HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2025 - Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Planning Commission Meeting
6:00 PM - Wednesday, May 7, 2025
Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
4. AUDIENCE COMMENT
1. Virtual Attendees
2. In-person Attendees
Those attending virtually (Call 253-215-8782, Zoom meeting ID: 880 3465 9736, password:
Weplan2024 or
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88034659736?pwd=z1TyxJNsMEloal0MglAamlJkjbnLaR.1) will be
offered an opportunity to speak before the in-person (physical meeting at the City Hall, 7F
Council Chambers) comments are completed.
Please use your device to raise your (electronic) hand in order to be recognized by the
Recording Secretary.Each speaker will be provided three (3) minutes to address an item.
Groups or organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on a group’s behalf.
Alternatively, interested parties are encouraged to provide written comments to
planningcommission@rentonwa.gov.
Attendees will be muted and not audible to the Commission except during times they are
designated to speak.Public can use the “Raise Hand” option if attending through video.If there
are others calling in, you can be called upon by the last 4 digits of your telephone number.
Phone instructions: *6 to mute/unmute, *9 to raise hand.
5. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
6. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
7. BRIEFING: DOCKET 19B D-236A MIDDLE HOUSING STREET STANDARDS
UPDATE
a)
Page 1 of 13
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request.
For more information please visit rentonwa.gov/planningcommission
Page 2 of 13
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-236A: Middle Housing Street Standards Update
Staff: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
Date: May 2, 2025
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature passed a series of housing and land use bills aimed at
expanding housing options, increasing inventory, and incentivizing affordable housing. Among
these include House Bill (HB) 1110 and HB 1337, which provide regulations related to middle
housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Both HB 1110 and HB 1337 prohibit cities from
requiring off-street parking for middle housing or ADUs when the subject property is located within
a one-half (½) mile walking distance (“walkshed”) of a major transit stop. Furthermore, where
parking can be required, these mandates provide further limitations on the number of parking
spaces cities can require per dwelling unit. To mitigate for these parking limitations, staff proposes
amendments to RMC 4-6-060, Steet Standards, to provide additional parking lanes in residential
public streets, as well as prevent increased congestion on limited residential access streets and
shared driveways.
BACKGROUND – WASHINGTON STATE HOUSING LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
HB 1110 – Middle Housing
House Bill (HB) 1110 mandates cities to allow middle housing in residential zones where single-
family detached housing is the predominant land use, and where multi-family development has
historically been prohibited. As defined in HB 1110, middle housing refers to buildings that are
compatible in scale, form, and character with single-family dwellings, and contain two (2) or more
attached, stacked, or clustered homes.
Currently, the maximum number of dwellings allowed within residential zones RC through R-8 is
restricted to one (1) single-family dwelling and one (1) ADU per lot. However, in accordance with
HB 1110, Renton is required to allow middle housing with up to four (4) dwelling units per lot, in all
applicable zones, with the following additional allowances:
• Up to six (6) dwelling units per lot, on lots within one-quarter (1/4) mile walkshed of a major
transit stop; and
• Up to six (6) dwelling units per lot, if at least two (2) units are reserved as affordable.
As a result of HB 1110 mandates, the dwelling unit density potentials within residential zones will
dramatically increase, regardless of the maximum density of the underlying zone. This increase in
density will likely result in increased traffic within residential streets that our current street
standards are not equipped to account for.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 3 of 13
#D-236A Page 2 of 9 May 2, 2025
HB 1337 – Accessory Dwelling Units
HB 1337 also requires significant updates to Renton Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs). The purpose of this legislation is to reduce barriers to ADU development, expand
housing options, create opportunities to age in place, increase affordable housing, and reduce
barriers of entry to high-opportunity neighborhoods, with better access to transit, schools, and
other public services.
Pursuant to HB 1337, an ADU is a dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling,
duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit. The legislative mandates impact several existing
development standards adopted in Renton Municipal Code, including but not limited to the
maximum number of ADUs allowed per lot.
