HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2021 - Sunset Gardens - Final Decision - LUA-21-0001681
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Sunset Gardens
Hearing Examiner Site Plan, Variance and
Development Standard Modifications
LUA21-000168, SA-H, VAR, MOD
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL
DECISION
Summary
The Renton Housing Authority has requested approval of hearing examiner site plan review, a
parking variance and several development standard modifications for a four-story mixed-use
building composed of 76 affordable housing units with approximately 13,645 square feet of
ground floor space for the Renton Housing Authority located at 2900 NE 10th St. The
applications are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-22 identified at page 2 of the August 17, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the August
17, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the August 17,
2021 public hearing as well:
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Exhibit 23 Staff power point
Exhibit 24 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
Exhibit 25 Google Maps
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Renton Housing Authority, Mark Gropper, 2900 NE 10th St, Renton, WA 98056.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11 am on August 17, 2021,
Zoom Meeting ID No. 822 8900 0449.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The Renton Housing Authority has requested approval of hearing
examiner site plan review, a parking variance and several development standard modifications for a
four-story mixed-use building composed of 76 affordable housing units with approximately 13,645
square feet of ground floor space for the Renton Housing Authority located at 2900 NE 10th St.
The existing 13,416 square foot Renton Housing Authority building will be removed. The project site
is approximately 1.28 acres. Vehicle access to the subject property would occur from a single
driveway connecting to Jefferson Ave NE. The development includes 56 parking spaces and street
frontage improvements along NE 10th St and Jefferson Ave NE. There are nineteen (19) significant
trees on the subject property all of which are proposed to be removed.
The Applicant’s parking variance is to RMC 4-2-120.A, which provides that parking for residential
and commercial uses in the CV zone may not be located between the building and a public street
unless located within a structured parking garage. The Applicant proposes to place eleven (11)
parking stalls between its proposed building and Jefferson Ave NE ROW abutting the east side of the
site.
The Applicant requests the following four parking modifications:
a) RMC 4-4-080.F.8.a, Standard Parking Stall Size for Surface/Private Garage/Carport:
The Applicant requests a modification to reduce the minimum size of the standard
surface parking stalls from 20-feet by 9-feet to 15-feet x 8-feet.
b) RMC 4-4-080.F.8.c, Compact Parking Stall Size and Maximum Number of Compact
Spaces: The Applicant is requesting a modification to reduce the minimum size of the
surface compact parking stalls from 8.5-feet by 16-feet to 7.5 feet x 12-feet and a
modification to exceed the maximum percentage of compact spaces allowed by 11%.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
c) RMC 4-4-080.F.9.b, Ninety Degree Parking Aisle Minimums: The Applicant is
requesting a modification to allow for a 22-foot parking aisle width for a portion of the
surface parking lot.
d) RMC 4-4-080.F.11.b and 4-4-080.F.11.c, Bicycle Parking Standards: The project
requests a modification to the type of bicycle rack provided to allow a portion of the
racks to be wall-mounted.
The Applicant also seeks a modification to refuse and recycling standards, specifically RMC 4-4-
090.D.1b and RMC 4-4-090.C.10, to reduce the number of refuse/recycling areas from two to one and
to allow for a reduced height for the refuse/recycling enclosure.
The Applicant seeks a modification to RMC 4-4-040.C.2.d, Retaining Wall Standards – Setback from
Public Rights-of-Way and 4-4-040.C.2.f., Grading. Specifically, the Applicant is proposing to install
four-foot (4’) tall rockery walls along NE 10th St within the three-foot (3’) required setback area to
allow a reduced minimum horizontal distance of level grade abutting a proposed retaining wall near
the surface parking area along Jefferson Ave NE, and to allow a retaining wall (new) and rockery wall
(existing) to exceed eight-feet (8’) in height.
The Applicant seeks a modification to RMC 4-6-060.F.2 to reduce the required street dedication from
1.5 feet to 0 feet for Jefferson Ave. NE and to reduce required pavement width for NE 10 St. to existing
pavement width.
Finally, the Applicant seeks a modification from RMC 4-4-090 in order to allow the development to not
meet three out of five criteria required as part of the Residential Mixed Use Standards in RMC 4-4-150.
Specifically, the Applicant is seeking to construct a residential mixed use building without conforming
to the following standards:
a) For vertically mixed use buildings, the facade necessary for interior entrances, lobbies,
and areas/facilities developed for the exclusive use of the building’s residents, or their guests, is
limited to twenty five percent (25%) of the overall facade along any street frontage or the primary
facade. The Applicant meets the requirement on the west facade but is proposing approximately
45% of the east façade abutting the Jefferson Ave NE ROW and approximately 50% of the west
façade abutting the NE 10th St ROW to be developed for the exclusive use of the residents.
b) Ground Floor Commercial Space Standards: At a minimum, the development shall
include ground floor commercial space along any street frontage or, in the absence of street
frontage, along the primary facade of the building in conformance with the following standards:
b. A minimum floor-to-ceiling height of eighteen feet (18'), and a minimum clear height of
fifteen feet (15') unless a lesser clear height is approved by the Administrator
d. A central plumbing drain line
e. A grease trap and a ventilation shaft for a commercial kitchen hood/exhaust.
4. Surrounding Uses. The project site is surrounded on three sides with multi-family housing and
commercial development 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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project.
Project impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Structure Placement and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale are not
expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent residences and is designed to protect
privacy and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain compatibility with
existing development and surrounding uses.
The building provides privacy and noise reduction as a large number of units are oriented
towards Jefferson Ave NE, a dead-end road that provides access to the adjacent apartments and
commercial uses to the west and north of the site. The exterior common spaces are located behind
the building and away from the busier NE 10th St. There are also no occupied roof decks above
the second level that could project noise over the adjacent buildings to the larger neighborhood.
All noise from exterior common spaces at ground level would be limited and contained by
hardscape and landscape features such as planter boxes, trees and weather protection canopies.
To provide for compatible scale, the proposed building would be “L” shaped with an outdoor
second-story terrace area located on the backside of the building. This design would provide the
maximum amount of natural sunlight to both the outdoor common spaces and the residential
units above. The other large common open space, a memorial park near the northwest corner of
the site, is located behind the west wing of the building and has plentiful access to sunlight due
to the orientation of the building. Parking is concentrated between the two wings and provides
adequate vehicular access to the site while remaining mostly hidden from the abutting streets.
B. Views. No obstruction of existing views of natural features are anticipated, including view
corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. There are no significant views for which to maintain
visual accessibility and staff received no comments from adjacent properties regarding views.
C. Noise, light and glare. As conditioned, the proposal will not create any significant noise, light or
glare impacts. A lighting plan was not provided with the application; therefore, a condition of
approval requires that a lighting plan be provided at the time of building permit review. Noise
impacts are adequately controlled as outlined in Finding of Fact 5A and by virtue of the City’s
noise ordinance.
D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view.
The only surface mounted utility equipment identified in the project plans, a transformer located
to the west of the refuse and recycling enclosure building, would be screened from the ROW
and adjacent property through the use of landscape screening made up of trees, shrubs, and
groundcover. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 9) did not identify the locations of specific
plants and therefore staff was unable to determine whether or not the transformer would be
adequately screened. In addition, the Applicant did not provide details of roof or surface mounted
equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment with the land use application.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant to submit a surface mounted utility
plan that includes cross-section details with the civil construction permit application. The
Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out
of public ROW view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required
landscaping areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening measures consistent with the
overall design of the development. In addition, a condition of approval requires that the
Applicant submit a rooftop equipment exhibit with the elevation plans associated with the
building permit application. The exhibit shall provide cross section details and identify proposed
rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to architecture of the buildings.
E. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features.
There are no natural features on the site that will be adversely affected by the proposal. The
only critical area on-site is a moderate landslide hazard and sensitive slopes. Moderate cutting
is proposed on the site in order to utilize the slope of the site to screen the structured parking and
provide a better pedestrian experience. Most of the existing vegetation on the subject property
will be removed during construction, however, the development would result in a significant
number of street trees and new ground level landscaping including at grade shrubs and trees as
well as above grade planter boxes.
F. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and
proposed landscaping.
The Applicant will provide required 10-foot wide street frontage landscaping along NE 10th St
and Jefferson Ave NE. The Applicant has also proposed a heavily landscaped memorial garden
area at the rear of the building and a second-floor terrace with incorporated planter boxes that
will help reduce the scale of building, reduce light spillage and increase privacy for both
residents and neighbors
G. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas.
The only critical areas affected by the proposal are geologically hazardous areas. The City’s
COR maps has identified the site containing a Moderate Landslide Hazard Area and Sensitive
Slopes (15-40%). The geotechnical engineer anticipates that the western portion of the proposed
structure may be supported with a conventional foundation system and the southeast portion of
the proposed structure may be supported by deep foundation elements such as driven piles,
provided the recommendations presented in the report are followed. In addition, the geotechnical
engineer anticipates that proposed development would not have adverse impacts on adjacent
properties provided the same recommendations are followed. The recommendations of the
geotechnical report are made conditions of approval.
H. Compatibility/Overconcentration. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and does
not represent an overconcentration of use.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
The proposed building is four stories and generally consistent with the scale of existing buildings
in the commercial area in the surrounding Sunset neighborhood. A three-story apartment
building across NE 10th St and a four-story across Jefferson Ave NE are of similar size and scale
to the proposed development. The building includes pedestrian-scale features along all frontages
and is oriented to the abutting streets. As affordable housing, the proposal does not represent an
overconcentration of use in the area.
I. Variance Impacts. Approval of the requested variance to RMC 4-2-120.A would not adversely
affect surrounding properties or the environment. The portion of the surface parking lot between
the building and the street will be mostly hidden from view due to the substantial grade change
created by an existing 12-foot tall rockery wall abutting the east property line. The grade change
created by the site’s topography combined with the ample landscaping proposed as part of both
the planter strip and on-site perimeter parking lot landscaping will substantially screen the
surface parking lot from view and limit impacts to neighboring properties.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and
Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a preliminary
drainage plan proposing a drainage system in conformance with the 2017 Renton Surface
Water Design Manual (RSWDM). The report indicates the on-site site catch basins would
discharge stormwater into an existing 12-inch stormwater main in the Jefferson Ave NE
ROW as well as an existing 12-inch stormwater main in NE 10th St ROW. However, the
site would be required to provide Best Management Practices meeting enhanced basic water
quality standards for new pollution-generated surfaces. The Applicant has proposed to
provide limited infiltration for the new pollution generating impervious surfaces via two
bioretention planters to be installed on-site between the building’s west façade and the
Jefferson Ave NE ROW. Due to the Applicant proposing to locate the planters partially
within the on-site 10-foot landscape strip, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant
located the planters outside of required 10-foot landscape strip.
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
parks and open space.
50 square feet of open space per dwelling unit is required of the project. The Applicant
proposes 76 dwelling units and therefore 3,800 sq. ft. of common open space is required (76
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
units x 50 sq. ft. = 3,800 sq. ft). The Applicant has proposed to provide common open space
in excess of 50 sq. ft. per unit. The site plan and landscape plan (Exhibits 2 and 9) identify a
memorial garden area on the north side of the site between the building and parking lot access
drive. The garden area incorporates concrete walkways with connection to a central focal
feature, raised mounds with seat walls, and a mix of ground cover, shrubs, and trees. The
passive recreation area would provide approximately 2,800 sq. ft. of common open space.
As shown on the site plan (Exhibit 2), the Applicant also proposes a 3,500 sq. ft. second level
outdoor terrace with adjoining 1,100 sq. ft. common room. The terrace area would include
seating areas, a variety of vegetation and raised planters, and a tenant gardening area. Other
ground floor amenity areas include built in seat benches in the public plaza adjacent to the
southwest corner of building and substantial landscaped areas between the building and the
Jefferson Ave NE ROW to the west of the building. In order to ensure the common open
space elements meet the intent of the standard, which is provide usable and inviting open
space that is accessible to the public, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit
details and manufacturers specifications for all common open space programming elements
Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9).
E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities.
Access to the site would be provided via a single 20-foot wide driveway off of Jefferson Ave
NE.
The proposal provides a safe and efficient circulation pattern for both vehicles and
pedestrians within the site. The Applicant has consolidated the vehicle access to one
driveway on Jefferson Ave NE. Vehicles within the internal parking lot are provided with
adequate driveway aisles for maneuvering in and out of the lot. Pedestrian connections from
the street to the primary and secondary building entrances will be provided as well as a
concrete pathway adjacent to the parking area that will provide safe passage for pedestrians
accessing the outdoor park area or secondary entrances. Emergency vehicle access can be
accommodated via the two abutting streets. See Location and Consolidation discussion
above and Pedestrian discussion below.
The proposal also provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties. The Applicant is proposing to access the ground level
parking via a single curb cut off of Jefferson Ave NE. Site improvements include a new 8-
foot wide sidewalk along NE 10th St, a new 6-foot wide sidewalk along Jefferson Ave NE,
and two at grade entrance points for both the RHA offices on the ground floor and the
residences above. Extensive weather protection and a plaza at the southwest corner of the
building result in an enhanced pedestrian experience for visitors or passersby.
Due to the nature of the proposed uses, frequent large deliveries will not likely occur.
Loading and delivery would be available on Jefferson Ave NE on the west side of the
building where traffic is minimal due to the dead-end nature of the street. Onsite loading and
delivery access could also be provided in the surface parking accessed via Jefferson Ave NE.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
No information or stripping was designated for loading and delivery onsite. If a separate
loading and delivery area from parking and pedestrian areas is proposed onsite, the Applicant
may include the loading and delivery area details with the civil construction plan for review.
Congestion and other traffic impacts were assessed in the Applicant’s traffic study, Ex. 14.
The report found that the proposal would generate 181 new weekday daily trips, 31 new AM
peak hour trips and 19 new PM peak hour trips. The report found that no off-site mitigation
was necessary as all affected intersections would operate at LOS A or B after construction.
System-wide trip generation would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees.
A Transportation Impact Fee, based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule would be applicable
to the proposal. The proposal has also passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC
4-6-070.D (Exhibit 16), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan,
consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future
payment of appropriate Transportation Impact Fees.
F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle
facilities.
Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of
required off-street parking spaces for the RHA on-site service and 0.5 spaces per unit for the
residential uses. The Applicant is proposing 56 off-street parking spaces and 76 dwelling
units, which requires 44 bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant has proposed a total of 45
bicycle parking spaces for the development including 40 in a separate room contained within
the structured parking garage and five (5) in front of the building’s primary entrance on
Jefferson Ave NE.
A transit stop is located abutting the subject property on NE 10th St. The stop services King
County Metro route 111 which provides service between Lake Kathleen and downtown
Seattle. In order to avoid conflicts with the transit stop during site development, a condition
of approval requires that the Applicant coordinate with King County Metro prior to
submitting construction permits to identify any needed accommodations for the abutting
transit stop on NE 10th St that need to occur during construction of the site.
G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking.
Parking regulations for low income attached dwellings are a minimum of 1 for each 4
dwelling units with a maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit allowed. Parking regulations for
on-site services require a minimum and maximum of 3 per 1,000 sq. ft. Based on a total of
76 - low income attached dwelling units, the Applicant is required to provide a minimum of
nineteen (19) spaces (76 / 4) and a maximum of 133 spaces (76 x 1.75). Based on a total on-
site net floor area of 10,483 sq. ft., the Applicant is required to provide 32 spaces for the RHA
offices. Therefore, based on the square footage and number of attached units, the Applicant
is required to provide a total number of spaces between 51 (32 + 19) and a maximum of 166
(3+ 133) in order to meet code. The Applicant proposed a total of 56 parking spaces onsite
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
(29 standard stalls, 24 compact stalls and 3 ADA stalls) including 23 spaces for the attached
units and 32 spaces for the on-site service.
