HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2025 - Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Planning Commission Meeting
6:00 PM - Wednesday, October 15, 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. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
7. BRIEFING
a) Group 20B D-243: RMF-2 Rezone
b) Group 20B D-244: Contractor's Yard vs. Office
Page 1 of 96
c) Group 20B D-245: Code Interpretations
d) Resource Center in the Valley
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 96
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-243: RMF-2 Rezone
Staff: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
Date: October 10, 2025
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Renton proposes zoning map amendments to rezone nine (9) geographically distinct sites
(See Attachment A – Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) from Residential Multi-Family (RMF), Residential-14 (R-
14), and Residential-10 (R-10), to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). All sites are designated
Residential High Density (RHD) under the Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one site that
partially falls within the Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) land use designation. The RMF-2
designation allows residential densities of 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre and supports compact
infill housing near transit, commercial corridors, and employment areas.
The purpose of this rezone is to align zoning with existing built densities, resolve underbuilt and
nonconforming conditions, and facilitate reinvestment and infill development in appropriate
locations. Collectively, the nine (9) sites advance citywide housing objectives by supporting higher-
density residential development, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, adopted Community
Plans (where applicable), and recent land use trends.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The following table provides a summary of all nine (9) rezone sites included in this proposal. Each
site is located within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation and is proposed for
rezone from existing zoning to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The summary identifies the
general location, community planning area, proximity to major transit service, and existing and
proposed zoning designations.
SITE # GENERAL
LOCATION
COMMUNITY
PLANNING
AREA
DISTANCE
TO MAJOR
TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
1 Sunset Blvd NE &
Aberdeen Ave NE Highlands 0.55 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
2 Sunset Blvd NE &
NE 10th Pl Highlands 0.43 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
3 NE 9th Pl & NE
Sunset Blvd Highlands 0.44 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
4 NE Sunset Blvd &
Union Ave NE Highlands 0.02 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
5 Edmonds Ave NE
and NE 3rd St Highlands 0.08 miles RMF & R-10 RHD RMF-2
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 3 of 96
#D-243 Page 2 of 52 October 10, 2025
6 NE 4th St &
Queen Ave NE Highlands 0.04 miles CA & RMF CMU & RHD RMF-2
7 SW Sunset
Boulevard &
Maple Avenue SW
City Center,
Valley, and
West Hill
0.0 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
8 Benson Rd S & I-
405 Interchange
Benson 0.9 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
9 108th Ave SE & SE
Petrovitsky Rd
Benson 0.15 miles R-14 RHD RMF-2
POLICY CONTEXT & BACKGROUND
The City of Renton’s Comprehensive Plan establishes a framework for managing growth consistent
with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), VISION 2050, and the King County Countywide
Planning Policies. Renton is projected to accommodate approximately 17,000 new housing units
and 31,780 jobs by 2044. The City’s growth strategy emphasizes compact, efficient, and sustainable
development patterns that concentrate housing and employment in Regional Growth Centers and
along major transit corridors.
The Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation implements this strategy by supporting
attached housing forms near transit, services, and employment. Within the RHD designation, the
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2) zone is intended for areas already developed with multi-family
housing or where conditions support higher-intensity infill. The RMF-2 zone allows 20 to 40 dwelling
units per net acre, facilitating efficient use of urban land, supporting transit ridership, and aligning
with citywide housing policies.
Policies LU-B, LU-C, LU-H, and LU-I specifically call for compact, pedestrian-oriented development,
ensuring sufficient land capacity to meet growth targets, supporting infill on underutilized sites, and
planning for high-quality residential growth that reduces vehicle miles traveled and promotes stable
neighborhoods, as follows:
• Goal LU-B: Support the development of Renton as a Regional Growth Center, consistent with
VISION 2050, to foster compact, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development to meet the
demands of population and employment growth while also increasing transportation
efficiency and reducing negative environmental impacts.
• Goal LU-C: Ensure sufficient land capacity to meet growth targets for employment and
housing for all economic segments, as shown in Table LU-1.
• Goal LU-H: Plan for high quality residential growth that supports transit, reduces vehicle
miles traveled, provides urban densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good
health and physical activity, builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by
incorporating both built amenities and natural features.
