HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Final Decision - Site Plan -- Logan Six1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Logan Six
Site Plan
PR22-000229
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
FINAL DECISION
Summary
302 Magnolia Apartments, LLC seeks site plan approval to construct a 170,335 sq. ft., six-story vertical
mixed-use building at 340 Logan Ave N. The application is approved subject to conditions.
The proposal has drawn more opposition from neighbors than any project the City has seen in several
years. Dozens of detailed comment letters were submitted citing noncompliance with city policies and
promises to protect the City’s neighborhoods. The access points to the proposal are a valid point of
debate. Beyond that issue, however, there is nothing more that anyone has identified that the City legally
could have done to further minimize the impact of this proposal. The law is unquestionably clear that
the applicant has the right to place at least 991 dwelling units on the subject property. RCW
36.70B.030(3), a state statute, provides that as to density, “..the local government or any subsequent
reviewing body shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals..” The City is prohibited from
considering a lower density. There is no comparable state mandate for policies that protect residential
character or design standards with subjective requirements regarding building mass and orientation. If
the City were to require anything less than the minimum density required by the Renton Municipal Code
1 The Applicant currently proposes 97 units. To meet minimum density standards the City testified at hearing that two
more units will be required.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
a judge on appeal would reverse that requirement in little time. Renton taxpayers would then owe the
developer potentially millions of dollars in damages2. The density to which the applicant is entitled is
fairly3 set in stone. A building with 99 units is the starting point for review and that cannot be changed.
As noted, the one part of the project that could make a difference is the access to the proposal. The
proposed access is on N. 3rd and 4th Streets. Both streets serve as entrance points to a quiet residential
neighborhood to the east. Project opponents would like to see that access on Logan Street, away from
their neighborhood. Staff have provided detailed reasons why they have not found such alternative
access workable due to conflicts with pedestrian design standards, site access standards and avoiding
congestion on Logan Street. The proposal pits the comprehensive plan policies favoring4 the access
supported by staff verses the City policies cited by project opponents protecting residential character.
There is room for argument on the merits of the City’s position.
City staff should have been more specific about what site access standards would be violated by Logan
Street access. Ultimately, however, it must be recognized that planning staff have taken into
consideration the impacts to the community as a whole in navigating the City’s congested major arterials
verses the more localized interest of project opponents. The staff supported access points don’t actually
extend into the adjoining neighborhood but likely will create some additional traffic into the adjoining
neighborhood. Minimizing access points to the City’s primary arterials and minimizing disruption to
the City’s transit facilities is the best of hard choices that have to be made. Access as proposed is found
most consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan policies.
Questions were asked about whether the hearing examiner has the authority to impose standards that
differ from those of Renton’s development code, such as parking. Administrative tribunals, including
hearing examiners, are creatures of the legislative body that creates them. Lejeune v. Clallam Cty., 64
Wn. App. 257, 270–71, 823 P.2d 1144 (1992); State v. Munson, 23 Wn. App. 522, 524, 597 P.2d 440
(1979); Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 636, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984). Their
power is limited to that which the creating body grants. Lejeune, 64 Wn. App. at 270-71. The City
Council has not given the hearing examiner the authority to waive entitlements created by City
ordinances such as minimum densities or authorized parking ranges. The power to amend development
codes can only be exercised by the City Council after receiving a recommendation from the planning
2 Westmark Development Corporation was awarded 10.7 million from the City of Burien due to Burien’s illegal delays
in reviewing a 216-apartment complex in 1990 due to community opposition. Westmark Dev. v. City of Burien, 140 Wn.
App. 540 (2007)
3 The only way around the density requirement would be to amend the City’s development regulations to reduce the
required density. That would have to be done before the applicant vests (grandfathers) the project with the application of
a complete building permit application. If the City Council were to attempt to amend its code at this point, the applicant
would likely get their building permit in first if they haven’t done so already.
4 City staff were not very specific about what policies and regulations support the access on N. 3rd and N. 4th Streets but
they are self-evident, e.g. 2025 Comp Plan Goal TR-A – develop/operate a system that supports the “safe, efficient and
reliable movement of people;” Policy TR-1 promoting “convenient” travel; Policy TR-2 implement a multi-modal level
of service that maximizes access to transit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
commission and adopting the amendments by ordinance. See Chapter 35A.63 RCW. That process is
required for any increase in development obligations that exceeds that already fully covered by existing
development standards. Further, a developer can effectively “grandfather” themselves against any such
code amendments by filing a complete building permit application before any such amendments become
effective. See RCW 19.27.090.
