HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Hanbey Comments_Final_250210.pdf
February 10, 2025
Hearing Examiner (via city planning office):
Thank you for the opportunity to provide informaƟon and concerns about the proposed “Logan 6”
development. AŌer almost three years of closely following the project, there is much to cover, so
excuse the document length. The document is organized to hopefully make things easier to read and is
organized into three secƟons: background info, main areas of concern (3), and informaƟon on process.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
North Renton Neighborhood
The proposed development would be sited on a block directly next to the western boundary of
the North Renton Neighborhood.
As one can see in the graphic to the right, the
shaded area shows the boundary of the North
Renton Neighborhood, BurneƩ Avenue North, which
runs from approximately N 2nd Street to N 6th Street.
The shaded area indicates the neighborhood, and
the lighter shade is not in the neighborhood.
It is important to note Logan Avenue is NOT in the
North Renton Neighborhood, nor is the block
between N Logan Avenue and North BurneƩ
Avenue. These areas are right next to (adjacent/
adjoining/abuƫng/etc) the neighborhood.
The neighborhood is residenƟal, the area to the west
is a different zone (UC-2). There is a one-block strip
of UC-2 that runs from N 2nd Street to N 6th Street, (Source: Renton Neighborhoods Map, City of Renton Website. Box added)
which is tapered as Logan Ave curves to the north.
TRAFFIC PATTERN
Logan Avenue is a four-lane north-
south throughfare, with two lanes
in each direcƟon. The two streets
that intersect Logan, North 3rd street
and North 4th street, are each one
way streets. North 3rd is a one-way
street heading east of between two
and three lanes, and North 4th is a
one-way street heading west of
between three and four lanes.
As shown above, the streets in the western porƟon of the North Renton Neighborhood are: BurneƩ
Ave, the closest street to Logan Ave, a two-way street; Williams Ave, the next closest street, is one-way
with two lanes going south, Wells Ave, the next closest street, is one-way heading north, and Pelly Ave,
the furthest, is two-way. Park Ave, a four lane, two-way street, is not shown, is the next street.
City Center Plan, Council ResoluƟon, and City AdministraƟve Code
There are three reference documents that apply to the overall context of the area where the
proposed development is supposed to be sited: references to the North Renton Neighborhood
in the City Center plan, a resoluƟon from a prior city council, and parts of the Renton
AdministraƟve Code.
The Renton City Center Plan, adopted in 2011, and updated in 2017, is a policy document that
the city enacted as part of its municipal code
…
The City Center plan makes several policy statements about the North Renton Neighborhood,
and in parƟcular areas of transiƟon at the boundaries for the neighborhood.
One of the main policy goals is to protect residenƟal neighborhoods
A subgoal under the goal to protect the residenƟal neighborhoods is to both enhance design
standards (setbacks, buffers, landscape, screening and height restricƟons
With special emphasis on areas that are on the edges of single-family areas.
The proposed development lies on
the edge of the single-family area
AND is on the border of a
transiƟon areas between zones.
These are important elements,
to brought up later (CONCERNS).
City Center Plan (conƟnued)
This is part of Renton’s zoning map. The thick gray line on the leŌ
side, going verƟcally, is Logan Avenue, the main gray lines going
horizontally are N 3rd and N 4th Streets, and the thinnest gray line is
BurneƩ Ave N.
BurneƩ Ave N is the dividing line between the North Renton
Neighborhood, a residenƟal area, and an intensified use (UC-2).
The area between the purple on the leŌ, and yellow and darker
areas on the right marks the edge of the residenƟal
neighborhood, which is zoned as a single-family residenƟal area.
BurneƩ Ave N marks the transiƟon between the residenƟal
zones and the higher, intensified use.
The light yellow is area across the street from the proposed
development, a R-8 residenƟal zone. Again, a single-family area.
The point here is the area next to the proposed development consƟtutes the combinaƟon of three
city center goals, which are part of the Renton Municipal Code, which reinforce themselves:
1) Protect the residenƟal neighborhoods in the City Center,
2) Enhance measures to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development, and
3) Protect edges of single-family areas by improving design standards for the transiƟon
areas between zones.
City ResoluƟon
A prior city council, which occurred some Ɵme ago, made some declaraƟve statements about
residenƟal neighborhoods, including the North Renton Neighborhood (Resolu Ɵon 2708, 1988):
The resoluƟon goes on the menƟon specifically the N 3rd Street Corridor, which is precisely
where on the proposed entrances to the proposed development is to be located:
City ResoluƟon (conƟnued)
Renton Municipal Code
City Code has guidelines for transiƟon areas, where new buildings differ from surrounding
development in terms of building height, bulk and scale:
[SecƟon 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: E. REQUIREMENTS 1. Site Design and Building Loca Ɵon]
This code specifically menƟoned the North Renton Neighborhood. Currently, the property on
which the development would be built is a vacant lot. The buildings on west BurneƩ, the block
with the proposed development, are two-story properƟes, with open space between buildings.
