No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-2025 - Logan Six - HEX Final Decision with Appendix A1 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 Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 21 Appendix A February 11, 2025 Hearing Transcript Logan Six -- PR22-000229 Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City’s hearing examiner website should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:00:07): Alright, the computer's let us get started, so let's do that. For the record, it's February 11th, 2025, 11:00 AM I'm Phil Albright Rent's hearing examiner today holding a hearing on site plan review for a mixed use development in the city of Renton. Some of you may have heard this is the first in-person public hearing that Renton has held since the pandemic restrictions. The first project that's developed enough public interest that we felt we should do that. We had about 30 public letters written or written public comment and so we just wanted to make sure that those of you who preferred in-person proceedings could have the option to come and testify in person. This is a hybrid meeting though. There are some people that will be allowed to participate virtually if they want and once we get to the public comment portion of the hearing, we'll be taking both comments from those of you in this room as well as those who are participating in the Zoom hearing as well. (00:01:05): So the hearing format is that we start off with a presentation from staff, that's Mr. Morgan Roth right up there at the staff table. We'll give you us an overview of the project, what it's all about. Once he's done, we'll move on to the applicants and that's the applicant table right there. If the applicants want to sit at the table, you certainly can and that'll be your chance to talk to speak after Mr. Morgan Roth has done summarizing the proposal. Then after all that, finally we get to the purpose of today's hearing, which is to hear from the neighbors and concerned citizens. The public basically will take everyone who wants to say something. There's I believe a five minute time limit in Renton is what the staff will impose there. That's just to make sure that if people who want to speak don't have to wait for two hours to do so, we want to give everyone a quick opportunity to get their comments and once we're done with public comments, we go back to Mr. Morgan Roth to answer any questions that were raised during the comment and after that the applicant as a matter of due process, gets final word. (00:02:02): I get 10 business days to issue a final decision and that decision is appealable to superior court. Now by state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put in the record today. That way we all know exactly what information is being considered. It's a level playing field essentially for everybody. I'm not allowed to talk to staff, the applicant or anybody about the project. All the information I get on this project is the information that's going to be shared with you today and Ms. Cisneros has an exhibit list, a list of the documents that staff gave to me in advance of the hearing, which identifies the documentation staff found that supports their recommendation for approval and that is necessary to make an informed decision. That starts off with the environmental review committee report. They're the group that decides whether an environmental impact statement is required for the proposal. (00:02:54): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 21 They determined that it was not, but there had to be some conditions to ensure that those impacts didn't rise to the level that triggered an environmental impact statement. Oh, Mr. SROs, could you go back up a little? Sorry. Yeah, we have the site plan, landscape plan, civil sheets, floor plans, architectural drawings. We have a lot of information on what this project going to look at. There was a geo technical report done for soil stability, that kind of thing. The technical information report, it deals wi th drainage impacts and then probably Exhibit 10, the most important document for concerned citizens is the traffic impact analysis, which assesses whether the project conforms to the city's level of service standards, which kind of simplified terms are congestion standards set by the city and the report determined that those standards are met. Transportation concurrency, memo address, the same kind of issue. Andros keep going down a little bit and we got some comment letters from the tribe, the Department of Ecology and then exhibit 14 are the 30 public comment letters that I've seen and the advisory notes. And then next exhibit list, Ms. Cisneros. (00:04:04): Top of all that we have the staff report prepared by Mr. Morth, a pretty lengthy document. There's a lot to consider there. The city has a lot of standards that regulates the site plan review and the proof of neighborhood meeting and the exhibit 20 is determination non-significant. That's a decision that an environmental impact statement was not necessary. So at this point, oh and then we have the three standard, I guess that 21 through 23 probably. There we go. Let's see, yeah, exhibit 21 oh, exhibit 20 will be Mr. Morgan Ross's PowerPoint presentation 21 will be city of rent and wrap maps, which is at the city's website, which kind of shows zoning maps, critical area map, those are wetlands streams, that kind of thing, as well as aerial photographs. Then Google Earth two aerial photographs. So at this point I just want to ask you if anyone has any objection to entry these documents in the record. (00:04:58): If you do, just raise your hand if you're participating virtually on the Zoom screen, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. I think Zoom updated their website these days. It's like emoticons or something at the bottom center. If you click on that, there'll be a raise hand and then you can click on that. Actually, it's a heart at the bottom there. Yeah, okay. Hearing seek no objections will enter those documents. And with that Mr. Morro, let me swear you in. I'll take your testimony. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 2 (00:05:27): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:05:27): Okay. And also let me disclose, I also did a site visit today. I just did a few loops through the neighborhood and Logan Avenue, that kind of thing, and certainly a pretty stark contrast between the urban Logan Avenue and the quiet residential neighborhood behind. So with that Mr. Warnoff, go ahead. Thank you for bringing that up. I Planner Morganroth: (00:05:47): Share my, (00:06:14): Looks like that's coming through Jenny. Okay, great. Thanks. Yeah, thank you Mr. Examiners. I'm Alex Morgan. I'm a principal planner with the city. I'm here to make the staff recommendation and go over some findings for the project known as the Logan six project. This is LUA 22 0 0 2 83. So a little bit about Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 21 the project site and that's great that you were able to take a walk out there. That's really helpful to get on the ground and see what the surrounding area is like. So it's technically not addressed because there's no structures on there right now, but it is would be about three 40. Logan Avenue North consists of two parcels. You've got the main site along Logan Ave, north fourth, north third, and then there's a parcel that the applicant's proposing some surface parking that's directly to the east of the si te. You can see the little leg that jumps out there to the east that take has access onto Burnett or Front Agenda Burnett. (00:07:12): There both sites are zoned uc two or Urban Center two. I'll get a little bit more into what that zone of district means later. It's also in our room design district C overlay, which is applied to all uc zoning districts and that's a set of design standards for development in that zone. It's in the commercial mixed use or CMU comp plan use designation category right now, as you saw Baird's pretty much a vacant site with some surface parking on the small kind separate parcel or next to adjacent parcel. That's got far into along Burnett. And then as far as critical areas on the site, we got a high seismic hazard