• Goal LU-I: Accommodate residential growth, by:
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 4 of 96
#D-243 Page 3 of 52 October 10, 2025
o Encouraging the development of new attached housing of moderate density and
mixed-use in the City Center and in the Residential High Density and Commercial &
Mixed Use designations;
o Supporting infill development on vacant and underutilized land in established low-
moderate density residential neighborhoods; and
o Allowing development of new detached housing on large tracts of land outside the
City Center.
The proposed rezonings advance these directives by:
• Aligning zoning with existing built densities to prevent nonconformities and encourage
reinvestment.
• Concentrating housing growth near frequent transit service, consistent with policies to
maximize transportation efficiency.
• Facilitating infill and redevelopment of vacant and underbuilt parcels to help meet Renton’s
housing target while providing a broader variety of housing types.
• Supporting Growth Center objectives by promoting urban-scale housing that leverages
existing infrastructure and public investments.
Collectively, the proposed rezonings position Renton to meet its growth obligations while reinforcing
citywide objectives for efficient land use, climate resilience, and equitable housing opportunities.
CRITERIA FOR REZONES NOT REQUIRING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
RMC 4-9-180.F.2. outlines the review criteria applicable to rezones that do not require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of the
last area land use analysis and area zoning;
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 5 of 96
#D-243 Page 4 of 52 October 10, 2025
SITE 1 – SUNSET BLVD NE & ABERDEEN AVE NE
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 1 is located at the northeast corner of Sunset Boulevard NE and Aberdeen Avenue NE within the
Highlands Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 3). The site includes multiple
parcels totaling approximately 3.49 acres and is currently developed with a self-storage mini-
warehouse complex constructed in 2000 and a multi-family apartment building constructed in 1963.
The apartment building at 1033 Sunset Blvd NE has a built density of 31 dwelling units per acre,
exceeding the RMF zoning limit, while the mini-warehouse use is nonconforming under the current
zoning designation.
The site is located approximately 0.55 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
regional transit access. Surrounding development includes a CN-zoned commercial property
adjacent to the site (Christy’s Bar & Grill), multi-family apartments to the east, and arterial frontage
along Sunset Boulevard NE. The location functions as a transitional area between corridor
commercial uses and adjacent higher-density residential neighborhoods.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential Multi-family (RMF). The proposed rezone would change
the designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan
land use designation. The RMF-zoned parcels directly across Sunset Blvd NE are also recommended
for RMF-2 rezoning and are discussed separately as Site 2 later in this report.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
PARCEL
NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
0823059143 1105 SUNSET BLVD NE SELF-STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSE 2000 N/A RMF
0823059080 NA SELF-STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSE 2000 NA RMF
0823059179 NA SELF-STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSE 2000 NA RMF
0823059137 1105 SUNSET BLVD NE WSDOT ROW NA NA RMF
0823059041 NA SELF-STORAGE MINI
WAREHOUSE 2000 N/A RMF
0823059058 1033 SUNSET BLVD NE APARTMENTS 1963 31
DU/ACRE RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 6 of 96
#D-243 Page 5 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Infill Development Opportunity:
The subject site includes underutilized parcels currently occupied by nonconforming mini-
warehouse uses. Rezoning to RMF-2 would encourage redevelopment of these parcels with
conforming multi-family housing, addressing current housing demand and supporting City
housing targets.
• Land Use Transition:
The site is bounded by Sunset Boulevard NE, an arterial corridor, and adjacent to CN-zoned
commercial uses. Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to function as a logical transition in intensity
between corridor commercial activities and established multi-family neighborhoods to the east.
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.55 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 7 of 96
#D-243 Page 6 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
The apartment complex at 1033 Sunset Blvd NE already exceeds RMF density standards at 31
dwelling units per acre. Rezoning would bring zoning into consistency with existing built density
and reinforce compatibility with adjacent multi-family and corridor commercial uses, advancing
Comprehensive Plan goals for efficient and sustainable development.
• Neighborhood reinvestment:
Rezoning could stimulate reinvestment in the corridor by transitioning nonconforming uses to
multi-family, improving the streetscape along Sunset Blvd NE, and reinforcing the vitality of the
Highlands neighborhood center.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton Staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Highlands Community Planning Area and
is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site includes an existing apartment complex that exceeds RMF
density limits and several parcels developed with nonconforming mini-warehouse uses. The site is
located within 0.55 miles of a major King County Metro transit route and is adjacent to corridor
commercial uses. The rezone is evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by addressing housing demand and supporting
redevelopment of nonconforming warehouse parcels with higher-density multi-family housing.