As outlined in the findings of fact below, all of the impacts of concern expressed by project opponents
have been heavily regulated by the City including traffic congestion, building height, parking and tree
retention. Those standards have been met by the proposal as conditioned by staff. For that reason the
application is approved.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared for the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1—23 as shown in the Exhibits List prepared by City planning staff and presented at the hearing
was admitted into the record during the February 11, 2025 hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Andrew Kovach, Kovach Architects, 2115 Colby Ave, Everett, WA 98201,
andrew@kovacharchitects.com.
2. Hearing. A hybrid virtual and in-person hearing was held on the application on February 11,
2025 at 11 am in the City of Renton Council chambers. The hearing was left open through February 17,
2025 for City staff and Applicant responses to public comment letters.
3. Project Description. 302 Magnolia Apartments, LLC seeks site plan approval to construct a
170,335 sq. ft., six-story vertical mixed-use building at a 1.32 acre project site located at 340 Logan Ave
N. The applicant also proposes to construct a surface parking lot on one adjacent parcel to the east of
the site (APN 1823059206). The proposed structure would have a maximum height of approximately 91
feet (91’) above grade. The structure would include 97 attached dwelling residential units,
approximately 6,200 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space, and 107 parking stalls. Primary access to the site
is proposed via one driveway off of N 3rd St and one off of N 4th St. Emergency-only access is proposed
via an existing curb cut off of Logan Ave N. No trees are proposed for removal. Frontage improvements
on N 3rd St, N 4th St, and Logan Ave N are proposed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and
appropriate infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure and public services are more directly
addressed as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service
areas. There is an existing 8-inch (8”) sewer main in N 4th St. and an existing 12-inch
(12”) stormwater main on the east side of Logan Ave N and along a portion of both N 3rd
St and N 4th St.
B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Regional
Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that
sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the
improvements and fire impact fees required of the project.
C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since its
proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s
stormwater regulations.
The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. A
Technical Information Report (Exhibit 9), has been prepared by the Applicant and found
to conform to the Manual for this level of review. The applicant claims an exemption from
flow control per RSWDM Core Requirement #3, proposing direct stormwater discharge
due to proximity to the Cedar River. While city staff tentatively agree, a final TIR is
required during the civil construction permit review. The missing report elements include
a conveyance system analysis, discussion of flow control credits, and a maintenance and
operations manual (Exhibit 15).
The project is proposing to direct discharge to the existing drainage system along N 4th
Street that is maintained by the city. Water quality is exempt because the total PGIS is only
2,165 SF which is less than the threshold limit of 5,000 SF.
D. Parks/Open Space. The Applicant meets applicable open space standards and thus
provides for adequate open space.
Under applicable Design District C open space standards, the applicant is required to
provide 50 square feet of open space per each of the 90 proposed dwelling units, totaling
4,850 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed three (3) types of common space to meet this
requirement including a 3,030 sq. ft. roof terrace, a 3,920 sq. ft. main plaza near the center
of the building, and a 20-foot (20’) wide pedestrian corridor located on the east side of the
building which provides approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of usable open space for passive
recreation. Therefore, the total of amount of common open space proposed is
approximately 12,950 sq. ft., which complies with the per unit requirement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate
transportation facilities.
The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Ex. 10, to estimate trip
generation and assess conformance to City level of service (LOS) standards. LOS
standards are a measure of traffic congestion based upon intersection delay. The study
found that the proposal would not lower LOS for any affected intersection and that all
LOS intersection would continue to operate at adopted LOS standards after development
of the proposal.
Primary access to the site would be provided via three (3) new driveways composed one
(1) off of N 3rd St, one (1) off of N 4th St, and one (1) off of Burnett Ave N. Fire and
emergency vehicle access would be provided via the existing curb cut off of Logan Ave
N located approximately mid-block between N 3rd St and N 4th St.