A total of twenty (20) structured or tuck-under parking stalls are available for the residential
units. Per RMC 4-4-080.E.3, a joint use parking agreement is required for parking facilities
authorized to serve multiple uses in order allow commercial users of the building to utilize
the residential parking spaces during off-peak times and vice versa. Therefore, a condition
of approval requires the Applicant to provide a joint use parking agreement for the residential
and on-site service uses on the site. In addition, to ensure a minimum of nineteen (19)
structured or tuck-under stalls are designated for the exclusive use of the residential units in
the building, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant mark the designated stalls
with paint, signage, or an alternative method approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager.
H. Schools. The proposal makes adequate provision for schools.
It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students
generated by this proposal at the following schools: Highlands Elementary School,
McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Except for the elementary school
students, any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools.
The school bus stop is located approximately 0.3 miles from the project site at NE 9th St and
Harrington Ave NE (NW corner). The proposed project includes the installation of frontage
improvements along the NE 10th St project frontage, including sidewalks. All students
would walk east along NE 10th St, south along Kirkland Ave NE, and west along NE 9th St
to access the bus stop. Existing sidewalks are available for the entire route on both sides of
the street and marked crosswalks are available at all intersections where street crossings are
necessary. Elementary school students would access Highlands Elementary School using the
same route.
A School Impact Fee, based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule would ensure that the
Applicant pays its pro-rata share for school improvements necessitated by the proposal.
7. Special Circumstances. Special circumstances justify the need for the Applicant’s parking
variance. Those circumstances are composed of the curvature of the adjoining Jefferson Ave NE and
the fact that the project site is bounded on three sides by streets. The majority of the proposed parking
is tucked behind the building. However, since the project site is bounded by street frontage on three
sides with only a small portion of the perimeter not abutting a street, it isn’t possible to prevent all
required parking from abutting street frontage, given the limited area available for the parking.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications, variances as Type
II applications and development standard modification as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2)
requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure.”
Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, preliminary plat and street modification applications
are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type III review is subject to hearing
and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations/Design District. The subject property is zoned Center
Village (CV) and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
The property is also located in the Urban Design District “D” Overlay.
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200B2c requires hearing examiner site plan review for commercial
projects abutting residentially zoned property in the CV district. Site plan review criteria are governed
by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Variance criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5). All applicable site
plan and variance criteria are quoted below in italics and applied via associated conclusions of law.
The modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are governed by RMC 4-9-250(D). All
of the modification requests are concluded to meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons
identified in Staff Report Findings No. 23-27.
Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. The staff report and this Decision analyze the proposal in the detail required b y the criterion
above.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
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.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 171 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 18 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with
Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. The
Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the Sunset Gardens application and issued a
Concurrence Memo designating the proposal a planned action (Exhibit 1) and therefore the project
does not require any further SEPA review.
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;
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
1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this
recommendation are “FOF No. _____.”
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation
and loading areas by FOF 6(E), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(F) and lighting by
FOF 5(C).
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.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(F) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion
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;
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
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.
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), access is consolidated into a single street
connection to Jefferson Ave NE. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation
and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(E). Loading and delivery will be separated
from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined by a separate access point as outlined in FOF No. 6(E).
The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F).
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.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(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.
10. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5B, there are no significant views for which
to maintain visual accessibility. There are also no shorelines in proximity to the project site.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5E and 5G.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
FOF No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. The project does not involve any phasing.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
Variance
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the Applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and
the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including
size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of
the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
14. The criterion is met due to the special circumstances of the project site as determined in FOF No. 7.
Strictly imposing RMC 4-2-120A would deprive the Applicant of rights and privileges enjoyed by
others because the unique site conditions identified in FOF No. 7 would render compliance cost
prohibitive by necessitating an additional story of structured parking.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject
property is situated;
15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5I.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated;
16. The criterion is met. There is no special privilege as the variance is necessary to enable the
Applicant to accommodate required parking in a feasible manner, a privilege enjoyed by all other
developers.
RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum
variance that will accomplish the desired purpose.
17. The criterion is met. Staff have determined that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary
to reasonably facilitate compliance with the City’s parking standards and this finding is consistent with the
site restrictions of the project site.
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s site plan, development modifications and variance are met by the proposal and the
applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan with the civil construction permit
that provides those items noted in RMC 4-8-120D.12 and a detailed irrigation plan. The
plan shall also clearly identify the 10-foot wide onsite street frontage landscaping along
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
Jefferson Ave NE that is displaced by the stormwater facilities as currently shown. The
stormwater facilities may be integrated into the street frontage landscaping however the
required frontage planting shall take priority and if the street frontage landscaping and
stormwater facilities are unable to comingle, the facilities shall be relocated outside of the
required street frontage landscaping area. The detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with the civil construction permit
application that identifies the replacement trees meeting the replacement requirements of
RMC 4-4-130. The landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
3. The Applicant shall clearly indicate on the detailed landscape plan submitted with the civil
construction permit application how the plan meets the 10% tree replacement requirements
including but not limited to the 50% credit limitation provided for those trees that are
required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070. If onsite replacement for the trees is not practical, then
payment into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved for those trees that
cannot be accommodated onsite. The detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit
approval.
4. The Applicant shall provide a joint use parking agreement for the residential and on-site
service uses on the site. The joint use agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning
Project for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of
Occupancy.
5. The Applicant shall reserve a minimum of nineteen (19) structured or tuck-under stalls for
the exclusive use of the residential units in the building. The Applicant shall mark the
designated stalls with paint, signage, or an alternative method approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager. The method proposed shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
6. The Applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details
with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall work with franchise
utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public ROW view, active
common open spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. The plan shall
provide and identify screening measures consistent with the overall design of the
development. The surface mounted utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
7. The Applicant shall submit a rooftop equipment exhibit with the elevation plans associated
with the building permit application. The exhibit shall provide cross section details and
identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to architecture of
the buildings. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager.
8. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that incorporates additional trees
and/or shrubs between the sidewalk and ground floor residential units along NE 10th St. The
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager to civil construction permit approval.
9. The Applicant shall submit revised exterior elevations with the building permit application
that provide additional primary entry elements that are prominent and visible from the street.
Entry elements may include but are not limited to, additional architectural articulation, an
alternate facade that provide differentiation in material and/or color from other portions of
the building, pedestrian level lighting, or other identifying visual features as approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
10. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that identifies the pedestrian-scale
landscaping requirements of RMC 4-3-100.E.2, including the species and spacing of
individual plants, for the perimeter parking lot landscaping area near the southeast corner
of the site. The landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval.
11. The Applicant shall incorporate additional raised planters or other architectural elements
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager near the two primary front entrances off
of NE 10th St in lieu of the proposed at-grade landscape strips shown on the conceptual
landscape plan (Exhibit 9). Such elements shall be shown on the detailed landscape plan
submitted with the civil construction permit to be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
12. The Applicant shall submit details and manufacturers specifications for all common open
space programming elements Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9). The details and specifications
shall be identified on the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
13. The Applicant shall submit details or manufacturers specifications for the proposed seat
benches and other furniture shown on the Landscape Plan (Exhibit 9). The site furniture and
other sitting amenities shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit issuance.
14. The Applicant shall submit revised elevation plans with the building permit application that
shows a minimum of one (1) additional prominent corner feature such as a parapet
extension, wrapped glazing, unique weather protection, and/or alternative elements
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
15. The Applicant shall submit a revised east elevation which includes a minimum of 50%
glazing along the ground floor between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground on the wall of the
structured parking garage, or, indicate on a revised elevation how the elevation meets the
intent of the standard’s guidelines. Alternatively, the Applicant may propose additional
landscaping in front of the façade that would provide visual interest and mitigate the visual
impact of the blank wall. The revised east elevation and/or landscape plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
The Applicant shall provide one (1) additional roof element that breaks up the massiveness
of uninterrupted roof line and provides additional visual interest. The revised building
elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit issuance.