area which is common for most of this right downtown area wellhead protection area zone two and a wellhead protection area zone one and those are actually split on the site. So those are aquifer protection zone areas and those are again split but halfway on the site, which is a little unique but luckily because of the type of use it is, it's not really impacted by that. (00:08:15): It's not a split designation there. So the applicant requested environmental review which is noted. The sort went through and I'll get into that a little later. I a hearing examiner site interview. So we had a proposed mixed use building six stories, so about 170,000 square foot gross floor area, about 19,000 square foot footprint and then about 91.5 foot max height above grade. That's the height of the elevator kind of shaft. Most of the building is about 78 feet. You look at the roof line outside the that 97 market rate apartments are proposed about 6,200 square foot of retail commercial space and other amenity space on the ground floor split between two spaces and then we've got 104 structured parking stalls on two floors for residents and guests and 17 surface parking stalls that will be assigned for the commercial uses on the site. And that would be found on the parcel that's directly to the east of the main kind of north south parcel access is being proposed via two driveways off of north third and north fourth streets. (00:09:27): The garages, again, there's two floors of garages due to the narrowness of the site. They're not proposing an internal ramp to connect the two garages just because of the depth of the building makes that challenging. So each entrance we'll go just a little bit more, but each entrance will be in and out for each structured parking area on each floor. And then the other access for emergency access only and that is at Midblock up the Logan and that's an emergency access point for emergency vehicles and will be a condition of approval will be bollards and to ensure that that's only for the use of emergency vehicles. Here's the site plan here. So north is going to be to the right, you looking at the screen there, you've got this is looking at the kind of first ground floor level. There's a below one floor below grade that's all parking. You can see kind of the second floor parking to the north side of the building to the right there you can see the commercial spaces outlined in blue there with the larger one on the south side of the site, the smaller one on the north side of the site, you've got the parking area adjacent to the building on that's got access off of Burnett as well. (00:10:50): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 21 We'll come back to these but I just wanted to provide some elevations. We'll get a little bit idea of what the building actually would look like. And so this is the east elevation, so looking at the front of center, the front of the building off of Logan, you can see the commercial space on the right side, left side of the screen there you can see the various units on the floors two through six above. One interesting feature about this and is part of their, what they propose architecturally to at least try to break up the long nature of the building is to have essentially a bridge between the two wings there. So you've got P on four floors essentially above that kind of gateway there. And that is again, that's provide access for, that's where the emergency access is. You kind of see the followers there. (00:11:41): So that's where the fire trucks will go actually in theory drive under there, although they probably would say they wouldn't do that but at least they can run hoses and stuff under there if need be and access that area that will kind of double as a pedestrian plaza as well as the emergency access there. I've got a couple other elevations on the side. So this is from third and fourth, so from third, so the south, sorry, north elevation on the left you can see there. And then on the other side you've got the south elevation and that's from north area there. (00:12:18): This is the back of the building, so facing east that would be. And so you can see we've got some blank walls which we've addressed. There's some conditions but mostly a very similar architectural style and elements as the other facades. And you can see again looking through that gateway there that we looking towards Logan, you can also see that some rooftop amenity space on the north side of the rooftop up there, some landscaping features and other passive recreational features. Okay, zoning. We are the city center planning area. The community planning area here, the zoning, like I said is urban center two and then it's got the urban design district C overlay, which is again applicable to all urban center to zone parcels. It's got the CMU comp plan, land use designation as far as neighboring zoning. So just looking directly adjacent to the building is basically surrounded by uc zoning. (00:13:23): I know this map's a little confusing. This it shows the right of way is up north third zone actually separate parcel there it is right of way. And so that zone is across the street. You've got the uc two and then in a little bit of R 10 where the senior center and senior center is to the south of there. But then you've got right to the back of the site to the east you've got more uc zone sites that are currently developed with a dental medical light manufacturer at least selling things to that nature and then parking lots and then you go further so you go across Burnett, then you get into a lower intensity kind of single family, some duplexes but mostly single family neighborhood that is the north threatening neighborhood across Burnett which kind of goes all the way over to Park and beyond there they are proposing attached dwelling units flats which are permitted outright in the uc two zone with the requirement that there's at least 20% of the ground floor required to be commercial and retail use. We do have a uc one zone too that is kind of more of the core of our urban center area, which is founded by Boeing and South and all that. That requires a little higher amount of commercial ground floor than the uc. Ones a little, sorry, EC2 is a little more up for parcels on the periphery that maybe having 40% getting the virus, 40% of ground floor for EC one might not be appropriate. So that's kind of the difference there. (00:15:04): So just talk a little bit more about the uc two zone. So the overall mix and intensity of uses in the zones intended to create urban rather than a suburban character. So that includes mixed use structures like this where you've got a mix of residential and retail uses that are able to be used. Retail uses both able to be used by both residents of the development as well as existing people in the neighborhood. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 21 Development expected to include amenities such as gateways, water access and open space. Obviously water access is not possible here but they do include open space that'll common open space areas that are open to the public. It is intended, this is a big one but obviously got Boeing across a kitty corner across the street. The zone is intended to allow the continuation of airplane manufacturing as land in the areas is formally occupied. (00:15:56): Those pieces, it's kind of slowly transformed into retail service office, residential and civic use. So Boeing, they're kind shifted around stuff all the time. They might be downsizing some of their office space. The intent is to kind of fill that in with the kind of development allowed for in the uc two zone as far as what has allowed. So up to 10 stories is permitted along principal and secondary arterials. The site is mounted by three principal arterial streets and then the densities are a minimum of 85 and a maximum one 50 of which they're on the low end of that. They've proposed six story building there. (00:16:37): So you run again, there's a lot more analysis obviously in the staff report. We kind of hit some high level stuff in the site plan review. So primary access as we'll discuss more is via North third Street, north fourth Street with the emergency access at Logan Midblock. And then the