A major concern of numerous neighbors was that the access would from the adjoining
residential neighborhood as opposed to Logan Avenue. To address this concern City staff
requested the developer assess access from Logan Ave N. However, the applicant
determined that the site's narrow layout would not accommodate a non-emergency
entrance without significantly impacting the design. Additionally, general vehicle access
along Logan Ave S would conflict with a major transit stop along the property’s frontage
that accommodates King County METRO RapidRide F Line. As identified by staff in
their February 13 2025 comment letter:
A common ingress and egress driveway along the Logan Ave N public street
frontage would result in the following: a) create a conflict with the pedestrian-
focused design standards of the building, b) oppose site access standards for
projects in an urban design district overlay, and c) lead to increased congestion
along the roadway leading to this major transit stop.
As a result, staff determined that the proposal continue to prioritize access from the south
on N 3rd St and from the north on N 4th St. However, to ensure any unanticipated traffic
impacts are able to be mitigated for project completion, the Environmental Review
Committee included a mitigation measure related to signalization of the intersection, per
the recommendation of the applicant’s consultant, as well as professional traffic
monitoring after project completion. According to the staff report, the proposed
development is expected to maintain the safety and efficiency of pedestrian and vehicle
circulation on the site.
Several new pedestrian connections and linkages would be incorporated into the overall
site plan as part of the proposed mixed-use development (Exhibits 2 and 3). The pedestrian
connections link the structure to the surface parking lot and public sidewalks, as well as to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
the two (2) plazas proposed on the site and entrances to the commercial space on the north
and south ends of the building creating desirable transitions and linkages between uses,
streets, walkways and adjacent properties.
City staff have also determined in the staff report that the proposed external circulation
system is adequate. The applicant has proposed 90-degree head-in parking using two-way
circulation pattern and has a minimum aisle width of 24 feet (24’) which complies with the
aisle width standards of the code. Internal pedestrian connections to the existing public
sidewalk network are proposed to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access and
circulation throughout the site and to other development in the area.
There are no dedicated loading or delivery areas proposed onsite. To ensure residential and
commercial delivery services have a safe area to park and drop off/pick up packages, a
condition of approval requires that the applicant submit a dedicated loading and delivery
plan for services like Uber Eats, UPS, Fedex, DoorDash, or similar.
Traffic impacts to the City’s road network are addressed by traffic impact fees. Traffic
impact fees are due per dwelling unit during building permit review and are based upon
proportionate share financial responsibility for road network improvements necessitated
by the development.
F. Reserved.
G. Schools. According to the staff report it is anticipated that the Renton School District
can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following
schools: Kennydale Elementary, Dimmit Middle School and Renton High School. Any
new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their elementary and
middle schools. The stop for the elementary school is located directly in front of the
development at the corner of Logan Ave N and N 3rd St. The stop for the middle school
is located approximately 0.1 miles from the project site at the corner of Burnett Ave N
and N 1st St. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements
along the N 3rd St and N 4th St, including sidewalks. Students would walk to the middle
school bus stop using a series of sidewalks along N 3rd St and Burnett Ave N. Students
would walk to the high school using a sidewalk on either side of Logan Ave N until
reaching the high school site.
A School Impact Fee, based on new residential units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the
City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,268.00
per single-family residence.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
H. Refuse and Recycling. City Staff have determined in their report that the proposal complies
as conditioned with applicable refuse and recycling regulations and thus provides for
adequate and appropriate facilities to address solid waste impacts.
In multi-family developments a minimum of one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet per
dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas,
except where the development is participating in a City-sponsored program in which
individual recycling bins are used for curbside collection. A minimum of three (3) square
feet per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of
eighty (80) square feet shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas.
The applicant’s submittal materials indicate the refuse and recycling enclosure (Exhibit 5,
pg 3) would not be enclosed. The staff report also doesn’t indicate if sufficient required
space is set aside to meet refuse/recycling area requirements. Therefore, a condition of
approval requires that the applicant shall submit revised elevations for the refuse and
recyclable area that establish conformance to refuse/recycling standards. If located outside
of the building, a service enclosure made of masonry, ornamental metal, or wood, with
self-closing doors and a minimum opening width of at least twelve feet (12') for haulers
shall be utilized. In addition, if the containers/dumpsters utilized for refuse and recycling
need to be rolled out of the building on pick-up days, the applicant shall submit a narrative
describing how they will be moved, who will move them, where they will be moved to,
and how long they will be located outside of the building.
I. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed
parking complies with the City’s parking standards.
As outlined in the staff report, RMC 4-4-080 requires a minimum of 113 parking stalls
and maximum of 198 stalls. The Applicant proposes 121 parking stalls, which is within
the required range of stalls.
J. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping by
conforming to the City’s landscaping standards.
The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) establishes requirements for the quantity
and spacing of landscaping along public street frontages. Additionally, these regulations
establish quantity and spacing standards for parking lots.
The applicant submitted a Landscape Plan (Exhibit 3) with the application. The landscape
plan includes plans for ground cover, shrubs, and 49 new on-site trees including species
such as Tulip, Bechtel crabapple, and Little gem magnolia. The landscape plan is
conceptual in nature and is missing two (2) required elements including surface parking lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
landscaping and a ten-foot (10’) on-site landscape strip along all street frontages.
Therefore, a condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a detailed landscape
plan that complies with all landscape regulations in RMC 4-4-070. The detailed landscape
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit issuance.
K. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and
thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. Transit is also easily accessible.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided at one-half
(0.5) bicycle parking space per one (1) dwelling unit. Commercial uses shall provide
bicycle parking spaces equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of required off-street
vehicle parking spaces. Acceptable examples include bike lockers, bike check-in systems,
in-building parking, and limited access fenced areas with weather protection. The applicant
is proposing fifty (50) bicycle storage rooms per building, which also double as tenant
storage. The floor plans do not provide potential layouts for secure bicycle racks within
each storage room and therefore planning staff could not determine compliance with the
security requirements. In addition, the applicant shall provide exterior bike racks at each
end of the building for bicyclists visiting the commercial uses. Due to the large number of
overall bicycles anticipated, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a
dedicated bike amenity space in the building with secure bicycle parking for up to 97 total
bicycle parking spaces. In addition, a minimum of two (2) exterior bicycle racks shall be
provided on the site near the commercial uses.
The project site is well served by transit. A King County Metro bus stop is located directly
in front of the project site on the east side of Logan Ave N. The bus stop serves the
RapidRide F line, which links the Burien Transit Center, SeaTac, the Tukwila Sounder
Station, Renton Transit center, and the Renton Landing. To avoid impacts to service and
ensure coordination between the applicant and King County Metro during construction,
the Environmental Review Committee included a recommended mitigation measure
requiring the applicant to coordinate with King County Metro prior to submitting
construction permits as part of the Determination of Non-Significance – Mitigated decision
(Exhibit 20).
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On
January 6, 2025, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (DNS-M) for the project
(Exhibit 20). No timely appeals of the threshold determination were received. Adequate infrastructure
serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as
follows:
A. Views. There are views typical to the City Center Community Planning Area, including
territorial views. It is not anticipated that the new six-story building would result in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
substantially obscuring existing views of attractive natural features. There are no view
corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal
B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use to the extent contemplated
in the City’s zoning regulations. The proposed mixed use serves as a transition from the
residential area to the east to the more urbanized areas to the west and along Logan Avenue.
Ideally the access points to the project site would be located along Logan Avenue to
maintain compatibility as advocated by area residents. However, such access would not be
able to function efficiently or safely for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4.
Roof top equipment can serve as an aesthetic impediment to visual compatibility.
According to the Floor Plans (Exhibit 5) and Architectural Elevations (Exhibit 6), it is
anticipated that the proposed building would include rooftop equipment. A condition of
approval requires that the applicant provide a materials board and a rooftop equipment
exhibit with the elevation plans associated with the building permit application to further
identify the screening detail for any rooftop equipment. The exhibit shall provide cross
section details and identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary
to the architecture of the buildings. The materials board and rooftop equipment exhibit shall
be provided to and reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit approval.
Landscaping as required by RMC 4-4-070 will enhance compatibility by providing visual
relief from surrounding streets.
All other adverse impacts that affect compatibility are mitigated as required by applicable
City regulations to ensure compatibility as contemplated in this zoned transition area
between residential and urban use.
C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light
or glare impacts and will not generate noise at a level that would cause impact.
No site or building lighting was provided with the submittal materials, such as down
lighting, bollard lighting, foundation lighting, or facade uplighting. Therefore, a condition
of approval requires that the applicant provide a lighting plan with foot-candle levels that
adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent
properties. The final lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
To provide for some noise and privacy protection, the proposed structure is narrow and
would be located across the site with a north/south building orientation and street frontage
on three (3) of the four (4) sides. Surface parking stalls on the east side along with Burnett
Avenue provide some spatial separation from the view corridors of the proposed dwelling
units and the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Chapter 8-7 RMC sets
maximum noise limits and the building will serve somewhat as a noise barrier to the urban
activity along Logan Avenue and uses to the west.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
D. Critical Areas. The project site is located within a high seismic area and the Downtown
Wellhead Protection Zones 1 and 2. . The proposal is found to adequately avoid impacts
to these critical areas since it conforms to the City’s critical area regulations.