16. The Applicant shall provide one additional roof element that breaks up the massiveness of
uninterrupted roof line and provide additional visual interest. The revised building
elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit issuance.
17. The Applicant shall utilize an alternative color scheme for the brick veneer. The Applicant
shall submit revised elevation plans with the building permit application that shows an
alternative brick color with higher contrast. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
18. The Applicant shall submit a materials board with the building permit application that
provides samples of exterior cladding materials that are proposed on the building. The
materials board shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building permit issuance.
19. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan with the building permit application that
adequately provides for public safety and creates visual interest to the building and site.
Pedestrian scaled lighting shall be provided at the primary entrance and accent lighting on
building facades. The parking area shall also contain adequate lighting to ensure safety and
security. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
20. The Applicant shall coordinate with King County Metro prior to submitting construction
permits to identify any needed accommodations for the abutting transit stop on NE 10th St
that need to occur during construction of the site. Evidence of the coordination with King
County Metro and the accommodation(s) shall be shown on the civil construction permit
plans to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
21. The material used for the proposed plaza areas shall be scored and the connections in the
parking lot shall be constructed of concrete or comparable alternative material. The scoring
and material composition of the interior pedestrian pathways and plaza areas shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction
permit approval.
22. The Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared
by Otto Rosenau & Associates, dated April 16, 2021 or future addenda.
23. The Applicant shall incorporate a concrete pathway connection across the access driveway
that connects pathway on the west side of the parking lot with the concrete pad adjacent to
the trash and recycling enclosure. The pathway shall be made of a contrasting material and
color and shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. The pathway shall be shown on revised
landscape plans submitted with the civil construction permit to be reviewed and approved
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, VARIANCE AND MODIFICATIONS
CAO VARIANCE - 18
18
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. The Applicant shall also
install pedestrian scale lighting on each side of the access driveway and at the refuse and
recycling enclosure in order to provide additional visibility for users. The Applicant shall
submit a lighting plan with the building permit application that includes the required
pedestrian-scale lighting near the pathway crossing the driveway. The lighting plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
issuance.
24. The Applicant shall utilize a concrete seat wall in lieu of the proposed rockery wall adjacent
to NE 10th St to the extent that the concrete seat can be accommodated without exposing
the garage wall to public view. The purpose of the seat is to provide an additional
pedestrian-scale feature on along a primary façade. The details and specifications of the seat
wall shall be identified on the detailed landscape plan to be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
25. The Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the four standards under FOF 26,
Criterion B, related to the stability of the existing retaining wall and access to the adjacent
parcel, via a written report prior to issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of
Occupancy. The report shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager.
26. The Applicant shall install a curb bulb at the northeast corner of the intersection of NE 10th
St and Jefferson Ave NE near the southwest corner of the site in order to improve pedestrian
safety. The curb bulb shall indicated on the roadway plans to be submitted and reviewed at
the time of civil construction permit application.
Decision issued August 22, 2021.
Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) subject
to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision
must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for
reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 1 of 17
Appendix A
August 17, 2021 Hearing Transcript
Sunset Gardens -- LUA21-000168, SA-H, VAR, MOD
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.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, perfect. Let me go through that again. It is August 17th, 2021 11 o'clock AM. We are here this
morning to hear an application on site plan variance and development standard modifications for an
affordable housing project in the city of Renton. The file number is LUA21-000168. The hearing format,
we will have a staff presentation with... From Mr. Morganroth, I take it. He will give us an overview of
the project. Once he's done, then we'll move on to applicant comments. If you want to say something,
you don't have to. But that will be your opportunity. Then after we're done with applicant comments,
we'll move on to public comments. And that would be the time for any of you who are neighbors,
concerned citizens or anyone who wants to comment on this project, you'll have a chance to speak as
soon as the African is done making their comments.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Then after a public comments, we'll move back to staff rebuttal. That's a chance for staff to answer
questions and provide rebuttal evidence. And then finally, the applicant gets final word as a matter of
due process. You should see on the screen right now, a little technical direction as to how members of
the public can participate. Jenny, did you want to say anything about that? Mrs. Cisneros, did you want
to say anything about public participation? How they could make themselves heard?
Mrs. Cisneros:
As I was trying to [crosstalk 00:03:31].
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, there you go. Okay.
Mrs. Cisneros:
So please identify yourself if you are an applicant, or public, or an instrument to the public hearing. And
there's a rename function on the three... I think it's the three dots on there that you can rename
yourself. You'll have an opportunity to comment. And so, these are the instructions on how to
comment. There's a raised hand on the right side of participants screen. So you'll go ahead and do that
when Mr. [inaudible 00:03:56] ask for comments at the time of commenting. That's about it.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, great. Thank you Mrs. Cisneros. And also you'll see on this Mrs. Cisneros' screen there, she has her
email address and her phone number. And so, if you are a member of the public and can't... You're not
being heard, or you're having technical issues and you can't figure out how to participate, go ahead and
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 2 of 17
either email Mrs Cisneros, or give her a call and we'll figure out how to patch you in. I'll also leave the
record open until 5.pm tomorrow in case... Due to technical issues, you weren't able to participate
today. Just then email your comments to miss Cisneros with the subject line saying 'Sunset Gardens' and
then I'll give the applicant and staff an opportunity to respond to those email comments and they'll be
put into the record. So with that, let's move on to the exhibit list. And let me pull up my... Mrs. Cisneros,
you have the exhibit list, right? You want to share screen on that?
Mrs. Cisneros:
Yes, of course.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, there it is. And also it's on page two of the staff report. These are the documents that were given
to me in advance of the hearing to review for today. And they are the evidence that will be considered
for making a decision on the applications. There's a lot of information contained in those documents,
including the site plans, elevations, floor plans, color renderings, a tree retention plan, landscaping plan,
and so on. And traffic analysis. And Mrs Cisneros, those documents are available at the city's website,
right?
Mrs. Cisneros:
Yes, that's the link above.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, right. The link up there. So, if any of you need to see those documents, go... You can go ahead and
click on that link. Or if that doesn't work, email Mrs Cisneros and she'll figure out how you get to those
documents. But this point, I just need to know if there are any objections to the entry of exhibits one
through... And what's the last exhibit number there, Mr. Cisneros? Is it 25?
Mrs. Cisneros:
22.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. We also have the staff PowerPoint is 23. 24 is the city of Renton. Core maps, which is available at
the link here. Those are basically zoning maps, critical area maps, that kind of thing showing what's at
the project site. And then Google Earth gives us a bunch of aerial photographs as well. So, if any of you
have any objections to entry of those documents, one through 25, just press on your raised hand there.
Button at the bottom of your screen, or unmute yourself and say, "I object." And let me check to make
sure there are no objections. Don't see any. So, we'll go ahead and admit exhibits one through 25. And
also I believe that it... Could you put that exhibit list back up, Miss Cisneros? I'm sorry, I just need to
verify if the staff report is included in the list or not. Okay, it doesn't. Let's see. It doesn't look like the
staff report is one of those exhibits. So, we'll say the staff report will come in as exhibit 26. Any
objections of the staff report coming in as exhibit 26? Okay, hearing none that's admitted as well. Yeah.
[crosstalk 00:06:55].
Mrs. Cisneros:
It's about staff reports with the hearing [crosstalk 00:06:56].
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 3 of 17
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, there it is. Okay, nevermind then. We'll keep it to 25 then. Alright. I think we're done with exhibits.
Let's move on then to Mr. Morganroth, do you want to make comments at this point?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah, thanks Mr. [inaudible 00:07:08].
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in real quick. Just raise your right hand. You swear affirm tell the truth, nothing
but the truth in this proceeding?
Mr. Morganroth:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Alright, go ahead.
Mr. Morganroth:
Thank you. And I'll share my screen here quick. Alright. Are you able to see my screen [crosstalk
00:07:33].