The rezone improves land use efficiency, aligns zoning with existing built density at 31 du/acre,
and promotes transit-oriented residential growth. Community value is provided through
additional housing supply and reinvestment in the Sunset Blvd corridor without adverse impacts
to public health, safety, or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone is compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The site is
bordered by CN-zoned commercial, multi-family development to the east, and arterial frontage
along Sunset Blvd NE. Rezoning to RMF-2 creates a logical step-up in density consistent with
corridor activity and reinforces compatibility with surrounding residential and commercial uses.
The rezone would not be detrimental and would instead improve compatibility by transitioning
nonconforming uses to permitted multi-family housing.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 8 of 96
#D-243 Page 7 of 52 October 10, 2025
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
Although much of the site has been developed with self-storage, the existing apartment complex
at 31 dwelling units per acre exceeds RMF thresholds. Regional growth targets and increased
policy emphasis on concentrating housing near the Sunset Boulevard corridor and transit stops
(0.55 miles) constitute changed conditions. Rezoning ensures zoning matches established
density while providing consistency for future infill.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last area-wide land use
and zoning analysis. The parcels remained RMF despite nonconforming warehouse uses and
adjacency to higher-density residential development. Reconsideration through this proposal is
appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the purpose of allowing higher-density multi-
family housing in areas with transit access and corridor adjacency. The Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential High Density expressly supports this density range, and the existing
apartments already exceed RMF density limits. Rezoning is compatible with RMF-2’s intent and
advances Comprehensive Plan policies for housing capacity, infill, and corridor vitality.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 1 (Sunset Blvd NE & Aberdeen Ave NE) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 9 of 96
#D-243 Page 8 of 52 October 10, 2025
SITE 2 – SUNSET BLVD NE & NE 10TH PL
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 2 is located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard NE and NE 10th Place within the Highlands
Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 4). The site includes three parcels totaling
approximately 5.46 acres and is developed with apartment complexes constructed in 1967, 1976,
and 1979. Existing densities range from 29 to 36 dwelling units per acre, all of which exceed the
allowable density under the current RMF zoning designation.
The site is located approximately 0.43 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
walkable access to regional service. Surrounding development includes multi-family and single-
family housing to the south, corridor commercial uses to the west, and CN zoned commercial uses
to the east. The location functions as a transition area between the Sunset Boulevard commercial
corridor and surrounding residential neighborhoods, making it suitable for higher-density residential
zoning.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential Multi-family (RMF). The proposed rezone would change
the designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan
land use designation.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
PARCEL
NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT
USE
YEAR
BUILT DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
0823059052 2202 NE 10th Pl Apartments 1976 29 DU/ACRE RMF
8130200000 1150 Sunset Blvd NE Apartments 1979 29 DU/ACRE RMF
0823059112 2200 NE 10th Pl Apartments 1967 36 DU/ACRE RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 10 of 96
#D-243 Page 9 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Built Density:
All three apartment complexes on the site exceed the allowable density under RMF zoning, with
existing built densities ranging from 29 to 36 dwelling units per acre. Rezoning to RMF-2 would
align zoning with existing conditions and prevent nonconformities.
• Established Development:
The apartments were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and represent stable multi-family
housing stock. Rezoning would align zoning with built form, preventing underinvestment and
reducing the risk of property deterioration.
• Land Use Compatibility:
The site is adjacent to CN-zoned commercial properties and fronts Sunset Boulevard NE, a minor
arterial. This makes it well-suited for higher-intensity residential uses while maintaining
compatibility with the commercial corridor and adjacent residential areas.
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.43 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 11 of 96
#D-243 Page 10 of 52 October 10, 2025
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton Staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Highlands Community Planning Area and
is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site includes three apartment complexes developed in the
1960s and 1970s, with existing densities ranging from 29 to 36 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the
RMF zoning limit. The site is located within 0.43 miles of a major King County Metro transit stop. The
rezone is evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with existing built densities and
supporting long-term reinvestment in established apartment complexes. This advances City
housing goals, provides regulatory clarity, and ensures that existing multi-family housing
remains legally conforming. The rezone offers community value through the protection of
housing supply in a transit-accessible location, without adverse impacts to public health, safety,
or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone is compatible with surrounding uses, including CN-zoned commercial to
the west, multi-family neighborhoods to the south and east, and additional multi-family
development along Sunset Boulevard NE. Aligning zoning with existing built form reinforces land
use compatibility and supports corridor vitality. The rezone would not be detrimental to
neighboring properties.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
All three apartment complexes on the site exceed RMF density, with built densities between 29
and 36 dwelling units per acre. These projects were established decades ago, prior to current
zoning standards, creating long-term nonconforming conditions. Regional housing demand and
emphasis on supporting existing multi-family near Sunset Boulevard and transit represent
changed conditions that justify rezoning to RMF-2.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 12 of 96
#D-243 Page 11 of 52 October 10, 2025
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last area-wide land use
and zoning analysis. The parcels remained RMF despite exceeding RMF density limits.
