N R5I1:,. -21 T23N R5E �`
= 19 T23N R5E, __ :. __ , . __- - = . 22 T23 RSE -, 23 T23N 2
I .l
3� _ 602 , 820; 821
34 600 B01 _
I,
`5
Ll I 21
Fill $S T25E.I.5T23R4E g E226 T23N R5E 250 51i
6041 = 605• 8251 --
r— 826 8
�_
t.16 17'
3 E `-= 36 T23N R4E` 31 T23N R5E - --.
32�23fV R5E ;+ 33 TP3N R �= 34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36
6o.7- 60$ 609[.
833,
T.
J � _ -. J I
22N R4E 1 T22N134E 7 6 T22N R5E.,, = 5 fit R5E 4 T22N' E 3 T22N R5E 2 T22N R5E 1 Tg;
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL
(RC) Resource Conservation cv (CV) Center Village iH (IL) Industrial - Light
R—I (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac (UC-N1) Urban Center- North 1 C (IM) Industrial - Medium
RF 4 (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac uc.-y= (UC-N2) Urban Center- North 2 (IH) Industrial - Heavy
R-a (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac (CD) Center Downtown
unr, (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes
R—lc (R-10) Residential 10 du/ac COMMERCIAL
R-Ia (R-14) Residential 14du/ac ----- Renton City Limits
Fy-F (RM-F) Residential Multi -Family cna (CDR) Commercial/Office/Residential --
--- ASjarent. City Limits
aM T (RM-T) Residential Multi -Family Traditional cF (CA) Commercial Arterial
Rw-j (RM-U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center n (CO) Commercial Office KROLL PAGE
cR (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAGE#INDEX
1•s tlevvineiil :; c gra_r% -P e�iot. �, nol guermleee
to s -c ac ,tcntic: 'o n:y oedol.e pwposVr
aaee c' �r,e tiesl'mlr�a: or, aan.� ar sr.9.
Tr.s roof 'is for3isploy prFoses cnly.
SECrITOwN/NANGE
h,
0
1115 N 271h Place
Renton WA 98056
241h March, 2011
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser,
I recently received further correspondence from your office regarding the above
project.
From the notice I received I gather that the project, after being placed on hold,
is unfortunately moving forward.
I would once again wish to register my extreme disapproval and alarm at the whole
project.
With the changes they have not addressed a number of my major concerns -
namely:
1. The height of the building - I would like to know how it is possible that,
effectively a commercial structure is being allowed in a residential area?
After all the structure is 120x6Ox35 foot
As previously stated, 7,200sgft is larger than the majority of the lots in Clover
Creek
Then it being 35 foot in height (3 stories in height) - how can that be
reasonable to expect the residents to be happy with this proposal?
2. The proposed walls on two sides of the building will do nothing much to the
sound as it now creates a tunnel effect, and in fact would amplify the sound
3. The proposal for planting the tress, to be honest, is absolutely worthless.
10-foot trees attempting to hide a 35-foot high building - how can that be
seen to address the issue at hand?
Furthermore, I have those same trees in my yard and they are not really fast
growing at all
4. Again I simply would like to know how we as taxpayers be supposed to
condone and find a project like this acceptable in a residential neighborhood?
As opposed to the owners of Griffin Home, we as the taxpayers, pay a
considerable amount to the city for our taxes, while they are a tax-exempt
organization.
5. With a court like they are requesting, it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that they would have tournaments and other activities there
which will also result in a disruption to the neighborhood and even the traffic
out on Lake Washington Blvd.
6. Once again, as I previously requested, when does the Renton City Council
meet so that I can come with my attorney and address them regarding this
issue?
7. Mr. Wasser, I do understand that as a city official you have to process all
requests for permits and so I do sympathize with you, because I can imagine
you are placed in a very difficult position with a project like this. However, I
am appealing to you and those who will make these type of decisions to
please do the right thing.
This project is beyond the norms of a residential development.
Sincerely
Dr. Peter van Breda
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: 6ycs
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,S00 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Farth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Heolth
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Trans ortotion
Public Services
Historic/Cu)tural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where odditionol informof;ah is needed to properly assess this proposal-
_ _
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
Denis Law City Of
Mayor
February 2Z, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development
Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Aso Jaff
KSI Architecture & Planning
5818 114th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
SUBJECT: "on Hold" Notice
Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Mr. Jaff:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for
review on December 15, 2010. During our review, staff received comments expressing
concerns from surrounding property owners. In order to adequately address these
concerns, your }project has been placed "on hold".
Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions.
Sincere) ,
r
Gerald C. Wasser
Associate Planner
cc_ Owner/Friends of Youth
Parties of Record/Dr. Peter van Breda; Ray burr; Salley Scott; Dave Whitener, Clover Creek HOA
Renton City.Hall • 1055 South Grady Way 9 Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov
Gerald Wasser
From: David Whitener [DavidW@whitenerinc.coml
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 9:31 AM
To: Gerald Wasser
Cc: JulieM@FriendsOfYouth.org
Subject: Griffin Home Sports Court 1 LUA10-082. V-A
Attachments: CLO Griffin Home 11 02 21.pdf
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Wasser:
The Board of Directors is aware that the time of input is past.
However, due to the severe and irreversible impact this project will have on our 65 Homeowners and their
property values, we would like this letter to be included in the City's decision making process.
Thank you sincerely for your attention to our request.
Cc: Griffin Home/ Julie, Principal
DAVID WHITENER
President
David Whitener Inc.
206.242.2279 (w)
206.248.1844 (f)
206.949.9120 (c)
DavidW@Whitenerinc.com
www.Whitenerinc.com
Clover Creek HOA
February 21, 2011
Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner
Department of Community and Economic Development
Renton City Hall - 6th floor
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Email: GWasser@RentonWa.gov
Subject: Notice of Application
Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Mr Wasser:
The Board of Directors is aware that the time of input is past. However, due to the severe and
irreversible impact this project will have on our 65 Homeowners and their property values, we
would like this letter to be included in the City's decision making process.
The Clover Creek Homeowners Association is a community comprised of 65 lots and is directly
adjacent to the Griffin Home. Comments have been received from the general Membership
and we provide them to you and your Department for review.
1. The size of the proposed court that is going to be covered is 7,200 sq ft - that is bigger
than most of our home lots!
2. The proposal of a steel building will add to the noise, not lower it, as the building will
not be insulated in any way (no side walls)
3. Because it will be covered it will mean that the court will be used even more extensively
than previously - adding to the noise and disturbance levels
4. Because of no side walls the lights will still be an issue
5. They are applying for two major variances which would not normally be granted to the
"regular" homeowners
6. Because Griffin House is in a residential neighborhood, it may already be operating
under variances; this would be additional to the original variances, i.e. variances on
variances.
Location: N 276 Place / Williams Avenue N
office: 206.242.2279 - Fax. 2o6.248.1844
Mail: Post Office Sox 8o8, Seahurst, WA 98o62
Email: DavidW@WhitenerInc.com— Web: www.WhitenerInc.com
Clover Creek HOA
The noise factor - with a metal roof added the volume would increase substantially.
Already four-letter "sports -talk" is audible at several homes. ' Any increase in noise must be
mitigated and decibel levels measurably REDUCED. Perhaps a large hedge of Italian Cypress or
Photinia would block the view and may reduce noise transmission.
7. The floodlights would be intrusive.
8. It would dramatically affect the value of our homes along the same side of street as
ours.
9. The Griffin Home should not even be in a residential area as the buildings already
exceed the size and scope of normal dwellings as allowed under the Renton Municipal
Code.
10. Griffin House pays no taxes. Each Owner in Clover Creek pays around $5,000 each year.
SUMMARY: For those reasons we request the City of Renton not grant this variance request
from Griffin Home.
Sincerely for the Clover Creek HOA,
Its Board of Directors
CC: Griffin Home/ Julie McFarland, Principal / JulieM@friendsofyouth.org
2500 Lake Washington Blvd. N. / Renton, WA 98056
Location: N 271h Place / Williams Avenue N
Office: 2o6.242.2279 — Fax: 206.248.1844
Mail: Post Office Box 8o8, 5eahurst, WA 98o62
Email: DavidW@Whitenerinc.com — Web: www.WhitenerIDe.com
1115 N 27th Place
Renton WA 98056
151h February 2011
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / GUA10-082, V-A.
Mr. Wasser,
Thank you for your recent letter with the enclosed photo -simulations.
1. This does not change any of the comments I made in the previous letters,
including the most recent dated 8th February, 2011, except to bear out and
reinforce why 1 have so strenuously objected to this project.
2. I would wish to comment on the specific photographs and simulations:
a. Summer view - (photograph 1) - I cannot comment on this except to say
that the recent winter storms have "cleared" some of the vegetation
between Griffin Home and our house. Only when we get to summer, will
be actually be able to ascertain if this is a true representation.
Notwithstanding that, there are numerous other factors (as previously
stated) that 1 have previously commented on.
Furthermore, the photograph is from the ground level and does not take
into account a 3-story building.
The view from the Sports Court, in my mind is totally irrelevant. It is our
home that is impacted dramatically and it is what we are being asked to
condone which is the issue at stake
b. Winter view - (photograph 2) - as can be seen from the Sports Court
there is an unobstructed view.
As previously stated, the photograph is from ground level and does not
take into account a 3-story building. If there is an unobstructed view
with no structure in place, can you imagine what it will look like with a 3-
story building?
I wish to point out that the view from the Sports Court is irrelevant. It is
the impact on our home that is relevant and it is us who are potentially
being impacted by 3-story building.
c. View of Griffin Home from 1115 N 270 Place (photograph 3). I do not
know how this "photograph was obtained as we have never given
permission for anyone to ever come onto our property to take such a
photograph.
In fact the first we knew of the project was when we received the
notification from you dated the 1511, December.
By the way, I do not know if it is standard practice to send out such
notifications over the holiday period with only a 14-day period in which
to respond.
d. Artists rendition (number 4) -1 do not believe the rendition is correct
and does not accurately reflect the situation or the impact the court will
have on our home or community
In this regard I would like to emphasize that the sheer size of the building
is absolutely outside what would be considered appropriate for a
residential neighborhood.
e. Rendition #5 - this bears no relevance to the objections already
submitted.
Finally, I would like to know when the public is allowed to come to a City Council
meeting to address the Council on an issue such as this one?
Since
Dr. P. M. van Breda
Gift
f
'Cie ;;l
'J rsio f7
.d
Mr. Gerald Wasser
1115 N 271h Place
Renton WA 98056
81h February 2011
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr. Wasser,
Thank you for your recent letter.
I would like to comment on your assertion regarding the building.
The issues are really quite simple:
1. This is a residential neighborhood with single family dwellings
2. The property already has four buildings of a substantial size
3. The quality of buildings per the Icing County records are low to average - so
they do little to enhance the neighborhood
4. The size of the proposed building - 60x120 i.e. 7,200 sq. foot - larger than
the size of most of the lots in the Clover Creek neighborhood
5. The height of the building is approximately 3 stories. This in and of itself is a
substantial building in anyone's language and then for it to be nearly 36 foot
in height is ridiculous
6. The noise that already emanates from the existing court - including the foul
language etc.
7. Added to point 7 above, because it is a covered facility it would mean that it
will be used far more frequently than before which only will add to the level
of discontent and frustration of the homeowners. (floodlights, noise,
language etc.)
8. The type of person who inhabits the current facilities. While 1 would agree
that these youth need to be "given a second chance" why does the proximity
of a facility like that have to be so close to a residential neighborhood? As you
know one of the houses on the property house sex offenders including
recently a level three -sex offender came to the facility. We have young
children in our neighborhood and this only adds to our anxiety level
9. ]would ask the Panning Commission to ask themselves just one question:
What would their reaction be if a building of this magnitude would be
build in their own backyard?
10.1 facility like the Friends of Youth one in our neighborhood already does
nothing to enhance the property values of our homes. Then to add another
building that is at best, a wrong headed proposal, simply because of size and
poor construction is beyond the pale
1 trust by now I have made my feeling known and personally I will do whatever
is on my power to stop this project.
Sincerely
Dr Peter van Breda
Denis Law City O
Mayor
1 ic
Department of Community and Economic Development
February 11, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Dr. Peter van Breda
1115 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
SUBJECT: GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT, LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Dr. va.n Breda:
As I mentioned in my January 4, 2011 and January 19, 2011 letters to you regarding the
proposed Griffin Home Sports Court, we asked the applicant to provide photo -
simulations of the proposed sports court to illustrate the potential of view impacts from
the surrounding area. Such photo -simulations have now been submitted and are
enclosed. These photo -simulations and the remarks you expressed in your letters are
contained in the official project file so that the decision -maker considers them prior to
issuing a decision.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 or at gwasser@rentonwa.gov should you have any
further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Gerald C. Was er
Associate Planner
Enclosures: Sports Court Views
Topographic Map
Renton City Hail 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 * rentonwa.gov
«
■� �■
■ �
�
�e\<-\
!
;
�
0
N
10
°
a -
° t h3\Ylilhwn9�
4�
t0
LU
U
C a
i* ON
i=p{�z
IL
LLJ
Sao
i�
W
ir
O
U
�LU
on
a. a
N
M z
U.
uj
50
W
z
CO
w
vi? I--
fr
w
� d
U r
a
z
o W
3�
c7 �
O
z Q
s
z
a
w
z �
2
z
LL
LL
cr
Lib
LL
0
co
0
z
w
LL
LL
0
a
a
7
a
LL
WW
�U
Q
=a
Z t
EL N
�z
o
KSI ARCHITECTi & PLANNING www.ksiarchitects.com
William Strouse, AIA
January 28, 2011
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Department of Community & Economic Development
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Griffin Home Sports Court I LUA10-082
Dear Mr. Wasser,
Thank you for sharing with us the concerns that were voiced by some neighbors regarding
the proposed sports court improvements at the Friends of Youth Griffin Home Campus.
Below, we address the issues raised and hope that this allows the project to move forward.
1. Noise levels: The proposed court surface improvements will significantly reduce
noise levels that are a result of impact, i.e. basketballs or footsteps. The
proposed roof structure is a series of wood trusses that will actually serve to
diffuse noise. Furthermore, a 5' high fascia drops from the roof structure to
further contain noise levels.