Renton Municipal Code (conƟnued)
The proposed development would dwarf the buildings, rising six stories, reaching nearly 100 Ō,
running the enƟre length of the block. Imagine two-to-three buildings of equal size to the ones
above, stacked on top two-to-three Ɵmes: this is what the size of the proposed development means.
(Note: the depicƟon of the “opening” is wrong. There a building already there, through and behind the opening to the east)
CONCERNS
Proposed building does not fit the character of area in height/bulk/mass,
and is inconsistent with stated city policy goals and design goals
There is no building anywhere near the size/mass/scale within or next to the neighborhood:
-- Along the western edge of the North Renton Neighborhood the largest buildings are
the Renton Senior Center, and the businesses shown above at the boƩom of page 4.
-- The buildings are relaƟvely small in size and scale, between two-and-three floors high.
-- There are no buildings along an enƟre block within or next to the neighborhood.
-- In the North Renton Neighborhood there are no residenƟal buildings of more than 25 units.
That a building of this size, length, height, and mass is being considered goes against several goals
that the city commiƩed to:
1) “Careful siƟng and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compaƟble transiƟon where
new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and
scale.” [SecƟon 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: E. REQUIREMENTS 1. Site Design and Building LocaƟon]
2) “Protect and Enhance the ResidenƟal Neighborhoods in the City Center”. (City Center
Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 47)
3) “Enhance measures (such as setbacks, buffers, landscape screening, and height
restricƟons) to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development”. (City
Center Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 50)
4) “Protect edges of single-family areas by improving design standards for transiƟon areas
between zones” (City Center Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 50)
5) “So long as the North Renton Neighborhood remains primarily residenƟal in character, the
city will use its best efforts to preserve the single-family character of the neighborhood.”
(ResoluƟon 2708, 1988)
Now, keep in mind, the city didn’t develop any height restricƟons, and no update was made to the
language below about North Renton Neighborhood streets, although the City Center plan calls for
neighborhood protecƟons and specifically for neighborhood edges and transiƟons between zones.
[SecƟon 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: E. REQUIREMENTS 1. Site Design and Building Loca Ɵon]
CONCERNS #1 (conƟnued)
Now, I do not precisely know what the duƟes of a hearing examiner are, or the scope of what you
can conclude or require, but here are several ideas (see addiƟonal consideraƟon below bullet pts):
Change “Logan 6” to “Logan 3” or “Logan 4”: The proposed development should not be
six stories and should be three or four stories in height. This allows for a staggered
transiƟon from the two-story buildings that currently exist on BurneƩ Ave. A three- or
four-story building allows for a staggered transiƟon, instead of a several-fold jump in size.
[See image below of the impact of just a five-story building on residences behind it.]
Reduce the impact of the mass—an enƟre city block-- of the building by requiring
separate secƟons. The developer proposes an opening in the middle of the building
along Logan Ave, called a “bridge” (an inaccurate term), this does liƩle for the
neighborhood behind because there is already a building direct behind the proposed
development, on BurneƩ Ave, so the opening will not be visible to the neighborhood.
Instead of a conƟnuous block-long mass, if the building was separated into two or three
separate pieces, or separate and connected on the main floor, or by a single story
“skybridge”—this would lessen the impact of the building on the adjacent neighborhood.
Require floors to be progressively set-back, either along the north or south edges, or
along the enƟre length. Instead of straight verƟcal sides, have floors recess with less
mass on each progressive level. This could be on the end, lessening north-south impact,
or along the enƟre length, lessen east-west impact. (See example in graphic below.)
Require the developer to “demonstrate how the project provides an appropriate
transiƟon to the long-established, exisƟng residenƟal neighborhood.” (Sect 4-3-100 E.1)
Don’t build it. This project doesn’t fit at the edge of a transiƟon area of the neighborhood.
In addiƟon, the urban design standard requires that a natural lighƟng and direct sun exposure be
considered in building siƟng [4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: E. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Site Design and Building LocaƟon]
CONCERNS #1 (conƟnued)
A six-story building—with “penthouse”— will cast a shadow across the street and will affect the
natural light later in the day. “Sunset” will occur earlier for residences across the street than for
those, say, two streets over. Also, the privacy of neighborhood residents will be affected, as there
will block-long series of units with windows from the 3rd floor up that overlook the neighborhood.