Mr. Olbrechts:
Yes.
Mr. Morganroth:
Okay, great. Thank you. Yeah, Ellison Morganroth here. A senior planner in [inaudible 00:07:39] at the
city of Renton. Going to be making our staff a recommendation for the Sunset Gardens project. A little
bit about the project proposal. So, this is an RHA Rental Housing Authority project. They're proposing a
four story structure about 65,000 square feet, a total floor area. Ground floor of the site would be the
RHA offices, classified as on site service. And they'll take up about 13,600 square feet. And then there'd
be 76 affordable residential attached drawing flats on the three storeys above. project also includes a
total of 56 parking spaces, which are a mix of surface and structured parking. Access to the site is
proposed via Jefferson Ave Northeast... [Inaudible 00:08:29] Cursor here is I'm going Northwest corner
of the project site. They're proposing improvements, roadway improvements on both Jefferson Ave
Northeast, and then Northeast 10th Street. And so, they're requesting a site plan review of variance and
then four code modifications as part of the proposal.
David Albers:
Sorry, can I interrupt. This is David Albers, the applicant. That image is not our project.
Mr. Morganroth:
Oh, that might have been [inaudible 00:08:56]
Mr. Olbrechts:
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 4 of 17
Yeah, it looked a little different. Yeah.
Mr. Morganroth:
Okay. I just have the [crosstalk 00:09:02], a site plan. I can jump to it really quick, and then I'll backup
here.
David Albers:
Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to [crosstalk 00:09:10]
Mr. Morganroth:
Apologies for that. I've got two projects that are... At the sites look very similar. [crosstalk 00:09:14]. So
this is the actual site, you can see that L-shaped building here, Northeast 10th Jefferson. There's also
Jefferson over here, which I'll talk about more later, to loop with a portion of it vacated. We apologies
for that. [Inaudible 00:09:28] That slide also. So ignore that. Project location. So this is the site here.
Again, you can see Northeast 10th street there. Jefferson Ave is located both on the Eastside of the site
over here, and then the Westside as well. And then there's a portion that's used for access to these
apartment units back here. And there is a parking on that vacated portion of Jefferson Ave. So, it does
trigger loop here but the only right of way is where you can see on the map there. It is a single parcel. It
currently houses the Renton Housing Authority offices. We can see the building there and then the
associated surface parking. I mean, it is in within the sunset area planned action boundary.
Mr. Morganroth:
Some said characteristics. So it's about a 1.3 acre site. It is mostly impervious surface with the building
and the surface parking with some trees and ground vegetation on the perimeter, as well as some
interior landscape. The parking lot landscaping. It does slope Northeast Southwest. And you can see
here a little bit in the corner, it does sit substantially below the Jefferson Ave right of way. The portion
on the Eastside of the site. And so, there's action existing retaining a wall. So you can see the corner of
the picture here that it really does sit eight to 10 feet higher than the site itself, which is really unique.
Curriculars in the site. Sensitive slopes and moderate landslide has been all located near this portion of
the site with the severe grade change there.
Mr. Morganroth:
Will be about the zoning and the land use designations and comp plans. So, it is in the center of village
or CV Zone in the urban design district. The overlay, the site is designated commercial mixed use in the
comp plan. It is center village zoning also to the north, south and west. You can see there, residential
multifamily little sliver of it there to the east. And then again, they're proposing an onsite service and
attached dwelling flats which are both permitted in the CV Zone if specific conditions are met. So this
link says, "Look in the sunset plan to actually get the map there." The environmental review committee
designated the proposal, a planned of action in the meeting we had in July. And therefore no additional
environmental review or mitigation is required, as we've already considered... The site was already
considered the project within the planned action document.
Mr. Morganroth:
Here's a rendering of the building. I know this is the correct building. It's a four storey... Again, four story
structure, about 43 feet max [crosstalk 00:12:22] there. Again, the ground floor are [inaudible 00:12:25]
as you can see there. And so this is... I'm sorry. Just is looking Northeast from the corner of Northeast
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 5 of 17
10th. And then Jefferson there to the main primary entrance. Two separate entrances, one for RHA
offices and then another into the residential lobby. And then elevators for the future residents to access
their units. It is L-shaped, with that two wings emanating from the Southwest corner here. The
Southeast corner, which you can't really see in the rendering here. But that is actually located, again,
below... It's a little [inaudible 00:13:00] being below grade. And that can happen because of the
significant grade change between the right of way there, and then the actual site and how it exists
today. And so the plan is to build that up to screen. The structured parking that's going to be located
back there. And so, it would look like a three storey building from that corner.
Mr. Morganroth:
Got a big mixing materials there including brick on the first floor. And then like I said, there's a plaza and
main entrance there on the Southeast corner. About critical areas. As previously mentioned, you've got
the sensitive slopes there on the Eastside of the site. And then you've got a moderate landslide hazard
created by the... Not significant but noticeable topography change from the site to the east, to the site
we're talking about. Vegetation. So there's 19 trees on site right now and 12 trees are located right away
to be dedicated. 10% tree retention required on the site, which would be one tree. Because the only by
the time you take off these 12 trees, you're left with seven significant trees. As we round up 10% of that
will be one. They are proposing to remove all trees. And the main reason for that is just due to their
location and due to the... And prime. Most of the trees are in the right of way. So they take advantage of
furniture improvements. They have proposed a significant number of replacement trees in their
conceptual landscape plan.
Mr. Morganroth:
There's a condition of approval recommending an updated, a detailed landscape plan that demonstrates
compliance with these simple [inaudible 00:14:41] retention standards, whether that be replacement,
fee in lieu or retain them. So that is something staff will verify. And when they submit that at the time of
civil construction permit review. And then also another... This is not the landscape plan, this is just a tree
retention plan. But that they do propose a substantial amount of landscaping along this Southeast
corner there. Again, it's conceptual. So we did add a condition to recommend a condition of approval to
make sure there is substantial landscaping to screen the little bit of surface parking there. And then the
residential units that are located on the second floor technically but it will look like the ground floor
because of the build up of the grade there.
Mr. Morganroth:
Access and transportation. So, this is a little better review of the site here where you can see the
vacated portion of Jefferson that is used for parking for these units. Access is going to be via an existing
single driveway up here off of Jefferson that will get into the parking lot. [inaudible 00:15:45]
improvements along all three sides of the site, along all frontage there, and excluding, obviously, the
vacated portion of Jefferson. That the access to these apartments will need to be maintained, and will
be maintained as part of the proposal even though it had... There'll be sidewalk along here and that will
change into the parking area there. But there will be access maintained to those apartments. And they
get 56 total parking spaces with the structure tuck under and surface parking.
Mr. Morganroth:
So one of the three entitlements of site plan review. So again, the access up there and I... This is actual
site plan landscape, where you see a little better the access up here into the parking lot. The structured
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 6 of 17
parking is here, and then there's also some tucked under structured parking under second storey terrace
right here. This is all surface parking along the Northeast side, and along the Jefferson Ave, the vacated
portion of Jefferson Ave. There's a plaza area at the Southwest corner there, near the primary entrances
that has a number of pedestrian scale features, canopies, landscape planners. There will be lighting
plans submitted. There's a good mix of active and passive common areas. We've got a movement
garden area over here with walking pathway, and there will be some seat walls built in as well as a
second storey which you can see on here. But the second storey terrace, outdoor terrace that will
include, perhaps, some gardening opportunities for future tenants and some other landscaping and just
have the nice patio area. There's also a common space area inside the building adjacent to that for
future residents.
Mr. Morganroth:
There's pretty good pedestrian circulation around the perimeter of the site. And then in the site itself,
with the installation of new six foot and eight foot sidewalks in the right of way. And then some
pathways in the parking lot, as well as to the memorial garden. Again, mentioned before, but the use of
the site topography to stream the structured parking here. And to reduce the bulk of the structures,
[inaudible 00:18:00] a little bit we'll go down to topography. And it'll go from the four stories down to
three stories here, so a little better transition. Again, there's the... One of the, I think, the best features,
the best result is front entrance here. And that [inaudible 00:18:20] against others seat walls, and just
using topography to really improve the pedestrian experience there. The applicant is requesting
variance from our development standards. So in the commercial development standards for the CV
Zone, the code doesn't allow surface parking between a public right of way or a street, and the building.