access for the surface parking on burn net, they are proposing a substantial amount of new landscaping around the building including 49 new onsite trees, number of street trees, foundation, landscaping, and then landscaping on the rooftop deck. There are some conditions related to landscaping asking them to essentially provide more detailed landscape plan with the building permit that shows additional landscaping and some of the common areas, stuff like moveable planters, foundation, landscaping, more privacy for some of the units under the ground floor, things of that nature. We do a look at pedestrian circulation. Again this is a meetings of all conditions and approval. (00:17:33): A couple of the big ones include a pathway along the east side of the building that would connect North third Street with North fourth, so that would run north south along the east side of the building there. There's a condition related to that to expand the width of that just to make sure it's a highly usable space for residents or other folks accessing the site. There are side connections from the Logan North sidewalk that's their now to the building entrances and these are pretty wide, I think almost 25 feet at some point to access the two retail areas on the north and south sides of the building. Kind of get up into the main plaza area. And then lastly is a parking lot connection. So making sure folks that are accessing the parking lot are able to access the building in a safe manner without having to go into the street or anything. Just walk right onto the site and get to the retail areas. (00:18:34): Open space that they propose include a corner plaza, the southwest corner of the site in front of the larger retail space. And then we talking about the large gateway public plaza, the building center which kind of expands out from that bridge of archway that you see above there. And then as well as the common rooftop space for residents. Other open space for residents include all the units have combination of in set balconies and balconies that projection the building various design elements. This is in the urban design district standards analysis but I want to call out a few, there's no getting around. This is a long site that has some constraints which I'll get into that make the width of the building rather narrow. So again it is most of a city block from north third to north fourth, but the applicant did propose some architectural features to try to mitigate the long expanse and those include the center bridge and plaza area, significant facade modulation on all sides, not just the sides facing the public right away, the various insets and balconies, some material differentiation, some color differentiation. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 21 (00:19:47): We do have a couple of recommended conditions of approval ways to adding some additional color and some additional materials just to really make sure that the visual bulk of the building is mitigated for as much as possible considering the length of the site and the public comments. So got three kind of agency or company comments. And then as you know we got a number of comments from individuals, most of which you live in the area said Dowamish tribe first year had concerns about cultural resource discovery due to proximity of the Cedar River. And so there a Seema mitigation measure related to the provision of the discovery plan and just making sure that there are any yard defense found that not everyone knows what needs to happen. We got the comment from Department of Ecology, there's a high groundwater level here which was known by the applicant for geotech report but I see a confirm from DOE. (00:20:47): So just making sure that dewatering is going on in the site during construction. So there is a se mitigation measure related to that that was added as part of the determination of significance mitigated. And then the Boeing company, they've got elk that can go back to the site plan but they've got two high pressure water lines on the site. This is one of the bigger challenges on the site, which we can speak to more if needed. But these high pressure water lines are private and they serve their plant and they're basically, there's two easements they run north south and they're basically proposing this building inside of those easements directly inside. And obviously impacting those lines is not an option. It's not something that Boeing wants not so the NAP wants and especially the city, even though they're not our water lines, we all have an interest to make sure those are protected. (00:21:42): So they did submit a comment which is in as an exhibit that they basically had concerns about the building and wanted to make sure that those lines are not impacted. So we did add a condition, sorry, mitigation measure, I'm sorry, condition of approval asking the applicant to provide a utility protection plan that would be essentially looked at by the city Boeing to make sure that before construction begins that those water lines are protected and there's not any impacts as they work on the foundation and clearing the site comments like you noted, we got a number of comments from counted roughly 40 from about 25 individuals could be a few more less, but those are all included as an exhibit as well on all the ones that I got up until this morning. And I know there's probably some here as well that are some written comments, concerns. I want to speak for some of the folks here. So I'll of 'em talk about their concern concerns we're generally focused around traffic volumes, potential for trip people circling the block, the location of the access that north third, north fourth, the scale of the project as it relates to the neighborhood and then just traffic, will this increase some issues like traffic speeding, the legal parking and things of that nature. (00:23:03): So I just wanted to touch a little, the big most of the comments were on transportation and access and stuff. I just want to touch a little bit more on that and then sure we'll talk about it more. But here's two floor plans you can see on the top you've got the first floor, that's the access off of north third and that's the below grade parking. They've got most of their parking there below grade with that access off of north third and then access off below that has access for the garage that's on the ground floor where they've got a lot less stalls down there to get the 18 stalls you've got the in out access off of the north fourth there. So again, those water lines I can't remember exactly but it's roughly where the blue lines are there but that they're bounded. Essentially the building footprint is bounded by the easements where those water lines are. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 21 (00:23:58): And so that is what made it challenging to do any kind of ram to connect to the hard and garages and limit it to only one access. And again, the applicant can speak a little bit more to that later. You can kind of see on the bottom image there where they're going to have the emergency access off of Logan Avenue North at Midblock. There's actually already a curb cut there and then didn't include it here, but there's going to be a new venture off of Burnett have nor prevent surface parking lot that will be utilized by people visiting the retail. (00:24:34): And then I think we'll probably come back to this but I just wanted to, it sounds like you were on site, which is great. So you kind of know what we're looking at here. So we've got a couple interesting intersections. You get the site bounded by at least the main part of the site is bounded by three arterials, north third, north fourth and Logan. And so the entrance is here, you see on the right here with be pass down where the billboard is on the other you'd be looking kind of just by that street maybe before that second street light there. I've got this kind overview of the aerial of the site there you can see a little better. So it might come back to here, I just wanted to have this on there site. (00:25:17): So related. So we got all these comments on traffic concerns and we also had some concerns just obviously we want to make sure that there's not any safety issues with