Proposed development drives traffic into and through the North
Renton Neighborhood, due to access only on 3rd and 4th Streets
The proposed development, for some unknown reason, has two entrances/
exits, neither of which are on Logan Avenue. See the “X” for locaƟons.
The map above shows entrances on 3rd and 4th Streets, which are one-way
streets in opposite direcƟons. By definiƟon, the entrances/exits, combined with
one-way streets, drives traffic into and within the North Renton Neighborhood.
North 3rd Street: traffic heading north on Logan Avenue must use N 3rd street, or
risk missing the building as there is no 4th Street access from Logan. At the point
where “X” on 3rd indicates, there are two lanes, and vehicles must cross over to
the other lane in a very short area, to access the 3rd Street Entrance.
If vehicles miss the 3rd Street entrance, then the next road to take is BurneƩ
Avenue to head north and access the 4th Street entrance. BurneƩ is on the
boundary of the North Renton Neighborhood, and is a residenƟal street. AŌer
BurneƩ, the next opƟon to travel for 4th Street access, is either Wells or Pelly
Avenues, both residenƟal streets, as Williams Ave is one-way in the opposite
direcƟon. Again, this is driving traffic into and through the neighborhood.
North 4th Street: The only way to access this entrance is through the North
Renton Neighborhood. Traffic from the southeast would use residenƟal streets
to bypass the busy main streets like Park Ave or Bronson Way and Sunset Ave.
Again, if the 3rd Street entrance is missed, vehicles would use residenƟal streets
to access the entrance of 4th, because of the way the streets are configured.
Logan Avenue: see graphic on the leŌ. You will see every single property has
Logan access. It makes one wonder why the proposed development does not.
CONCERNS #2 (conƟnued)
As the graphic above shows, properƟes along Logan Avenue have an entrance and an exit. So
why does the proposed development have, for example, an entrance and exit on Logan mid-
block, instead of having two entrances/exits ?
This is a troubling quesƟon.
First, with no Logan Access, the residents of the proposed development must travel into and
through the North Renton Neighborhood, this goes against policy statements that are
considered part of the Renton Municipal Code:
1) Protect the residenƟal neighborhoods in the City Center (City Center Community Plan,
2011, revised 2017, page 47)
2) … protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development (City Center
Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 47), and
3) Protect edges of single-family areas … (City Center Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017,
page 50)
In addiƟon, prior policy statements from the Renton City Council are counter to the placement of
the entrances, and specifically the 3rd Street Corridor (ResoluƟon 2708, 1988):
“So long as the North Renton Neighborhood remains primarily residenƟal in
character, the city will use its best efforts to preserve the single-family character of
the neighborhood.”
“It is a high priority to keep the traffic levels on the street [North Third Corridor] at
current levels or below and to focus on creaƟve reasonable alternaƟves to lessen the
traffic burden at peak hours on this street and/or miƟgate the impacts of traffic on
the single-family homes adjacent to that street.” (language added in brackets)
Second, there seems to be a lack of clarity from the city. City staff has been asked on mulƟple
occasions about why Logan Avenue was not being considered. City staff never directly answered
this quesƟon, and arguments made about an inconsistency of the proposed development with no
Logan Access was never explained, discussed in any specificity, or countered:
All properƟes along Logan Avenue have Logan access, from the Cedar River all the way
up to North 8th Street. See graphic on previous page under “Logan Avenue”.
[The properƟes are: the Renton Senior Center (first property across the Cedar River
along Logan up to North 3rd Street), a Boeing Parking lot, which has not one but two
entrances/exits on Logan (from North 4th to North 6th), Boeing Building and Parking
lot and Top Golf (from North 6th Street to North 8th Street).]
The Municipal Football Stadium, directly across the street from the proposed
development, has not one but two entrances/exits on Logan Avenue.
There is a bus stop in front of the proposed development. If a Metro bus can slow
down and stop on Logan, have passengers exit and enter the bus, then start back on
Logan and get up to speed, it simply makes no sense that there can’t be an entrance
and/or exit in front of the development on Logan Avenue
There is a curb-cut on Logan, mid-way along the block between N 3 rd and N 4th Streets
CONCERNS #2 (conƟnued)
Third, there seems to be a “smoking gun” where the city may have interfered with the process of
the proposed development. According to the developer, who aƩended a North Renton
Neighborhood AssociaƟon MeeƟng in 2024, the city maneuvered the developer away from Logan
Avenue access for the proposed development. Why would the developer choose two separate
entrances, on the ends of the proposed development, when one entrance, in the middle, would do?