2. Lighting: Existing flood lights shall be removed, and the proposed new court
lighting is be designed to control glare, minimize light trespass onto adjacent
properties, and with no direct upward light emission. This is achieved through
the selection of pendant down -light fixtures suspended from the roof trusses, and
the shielding effect of the 5' fascia. Full cut-off type fixtures will be installed for
area lighting.
3. Building height: The building height is within the allowable height for residential
areas. Moreover the court is located at an elevation that is approximately 30'
lower than the adjacent houses that directly overlook the property, and does not
obstruct any views. ( See attached topographic map )
4. Visual aspect: The existing court is in poor condition with a damaged concrete
surface and unsightly fencing. Screened from the adjacent properties by
evergreen and deciduous trees, the court is fairly invisible from the residences,
including 1115 N 27th Place, for the better part of the year. It will become more
visible during the winter months, when trees have shed their leaves. However,
ksigksiarchitects.corn 5818 114'" Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
\\Ksi_ntscrvcr\ksi projectsV6UCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT 10032VDOCUMEN'TS\PUBWC COMMENTSVGH Response.doc Print Date' 1/28/ 11
pg 1 of 2
KSI ARCHITECTT ? & PLANNING
......................
William Strouse, AEA
www.ksiarchitects.com
this coincides with a period of less use of outdoor spaces in the neighboring
residences. The new structure with a roof form to match the adjacent buildings
on site, and new court surface and fencing will present a much improved facility
in visual terms. The new structure will have a larger presence, yet it will still be
hidden behind the trees for most of the year. Due to the topography of the site,
the ridge of the roof will be below eye level of anyone in the adjacent properties.
( See attached photo simulations of views from 1115 N 27th Place ).
5. Views to Lake: The proposed building will not obstruct views out to the lake from
adjacent residential properties.
Please let us know if we can provide any additional information.
$Inc ,
Jaf
ksi @ ksi architects. corn 5818 1141" Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
\\Ksi ntserver\ksi projects\BUCH GRIFFIN IIM SPORTS CT 10032�00CUMENTS\PUBLIC COMMENTS%GH Response.doc Print Date: 1/28/11
pg2of2
nis
QeMa Draw City O `> r
r t
IL
.,
. r
Department of Community and Economic Development
January 19, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Dr. Peter van Breda
1115 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
SUBJECT: GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT, LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Dr. van Breda:
Thank you for your letter of January 15, 2011 in which you state your specific concerns
regarding the proposed Griffin Home Sports Court. As in your letter of December 23,
2010, your comments focus. on noise and light impacts, bulk, and design considerations.
Your letter will:be added to the official project file so that the decision -maker considers
your remarks prior to issuing a decision.
In my January 4, 2011 letter to you I mentioned that we have asked the applicant to
provide photo -simulations of the proposed sports court to illustrate the potential of
view impacts from the surrounding area. Such photo -simulations have not yet been
submitted. When they are available, we will provide you with the opportunity to see
them.
Please note that the Notice of Application incorrectly stated that two Administrative
Variances were being requested and would be necessary for the proposed project..
Because building coverage, including the proposed 7,200 square foot covered sports
court, would be approximately 10 percent (16,524 square feet) of the total lot area
(163,291 square feet) when 35 percent lot coverage is allowed, a variance for. lot
coverage is not required. One variance to allow a 7,200 square foot accessory structure
where a maximurn 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted would be
necessary.
Sincer9l,
Gerald C. Wa ser
Associate Planner
cc: C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Planning Director
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Yellow File
Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov
city of Rantor)
Mr. Gerald Wasser
1115 N 27th Place
Renton WA 98056
15th January, 2011
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser,
Thank you for your letter dated 4th January, 2011.
The reasons for the Sports Court that you outlined in your letter are the specific
issues I have and hence my strongest objection:
1. A structure that is over 34 feet in height at the roof ridge in a residential area
2. The structure would be metal and hence the noise factor would be elevated
3. The court is not enclosed - again the noise factor
4. Providing a covered court would not only increase the noise level, but extend
the time frame when the court will be used - again contributing to a
disruption for the neighborhood
S. The size of the structure is 7,200 sq feet, which is larger than the majority of
individual lots in the Clover Creek subdivision
6. The lighting, because the structure has no side walls, will be intrusive
7. With regards to the application for variances - there is not just one, but two.
Furthermore, having Griffin Home in a residential area must mean that they
already have been granted other variances to erect the current buildings.
Having read the King County Department of Assessment files on Griffin
Home, there are already at least three ( probably four ) major structures on
the site. The interesting thing is that the quality of the buildings are stated as
"average or low/average"
Now, another two variances, what is the point of the Renton City ordinances,
if major variances as proposed by "The Friends of Youth" are approved?
I am absolutely positive that if a homeowner in our sub -division applied for
the kind of variances they have applied for they would not be granted.
It must further be borne in mind that the Clover Creek subdivision contributes
a substantial amount to the Renton City coffers via taxes etc.,
A quick calculation, based on the number of homes in this subdivision alone
amounts of well over $250,000 per annum while "The Friends of Youth"
facility is an exempt organization and contributes nothing. Surely, as
residents of Renton, who contribute substantially to the coffers of the city, we
have a right to object and have our concerns, not only heard, but acted upon.
8. As I previously have stated, the erection of a building as large as has been
proposed will in fact lower the value of our homes - and that in an already
depressed property market
Finally, I would reiterate my position, 1 will have no hesitation in pursuing this
matter further in a court of law as 1 feel the proposal to build a Sports Court is, as
stated above is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Please do not read this as a
threat, however, I feel that I must protect the value my major investment and that is
my home and therefore will resort to any legal method to stop the erection of this
proposed imposition on our neighborhood
There is a huge difference between an uncovered Sports Court as is currently the
case, and a 120' x60' x34'-7" covered facility.
Sincerely,
Dr Peter van Breda
Denis Law CityOf z
Mayor
ri w i+
Department of Community and Economic Development
January 4, 2011 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Dr. Peter van Breda
1115 N 27th Place
Renton, WA 98056
SUBJECT: GRIFFIN HOME SPORTS COURT, LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Dr. van Breda:
Thank you for your letter of December 23rd in which you express concerns regarding the
proposed Griffin Home Sports Court. Specifically, your comments focus on light and
noise impacts, bulk, and design considerations. As you are aware, Friends of Youth
propose to repave the existing sports court and add a roof covering. The structure
would be approximately 30 feet in height (28'-9" to the mid -point of the roof, and 34'-7"
to the roof ridge). The roof would be constructed of metal, pitched at a slope of 4.5:12,
and would be beige in color to match the others roofs on Griffin Home campus
buildings. The northeast elevation would have skylights near the peals of the roof.
_CLalva.nized chain -link -fencing and _sugport�wouldsom.p.ri,-)_ethe sides _of a structure.____
The applicant has stated that a covered sports court would provide a protected play
area for residents of Griffin Home to use especially during periods of cool, wet weather.
Further, the covered sports court may result in reduced noise levels generated at the
facility as the sound would be -isolated. With regard to lighting, the applicant states that
pendant metal halide down -lights would be installed inside the structure. Outside of
the structure three metal halide down -lights with restricted spread which would be
hung off the roof fascia would light an area directly west and south of the play area and
would be activated by motion detectors.
The building is being designed to match the character of the existing campus structures.
Roof materials and colors would be consistent, and would lend to the appearance of a
coordinated design. The bulk of the roof would be reduced somewhat by the provision
of skylights, which would also provide some level of natural lighting, reducing the need
for artificial lighting.
The requested variances are to allow for a structure that was not anticipated by the R-4
zoning designation. The R-4 Zone limits accessory structures to an area of between 720
and 1,000 square feet; however, this is with the idea of a single family home, and not a
Group Home campus such as Griffin Home. Therefore, the applicant has requested a
variance from the R-4 standards.
Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov
Dr. van Breda
January 4, 2011
Page 2 of 2
We appreciate your comments and the concerns raised therein. We have requested
that the applicant provide additional information in the form of photo -simulations of
the proposed sports court. This will help to illustrate the potential of view impacts from
the surrounding area.
Once these photo -simulations are available, we will provide you with the opportunity to
see them. In addition, we have added your name to the Party -of -Record list and
included your letter in the official project file, so that the decision -maker considers your
remarks prior to issuing a decision. Finally, you will find enclosed reduced versions of
the drawings submitted by the applicant, which you may find helpful.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 or at gwasser@rentonwa.gov should you have any
further questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
I
f
__Gera1_c_C._1Nasser ____
Associate Planner
Enclosure
cc: C.E."Chip" Vincent
Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager
Yellow File
I
-
`E 3.1
7LU - -
OY
o LL�CC
z0 E
9-
W
Ai
a 0`ZV]3i
0
�
d �
o
cc
0z
W
_
(r3
it
LL
Q
a)
cl
z
W_
CC
LL
P a iN R
LU
Ir
In
i.
LU
a.
o
Qn
CID
Him
LJ
p
Will
F, Pm
9_ �,,
_
C:3
ii' S
LU
PL ELY
61
IVI
CN
L47:
OIL
AN
Ii I I rip,
X1.
i
IHDOH --nRmu—m
EL
-CDW AD WOdUlM
AD MCU06
c
0 LL
Lz
It M
L 0 uj
17
o.
am
rh
s
Ihi l
� 7
Li
ED
O
0
1.r `�
+ yt •.r `S••. aF.
KS1 ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING www.ksiarchitects.com
W-1Iliam Strouse, AIA city O
planning to
[,fS1ot7
NEIGHBORHOOD DETAIL MAP /uoU 3 0 �070
1�
r -•
f _
PROJECT E (n
i y` �jVA'y=
SCALE 1$ a 200'
0 200' 400' 800'
ksi gksiarchitects.com 5818 114`1' Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
\nisi_ntaerver \ksi projxls\BUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT 10032\Buch Griffin Ncighborhood Detail Map.doc Print Date: 11 J4/ 10
pgIofI
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: IF,lov) 8 (,
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso JafF
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60_foot by 120_foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2;5_0_b square-f&o-U` To-wfage requirem-ePSti and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory'structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
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
1115 N 271h Place
Renton WA 98056
23r11 December 2010
Mr. Gerald Wasser
Associate Planner, Department of Community and Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
Renton WA 98057
RE: Project: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A.
Mr Wasser
I wish to register my stran�e!t objection to the proposed Sports Court.
Already we have to see an unsightly outdoor court from our home. Added to that is
the noise level at times. Finally then there are floodlights that are on - sometimes
late into the night.
I do not believe it is in keeping with a residential neighborhood to now add a 60 foot
by 120 foot metal structure which violates two Renton Municipal Codes in a
significant way.
In fact, the whole issue of having a juvenile detention center which at times houses
sex offenders right in a neighborhood, is beyond comprehension.
To add to that the notorious young burglar Colton Harris escaped from the facility -
which merely confirms that a facility like the Griffin Home should not be imbedded
in a local neighborhood which have single family residences, apartments and
condo's bordering on the facility.
I would urge the City not to allow this project to go forward as we already have one
unsightly massive structure imbedded in a neighborhood - namely the Seahawks
Training building.
Finally, allowing a structure such has been proposed will greatly diminish the value
of my home as we directly look over the current Sport Court and therefore I will use
all means at my disposal, including the courts, to stop this project.
Please keep me apprised of any further developments, including proposed public
meetings. 4 ;
Sincerely,
DEC 2 7
Dr Peter M. van Breda
olflD Is III VS1,
It
41
/
\
� �
�`
��
\
� �
VI
._
J
}
�
�
Yj
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: &nomlcDaUi
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Cade regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housin
Aesthetics
Li hVGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistoricfCulturol
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000. Feet
14,000 Feet
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.
of hi recto r or Authorized Representative Date
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: `�
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Maor
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Heakh
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
e u—
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
K OA�
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
MaJar
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li hVGlare
Recreation
Utilities
Trans ortation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14, 00O Feet
We hove 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.
a- I c)
Sijpat4re of Director or Authorized Representative Dat
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:
COMMENTS DUE. ❑ECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010'
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Nome Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A ` ' ° a . `�
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone_ The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60400t by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted_
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
Mare
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Light/Glare
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10, 000 Feet
14, 000 Feet
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 wlere additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Dirotor or Authorized Representative
Date
10
CITY OF RENTON
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 20, 2010
TO: Gerald Wasser, Assistant Planner
FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector
SUBJECT: Code Related Comments for Griffin Home Sports Court
Environmental Impact Comments:
Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of the additional
commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance.
Code Related Comments:
The preliminary fire flow is 1,500 gpm with credit given for an approved fire sprinkler
system. Two fire hydrants are required. One within 150-feet and one within 300-feet
of the buildings. Any existing hydrants used to satisfy the requirements shall meet
current fire code including 5-inch storz fittings. One additional fire hydrant is required.
Existing fire flow is not adequate and water main extensions are necessary in order to
meet requirements.
2. Approved fire sprinkler system is required throughout the building. Separate plans and
permits required by the fire department.
3. An approved full detection, fully addressable automatic fire alarm system is required
throughout the entire building, both new and existing. Separate plans and permits are
required by the fire department.
4. Fire apparatus access roadways do not meet code and shall be modified. Fire
department apparatus access roadways are required to within 150-feet of all points
on the building. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20-feet
unobstructed width with turning radius of 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside
minimum. An approved hammerhead type turnaround is required as the road
exceeds 150-feet dead end. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways.
5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes.
See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans.
CT:ct
griffin
Renton Fire Department
PRE -FIRE PLANNING
In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the
following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy.