how they're proposing their access. They did kind of go back and forth. These are all exhibits but a few different traffic analysis, looking at a few different options for mitigating potential, some of the impacts and some of the concerns that folks were expressing as well as some of the concerns that the city had. So I'm not going to read word for word all this. This is a mitigation measure that was adopted part of the determination of non significant to mitigated the CP determination that was made by our environmental review committee. This is one the conditions or the mitigation measures they prove that basically requires the applicant to install, sorry, to do some signal timing changes on the intersection which we can get into more. (00:26:15): That will help with making sure folks are not having to circle the block or cause unsafe movement when someone's trying to get over lane and there's enough a car right next to it. North third and North North are both one way streets, which makes us a little unique and then we'll visit a two way street. So basically it's requiring them to submit a monitoring plan to us after this project is constructed. That includes level of service analysis of different intersections, queue analysis, safety analysis, and then basically looking at a few different scenarios including the baseline conditions. So without the project conditions and some other scenarios that we will work with 'em on, we are requiring that to be submitted, the monitoring plan to be submitted within 45, the results within 45 days of completion. Again, we want to make sure that keep the ball rolling on this. (00:27:12): And then once we have that plan, obviously we got to see what the findings were the applicant were requiring the applicant to post a cash surety equal the amount of 20% of the transportation compact to be calculated and that cash surety can be used for other improvements at surrounding the site should they be needed. So we've come back to this, it be, but this again, this is not, it is a condition of approval or approval for the site plan in the sense that we always recommend compliance with the environmental review mitigation measures, but it was again adopted as part of that determin issue, not sign. (00:27:55): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 21 We're going through some of the traffic quickly. I know we're going to come back to it. Critical areas again, we can see the split there between well head areas, ion areas, zone one and two. So this is above our aquifers where the capturing recharge area for our wells. So very important to make sure there's no impacts there. And it's also a high seismic hazard area. So the geotech report did have some recommendations that was added. Compliance with those recommendations was added as a mitigation measure or sorry, as mitigation measure as part of the DNSM issue. (00:28:32): So like I said, it issued a determinated cost of things. Mitigated was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on January 6th, 2025. No appeals were filed in the 14 day comment period. It ended on January 21st. There were seven mitigation measures related to the geotech hazard protection, cultural resource traffic that were included as part of that. And like I said before, compliance with mitigation measures is recommended as a condition of approval of the site review. So that all being said, staff is recommending approval of the Logan six project subject to 35 conditions of approval and not including all of those conditions of approval. I try to give a high level summary, but obviously those are found in the report ages 51 through 54. A lot of 'em are related to the design, again, the building of this size and we just want to give ourselves a little extra room to acquire them to go a little further on the design once they come in for a building permit. (00:29:34): But I'll just run through a few of the high level here. So we're requiring a lot combination, making sure that that parking area they they're going to be using is for the exclusive use of that site. So combining that into one site is the easiest way to do that. Requiring updated landscape plans for additional moveable permanent landscaping on site, widening non onsite pathways for better pedestrian connectivity, incorporation of additional entryway architectural element just to make sure that there's a real prominence there when someone's having access the site. Sometimes with these mixed use buildings it can be a little confusing if you're, where's the residential entry versus the commercial entry? And this is to make sure that's very clear incorporation of additional growth, top architectural elements and has to try to reduce the overall visual scale of the building. Making sure any blank walls facing the public right of way are screened or treated in some way so they don't open a blank wall. (00:30:33): And going have a little small section of that. We're concerned about installation of bollards for emergency access off of Logan. Again to make sure that that use is for the exclusive use of emergency vehicles, making sure that there's an obvious delineated area for delivery services. So this allows to become a big thing after the pandemic, a lot more people getting food, other packages delivered to just making sure that there's a very obvious space where they can back in and out and drop out packages and there is space on the site for that and there's a space kind of shown, we just want to make sure it's very, very obvious. So looking for a plan to be submitted with building permit application. And lastly, again before the utility protection plan to ensure no impacts to Boeing's high pressure. And that concludes my presentation. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:31:24): Okay. Some quick questions for you in your staff report, you note they don't meet the minimum density requirements from the information you have so far, they're at 81.5 and then you have to have a minimum of 85 dwelling units per acre and then you put together a condition of approval that requires additional information on that. I mean if it does turn out they're at 81.5, I mean about how many more dwelling units do they need to get to 85? Do you know Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 21 Planner Morganroth: (00:31:49): About two? Examiner Olbrechts: (00:31:49): Oh, just two. Okay. Is that something that can be easily accommodated without adding another story or how do you foresee that that would be accommodated? Planner Morganroth: (00:31:57): I'm sorry to, I'll let the applicant respond to that. It really was proposed with more, it was 102 and then dropped back down to 97, so that would be up to them to find that. But this is, they're below the minimum. There's not only another option. So I'll let that speak to that and I can respond back. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:32:16): Okay. Okay. And I noticed that the monitoring conditions for traffic, is that something new for the city? I don't think I've seen that before where you've required LOS monitoring after the fact after construction. Planner Morganroth: (00:32:28): I would say it's a little atypical, but in this case, just because we don't typically get this much feedback on traffic concerns as well. So it's just a built and suspenders approach, if you will, to make sure that we've looked at all this, everything, it wasn't found to bump any level services up to a point and that our transportation currency test, but just kind of an extra, is there an unforeseen element that comes up later? Is there another something else nearby that comes up that creates traffic concerns? Again, we do our best, obviously look at all the data that's presented and the current conditions. But until the project is done, some of this just human behavior too, right, how we're going to go. So again, just kind an extra so answer, no, it's not typical, but it's something we felt was appropriate for this project just because, Examiner Olbrechts: (00:33:20): Yeah, because it didn't look from the traffic impact study that they were on a borderline LOS. The L os is E on Logan and the estimates they're going to be a D. So there's some room for error it looks like. I mean if it turns out that they do violate LOS standards, I mean are there options for them to correct that? I noticed that some options were listed in the mitigation measure, like re striping or something or adding a lane. Is there room for that actually there or what could be done? Planner Morganroth: (00:33:49): Yeah, so they look at some options. Everything from adding, so sea curving to limit turns here and there. There's not really much probably on site that can be done obviously, but offsite, they're fairly wide right of ways and there probably is, there is some room for some adjustments if need. Again, I think we don't anticipate based on the data that we were provided by the traffic consultant and the level of service we see now, especially with the number of new trips for a hundred units, well certainly not nothing, it's nothing compared to a top golf or source of another use like that. But yeah, there are options though. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:26): Yeah. So a lot of the comments on traffic reference Topgolf as being a major contributor to traffic in the area, did that result in more traffic than was anticipated? Do you know? I mean, Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 21 Planner Morganroth: (00:34:41): I don't think so. No, not Examiner Olbrechts: (00:34:43): So that didn't create any LOS problems. And like I said, I mean the traffic study for this project, which is pretty close, shows that all the intersections are still below the city's congestion standard. Okay, interesting. And then finally, could you go to the PowerPoint slide that shows the easements? I wasn't quite sure. I think did you say it's the blue lines that are the water line? Planner Morganroth: (00:35:04): Exactly. Yeah. Okay, Examiner Olbrechts: (00:35:08): So they're on both sides. Planner Morganroth: (00:35:09): Yeah. So the blue line is the actual high pressure water line I believe. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:35:14): Is that under the road then? I mean developed road or how is that? Planner Morganroth: (00:35:17): No, it's, it's on, so it is the exact blue line you see there. It is on the site. I believe they're in the applicant. All the applicant address. I think they're in an easement that's 15 feet wide. Oh, okay. Yeah. Each one are in. And that was an easement granted by a railroad that used to own this parcel probably was from the seventies, I believe, maybe early eighties granted to Boeing for the use of these, for the high pressure Examiner Olbrechts: (00:35:45): Water lines. So I thought you said there was some construction in the easement or not? Planner Morganroth: (00:35:50): No, none of the building will be. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:35:51): Oh, okay. Planner Morganroth: (00:35:52): Okay. The way it's written is actually written hold down speed. More of this because they've been talks with Boeing, have copies of easement. Basically it was written that it was written in an interesting way. It doesn't prohibit putting walkways and stuff like that. It basically says it can't interfere my understanding, it can't interfere with the water lines, it doesn't prohibit development, but obviously you're playing a building on top of it that maintenance and emergency repairs and things of that nature. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 21 Examiner Olbrechts: (00:36:22): So in terms of the condition you wrote to address it, have you had any feedback from Boeing as to whether that satisfies their concerns or Planner Morganroth: (00:36:30): We they're aware that I've not had Examiner Olbrechts: (00:36:32): Feedback directly, no. Okay. Sounds good. Alright, thanks Mr. Morron. Alright, well let's move on to applicant comments if you want to say anything. As I mentioned, we have a, oh sorry. Planner Morganroth: (00:36:41): I'll say they're online. They're Examiner Olbrechts: (00:36:43): Virtual. Oh, they're online. Oh, okay. Great. Okay. Who do we have, who wants to speak on behalf of the applicant at this point? Planner Morganroth: (00:36:54): Oh, I think you're muted, Andrew, if you can. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:36:56): Yeah, Mr. Kovac. Alright. Okay, Mr. Kovac, let me swear you in as soon as you're unmuted there and yeah. Oh there you go. Speaker 2 (00:37:06): Okay. Okay. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:37:07): Yeah, so it looks good. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Kovach: (00:37:13): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:37:14): Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Kovach: (00:37:16): Okay, so you asked about the additional units, we might have to add two more units and that's pretty easily accomplished by reducing the size of some of them, the larger units around, we just subdivide those and that way and with the easements. Yeah, we've been going back and forth with going on this, we came up with mitigation measures they prefer we did not build on this site, it would be easier for them to do any maintenance if the building wasn't there. But we have come to an agreement as to Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 21 monitoring everything very carefully during construction. And this is something that typically you do in a lot of projects where we're going down five stories, six stories where large, large projects next to buildings on both sides and there's plenty of ways to measure any kind of vibrations or anything like that. So we're confident we're going to be able to do it correctly and we just need to make sure that they, they're on the same page with us as well. Speaker 2 (00:38:24): Okay. Mr. Kovach: (00:38:25): And easements are 15 feet and they allow access over primarily they're there for maintenance and ease of getting in and doing any kind of repairs they might have to do. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:38:40): Okay. Is that it for the applicant? Mr. Kovach: (00:38:43): Yeah, pretty Examiner Olbrechts: (00:38:44): Much. Okay, sounds good. Thanks Mr. Kak. Alright, fantastic. Well let's get to public comments and I just have two people that signed up. So oh, lemme say I believe we had a couple letters that were put in the Dropbox today, right? Ms. Bravo might identify what those are before we get to the public comments, just need to identify the names and we'll make sure staff's going to make the copy gets to the applicant and if the applicant needs additional time to respond to that, I can leave the record open, but that's up to the applicant. Speaker 2 (00:39:24): Great, thank you. There's another, Examiner Olbrechts: (00:39:38): Okay. Alright, so that's all. Alright, so let's see, I have a two page letter from Ms. Freeze came in today and looks like a few dozen pages from Mr. Sorry, my eyesight is not great Mr. Handy. So we'll add that to the, I believe that Mr. Ciro's exhibit, was it exhibit 15 or 14? I can't remember the public. We Speaker 2 (00:40:07): Were at 20 Speaker 5 (00:40:07): More. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:40:08): Oh, I was going to add it to the exhibit that has the compilation of letters. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 21 Speaker 5 (00:40:12): Oh, I see. Okay. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:40:14): Which was that? That's exhibit 14. A 14. Okay. So any objections over a letter from Ms. Hamby or Ms. Freeze or Mr. Hamby? Okay, those will be admitted. As I said, there's quite a few pages from Mr. Hamby and if the applicant needs some time to look that over, I'll leave the record open after because applicant as a matter of due process, gets final word on these things. So those are put in the record and we just have two people signed up to speak. Once we're done with that, I'll ask if anyone else in the room wants to speak and everyone will have a turn if they want to say something and then we'll move on to people who are participating virtually. First on our list today is Ms. Freeze, if you want to come up just to the podium there, every person who testifies, I'll swear you in and just say how to state, spell your name for the record and then we'll move on. So Ms. Freeze, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm and tell the truth nothing but the truth in this proceeding? I do. And your last name, is it F-R-I-E-S-Z? Correct. Okay, great. Go ahead. I'm just going to Speaker 6 (00:41:19): Set a timer too. So I respect the five minutes, so I kind of want to go off on a quick tangent for a second based on the trip that you did this morning, looking at the property and some of the things that we just heard, and I appreciate that first of all. Secondly, I also want to say unless you actually look at traffic from the perspective of what we deal with as North Renton neighbors, you would not see what's happening when Boeing is either coming on or off site. Topgolf is having an event, Sartory is getting in or out of school, excuse me, and then an event is happening at Memorial Stadium. Those intersections on third and board were not meant to handle additional traffic including a hundred plus cars and we're being really generous with that statement and that calculation of a hundred plus cars. (00:42:18): When I was president of the North Frankton Neighborhood Association serving along with Matt Hamby for just shy of two years, we stepped into this Logan six project professionally, humanely, strategically as a group and as individuals and we have not seen in kind behavior towards us and all of our concerns. City planning was connected with dozens of times through emails, face-to-face meetings. And I do want to do a point of clarification and I have appreciated Alex and how much he's actually met with us. Same thing with Matt meeting with somebody versus having an actual transparent exchange of communication, something entirely different. City councils and others receive a petition signed by almost a hundred people. Letters were written in opposition to Logan Six's current proposed layout and many, many, many, including last night city council meetings were attended and we spoke about our opposition. We reached out to the developer's architects numerous times. (00:43:21): We didn't get any real traction. We got traction when we actually reached out to the developer directly, they attended a North Renton Neighborhood Association meeting. And keeping in mind while we're doing all of this and really trying to take proactive professional engagement with everybody involved is we were CCing people on emails. We were asking for people to do the same with us. And again, we were not getting complete transparency. The developer and his son did come to our NRA meeting. The tone that we set was one of seeking to understand and listening to learn, and we made it super clear to them that we are not opposed to development and growth in North Renton. What we're opposed to is really lack of thoughtful strategic planning for how that specific development on what we're hearing is Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 21 requiring. And I know you all are probably looking at this as a positive, that they're requiring a reactive LOS after the property's been developed to make these assessments. (00:44:25): We think that all of this should be done before the developer did thank us for how we ran the meeting and our professionalism when we reflected on the conversation with them, what we were dumbfounded by, and this led to another point on the lack of transparency and communication and accountability, was they told us that they had proposed an exit and entrance on Logan trying to minimize impact to the North Renton neighborhood on third and fourth. And they were told that they were asked to change that onto third and fourth. And we've gone back to the city numerous times and said, can you please tell us how that happened and why it happened? And almost two years later, we still have no answer to that. We had to beg for additional traffic studies and emphatically request that it happen on several different days at several different times of the day. (00:45:16): Again, can't further emphasize how those areas on third and fourth and intersections are not capable of handling the amount of traffic that you all want to increase it to. I also want to go on a quick tangent to emphasize that the current review process has not been modified enough to take in past mistakes. We've asked over and over for retrospectives to be conducted for each significant project and lessons learned, documented, and then the review process updated to reflect these lessons. It's not the curre nt case. Had it been Logan six would've been managed differently. Sartory would've been managed differently, imminent domain with rent and high school would've been handled differently. And instead we keep repeating mistakes that are impactful to residents, they are adversely impacted. And honestly, it's really inhumane the city center community plan. I know I've got a couple seconds, I'm going to move fast. (00:46:16): Plan 2011 updated in 2017 is not being applied by the city of Renton. Resolution 2 7 0 8 is not being abided by it is supposed to make the city making protection of these neighborhoods a priority. It's counterintuitive to a lawsuit that was already brought by North Renton about another issue prior. And again, what I want state is we are not opposed to growth. What we're opposed to is the fact that on the back end of planning that we weren't taken into consideration and or engaged with. We asked for transparent communication moving forth and we really asked for a reconsideration of this property and that it not go forth as currently planned. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:47:00): Thank you. Thank you Ms. Re. Mr. Mur wrote the resolution 2 7 0 8. I think that was in some of the public comment letters, at least one of 'em said it was attached and it wasn't in exhibit 14. Is that anywhere in the exhibits? It was referenced by several people. I think maybe it should be made part of the record. Planner Morganroth: (00:47:17): This probably is in the public comment. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:47:20): The comment was it, like I said, I couldn't find him. It's in for sure one that came in that's not in there as of last night. Oh, okay. Okay. From Mr. Handy was a hundred percent in there. I added it. Okay. Okay. Good, good, good. Alright. Okay. So next is Mr. Hamey, Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 15 of 21 Speaker 7 (00:47:44): Just need 20 seconds. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:47:46): Sure. S Speaker 7 (00:47:47): Up here. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:47:57): Thank you. Alright, and let me swear you in. Raise right hand. Do you swear for tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Kovach: (00:48:03): Yes, Speaker 2 (00:48:03): I do. Thank you. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:48:03): And last name is spelled H-A-N-B-E-Y, is that correct? Yes sir. Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 7 (00:48:09): Okay, stopwatch. Well good morning. Thank you for meeting you in person at a public hearing. Wanted to thank SIN staff again. Alex has been a great resource throughout this whole process and his boss, Matt. So having said that, I hope that they don't take these comments personally and the developer, I appreciate that they came to one of our community meetings, but that's where the compliments kind of end on that. I think Cheryl will live some of the process. So this has been three years incoming and I don't know how I'm going to get do all this in five minutes, but I will do my best. But what I would like to say is pretty much everything I would tell you right now are in two documents that I provided this morning. The first one is this, large comments to the hearing examiner and the second one is comments responses to the city's staff report to you. (00:49:02): So can I start over? I'm just kidding. The sources that I use in the document are the city's zoning map, the North Renton neighborhood map, which is a city designation, the rent administrative code, the city center community plan that was adopted in 2011. Michelle, I'm sorry I gave you the wrong information. It was updated in 2018 and 2019, the city resolution 27 0 8, I provided that to you, the staff paper as a reference. And that supporting documents which include excerpts from the city center community plan, the city