HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRE21-000415_Pre-App_Meeting_Minutes_Staff_Review_Comments_220512_v1
MEETING NOTES
MEETINGDATE/TIME/LOCATION December 16th, 2021 - 10:00 PM – 11:00 AM, MS Teams Conference Call
PROJECT NAME 800 Garden Ave – Renton, WA
PROJECT/FILE NO. 6042.00
MEETING NO & SUBJECT Pre-App Meeting – City of Renton
ATTENDEES CC: Clark Close – Planner, City of Renton
CT: Corey Thomas – Fire Prevention Reviewer, City of Renton
NJ: Nathan Janders - Public Works Reviewer, City of Renton
BW: Bryon Wolf – Bay West Development
MG – Matt Gingery - Bay West Development
IM: Ian S. Morrison – Land Use Attorney - McCullough Hill Leary
AI: Archana Iyengar – Carrier Johnson Architecture
PG – Paige George – Carrier Johnson Architecture
CE – Claudia Escala – Carrier Johnson Architecture
TE -Thaddeus Egging – KPFF – Civil Engineer
Item No. Description/Comment Action/Information
1.
2.
3.
General/Introductions
a. Applicant team acknowledged receipt of the city issued memo
on 12/16 just prior to the pre-app meeting.
b. City reviewers highlighted key comments or changes from
previous pre-app meeting and answered any questions from
the team.
c. Additional questions from the team can be addressed via
email to the reviewers listed in the memo.
Fire (CT)
a. CT confirmed that fire loop around buildings (2 streets and fire
access roadway on N & E) as shown in the proposal is
acceptable; No additional fire apparatus/emergency vehicle
access roadways will be required in the pedestrian zones in
between buildings.
b. Fire/Sprinkler riser room closer to Garden Ave N would be
preferred; No specific distance requirement from the street
but area should have direct access from exterior for FD. Lobby
location acceptable for FD panels.
c. Larger stretcher requirement for Renton - 40” W x 84”L which
will require larger size elevator with wider 42” elevator door
and lobby door. Typical 24” width for stretchers is not
allowed.
Water(NJ)
a. NJ noted key differences in some comments - items 10 & 12.
800 Garden Ave - Renton, WA
Pre- App Meeting Notes Page 2 of 5
6042.00
4.
5.
6.
b. Item 10 requires compliance with city’s 2019 Water System
Plan; it was noted that this should not have much impact to
the actual systems.
c. Item 12 - Fees listed in the memo per 2022 rates. Actual fees
will be charged at the time of civil construction permit
issuance.
Sanitary Sewer (NJ)
a. NJ noted key comments - items 8 & 9.
b. Item 8 -Connection to existing 8” main sewer on Garden Ave N
will require a capacity analysis.
TE asked what happens if the capacity is not adequate
and if the city hires the engineer for this analysis.
NJ noted that 8” size continues on Garden for a long
stretch. It would be more economical to connect to
main on 8th or split flow between 8th and Garden Ave
N. Applicant team would engage the engineer for the
capacity analysis and work with the city through that
process.
Surface water (NJ)
a. Item 4 – Project conveyance number noted in memo for on-
site private conveyance systems.
b. NJ noted that flow control facility will not be required as
proposal will provide less impervious area compared to
existing conditions.
c. Water quality treatment will be required based on impervious
area (fire access roads) shown in the proposal.
d. NJ noted that there are easements. AI asked if any additional
setbacks would be required from edge of easements. NJ noted
that surface water & water easements fall within the ROW, so
no setbacks within property line would be required. PSE
easement at SW corner should be verified, but that would be
in the plaza space with no potential impact to the building
footprint. Surface water easement along Garden Ave N of 20
feet falls in the 23.5 feet dedication zone; No additional
setback would be required from edge of easement, but
applicant team should provide cross section to ensure that
there is no additional surcharge/impact from the building
foundation to the utility line; cross section to be provided to
show proposed foundation in relation to the utility.
Transportation (NJ)
a. Garden Ave N –
Requires 23.5 feet dedication. Within that portion
there will be a 6 increase to the paved roadway width
'will not' should be
replaced with 'is likely
not'. (although it seems
unlikely that a facility
is needed based on the
proposal, the applicant
will need to
demonstrate that the
proposal meets
exemption criteria as
part of the TIR.)
not all easements (existing or future) are in the ROW.
there are existing water easements on site and new ones will be required for new water mains that are
installed. building setbacks from water are 10 feet from pipe centerline which is slightly larger than the
15 foot easement (centered over the pipe) that is required.
stormwater on site will most likely be privately maintained and thus no easement is required therefore the
building setbacks defined in chapter 4 of the RSWDM would not apply. (of note a declaration of covenant
will be required which grants an easement but it is for access to the conveyance system features. however
this is a different easement than the easements defined in chapter 4 and setbacks don't apply to the
easement granted by a covenant.)
800 Garden Ave - Renton, WA
Pre- App Meeting Notes Page 3 of 5
6042.00
7.
– 2 feet clear zone at back of sidewalk versus 8 feet
clear zone as proposed. This does not have any impact
to the location of the dedication line (new property
line) and building footprint.
BW asked if angular parking would be acceptable; NJ
noted that parallel parking will be required.
b. N 8th street -
23.5 feet dedication will be required versus 15.5 feet
as shown due to the WSDOT plan for HOV connection
to I-405. 30% design drawings (100% funded) provided
by WSDOT to the city which requires the additional 8
feet increase in the ROW dedication.
c. Water/sewer/storm fees due at civil permit issuance, but
Transportation fees due at Building permit issuance.
d. AI asked if curb-cuts shown are acceptable. NJ noted that
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be required for the curb-
cuts, but the locations on Garden and 8th are conceptually
acceptable.
e. TE requested clarification on requirements for underground
power lines; NJ noted that transmission lines are exempt –
only LV and communication lines must be underground.