Mr. Morganroth:
And so, here you can see... There's about 11 spaces that are located between the small portion of
Jefferson here and the building. Even though they're setback, it's still technically [inaudible 00:18:54]
and violation of that code section. Obviously didn't request a variance and justification revolved around
the issue of the site topography and then the issue of the site shape. So being boxed in [inaudible
00:19:07], by right of way on three... Almost three all sides, made it challenging to design any surface
parking without at least a little bit of it being located between the building in the right of way. And so
you can see here that it proposed additional landscaping, or substantial landscaping there.
Mr. Morganroth:
Another thing that's really hard to tell without looking and rendering is that... Again the grade change
here. Because this parking lot sits so much lower than the right of way. It really won't be that visible
until you're off looking down onto it to kind of... It sits about eight feet lower. So it's not your typical,
where you're just going to look across and see cars. It's going to be fairly difficult. And so we found the
request didn't meet all four variance criteria.
Mr. Morganroth:
Modifications. I'm not going to read through each and every one of these. There is a number of
modification four code sections that include a couple of standards from each section of the parking.
[Inaudible 00:20:02]. A reduction in stalls and width for parking aisles [inaudible 00:20:06] different type
of play drag. Rubbish and recycling allowing one enclosure instead of the two normally required,
reduced vertical minimum overhead clearance. Fences, hedges and retaining walls. Some three
standards there. And then the street modification. Okay, we'll go into. So they did request reduced
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 7 of 17
dedication on Jefferson Ave Northeast. And this is the portion on the Eastside of the site where it turns
into the vacated portion. They did request to go from one and a half to zero feet. The reason for that
being there is an existing retaining wall that's right up against the right of way. And if they dedicated
that, it would then be in our right of way. And I'm trading number about the plan to rebuild it. So it's
basically just to keep that retaining wall on site.
Mr. Morganroth:
The other portion of the street mod, is to retain the [inaudible 00:20:57] kerb width the Northeast 10th
Street, which is recommended by the city's transportation section. And all modification requests to
meet the modification criteria if a few conditions of approval are met, and staff does support approval
of the four modifications. That's integral project features, most of which were discussed. But here's a
little better... It's a snippet of the second story terrorist area. A really great use of space. I think it allows
both covers up the parking and whilst [inaudible 00:21:31] covered parking for residents, for inclement
weather. But also provides a nice space for, again, gardening, relaxing, whatever it might be. That's up
and away from the road just on the backside of the site. And you've also got a nice memorial garden
there on the Northeast side of the site, for folks to enjoy when the weather is nice.
Mr. Morganroth:
The building does use a pretty high quality design and a number of different materials which will be
further improved, and all conditions of approval that are recommended are met. Again, there's the
unique use of the site topography to hide the parking and allow the building. Look, here's step back,
step down a bit with the outdoor amenities. There are a number of above grade landscaping elements
that are proposed, including planters, building or landscaping behind some of the seat walls that will
really add to the both the entry and then the pedestrian experience for people walking along Northeast
10th, the Jefferson. And the use of some neat visual cues like the canopy, a higher pair of it. And again,
the seat wall. I talked about to denote the entrance and make it pretty obvious where the RHA
entrances and then where the residential portion entrances. So, in conclusion, I'm recommending
approval of the sunset gardens outside, plan to review variance and modification applications, subject to
the other 26 conditions contained in the staff report. And I'm happy to go back and answer any
questions.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. On the standard, that's subject to the variance request, the parking variance. Did you know...
What's the purpose of that requirement? Is that basically to make the buildings more pedestrian friendly
by making them adjacent to the sidewalk? Or is it more of an aesthetic concern?
Mr. Morganroth:
I would say it's both. I guess the main reason is aesthetics. It's definitely not in anyone that's walked
along, either to a nice building with overprotection. Versus walking along a surface parking lot when
maybe you got to worry about people entering and exiting, and just the visual look of a parking lot. It is
primarily aesthetic.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay.
Mr. Morganroth:
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 8 of 17
[inaudible 00:23:48] a service parking back. Back from the road and have the more pedestrian oriented
stuff adjacent to the frontage.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. Is there a lot of pedestrian traffic in this area? I couldn't quite tell what commercial uses are
nearby. There's obviously a lot of multifamily housing around there. Do you see a lot of people walking
back and forth to the commercial area or not?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah, no. That's great question. So there are... Right. In the immediately adjacent area is mostly
residential. There is a... It does get commercial really quick, because you're just to the south of sunset
area. So, presumably folks will walk north, along Northeast 10th to get to the sunset area where there's
restaurants, grocery shops and all that.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. And then I noticed in the public meeting portion, it looks like it had pretty good attendance. I
think it was 14 people or something. Do you recall what the most significant concerns were?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah, so I.... Matt was the one that intend that I did read through all the notes and Matt [inaudible
00:24:45] jump in. But it looked like a lot of it was based on the security of the building was actually
some of it. Which was something the applicant obviously is tasked with looking at more so than us. I
remember seeing that, and obviously with how the aesthetics of the building. If I remember correctly...
And again, to either the applicant [inaudible 00:25:03] jump in. I think there were a certain number of
comments on just how the building would be secured.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, I see. Okay, great. Alright, thanks. Mr. Morganroth. Great presentation. Let's move on to applicants.
Applicants do you want to say anything at this point? Like I said before, you don't have to. But now's
your opportunity. Any takers?
David Albers:
Sure. Hi, I'm David Albers. I'm with SMR architects. I'm the applicant.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Let me swear you in Mr. Albers. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth,
nothing but the truth in this proceeding?
David Albers:
I do.
Mr. Olbrechts:
And for the record, your last name is spelled A-l-b-e-r-s. Is that correct?
David Albers:
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 9 of 17
That is correct.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Alright. Go ahead.
David Albers:
Yeah. I just first wanted to say thanks to the staff at city of Renton for helping us get to this point. They
answered a lot of questions before our land use application and got us to where we are. And so I wanted
to say thank you for that. And then I think it gets covered later in we... When we run through the
conditions of approval. But we will have some comments in reference to that. So that, probably, is the
better location to do those comments.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Well, I think staffs [crosstalk 00:26:11]. Sorry?
David Albers:
Because I thought we were going to go through the items of basically what the city is saying, "We'd like
you to do this for us to approve."
Mr. Olbrechts:
No, I think-
David Albers:
I didn't know if we were walking through those items. If it's not, then yeah, I can speak to a certain
couple items.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Sure. Yeah, no I... Yeah, I think Mr. Morganroth was done with his initial presentation. So, now would be
the time to talk about conditions if you have concern with them.
David Albers:
Sure. So I don't know if we have the ability to pull up the hex letter that has those conditions?
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Yeah, I can share my screen. Let me get the staff report up here. Just give me a second.
David Albers:
Sure.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Alright. See, I think it's this one probably. Okay. Alright, perfect.
David Albers:
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 10 of 17
And so yeah. Yeah, that number one is actually the first one I'll key to. Basically, it's stating there's some
concern with our stormwater facilities that we have between the building and Jefferson to the west.
And so, I see that in the language. They're saying, "If we can demonstrate." I'm trying to find the verb.
They used the wording here, that if the landscaping can commingle with the stormwater facilities, then
they're okay with the layout. And I just wanted to speak to that a little bit. So we were talking a lot
about the topography and basically, with the east side being high and the west side being low, and the
building being situated mostly to the west. The water is going to want to go that direction. So, that's
basically where we have the opportunity to put these stormwater facilities to help retain the water
before it goes back into the city system.
David Albers:
And then there are some struggles there because we are giving some land back for the right of way
improvements. We're undergrounding utilities along Jefferson. And then there's also requirements
when you do these stormwater retention ponds, they are not ponds, but they're basically planters that
they can... They have to be so far from the right of way, but they also have to be so far from the
building. So in this design, we're really threading that needle. We're able to get exactly the amount we
need for the building in the space that we have. And we're trying to be very mindful of that this is along
public way. And you could see in the planting plan that was shown, that there's basically three layers of
trees. One, that's the layer of street trees right at the right of way. And then there's another layer of
trees between the property line and these stormwater retention planters.
David Albers:
And then there's another layer of trees between the planters and the buildings. And then there's also
ground cover in that area and the way that the lip of these retention planters are, is they're just above
ground. And so within a year of growth, that ground cover will cover those edges. So we feel that those
planters will blend into the planting, and they won't be seen as holes, if you will. So I just wanted to
describe that, basically, what's going on over there to maybe help. Maybe I'll leave some thoughts about
that and how we came to that design. I think if we don't... If we aren't able to do that stormwater
retention, we'll have to look at a more expensive system, probably a vault under the parking. So I think
that the stormwater retention design with the planting that we have is favorable for the owner, but I
also think it's a better system as well.
Mr. Olbrechts:
So, are you saying if it's... If you're unable to commingle, that you don't want to be stuck having to put it
outside of the landscaping, is that [inaudible 00:30:30]?
David Albers:
No. So, when we go in for permit and the city deems that we haven't been able to commingle-
Mr. Olbrechts:
Right.
David Albers:
The landscape with the planters? Then I think, basically we would ... We would not be able to use a
storm retention plant or design, because there's nowhere else to put it on site. So we then would be
switched to more of a detention system than a stormwater retention system.
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 11 of 17
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
David Albers:
And the retention platters themselves are planters. There will be plants in them. They're not just a hole
that's full of water. So, I think, again, that the design is it's definitely taking into the account the city's
concern and we're addressing.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh. Okay, got you.
David Albers:
I just wanted to explain what it is, and how we got there.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Oh, okay, understood. Thank you.
David Albers:
My next one was item 11. I think it's on the next page. So this is in regards to the building and the main
building entrances which are along 10th to the south of the site. So we have RHA's main entrance. And
then farther east, we have the residential building entrance. And they're asking us to place... See if the
application will get the language. They would like some raised planters in lieu of our upgrade planters
there. And it wasn't part of the presentation, but it is included in our civil drawings that we submitted
with the land use. That show that there's a significant number of connections that we have to make for
water on off of 10th into the building. That's our sprinkler, and our commercial, and our residential
water connections.
David Albers:
And all of those connections have meters, they have valves and all of those require either a handhold or
an actual vault in the ground. And with all of... With the two entrances, and then with all of that
infrastructure for water in that location, we feel that if we're starting to introduce other structures like
this. Basically concrete formed in place planters that were not going to have room to meet the
requirements for all the infrastructure for water. And that's why we went with just upgrade planting.
That way, wherever they need to put these faults or these handholds which would be placed in the
ground, and the concrete would be poured to flush with them. So they wouldn't necessarily be
protruding, but they would have more leeway in where they're located and less impactful.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Well, how about modifying that condition to require raised planters if it's feasible to do so if there's
space given the other connections we're talking about, would that work?
David Albers:
I mean, it's something that we can look at with civil. We can plan for best case scenario, but it may not
end up in that exact location. So we may have to take a look at again once utilities are installed, and
then we would have possibly an updated plan.
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 12 of 17
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
David Albers:
So I think that's something we can look at. But as of right now, I don't see it working out very well.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
David Albers:
Just because there are substantial, they're not small. And there's going to be at least four pieces of
equipment either in the ground or in that vicinity that will make at least... I think, making it
architecturally pleasing, and not haphazard, trying to jog around all of these things in the ground. I don't
know that we'll end up with something that's necessarily more favorable than just some open areas that
have some plants growing accurate.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay, so you... In other words, you want to see that condition stricken if possible condition [inaudible
00:34:42].
David Albers:
I would prefer that, yes.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay.
David Albers:
Let's see. Item number 15 is the next one. And this is asking us to add glazing on the Southeast corner, if
I'm understanding the language here properly. This also goes back to the grading of the property. So, the
Southeast corner is the high point of the site. And so that you're coming up 10th. And then when you
get to Jefferson off of the Southeast corner of 10th, that is actually the second floor of the building. So
level one commercial of the RHA space, is all at level one, and it dies into the grade and the parking is at
that corner. And we've hidden it with changing of the grade.
David Albers:
And so, where they're asking for this 50% glazing between four and eight feet are actually apartments.
And we think that would be pretty detrimental to those units to have that much glazing and be that
exposed. And we feel we addressed this in the conceptual planting plan where there's quite a bit of
trees on that corner, between the right of way and the building. And there is some glazing in the wall
because there are units. So there is a living room and a bedroom window. But I don't think that glazing...
Adding that much glazing to that corner is going to be beneficial for the residents.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Anything else?
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 13 of 17
David Albers:
I just have a confirming question on 17. They're just asking for a higher contrast in the brick color at level
one. So, we have a light color and a dark color on the building, and then the brick is in between the two.
So I'm wondering, do you want a better, bigger contrast from the lighter color? Or the darker color?
Mr. Olbrechts:
Mr. Morganroth, can you get through that right now?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah. I don't have the [inaudible 00:36:58]. So I think we'd be open to a number of different things. It is
[inaudible 00:37:02] the rendering of providing some of the elevations, a little bit difficult to tell if there
was going to be that contrast. So I think once we get the materials board stuff, it possibly nice to maybe
get sent over both options, at least on one elevations, so I could see it. I hear what you're saying. I think
the concern was the blending into a wider [inaudible 00:37:25] or a grip that contains variation within
the individual bricks. So just to make it stand out a little bit more, but happy to work with you guys on
that find a pattern that works.
David Albers:
Okay, yeah. We can do that. And is the material board required at permit submittal? Or when would
that be required?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah, you can always... I mean, obviously, we can make it work, I get it. But yeah, it is required with the
building permits. So, we can always take a look at it earlier or something, if you wanted some
confirmation before submitting.
David Albers:
Okay. And then my final one is item 24. So this is asking us to utilize a concrete seat wall in lieu of the
plan rockery on 10th Street. Would it be possible to show that self elevation to illustrate what changing
this will do?
Mr. Olbrechts:
[Inaudible 00:38:24] Mr. Morganroth, can you do that?
Mr. Morganroth:
Yeah, give me two seconds and [inaudible 00:38:30].
David Albers:
Sure. So while that's going on. So basically, when we started the conversation with the city before we
did our submittal, it was relayed that we would like... They would like us to hide the concrete wall that is
below under building parking in that Southeast corner as much as possible. And so, we looked at this
idea of stepping the grade as it goes north, or sorry, east along 10th. But one of the issues we have to
deal with is that it is quite a bit of slope. And we're planting it as well. And so, we're maxed out at a
three to one slope. And this allows the plantings to actually grow. And it allows ground cover to stay in
place. So, looking at this south elevation, you can see how much of that concrete wall we're burying
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 14 of 17
between grid lines eight and 12. We only have that triangular piece that show if this is... Yeah. And
number two.
David Albers:
So there's that triangular piece of gray between a grid eight, nine. So that's really the only part of the
wall that's exposed, and we're bringing it all the way up to just under the Hardie siding, you can see
between grids 10 and 12. And that's based on us starting four feet above grade at 10th. And the way
we're getting to that grade is having a four foot rockery. And then we slope back from the top of that
rockery at three to one. And then we have another rockery wall, and at the top of that wall, we slope
back to do and you can see those steps in the edge of that triangle.
David Albers:
And so like I said, that grading starts at four feet above the grade at the right of way, or the property
line. So if we were to drop that from four feet to say 18 inches, 16 inches, which is what you would want
for a seat wall, you're going to expose another two and a half feet of that garage wall. And we want to
make sure that you guys understand the implications of dropping that retaining wall down because it's
going to expose a band of concrete between grids nine and 12 of about two and a half feet. Because we
can't go any steeper than the three to one slope at the back of that seat wall.