To conform to critical area requirements pertaining to high seismic areas the Applicant had
a geotechnical report prepared that assessed seismic risks and recommended measures to
provide for safe construction in the seismic area. Conformance to the mitigation measures
is required as part of the DNS issued for the proposal.
Permitting staff have found the proposal conforms to the City’s aquifer recharge standards
and thus the proposal is found to adequately protect against aquifer impacts. According to
COR Maps, the property is located within both the Downtown Wellhead Protection Zones
1 and 2. The southern portion of the site is located in Zone 1 while the northern portion of
the site is located in Zone 2. The proposed mixed-use building does not typically represent
a type of use that would potentially harm the city’s groundwater. Fill is anticipated to be
brought on the site and therefore any offsite fill materials shall be from a verifiable source
in order to ensure it is clear of contaminants. The city’s grading and excavation regulations
require that when imported fill is in excess of 50 cubic yards within a Wellhead Protection
Zone, a source statement certified by a qualified professional be provided or confirmation
that the fill was obtained from a WSDOT approved source.
The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) submitted a public comment (Exhibit 13)
related to the potential need for dewatering during construction due to the high groundwater
levels on the site. Specifically, DOE requests the applicant provide the general protocol to
be used for dewatering as well as descriptions of any mitigation measures to be taken
during construction. As such, one mitigation measure related to the recommendations in
the geotechnical report were included as part of the DNS-M issued by the City of Renton
Environmental Review Committee on January 6, 2025 (Exhibit 20).
E. Tree Retention. The proposal meets the City’s tree retention standards and thus is found
to adequately protect and retain site trees.
There are no trees that qualify as significant under tree retention standards on the project
site. The applicant is proposing to plant 49 new trees (17 Tulip trees, 15 Bechtel crabapple,
and 17 Little gem magnolia) as shown in the Landscape Plan (Exhibit 3). Based on the
future 1.32-acre lot, the applicant would need a total of 40 tree credits (30 x 1.32 = 40) to
reach the required 30 credits per net acre. As proposed with the landscape plan, the
applicant has achieved a level of 42 tree credits towards the required 40 tree credit
requirement with 32 new small tree species and 17 new large tree species.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.B, Site Plan Review is required for all development in the
in the UC-2 zoning classification when it is not exempt from Environmental (SEPA) Review. Hearing
Examiner review of site plan application is required for projects with heights exceeding 60 feet per
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
RMC 4-9-200D2biv. The proposal is subject to Type III hearing examiner site plan review. As
outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final
decisions on Type III applications.
2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is located in
the Urban Center 2 (UC-2) zone and the Urban Design District ‘C’ Overlay. Its comprehensive plan
land use designation is Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
3. Review Criteria. Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200.E.3. All applicable review
criteria for the site plan application are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC
4-3-100.
4. Criteria Met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan
policies, design regulations (Design District C) and development standards as outlined in Findings No.
17-20 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses,
including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities,
rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from
surrounding properties;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the
appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
5. Criteria Met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) the proposal provides for desirable
transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4(H), the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(J), the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping
standards. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or
glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C). As determined at Finding 5(B) the
screening of rooftop equipment and utilities is adequate. As discussed at Finding 4(E) and conditioned,
issues related to loading and delivery operations will be fully addressed.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and
soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces;
and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas
so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
6. Criteria Met. As discussed at Finding 5(A) and (C), the proposed structure is oriented as
optimally as possible while meeting the urban density objectives of the applicable zone and
simultaneously serving as a transition aera from the residential use to the east. As determined at
Finding 5(D), there are no critical areas at the project site, which includes natural features such as
wetland, streams and protected wildlife areas. , there are no natural features adversely affected by the
proposal. As determined at Finding 5(J), the proposed landscaping meets City landscaping standards,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
which in turn are designed to enhance the appearance of a project and provide for aesthetic
compatibility as contemplated in the standard quoted above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather
than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and,
when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives,
parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian
areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
7. Criteria Met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian
circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E).
Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(K). As discussed
at Finding 4(E) and conditioned, the safe operation of loading and delivery areas will be reviewed
and approved prior to issuance of a civil construction permit.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal
points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the
site.
8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
9. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined
in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). The proposal also does not include any shorelines and cannot provide
public access to them.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
10. Criteria Met. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural
systems of significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the project protects all affected
critical areas as required by the critical area regulations.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities
to accommodate the proposed use.
11. Criteria Met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and
estimated time frames, for phased projects.
12. There is no phasing plan proposed
DECISION
The site plan request meets all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of
Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination
of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated January 6, 2025.
2. The applicant shall record a formal Lot Combination with parcels 1823059264 and
1823059206. The instrument shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate
of occupancy.
3. The applicant shall submit an updated density worksheet that demonstrates that the project
complies with the net density range for the Urban Center – 2 (UC-2) zoning district. If the net
density calculated is outside of the permitted minimum and maximum net residential density
range (85 - 150 du/ac), the applicant shall be required to add or remove residential units in
order to comply with density range of the UC-2 zone.
4. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the minimum front yard setback or receive
a setback variance approval to allow encroachment.
5. The applicant shall submit a final detailed landscape plan that complies with all landscape
regulations in RMC 4-4-070. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance.
6. The applicant shall submit a final detailed irrigation plan with the construction permit
application. The final detailed irrigation plan shall be provided to, and approved by, the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance.
7. The applicant shall submit a materials board and a rooftop equipment exhibit with the
elevation plans associated with the building permit application to further identify the
screening detail for any rooftop equipment. The exhibit shall provide cross section details and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 15
CAO VARIANCE - 15
identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to the architecture of
the buildings. The materials board and rooftop equipment exhibit shall be provided to and
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval.
8. The applicant shall submit a utility and landscape plan set with the construction permit
showing the location of all ground mounted utility boxes and identify how they would be
screened from public view. In addition, the applicant shall work with franchise utilities to
ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public right-of-way view, outdoor plaza
areas, and primary entry areas, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. The
utility and landscape plan set shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval.
9. The applicant shall submit a plan for future tenant move-in and move-out, as well as both
residential and commercial deliveries. The plan may include educational materials for future
tenants, signage, or other physical improvements that ensure the correct access drives are
utilized. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building permit issuance.
10. The applicant shall submit a refuse and recycling exhibit that documents compliance with the
multifamily development refuse and recyclables standards. The exhibit shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
11. The applicant shall provide a dedicated bike amenity space in the building with secure bicycle
parking for up to 97 total bicycle parking spaces. In addition, a minimum of two (2) exterior
bicycle racks shall be provided on the site near the commercial uses. Bicycle parking details
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit issuance.
12. , the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan showing all existing fencing proposed
for retention and new retaining walls or fencing proposed for installation. The plan shall be
submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to issuance
of the building permit.
13. The pathway on the east side of the site connecting N 3rd St and N 4th St shall be a minimum
of eight feet (8’) wide.
14. All ground floor units facing a public street shall be raised at least one foot (1’) above the
level of the adjacent public sidewalk. In addition, the applicant shall submit an updated
landscape plan that includes additional landscape elements such as large evergreen shrubs and
trees that would provide privacy to the street-facing units upon maturity. The updated
landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to issuance of the building permit.
15. , the applicant shall submit a site improvement plan that incorporates additional human-scale
elements including but not limited to, additional canopy elements, recessed entrances, planters
or street furniture, or a variation of materials or color around all primary and secondary
building entrances. The site improvement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the building permit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 16
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16. The applicant shall submit revised elevations for the refuse and recyclable area. If located
outside of the building, a service enclosure made of masonry, ornamental metal, or wood,
with self-closing doors and a minimum opening width of at least twelve feet (12') for haulers
shall be utilized. In addition, if the containers/dumpsters utilized for refuse and recycling need
to be rolled out of the building on pick-up days, the applicant shall submit a narrative
describing how they will be moved, who will move them, where they will be moved to, and
how long they will be located outside of the building. The revised detailed elevations and
narrative shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy
this standard.
17. The applicant shall provide an updated pedestrian circulation plan that includes a connection
between the proposed pathway on the east side of the site and the central pedestrian plaza.
The pedestrian circulation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction permit.
