Written by 
The initial submittal for Logan Six in 2022 included a street modification request. Final line of item 1: “The site is narrow, and without these modifications, the project would not be able to be built.” Council could have questioned the scale of the project on the record.
At last night’s council meeting, a Council Member told the audience that the State of Washington forced Renton to approve the Logan Six development with only one parking spot per unit.
This was not correct, for at least two reasons:
Reason 1: The parking standards for this project are very clearly captured in Renton’s zoning code, and the Council put them there as I described in this blog entry here.
While the State of Washington did implement parking regulations in 2020 that could potentially supersede a city’s parking regulations, the state standards specify a minimum standard of one spot per BEDROOM, as opposed to the lesser standard of one spot per unit that Renton has imposed on Logan Six. Here’s the State law on this topic. (Presumably the 0.75 spots per unit applies to studio “no-bedroom” units)
Reason 2: the Council probably had an easy opportunity to stop this project after the first submittal in 2022 if they had wanted to. In the initial submittal for the project, the applicants provided a letter making it absolutely clear that they were concerned the site might be too small for the project.
In the relatively brief two page letter, the applicant says they need a Street Modification because of their overly narrow site. Then they say three times that without this modification, they could not build the project. Here are some excerpts:
“STREET MODIFICATION NARRATIVE
This narrative is provided to request and justify a street modification on the Logan 6 project. The applicant is requesting a street modification to retain existing improvements with. 1.5 feet of Right of Way dedication on Logan Avenue N, and to retain the existing curb-curb. pavement with, with a 0.5’ curb, 8-foot planting strip, 8-foot sidewalk, and 2-foot clear space for. 3rd and 4th Avenues N…..
The site is narrow, and without. these modifications, the project would not be able to be built….
The modification also allows for the project to be built at all, given the narrowness of the site….
The shown modification is required for the building to be done without incurring additional. costs. The site is narrow and if much more were given, the project would likely not pencil….”
Any of Renton’s eight elected officials could have questioned the requested modification, on the record, and consequently questioned whether the project may be too large and dense for the site. Even the rules governing quasi-judicial hearings do not bar Council members from asking questions about a project, on the record. Since the developer said three times they were concerned the project would not fit on the site, this would have been an opportune time to scale it to a better size.
Instead, Council did not ask any questions and City Staff appear to have approved the modification request, enabling the project to go forward.
So no, the State did not require this project to take its present form, pushing the street boundaries set for the zone with consequent minimal parking. That appears to be just a story.
Didn’t I hear Boeing formly opposed the project due to underground utilities they own? That alone would make me think this is definitely not a good fit. Boeing is very very careful in making public record statements, so it should be a strong consideration.
Marcie Palmer
Renton City Council
2004-2015
Yes, that’s a great question Marcie. I agree, that also would have been reason to scale the project back. If you or I were still on Council, it would have been scaled to fit the site and the neighborhood better, and better protect the underlying utilities. The Boeing concerns are very serious. I’ve heard it said that Boeing could lose $9 million per HOUR if the 12 inch water lines get broken that are underneath this site. All the builder’s hoped-for profits gone in one hour, with tens of millions of dollars in liability incurred as they try to repair the lines. Here is the letter that Renton received from Boeing: https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/DocView.aspx?id=9937803&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton
When I looked into building an ADU on our property, the city informed me that we’d need to relocate our small sewer line from under the proposed building—just in case it ever needed repairs. Because, you know, planning ahead is crucial… for homeowners.
Strange how Renton seems way more concerned about my little sewer line than whatever out-of-town developers are up to. Must be nice to play by a different rulebook!