TE asked if additional clearance beyond OSHA min. 12
feet would be required from the power lines by the
city; NJ noted that he is not aware of Renton having
any additional clearance requirement from power
lines.
NJ noted that that there have been some concerns in
other areas with transmission lines being too low
conflicting with street lighting. Transmission lines at
the project site appear to be high, but this should be
taken into consideration.
f. PG asked if there were any restrictions for landscaping over
the utility easements; NJ noted that there should no issue as
there is existing landscaping already over the easement.
Planning (CC)
a. CC briefly described the project proposal and noted that the
site is classified under the UC2 zoning, Urban design District C
and Commercial Mixed Use designation.
Development includes 1223 units and 1749 parking
spaces which are adequate per code.
Phase 1 to include demolition.
Adequate depth shown for pedestrian oriented
spaces.
b. CC noted that Phase 1 building is taller and height should be
checked for compliance with FAA restrictions due to close
proximity to the airport.
-streets.
800 Garden Ave - Renton, WA
Pre- App Meeting Notes Page 4 of 5
6042.00
c. AI noted the intent to use some of the commercial space
initially as ‘resident co work space’. CC noted that 20%
commercial is the target but there is flexibility to vary under
the Planned Urban Development (PUD). Team to ensure that
the residential amenity space meets the commercial space
standards (ceiling height, ADA bathroom, plumbing line,
grease trap/ventilation shaft) to allow change of use later.
d. CC noted that the design should take into consideration
factors such as sunlight, visibility for the plaza space between
the buildings; potential to incorporate residential at grade,
townhouse style units to enable more interaction.
AI asked if screening options for parking or treatment
of blank walls would be acceptable since the proposal
currently includes two levels of parking facing those
areas;. CC noted these strategies would be allowed
but design should address issues highlighted
especially due to the east/west orientation of the
plaza space.
e. AI confirmed that net density for the development to be
based on area of site excluding ROW dedications.Net density
calculation will change due to the increase in ROW dedication
along N 8th Street.
f. 100% lot coverage confirmed since parking is provided within
the buildings.
g. 10 feet setback beyond dedication line would be preferred for
screening along N 8th street where parking faces the street.
Modifications or reductions would need to be approved by
Chip Vincent.
h. AI stated intent to use plaza at SW corner to compensate for
zero setback for Phase 1 and 2 buildings. CC noted that design
could increase sidewalk width into the clear zone (16 feet)
and provide tree grates along Garden similar to the
‘Landmark’. No additional setback required. Garden Ave N is a
pedestrian oriented street which allows flexibility through the
PUD process.
i. PUD allows for alternatives to be provided.
j. Potential for additional dedication for light rail at N 10th
Street.
k. Mechanical equipment to be screened at grade or on roof
top.
l. 100 feet clear zone required for loading.
m. CC noted that there is no specific ratio or % for guest parking;
Tandem parking would be allowed if provided in excess of
code required parking; can be reviewed through the Master
site plan process.
n. Balconies/ canopies would be allowed in setbacks.
o. AI asked if balconies would be required for each unit to meet
the private open space requirement since units are only
located at upper levels. CC noted that PUD allows for
through the land use
process. (Chip is a part of
the land use process.)
the landing.This will be determined through
the land use process. See setback
comment in the pre-application
meeting summary.
light rail pedestrian access
In approving a planned urban
development, the City may
modify any of the standards
of chapter 4-2 RMC.
Balconies/canopies may be
allowed in setbacks if
approved/modified under
the PUD application.
800 Garden Ave - Renton, WA
Pre- App Meeting Notes Page 5 of 5
6042.00
8.
flexibility on this issue based trade-offs with common amenity
space and access to residents.
p. CC noted that trash storage to be outside of pedestrian areas
but flexibility from trash storage code specific requirements
would be allowed for such developments; AI stated current
proposal shows internal trash storage rooms with collection
along the fire access roads on the north and east side.
Next steps
a. Next steps - Electronic submittals - Master Site Plan Review /
PUD/ SEPA – Type II Land use permits – concurrent reviews.
a. SEPA checklist provided on the department of Ecology
website. Public meeting would be required prior to
submittal – developer driven virtual meeting,
notification beyond 300 feet radius recommended to
reach out to more people beyond just existing uses in
immediate vicinity; Public signage on site; Applicant
team to submit documents to CC for screening prior to
intake.
b. BW asked about Site plan review; CC noted that site plan
review not required due to PUD review process.
c. Lot subdivision subsequent to Final PUD followed by Binding
Site plan review.
d. Development agreement to be coordinated with city for
appropriate phasing and vesting timelines. BW requested pre-
app to be open for dialogue to further coordinate with the city
on this issue based on timing of construction for this
development and potentially avoid the need for development
agreement if possible.
e. BW asked about required extent of design development for
the MSP review; CC recommended design to be developed as
much as possible although flexibility is allowed for further
development and resolution until the BP submittal.
f. AI noted that applicant team will reach out with any additional
questions via email.
PREPARED BY: Archana Iyengar DATE: Dec 16th, 2021 following notes document our understanding of
items discussed during the above referenced meeting. Should you have different or additional recollections,
please so advise Archana Iyengar of Carrier Johnson in writing within three (3) working days. Carrier Johnson
will proceed with work based on the following notes unless notice to the contrary is received in this office.
Project Contacts List
Name Company Email Phone
Bryon Wolf (BW) Bay West Development bwolf@baywestdevelopment.com
Archana Iyengar (AI) Carrier Johnson + Culture asi@carrierjohnson.com
Clark Close (CC) City of Renton Planning CClose@Rentonwa.gov
preliminary PUD - Type
III land use permit