In summary, it makes no sense, and seems to be inconsistent land use, for intensified development
along the Logan Ave corridor without also using the very same street (Logan Ave) for access.
Again, I do not precisely know what the duƟes of a hearing examiner are, or the scope of what you
can conclude or require, but here are some suggesƟons:
1) Require one entrance and one exit. This could be an entrance only on Logan and an exit
only on 4th. This arrangement keeps ALL traffic to the proposed development AWAY from
the North Renton Neighborhood. This could also be accomplished with both an entrance
and exit on N Logan, and an exit only on N 4 th. The point here is to keep traffic off of North
3rd Street, as that is the gateway to the North Renton Neighborhood and residenƟal streets.
2) Require only one entrance/exit. This would make Logan Ave as the sole entry and exit point.
This is consistent with the intensified land use along the N Logan corridor, and is consistent
with all of the properƟes along Logan Ave (Top Golf, Boeing parking lots, Renton Sr Center).
3) Do not build this. How can a proposed development, which is allowed intensified zoning along
the Logan corridor, not actually use the street it is designed with and for (Logan)? This seems
to be a “cherry picking of land use”, and by doing this traffic from the development will go
through the North Renton Neighborhood and use the residenƟal streets in the neighborhood.
There may be other opƟons, or combinaƟons of the above, but these are a sense of opƟons.
Now, materials were submiƩed to the city with examples to show how an entrance or exit could
work with the exisƟng design or that might require minor alteraƟons to the design. These are
concepts for mid-block entrance/exit, or entrance/exit closer to N 3rd and N 4th along Logan Ave.
CONCERNS #2 (conƟnued)
The above could also show an exit coming from the north edge of the property, with arrows
reversed, so there would be two graphics like the two graphics at the boƩom of the previous page.
The point of the illustraƟons above is to show opƟons for the use of Logan Avenue instead of N
3rd Street and N 4th Street.
Proposed development has inadequate parking, and will push tenants,
visitors, guests, and others to park on adjacent neighborhood streets.
A very concerning issue is the number of parking spots—as it is currently understood, there are
100 spots for 100 units. This strains credulity as the parking spots are for units that are 1-, 2-, or
3-bedroom units. Even if all of the units were only 1 bedroom, it is very hard to imagine that
there will only 100 vehicles.
In addiƟon, there is supposed to be commercial development on the ground floor. True, there is
to be surface parking (15 spaces?) adjacent to property, but this assumes people know where it
is and how to access it.
Further, the ONLY street parking is in the North Renton Neighborhood. There is no parking on
Logan, and no parking on N 3rd and N 4th Streets. Unfortunately, the west side of BurneƩ,
leaving the first available street parking on the east side of BurneƩ Avenue, which is the edge of
the North Renton Neighborhood.
On the following page are photos of North BurneƩ Street, the street on the east side of the
block that the proposed development is on, and the west side where the residenƟal area is.
CONCERNS #3 (conƟnued)
As the picture on the leŌ shows, there is no curb or way to
disƟnguish the road from properƟes on the west side of BurneƩ.
Whereas, on the east side, as shown below, the residents
of the North Renton Neighborhood use on-street parking.
So, with no street parking available on the block where the
proposed development is to be located, any use of street
parking by residents, visitors, guests, or patrons of first floor
commercial space from the proposed development will park in
the North Renton Neighborhood.
As was argued in the two other concerns listed above, pushing parking into the North Renton
Neighborhood goes against stated policy goals to protect the residenƟal area, the edge of the
neighborhood, and the transiƟon areas between zones.
Also, as stated before, it is not clear what your powers are, what you can require or recommend,
but here are some opƟons:
1) Require more parking. This can be accomplished through various means:
-- increase the number of parking spots for residents and guests for the proposed
development. Currently the number is 100 so a number above 100 should be required
-- increase the raƟo. Currently the minimum raƟo is 1 space per unit. Increase the raƟo
(1.25, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5) up to the maximum allowed raƟon of 1.75 spaces per unit
-- increase the raƟo of units of more than one bedroom. This could be 1.5 for two
bedrooms, 1.75 for three. It would be in alignment if a one bedroom was 1.25 to have
increments of 0.25 from minimum of 1.25 for one bedroom
2) Keep the same number of parking spots, but decrease the number of units. This has the
same effect as increasing the number of parking spots per unit, but would not require more
parking spots for the developer.
3) Do not build this. It is poorly sited with no on-street parking on the enƟre block that it is to be
located on. Any on-street parking would affect the adjacent neighborhood, in violaƟon of city
policy goals.
PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS
The proposed development has been in process for over three years. As such, the project has been
put on hold several Ɵmes, neighborhood residents organized and spoke at city council meeƟngs,
met with city planning staff, and the developer aƩended a North Renton Neighborhood Assn mtg.
Because the project has been around for so long, here are some things to consider:
Public process: there was never an in-person public meeƟng about the project. The project
was presented on February 9, 2022 via Zoom. At the Ɵme, there were no public in-person
meeƟngs. As one can guess, parƟcipaƟon was minimal, with no more than a maximum of
12 people parƟcipaƟng.
Considering the nature of the meeƟng, and the Ɵme that has since lapsed, and the fact the
development changed to include another property that was bought for surface parking, it
may be that the iniƟal meeƟng was inadequate due to the length of Ɵme the project has
been in process, and also the fact that the project changed, and that in-person meeƟngs are
possible now as COVID restricƟons were liŌed a couple of years ago.
City Staff: North Renton Neighborhood residents met with city planning staff on mulƟple
occasions over the past two-and-a-half years. City planning staff came to a North Renton
Neighborhood AssociaƟon MeeƟng.
Staff were generally willing to meet and answer quesƟons but the quesƟon of Logan Access
was never addressed, and any quesƟons about it seems to go into a “black hole”.
In addiƟon, the reƟrement of the Director of Community of Economic Development during
this Ɵme, turnover in this posiƟon, and a set of interim directors made it difficult to ask
quesƟons about if the city had pushed the developer away from Logan Ave access.
City Council: Council was contacted numerous Ɵmes, North Renton Neighborhood residents
spoke at council meeƟngs, and requests were made to change parking requirements, look
into whether the city had arbitrarily influenced the proposed development about Logan
access, and generally expressed concerns about the size, bulk, and mass of the proposed
development and related issues of traffic and parking.
Council was unwilling to consider issues about the proposed development as the council
could have a quasi-judicial role if the development was brought to council for appeal.
Developer: The developer met the very first requirement with the public meeƟng, but
please see the caveats and concerns under “Public Process”. The developer agreed to come
to a meeƟng of the North Renton Neighborhood AssociaƟon in the Spring of 2024.
At the meeƟng the developer had iniƟally intended to use Logan Avenue for the proposed
development, but the city persuaded them to not use Logan and use North 3rd and North 4th
instead. This issue was menƟoned above under “CONCERNS #2” about traffic.
PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCERNS (conƟnued)
Developer (conƟnued)
The developer was asked if they would be willing to meet with neighborhood residents and
the city to go over concerns about the proposed project, as a way to clear the air and have
a transparent communicaƟon among the parƟes—the developer, the city, and the local
residents in the neighborhood that would be affected by the proposed development.
The developer agreed to such a meeƟng; however, several months later it was learned that
the developer had told the city they were not willing to meet. This was a reneging on a
commitment made to neighborhood residents, and the fact they did not tell the local
residents about this seems like the developer was not acƟng in good faith.
That this occurred prevented conversaƟons between the developer, the city, and local
residents about, or example: Logan access with mid-block entrance (with the examples on
pages 9 and 10) , traffic, parking capacity.
Based on the above, and again not knowing what powers you have, and what you can require or
recommend, here are some suggesƟons:
1) Require a meeƟng with the developer, the city, and local residents. This was a
commitment the developer made but did not follow. Such a meeƟng could ‘clear the air’
on Logan Access, traffic, parking capacity, lack of on-street parking and impacts to
residents, etc.
2) Require a second public meeƟng on the proposed project. As menƟoned earlier, the
iniƟal meeƟng was virtual, during COVID, nearly three years ago. Also, the project
changed when the developer purchased an adjacent piece of property, intended to be
surface parking with access on BurneƩ Ave, for the commercial uses on the ground floor.
This change was not shared in a public format or shown at the Feb 2022 virtual mtg.
3) Do not build this. The process is flawed. The city may have interfered with the project,
arbitrarily making the developer use 3rd and 4th Street when Logan Ave is a consistent
land use. The City Council was unable to act as a policy body, due to fears that they
would be having ex parte communicaƟons about the project. The developer, in a sense,
lied to local residents about being willing to meet with the city and the neighborhood.
I would again like to thank you for the opportunity to present informaƟon to you. I also appreciate
the opportunity to speak to you in person.
MaƩ Hanbey
801 N 2nd Street
Renton, WA 98057
206/637-6337
Hanbeym@gmail.com