ABC Flowcharter.af3
ABC Flowcharter.af2
Adobe Illustrator File.ai
AutoCad Drawin .dw
AutoCad Drawin .d n
Computer Graphics Mctafile_c m
Core] Cli art Format.cmx
Core] DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr
Corel Flow.cfl
Encapsulated Postscript File.e s
Enhanced Metafile.emf
IGES Drawing File Format.i =s
Graphics Interchange Format. if
Macintosh PICT Format. ct
Micro rafx Designer Ver 3.l.drw
Micro =rafx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf
Microstation Drawin .d n
Portable Network Graphics Format. of
Postscript File. s
Tag Image File Format.tif
Text_txt
Text.csv
VISIO.vsd
Windows Bitma .bm
Windows Bitma .dib
Windows Metafile.wmf
Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitnia cx
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �I rt_
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Horne Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110B) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 50-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 604oct by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure_
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
!Vlore
information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plonts
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li hVGlare
Recreation
utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14,000 Feet
pfva
We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we hove expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information is needed to Drooerly assess this nr000sal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
Date
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Poekl's
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jerry Wasser
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): N/A
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-1108) in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 3S% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
Impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plonts
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energy/
Natural Resources
H. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housing
Aesthetics
Li ht/Glore
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
Historic/Cultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
10,000 Feet
14, 000 Feet
We have reviewed this opplication with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact
or areas where additional information" needed to properly assess this proposal.
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative
/off -- / Z
Date
City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development
ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET
REVIEWING DEPARTN
COMMENTS DUE: DECEMBER 29, 2010
APPLICATION NO: LUA10-082, V-A
DATE CIRCULATED: DECEMBER 15, 2010
APPLICANT: Aso Jaff
PROJECT MANAGER: Jer
PROJECT TITLE: Griffin Home Sports Court
PROJECT REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick
SITE AREA: 163,291 square feet
EXISTING BLDG AREA
LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd
PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) N/A
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from the provisions of the Renton
Municipal Code regulating lot coverage(RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a detached accessory structure 4-2-110Bj in the
Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot
concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure.
One variance would be to exceed the 35% or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow
a 7,200 square foot accessory structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
Impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Earth
Air
Water
Plants
Land/Shoreline Use
Animals
Environmental Health
Energyf
Natural Resources
B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS
C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS
Element of the
Environment
Probable
Minor
impacts
Probable
Major
impacts
More
Information
Necessary
Housin
Aesthetics
Li hVGlore
Recreation
Utilities
Transportation
Public Services
HistoriclCultural
Preservation
Airport Environment
I0,000 Feet
I4, 000 Feet
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.
I2-15 -i
Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
n MasterppplicaUonbas keen Rled and accepted whh th. oeparlment 4t [ommunitya Economic Development
(CEO) -Pl ing DI
vision of theCity of Rem— The foibwing b rie Fly de—ibes the applica0on and the n ecessary
Pu bile ApProvaEs.
G ATE OF NOTICE OF APPUCATioi Dlce 115, 2020
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Gdffin Home Spo«s Court f L11A10-082. V-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: acr
The appllrF.t is requesting approval of two Acminislrative Yadancas IT_
the provisions Or the Renton Municipal Code reFuiating lot Ln�hdge(PMC 4-1-111M) Intl to exceed the s or a
Cstm4 detached a wry crure -2-1103j In the Residentwe ial - 4 ddlnx units per e {R-4) s n The applicant is
proposing in replace an ealsting uncprerad safaat by t21 concrete slab sports court with a new 50-fom by 120.
root concrete slab sports court catered with a new metal rpokd structure. One variarroe would be to exceed the 35%
or 2,500 square kot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would he to allow a 7,2i square root acceasary
structure where a maximum LWO square Not accessary structure Is permilled.
PR[IIECr LOCATION: 25CO Lake W ashinrltcn Hlvd N
PUBUC APPROVALS: Adminrstralive v-rrance app.oval
APPUCANTJPROJECr CONTACr PERSON: Aio JaR;K5l Archilen,m&Planning,58181141°Avenue NE:KIrkland,WA
96033, 1 ajaff®IuiarchiteCts.(om
COMM-rite on the aboveEmnamapPllcatbn muet he eubmiIXed in eeddnR to G—Id Woofer, Aseadata Me— , OepaitrrwM
Of [ommwnity & k Deeeinpi WS5 South Grady Wey, Renton. WA 50057, by 5:00 p.m. on December 29,
2010. 11111111 -tout this proposal, or wbh in he made a parry or record and receme additional—tificalkn
by mall, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7357 Anyolie who submits edden comments will automalkaiir
become a party or record and will be nolilled of IMF rkclslOn on IN. project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE 13F APPLTCATJON: November 30. 2010
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: December 15, 2010
eh, �,IRe� Asa-,
IF You would Like to be made a parry or record to reeeke further Information on Ibis proposed prOlecL ComPlele INS
form and return to: City of Renton, CEO, planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way. Renton. WA 98057.
File Neme / No.: Gritfln HOme Spans COual LUA1O-082, Y.A
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS.
TELEPHONE NO.:
CERTIFICATION
hereby certify that ,copies of the above document
were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the clocr ed pro
Date: - C Signed:
STATE OF WAS INGTON }
55
COUNTY OF KING '
certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ 6tir;14- At!r;; Z.-_
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the
uses pucggses mentioned in the instrument.
10
Notary Public in
for the State of Washington
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires: ALA,:
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 15th day of December, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing
Acceptance Letter & NOA documents. This information was sent to:
Name
Representing
Aso Jaff
Contact/Applicant
Bob Rench
Owner
300' Surrounding Property Owners
See Attached
(Signature of Sender):
STATE OF WASHINGTON }
GPAG'k #
SS p•
COUNTY OF KING
s
i
I t �
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker S
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for tft ar�
mentioned in the instrument. I4%,7�,yr
Dated: L .� 2, [ 1& A /� (] 1117: fJ'i """"..--
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Notary (Print): W A. Gr, "6 1,
My appointment expires: A `} .. ,3} �� � 1-3
Griffin Home Sports Court
o LUA10-082, V-A
-r
164450006006 164451012003 164450047000
ACOSTA ROBERT A & WILMA AKOPYAN ARMEN G ANDERSON ALAN J+VIRGINIA A
8459 DUNHAM STATION DR 1220 N 26TH ST 1212 N 27TH PL
RAM PA FL 33647 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450023001 164451011104 164451014009
BLALOCK SCOT A+ROSE LEWISB BREWIS DANIEL A BROWN KEITH+PARTMAN BOLINA
2625 WILLIAMS AVE N 4855 LAKEHURST LN SE 1208 N 26TH ST
RENTON WA 98056 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98056
164450019009 164450005008 164450013002
BUCHANAN DAVID DOUGLAS BUNDY RONALD ]+TRACY M CARPENTER KRISTIN L
2700 WILLIAMS AVE N PO BOX 2457 1011 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164451009009 164450002005 164450010008
CHEN CHRISTINE S DANIELS JAMES+MACKEY THERESA DAVIS PAUL W+DAVIS JILL M
1301 N 27TH CT 1209 N 27TH PL 1029 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450040005 164450046002 164451003002
DUA MANJIT S+RAVINDER K DURR RAYMOND+DURR ELISABETH ESIPENKO SERGUEI
1116 N 27TH PL 1206 N 27TH PL 1300 NE 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450024009 229650018505 164451015006
FITZGERALD T+CIACCIO R FRIENDS OF YOUTH GANO MICHELLE B
POB 53034 GRIFFIN HOME 1202 N 26TH ST
BELLEVUE WA 98015 16225 NE 87TH A6 RENTON WA 98056
REDMOND WA 98052
229650014504 164450035005 164451001006
GROVE JULIE K HANSON JAMES S+]OANNE HINES KATHRYN
2515 PARK PL N 1026 N 27TH ST 1218 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
229650014405 164450045004 164450037001
HOPKINS RICHARD AND SUSAN JOHNSON MARK ALLEN+KATHRYN JOYCE LIONEL F+HEDWIG S
TRUST 1200 N 27TH PL 1038 N 27TH PL
2511 PARK PL N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
RENTON WA 98056
164450036003 164450008002 164450042001
KIM HEI K KRAPE GREGORY J+KAREN KROEGER DAVID G+MELODY
1032 N 27TH PL 1101 N 27TH PL 705 RENTON AVE
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055
164450043009 164450021005 164450001007
LADOW MARGARET ANITA LE PHANG+BUI HOA THI THANH LEDOUX ROBERT+LEDOUX
1134 N 27TH OK 2620 WILLIAMS AVE N ROSEMARIE
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 1215 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056
-,
164450003003 164450004001
LELAND PAUL+TERRI LENTON DAVID+LENTON MELISSA
1205 27TH PL N 1201 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
229650015105
164450039007
MAO YU+MIN WU
MCCLAFLIN JAMES K+KANDICE RAE
1221 N 26TH ST
1110 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056
RENTON WA 98056
164450044007 164450017003
NOONAN DONAL C+RACHEL NURANI ASHIFA ALLAUDIN+SHEZ
1140 N 27TH PL 2708 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
229650014306 164450022003
PALMER GARY D+MARCIE M PESHTAZ NADIR+NAFISA
2507 PARK PL N 2621 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450009000 229650015006
ROYAL JOHN SCHEER ROBERT D+BUHRIG AMY L
1035 N 27TH PL 1301 N 26TH ST
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450020007 229650020006
SINTHUSAN ATIPAT+LINDA SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT CO
2626 WILLLIAMS AVE N 10600 N DEANZA BLVD #200
RENTON WA 98056 CUPERTINO CA 95014
164451013001 164451010007
STOKES LESLIE E+KELLY JO TRAN DET VAN+NGUYEN HUYEN T
1214 N 26TH ST 2637 PARK AVE N
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450007004 164450018001
VAN BREDA PETER+VAN BREDA VUKELIC GREGG A
GABRIELLA 2704 WILLIAMS AVE N
1115 N 27TH PL RENTON WA 98056
RENTON WA 98056
164450011006 229650013803
WILLIAMS BRIAN J+ASTRID K YAO LIN XIN
1023 N 27TH PL 2415 PARK PL N
RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056
164450041003
LIU ZIJUN+GOAMAN GU
1122 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056
164451002004
NGUYEN VUONG D+HORITANGUYE
1224 N 27TH PL
RENTON WA 98056
229650014009
PALMER GARY D+MARCIE M
2507 PARK PL NORTH
RENTON WA 98056
164451011005
POOL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION
3601 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N
RENTON WA 98056
229650015501
SCOTT JAMES B
1405 N 28TH ST
RENTON WA 98055
164450012004
SOKOLOVA OLESYA
2414 1ST AVE #605
SEATTLE WA 98121
164450038009
TRAN SINH V+LE MICHELLE
7792 RENTON ISSAQUAH RD SE
ISSAQUAH WA 98027
164450016005
WAN CECILIA
2712 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON WA 98056
164450015007
ZERDA STEVEN K+LISA A
2716 WILLIAMS AVE N
RENTON WA 98056
i r-10000coi7yy of k
4 f:
r.`
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
A Master Application has been flied and accepted with the Department of Community & Economic Development
(CED) — Planning Division of the City of Renton. The following briefly describes the application and the necessary
Public Approvals.
DATE OF NOTICE OF APPLICATION: December 15, 2010
PROJECT NAME/NUMBER: Griffin Home Sports Court / LUA10-082, V-A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of two Administrative Variances from
the provisions of the Renton Municipai Code regulating lot coverage{RMC 4-2-110A) and to exceed the size of a
detached accessory structure 4-2-1106) in the Residential - 4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) zone. The applicant is
proposing to replace an existing uncovered 60-foot by 120-foot concrete slab sports court with a new 60-foot by 120-
foot concrete slab sports court covered with a new metal roofed structure. One variance would be to exceed the 35%
or 2,500 square foot lot coverage requirement and the other variance would be to allow a 7,200 square foot accessory
structure where a maximum 1,000 square foot accessory structure is permitted.
PROJECT LOCATION: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd N
PUBLIC APPROVALS: Administrative Variance approval
APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Aso Jaff; KSI Architecture & Planning; 5818 114`h Avenue NE; Kirkland, WA
98033; Eml: ajaff@ksiarchitects.com
Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Gerald Wasser, Associate Planner, Department
of Community & Economic Development, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, by 5:00 p.m. an December 29,
2010. Ifyou have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification
by mail, contact the Project Manager at (425) 430-7382, Anyone who submits written comments will automatically
become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project.
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION
DATE OF APPLICATION: November 30, 2010
NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION. December 15, 2010
If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this
form and return to: City of Renton, CED, Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 9a057.
File Name / No.: Griffin Home Sports Court/ LUA10-082, V-A
NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NO.:
Denis Law -_
City of..`'-;�.
May or
Department of Community and Economic Development
December 15, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator
Aso Taff
KSI Architecture & Planning
5818 114th Avenue NE
Kirkland, WA 98033
Subject: Notice of Complete Application
Griffin Home Sports Court, LUA10-082, V-A
Dear Mr. Jaff:
The Planning Division of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application
is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review.
You will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your
application.
Please contact me at (425) 430-7382 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ci,A/�
Gerald C. Wasser
Associate Planner
cc: Friends of Youth / owner(s)
Renton City Hall * 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 9 rentonwa.gov
City of Renton4„
LAND USE PERMIT
MASTER APPLICATION1r,r
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
NAME: FRIENDS OF YOUTH
ADDRESS: 16225 NE 87a' STREET
CITY: REDMOND ZIP: 98052
TELEPHONE NUMBER: BOB RENCH (425.869.6490)
APPLICANT (if other than owner)
NAME: ASO JAFF
COMPANY (if applicable): KSI ARCHITECTURE &
PLANNING
ADDRESS: 5818 114" AVE. NE
CITY: KIRKLAND ZIP: 98033
TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425.968.8197
CONTACT PERSON
NAME: ASO JAFF
COMPANY (if applicable): KSI ARCHITECTURE &
PLANNING
ADDRESS: 5818 114" AVE. NE
CITY: KIRKLAND ZIP: 98033
TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS:
206.218.2434cell / 425.968.8197off ajaff@ksiarchitects.com
PROJECT INFORMATIO
PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME:
GRIFFIN HOME CAMPUS SPORTS COURT
PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE:
2500 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH
RENTON, WA 98056
KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S):
229650 0170; 2
EXISTING LAND USE(S):
RESIDENTIAL AND LEGALLY NON -CONFORMING
PROPOSED LAND USE(S): NO CHANGE
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION:
RLD - RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION
(if applicable)
EXISTING ZONING: R-4
PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): NO CHANGE
SITE AREA (in square feet):
163,291 SF — 229650 0170 — PRIMARY SITE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE
DEDICATED: NONE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS:
NONE
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET
ACRE (if applicable)
NA
NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable)
NA
NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
NA
C:\Users\jilitAppDatalLoca]\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outiookl9ZWGRNIO\masterapp.doc - l -
PRO.,..:T INFORMAT
NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):
2 - (229650 0185; 229650 0180)
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 9,445 SF
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS (if applicable): 7,200 SF COVERED / OPEN AIR
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 17,687 SF
NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if
applicable): NA
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW
PROJECT (if applicable): 0
ION con#inue,.,
PROJECT VALUE:
$300, 000.00
IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE
SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable):
❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE
❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO
❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA
sq. ft.
❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD
25,000 sq. ft.
❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION
sq. ft.
❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES
sq. ft.
❑ WETLANDS
sq, ft,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
SITUATE IN THE _NW QUARTER OF SECTION _05_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _05_, IN THE
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES
List all land use applications being applied for,
1. VARIANCE TO INCREASE LOT COVERAGE
2. VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM STRUCTURE SIZE FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES IN R-4 ZONE
Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
I, (Print Namels) _ 100 ,n C nrn'Al 11 , declare under penalty of perjur} under the laws of the State of
Washington that I am (please check ne) the current owner of the property involved in this application or I the authorized representative to act
for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are
in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
(Signature"Of Owner/Representative)
*#�1111##1'e
kJV11QLUI -
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that _ COa
signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hislherltheir free and voliIntary
act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
4akdblic in and for the State of Was
Notary (Print) Lj yl 1 i A I Lam. t i) 1l i
My appointment expires: 1 t - Ct d - / A
Fi leslContent.Outtookl9Z W G RN I Olmasterapp.doe
-2-
PRO,. -CT INFORMATION (continue.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
(Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included)
Also attached seaarately and dated October 30, 201
SITUATE IN THE _NW QUARTER OF SECTION _05_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _05_, IN THE
N CITY OF RENTO, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — FRIENDS OF YOUTH — GRIFFIN HOME — RENTON — WA
Pacific Northwest Title Company
Page 2 -Order No. 1 139713
EXHIBIT A
Order No.: 1138713
Legal Description:
Lot 32, Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 86, in King County,
Washington;
EXCEPT the westerly 5 feet thereof, said 5 feet being parallel with and adjacent to that portion of Pelly Place North
(102nd Place SE) lying north of North 26th Street, as conveyed to the City of Renton by deed recorded under King
County Recording Number 881 1150481;
ALSO Lots 33 through 38, inclusive, and Lots 42 through 47, inclusive, Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 1 l of Plats, page 86, in King County, Washington;
TOGETHER WITH the westerly 5 feet of that portion of Pelly Place North (102nd Place SE) lying north of the
westerly extension of the north right of way line of North 26th Street adjoining Lots 33, 34, 35 and a portion of Lot
36, as vacated by City of Renton Ordinance No. 4118;
EXCEPT that portion lying within Lake Washington Boulevard North.
Property Address:
2500 Lake Washington Boulevard
Renton, WA 98056
Tax Account Number:
229650-0165-09, 229650-0170-02, 229650-0180-00 and 229650-0185-05
*** END OF EXHIBIT A ***
C:IUsers\ji]MppDatalLocallMicrosoftlWindows\Temporary Internet CileslContent.Outlookl9ZWGRN1Olmasterapp.doc - 3 -
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVER wF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS�!
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS �'"`r 'On
,Vo, � aj (Jlf!
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building
4. Planning
PROJECT NAME: /;,, r 414; �� VM-17 Ila�ol
DATE:
HACEMData\Forms-TemplateslSelf-Help HandoutslPlanninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xls 06/09
PLANNING DIVISION
WAIVE. OF SUBMITTAL REQUIL..MENTS
FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS
This requirement may be waived by:
1. Property Services
2. Public Works Plan Review
3. Building
4. Planning
PROJECT NAME:
DATE:
H:\CEDIData\Forms-Templates%Self-Help Handouts\Planning\waiverofsuhmittalregs.xls 06109
KSI ARCHITECTURE
_.
William Strouse, AIA
--PLANNING
www.ksiarchitects.com
Friends of Youth — Griffin Home Campus —Variance Submittal — City of Renton 0cl05/,vF1PL
17 toll
5.1 Prolect name, size and location of site: �r� r�� DJ4'ision
Friends of Youth — Griffin Home Campus — Sports Court
2500 Lake Washington Blvd. North 3 p
0{�
Renton Washington 98056
Site consists of four (4) tax lots: ieccQt&D
- Main Property and Site of Sports Court — Lots 33 to 38 and 44 to 47 - Tax # 229650 0170 — 3.75 Acres - North Property (NE of Sports Court - no work proposed) — Lot 32 - Tax # 229650 0165 - .74 Ac+.33 Ac =1.07
- Southeast corner sf lot — (no work proposed) — Lot 42 - Tax # 229650 0180 - .43 Acres
- Southwest corner sf lot — (no work proposed) — Lot 42 - Tax # 229650 0185 - .39 Acres
Total Site Area — Lots 32; 33 to 38; 42; 43; and 44 to 47 = 5.64 Acres = 245,678 SF
5.2 Land use permits required for proposed project:
- Administrative Variance 1 — To exceed maximum building coverage allowed in zone.
R-4 Zone limits lot coverage to 2,500 SF for all structures (RMC 4-2-110A).
- Admin. Variance 2 — To exceed maximum structure size for accessory structures allowed in zone.
R-4 Zone limits accessory structure size to xxx SF (RMC 4-2-11013).
5.3 Zoning designation of site (R-4) and adiacent properties (See attached zoning map):
Area to northeast is zoned R-4.
Area to north and northwest is zoned R-8
Area to south along waterfront is zoned R-1
Area to south / south east is zoned RIM-F
Area at east corner is zoned R-8
5.4 Current Use of Site and any Existing improvements:
"Group Home I" — Rehabilitation
- Residential treatment center offering a therapeutic environment where troubled adolescent boys (12 to
18 years old) can build new hope by gaining responsibility, making healthy choices and demonstrating
self-sufficiency while receiving individualized, intensive treatment and 24 hour supervision including:
- Individual, group and family therapy.
- Substance abuse support.
- Life skills training.
- Educational services including an on -site school.
- Recreation.
The program balances concern for youth and their families with the rights of those in the community.
Existing Facilities:
- McEachern House — Educational and mental health services building. Group Care — 12 Youths.
Two Story — 7,807 SF — No changes proposed.
- Matsen House — Sexually aggressive youth treatment facility
Two Story — 6,000 SF — No changes proposed.
- Colin -Ferguson Houses (2) — Independent living facilities for up to five youths each 15 to 18 years old.
Two Story w/ Basements — 4,723 SF + 4,723 SF = 9,446 SF — No changes proposed.
- Maintenance shed — 400 SF — No changes proposed.
- Existing drive and Parking for 40 plus Cars. No proposed changes.
- Grass play field and gravel running track. No proposed changes.
- Sports Court for basketball ! tennis. Changes proposed as noted below.
60' x 120' lighted concrete play surface. Proposal is to replace existing 60' x 120' with new 60' x 120'
surface court and covered roof structure to allow better use in the fall and winter months of the year.
- Two storage sheds — Recreational equipment storage.
1 story —100 SF each - Removal proposed. No replacement.
ksi( dksiarchitects.com 5818 114th Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
\\Ksi_ntserver%ksi projects\BUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT t0032\VARIANCE APPLICATWN%uriflin Narrative. sct 5.doc Print hate: I1/81l0
pg t of 3
KSI ARCHITECTURE
.................................................
William Strouse, AIA
PLANNING
www, ksi a rch i to cts. co m
5.5 Special site features i.e. wetlands water bodies steep slo es
Site is located on the west facing slope shortly upslope from Lake Washington. A seasonal drainage
feature trends roughly east west along the northern property line of site. Slope is maintained in a natural
condition. Although the north slope to the north of the proposed building site meets City of Renton criteria
for landslide and erosion concerns, site visits did not suggest a particular concern as no erosion or slope
movement distress is apparent along the slope. Most of the proposed foundation is outside the area of
concern. Deepened footings in this area will be sufficient to handle the concerns in this area.
5.6 Statement addressing soil type and drainage conditions:
5.6a Soil Type:
Per attached geotechnical letter the geologic and agricultural soils mapping indicate that the site is
underlain by glacial till type deposits from the last glaciations of the Puget Sound area. This glacial till is a
dense to very dense mixture of silt, sand and gravel, with scattered cobbles and boulders. The material
has high strength characteristics in the unweathered state and is moderately impermeable. Site soil
conditions are not conducive to infiltration of storm water as the infiltration rate is quite low.
5.6b Drainage Conditions:
Currently water drains off the existing court to the west side and then flows along a drainage Swale to the
north and then into the ravine. No erosion is apparent on the side of the ravine, the sides being covered
by blackberry bushes along the full distance and top to bottom. Options for drainage of new covered sport
court facility will be explored by KSI, Keith Cross Geotechnical Consultant and John Rubenkonig, Pace
Engineers of Kirkland with the City of Renton during the design development construction document
phases. Current best options appear to be the following:
1 Collect the storm water runoff and tight line it downhill to the bottom of the ravine at the north end of
the site. This would likely involve a HDPE (high density polyethylene) pipe, a hill anchoring system in
several spots and a velocity abatement system at the bottom of the pipe to slow the water before it was
released into the seasonal stream that you suspect is at the bottom of the ravine. Velocity abatement can
be handled several ways: gabion baskets filled with rip rap is one of the most common.
2 Collect the drainage and pipe it to some part of the existing on -site drainage system. Several catch
basins were spotted on site. The lowest, was the CB adjacent to Lake Washington Blvd. at the beginning
of the access drive to the property.
Options not recommended by Geotechnical consultant:
3 Build a vault sized to handle the needed volume of water per the City storm water manual and place
the new covered sports court on top of it. This vault would need to have an overflow drainage mechanism
and the closest receiving system would be to pipe it to the bottom of the ravine to the north. See option 2
above.
4 Build an infiltration system under the play field to the south. Because of the (suspected) low
permeability of the soil, you would likely have to construct a manifold system of pipes in trenches
surrounded by drain rock. This should be topped with 10 or 12 inches of soil and re -seeded in order to
again provide a play field. At the south end of this facility, an overflow system which could be constructed
from a 48" round manhole, and would be piped to the existing CB system on site. The closest point of
connection that was evident was the CB near the maintenance shed.
5.7 Proposed use of the property and scope of the proposed development:
No change of use to the property is proposed. Scope of proposed development consists of a 60' x 120'
covered concrete sports court for basketball, tennis, volley ball, badminton, and other hard surface
games. Covered shelter would have open chain link fencing all around, steel posts, wood trusses, metal
roofing and gutters to match existing on site buildings. Pendant metal halide down lighting that would be
screened from surroundings and hung from trussed structure would light the court within the play area. A
metal halide down light with restricted spread would light an area directly west and south of the play area
ksi@ksiarchitects.com 5818 1141" Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
. '. '.k''.EI .Ef".:.�
\\Ksi_ntserver\ksi projects\SUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT 10032\VARIANCE. APPLICATION\Grin Narrative sct S,doc Print Dale: I1/S/10
pR2of3
KSI ARCHITECTURE PLANNING www.ksiarchitects.com
William 5trouse, AIA
and hang off the fascia. These lights (3) would be activated by a motion sensor and would only be visible
from the play area. Height to midpoint of ridge of proposed building would be within 30' maximum allowed
in R-4 zone. Roof pitch to be 4.5:12 aiso to match existing on site buildings.
5.8 For plats indicate the proposed number, net density and ran - a of sizes net lot area of the new lots:
Not applicable
5.9 Access:
Access drive entrance (one) to the overall facility is off of Lake Washington Blvd along lower west side of
site. Sports court is at the upper NE high side of site. Users will walk to the court from within the facility.
5.10 Proposed off -site improvements (i.e. sidewalks, fire hydrants, sewer main, etc.)
None are anticipated at this time.
5.11 Total estimated construction cost and estimated fair market value of the proposed proiect:
Construction cost is currently estimated to be in the $300,000 range. Fair market value is likely somewhat
less under current economic conditions.
5.12 Estimated quantities and type of materials involved if any fill or excavation is proposed:
No fill and minor excavation of soil for trenching of footings and drain pipe will be required assuming
option 1 for drainage solution is taken. Other options requiring infiltration will require additional excavation
and import of rocks depending on ultimate solution to covered roof drainage system.
5.13 Number_tVpe and size of any trees to be removed:
Five or six tree stumps along the east side of currently existing sports court slab and one at NW corner
will be removed during demolition phase of the project. No trees will be removed.
5,14 Explanation of any land to be dedicated to the City:
Not applicable.
5.15 Any proposed iob shacks, sales trailers, and or model homes:
Not applicable.
5.16 Any proposed modifications being requested (See Section 6 for Justification):
Two Administrative Variances:
- Variance 1 — To exceed maximum building coverage allowed in the zone.
R-4 Zone limits lot coverage to 2,500 SF for all structures (RMC 4-2-110A).
- Variance 2 — To exceed maximum structure size for accessory structures allowed in zone.
R-4 Zone limits accessory structure size to 1,000 SF (RMC 4-2-110B).
5.17 Distance in feet from wetland or stream to the nearest area of work:
100 feet at east side and 120 feet at west side of north end of court to bottom of ravine/centerline of
drainage creek.
5.18 Distance from closest area of work to the ordinary high water mark.
Same as above less an estimated 5 to 10 feet to high water level of drainage in ravine at peak levels.
5.19 Description of the nature of existing shoreline:
Not applicable.
5.20 The approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential, that will have an
obstructed view in the event the proposed project exceeds a height of 35-feet above average grade level:
None. Significant tree stand blocks view of sports court and proposed roof cover from upland single family
residential houses_ Maximum height will be within 30' maximum height allowed for zone.
ksi@ksiarchitects.com 5818 114" Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033
%%Ksi ntserver%ksi projects\HUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORT$ CT 10032`VARIANCF: APPLICATION%0riffin Narrative srt 5.doc
pg3or3
ph 425.968.8197
Print Date:
1:;- _.
IJA/10
0
KSI ARCHITECTURE Lc �'LANNING
William 5trouse, AIA
www.ksiarchitects.co: '� L?,,isr l
Friends of Youth — Griffin Home Campus — Variance Submittal — City of Renton October 30,
Provide written statement separately addressing and justifying each of the issues to be considered by the
City. The burden of proof as to the appropriateness of the application lies with the applicant. In order to
approve a variance request, the Reviewing Official must find All the following conditions exist:
6.1 Variance 1 - To exceed maximum building coverage allowed in the zone:
R-4 Zone limits lot building coverage to 35% or 2,500 SF, whichever is greater for all structures (RMC 4-
2-110A), 35% of 163,291 is 57,291 SF. Current building coverage is just under 10,000 SF.
Proposal is to replace existing 60' x 120' = 7,200 SF concrete slab with new slab and metal roof structure
of equal size in same location on the site.
Condition 6.1a — The applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, and location or
surrounds of the subject property, and the strict application of the Building & Zoning Code is found to
deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
and under identical classification:
Response 6.1 a -- Friends of Youth developed the Griffin Home under conforming zoning in King County
many years ago prior to annexation of surrounding area into the City of Renton. The RA zone assigned
upon annexation made the property a legally non conforming use. Covering over the existing sports court
is not an expansion of use but an improvement to an existing use and the limitation on area, which is
ambiguous when applied to this site, presents an undue hardship to the Griffin Home in restricting their
right to improvement of a use that was allowed under pre existing King County zoning, is allowed under
current Renton zoning as legally non conforming and ambiguously allowed by the 35% maximum building
coverage rule that other properties in the area benefit from under the same classification.
Condition 6.1 b — The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.,
Response 6.1 b —The sports court has been an existing use for over twenty (20) years with no issues
noted from the surrounding neighborhood_ It is visually and acoustically isolated from upland properties
by being tucked into the tall trees that surround the site on all sides_ Covering the sports court will isolate
the visual and acoustical aspects of the court even more and provide a far better environment for the
young people to play under in the Pacific Northwest weather than has been available to this point in time.
The covered structure should provide a win -win for both the surrounding neighborhood and the Griffin
Home and improve property values for all concerned.
Condition 6.1 c — Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated:
Response 6.1c —Approval is merely granting Griffin Home the ability to cover an already existing use to
allow a safer, healthier, and more appropriate area for kids to play under in the rainy season and in so
doing, make the entire facility a more attractive and suitable place for kids to learn, grow and mature. This
can only benefit the entire neighborhood and can in no way be seen as a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated.
ksi@ksiarchitects.com 5818 1141° Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033 ph 425.968.8197
t, ?Old
vea
\\Ksi_ntserver\ksi projects\BUCH GRIFFIN HM SPORTS CT 10032\VARIANCE APPLICATION%variance justincation_sct5.doc Print Date: I1/s/10
pg 1 oft
KSI ARCHITECTURE & 'LANNING www.ksiarchitects.com
William Strouse, AIA
Condition 6.1d — The approval, as determined by the Reviewing Official, is the minimal variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose:
Response 6.1 d —The 60' x 120' covered proposal is the size of the existing court and recommended size
of multiuse sports courts. The heights proposed are also the minimum heights recommended for
basketball and tennis play. Therefore the proposed structure as drawn is the minimum size that will
accomplish the desired purpose.
6.2 Variance 2 — To exceed maximum structure size for accessory structures allowed in the zone:
R-4 Zone limits accessory structure size to 1,000 SF (RMC 4-2-110B).
Proposal is to replace existing 60' x 120' = 7,200 SF concrete slab with new slab and metal roof structure
of equal size in same location on the site.
Condition 6.2a — The applicant suffers undue hardship and the variance is necessary because of special
circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, and location or
surrounds of the subject property,' and the strict application of the Building & Zoning Code is found to
deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
and under identical classification:
Response 6.2a - Friends of Youth developed Griffin Home under conforming zoning in King County many
years ago prior to annexation of surrounding area into the City of Renton. The R-4 zone assigned upon
annexation made the property a legally non conforming use. Covering over the existing sports court is not
an expansion of use but an improvement to an existing use. The limitation on area presents an undue
hardship to the Griffin Home in restricting their right to improvement of a use that was allowed under pre
existing King County zoning, and is allowed under current Renton zoning as legally non conforming. Had
the property been in another zone that allowed the use outright, as it was when in King County, no
limitation would be in existence and the facility could build the covered area without limitation.
Condition 6.2b — The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
Response 6.2b - The sports court has been an existing use for over twenty (20) years with no issues
noted from the surrounding neighborhood. It is visually and acoustically isolated from upland properties
by being tucked into the tall trees that surround the site on all sides_ Covering the sports court will isolate
the visual and acoustical aspects of the court and provide a far better environment for the young people
to play under in the Pacific Northwest weather. The covered structure will provide a win -win for the
surrounding neighborhood, the Griffin Home and improve property values for all concerned.
Condition 6.2c — Approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of otherproperties in the vicinity and zone in which the subjectproperty is situated. -
Response 6.2c — Approval will grant Griffin Home the ability to cover an already existing use to allow a
safer, healthier, and more appropriate area for kids to play under in the rainy season and in so doing,
make the entire facility a more attractive and suitable place for kids to learn, grow and mature. This will
benefit the entire neighborhood and does not represent a special privilege inconsistent with the limitation
upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated.
Condition 6.2d — The approval, as determined by the Reviewing Official, is the minimal variance that will
accomplish the desired purpose:
Response 6.2d - The 60' x 120' covered proposal is the size of the existing court and recommended size
of multiuse sports courts. The heights proposed are also the minimum heights recommended for
basketball and tennis play. Therefore the proposed structure as drawn is the minimum size that will
accomplish the desired purpose.
ksi@ksiarchitects.com 5818 1141h Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98033
\`KsLntserver\ksi projects\BUCII GRIFFIN IIM SPORTS CT 10032�VARIANCE APPLICATION variance justification.set 6.doc
pg2of2
ph 425A68.8197
Print Date: 11J8 J 10
t
J. KEITH GROSS, P.E.
Geotechnica! Engineering Consultant
(425) 747-2150
P.O. Box 1986, Bellevue, Washington 98009-1986
October 18, 2010
William Strouse
KSI Architecture and Planning
5818 114t' Avenue NE
Kirkland, Washington 98033
City Of Re
nton
1�7
� D,t,lSrort
,' O v
� cae�w�
60
Geotechnical Engineering Related Issues Related to Variance Application, Overview of
Initial Conceptual Considerations, Proposed Roof Cover for Existing Sport Court Area,
2500 Lake Washington Boulevard North, Renton, Washington Project No. 2006-009
This letter has been prepared to provide a brief overview of my observations made during a visit
to the subject site on October 7, 2010, my knowledge of conditions in the site vicinity and
preliminary background research. The purpose of this evaluation is to make reconnaissance
level assessments of the conceptual geotechnical related issues of the site, and in particular, the
behavior of the slope along the northern property boundary, and issues related to storm water
collection and disposal. This letter is a summary of my observations and our discussions, and is
intended to highlight general areas of my observations. I
This letter focuses on two primary areas in the application, section 5.5 and 5.6. Section 5.5
covers the area to the north of the existing (and proposed roofed) sport court. This slope area
has been designated by the City of Renton as a "Protected Slope", primarily because of the slope
surface gradient. It is also classified as a "High Erosion Hazard" and "Moderate Landslide
Hazard" area. Section 5.6 addresses soil types and drainage. Soil types are discussed below in
the section on Geologic Setting.
Geologic Setting
As is most of the Puget Sound Lowland, the site vicinity is characterized by a generalized terrain
of a series of glacially sculpted ridges and valleys. The specific site is located on the west facing
slope shortly upslope from Lake Washington. A drainage feature, that appears to be a seasonal
drainage, trends roughly east -west along the northern property line. This slope feature is
currently maintained in a semi -natural condition, whereas moshof the rest of the site has been
developed with a combination of lawns, buildings, driveways and playfields. Geologic mapping of
the site vicinity is provided on several geologic maps, including; "Generalized Geologic Map of
Northwestern King County, Washington" from State of Washington Water supply Bulletin No, 20,
Letter to KSI Architecture -.,d Planning
Project No. 2006-009
October 18, 2010
Page 2
and "Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in the Seattle 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Washington", USGS
Open File Report 93-233, 1993. Agricultural soils mapping is available in the King County Soils
Map and in more recent on-line mapping. Although this mapping is done for agricultural
purposes, there is some associated correlation with geologic deposition and engineering soils
behavior. Both the geologic and agricultural soils mapping indicate that the site is underlain by
glacial till type deposits from the last glaciation of the Puget Sound area. This glacial till is a
dense to very dense mixture of silt, sand and gravel, with scattered cobbles and boulders. The
material has high strength characteristics in the unweathered state and is moderately
impermeable.
Conceptual Geotechnical Issues
As noted above, the slope, between the existing sport court area and the building designated as
the Matsen House, and the creek alignment along the north property line, has been classified by
the City of Renton as an area in which they have concerns about landslide and erosion risk
issues. Although this slope meets City of Renton criteria for their classifications, my initial visual
observations made during my site visit and subsequent research, did not suggest to me a
particular concern. The existing sport court is located near the top of the slope and the Matsen
House building is stepped over the top of the slope. Neither shows indications of slope
movement distress. Additionally, storm water runoff from these hard surfaces flows over the
slope without obvious indications of excessive erosion.
Conditions in the area of the remodeled sport court are expected to be similar to the current
conditions. Currently, storm water runs off the low permeability court surface. Following the
remodel, the storm water runoff will run off of the roof that will cover the court surface. The roof is
expected to be slightly larger, but of a similar area. Therefore, the hard surface runoff condition is
expected to be only minimally changed. The roof structure is expected to be constructed on a
series of columns with individual footings. The mapped glacial till on site is expected to provide a
quality foundation support. With only a couple of these columns being located near the top of the
City of Renton classified slope, most of the foundation support is expected to be outside of the
primary area of concern. It is my opinion that extended (deepened) foundations for the couple of
columns near the slope can resolve the foundation concerns in these areas.
Of primary concern to most regulatory agencies in 2010 is the handling of storm water runoff.
The municipal staffs are being told by other governmental agencies that storm water naturally
J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. P_O. Box 1986, Bellevue, Washington 98009-1986
Letter to KSI Architecture _...d Planning
Project No. 2006-009
October 18, 2010
Page 3
infiltrates, and that all storm water runoff control systems should be designed to mimic such
infiltration. While this concept is valid for some soil and topographic conditions, and low intensity
storms, it lacks accuracy for much of the soil conditions on the hills of King County in the larger
storms. Site soil conditions are not conducive to infiltration of storm water. If an infiltration
system were to be designed it would require a large storage volume since the infiltration rate is
quite low. Due to the proximity of the site to a semi -static receiving body (Lake Washington)
discharge to that receiving body is expected to be the most environmentally compatible solution.
Currently the storm water runoff is flowing from the sport court surface into adjacent swales
which, in turn, direct the water over the "Protected Slope" into the drainage course at the base of
the slope. And then into Lake Washington. As the City of Renton regulations indicate, there are
drawbacks to this process. These are related to increasing the erosion and landsliding potentials
on the slope. Therefore, discharge away from the slope is desirable, even though adverse
behavior is not current readily noted. The first approach would be to route the runoff collected
from the new roof to an existing storm water system on the property. Secondly, the collected
water could be carried past the slope in a welded HDPE pipe_ Water would be collected at the
top of the slope and transmitted across the slope in a surface pipe to discharge onto an energy
dissipater at the drainage channel.
If infiltration were to be considered, a large area for detention and infiltration beds would be
required. The playfield to the south of the sport court is likely to provide a large enough area for a
theoretical system. However, the expense of rebuilding this playfield to a condition where it
would act as an infiltration system is likely to be cost prohibitive. Basically, the whole area is
likely to be a series of infiltration trenches fed through a pipe manifold.
This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of the KSI Architecture and Planning and
their agents with respect to the subject project. The observations and opinions expressed herein
are based on the limited scope of work and the interpreted site conditions as they presently exist.
trust that this input meets your needs at this time. If there are any questions concerning this
fetter, or if I can provide additional services, please call, 1.E-;�
p� w'ti'syi����
Yours very truly,
J. Keith Cross, P.E. j;�
t�
J. KEITH CROSS, P.E. P.O. Box 1986, Bellevue,
Pacific Northwest Title Company
215 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 98104
Title Officer, Curtis Goodman (curtisgoodman(aDpnwt.com) Assistant Title Officer, Rob Chelton(robchelton@pnwt.com) Zola
Unit No. 12
FAX No. (206)343-1330
Telephone Number (206)343-1327 %p
ea
Friends of Youth Title Order No.: 1138713
16225 NE 87th St., #A6 Customer Ref: 2500 Lake Washington Boulevard
Redmond, WA 98052
Attention: Bob Rench
LIMITED LIABILITY CERTIFICATE
SCHEDULE A
Effective Date: October 04, 2010 at 8.00 a.m.
Liability: $ 5,000.00
Charge: $ 350.00
Tax: $ 33.25
Additional Parcel Charge Amount: $ 100.00
Tax: $ 9.50
1. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this certificate is:
FEE SIMPLE
2. The estate or interest referred to herein, according to the public records, is at Date of Certificate vested in:
Friends of Youth, which acquired title as Friends of Youth, Inc., a Washington nonprofit corporation
3. The land referred to in this certificate is situated in the State of Washington, and described as follows:
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED
Page 1 - Order No. 11387t3
Pacific Northwest Title Company
EXHIBIT A
Order No.: 1138713
Legal Description:
Lot 32, Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 86, in King County,
Washington;
EXCEPT the westerly 5 feet thereof, said 5 feet being parallel with and adjacent to that portion of Pelly Place North
(102nd Place SE) lying north of North 26th Street, as conveyed to the City of Renton by deed recorded under King
County Recording Number 8811150481,
ALSO Lots 33 through 38, inclusive, and Lots 42 through 47, inclusive, Eldon Acres, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 86, in King County, Washington;
TOGETHER WITH the westerly 5 feet of that portion of Pelly Place North (102nd Place SE) lying north of the
westerly extension of the north right of way line of North 26th Street adjoining Lots 33, 34, 35 and a portion of Lot
36, as vacated by City of Renton Ordinance No. 4118,
EXCEPT that portion lying within Lake Washington Boulevard North.
Property Address:
2500 Lake Washington Boulevard
Renton, WA 98056
Tax Account Number:
229650-0165-09, 229650-0170-02, 229650-0180-00 and 229650-0185-05
*** END OF EXHIBIT A ***
Page 2 - Otdet No. 1138713
Pacific Northwest Title Company
LIMITED LIABILITY CERTIFICATE
SCHEDULE B
Page 3
A. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be
ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a
correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.
5. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materials or medical assistance heretofore or hereafter
furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
6. (A) Unpatented mining claims; (B) Reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (C) Water rights, claims or title to water; whether or not the matters excepted
under (A), (B) or (C) are shown by the public records; (D) Indian Tribal Codes or Regulations,
Indian Treaty or Aboriginal Rights, including easements or equitable servitudes.
7. Any service, installation, connection, maintenance, construction, tap or reimbursement charges/costs for
sewer, water, garbage or electricity.
8. Any title or rights asserted by anyone including but not limited to persons corporations, governments or
other entities, to tide lands, or lands comprising the shores or bottoms of navigable rivers, lakes, bays,
ocean or sound, or lands beyond the line of the harbor lines as established or changed by the United States
Government.
B. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: As on Schedule B, attached.
Page 3 - Order No. 1138713
SCHEDULE B - continued
Order No.: 1138713
SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
2
3
4
Pacific northwest Title Company
This report is restricted to the use of the addressee, and is not to be used as a basis for closing any transaction
affecting title to said property. The liability of the Company is limited to $5,000.00.
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.
Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof:
Grantor:
Friends of Youth, a Washington non-profit corporation
Trustee:
Chicago Title Insurance Company
Beneficiary:
The Washington State Department of Community, Trade, and Economic
Development, Office of Community Development or its successor agency
Amount:
$550,000.00
Dated:
July 15, 2002
Recorded:
July 24, 2002
Recording No.:
20020724000271
The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or
assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured.
Affects:
Lots 42 and 43
Deed of Trust and the terms and conditions thereof:
Grantor:
Friends of Youth, a Washington nonprofit corporation
Trustee:
Undisclosed
Beneficiary:
King County
Amount:
$300,000.00
Dated:
November 21, 2002
Recorded:
February 23, 2004
Recording No..
20040223000543
The amount now secured by said Deed of Trust and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or
assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured.
Affects:
Lots 42 and 43
The above Deed of Trust does not contain a trustee. A trustee must be appointed or said Deed of Trust will
be treated as a Mortgage.
Page 4 - Order No. 1138713
5
C
7
8.
Pacific Northwest Title Company
Mortgage and the terms and conditions thereof:
Mortgagor:
Friends of Youth
Mortgagee:
The City of Bellevue
Amount:
$50,000.00
Dated:
July 29, 2004
Recorded:
February 28, 2005
Recording No.:
20050228000875
The amount now secured by said Mortgage and the terms upon which the same can be discharged or
assumed should be ascertained from the holder of the indebtedness secured.
Affects:
Lots 33 through 38
Easement and the terms and conditions therein, including, but not limited to, the following:
Grantee: Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, a Washington corporation,
its successors and assigns
Purpose: To construct, reconstruct, operate, inspect, maintain or remove lines of
telephone and telegraph, or other signal or communication circuits and
appurtenances
Area Affected: The southerly 5 feet of Tracts 38 and 42
Recorded: December 30, 1964
Recording No.: 5827693
Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
By and Between: City of Renton and Friends of Youth, Inc., a Washington corporation
Dated: November 6, 1969
Recorded: December 5, 1969
Recording No.: 6595697
Regarding: Water mains and appurtenances
Easement and the terms and conditions therein, including, but not limited to, the following:
Grantee: City of Renton, a municipal corporation
Purpose: Public utilities (including water with necessary appurtenances)
Area Affected: A portion of Lots 36, 37, 43 and 44
Recorded: September 2, 1970
Recording No.: 6699454
Said easement was modified as to Lot 43 by Easement recorded under Recording No. 20020722001173.
Page 5 - order No. 1138713
Pacific Northwest Title Company
9. Easement and the terms and conditions referenced therein, including, but not limited to, the following:
Reserved By: City of Renton
Purpose: Utility and related purposes
Area Affected: Vacated portion of Pelly Place North
Recorded: November 30, 1988
Recording No.: 8811300192
10. Declaration of Easements and the terms and conditions thereof -
Recorded: July 1,2002
Recording No.: 20020701001386
11. Low Income Housing Covenant Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
By and Between: Friends of Youth and Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development, Office of Community Development
Dated: July 15, 2002
Recorded: July 24,2002
Recording No.: 20020724000270
Affects:
12. Notice of Federal Interest:
Grantor:
Grantee:
Recorded:
Recording No.:
Affects:
Lots 42 and 43
United States, Department of Health and Human Services
Friends of Youth
October 14, 2003
20031014001254
Said premises except Lot 32
13. Affordable Housing Covenant Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof:
By and Between: Friends of Youth and King County
Dated: November 21, 2002
Recorded: February 23,2004
Recording No.: 20040223000542
Affects:
Lots 42 and 43
Page 6 -Order No. 1138713
14
Pacific Northwest Title Company
Community Facility Covenant Agreement and the terms and conditions thereof.
By and Between: Friends of Youth, a non-profit corporation and King County, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington
Dated: July 11, 2003
Recorded: June 30, 2005
Recording No.: 20050630000766
Affects: Said premises except Lot 32
*** END OF SCHEDULE B ***
Page 7 - Order No. 1138713
Pacific Northwest Title Company
NOTES:
1. Abbreviated Legal Description
ptn Lot 32, all Lots 33-38 & 42A7, together with ptns ov vacated streets adjoining, Eldon Acres, Vol. 11, pg 86.
Parcel Number: 229650-0165-09, 229650-0170-02, 229650-0180-00 and 229650-0185-05
2. Special taxes and charges for the year 2010, which have been paid:
Tax Account No.: 229650-0165-09
Levy Code: 2100
Amount: $12.23
Affects: Lot 32 except portion for street
3. Special taxes and charges for the year 2010, which have been paid:
Tax Account No.: 229650-0170-02
Levy Code: 2100
Amount: $12.69
Affects: Lots 33 through 38, inclusive, Lots 44 through 47, inclusive, and portions
of vacated streets adjoining except portion for street
4. Special taxes and charges for the year 2010, which have been paid:
Tax Account No.: 229650-0180-00
Levy Code: 2100
Amount: $ 12.08
Affects: Lot 42 except portion for street
5. Special taxes and charges for the year 2010, which have been paid:
Tax Account No.: 229650-0185-05
Levy Code: 2100
Amount: $12.08
Affects: Lot 43 except portion for street
6. A survey of the herein described property was recorded under King County Recording Number 20000306900012.
BWBW
Page 8 - Order No. 1138713
,°'ty Of Renton
NV q (7 )_ilZ
When Recorded Return To:
The Washington State Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development
Office of Community Development
Housing Finance Unit
906 Columbia Street Southwest
Post Office Box 48350
Olympia, Washington 99504-8350
Attention Cheryl Bayle, (360) 725-2997
DEED 4F 'TRUST
Grantor (Borrower) Friends of Youth
Beneficiary (Lender) Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, Office of Community
Development
Grantee (Trustee) Chicago Title Insurance Company
Legal Description (abbreviated) Lots 42 and 43 of Eldon Acres Addition
Assessor's Tax Parcel 1D#
Contract Number
229650-0180 and 229650-0185
02-49300-132
THIS DEED OF TRUST is made this ifs day of ' it_ , 2002, between Friends of
Youth, a Washirgton non-profit corporation, whose mailing address is 16215 NE 87th Street, Suite A-6, Redmond, WA
98052-3536 as Grantor ("Grantor"), Chicago Title Insurance Company, whose rnailing address is 10500 NE 8 Street,
#1700, Bellevue, WA 98004 as Trustee ("Trustee"), and the Washington State Department of Community, "Trade, and
Econorrnc Development, Office of Community Development or its successor agency, as Beneficiary ("Beneficiary"),
whose address is 906 Columbia Street, S W , P O Box 48350, Olympia, Washington 98504-8350
I Grant Grantor hereby bargains, sells and conveys to Trustee in Trust for the benefit of Beneficiary, with
power of sale the real property located in King County, Washington described as
Lots 42 and 43, Eldon Acres, According to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, Page 86, in King
County, Washington
according to the plat thereof, recorded in King County, Washington, (the "Property") together with all tenements,
privileges, reversions, remainders, ungation and water rights and stock, oil and gas rights, royalties, minerals and
mineral rights, hereditaments and appurtenances belonging or in any way pertaining to the Property, and the rents issues
and profits thereof Said Property is not used principally, or at all, for agricultural or famung purposes
2 Obli abons Secured This Deed of Trust is given for the purpose of securing the following
Y
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Vincent Tom
Nuhe.` Dartment of Community and Human Services
Aadra ss .:-:821' Second Avenue, Suite 500
:...:• ;t4; S11I�,:.Zlp -...Seattle, WA 98104-159$ 200402231D00543
PAGE001 OF MDT 0 00
$2/23/2eO4 10.42
KING COUNTY, UA
Grantor .(Sorr±awex)' Fnend of Yowl}:. .
Beneficiary (Lender) `King County
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#. 229650=0I10-�-`
7..F,D:aF ` RUST;
THIS DEED .OF TRUST is made this 2-1 day of tpoo between Friends of Youth, a
Washirigton;,noriproftt corporation as Grantor, whose addr6ss iS 16225 ,IVF $7 .:Street, Suite A-
6, Redmo6d,Washipgton 98052-3536, and King County, whose address .is Department of
Cow, munity and Human Services, 821 Second Avenue, Suite' SOO,: Seattle, 'Washington
98104-1:598,.:its successors aiw assigns, as Beneficiary
l Grantin Cla e: - Grantor 'irrevocably grants, bargains, sells, conveys to Trustee 1n
trust with the power of sale; all o f 6kntor`s estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand, now
owned or hereafter'<agquri`ed in ;and to lhi real :property located in King County, Washington,
legally described as follows
Lots 42 and 43, Eldoi ::Acne] "A cording :fo the plat )�4ereof recorded in Volume l 1 of
Plats, PAE 86 in King county, ivashi��
which real property is not used principally..foi.,-agrzculfural.'or fanning purposes, together with all
tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances:. noW or.:: hereafter belongm&_or in any way
appertaining to said property, and the rents, issues and profits: thereof:(the " Property"-
2 Obligations Secured. This Deed of Trust is:given for the &rpose..of set uririg each
agreement of Grantor contained herein and payment of the sum.:6f Three iiritdreti 'Tho s rid„
ltcs-kmglhi'plmerge documeraslmergcdeed doc l 11113 02
r
WHEN:RECORDED RETURN TO:
HUMAN SERVICES DWISION
PARK§ &.CQMMUNITY SERVICESfill
QI TY OF. BELLEVUE
-:p. 0. B6x 90012. 20050228000875
" Bellevue WA:98009-901x OLS SITUBLIC T n 25. ee
02G 8/�0®� lit:32
KING COUNTY, Wp
A'P`tN: Cam- ron Packer
MO TGA6#~A G' REEMENT
Grantee: Friends of:Yoyth, a.0: ashir"to0.noo-profit corporation
Grantor: CITY OF BELLEVUE,'WAIS4iNGTON, a Washington municipal
corporation
Legal DesQnption.:., Lots 33 thru 38, Eldon Aeres, as -fury d0scri6dd"6n pale 2.
Assess es property 'fax Parcel f Account Number 229�b0-Q�.�O
;"Thi;sindenture made this .July 29, 2004, between Frieh -of Y utfj, Mortgagor,
and: the City of Bei.]�vtie, NMbrtgagee.
WITNES;3ETH:
The lrpose of th mortg2ige is.#o secure the obligations of the Mortgagor under
that certain 2003'Qorrilr66nity.:6evelaoipmOnt Nock Grant Funding Agreement
(hereinafter the "CDBQ- ..JaAgreement") between .the Mortgagee and the Mortgagor.
Mortgagor and Mortgagee hbreby-�Igree t!a t# a faftow hg_.terms and conditions:
Old Republic rifle, Ltd. has
placed this document of
record as a customer}
courtesy and accepts no
liability for the accuracy or
validlty of the document
1
KNOW ALL AMEN BY THESE FIRESEliTS:
FOR ANG IN cywf 14twAr WN PF THE e M O/ dµK DO -LAM (.1._J, NECEIAT WHEn E7r IP
HC� :y ACKMOW: :VOEO. An EASEMENT ISOH[R[PY GRANTED TO PACIF[e wowYMWReT POLL 1{
T aLC PHONE C9M►AN.'. A Ww I.. Tn r w�,T lnw� T! SMID14a. '•
I TH[ NIDMT, PRIVIL.[OP ANV AUTHORITY r0 CDN>•TRU^T. RRCON[TRUCT, O/[FATE. 11/eP[rT.
11 MAWTAIN OR .Ir VOVC LIMO! QY TCL6H.011� AND T[..RO AArM. OR OTHER ■ZONAL ON COMA
MUNICATIDN CIR4UIT5. CONPIMTING OM SUCH UN4EASKOUND CONOVIYa. CNINI-EP, MANHOLE[.
POLL■ AND OTHER MARKER0. FIXTURCP ARP AFPURTENANCRE AD THE GRANTEE MAY FROM
TIME TO TIME neGU IRE. UM_. ACROee. OVER AND OR UNDER THY FOLLOWING UMECRI4ED
FMOPI .TV AND �IyyrT ROADS. aTHSETS OR HISHWAYS THERETO ADIDININF. DITUAT[D IH THE
j(r COUNTY or n�:� STATE Or WAeHINOTONI
TILs Swalker4 fire ;5) feet of Tracts 38 wW 42, of 1101M Acres,
AS recorded in Volume U of PlatoP Page 86 A-9, records or 1ini County,
Washington, located in the Kerthrest Quarter (AWJ) of section 5, Teem-
ship 23 „ortpi mange 5 East, Y.X.
3
i
S �
i
We easesiont is =rantad with the provision that in the event
Wante�r or their successors in interest, improve, hlci2IIUpo
a or d I� [
*bcws pCepeA7 and the location of the tolophsns cable area `
arentes shall upon sizty (60) darn written notice b7 the ,
sold Da62o to another loaatles'maival.37 asreed upon an the '
at the Grantee's expense.
3 THE 4RAHTOm F9w NIMYELY, HI■ MClwe, EK[OUTOR71. AVMIHN}T"TONS. ■LICCEASORS Awe
A[PIDNP HEAEeY GOVENANTA Y.MT NO DIOGINa WILL as PONJI OR PKAWPTTEO WITIIIN FIVE _
q (N),FCCT OF &At* LINES WHICH WILO
L IN ANY MANNER DISTURB THEIR fLJGITY OR UNEARTH
a ANY PORTION TMLREOFI AND THAT NO OLANTING OR OIACHARGE OF ANY EXPLONIVES WC.L
eE FERMIYTMp WITNtR FIFTEEN (19I ►=CT Or SAID LINED. ALL CONDUIT OA CASLE LAID 1
VNDER THIN PRANT PW1LL BE LAID UPON A ROPY[ All NOW LOCATED. ANO SMALL ■C SUNNED f
TO SUCH DRPTH Ae NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDINARY UPC Dr PAID LAND. THE
ONANTEC aHALNL AT ALL TIMLe HAVE THE NIGHT OF FREE INGRESS TO AKD KoR[Re r110M
PAID PROPERTY Vol- ALL PURPGe Ee H[RCIN MKNTION[O•
IN WIT(I�I�Lee WW%: EON. THC UND[1(��e 14WKO IAA RKLICUTED THIS INSTRUMENT THIA........
DAY GF. j!A". F- Y. {'a:..... IE.... 4
IF SOM 1�
da &,
.P- .. . . ..........
.... ........................ .. }
.+TATr. OF WAILHI"OTON T
A.
chVN7Y or KING
ON THIS �yy'F Ili OAY qp► C A 1�py MCIDRE MC FLRPOMALLY A►-
PEARED, � T! S#��Wf.YI ! TtT'T9 STi .R1iL•IT •.�� M,.TO ME KNOWN TD aE TN[
8r�si�vL E.Yas.r�L4wtl, .�az�R�rs..eneGfnl�x . • • • . • • • . • • • • • • I • • • • . .
or THTHECORIn]RATION THAT EKRCVtTED THE WITHIN ANP IRN"IHG INRTRUMIKOT AND ACCy
KNOWJ•FDGF•O TNr. RAJJNRTAUMRNT TO Se THE FARM ANO VOLUNTAR► ACT AND DEED OF
SAIII CONPOHATION. PO" THE Ye[e AND PURP'OeLe THERCfH MENTIONED. 11M0 OM .OATH STATED
THAT 'it WAS AWr"OAI'4FD TO CKECUTI: MAID INSTRUMENT AND THAT THE SEAL ArPIKKP Ili
TNF C4I.FONAI.N1.'AI. nF eAlP �oRAhwT14N. ]yy]
i
- IN WITHI:A:1 WHI.i1rOI'. . IJAVI: HEREUNTO ACT MY HAND AND AFFIXED eEAL THE. DAY AM i
YEAH II+ TI11=: I•I_RTw ICAT:: IInUT ADDVC WRITTEN. h f •1
NOTARY RISLIG 7M Ae7 R THE STATE Or �-
wrolo F�Ma� r..14r't TAf •. •�,. •�....
Ilk
'DEC 30'1964
f f:. _ I 1#.. {•' 'K Fi '� V '.�IIGww
• is -I 6e s �'y,T..Mi:.rtl.ri'y��i::_:��'^�+'K
i
' r
1 -
'AEMMT AND CORMANCt
THIS AGMUW moo 4M# enter" Into this
4v ow w -4-At- -day of
t"iW1 OW C"V OF RE*TCX, I 1WAfC1paj If
Ifi** COPW'&p"'On Of W lacced 0*s% ;��r
at, "4es.of the' state of washi
44M. FrigrAlsge V,4,th tac.. #,"r reforred to 4gs Cityal,
he' Inaftgr refevyw to as
X T
IM tar I Ifts ow 11WAI, I ing- certal,-,
areef 6hervto at. near or Witt, in the hereini^ttau orqwty ow to
It'l to 00 City.; veto? systea so tsuch oe! describeg
Mov an part am . Mof. ow
tl* cot &Ad GqVQ;Q of Presently or "saft are Presently QV211able trSham 1,
ftntruct
t'"144 $8 Mad it* proviSjual WW1f`1 01? such 'MPMOMPhtt, Ord tjtj� parties hereto
t"" Of chopur 261 of the I" r4roov" tt, a! 2 'p"9 Ussions le's.
IcIpal water
Facilitlet Act. (m 3S.9j.0ja
P heeds of
wMing to pay all tree (,ftts
lumsaftft for the 111sullation at said It. �Qvewmts;
oft ie IS HEAER? AWW MI)
ftitIES AS FI)LLWS.. COVMIMO Of AND spWEEp, THE AMSAID
we and toveants thawej
to -wit.-
Gate !S tom,
thru 47
retards60UM' end Let$ 41 of ty, 1906hiattafi. Word" lot Vat. 86A PN842 -8 of plats,
"tactWM " RxhWlt "A" for sketch a& &1*0
cowmr1to to cause to here
WrM. =--.4 Like a
t ------ Tf, ftti! SIX
batween x, "d
R. -to 161'a J�Jqifjm matte.23g
ton
to be owe in -6potf&t
off city of baton wo ke-0 All C0606 orala I
v
ftant& that all exmses
in CW
Irmallat!POCtion With tree CC4jjtrWr.tj0n.
., of the aforesaid 1MpftvftMtq. whet,
or 14bor or rs%rial� or both
IMM"PaTPUl %If "4jj%:VeAt dlarcrt,%14 in Renton
n9inew,
Afteld L.olgerla of -7577-77-, gnLrs—
cypons
*14 harm;,""pw And doreto to t1014 the City of
vl�y in connection verwth.
DEC 5-'
rgljectr
A
u
r y,s .rl��tirr �--'•��F - r Irrw'w - 4wr
All
L� k
� - -T-•. - - Eli• i�; r "'- .tee
MQa licit :
�
w iter. rsTled `Br'1nd . �.�+ •'
4 tp �• M;'yton.'.i reln d Ct7g
r T ur11 2 tint,
uor:#boa r s'
tf1TbIESSiTIf: - � •�
-r
f aThit Bald 6rarsCbr(ai, far,-"d
�' F*+eteri ild {�,. br a4tl�s:'ol �uR ofstir 6 x
Uo; ?* • �`� •,6ergdin. fell:, t o#rP.reifrimle: „
fv�P�ls!,'+�ecar<tr s��s' ;n,�°tf"�• dd,.d�'�l.Sryetp#f"on. •ktlx
caata4tr1b¢d'PRe ,, tia fttd�i
' "ipiQ 11j'1�11At: "`b' i4 Kim.+.
f A --.. ' ..' , • roc � t111flar �i: '�4" 'ti. y
Mtiiiiy waserOOY �Orid.�t:s.rid� F: `. _ 'Jt1'yfMiit-,
ri Lm i'r
rsctr.-,ffd rkru ty
1�eshigten: a velt�c li a[ P[eta�af e' dnr►: �, * sr�� K ���,°
. fh0 saater_iba. a! a +�- r_ �'Ca�ntY: �jpt'e:
+ 11ifs111N1JYG at Ly0 sid aaaem�4t L ,R d�sce�ped
telly R1, p intersaCtien ta1Ja % u;
POtet' ...,thnKe.SCLIM 7Y.�1. of a can *tsga
lrct• b i*nin6 tt�soe6 .. , S0 Woof isx' 4KJlbsth ast liti .t
theacs so,
tA •: cbeti�su+' b y�rry , rift trleb .f
LVegie of:., �,8otilfleet
$lotevsrd davtA 0#lam I?d
t+ka fashiapten $ dlOt.ncs r llb#t.'i dis Y
toot ea tfie .asta.rlr "_}
Togeihtr r�iUi s terporarY Wasiructiun ra:craEr: dp"crlbed as:
Shcd tNWorArY CQrS�ruC;; safe
snd until such ti ant shall remain in fume durir
a�E as t+s^ uti i 1 ties and eRRlurtFra.^.[eS have barn a{cepted fpr
operation dnd fintr anCe b construttlen
Y the I;ra,-Itee but not lrter than
jsera-gym
ass.
Return Address
City Clerk's Office
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
20020 22001173
PAGE eel or 0 23.00
07/22/2 7 i : !S6
KING COUNTY, !JA
Title UTILITIES EASEMENT
Property Tax Parcel Numbers:�
Lot 43: 229650-4185
Project File # a 331
Street Intersection or Project Name Gnffin Horne
Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released A F No 6689454
Gra>ntor(s): Grantee(s):
1 Friends of Youth 1 L!ty of Renton, a Municipal Corporation
ABBREVIATED LEGAL:
A UTILITY EASEMENT 15 FEET IN WIDTH OVER THAT PORTION OF
LOT 43 OF THE PLAT OF ELDON ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN
VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGES 86 A & B, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHERN MOST CORNER OF SAID LOT 43, THENCE SOUTH
43602'55" EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF 19 54 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 49°00'52" WEST 173 02 FEET TO THE EASTERLY
MARL N OF LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD NORTH AT A POINT 13 29 FEET
SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THE MOST WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 43, BEING THE
TERMINUS OF THIS EASEMENT
CONTAINING 2,595 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS
SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, DING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
kTFoyl kuserstChrisUUt[ikhes Easement (VI) dock
EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED
XN,qo. Rwards DPrWw
Page 1
MY Of REN-ION, i:Sk'i:7,:aN
aRDIWLNC£ No- 4198
all OROiiaaCS Or TM CITT of AMUCt, inS#ZI GM. A=lw i
, 71= as ZZZia ci.r'-a M��i�••� - 4i iwW;a - rwt-uus-
ss).
proper pe-itino -�r vacating a =nartiao of rally
j� Place Nexth ale* kcos^ as 102ad Pace S-E_ (lying worth of 14, 26tt
Stre±t), Renton, K-ag Co,.nty, Washington, was duly filed with the
-- City Clerk on or about July S, 1986, a:. saic petitiari hav;ng been
signed ,by the Ow4er8 :tpresezti:g more taan zwo-girds ,2J3) of the
Property abetting upon such street sought to be vacated; wad
KOx- Brie, the City Council by Resolution No- 2736 pase-+d and
approved on August 22, 1999, and after due investigation did fix and
determine the day of September 19, 19u , at the boor of 7- 30 p_s. in
the City Council Chamlaers of the City of Renton to be the time and
Place for a pt:blic hearing, thereon, and the City Clerk waving givee
due notice of such near_aa in _be «w.naer provided by lav, and all
Pe. -SODS taviag been etard appearing in -favor or is opposition
thereto, and the City Council having cons-'oered all information and
arguments preseatea zc it; and
KAER=, :.Le Hoare of public harks of the City of Renton
having duly considered said petition for said vacation, and having
found same to be in the public interest and for the public benefit,
aad no injury or damage to any person or properties will result from
such vase -ion,
i, �llaNiOl�la�, A*-w.. 4-i MAV coats *
CW of AMINk WOU"4 VIV MA @a r a"a
s�i[yiaadS.rdtlia�i dVd� 1
;7i.- CI&�
FM FM IM U OF
MfE{n®
INWAIL
swum
_. A.—Oh.m
,
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
Marco de Sa a Silva
Davis Wright Trernaine LLP
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
PAGE 001 OF 009EA5 27 00
07/ trae2 11 59
K I COLOITY , A
DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS
Declarant: Fnends of Youth, a Washington nonprofit corporation
Grantee: Friends of Youth, a Washington nonprofit corporation
Abbreviated Legal Description:
LOTS 32 THROUGH 38, INCLUSIVE, AND LOTS 42 THROUGH 47,
INCLUSIVE, ELDON ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 86, IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, TOGETHER WITH THE WESTERLY 5 FEET OF THAT
PORTION OF PELLY PLACE NORTH (102"D PLACE SE) LYING NORTH OF
THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
NORTH 26]'H STREET ADJOINING LOTS 33, 34, 35, AND A PORTION OF
LOT 36, AS VACATED BY CITY OF RENTON ORDINANCE NO 4188,
EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN LAKE WASHINGTON
BOULEVARD NORTH
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Account Numbers:
Lot 42 229650-0180
Lot 43 229650-0185
Other Lots 229650-0165 and 229650-0170
Reference Numbers of Assigned or Released Documents:
None
C 1WINDOWS1Temporary Internet Files`OLK73W2 Declaration of Ease4ents (v3tnb) doc
When Recorded Return To;
Washington State Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development
Office of Community Development
Housing Finance Unit
906 Columbia Street Southwest
Post Office Box 48350
Olympia, Washington 98504-8350
Attention Cheryl Bayle, (360) 725-2997
LOW INCOME MOUSING COVENANT AGREEMENT
Grantor (Borrower)
Grantee (Lender)
Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#
Friends of Youth
Department of Community, Trade and Econommc Development, Office of Community
Development
Legal Description (abbreviated)
Contract Number
229650-0180 and 229650-0185
Lots 42 and 43 of Eldon Acres Addition
02-49300-132
This Low Income Housing Covenant Agreement (the "Covenant") is made by Friends of Youth, a Washington non-profit
corporation, ("Grantor") and is part of the consideration for the financial assistance provided by the Department of
Community, Trade and Economic Development, Office of Community Development, a department of the State of
Washington ("Department"), to Friends of Youth pursuant to a Housing Finance Unit Agreement, Contract Number 02-
49300-132 (the "Contract"), for the new construction of real property legally described as follows
Lots 42 and 43, Eldon Acres, According to the Flat thereof recorded in Volume ] I of Plats, Page 86, in King
County, Washington
("the Property")
This Covenant will be filed and recorded in the official public land records of King County, Washington and shall constitute a
restriction upon the use of the property described herein, subject to and in accordance with the terms of this Covenant, for
forty (40) years beginning January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2044
The covenants contained herein are to be taken and construed as covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be
binding upon the Grantor, his successors and assigns heirs, grantees, or lessees of the Property, beginning January 1, 2004
and ending December 31, 2044 Each and every contract, deed or other instrument covering or conveying the Property, or any
portion thereof, shall be conclusively held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to such covenants, regardless
of whether such covenants are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instruments
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby covenanted, for the forty (40) years commencing January 1, 2004 and terminating
December 31, 2044, as follows
Friends of Youth
16225 NE 87 St, Suite A-6
Redmond, WA 98052-3536
Document Title
NOTICE OF FEDERAL INTERFST
Reference Number, nla
Grantor
Un t +V d S- iv-s
Department of Health and Human Services
Contract Number 1 C76HF00726-01-00
Grantee
Friends of Youth
For the third phase of the three phase redevelopment of the Gnffin Home Campus, which
is located at 2500 Lake Washington Blvd N , Renton, WA 98056
Legal Description
Eldon Acres add lots 33 thru 38 TGW portion vacated street adjoining lots 33, 34, 35 and
portion of lot 36 tgw lots 44 thru 47 less portion for street
Situate in the City of Renton, in King County, Washington
Assessor's Property Tax ParcelfAccount Number
229650-0170
i
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COVENAN T AG FMENT;`.