Currently, Renton Municipal Code allows one (1) ADU per legal lot; however, HB 1337 requires
cities to allow at least two (2) ADUs per lot within all zoning districts that allow single-family
development. In Renton, single-family development is allowed in the following residential zones:
Resource Conservation (RC), Residential-1 (R-1), Residential-4 (R-4), Residential-6 (R-6),
Residential-8 (R-8), Residential-10 (R-10), and Residential-14 (R-14). Based on current code, all of
these zones already allow ADUs; however, the new requirement to allow two (2) ADUs per lot will
be a significant departure from current city standards.
In addition to regulating the number of ADUs per lot, HB 1337 also mandates that a city may not
require public street improvements as a condition of permitting ADUs. Therefore, RMC 4-6-060,
Street Standards, must be amended to ensure that ADUs are exempt from street improvements. As
a result, the mandates serve to both increase dwelling unit density per lot (thereby increasing
vehicular traffic), while also limiting the City’s ability to require street improvements for that
increased density.
Restrictions For Parking – Major Transit Stop
Both HB 1110 and HB 1337 prohibit cities from requiring off-street parking for middle housing or
ADUs when the subject property is located within a one-half (½) mile walking distance of a “major
transit stop”. Furthermore, these bills each provide different definitions for what constitutes a
major transit stop, as shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Major Transit Stop Definitions
MAJOR TRANSIT STOP DEFINITIONS
APPLICABLE TO MIDDLE HOUSING (HB 1110) APPLICABLE TO ADUS (HB 1337)
• A stop on a high-capacity transportation
system funded or expanded under the
provisions of chapter 81.104 RCW;
• Commuter rail stops;
• Stops on rail or fixed guideways systems;
and
• A stop on a high-capacity transportation
system funded or expanded under the
provisions of chapter 81.104 RCW;
• Commuter rail stops;
• Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems,
including transitways;
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 4 of 13
#D-236A Page 3 of 9 May 2, 2025
• Stops on bus rapid transit routes, including
those under construction.
• Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes
that run on high occupancy vehicle lanes;
or
• Stops for a bus or other transit mode
providing actual fixed route service at
intervals of at least fifteen minutes for at
least five hours during the peak hours of
operation on weekdays.
The two definitions for major transit stop are very similar, except that major transit stops applicable
to ADUs also include stops for “a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at
intervals of at least fifteen minutes for at least five hours during the peak hours of operation on
weekdays.” Due to the differences in these definitions, the scope of applicability is vastly different
for middle housing and ADUs, as shown in attachment A (Map A. Middle Housing Quarter & Half
Mile Walksheds from Major Transit Stops) and attachment B (Map B. ADU Half Mile Walksheds
from Major Transit Stops).
Restrictions For Parking – Maximum Number of Parking Spaces
Currently, Renton Municipal Code requires a minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces for
single-family dwellings, and a minimum of one (1) off-street parking space for ADUs. Current code
regulates the number of parking stalls for residential uses based on the dwelling unit type and the
number of dwelling units, not on the lot size.
However, for areas outside of the one-half (½) mile walkshed, HB 1110 and HB 1337 contain
prescriptive language that restricts the amount of on-site parking a city may impose, based on lot
size as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Parking Requirements Applicable to Middle Housing and ADU Development
LOT SIZE MAXIMUM PARKING THAT CAN BE REQUIRED
6,000 sq. ft. or Less 1 parking space per dwelling unit
6,000 sq. ft. or Greater 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit
Washington State Housing Legislative Updates – Conclusions
In summary, the legislative mandates required by HB 1110 and HB 1337 will lead to a significant
increase in density within residential zones. Furthermore, these mandates will limit opportunities
for on-site parking, in the same areas that are already impacted by increased densities. This will be
particularly impactful in areas where middle housing developments will be allowed up to six (6)
units per lot (within the quarter mile walkshed), as opposed to four (4) units per lot (outside of the
walkshed area). With parking already being a high-priority area of concern in Renton, staff seeks to
amend RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, to provide more opportunities for street parking, as well as
provide limitations that ensure appropriate traffic volumes based on the classification and
intended use of the street.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 5 of 13
#D-236A Page 4 of 9 May 2, 2025
BACKGROUND – STREET STANDARDS
To mitigate for the lack of on-site parking provided within middle housing and ADU developments,
staff recommend amending RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, in order to provide more opportunities
for on-street parking, as well as provide restrictions for lots that are accessed via shared driveways
and Limited Residential Access Streets. The proposed amendments include the following subjects:
• Exemptions from Street Standards – ADUs
• Residential Access Streets – Parking Lanes
• Limited Residential Access Streets
• Shared Driveways
• Public Half Streets
Exemptions from Street Standards – ADUs
As indicated above, HB 1337 mandates that a city may not require public street improvements as a
condition of permitting ADUs. Therefore, staff recommends amending RMC 4-6-060, Street
Standards, to exempt ADUs from the requirement for street improvements, in compliance with HB
1337.