18. The applicant shall incorporate a pathway in the surface parking lot that connects the future
sidewalk along Burnett Ave N with the north/south pathway on the east side of the site. The
design of the pathway shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to issuance of the building permit.
19. That the applicant increase the width of all interior concrete sidewalk connections to the
building’s east main entrance to a minimum walkway width of eight feet (8’) of unobstructed
walking surface. A revised pedestrian circulation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. If this
condition of approval is met, the proposal would satisfy this standard.
20. The applicant submit a detailed landscape plan that includes but is not limited to movable
planters, benches with planters incorporated into them, cast in place concrete planters, or
similar in all outdoor space site-wide. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction
permit.
21. The applicant submit detail sheets and quantities of all fixed outdoor site furniture and
amenities including, but not limited to, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, pet relief
areas/disposal, movable planters, cast in place concrete seat walls and planters, and outdoor
recreation equipment. The detail sheets and quantities shall be integrated into the detailed
landscape plan submitted with the civil construction permit to be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager.
22. The applicant shall incorporate secondary overhead weather protection elements with a
minimum height of eight feet (8’) and a maximum height of fifteen feet (15’) above grade and
minimum width of 4.5 feet (4.5’) over all pedestrian entrances.
23. The applicant submit detailed programming plans for each of the common open space areas
with the building permit application. The open space program plan shall be separate from the
separately recommended promenade plan and shall provide details of intended use, street
furniture, landscaping, and other furnishings provided by the applicant. The applicant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 17
CAO VARIANCE - 17
incorporate additional ground-level elements on or below the blank wall, including but not
limited to trellising, public art, additional material variation, or incorporation of an additional
plaza area.
24. The applicant shall incorporate additional ground-level elements on or below all blank walls,
including but not limited to trellising, public art, additional material variation, or incorporation
of an additional plaza area.
25. The applicant shall provide revised elevation drawings with the building permit application
that identifies compliance with the 50% glazing requirement along the portion of the ground
floor facade that is between four feet (4’) and eight feet (8’) above ground on the north and
south building elevations or provide additional ground level articulation that meets the intent
of the guidelines as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised detailed
building elevations shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
26. The applicant shall submit revised architectural elevations with the building permit
application for the west facade that includes elements such as artwork, architectural detailing
like reveals or contrasting materials, spandrel glazing, planting beds, or a combination of
elements in order to treat the blank wall that is shared with the structured parking area. The
revised elevation drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
27. The applicant design the eaves and overhangs in a manner that creates desirable modulation,
greater visual interest, and strengthens the building design as it relates to the roof profile.
Revised building elevations showing more varied and interesting eaves and overhangs shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
28. The applicant shall utilize texturing, reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or
admixture on any concrete walls. The treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
29. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan with foot-candle levels that adequately provides
for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. The final lighting
plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval.
30. The applicant shall design all ground floor commercial or office spaces to have a minimum
depth of 20 feet (20’) with an average depth of thirty feet (30’) across each separate space.
31. Each individual unit shall be provided with one dedicated parking spot reserved for the
exclusive use of residents of that unit. Each spot shall be identified or numbered via paint or
signage.
32. The applicant shall install bollards adjacent to the Logan Ave N emergency access entrance.
The location and design of the bollards shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager (in consultation with the Renton Regional Fire Authority) prior to
issuance of the building permit. In addition, the applicant shall add a “lip” or similar device
at the end of driveway apron in order to further discourage non-emergency vehicles from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Site Plan - 18
CAO VARIANCE - 18
parking in the emergency access ROW apron. The “lip” or alternative shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction
permit.
33. The applicant shall submit a dedicated loading and delivery plan for services like Uber Eats,
UPS, Fedex, doordash, or similar. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
34. The applicant shall receive separate street modifications for the Logan Ave N, N 3rd St, and
N 4th St frontages, or install the code required improvements. The street modifications shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of a
civil construction permit.
35. The applicant shall provide a Utility Protection Plan (UUP) designed by a professional
engineer to protect the existing Boeing high pressure water mains on the site during
construction of the improvements. The plan shall be developed in coordination with The
Boeing Company and submitted with the civil construction permit application for review and
approval by the Public Works Plan Reviewer.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2025.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III
applications subject to judicial appeal to King County Superior Court as governed by the Washington
State Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW. As required by LUPA, judicial appeals
must be filed and served within 21 days of the issuance of this decision to confer jurisdiction on the
superior court.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation
