Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx_14_Public Comments Compilation of Public Comments Logan Six, LUA22-000283 EXHIBIT 14 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February,2024 Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morganroth,and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending an upcoming council meeting.I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing our concerns since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St,N 4th St,and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South (3td Street)or North (4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.Aone parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need parking from the proposed development.As mentioned above,having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N 3td Street,or N 4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restaurants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrictions)to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”,no action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.it is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority,is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N3d and N4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councirernber Theresa Ciymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment.I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,Iunderstand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Aconcerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood IYM Name (printed)5 wfL 5. Address EMTL)\1&9 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Alex Morganroth Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:03 PM To: 'Rose Bartlett' Subject: RE: Concerns with Logan 6 Development Hi Rose – Thank you for your comments. Please note that this response is only on my behalf – you may receive other responses from council and/or the Mayor. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider them as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams, phone call, or in person. Thank you, -Alex ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Rose Bartlett <rose.smith@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 9:38 AM To: James Alberson Jr. <JAlberson@rentonwa.gov>; Ryan McIrvin <RMcIrvin@Rentonwa.gov>; Valerie O'Halloran <VOHalloran@Rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez <RPerez@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed Prince <EPrince@Rentonwa.gov>; Carmen Rivera <CRivera@rentonwa.gov>; Kim-Khánh Văn <KVan@Rentonwa.gov>; Mayor Renton <mayor@rentonwa.gov> Cc: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Concerns with Logan 6 Development Mayor Pavone and City Council Members: I am writing to clearly communicate concerns and opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed 30-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed 70-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see, mentioned below, the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations: ● The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. ● Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rdStreet) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. ● We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. ● We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. ● We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. ● We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by. ● The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. ● A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. ● Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short- term impacts be considered. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 ● Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood Rose Bartlett 328 Burnett Ave North Renton, WA 98057 425-766-0007 Rose.smith@comcast.net Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Rosemarie Bartlett To:Alex Morganroth Cc:Matt Hanbey; P. Michael Lobalzo; Tiffany; Tracy Lynn; Diane Dobson Subject:Re: Meeting today (proposed logan development) Date:Saturday, July 1, 2023 3:33:04 PM Hello Alex, Let me add my thanks for sharing your time and expertise with us. I would like to add just a couple additional comments to Matt’s below. TrafficThere needs to be reconsideration of allowing an entrance and exit off of Logan. While I understand that Logan is a main thoroughfare, this solution will aid in discouraging addedpressure to the local residential streets that are not equipped to handle it. The is precedence for a Logan entrance given that Boeing has been allowed 2 and more recently Top Golf wasallowed a Logan entrance. Also I want to add that including features such as speed bumps and others to the local streets (i.e. Burnett, Williams, Wells) needs to be included in the traffic solution. After my discussion after the meeting regarding parking permits, I learned that while there iscurrently 2 hour parking limits on these side streets, there is inadequate parking enforcement to enforce them. Additional parking enforcement will also need to be a part of the solution tomonitor overflow parking impacts once the development is occupied. Public Hearing You had mentioned that the plan was to have the next public hearing be conducted virtually. Ibelieve that the City of Renton needs to reconsider if this decision is in line with their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) mission. Many residents do not have access tocomputers, internet nor the knowledge and understanding of how to access a virtual meeting. I witnessed this during the first public hearing that was held during COVID. While virtual wasthe best option during that time period, I would hope that the City would extend access by hosting a hybrid meeting solution, both in person and virtual. I believe this would increaseaccess and attendance and participation. Thanks again and please add me the agenda for the upcoming public hearing, Rose Smith Bartlett30+ year Renton Resident On Jun 29, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hi Matt – Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Thanks for the thorough summary. I will add them to the file and keep you updated on the project’s progress. Thank you, Alex ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Matt Hanbey <hanbeym@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 7:19 PM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Rose Bartlett <rosesmith0007@hotmail.com>; pmichael michaels <pmichael777@gmail.com>; Tiffany Pershall <tpershall@gmail.com>; Tracy Lynn <anthro66@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <diane@gorenton.com> Subject: Meeting today (proposed logan development) Hi, Alex: Thanks for meeting with Rose and me today. I know others (Tiffany, Tracy) wanted to be there, too. We covered a lot in the meeting: -- the city environmental committee has not met yet and the public hearing is not yet scheduled. I believe a staff paper would be written in advance of a public hearing that is not yet scheduled and may occur in late July or in August. This also means the city can still receive comments on the project. -- design standards and city center plan. I will read this more closely about potential applicability to transition areas from residential areas. -- Traffic: we talked about the possibility of having an entrance on Logan Avenue, to take pressure off of N 3rd and N 4th Streets. The idea is if a barrier was placed on N Logan Ave to prevent cars from turning North on N Logan from the parking lot across the street, then having that might not rule out access on N Logan to the site. The whole idea is to let cars access the in the area zoned for it, not to use local streets (Burnett Ave, etc) to do so. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 You asked, what would you like to see: -- HEIGHT / WIDTH MITIGATION: a step-back of floors on the east-side of the building, starting from the third or fourth floor and stepping back with each higher floor, creating a set of terraced floor-- this could even create an open space for decks or outside use areas on these floors. This would lessen the visual impact of the "wall" that residents on Burnett Ave will see, as the proposal stretches for nearly a city block, and would allow for maximum build on lower floors which would mostly be shielded by the buildings that already exist on the westside of N Burnett Ave. Yes, this restricts the size of the development, and the number of units, but it would lessen the visual impact to those in the adjacent residential neighborhood. It was also mentioned about this step- back (setback) at the north and south ends of this building; that also would be a benefit in that it would lessen the visual impact to the neighbors that are to the north and the south of the proposed development. -- ENTRANCE/S: it does not seem desirable to have in/outs on both N 3rd and N 4th streets. Apparently this is due in part to there being two parking floors that are not connected. If the two parking floors were connected then it would be possible to have either only one entrance or one exit, or one in/out and the other just an entrance or exit. This would, in theory, lessen the impact of cars travelling into the adjacent residential neighborhood, which hopefully is a goal for the city as guiding principle. This could also apply to the idea of an entrance on N Logan, as mentioned above, which would lessen the reliance on N 3rd or N 4th streets and Burnett Ave. We also discussed the intersection at N 3rd Street and N Logan Avenue, that could be refigured to better direct access the proposed development (entrance) and discourage drivers from crossing N 3rd to access Burnett Avenue from N Logan Avenue, a "criss cross" of car traffic. -- TREES: I did not mention this but the corner parcel the developer purchased, apparently for retail parking at surface level, has at least two large trees on the residential property. These trees should remain as they would shield the building from neighbors' views, and area an amenity. Also, Renton's tree ordinance may also require that these trees be left standing. Rose may have more comments here. Thanks again for meeting with us today. It was a pretty constructive meeting; I think in part as the many issues are coming into focus, probably also based on the short timelines things are on. Matt Hanbey Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Alex Morganroth Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 4:08 PM To: Taylor Bentley Subject: RE: Logan 6 Development Hi Taylor – Thank you for your comments. Please note that this response is only on my behalf – you may receive other responses from council and/or the Mayor. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider them as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams (virtual), a phone call, or in person. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Taylor Bentley <benttayl@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 8:37 AM To: Mayor Renton <mayor@rentonwa.gov>; Carmen Rivera <CRivera@rentonwa.gov>; James Alberson Jr. <JAlberson@rentonwa.gov>; Valerie O'Halloran <VOHalloran@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed Prince <EPrince@Rentonwa.gov>; Ryan McIrvin <RMcIrvin@Rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez <RPerez@Rentonwa.gov>; Kim-Khánh Văn <KVan@Rentonwa.gov>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Logan 6 Development February 19, 2024 Mayor Pavone and City Council Members: I am writing to clearly communicate concerns and opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed 30-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed 70-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see, mentioned below, the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations: ● The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. ● Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 ● We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. ● We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. ● We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. ● We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by. ● The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4thseems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. ● A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. ● Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short- term impacts be considered. ● Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Taylor Bentley A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 October 7, 2022 Department of Community & Economic Development City of Renton Attn: Alex Morganroth 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Boeing Comments to Land Use Notice LUA22-000283; PR22-000229 Easement Impacts of Proposed Project at 320 Logan Ave. N. Dear Mr. Morganroth: This letter responds to Land Use Notice LUA22-000283, an application for a proposed new six-story, mixed use building. The Boeing Company has real property interests in the property located at 320 Logan Avenue N., Renton WA 98057 pursuant to an easement burdening that property that was granted to the company in 1979. (See easement attached.) Boeing installed two 12-inch underground domestic water lines in this easement area to serve the Renton Plant. These water lines have long been used to provide critical supplies of water to the plant for domestic water and fire flow purposes supporting our manufacturing of aircraft. Boeing has reviewed the applicant’s documents and has concluded that the proposed project would violate Boeing’s rights under the easement. If completed, the project would not allow Boeing space needed to maintain or repair the water lines. From our review of the reports and application materials, it appears likely that construction activities would damage the water lines. As designed, the building may also pose the risk of permanent structural damage to Boeing’s existing facilities within the easement area. The applicant has not provided Boeing with design, engineering, or other analyses documenting the applicant’s review of these issues, nor has applicant proposed any measures or controls to address these matters. Boeing opposes this land use permit unless a formal agreement is signed between the two parties that is consistent with and does not infringe on Boeing’s continued exercise of its rights under the easement. Please