David Albers:
And we're also thinking that if the idea was to hide concrete here, having a wall of rockery is a much
more natural feature than concrete. Whether it be the concrete of the parking garage or the concrete of
the seat wall. So we just feel that the rockery is a better, more natural treatment if we're trying to
separate the building from the right of way. If we did go with the seat wall, we would... Obviously we
would want to put the anti-skateboarding devices on the lip, and things like that. If that is something we
need to do, but we're in favor of the design as it currently is shown. So those are the items that I had
comments on.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Alright. Thanks Mr. Albers, and Mr... I'm sure Mr. Morganroth will respond to those when we get
back to staff comments. Were those all the comments on behalf of the applicant then?
David Albers:
[inaudible 00:42:19] from Bronner, [inaudible 00:42:21] has any comments?
Bronner:
I'm good, David. I actually took care of the item that I had wrong.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. All right, let's move on to public comments then. As I mentioned before, the public will have an
opportunity to comment on this as well. So if you're a city resident or anybody who's interested in
project, now is your opportunity to say something if you want. And just raise your virtual hand or
unmute yourself, say you want to participate. I don't see any takers. And again, look at Mrs. Cisneros'
screen there, she has her phone number and email address. If you're trying to participate and can't get
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 15 of 17
through, just email or phone Mrs. Cisneros and let her know. And we will figure out a way to patch you
in. So there you go, 971-217-9357 is the phone number.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Alright. With that, let's move back to staff comments. Mr. Morganroth, do you want to address the
comments about the conditions? And as you know, a lot of times, we do leave the record open for a day
or two to work out for the parties to revise conditions. That's an option you can certainly use in this
case, too, if you think that's necessary.
Mr. Morganroth:
Okay, for sure. Yeah, I'll just go through some other concerns. I have four conditions. So the first was the
stormwater, then wetlands... Module wetlands that are located in the landscaping strip. So, your
content to that condition was to really emphasize that the purpose of the 10 foot and on site
landscaping is just for landscaping and not for other elements. I do totally understand David's point. And
part of the issue with this is that we [inaudible 00:43:57] acquire conceptual but we're looking at
conceptual landscape plan, right? So we couldn't see exactly how those... Maybe built a little bit of
cement as expose would be screened. And so again, I think the gold standard would be to get those out
of the 10 foot landscaping, if not mostly out of it. If that is not feasible, it would just... Again, we just
wanted to show on the landscape plan that they are thoughtfully incorporated. And that you can't
necessarily tell that there's a stormwater element there.
Mr. Morganroth:
I get that the module wetlands... They do have plans to them and stuff. But we just... We get the point
of the outside of landscaping really is just for just straight landscaping for the screen. So, but again, I
think we good. Working on design that if it's shown that it's really strained, then you can't tell there's
still an equal amount of landscaping, if it would be otherwise. That's something that we [inaudible
00:44:45], for sure.
Mr. Morganroth:
The next conditions here was number 11. [inaudible 00:44:57], yeah 11. So connections, yeah. So, again,
the point of that condition was just to add a few more pedestrian elements. And that's why that one, in
addition to a couple other ones, we did leave open an alternative architectural elements. So it doesn't
need to be turned into... You can't turn into another large concrete planter. Again, we didn't leave it
pretty open so that there's just some other architectural element added. So I would be in favor of
keeping that as written. I think it does allow for an alternative, endless possibilities with how it was
written.
Mr. Morganroth:
15. Again, my response to this is that we just need an open alternative, and that's adding additional
landscaping. And so, you don't completely understand that the way that they're designed for privacy
concerns. Why you [inaudible 00:45:49] add additional glazing. So solution going to be adding a little bit
of glazing with some landscaping. If that's just, again, can be demonstrated. That's just not going to
work. That's why there is an alternative, that's just landscape based in there. So again, I think we can
work with you on that. Obviously, to get weighed into the gold standard, but understanding that it's at
ground level upgrade there. We just want something to provide a little more privacy as well. Privacy but
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 16 of 17
also... Privacy, but it'll also improved the look of the facade there just because it is so close to the
sidewalk.
Mr. Morganroth:
And then the last one, 24. Yeah, the intent of adding that condition was to provide, again, another
different place for people to sit. And just to make it a little more of a nicer pedestrian. And an additional
pedestrian amenity buried by a seat wall allowing folks [inaudible 00:46:44]. So maybe looking at
something like a two foot seat wall or something smaller, but obviously, we don't want that to come at
the expense of exposing the garage. So, and I think we're amenable to adding... Or changing that
condition that if it's feasible, that's what we'd like. Though to have some seat wall for folks to actually
build to use. But it is going to result in the exposure of more of that cement wall, and that can't be
mitigated by landscaping or anything else. That's one way to do that.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. So you're open to modifying 24, to say. I mean, they need to add that concrete seat wall, if it can
be done without exposing more concrete, is what it boils down to, yeah.
Mr. Morganroth:
Exactly, yeah. It is feasible. And then again, I didn't... To be frank, we don't look at every single
engineering aspect. Even though the building of the walls, right at the time of land distribution. So
certainly, there could be some challenges with that that we're not aware of. So, and I think we're open
to looking at that. I just wanted to explain. That was not the intent, was to provide [inaudible 00:47:44]
additional pedestrians space there.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Alright. Anything else?
Mr. Morganroth:
No. I think that's all for comments [crosstalk 00:47:57].
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Fantastic. Alright. Mr. Albers as mentioned at the beginning of this hearing, you have final word?
Did you want to make any final comments?
David Albers:
Sure. Yeah. Most of them do have some open ended interpretation and we can definitely work with the
city to dial those pieces in. I think our biggest concern, which might be the city's, is item 24., with how
much we would expose that wall. We work through many options and if we... Like I said, if we break that
four foot height, we are exposing wall. So I'm not sure that we can really find something that's going to
work where you stop the rockery for a couple feet, and you introduce a seat wall. Because it's going to
introduce a lot of complications for how you integrate that with the rest of the rockery, and then change
slope in which we can alter play on three to one. So I'm just fairly skeptical, unfortunately, that we can
get a seat wall in along 10th. But I think we can work, obviously, with the other items discussed and
come to an agreement with those-
Sunset Gardens Transcript Page 17 of 17
Mr. Olbrechts:
On the unconditional 11... I mean, what kind of alternatives to the raised planters do you see is working
there?
David Albers:
We would need to discuss with the city architectural features. It could be a change to the facade of the
building in that area as opposed to something in the ground. We do have... I mean, we have a lot in the,
what is the Southwest corner? The plaza area, we have a lot of seat walls there and some area for
public. So I don't know if we just need to take a deeper dive and really see where these pedestrian
amenities are concentrated at the moment. And if it's better served to spread them out a little bit, or if
we're creating a hub. And having that hub is what makes that place feel good and work for the building,
and if that's really enough. But I think we won't know, necessarily, the answer to number 11 until utility
you have are in site. Whether we can actually do a planter with which will provide a seat wall, but we
could definitely talk with the city about what would be acceptable in lieu of that. But still give us the
room we need for the infrastructure.
Mr. Olbrechts:
Okay. Alright. Sounds great. Okay, then I'll go ahead and close the hearing. And yeah, I'll definitely be
modifying condition 24 to provide some more flexibility there. So that concrete seat are only required if
it doesn't significantly result in additional exposure of concrete. Other than that, I mean, this is...
Obviously, it's a great project, a real asset to the Renton community. It's really exciting to see something
as important as affordable housing presented in way that's so well integrated into the surrounding area
and so well designed. This is another example, I think, of how well the city's design standards influenced
development in the community. And it's just a great project overall. So, of course, I'll be issuing approval
and I'll get that out in the next couple of weeks. And I appreciate all your participation today. And we're
adjourned for this afternoon. So, have a great day everybody. Bye
Automated Voice:
Recording stopped.