Residential Access Streets – Parking Lanes
Prior to 2009, the street standards for Residential Access Streets required a parking lane on both
sides of the street, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet (50’). However, in 2009 via Ord. 5517, the
code was later amended to provide two (2) residential street classifications, Residential Access
Street and Limited Residential Access Street. Furthermore, for both classifications, this
amendment added landscaping strips to both sides of the street and reduced the number of
parking lanes to only one (1) parking lane on one side of the street. The intent of this amendment
was to increase the quality of the design of our streetscapes through enhanced landscaping, while
keeping the street widths within residential zones as narrow as feasible (by eliminating the parking
strip).
However, the 2009 staff analysis also indicated that most narrow streets work best only in low-
density, detached, single family neighborhoods for the following reasons:
• They do not generate large volumes of traffic,
• They generally have ample off-street parking,
• There is little demand for on-street parking, and
• There are frequent driveway openings.
Therefore, this amendment was made in the context that the residential street classifications
would primarily be used for single-family neighborhoods, and that the City of Renton had the
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 6 of 13
#D-236A Page 5 of 9 May 2, 2025
authority to require adequate on-site parking, in lieu of street parking. The city would thereby have
the flexibility to eliminate a parking lane within the right-of-way, unless larger traffic volumes were
anticipated. If larger traffic volumes are anticipated, current code provides the city the authority to
require a second parking lane.
However, with the new HB 1110 and HB 1337 mandates related to parking, the city will no longer
have the authority to ensure adequate on-site parking. Therefore, to mitigate for parking code
restrictions mandated by the housing legislation, staff proposes to amend RMC 4-6-060F, Public
Street Right-Of-Way Design Standards, to require a six-foot (6’) parking lane on both sides of the
street for the Residential Access Street classification, rather than on only one side as indicated by
current code. In addition, to provide greater flexibility for projects, staff proposes to provide
developers the option to eliminate one or more of the parking lanes, provided the proposal
complies with certain conditions, as follows:
• The project is a short plat or infill development;
• Right-of-way acquisition is problematic;
• A traditional street grid pattern is not feasible;
• A dead-end street is permitted pursuant to RMC 4-6-060H, Dead End Streets; and
• A maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit and one (1) accessory dwelling unit per lot will
access from the street.
Limited Residential Access Streets
As indicated above, in 2009, the street standards were amended to add the Limited Residential
Access Street classification as an option for residential development, with the intention of reducing
residential street widths as much as feasible and where appropriate based on the development
location and residential density. The Limited Residential Access Street classification was provided
as an alternative to Residential Access Streets, but for limited application in cases where no
through-street is feasible and low traffic volumes are anticipated. As a result, the current standards
for this street classification require only forty-five feet (45’) of right-of-way dedication, with a paved
roadway width of twelve feet (12’) and only one (1) travel lane.
However, this narrower street alternative was provided with the intent that it would be utilized for
low-density, single-family neighborhoods, and particularly for dead-end streets. The Limited
Residential Access Street classification was never intended for the densities anticipated with
middle housing, which can potentially have up to six (6) dwelling units per lot. For a dead-end
street, a subdivision with four to six (4-6) units per lot could potentially lead to more traffic
congestion and increased hazardous conditions.