resolution, the developer CIPA submission when the project was submitted, and then a petition that North Renton neighbor put forward. So I'm asking you to do something that you may not be able to do, which is to reconcile the city's policy statements about protecting the Northwestern neighborhood and the administrative code. And again, I think city staff would follow the code. (00:50:10): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 16 of 21 I don't think they did anything ous or arbitral or anything like that. But the thing is there are a lot of policy statements and the city center, you have to keep in mind, the city center community plan is considered part of the rent and municipal code, and I cite that in my little staff paper. So things that the city has said don't necessarily match to what I would consider this development. The uc designation zone, it's a little tapered area right on Logan Avenue right before Burnett, the city resolution from a long time ago. So my main concerns are the height, the bulk and mass of this development. I realize that uc two allows 10 stories, and this is six stories, but imagine if you live on Burnett Avenue, okay, you drove by there, you're looking across, there are two small businesses there now, no more than two and a half stories. (00:51:03): So now you're going to have a wall, you're going to have a almost a hundred foot mass that runs the entire length of the block. And I think that's a very important thing to consider because when the city says things about protecting the neighborhood, protecting the character of the neighborhood and other things, I think these are almost in conflict. And I feel for anyone who, I can't even figure this out, but I don't feel it's right to not mention these policy statements. For example, the city center plan calls on the city to protect the residential neighborhood that the north front neighborhood, there's specific subparts to talk about the edges of the neighborhood and the transition area between zones. So in my estimation, if we were doing this correctly, there would not be a six 10 story building across the street from a residence. It would have to be a transition. (00:51:56): A transition from the two and a half stories that are there now to maybe three or four. Because what this is proposing is a mass, the size of the stadium across the street. And I think that that's a very important concept to consider. But I don't have a resolution for that other than I will leave the other, I'm not going to get through the rest of this, but I'm going to shoot my last shot here, which is in the pump plan, there is an element that says to protect the public scenic bes, including re's, physical, visual, and perceptual languages linkages to Lake Washington. And the Cedar River now is just there this morning from Burnett Avenue. You can see the trees on the Cedar River. That is a perceptual, that is a visual linkage. Now imagine a hundred foot wall that's going to separate the edge of this neighborhood from the river. (00:52:55): Now if all these, according to the comp plan, if all these elements are not met, then the whole thing does not meet the comp plan. So that's my best shot. I have a hundred other arguments that are in the document about traffic and the mass and onscreen parking and even the process. And all I can say is I just hope that you'll take the time to read through these two documents. If they were considered a legal brief, I would give myself an F, but I think at least it's well sided and well documented. So thank you. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:53:28): Okay, thank you Mr. Hamby. And certainly I'll be reading your materials. Okay, so we just had two people sign up in the meeting room. Was there anyone else who wanted to speak at this point? Okay, ma'am, come on up to the podium there. Speaker 5 (00:53:58): No, yeah, I was going to say, do you want me to write it down? It's hard. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:54:07): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 17 of 21 Okay, so raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding, I Speaker 2 (00:54:11): Swear. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:54:12): And just give us your last name, how to spell it, and then go ahead. Speaker 5 (00:54:15): E as in Victor, R-A-N-E-S-I. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:54:22): Okay, Speaker 5 (00:54:23): Great. Say that slower if you need to. But my name is Kathy Ick. I'm a civil engineer for the Boeing company. I work in the facilities department. I just wanted to bring up, we have a couple concerns about the water management and the water mains in general. Briefly, I've looked into the history of the project and looked into the X report a little bit too, but it seems like the city is mostly focusing on the construction piece and so is the developer about during construction, there's utility protection plan, which we do appreciate because if those needs go down, we lose the ability to do production at all. And so construction understands a big deal and that's kind of what the city has decided to focus on. I would also like to propose the city focus on the maintenance piece because if those water mains, like I said, if they go down we cannot do production. (00:55:10): And those are significant mains. They are both 12 inch water mains put in back in 1941. I have near initial document from way back then. And so they're going to need maintenance at certain points. We're going to need to be doing inspections and I just would like the city and speak on behalf of Boeing when I say that we'd like maintenance and the maintenance concern to be, have the city and the developer both take that in mind and to understand the significant risk that Boeing is not only incurring based on this and as well as property development, if anything was to go, we want to make sure that everyone is out of the palm white in case those main word of above, because they're pretty big. And that's the big piece is the maintenance. Just to have the city consider that it's not just a construction two years, whatever will be done. It's an ongoing concern and it will be for as long as Boeing and the developer holds occupying that site if it was to happen. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:56:06): So how would Boeing like to see the developer address the maintenance issue? I mean, they do Speaker 5 (00:56:12): Address it. The communication we've seen. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:56:15): Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 18 of 21 Okay. Have you seen the staff permitted condition? Is that Speaker 5 (00:56:18): Yeah, it's the utility production plan for construction as was explained in the meeting in the earlier for construction, not for maintenance. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:56:26): Oh, okay. Okay, great. Speaker 5 (00:56:27): That's how we've been understanding it. If there is to be a piece about maintenance, we'd like that to be called out specifically. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:56:32): Okay, gotcha. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Anyone else out there in the meeting room before I go on the virtual attendance? Okay, let's go to virtual. If anybody wants to participate, click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen. You see any takers, Mr. Cisneros? Speaker 2 (00:56:50): I do not. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:56:51): Okay. Alright. Let's go back to Mr. Morgan Roth and well a couple you haven't had a chance to look at Mr. Hamdi's community plan. You mentioned some policies that deal with kind of the border areas, the transition areas that you needed to recognize that as staff looked at that and just some kind of comments on that. I mean, in general case law says that if you have development standards that conflict with your comprehensive plan, the development standards win. But I think in the case of site plan review, right, there's a development standard that says you have to comply with the comp plan. So I think in that scenario you have to comply with both the comp plan and the development regulations at least arguably. So I mean are there policies, as Mr. Hamby said, and I'll be looking at them, that require added consideration for those transition areas and do you feel those have been met here? Planner Morganroth: (00:57:44): Well, yeah. So there's certainly policies about transition between more I intense and less intensity like this. I think the big challenge here is where is that transition area and different people are going to see that transition area in different places per our zoning. The transition area is not on, this site is along three principal arterials. It's got the King County rapid ride going right by it. It was zoned for this type of use, this higher density use to allow more people to live by amenities in public transit. The question is, where is that transition then adjacent to the site where it's also zoned uc to, is it across Burnett into the single family neighborhood? Is that where the transition starts? Those are all good questions that maybe could have been addressed back when that original policy came out. But for right now, how the zoning zoning is obviously can limit the comp plan policies and per the zoning and what the uc zone, uc two zoning is intended to development intended implement. That's kind where the line is right here long. That's where we want the higher intensity development, what you see here. Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 19 of 21 Examiner Olbrechts: (00:59:03): Okay. And then also the Boeing questions about, and I haven't looked closely at your recommended condition on Boeing, it said that that just focuses on construction, not maintenance. Is that something maybe that should be added or, Planner Morganroth: (00:59:18): So it does focus on construction and again, I don't want not at all that we don't care what happens once the construction is done, but once it's done similar to other, we have other private utilities or other private party issues. That's really between the applicants (00:59:32): And Boeing. We certainly want to facilitate what we can. Again, it's at our very big interest to not have the lines explode, either be a maintenance concern, but that's really to be addressed between two private parties. Obviously we care about both periods, but during construction we're able to actually monitor that and review plans. But once it's done, we have kind of limited capacity to, we're not out there doing the maintenance or inspections and stuff like that. So we definitely highly encourage, we've been highly encouraging the applicant to work with Boeing on this and we're happy to facilitate where we can. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:00:05): Okay. Anything else from staff? Planner Morganroth: (01:00:08): Mr. Speaker 8 (01:00:08): Examiner? Examiner Olbrechts: (01:00:09): Yeah. Speaker 8 (01:00:10): Matt Herrera, pine. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:00:11): Oh, lemme swear in. Do you swear Affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, sir. Okay, great. Speaker 8 (01:00:16): Thank you Mr. I just wanted to address one item regarding the community plan from your question. The community plan was adopted back in 2011. After the adoption of that plan and advisory group made up of stakeholders and citizens, Renton were formed and by city staff on priorities to implement that plan. There were several priorities and items completed as far as code work, capital improvements, so we really looked to that advisory group post plan adoption for guidance on how to best implement that plan. The plan, as Mr. Hamey mentioned, was updated again in 2018 and 2019. We have not had an advisory group meeting in a couple of years, but we have gone through a matrix of items with regards to Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 20 of 21 implementation, check those boxes. So we have made some changes to the development code based on the advisory group's recommendations as well as based on Examiner Olbrechts: (01:01:19): What resources we currently have. Okay, great. Thank you. Alright, well we'll go back finally then to back to Mr. Kovac and Mr. Kovac. As I said, I got quite a few documents from Mr. Hamby here. If you need a few days to look them over and provide a written response, that would be fine. I'll leave that up to you. I don't know what your schedule's like and then of course you can respond now as well. Mr. Kovach: (01:01:43): Yeah, I think that that would be appropriate. The staff has done a great job with this report. We've been working on this for a long time at a very difficult site. We don't have a lot of options as far as maintaining what we need to maintain to meet a code requirements. The density is kind of a big deal. We have to get all the parking that we're providing right now in order to get that density and any other configuration given the constraints of building really, really don't allow us other ways of accomplishing the same thing. So we're between a rock and a hard place. We're sensitive to what the needs are, will do everything we can to accommodate and as far as what we do with it traffic in general, if we can help out, we do have a good traffic engineer on staff that is working on this with us. So yeah, I think that's about all I have to say. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:02:51): Okay, sounds good. Well, what I'll do then is Mr. I'll leave the record open until next Monday in case you have any written response to the letters that came in today and staff if you want to say anything within the next couple days on those too, give you until Thursday, I guess, and Mr. Kovac till Monday. Does that work with staff and applicant? Mr. Kovach: (01:03:11): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:03:11): Okay, sounds good. With that, I'll go ahead and close the hearing. I think the audience understands my job is to apply the law. If I disagree with it, there's nothing I can do about that. That's the city council's role, and as you heard, the way the laws are set up right now, it's not even big enough. It has to have an additional two dwelling units apparently according to, because the code has minimum density requirements there. But also, as I said, the code also requires you to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and there may be some policies there that require additional mitigation there. So that's something I'll be looking at very closely. I'll be looking closely at Mr. Hedy's citation to the comp plan policies, that kind of thing, and as well as the other arguments that were made there. As staff pointed out, I think usually traffic monitoring isn't required. (01:04:06): It's pretty standard that you figure out, you estimate the traffic impacts in advance, which is what the developer already did. This is an extra step taken to really ensure that the transportation impacts are fully addressed, at least as regulated by code. I mean that's pretty typical. I mean, people have concerns about traffic. Other times there are concerns about drainage, that kind of stuff. And over the decades, cities encounters dealing with this. They've adopted standards that address just about everything. And Appendix A -- Logan 6 2 (Completed 03/03/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 21 of 21 I'm sure as staff has told you, the fact that the city wants to direct all this high density development here might not be a local choice. It's probably comes from the state because the Growth Management Act requires rent to absorb a certain amount of population every 10 years. And the city council here decided we want to keep it out of the neighborhoods and keep it along our primary arterials. (01:05:00): They made those kind of policy choices. And so at this point we're applying those policy choices is what's happening. But like I said, I'm very thorough. I'll look over all the arguments and see if there's anything further I can do and issue a decision 10 days after next Monday, 10 business days. And for those of you who want to see a copy of that decision, make sure that you've given your email address to staff and the signin sheet staff will email that to you and that can be appealed to Superior Court. So thank you all for all the effort and time you put in this and workday, that kind of thing. And we're adjourned.