contact the undersigned with any questions. Sincerely, The Boeing Company By: Mark Clement, Permit Specialist 425-229-4279 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February,2024 Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morganroth,and Vanessa Dolbee: Iam writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns atan upcoming council meetingand wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded thatthis development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Wayand Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on SWilliams Avenue near the Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account forthe number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3 St,N4th St.and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’oftraffic/parkingwill be especially burdensome forthese residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South (3d Street)or North (4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoningalong N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.A one packing space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need packingfrom the proposed development.As mentioned above,having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N3rd Street,or N4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restau rants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrictions)to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent deveIopment’no action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.It is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority,is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N 3td and N4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •Afull disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment.Ibelieve there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,Iunderstand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopefulthat city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincer9ly,A Acoerned citi4n of the No)’fJl Rnton Neighborhood cVDrv\co/( Address / Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Alex Morganroth Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2024 2:34 PM To: Michelle Ferris Subject: RE: Logan 6 Development Hi Michelle - Thank you for your comments. Please note that this response is only on my behalf – you may receive other responses from council and/or the Mayor. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider them as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams, phone call, or in person. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Michelle Ferris <michelleferris@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 7:53 PM To: Mayor Renton <mayor@rentonwa.gov>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Vdolbee@rentonwa.gov; Carmen Rivera <CRivera@rentonwa.gov>; James Alberson Jr. <JAlberson@rentonwa.gov>; Ryan McIrvin <RMcIrvin@Rentonwa.gov>; Valerie O'Halloran <VOHalloran@Rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez <RPerez@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed Prince <EPrince@Rentonwa.gov>; Kim-Khánh Văn <KVan@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Michelle Ferris <michelleferris@comcast.net>; North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com> Subject: Logan 6 Development Good Evening, Please see the attached letter as an official opposition to the Logan 6 Development in the North Renton Neighborhood. Michelle Ferris North Renton resident CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February 13, 2024 City of Renton Re: Logn 6 Development Dear Mayor Pavone, City Council Members, Alex Morganroth, and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at the next council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. There are three potential developments in downtown Renton that will adversely affect the North Renton Neighborhood: Logan 6 (100 units), Airport Way and Logan Ave (multi-unit), S Williams Avenue (multi-unit). The current infrastructure cannot absorb the additional residents, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. I share the following concerns & make the following recommendations with my neighbors: ▪ The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. 100 spaces are not adequate for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. ▪ We are requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. This is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. ▪ We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. ▪ We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. ▪ We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton Neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by. ▪ The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. ▪ A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. ▪ Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. We believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at the current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short-term impacts be considered. ▪ Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the details of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. We have been residents of this neighborhood for 17 years and have seen increased problems from all of the housing and retail developments over the years. It is not to say that progress should be halted. We are relying on the City of Renton to listen to our concerns and those expressed by neighbors in the North Renton Neighborhood. We ask that the city council listen to our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Michelle Ferris Concerned resident of the North Renton Neighborhood 921 N 1st Street, Renton, WA Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 Alex: This e-mail is in response to a meeting we had the week of April 5th. Thank you for asking for feedback on the applicant’s SEPA document submittal. As you will see from the length of the document this is taking some time to prepare, and I’m sending about 2/3s of the feedback now, and plan to send the rest this week. In this message you’ll see two items from the meeting and at last one new item. The two items are: 1) additional signage on proposed development property, and 2) feedback on developer’s SEPA document. The new item has to do with the on-hold letter with a very specific concern about this. This communication covers item 1 and most of item 2. When the rest of item 2 is sent there will be some comments about an on-hold letter sent to the developer on September 8. For easier reading, comments in italics are specific to answers in the applicant’s SEPA document. See below about less than acceptable answers, which seem would require the applicant to revise and resubmit answers, if not the entire SEPA document. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE Additional Signage: at the meeting I understood the intent to add another sign on the property at N Logan Avenue between N 3rd Street and N 4th Street. Based on the traffic pattern (one way streets on both 3rd and 4th Streets), could the additional sign be placed on the N 4th Street of the property? SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST In the State WAC (197-11-960) the applicant is required to answer questions ‘accurately and carefully…’ and the use of ‘not applicable’ or ‘does not apply’ can be used only if there is an explanation or why the answer is unknown. The above being said, the applicant’s answers in the SEPA Environmental Checklist is inadequate. The document has the ‘feel’ of a hastily put together document, either filled out at the last minute, or answered with little forethought or answered with little effort made. There are questions unanswered, incomplete answers, errors in responses, etc. I believe the city is within its authority to reject applications if documents are not complete, or inaccurate, such as with the SEPA Environmental Checklist. A. BACKGROUND 11) Give brief, complete description of proposal… In the answer the applicant states “Apartments are slated to be 60% standard and 40% senior accommodations (2/28/2022). However, a document from the applicant in conjunction with an electronic neighborhood meeting as part of public notice requirements the applicant states “25% of the units will be allocated for senior housing”. And now, from what was mentioned at the meeting, 0% of the units are allocated or senior housing. How can the description in the SEPA Environmental Checklist show that nearly ½ of the proposed units are for seniors, and then somehow things change to 0%? Shouldn’t the applicant have to revise the answer, or provide an explanation, either of which should be ‘accurate and careful’? B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 1 a), 1 b), 1 c) no answer for these questions. Doesn’t the applicant have to provide an answer, even if it is “no” or “n/a”? If n/a, the applicant is required to explain why “n/a” 1 d) Are the surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? The answer includes, in part, “… stable to depths greater than 20’” What if the depth is greater than 20 feet? Wouldn’t the parking, presumably two levels, go deeper than twenty feet? 1 e) Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximately quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. How does the removal of fill affect water run off? The property, currently vacant, has some higher spots and lower spots, with vegetation throughout. Presumably, the ground absorbs a significant amount of water when it rains, or possibly groundwater from the adjacent properties to the east. How would water flow to the east from the proposed development? What about groundwater from adjacent areas, presumably impeded by the depth of the parking structure at the bottom of the property? 1 g) About what percent of the site will be covered by impervious surface? Answer provided is 62.68%; however, this can’t be right. To say the remaining 37.32% is no impervious surface is an overstatement. Surely the site is mostly paved with entrances or exits, areas for garbage bins, and emergency access, etc. Shouldn’t the applicant have to provide an accurate answer? 2) Earth a) What type of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during constructions, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? Answer is provided about the construction phase. What about the operation and maintenance? The answer is not complete, and if “n/a” is the answer, then the applicant needs to explain why the answer is “n/a” per the instructions. b) Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Answer given is “None known.” This is a poor answer, with little to no thought given. However, as Logan Avenue is a main North/South road, It seems obvious vehicle emissions will affect the property. In addition, the proximity of the property to the Renton Municipal airport would have an impact from airplane exhaust during takeoffs and landings. Also, the Boeing plant nearby does noise testing, revving up airplane engines, and this produces exhaust. It seems this answer is incomplete, and should revised. c) Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Answer refers to construction—what about emissions during operation and Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 maintenance? Presumably there are air intakes/vents, etc, and any mechanical, heating, cooling or other systems would result in emissions. 3) Water a) Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands). If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. It may be there is vegetation that indicates surface water—such as moss and plants that grow in water-saturated soil. This is because of the undulation of the ground on the property. It is difficult to describe the way the property varies in height, which is due in part to the length of the location from North to South. A visual inspection of the property provides insight. On the edges are the points, even with the sidewalks to the west and east. Approximately 10 feet from these edges the land elevates about 2 feet. More importantly, there are two high areas, akin to swales, on the south and along the east side of the property. These swales or embankments are 10-20 feet wide and run close to the entire southern boundary of the property, and most of the east side of the property. Both swales are about 7-10 feet above the sidewalk level. These swales move water in certain directions, and at the ends or along the edges where there are lower points water collects. It is unclear what impact the flow of water has on the vegetation, and a closer inspection may be necessary to assess if there are areas that could be considered as wetlands due to the pooling of water in lower areas on the property. Again, the odd-shape of the property—a long rectangle—and the three levels of the land --may result in areas that are considered surface water or wetland. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. See comments for item 1) above 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. See comments for item 1) above 4) Would the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. See comments for item 1) above 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? Answer is “No.” Is this correct? The location is near the Cedar River from both the South side of the property and the west side of the property. The applicant states the river is 450 feet to the south. It is possible the river is similarly close to the west. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. See comments for item 1) above Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 c) Water runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? Is so, describe. No answer provided. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe See comments under “a. Surface Water 1)” above. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe See comments under “a. Surface Water 1)” above. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, in any. See comments under “a. Surface Water 1)” above. 4) Plants See comments under “a. Surface Water 1)” above. 5) Animals See comments under “a. Surface Water 1)” above. 6) Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the competing project’s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No answer given. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe No answer given. Considering the height of the proposed structure, it is likely the building will “shade” light later in the day, essentially advancing “sundown” by some amount of time such as an hour, two hours, etc. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. No answer given. 7) Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. No answer given. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. No answer given. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. Answer is “None necessary”. However, without answering questions 1 and 2 it would seem Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 premature to make such a definitive statement. b. Noise 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Answer does not indicate what hours vehicular access and parking would create noise. Also, wouldn’t services like garbage, recycle, yard waste vehicles, and site maintenance cause noise? Leaf blowers, etc. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. See comments directly above. 8) Land and Shoreline Use a) What is the current use of the site an adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? Answer refers to the site being vacant; however, there is as major utility pipeline or pipelines that serve/s the Boeing plant running along the property. The applicant’s answer underemphasizes the impact to the residential neighborhood to the North, South, and East which would be impacted by the sheer mass and size of the proposed development and the traffic access into, through, and alongside the property. h) Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. No answer given. Presumably the answer is “no” but the applicant did not state this. i) Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? No answer given. j) Approximately how many people would the competed project displace? No answer given. Apparently the answer is “no” but the applicant did not state this. Also, is it true the developer has purchased a home that is adjacent to the property? If so, couldn’t one argue the project will displace however many people live in the adjacent property? k) Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: No answer given. L) Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: No answer given. This is a critical issue, considering the impacts to the residential neighborhood by the size and mass of the proposed structure, traffic impacts, etc. n) Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term significance, if any. No answer given. Presumably the answer is “no” but the applicant did not state this. 9) Housing a) Approximately how many units would be provided, in any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. No answer given. How can the applicant ignore this question? How can this city accept Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 this document with such an obvious omission? As this is a proposed apartment/condo development, why doesn’t the applicant answer this fundamental question? It seems this document should be returned and an answer be required. Also, the applicant at first indicated the proposal would have 40% senior housing. During a ‘public’ meeting the amount was revised downward to 25%. And now the amount of senior housing is 0%. It seems the developer should have to explain how a development that was to be nearly half senior housing is now no senior housing at all. 11) Light and Glare c) What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Answer says “None”. However, across the street there is a football stadium with open end facing towards the development and a large stadium parking lot across the street. It is hard to imagine there are not light impact from the stadium when in use AND also from the large parking lot across the street from night lighting. There are also street lights on Logan Avenue which is a major thoroughfare so there are bright street lights along Logan Avenue. 12) Recreation a) What designated and information recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Answer mentions several parks. Does not mention Cedar River Trail (a riverwalk), Jones Park, or the Renton Senior Activity Center, which is literally across the street from the property. The reduction in senior units is particularly troubling due to the very close proximity the property has to the Renton Senior Center, which has many activities, including outdoor exercise equipment. This is related to a question “shouldn’t the applicant have to explain why the proposal was presented as 40% senior housing, then lowered to 25% senior housing, and now is no senior housing? Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Matt Hanbey To:Alex Morganroth Cc:Diane Dobson; Nathan Janders Subject:N Logan Apartment (N Williams Ave Intersections) Date:Wednesday, September 28, 2022 3:15:43 PM Alex: Thanks again for taking the time to meet with me today. I will send more content in a follow- up e-mail after I review the development plans and the notes I took from our meeting today. I brought up something that I believe you and the transportation/traffic/roads person at City ofRenton might need to double check: -- does whatever traffic analysis (TIA?) the developer provides include impacts for North Williams Avenue? There are controlled traffic lights at N Williams Avenue at both N 3rd St and N 4th St. I meanthese are intersections and should be subject intersections for a traffic analysis. I see the City sent a letter to the developer dated Sept 2 that included what intersections should be in the TIA; however, N Williams Avenue at the above listed intersections were NOTincluded in the letter to the developer. I hope you can assure me this road and these intersections will be part of the TIA. If these intersections aren't to be included then I would like to know why. Again, thank you for taking time to discuss this project. I have to admit I am stilluncomfortable with it but I am comfortable that the city is doing its diligence in reviewing development that fits the allowed use, size, impacts, etc. Matt Hanbey801 N 2nd St Renton, WA 98057 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Matt Hanbey To:Alex Morganroth Cc:Tracy Lynn; Rose Bartlett; Tiffany Pershall; pmichael michaels Subject:Renton City Center Plan-- residential areas Date:Sunday, July 2, 2023 1:38:39 PM Attachments:City Center-- Residential Components.docx HI, Alex: When we met about the proposed Logan 6 development, there was discussion aboutapplicability of the Renton City Center Plan. I looked through the plan, and collected references to the neighborhoods to the north and south. See attached reference Maps and specific mention of "Single Family ResidentialNeighborhoods'. The plan calls out these areas -- one of the city center plan goals is to "protect ... the neighborhoods in the City Center"-- The first (1.1.1) goal of the plan includes, in part, "Particular attention should be given to design standards ... for transition areas between zones"-- The goal is related to Goal 4.3 "Ensure measures (such as set-backs, buffers, landscape screening, and height restrictions" to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacentdevelopment. While this makes things more complicated, I hope it does clear up that the City Center plan does apply not just to the core retail and high-density housing downtown, but also to theneighborhoods to the north and south of downtown. Matt Hanbey Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 August 24, 2022 Ms. Morganroth: I am writing with comments and concern about the N Logan Apartments proposal being considered by the city. I can tell you I am not a proponent of the idea as it has been presented by the developer. You’ll see some numbering below that is a visual for much of what the comments are about: 1) Traffic Impact to North Williams Avenue: I am concerned the residents of the N Logan Ave Apts will add addition traffic on N Williams Ave between N 3rd Street down to N 1st Street (and beyond). Currently the road is two lanes, one way, and drivers drive in a manner that already does not fit this residential street. Additional cars will only make the issue of drivers driving too quickly down N Williams Ave worse, including stopping at the very last minute with a rapid deceleration at the stop signs at 1st Street North and N Williams Ave. The impacts carry on past this intersection down N Williams Ave and onto N 1st Street (mostly eastbound N 1st St). Traffic also turns onto N 1st and this is another traffic concern as drivers also drive too quickly eastbound on N 1st after turning from N Williams (see related concern below—item 2) already. I have a few ideas about N Williams Ave and how to slow down or calm the traffic. I can share these ideas if you like and am happy to do so. 2 3 1 My house Apt Bldg (Proposed) Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 2) Traffic impact to N 1st and N Burnett Avenue. I am concerned the residents of the N Logan Ave Apartments will add traffic to N Burnett Avenue from N 3rd Street down to N 1st Street. Currently this street has a dog leg as N Burnett turns into N 1st Street alongside the Renton Senior Center. Currently cars drive very quickly and accelerate as they take the angle turn onto N 1st. This also occurs in the opposite direction as cars turn from N 1st Street and angle turn on to N Burnett Ave, although northbound traffic here has to deal with cars parked along N Burnett on the east side of the street and I believe this slows the vehicles more as compared to southbound vehicles. This traffic pattern also affects the intersection at N 1st Street and N Williams Ave as vehicles quickly decelerate at the intersection, which again seems to go against the concept of a residential street. Vehicles travelling on N 1st from N Williams Ave to N Wells Ave is also a concern, as drivers coming from N Burnett and from N Williams often drive in excess of the speed limit. 3) Traffic concerns on N 3rd Street, from N Logan Avenue to N Burnett Avenue: I am concerned about the traffic flows here. Currently there are many cars that turn onto N 3rd Street from Logan Avenue, northbound traffic that is using N 3rd to travel eastbound. Traffic is also driving onto N 3rd Street as southbound N Logan Ave traffic head eastbound on N 3rd. This is a tricky combination of cars. There are some candlesticks set up to avoid collisions from these two traffic patterns. Any vehicle from the N Logan Ave Apts, entering or exiting the building on N 3rd, will complicate the traffic flow. This would seem to be worse for cars exiting the apt building on N 3rd as they would add to traffic. This is especially true if they are trying to change lanes to access N Burnett Ave or N Williams in order to travel south. My suggestion is to extend the candlestick to N Burnett Ave to prevent lane changes until after N Burnett Avenue. There are similar issues for N 4th Street but I am limiting comments to those that affect my area. Also, I am sorry to complain a little more here but the Public Notice Board at the property was, in my opinion, poorly placed. The city board was put on N Logan Ave, which is a very busy street. Only a careless driver would try to read the sign and the only way for most people to even notice the board is if one is stopped in backed-up traffic at a red light at N 4th St and at N 3rd St. In my opinion, it would have helped greatly to have placed signs at N 4th Street and at N 3rd Street, in other words at the North and South boundaries of the property where more people would have noticed a public notice had even occurred. I had to park in the Renton Stadium parking lot, and traverse the crosswalks and lights. In summary, I was shocked when I learned the details of this development. To put 100 units on such an awkward-sized lot (a narrow rectangle), with apparently no cars accessing or leaving the building on N Logan Avenue, and instead vehicles in the building using tricky and difficult entrance and exit points on N 3rd St and N 4th St, with I believe less than 100 parking spaces for 100 units, questionable claims of retail on the ground floor and a mystery as to where customers would park… I am not quite at the point of opposing this project but clearly there are serious concerns. I can only wonder if the project can be reduced in some manner as to me it doesn’t fit the property or the surrounding neighborhood. I appreciate your work, and the process the city is following. I wish I had more positive things to say. Thanks for your time and attention to these comments— Matt Hanbey 801 N 2nd Street Renton, WA 98057 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 i February,2024 1 FEB 19 2q24 I Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morganroth,and Vanessa Dolbee:O F: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development.- I plan on attending an upcoming council meeting.I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing our concerns since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St,N 4th St,and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South (3td Street)or North (4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need parking from the proposed development.As mentioned above,having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N 3rd Street,or N 4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restaurants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “orotect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrictions)to protect edges ofsingle-family areasfrom adjacent development”,no action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.It is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority,is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment.I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood AuaAOD Name (printed) Av . Address EL TLf) Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February 2024 (FEB 19 -Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morganroth,and Vanessa Dolbee:( I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development.—-•- I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be heating from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during CCVI D in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded thatthis development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards ofthis proposed development (AirportWay and Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood cannot be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size ofa project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3 St N 4th St,and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’oftraffic/parkingwill be especially burdensome forthese residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South f3 Street)or North (4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need parking from the proposed development.As mentioned above,havv,g one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N 3d Street,or N 4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restaurants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrIctions)to protect edges of single-family areasfrom adjacent deuelopment’action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.It is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided a a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority,is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impactof Sartori School redevelopment.I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to presentthe details of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopefulthat city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city coundl will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood Name (printed) Address Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 12:47 PM To: Alex Morganroth Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com Subject: NRNA meeting 10/18 Hi Alex, It was good hearing from you last evening at the Senior Center. I was there as well as at the Zoom meeting some time ago about the Logan project. At both meetings the topic was the traffic issue that a 100-unit apartment complex would create in our small, confined neighborhood. At neither meeting did I hear from the city any kind of remediation plan. (there was an admonishment that our complaints were a little late in the game - despite the issue being presented at the Zoom meeting over a year ago.) There has been no mention of fixing the issues created in this neighborhood by making Logan only one lane northbound many year ago that bottlenecked that stretch. It was exacerbated when a bus stop was installed at the pinch point of Logan and 6th without a pullout for buses, then yet again by letting Top Golf put their entrance/exit on Logan instead of the completely empty, four-lane 8th Street. Now you want to build 100-unit apartment building on that same stretch of road that will force more cars into the residential streets. These streets were altered years ago to keep Boeing traffic out of the neighborhood, with no left turn onto 6th, two hour parking without permit, and one-way streets. In this way the neighborhood was designed to keep excess traffic out. My suggestions are as follows. First fix the existing issues on Logan by: · widening to two lanes northbound · make a pullout for the bus stop at Logan and 6th and Logan and 10th · change the entrance to Top Golf to 8th St which has four lanes, no residences, and no facing businesses. Regarding the Logan St 100-unit apartment, mixed use project, despite the area being zoned for ridiculously huge buildings, it isn't compatible with the neighborhood and the size should be reconsidered. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Also, if rules can't be changed, refer back to the agreement with the city and North Renton that Diane Dobson quoted last evening. What you do now has a lasting effect on this neighborhood, and as you know from the above issues that have yet to be addressed, will probably not get corrected. Here is my recommendation regarding the Logan project: · restrict the developer to 25 units (still 2.5 times bigger than any apartment complex in the neighborhood) · require two parking spots per unit CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 · require traffic remediation as part of the project. This will alleviate the on-street parking issue by reducing the accommodated cars by 75% (but realistically by 150%) and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. I live on Wells N. My house is flanked by duplexes and there is a fourplex across the street as well as a 10-unit apartment building. There are two small apartment buildings just north of me as well as at least two other duplexes on my block. We are not NIMBYs here, but let's be honest and realistic, the neighborhood is not conducive to a behemoth like the Logan project, and we already have an agreement in place with the city to maintain the single-family and small unit multi-family housing in North Renton. We need you to work with us, not just provide lip service (refer back to the issues brought up at the initial Zoom meeting). Best regards, Maggie Howard 507 Wells Av N Renton, WA 98057 206 919 0318 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 12:40 PM To: Alex Morganroth Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com; Sherylfriesz@gmail.com Subject: Re: NRNA meeting 10/18 Attachments: City of Renton Resolution 2708.pdf Hi Alex, Sorry, I may have pushed "send" before it fully loaded. From: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 11:56 AM To: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com <hanbeym@gmail.com>; Sherylfriesz@gmail.com <Sherylfriesz@gmail.com> Subject: RE: NRNA meeting 10/18 Hi Maggie – are you able to try sending that attachment again? For some reason it’s not coming through. I can also check the city clerks office to see if they have a copy. With regards to the name “Logan Six”, this was the name given by the applicant. I believe it’s due to the building being six stories tall. Thank you, Alex ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 10:19 AM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com; Sherylfriesz@gmail.com Subject: Re: NRNA meeting 10/18 Hi Alex, I have had guests for the last week, so I apologize for the delay in responding. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 I was able to get a copy of the agreement (resolution 2708) between the city of Renton and North Renton neighborhood that I have included as an attachment. It appears this agreement has been ignored in regard to some past projects, but I'm hoping in regard to Logan 100 it will carry some sway in mitigating the size and scope of the project. By the way, why do you call the project Logan Six? If it was six units, we'd have no issue at all. Regards, Maggie Howard From: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:22 PM To: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com <hanbeym@gmail.com> Subject: RE: NRNA meeting 10/18 Hi Maggie – thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I apologize for the delay – still getting caught up after being at a conference the other week. I will make sure our engineering reviewer, Nate Janders (who attended the meeting with me), is aware of your suggestions related to traffic and access. With regards to your comments on the building itself, the applicants proposal meets the density, height, and bulk standards applicable in the zoning district (Urban Center zone). Therefore while restrictions you suggested related to parking and density (i.e. reducing the number of units they are allowed to propose) could impact future projects with a zoning code change, the Logan Six project is vested to current code (and the current standards) and therefore we cannot add restrictions to density or bulk (height, setbacks, etc) above and beyond what is allowed by code. However, we certainly can (and plan to) add conditions/mitigation related to things like aesthetics, traffic, etc. If you’d like to set up a phone call, Teams meeting, or in-person for next week, I’d be happy to discuss more. Thank you for your patience on my response and have a great weekend. -Alex ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 12:47 PM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: hanbeym@gmail.com Subject: NRNA meeting 10/18 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 Hi Alex, It was good hearing from you last evening at the Senior Center. I was there as well as at the Zoom meeting some time ago about the Logan project. At both meetings the topic was the traffic issue that a 100-unit apartment complex would create in our small, confined neighborhood. At neither meeting did I hear from the city any kind of remediation plan. (there was an admonishment that our complaints were a little late in the game - despite the issue being presented at the Zoom meeting over a year ago.) There has been no mention of fixing the issues created in this neighborhood by making Logan only one lane northbound many year ago that bottlenecked that stretch. It was exacerbated when a bus stop was installed at the pinch point of Logan and 6th without a pullout for buses, then yet again by letting Top Golf put their entrance/exit on Logan instead of the completely empty, four-lane 8th Street. Now you want to build 100-unit apartment building on that same stretch of road that will force more cars into the residential streets. These streets were altered years ago to keep Boeing traffic out of the neighborhood, with no left turn onto 6th, two hour parking without permit, and one-way streets. In this way the neighborhood was designed to keep excess traffic out. My suggestions are as follows. First fix the existing issues on Logan by: · widening to two lanes northbound · make a pullout for the bus stop at Logan and 6th and Logan and 10th · change the entrance to Top Golf to 8th St which has four lanes, no residences, and no facing businesses. Regarding the Logan St 100-unit apartment, mixed use project, despite the area being zoned for ridiculously huge buildings, it isn't compatible with the neighborhood and the size should be reconsidered. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Also, if rules can't be changed, refer back to the agreement with the city and North Renton that Diane Dobson quoted last evening. What you do now has a lasting effect on this neighborhood, and as you know from the above issues that have yet to be addressed, will probably not get corrected. Here is my recommendation regarding the Logan project: · restrict the developer to 25 units (still 2.5 times bigger than any apartment complex in the neighborhood) · require two parking spots per unit · require traffic remediation as part of the project. This will alleviate the on-street parking issue by reducing the accommodated cars by 75% (but realistically by 150%) and be compatible with the existing neighborhood. I live on Wells N. My house is flanked by duplexes and there is a fourplex across the street as well as a 10-unit apartment building. There are two small apartment buildings just north of me as well as at least two other duplexes on my block. We are not NIMBYs here, but let's be honest and realistic, the neighborhood is not conducive to a behemoth like the Logan project, and we already have an agreement in place with the city to maintain the single-family and small unit Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 multi-family housing in North Renton. We need you to work with us, not just provide lip service (refer back to the issues brought up at the initial Zoom meeting). Best regards, Maggie Howard 507 Wells Av N Renton, WA 98057 206 919 0318 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Alex Morganroth Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 5:33 PM To: Maggie Howard Subject: RE: Logan 6 development Hi Maggie – Thank you for the comments. Please note that my response is only on behalf of me – you may receive other responses from council and the Mayor. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider your recommendations as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams, phone call, or in person. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Maggie Howard <maggie.howard38@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 11:07 AM To: Mayor Renton <mayor@rentonwa.gov>; Carmen Rivera <CRivera@rentonwa.gov>; James Alberson Jr. <JAlberson@rentonwa.gov>; Ryan McIrvin <RMcIrvin@Rentonwa.gov>; Valerie O'Halloran <VOHalloran@Rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez <RPerez@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed Prince <EPrince@Rentonwa.gov>; Kim-Khánh Văn <KVan@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Logan 6 development February 13, 2024 Dear Mayor Pavone, City Council Members, Alex Morganroth, and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations: · The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. · Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. · We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 · We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. Please note that although there are many multifamily units in the North Renton neighborhood the Logan 6 project is more than 600% larger than the next largest multifamily building. · We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. · We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by. · The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. · A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. · Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short- term impacts be considered. · Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Maggie Howard 507 Wells Ave N. Renton WA 98057 Maggie.howard38@outlook.com Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February 13, 2024 Dear Mayor Pavone, City Council Members, Alex Morganroth, and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations:  The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse.  Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property.  We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services.  We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. Please note that although there are many multifamily units in the North Renton neighborhood the Logan 6 project is more than 600% larger than the next largest multifamily building.  We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process.  We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by.  The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time.  A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above.  Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short-term impacts be considered.  Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Maggie Howard 507 Wells Ave N. Renton WA 98057 Maggie.howard38@outlook.com Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Alex Morganroth To:Cathy Matthew Subject:RE: Logan 6 Development Date:Thursday, February 15, 2024 5:07:00 PM Attachments:image001.jpg Hi Cathy - Thank you for your comments. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider them as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams (virtual), phone call, or in person. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Cathy Matthew <firebell@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:45 AM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Fw: Logan 6 Development Cc: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com> Subject: Logan 6 Development From: Cathy Matthew <firebell@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 10:17 AM To: Cathy Matthew <firebell@msn.com> Subject: Logan 6 Development NO Congestion, lack of road improvements, and a grocery store in this area are a huge concern. As stated below growth in this city is out of control. The complex's underconstruction, as in the highlands on sunset, is going to be a disaster traffic wise, and supportive Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 access to shopping. Logan 6 should not be allowed,single family housing would be acceptable. IMG_0701.jpg Cathy Matthew North Renton Neighborhood now and in my youth. Sent from my iPhone Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Michael McIntosh / Real Estate Broker / Trusted Advisor –––––––– WINDERMERE REAL ESTATE / CENTRAL 206-459-8730 michaelm@windermere.com From:Michael McIntosh To:Alex Morganroth Cc:Michael McIntosh Subject:Opposition to Logan 6 Date:Monday, January 29, 2024 3:08:04 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.png Hi Alex – I am sending you this email to show my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. As a real estate broker I know that we are missing middle housing and that people do need a place to live. All that being said, opening up the historic North Renton neighborhood to a huge project would be a major mistake for several reasons. First and foremost, we need to preserve the single family housing we have, we need to protect this unique neighborhood from becoming a bunch of large boxes. We also need to make sure that we are not opening the door for more huge boxes. Secondarily as you know very well, Renton is a pinch point with very little access north as we hit Lake Washington and only have very few streets than then feed into 405, one of only tow roads that go north from Renton. Traffic is already so bad and adding this will make it so much worse! We also know that there is not enough parking for this buiding at just 100 spots for 100 units. Its going to make parking so very challenging for the current resident and their guests. In closing, I am available to speak if you are interested. I strongly suggest you reject this proposal for the future of Renton and its residents. Thank you – Michael Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: North Renton Neighborhood Association <north.renton@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:46 PM To: Mayor Renton; Alex Morganroth; Vanessa Dolbee; Carmen Rivera; James Alberson Jr.; Ryan McIrvin; Valerie O'Halloran; Ed Prince; Kim-Khánh Văn Subject: Opposition to Logan 6 Development Dear Mayor Pavone, City Council Members, Alex Morganroth, and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing as a Resident of North Renton Neighborhood and as the President of the North Renton Neighborhood Association. I want to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. And I also want to do so on behalf of many North Renton Residents. Our largest NRNA meeting was in October when Alex and others came to present and listen to our concerns - of which there were many. I will be attending and voicing my concerns at the upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns, which we've been voicing since the first public meeting on this proposed development (that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022). Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations: · · · The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking · in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom · units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting · to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. · CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 · · · Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd · St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden · for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. · As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd · Street) or North (4th · Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, · and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. · · · · We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. · A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. · Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As · mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd · Street, or N 4th · Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. · · · · We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan · (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and · enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single- family areas from adjacent development”, · no Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 · action has been taken. · · · · We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. · This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is · occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. · · · · We’d like to understand why the · City of Renton Resolution 2708, · relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, · with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, · is not being abided by. · · · · The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd · and N 4th · seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed · by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood · (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. · · · · A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, · along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. · Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 · · · · · Conduct retrospectives: · It was evident at our October North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to · be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short- term impacts be considered. (We requested that Alex and team start perusing Renton · Responds and read the complaints on parking, traffic, accidents, ....). · · · · Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, · we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. · In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. (As of today, we heard this may not be the case and want to understand what has changed.) We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, Sheryl Friesz NRNA President North Renton Resident: 326 Wells Avenue North Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 May 22, 2023 Andrew Kovach 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice PR22-000229 Logan Six, LUA22-000283, ECF, SA-H Dear Mr. Kovach, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 11, 2022. During review of the submitted project documents, staff determined that multiple issues related to need to be addressed in order to proceed further with the review. Staff has received your updated documents and will proceed with review of the project. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Monday, June 26th, 2023. The Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 18th, 2023 at 11:00am. At this time, your project has been placed “off hold”. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alex Morganroth Senior Planner cc: 302 Magnolia Apartments (Owner) Matt Hanbey (Party of Record) Duwamish Tribe (Party of Record) Kelli Sheldon, Department of Ecology (Party of Record) Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February 7, 2024 Andrew Kovach 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 SUBJECT: "Off Hold" Notice PR22-000229 Logan Six, LUA22-000283, ECF, SA-H Dear Mr. Kovach, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 11, 2022. During review of the submitted project documents, staff determined that additional information was needed in order to proceed further with the review. The project was placed on-hold on September 8th, 2022, and has remained on-hold since that date. Staff has received your updated documents and will proceed with review of the project. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) meeting has been tentatively scheduled for Monday, March 4, 2024. The Hearing Examiner Public Hearing (virtual) has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, March 26th, 2023 at 11:00am. At this time, your project has been placed “off hold”. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alex Morganroth Senior Planner cc: 302 Magnolia Apartments (Owner) Parties of Record Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 September 8, 2022 Andrew Kovach 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice PR22-000229 Logan Six, LUA22-000283, ECF, SA-H Dear Mr. Kovach, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 11, 2022. During review of the submitted project documents, staff has determined that multiple issues related to need to be addressed in order to proceed further with the review. Please see the attached memorandum prepared by Nathan Janders, Development Engineer, and dated September 2, 2022 for a description of items needing to be addressed before review may continue. In addition to the issues noted in the memo, the applicant shall address the following items: - Per RMC 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table - ‘Live-work’ units are not a permitted use in the UC zone. - Per RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations, Structured Parking Garages – Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building frontage width. - Minimum setback along N 4th St is 15 feet and maximum is 20 feet. At this time, your project has been placed “on hold” pending receipt of the updated project documents identified above and in the attached memo. The maximum time for resubmittal shall be within ninety (90) days of this notice, unless an extension is approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alex Morganroth Senior Planner cc: 302 Magnolia Apartments (Owner) Matt Hanbey (Party of Record) Duwamish Tribe (Party of Record) Kelli Sheldon, Department of Ecology (Party of Record) Attachment: Memorandum prepared by Nathan Janders and dated September 2, 2022 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: September 2, 2022 TO: Alex Morganroth, Senior Planner FROM: Nathan Janders, Development Engineer SUBJECT: Logan 6 340 Logan Ave N LUA22-000283 I have reviewed the application for the Logan 6 project located at 340 Logan Ave N and have the following comments: The following comments represent additional information or corrections that are required to be made: 1. The water system is insufficient as shown and does not provide sufficient information to determine feasibility of the proposal as follows: a. Projects that have a fire flow in excess of 2,500 GPM require a looped water main around the buildings. Public water mains on private property require a 15-foot public easement centered over the pipe and the building must be set back 10 feet from the water main. b. Based on the project information submitted, Renton Regional Fire Authority has determined that the fire flow to be 3,750 GPM. c. Installation of a fire sprinkler stub a with a detector double check valve assembly (DDCVA) is required for backflow prevention to the building. The sizing of the fire sprinkler stub and related piping shall be done by a registered fire sprinkler designer/contractor. The DDCVA shall be installed on the private property in an outside underground vault per City Standard Plan 360.2. The DDCVA may be installed inside the building if it meets the conditions per City Standard Plan 360.5 for the installation of a DDCVA inside a building. The location of the DDCVA inside the building must be pre-approved by the City Plan Reviewer and Water Utility. d. Installation of off-site and on-site fire hydrants. The location and number of hydrants will be determined by the RRFA based on the final fire flow demand and final site plan. A hydrant is required within 50 feet of the building’s fire sprinkler system fire department connection (FDC). A minimum of four fire hydrants are required for the building. One within 150-feet and three within 300-feet of each of the proposed building. There are some existing hydrants within 300- feet of the proposed building that may count towards the requirement provided they meet current codes. Fire hydrants must meet maximum spacing of 300 feet on center. e. All residential domestic water meters shall have a double check valve assembly (DCVA) installed behind the meter on private property if the building has 3 stories or more. f. All commercial water meters shall have a reduced pressure backflow assembly (RPBA) installed behind the meter on private property. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 g. At a minimum the following water main improvements must be provided and shown. Note, additional improvements may be required based on final configuration. i. Show proposed and existing location of fire hydrants. ii. A water main extension is required to loop the water system around the building. The existing water mains in Logan Ave N and N 4th St. are acceptable for creating a loop, however, the existing 6-inch water main in Burnett St. N is undersized and cannot support the flow. Therefore, to create a looped water main, the applicant shall extend a 12-inch water main from Logan Ave N to the existing 12-inch water main in N 4th St. by means of an extension east through N 3rd St turning north in Burnett St. N. iii. It is not clear where the DDCVA will be located, interior or exterior. If the DDCVA is to be inside, add a note on the civil plan indicating such and update the architectural plans to conceptually indicate where the fire riser room will be located. If the DDCVA is to be outside, show the proposed location of the vault/FDC. iv. Backflow prevention is required on both the domestic (DCVA) and commercial (RPBA) water meters. Backflow prevention assemblies are required to be on private property. Indicate where the backflow devices are proposed, interior or exterior. If the backflow device(s) are to be inside, add a note on the civil plan indicating such and update the architectural plans to conceptually indicate where they will be positioned. If the backflow device(s) are to be outside, show the proposed location ensuring that it is on private property. 2. A sewer stub for the commercial and residential portions of the building is required. Sewer stubs shall comply with COR std. plan 406.1 and RMC 4-6-040. a. The proposed plan depicts an 8-inch sewer main entering the building. This portion of the sewer main shall be replaced with sewer stubs connected directly to the main extension within N 4th St. 3. An Oil/Water Separator (OWS) is required to connect the covered parking lot to sewer. A pump may be needed to bring the basement garage flows to the surface level for gravity drainage. a. Show and/or indicate the proposed location of the OWS and pump (if needed). 4. A transportation scoping memo was provided in lieu of a TIA. Applicant shall provide a TIA and make the following considerations: a. TIA should be based on the current ITE manual, 11th edition. The scoping memo references the 10th edition. b. TIA should include the following subject intersections: i. Logan Ave N / N 4th St. ii. Logan Ave N / N 3rd St. iii. Logan Ave N / N 6th St. iv. Logan Ave N / N 8th St. v. Burnett Ave N / N 3rd St. vi. Burnett Ave N / N 4th St. vii. Park Ave N / N 4th St. viii. Park Ave N / N 3rd St. ix. Park Ave N / N 6th St. x. Park Ave N / N 8th St. c. TIA should include the following pipeline projects i. Topgolf Phase II – LUA22-000291 ii. Southport West – LUA22-000284 d. TIA traffic distribution should be adjusted such that the trips leaving the project headed north are split evenly between Park Ave N and Logan Ave N. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 5. A street modification is required for each street that is not conforming to City Standards. The proposal shows all streets as being sub-standard and a modification is required. Listed below are the recommended modifications. a. Logan Ave N is classified as a Principal Arterial street with an existing right-of-way (ROW) width of approximately 100 feet. To meet the City’s complete street standards for Principal Arterial streets with 5 lanes a minimum ROW width of 103 feet is required. Per RMC 4-6-060 half of street improvements as taken from the ROW centerline shall be required and include a minimum 66 foot paved road (33 feet each side), a 0.5 foot curb, an 8 foot planting strip, an 8 foot sidewalk, 2 foot clear space at back of walk and storm drainage improvements. Dedication of approximately 1.5 feet will be required pending final survey. i. The City is in support of a modified section that includes retention of the existing improvements provided 1.5 feet of dedication is provided. 1. The applicant shall submit a street modification for the recommended section and update the plans as appropriate. b. N 3rd St classified as a Principal Arterial street with an existing right-of-way (ROW) width of approximately 110 feet. To meet the City’s complete street standards for Principal Arterial streets with 4 lanes a minimum ROW width of 91 feet is required. Per RMC 4-6-060 half of street improvements as taken from the ROW centerline shall be required and include a minimum 54 foot paved road (27 feet each side), a 0.5 foot curb, an 8 foot planting strip, an 8 foot sidewalk, 2 foot clear space at back of walk and storm drainage improvements. The parcel is not parallel to the roadway centerline and thus a minimum dedication to install improvements as determined by final survey will be required. i. The City is in support of a modified section that includes retention of the existing curb- curb width with a 0.5 foot curb, 8 foot planting strip, 8 foot sidewalk and 2 foot clear space are required. Dedication as needed for the listed improvements will be required. 1. The applicant shall submit a street modification for the recommended section and update the plans as appropriate. c. N 4th St classified as a Principal Arterial street with an existing right-of-way (ROW) width of approximately 42 feet. To meet the City’s complete street standards for Principal Arterial streets with 4 lanes a minimum ROW width of 91 feet is required. Per RMC 4-6-060 half of street improvements as taken from the ROW centerline shall be required and include a minimum 54 foot paved road (27 feet each side), a 0.5 foot curb, an 8 foot planting strip, an 8 foot sidewalk, 2 foot clear space at back of walk and storm drainage improvements. The parcel is not parallel to the roadway centerline and thus dedication of approximately 24.5-28.5 feet will be required pending final survey. i. The City is in support of a modified section that includes retention of the existing curb- curb width, however a 0.5 foot curb, 8 foot planting strip, 8 foot sidewalk and 2 foot clear space are required. Dedication as needed for the listed improvements will be required. 1. The applicant shall submit a street modification for the recommended section and update the plans as appropriate. 6. In April of 2022 a new surface water design manual was adopted. The TIR included with the submittal has been prepared for compliance with the 2017 surface water design manual. a. The applicant shall update the TIR such that it is compliant with the 2022 surface water design manual. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 September 13, 2023 Andrew Kovach 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 SUBJECT: "On Hold" Notice PR22-000229 Logan Six, LUA22-000283, ECF, SA-H Dear Mr. Kovach, The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on August 11, 2022. During review of the submitted project documents, staff has determined that additional info is need in order to proceed with the review. The applicant shall address the following items: - Update all civil plans to include proposed adjacent surface parking lot. - Submit street modification requests for Logan Ave N, N 3rd St, and N 4th St. - Traffic Impact Analysis needs to include the offsite parking area in the turning movement charts and LOS analysis. At this time, your project has been placed “on hold” pending receipt of the updated project documents identified above and in the attached memo. The maximum time for resubmittal shall be within ninety (90) days of this notice, unless an extension is approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alex Morganroth Senior Planner cc: 302 Magnolia Apartments (Owner) Parties of Record Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Tiffany Pershall To:Alex Morganroth Cc:Diane Dobson; Matt Hanbey; P. Michael Lobalzo; Rosemarie Bartlett; Tracy Lynn Subject:Re: Meeting today (proposed logan development) Date:Monday, July 10, 2023 6:46:47 PM Hi Alex, I live on 316 Burnett Ave N, Renton, WA 98057 and I had an additional question that I didn’tsee addressed in the drawings/documents, but maybe I missed it. Where will the trash enclosure be located? There are several apartment buildings in the area where the dumpsters are located directly on the street, with no enclosure and trash ends up onthe street and smelling pretty badly throughout the week. Given that we’re directly behind the apartment building, I would propose this is something that is considered for the neighbors inthe area. Please let me know your thoughts or if you have any questions! Best, Tiffany Bentley On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 3:02 PM Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hi Rose – It was great speaking with you last week. Getting input on projects from neighbors that liveor work nearby is always extremely valuable to our reviews. I will add your comments to the file and we will certainly be taking a very close look at the potential transportation impacts of the project. With regards to your comments on the virtualmeeting, I understand your concerns and will make sure our director gets a copy of your comments. Hybrid meetings do seem to be the future, so I would hope that is something wecould eventually transition to. Thank you and have a great weekend, Alex Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Rosemarie Bartlett <rosesmith0007@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2023 3:33 PMTo: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>Cc: Matt Hanbey <hanbeym@gmail.com>; P. Michael Lobalzo<pmichael777@gmail.com>; Tiffany <tpershall@gmail.com>; Tracy Lynn<anthro66@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <diane@gorenton.com>Subject: Re: Meeting today (proposed logan development) Hello Alex, Let me add my thanks for sharing your time and expertise with us. I would like to add just a couple additional comments to Matt’s below. Traffic There needs to be reconsideration of allowing an entrance and exit off of Logan. While Iunderstand that Logan is a main thoroughfare, this solution will aid in discouraging addedpressure to the local residential streets that are not equipped to handle it. The is precedencefor a Logan entrance given that Boeing has been allowed 2 and more recently Top Golf wasallowed a Logan entrance. Also I want to add that including features such as speed bumps and others to the local streets(i.e. Burnett, Williams, Wells) needs to be included in the traffic solution. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 After my discussion after the meeting regarding parking permits, I learned that while there iscurrently 2 hour parking limits on these side streets, there is inadequate parking enforcement to enforce them. Additional parking enforcement will also need to be a part of the solutionto monitor overflow parking impacts once the development is occupied. Public Hearing You had mentioned that the plan was to have the next public hearing be conducted virtually. I believe that the City of Renton needs to reconsider if this decision is in line with their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) mission. Many residents do not have access tocomputers, internet nor the knowledge and understanding of how to access a virtual meeting. I witnessed this during the first public hearing that was held during COVID. While virtualwas the best option during that time period, I would hope that the City would extend access by hosting a hybrid meeting solution, both in person and virtual. I believe this wouldincrease access and attendance and participation. Thanks again and please add me the agenda for the upcoming public hearing, Rose Smith Bartlett 30+ year Renton Resident On Jun 29, 2023, at 8:40 AM, Alex Morganroth<AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> wrote: Hi Matt – Thanks for the thorough summary. I will add them to the file and keep you updated on the project’s progress. Thank you, Alex Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Matt Hanbey <hanbeym@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 7:19 PMTo: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>Cc: Rose Bartlett <rosesmith0007@hotmail.com>; pmichael michaels<pmichael777@gmail.com>; Tiffany Pershall <tpershall@gmail.com>; TracyLynn <anthro66@gmail.com>; Diane Dobson <diane@gorenton.com>Subject: Meeting today (proposed logan development) Hi, Alex: Thanks for meeting with Rose and me today. I know others (Tiffany, Tracy)wanted to be there, too. We covered a lot in the meeting: -- the city environmental committee has not met yet and the public hearing isnot yet scheduled. I believe a staff paper would be written in advance of apublic hearing that is not yet scheduled and may occur in late July or in August.This also means the city can still receive comments on the project. -- design standards and city center plan. I will read this more closely aboutpotential applicability to transition areas from residential areas. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 -- Traffic: we talked about the possibility of having an entrance on LoganAvenue, to take pressure off of N 3rd and N 4th Streets. The idea is if a barrier was placed on N Logan Ave to prevent cars from turning North on N Loganfrom the parking lot across the street, then having that might not rule out access on N Logan to the site. The whole idea is to let cars access the in the areazoned for it, not to use local streets (Burnett Ave, etc) to do so. You asked, what would you like to see: -- HEIGHT / WIDTH MITIGATION: a step-back of floors on the east-side of the building, starting from the third or fourth floor and stepping back with eachhigher floor, creating a set of terraced floor-- this could even create an open space for decks or outside use areas on these floors. This would lessen thevisual impact of the "wall" that residents on Burnett Ave will see, as the proposal stretches for nearly a city block, and would allow for maximum buildon lower floors which would mostly be shielded by the buildings that already exist on the westside of N Burnett Ave. Yes, this restricts the size of thedevelopment, and the number of units, but it would lessen the visual impact to those in the adjacent residential neighborhood. It was also mentioned about thisstep-back (setback) at the north and south ends of this building; that also would be a benefit in that it would lessen the visual impact to the neighbors that are tothe north and the south of the proposed development. -- ENTRANCE/S: it does not seem desirable to have in/outs on both N 3rd and N 4th streets. Apparently this is due in part to there being two parking floorsthat are not connected. If the two parking floors were connected then it would be possible to have either only one entrance or one exit, or one in/out and theother just an entrance or exit. This would, in theory, lessen the impact of cars travelling into the adjacent residential neighborhood, which hopefully is a goalfor the city as guiding principle. This could also apply to the idea of an entrance on N Logan, as mentioned above, which would lessen the reliance on N 3rd orN 4th streets and Burnett Ave. We also discussed the intersection at N 3rd Street and N Logan Avenue, that could be refigured to better direct access theproposed development (entrance) and discourage drivers from crossing N 3rd to access Burnett Avenue from N Logan Avenue, a "criss cross" of car traffic. -- TREES: I did not mention this but the corner parcel the developer purchased,apparently for retail parking at surface level, has at least two large trees on the residential property. These trees should remain as they would shield thebuilding from neighbors' views, and area an amenity. Also, Renton's tree ordinance may also require that these trees be left standing. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 Rose may have more comments here. Thanks again for meeting with us today. It was a pretty constructive meeting; Ithink in part as the many issues are coming into focus, probably also based on the short timelines things are on. Matt Hanbey Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 From: Alex Morganroth Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 4:09 PM To: 'Tiffany Pershall' Subject: RE: Concerned Citizen - Proposed Logan 6 Development Hi Tiffany - Thank you for your comments. Please note that this response is only on my behalf – you may receive other responses from council and/or the Mayor. I will add your comments to the public record and will certainly consider them as I prepare my staff report. If you have any questions or would like to discuss, I’d be happy to meet via Teams (virtual), a phone call, or in person. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Tiffany Pershall <tpershall@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:57 AM To: Mayor Renton <mayor@rentonwa.gov>; Carmen Rivera <CRivera@rentonwa.gov>; James Alberson Jr. <JAlberson@rentonwa.gov>; Ryan McIrvin <RMcIrvin@Rentonwa.gov>; Valerie O'Halloran <VOHalloran@Rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez <RPerez@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed Prince <EPrince@Rentonwa.gov>; Kim-Khánh Văn <KVan@Rentonwa.gov>; Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov>; Vdolbee@rentonwa.gov Subject: Concerned Citizen - Proposed Logan 6 Development February 19, 2024 Mayor Pavone and City Council Members: I am writing to clearly communicate concerns and opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I, and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from, along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association), have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood. We are looking for transparency, open lines of communication, and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration. Between the potential of this 100-unit building, plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic, another proposed 30-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Ave), in addition to yet another proposed 70-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River- the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place, without negative impacts to traffic, parking, etc. You will also see, mentioned below, the impact from the Sartori School, located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns & Recommendations: ● The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas. Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. However, the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers. 100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex. The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor. Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc), the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. ● Traffic (with emphasis on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Burnett) adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams, Wells, etc). The ‘overflow’ of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome for these residents. As currently proposed, residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street) or North (4th Street) boundaries of the property, with no access via North Logan Avenue. This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood, which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue. The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor, and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue, then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 ● We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. A one parking space per unit is not adequate for units with more than one bedroom. Moreover, for many units it is certain there will be more than one person, and it is likely most units will have more than one person. This means more than 150 cars, and more likely more than 200 cars, will need parking from the proposed development. As mentioned above, having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic, and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property, in the North Renton Neighborhood, as there is no parking on N Logan, N 3rd Street, or N 4th Street. Also, this is not a “downtown” location, with amenities (stores, restaurants) within walking distance, so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. ● We are concerned that while the City, in its City Center Community Plan (2011, updated in 2017), calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center” and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening and height restrictions) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”, no action has been taken. ● We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted. This request has been voiced at many meetings. It is our understanding this is occurring, but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. ● We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708, relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale) as single-family neighborhoods, with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority, is not being abided by. ● The proposed complex on Logan, with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren, attorney, and Earl Clymer, then Renton City Mayor, and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter) at that time. ● A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner, along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. ● Conduct retrospectives: It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting, that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment. I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors. We’re asking that as new developments Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 are proposed, we look at current state, conduct retrospectives, and that both long- and short- term impacts be considered. ● Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review, we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing, I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold, as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold. It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopeful that city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood, and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development, and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood Tiffany Bentley 316 Burnett Ave North Renton WA 98057 tpershall@gmail.com Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February,2024 Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morgan roth,and Vanessa Dolbee: I am writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 developmei I plan on attendingand voicing myconcerns at an upcomingcouncil meetingand wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded that this development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards ofthis proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue near the Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 61s a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3 St.N 4th St,and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’of traffic/parkingwill be especially burdensome forthese residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South (3rd Street)or North f4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.A one parking space per unit is not adequate forunitswith more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need parking from the proposed development.As mentioned above,havhg one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N 3rU Street,or N 4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restaurants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrictions)to protect edges ofsingle-family areasfrom adjacent development’no action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.It is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority,is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N 3 and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •A full disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment.I believe there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopefulthat city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, A concerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood .‘_Q Name (printed) ‘ft Address Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 February,2024 Dear Mayor Pavone,City Council Members,Alex Morganroth,and Vanessa Dolbee: Iam writing to clearly communicate my opposition to the proposed Logan 6 development. I plan on attending and voicing my concerns at an upcoming council meeting and wanted to proactively brief you on the concerns I,and other North Renton neighbors (whom you’ll also be hearing from,along with the North Renton Neighborhood Association),have been voicing since the first public meeting that took place virtually during COVID in Spring of 2022. Our goal and intentions are to preserve the North Renton Neighborhood.We are looking for transparency,open lines of communication,and thoughtful consideration of the neighborhood and its residents. We are dumbfounded thatthis development has reached the current stage of consideration.Between the potential of this 100-unit building,plus the negative impact we’ve already seen and experienced regarding Top Golf traffic,another proposed multi-unit building within 250 yards of this proposed development (Airport Way and Logan Aye),in addition to yet another proposed multi-unit project on S Williams Avenue nearthe Cedar River-the impacts to the adjoining residential neighborhood can not be absorbed by the infrastructure currently in place,without negative impacts to traffic,parking,etc.You will also see mentioned below the impact from the Sartori School,located in the heart of the neighborhood. Concerns &Recommendations: •The negative impact this size of a project will have on traffic and parking in the surrounding areas.Logan 6 is a 100-unit building with 1-,2-,and 3-bedroom units.However,the parking allotted does not account for the number of potential residents/drivers.100 spaces are absolutely inconceivable for this size of complex.The initial guideline for the ratio of parking to units was established when Renton was expecting to have improved transit systems along the Logan Avenue Corridor.Since those transit systems were not realized (Sound Transit, etc),the ratio no longer serves the residents of North Renton and the impact on parking will be adverse. •Traffic (with emphasis on N 3 St.N 4th St.and Burnett)adversely impacts the North Renton Neighborhood and creates an unnecessary burden for homes on Burnett and other nearby streets (Williams,Wells,etc).The ‘overflow’of traffic/parking will be especially burdensome forthese residents.As currently proposed,residents would access the building on either the South (3td Street)or North (4th Street)boundaries of the property,with no access via North Logan Avenue.This drives residents into the North Renton Neighborhood,which is not the purpose of intensified zoning along N Logan Avenue.The intensified use is linked to the N Logan corridor,and if the development or the traffic analysis does not provide for access on N Logan Avenue,then perhaps the proposed development is not the right land use for this property. •We are also requesting an increase to 1.75 parking spaces per unit.A one parking space per unit is not adequate forunitswith more than one bedroom.Moreover,for many units it is certain there will be more than one person,and it is likely most units will have more than one person.This means more than 150 cars,and more likely more than 200 cars,will need parkingfrom the proposed development.As mentioned above,having one parking space per unit does not seem realistic,and this will drive vehicles to park east of the property,in the North Renton Neighborhood,as there is no parking on N Logan,N 3J(Street,or N4th Street.Also,this is not a “downtown”location,with amenities (stores,restaurants)within walking distance,so potential residents would be using their vehicles to access local services. •We are concerned that while the City,in its City Center Community Plan (2011,updated in 2017),calls for the city to “protect and enhance the neighborhoods in the City Center”and to “enhance measures (such as setbacks, Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 buffers,landscape screening and height restrictions)to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development’.no action has been taken. •We are requesting that an updated traffic survey be conducted.This request has been voiced at many meetings.It is our understanding this is occurring,but we request that a revised traffic study/analysis be provided as a precursor to any further continuation of the review process. •We’d like to understand why the City of Renton Resolution 2708,relating to the preservation of the North Renton neighborhood (and Kennydale)as single-family neighborhoods,with the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority is not being abided by. •The proposed complex on Logan,with the use of traffic accessing N 3rd and N 4th seems quite counterintuitive to a settlement agreement signed by Larry Warren,attorney,and Earl Clymer,then Renton City Mayor,and agreed upon with legal counsel and representatives from the North Renton neighborhood (including former Councilmember Theresa Clymer and Neighborhood President Marge Richter)at that time. •Afull disclosure of information should be shared with the Hearing Examiner,along with any records provided at any hearing on this topic referenced above. •Conduct retrospectives:It was evident at a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting,that the city did not conduct a retrospective on the impact of Sartori School redevelopment.Ibelieve there are valuable lessons, especially because that development continues to be a point of contention for the neighbors.We’re asking that as new developments are proposed,we look at current state,conduct retrospectives,and that both long-and short-term impacts be considered. •Since the Renton Comprehensive Plan is currently under review,we would like the city to present the detail of this plan to the North Renton Community Association at an upcoming meeting. In closing,I understand that the Logan 6 project is once again on hold,as it was in September 2022 and then again in September 2023 and is currently still on hold.It is possible that the City Planning team put the project on hold after attending our October 2023 North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. We are hopefulthat city staff are listening to concerns expressed by neighbors in the North Renton neighborhood,and we also are hopeful the city council will listen to and hear our concerns about this proposed development,and act on both our behalf and on behalf of the city. Sincerely, cncerned citizen of the North Renton Neighborhood .gQ,vi,jpo NV1LLjauvA Name (printed) L(.3ç WLv’1\.L 1 IC Address A1 ?1?57 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Alex Morganroth To:Matt Hanbey Cc:Nathan Janders; Diane Dobson Subject:RE: Proposed Logan Ave Apts (Street access) Date:Wednesday, January 4, 2023 4:30:00 PM Hi Matt – Happy new year and thanks for the additional comments. I’ll make sure to add them to the file. I’ve responded to your questions/comments in red below. If some of my replies seem rather generic, it’s only because we still haven’t been able to evaluate their traffic study. If you have any follow up questions, please let me know. Thank you, ALEX MORGANROTH, AICP, Senior Planner City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7219 | amorganroth@rentonwa.gov From: Matt Hanbey <hanbeym@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 30, 2022 2:12 PM To: Alex Morganroth <AMorganroth@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Diane Dobson <diane@gorenton.com> Subject: Proposed Logan Ave Apts (Street access) Alex I've wanted to compile all the comments you've received from me, in one form or fashion, but it's a lot to do! I still plan on it but for now am sending some additional comments/questions: -- has there been an updated traffic analysis sent by the developer? No – still waiting on the updated report. They’re also still negotiating with Boeing with regards to the water lines on the site, which is taking up a lot of time. Over time comments have focused on the zoning in relation to the residential neighborhood that abuts the property in question and for the the issue is why should a residential neighborhood absorb impacts from high-density development from what I consider incompatible land uses? At this point-- and I am not the King so I don't get to decide, only suggestion-- the position I am interested in making is traffic to and from the proposed development should impact the Logan Ave street only. That is, an entry point on N Logan. That is also only access on N 3rd street into the building besides Logan Ave Access, and access out only on N 4th Street and possibly N Logan Ave. That would maximize traffic impacts to Logan Ave intersections, and minimize impacts to the abutting No Logan Residential area. Through our adopted zoning map and comprehensive plan, City policy makers Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 chose to concentrate growth in the north Renton area around arterial roads. This includes higher density development on roads like Logan Ave N and Park Ave N. By concentrating the higher intensity development (like this project) along arterial roads, it protects lesser intensity development (i.e. low scale residential, single-family, etc) from being replaced. While staff makes recommendations regarding development and growth strategy, it’s ultimately the city policy makers (i.e. city council) that set the agenda. If you have concerns about growth in the neighborhood or would like to see city policy change regarding the scale, intensity, or location of said growth, I would highly recommend reaching out to one or more of our council members. With regards to Logan access, staff determined early on that such an access point would not be possible, primarily due to safety concerns created by the traffic speeds along Logan and proximity to adjacent intersection and driveways. To this end here is another idea (this is in addition to comments about access for the Logan Ave Apts on Logan Avenue, either as an entry way or exit. -- could the street access along N Logan Avenue be changed? As the first two attachments show, current northbound traffic has four options at the intersection of N Logan Ave and N 3rd Street. -- That is, could the rightmost "straight arrow" the first second directional arrow from the right be turned into a straight / right turn arrow? -- As shown in the 3rd and 4th pictures this would allow for traffic to turn onto N 3rd Street in the Northern lane, not the curved lane, after the traffic island that separates lanes on N 3rd street. -- This would allow access from N Logan to N 3rd Street where the developer wants access to the building -- Also, in theory this would result in less need for access on N 4th Street. I appreciate the idea and we will certainly be looking to implement the safest option for access to the site as possible. As soon as we receive the traffic impact analysis, it’ll be much easier to start getting into the weeds on some of this stuff. Again, this is probably the last idea about the access and exit points for any proposed development. I will endeavor to compile all the comments sent by me and responses from the city from you. Oh, and Happy New Year! Matt Hanbey 801 N 2nd Street Renton, WA 98057 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open From:Vanessa Dolbee To:Alex Morganroth Subject:Fwd: Written Comments (M Hanbey) for Feb 7 City Council Meeting Date:Tuesday, February 7, 2023 5:22:52 AM Attachments:Renton Resolution.pdf FYI Get Outlook for iOS From: Chip Vincent <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 5:26:40 PM To: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: FW: Written Comments (M Hanbey) for Feb 7 City Council Meeting V, per the following, any thing you would like to share in response? Chip From: CityClerk <CityClerk@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 2:31 PM To: Council <Council@Rentonwa.gov>; Armondo Pavone <APavone@Rentonwa.gov>; Ed VanValey <Evanvaley@Rentonwa.gov>; Chip Vincent <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Kristi Rowland <KRowland@Rentonwa.gov>; Shane Moloney <SMoloney@Rentonwa.gov>; Legal Admin <LegalAdmin@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia <JSubia@Rentonwa.gov>; Melissa McCain <mmccain@rentonwa.gov> Subject: FW: Written Comments (M Hanbey) for Feb 7 City Council Meeting I am forwarding comments from Mr. Matt Hanbey. He also signed up to speak in person at tonight’s meeting. I am waiting to hear back to see if he intended to submit his comments in writing rather than attend the meeting. Jason A. Seth, MMC City Clerk/Public Records Officer Office: 425-430-6502 Cell: 206-635-6100 Mondays: 8 am – 9 pm - City Hall Tues-Fri: 7 am to 4 pm - Work From Home rentonwa.gov/cityclerk All correspondence received at this email address is subject to Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56. From: Matt Hanbey <hanbeym@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 12:26 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@Rentonwa.gov>; Judith Subia <JSubia@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Written Comments (M Hanbey) for Feb 7 City Council Meeting Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 attachments unless you know the content is safe. Hello: I signed up last night (2/5) to speak at the City Council Mtg tonight. I saw the option to submit written comments so am also doing that here. WRITTEN COMMENTS I live in the North Renton Neighborhood, about two blocks from a proposed apartment development on N Logan Avenue ("Logan SIx") on N Logan Avenue, directly across from the football stadium parking lot. I am concerned about the impact such a large-scale (100 unit) project will have on the neighborhood, including traffic, as the building would border the residential neighborhood. -- LOT: the vacant lot on N Logan Avenue between N 3rd Street and N 4th Street is wide but it is quite shallow. It is difficult to imagine any large development on this property, due to it being a narrow rectangle and not a square. That must be why the developers propose to build up 100 feet, six stories, almost the entire length of the property between N 3rd and N 4th Streets. -- MASSING/SIXE: There are no large-scaled apartments in the N Renton Neighborhood. The size of the building, which visually is really a block-long 100 foot wall, is out of character with the adjoining land uses. At least two blocks of residential houses will be visually impacted by the sheer size of the building. -- TRAFFIC: if there are 100 units, and despite parking requirements, it is easy to imagine more than 100 additional vehicles traveling around the proposed development. It does not seem consistent for the city of the developer to allow entrances and exits on N 3rd and N 4th streets if vehicles are using the N Renton Neighborhood to travel to and from the proposed development. -- CITY POLICY: see a city resolution from 35 years ago. Yes, it is not a new resolution, or even a recent action, but the city did make clear statements that development should only impact the N Renton Neighborhood to the minimum extent possible. See attached city resolution. RECOMMENDATIONS I really wish the proposed development was something different. It is quite large, will impact the west side of the N Renton Neighborhood, and will cause additional cars travelling on residential streets nearby. 1) If built, I believe at the very least vehicles should not be able to exit the property on to N 3rd Street. That would keep traffic impacts much lighter in the surrounding neighborhood. 2) Vehicles should use N Logan Avenue to enter the property-- there is already a curb cut there that indicates access via N Logan Avenue. 3) Vehicles should exit the property on N Logan Avenue and possibly N 4th Street. That will keep the vehicles within the higher density zoning allowed and minimize impacts to the N Renton Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 Neighborhood. An entrance on N 3rd Street is also a possibility, as it is within the higher density zoning but, again, an exit on N 3rd would impact the residential area as cars must travel through the neighborhood due to N 3rd being a one-way street. Thank you in advance for the opportunity to speak at the Council Meeting, and thanks for taking written comments beforehand. Matt Hanbey 801 N 2nd Street Renton, WA 98057 Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:notification@civiclive.com To:Party of Record Subject:Party of Record/Public Comments 2022-08-15 12:21 PM(PST) Submission Notification Date:Monday, August 15, 2022 12:21:55 PM Party of Record/Public Comments 2022-08-15 12:21 PM(PST) was submitted by Guest on8/15/2022 3:21:48 PM (GMT-08:00) Canada/Pacific Name Value NameFile:LUA22-000283 Gender Company Name Duwamish Tribe Address:4705 West Marginal Way SW CityState:Seattle, WA Email preservationdept@duwamishtribe.org Phone 206 431 1582 ext 104 Party of Record Only Comments Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. Based on theinformation provided and our understanding of the project and itsAPE, we would recommend an archaeological review performed forthis project. This is in an area the Duwamish Tribe considersculturally significant and has a high probability to have unknownarchaeological deposits, especially when excavation cuts belowcurrent fill. The project site is within a mile of at least two knownarchaeological sites of precontact. If any archaeological work isperformed, we request notification. An IDP should not be used in lieuof archaeological investigation. Cultural and archaeological resourcesare non-renewable and are best discovered prior to grounddisturbance. In addition we support the use of native plants only forproposed landscaping. Prefer US Mail To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://rentonwa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=18813430&contextId=17174246&returnto=submissions Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:notification@civiclive.com To:Party of Record Subject:Party of Record/Public Comments 2022-08-25 07:47 AM(PST) Submission Notification Date:Thursday, August 25, 2022 7:47:51 AM Party of Record/Public Comments 2022-08-25 07:47 AM(PST) was submitted by Guest on8/25/2022 10:47:43 AM (GMT-08:00) Canada/Pacific Name Value NameFile:LUA22-000283 Gender Ms. Name Kelli Sheldon Address:15700 Dayton Ave N CityState:Shoreline, WA Email nwsepa@ecy.wa.gov Phone 206-594-0014 Party of Record Only Comments Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the StateEnvironmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice of application utilizing theoptional mitigated determination of nonsignificance (ODNS/NOA-M) process for the Logan Six project. Based on review of thechecklist associated with this project, the Department of Ecology(Ecology) has the following comments: Section 3 Water, SubsectionB Groundwater Groundwater at the proposed project location may beshallow. Please specify if dewatering will be conducted during theconstruction. And if yes, please provide the general protocol fordewatering. The proposed project is located within one-year time oftravel wellhead protection zone of City of Renton "DowntownWells", i.e. water supply wells RW-1, RW-2, RW-3, PW-8, and PW-9. Please specify any potential impact this proposed project will maketo the water supply wells, and potential mitigation measures that willbe taken during the project. Thank you for considering thesecomments from Ecology. If you have any questions or would like torespond to these comments, please contact Jing Song from the ToxicsCleanup Program at (425) 229-2565 or by email atjing.song@ecy.wa.gov. Prefer US Mail To view this form submission online, please follow the link below: https://rentonwa.gov/form/one.aspx?objectId=18836941&contextId=17174246&returnto=submissions Docusign Envelope ID: B9E3BE8E-AAC1-4481-A70F-3C4FE398F6D5