Hearing examiner reviews design for 8-unit apartment at 2970 Eighth Ave. SE; staff recommends approval with conditions

Mercer Island hearing examiner Phil Albrecht presided over a virtual design-review hearing for a proposed four-story, eight-unit apartment building at 2970 Eighth Avenue Southeast, an application logged as DSR 24-010. Nicole Rainick, speaking for the applicant, described the project as a four-story residential building with eight units, including one required affordable unit, and a mix of landscaping features, roof greenery and public-facing elements intended to activate the street.

The staff recommendation and a central code question were the focus of the hearing. Adam Zach, principal planner for the City of Mercer Island, told the hearing that planning staff had reviewed the proposal against the Town Center design standards (MICC Chapter 19.11) and procedural requirements (MICC Chapter 19.15) and recommended approval with conditions. Zach also explained that a prior site development permit filing vests the project to the version of the development code effective on July 26, 2022, which affects whether new ground-floor use requirements apply.

Zach read the relevant design standard aloud during the hearing: "the T C 4 area shall have at least 75% of the length of the Ground Floor facade between the height of 2 feet and 7 feet devoted to windows and doors affording views into retail, office or lobby space." He and the applicant discussed how that requirement applies to the project’s frontage along 70 Eighth Avenue Southeast and whether the building’s transparent lobby areas satisfy the intent of the code.

The applicant team said the design provides a near-100% transparent lobby and other glazing elements, but that mechanical, elevator and circulation needs constrain the length of glazing along the ground-floor frontage. Nicole Rainick summarized the project objectives: "The project seeks to maximize density potential while integrating urban landscape and fostering a safe and a safe and active street with street facing units adjacent to the public right of way." She also described site constraints including a 15-foot ingress/egress easement along the lot’s south border that is recorded "up to the sky" and therefore limits buildable area on the roughly 7,200-square-foot parcel.

Design and materials details presented by the applicant included use of Equitone and Nichiha panels, recessed balconies, clerestory windows at the lobby, two green walls, an approximately 2,400-square-foot green roof, and roughly 1,800 square feet of landscaped public open space. The plan shows eight parking spaces (one van-accessible, four standard and three compact), bike storage, mechanical and trash areas, and a screened rooftop mechanical area with an elevator overrun. The applicant said building height would be within the 51-foot limit allowed by code, with permitted elevator overrun extending above that line.

Landscape architect Craig Lewis described the planting approach and the proposed wet green wall and pool: plantings are largely native or drought-tolerant and intentionally low to preserve sightlines into the public open space; the wet wall is designed as an artistic vertical water feature that drains into a shallow pool. Lewis said final species and installation details would be reviewed at building permit submittal.

On the transparency requirement, Adam Zach said staff’s proposed condition would require the applicant to demonstrate, at building permit, how the final construction meets the code’s glazing measurement (the staff report cites condition 11 addressing MICC 19.11.100 B1B). Zach read the code language into the record and said the code’s use of "shall" makes the requirement mandatory for the frontage in question. When asked whether there is a modification or variance path for that standard, Zach responded that the code’s mandatory language provides little discretion in this provision.

Albrecht noted the vesting determination explained in the staff report and said he would consider all exhibits and testimony in issuing a written decision within the time allowed (typically about 10 business days). No members of the public raised their hands to comment during the hearing; Albrecht closed the hearing after giving participants the opportunity to submit written comments by a stated deadline. He said he would address public comments and the staff report findings in the written decision.

The hearing record admitted the staff report and exhibits 1 through 20, and staff confirmed required procedural notices, pre-application meeting (PRE22-027), study session (October 4, 2023), application completeness (file deemed complete 06/11/2024), and a SEPA determination of nonsignificance issued 08/19/2024 with no appeals. Zach also noted the site development permit file number (SDP 2207-281) that established vesting to the 07/26/2022 code.

With no public testimony at the hearing, the applicant and staff were left to resolve how the ground-floor glazing condition is applied to the project façade lines and to document compliance at building permit. Albrecht closed the hearing after offering the public another route to submit comments by email for inclusion in the record.

The hearing record will form the basis for the examiner’s written decision, which the examiner said would be issued in the usual timeframe and include findings addressing the code standards, the vesting question, and the noted condition regarding ground-floor transparency.