Furthermore, with the new HB 1110 and HB 1337 mandates related to parking, the city will no
longer have the authority to ensure adequate on-site parking. However, rather than requiring two
(2) parking lanes as proposed for the Residential Access Street classification, staff proposes to
continue to use the Limited Residential Access Street as a narrower street alternative for
residential development, but provide clear limitations for when this street classification can be
utilized. Therefore, staff proposes to amend RMC 4-6-060F, Public Street Right-Of-Way Design
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 7 of 13
#D-236A Page 6 of 9 May 2, 2025
Standards, in order to provide criteria limiting when the Limited Residential Access Street
classification can be utilized for development, as follows:
• The project is a short plat or infill development;
• Right-of-way acquisition is problematic;
• A traditional street grid pattern is not feasible;
• A dead-end street is permitted pursuant to RMC 4-6-060H, Dead End Streets; and
• A maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit and one (1) accessory dwelling unit per lot will
access from the street.
In addition to limiting the application of the Limited Residential Access Street classification, staff
also proposes to amend code to require two (2) ten-foot (10’) travel lanes, rather than one (1)
twelve-foot (12’) travel lane. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to ensure adequate and
safe roadway widths that can accommodate fire access. Based on staff and Renton Fire Authority
observation, while “no-parking” signs are always posted for streets that allow no parking, residents
frequently park in violation of these restrictions, which can pose a safety hazard and limit fire
access. Therefore, staff proposes to amend standards for the Limited Residential Access Street
classification to require two (2) travel lanes to mitigate for unanticipated parking and ensure
adequate fire access.
Shared Driveways
Currently, RMC 4-6-060J, Shared Driveway Standards, provides developers the option to construct
a private “shared driveway” as an alternative to the construction of a public residential street.
Shared driveways have been installed in numerous developments as they are a cheaper alternative
to a public street and because they require less land area, thereby potentially increasing lot yield
for developers. While shared driveways are typically a desirable option for developers, they are a
less desirable option from a planning perspective, as they do not provide elements that public
streets provide, such as sidewalks, bike lanes, on-street parking, or landscaping, which contribute
to a higher quality of development and life for residents. Furthermore, shared driveways are usually
dead-end streets, which reduces connectivity in residential neighborhoods. However, by still
allowing lots to be accessed via shared driveways, with limitations, relatively small areas of land
will continue to be divided when other alternatives are not viable.
Currently, shared driveways are required to be located wholly within a tract, and may be allowed
for access to a maximum of four (4) residential lots, provided the proposal complies with the
following criteria:
• At least one (1) lot abuts a public right-of-way and the street frontage of the lot is equal to or
greater than the lot width requirement of the zone;
• The subject lots are not created by a subdivision of ten (10) or more lots;
• A public street is not anticipated by the City of Renton to be necessary for existing or future
traffic and/or pedestrian circulation through the short subdivision or to serve adjacent
property;
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 8 of 13
#D-236A Page 7 of 9 May 2, 2025
•The shared driveway would not adversely affect future circulation to neighboring properties;
•The shared driveway is no more than three hundred feet (300') in length; and
•The shared driveway poses no safety risk and provides sufficient access for emergency
vehicles and personnel.
In addition to the criteria above, current code indicates that shared driveways are limited for
access to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units, not including ADUs. However, since current code
limits the maximum number of ADUs to one (1) per single-family residential lot, it is inferred that
shared driveways may be allowed for access to a maximum of one (1) primary dwelling and one (1)
ADU per lot.
While current code already limits the maximum number of lots and dwellings that can access via a
shared driveway, in response to the legislative mandates required by HB 1110 and HB 1337, staff
proposes to amend code to provide clarity by indicating that, for the subject lots, a maximum of
one (1) ADU (attached or detached) is permitted as an accessory to the primary dwelling.