This:Affordablff.Housing Covenant Agreement ("Covenant') ls'rnade by Friends Of Youth
( Recipieht) and is: part of the conside-rationfor the financial assistance provided::by the
Department oaf Con.irmiinity aixd Human Services, a department of K3ngCbuz ty ("Department"),
pursuant King CO -unity Dfpartri ent of Community and Human Services House and Community
Dev 1ppment ConAract:'= 2602'Contract No. D31435D for the construction of faster housing on
real property C"ProporVy •legally.d"escribed as follows
LOTS 42 AND 43;, ELDOIV ACRES, ACCORbiNG TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED'1N:VO�;UME`14 O7~ kATS, PAE Sb, IN
KING COUNTY, WASHINCTON
This Covenant will be filed andrecw wed. n tY�e official publicri�►nd records ofKj County,
Washington and shall constitute a restnction 40ii the use of the property described herein,
subject to and in accordance with the terms of:this Coyenaai for Fifo years (50) years following
the date of initial residential occupancy of the:i'roperty
The covenants contained herein are to be taken and construe as: covenants -running with the land
and shall pass to and be binding upon the Recipient, its successors and auignsj::h-oirs, grantees, or
lessees of the Property, beginning on the date of initial residential occii ancy`a6i thy-
construction of the foster homes on the Property contemplated by�Ihe: Agree�enf: Eac i and:
every contract, deed, mortgage or other instrument covering or conveying the Property, oT`ahy
20050630000766.--v
After recording return to:
King County Community Services DivisioWHCD Programi(`
Aft: Maria Ramirez
821 Second Avenue, State 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
20050630000766
HOUSING ANO CO AG 0.00
PA0001 OF 003
KINGUNTY 0/2805 COi0WA
COMMUNITY FACILITY COVENANT AGREEMENT
Grantor: Friends of Youth, a non-profit corporation
Grantee: King County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington
Abbreviated Legal Description: Eldon Acres add lots 33 thru 38
Full Legal Description: See below
Street Address: 2500 Lake Washington Blvd. N., Renton, WA 98056
Assessor's Tax Parcel No.: 229650-0170
Recording Nos. of Documents Assigned, Released or Referenced: nla
This Community Facility Covenant Agreement ("Covenant") is made by Friends of Youth
("Grantor') and is part of the consideration for the financial assistance provided by King County,
a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("the Grantee"), to Grantor pursuant to 2003
King County Department of Community and Human Services Housing and Community
Development Contract, Project C03899, Friends of Youth- MCEa.chern House and Walkway
Rehab, contract number D32247D ("Agreement") for the improvement of real property
("property") legally described as follows:
Eldon Acres add lots 33 thru 38 TGW portion vacated street adjoining lots 33, 34, 35 and portion
of lot 36 tgw lots 44 thru 47 less portion for street,
Situate in .the City of Renton, in King County, Washington,
This Covenant will be filed and recorded in the official public land records of King County and
shall constitute a restriction upon the use of the property described herein, subject to and in
accordance with the terms of this Covenant for fifteen (15) years from the date on which the
Grantee approves the Grantor's final request for reimbursement pursuant to the Agreement
("Covenant Term").
The covenants contained herein are to be taken and conmued as covenants running with the land
and shall pass to and be binding upon the Grantor, its successors and assigns, heirs, grantees, or
lessees of the Property. Each and every contract, deed, mortgage or other instrument covering or
Eldon Acres 11/86
PACIFIC NORTHWEST TITLE
Company of Washington, Inc.
,..
NOW11 Z'TH PL
L, n..p
1 �
' Pi,a w: OlOe
pa.li
9.
4,5PLW1�}R4iAl✓1'L
64 Lai a
J��,[tl),016000a
Lao aul
Ta r 19
+rrp
_" also Walx
• Aye + M1 4�I'
0151� er
ib
LOT C
y' Rom` 41�
a1 c
N
Order No. II38713
IMPORTANT: This is net a Plat of 5u.zvey. It is furnished as a
convenie-Ice to locate the land indicated hereon with reference to
streets and other lane. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance
hereon.
r �QR ��
IN�WI �c s . °_
1. �Crr,, .�.►�
R�CE ,waanrxNaaer®rnerr�ar®r.
Iced foc iteu=d at Bit of
AFTER RECOF004 NAIL TOt
TICOR TITLE INSURANCE pp/�OBiNEfp
1020 loaTK AVE. I.E. ap$i TAX �� s
CD *
BELLEVUE, Wh 98OM-1.310 DE 2319 5 S, DO *S. E
,7094 _ 11
N_ J
� 359059PT x � �
POri•d tsa poq
S diu" Warunty Deed
TEMC AMM SUTAMRA B. CAMPION, ALSO APPEARING OF REaRO AS SUSAN CHAMPION. AS HER
- SEPARATE $iATE.
aaE�aTATK- Of TER AM MD-1DO DOLLARS AND OTHER GDOO AND YAL'JOU CONSIDERATION
a h-d lP6& — nd nearaa>a to FRIENDS OF YOUTH. INC.. A NON PROFIT CORPORATION
tir fo-o A wa'6ed"cmm if awd in tic Coww of KING . 5me of Wiakog®_
LOT 32, fLODN ACRES, ACCORDING TO TK FLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 86. IN
KING COUNTY. IIASHINGTONp/
�! Eta o
•i _ i
Z >
K
DOWN
SBSIIk CNAMPIoi1
16[n Hof DECEMBER 1986
By........� q-------------------- - -- ..... By --------------------- -----------------------
SUN of pw►sHDQGZM su" C*
.. '
a t dap paaprd�! apprad before Noe 04 d6 — dw of - .............
.5tt1JpN Cj1/�i:�i�¢y/ erfr.rr a aad our rbe Sara of w Magm. o,r•
--'..... ..........,.........- . - .........., ..,.....,-...... wmwisioead add sa.eta. Fersaaai,4 appwced
:off baone 90 Ss;hr s3�.� 4hm`c ae anC .bp ......_...... .............................
aecrod 0r wdYe aaq awra aacNt aNd......................................... ..... -' -.-..........................,............
ae]reawle0f� dw ss�l rie aatae as and .................
.rn >d nopoxs thrna .scorioe� w w bx+.e ry be for . ................ Pretidm aeC -....-........... -... Savetaft
wwa rw sap�yy aed olfsaa .qr rass .hr wrpar+tiNN;su wecueedahr[a�uPsi-auw•rr.aa3aClura.fuW.d�t�e.aiE�er-
-1)itEi7/61Fi dr har and .eaararT .er :e dad d' aid .,Pmmioi foc Ow
aerJe
r d prp— rb� NeNeir.ad, a" ae a mud rim ..............................
.......-...'.T-r....--....- (�adIMOP� is �M dhe w'd ou..r and din the mW driwE i. rF; Vepq/rt
'•J:l�Pli� - a Need far tie sore ta&p&w/ar, rwl of arC mrpoc�
•oot ..- - v'de[ri >.} 7a a: it':-.^i aer Oe o afrmns ;rK 4. a A few aeaa Do.e
ANVAAIp9KALIHM........ ........ ..................._.... ....... ....-._ ...... ........... ... ............
,........
v. •T• •a.cc c..v... 7fiabticoa�Lrrid9orrrlpgaR. Nt ........................
-..c... rinca . -y. >Ilpandiemi+cev6.NN.
as wV •L mWF! .� .-_ .-_ .........._.....-... _..
I
i
LD
gECl1Rl]Y. 41}�hN. ,CO I A o
P
~11
3
V
a
a
s03
E-22$1SY
ii-3GE37�9-E-C,53o37.-671'f'F1
.�/%.�� �
- V....
fe.r LIEU
statutory H►==ty -Deed
La. (;RASTIIR, FM B. COCJUM, as bar separate estate,
low and in erurs drratiwr o! Tea Dollars cad other good and valueble Consideration,
in hand pWd, carnwyr and wwrantr to 27,X;MS OF YOIf 0 I17C., 3 Washington cOrp4latiOn,
the loik0*" descHW wal rwate. ahw,ed Is the Comely id 1Cing , 6im el
Wa,bitq,ee:
Trait■ 33 to 39, iarlusito yve, and Tracts 42 to 47,' in-
C ua 'ilea ald9a ing lfashilagto 144C1" County wad.!
Plats. Page 66, to
e An sasalrant upon and over that Portion of Islfvk 'D" of
'� a s2�itigton share Lands lying directly in front of Lot 420 sldaa
acres, according ko.plat record ed in Volume 11 of Plata, Me 66, in
Kim aunty, Washington, for tb* purFo� of ersoeit f a lea r int %N i
a wharf and boat house trmmont 70�'1'!� Wikh right of og !or igrante
` and agues to saes- SODM' 202 l-WmtW rights cad finesse as granted j
•d ..by.dead recorded under auditor's fiie ago. 17032i. 2-Lien rights
affecting shore lands created under Act of miatw* of state Of
Washington approved !larch 9, 1994. 3-1111=69tions end
reservations
is
contained J, fro
at fra State of Washington recorded ;
file No. 31241534.
TWO noo is given in fulfillment of that Certain real estate contrast
dated July 1, 1996, covering the above described real state, wherein
Yard Griffin and A. Adeline griffin, him Vigo, were cellars, acid lriminds
of Touth, Inc. ryas the purchaser. sellers intargst is said ace►tlraat ind
said Coal estate hog heretofore bean sold and aesiQaed to gtaetar abode
nomad. This Deed dogs not warrant as to enouobranaes SWW"L gnt to the
date of said contract,
s" p2.rc Kerah
F,�ae-e
6 9 to sued tlda 1o'ale= lush der y! mil, ]1967.
tern >s. Caahraae ads er +eparats I
estate _._�..—..-. (eWL) f ...
t
STATE OF WASHINGTON, I
Cd,tnly d-
on this day ixi 10A'I►y appeuad bdme me I'M N. CO 10W, All her sepaltatg •stated
le inn Lwwn to be the Isdividsal dowrlbed In and who executed the wiwithin �End � Mo�aet sed a"RS , for and
� tut she dped the same u her '
use, a" plleposea therein rneutloned. loth !larch
GiV&!�{ mtdet my hoed and aledal seal '�!'► w1967. thlr
r o! -
• �r � Ne,wy � !►a Slate ej N+e,Msetae�
• ,eAft at "aft6i re Xmeevidk Y
5
APR 24.I967- 8 30 ' _ 4
JII
t
Printed: 1 1-30-2010
Payment Made
'ITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA10-082
11130/2010 04:24 PM
Total Payment: 1,236.00
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R1005223
Payee: KSI ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
Trans
Account Code
Description
Amount
3080
503.000000.004.322
Technology Fee
36.00
5022
000.000000.007.345
Variance Fees
1,200.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
---------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------
Payment Check 4702 1,236.00
Account Balances
Trams Account Code Description
3021 303.000000.020.345 Park Mitigation Fee
3080 503.000000.004.322 Technology Fee
5006 000.000000.007.345 Annexation Fees
5007 000.000000.011.345 Appeals/Waivers
5008 000.000000.007.345 Binding Site/Short Plat
5009 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Use Fees
5010 000.000000.007.345 Environmental Review
5011 000.000000.007.345 Prelim/Tentative Plat
5012 000.000000.007.345 Final Plat
5013 000.000000.007.345 PUD
5014 000.000000.007.345 Grading & Filling Fees
5015 000.000000.007.345 Lot Line Adjustment
5016 000.000000.007.345 Mobile Home Parks
5017 000.000000.007.345 Rezone
5018 000,000000.007.345 Routine Vegetation Mgmt
5019 000.000000.007.345 Shoreline Subst Dev
5020 000.000000.007.345 Site Plan Approval
5021 000.000000.007.345 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence
5022 000.000000.007.345 Variance Fees
5024 000.000000.007.345 Conditional Approval Fee
5036 000.000000.007.345 Comprehensive Plan Amend
5909 000.000000.002.341 Booklets/EIS/Copies
5941 000.000000.007.341 Maps (Taxable)
5934 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954
599E 000.000000.000.231 Tax
Balance Due
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00