Furthermore, staff proposes to provide a definition for “shared driveway” to ensure that these
standards apply to both existing/nonconforming shared driveways, as well as new shared
driveways.
Public Half Street Improvements
Currently, city code provides alternatives for developers that allow construction of half street
improvements for residential access streets, rather than full street improvements. To qualify for
this public half street alternative, the administrator must determine that the adjacent property has
potential for future development and right-of-way dedication necessary to complete the street.
When the adjacent parcel is eventually developed, the additional right-of-way width needed to
complete the street (based on the street classification) would be dedicated from the developing
property. The pavement would also be widened to the width needed to complete the street in
accordance with code, and all other requirements, such as curb, planting strip, and sidewalk,
would be installed.
Based on current code, the minimum right-of-way dedication for half street improvements is thirty-
five feet (35'), with twenty feet (20') of paving. A curb, planting strip, and sidewalk are also required
to be installed as part of the half-street improvements. The current standards for half street
improvements do not include a parking lane. However, in practice, a parking lane is often required
as a condition of approval to utilize a public half street.
In order to provide additional opportunities for street parking, as well as ensure consistency with
the proposed parking lane amendments described above, staff proposes to amend the public half
street standards to include a six-foot (6’) parking lane, along with two (2)10-foot (10’) travel lanes.
These updates would result in a minimum right-of-way dedication of forty-two feet (42’) for half
street improvements, with twenty-six feet (26’) of paving.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
The following summarized key revisions to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, are proposed:
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 9 of 13
#D-236A Page 8 of 9 May 2, 2025
• Exemptions from Street Standards – ADUs: Exempt ADUs from the requirement for street
improvements, in compliance with HB 1337.
• Residential Access Streets – Parking Lanes: Update the standards for Residential Access
Street to require a six-foot (6’) parking lane on both sides of the street, rather than on only
one side as indicated by current code. Also, provide developers the option to eliminate one
(1) or more of the parking lanes, provided the proposal complies with certain conditions, as
follows:
a) The project is a short plat or infill development;
b) Right-of-way acquisition is problematic;
c) A traditional street grid pattern is not feasible;
d) A dead-end street is permitted pursuant to RMC 4-6-060H, Dead End Streets; and
e) A maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit and one (1) accessory dwelling unit per
lot will access from the street.
• Limited Residential Access Streets: Update the standards for Limited Residential Access
Street to require two (2) ten-foot (10’) travel lanes rather than one (1) twelve-foot (12’) travel
lane. Also, provide criteria limiting when the Limited Residential Access Street
classification can be utilized for development as follows:
a) The project is a short plat or infill development;
b) Right-of-way acquisition is problematic;
c) A traditional street grid pattern is not feasible;
d) A dead end street is permitted pursuant to RMC 4-6-060H, Dead End Streets; and
e) A maximum of one (1) primary dwelling unit and one (1) accessory dwelling unit per
lot will access from the street.
• Shared Driveways: Allow a maximum of one (1) primary dwelling and one (1) ADU
(attached or detached) per lot for shared driveways. Also, provide a definition for shared
driveway.
• Public Half Streets: Update the half-street standards to include a parking lane, and to
ensure consistency with current procedures.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Amend RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, as described above, to mitigate for the legislative
mandates restricting parking requirements as indicated in HB 1110 and HB 1337, by providing more
opportunities for on-street parking, as well as providing restrictions for lots that are accessed via
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 10 of 13
#D-236A Page 9 of 9 May 2, 2025
shared driveways and limited residential access streets, which are intended for low-traffic
residential development.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There are no anticipated effects on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land
envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the city’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There are no anticipated effects on the city’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment growth created by the
proposed changes.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Objectives of the Plan would remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
There are no anticipated effects on capital improvements or expenditures created by the proposed
changes.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA and Countywide Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 11 of 13
Attachment A
Map A. Middle Housing Quarter & Half Mile Walksheds from Major Transit Stops
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 12 of 13
Attachment B
Map B. ADU Half Mile Walksheds from Major Transit Stops
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 13 of 13