Reconsideration through this proposal is appropriate to reflect built conditions and
Comprehensive Plan direction.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning is consistent with the intent of accommodating higher-density multi-
family housing in locations with transit access and corridor adjacency. The Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential High Density expressly supports this range of density. Rezoning is
compatible with the RMF-2 purpose and implements Comprehensive Plan goals for housing
capacity, infill, and efficient use of urban land.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 2 (Sunset Blvd NE & NE 10th Pl) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all applicable
criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
SITE 3 – EDMONDS AVE NE & NE SUNSET BLVD
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 3 is located along Edmonds Avenue NE at its intersection with NE Sunset Boulevard within the
Highlands Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 5). The site is within the Residential
High Density (RHD) land use designation. The subject parcels total approximately 4.12 acres and
consist of a mix of apartment buildings, a duplex, townhome apartments, and single-family
dwellings. The single-family dwellings are nonconforming under the current zoning. Structures on
the developed parcels were built between 1943 and 2013, with existing densities ranging from 6 to
43 dwelling units per acre.
The site is located approximately 0.44 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
regional access. Surrounding development includes single-family neighborhoods to the west across
Edmonds Avenue NE and to the south across NE 9th Place, Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning
to the northwest at the Edmonds Avenue NE and NE Sunset Boulevard intersection, and Center
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 13 of 96
#D-243 Page 12 of 52 October 10, 2025
Village (CV) zoning to the east and across NE Sunset Boulevard to the northeast. The location
functions as a transitional area between the Sunset Boulevard commercial corridor and the
surrounding residential neighborhoods.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential Multi-family (RMF). The proposed rezone would change
the designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan
land use designation.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
PARCEL
NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
0923059119 1012 Edmonds
Ave NE
Single Family
(Nonconforming)
1948 N/A RMF
0923059158 980 Edmonds Ave
NE
Apartments 1968 43 DU/ACRE RMF
0923059109 2520 NE 9th Pl Apartments 2000 25 DU/ACRE RMF
7227500530 2624 NE 9th Pl Apartments 1959 21 DU/ACRE RMF
7227500540 2630 NE 9th Pl Duplex 1959 6 DU/ACRE RMF
0923059131 978 Edmonds Ave
NE
Townhome
Apartments
2013 19 DU/ACRE RMF
0923059186 968 Edmonds Ave
NE
Single Family
(Nonconforming)
1950 N/A RMF
0923059207 964 Edmonds Ave
NE
Single Family
(Nonconforming)
1950 N/A RMF
0923059210 960 Edmonds Ave
NE
Single Family
(Nonconforming)
1951 N/A RMF
0923059059 2508 NE 9th Pl Single Family
(Nonconforming)
1943 N/A RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 14 of 96
#D-243 Page 13 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Built Density:
Several parcels within the site already exceed RMF density standards, with existing multi-family
developments ranging from 19 to 43 dwelling units per acre. Rezoning to RMF-2 would align
zoning with built conditions and provide consistency for future reinvestment.
• Land Use Transition:
The site is located along Edmonds Avenue NE and near Sunset Boulevard NE, a principal arterial,
and is directly adjacent to neighborhood commercial (CN) and Center Village (CV) zoning.
Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to function as a compatible transition in intensity between the
commercial corridor and nearby single-family neighborhoods
• Market Feasibility:
Higher-density zoning may improve redevelopment feasibility by supporting a broader range of
housing types and increasing capacity on underutilized parcels that are unlikely to redevelop at
current RMF standards.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 15 of 96
#D-243 Page 14 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.44 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
• Neighborhood Reinvestment:
Rezoning would encourage incremental infill and reinvestment on parcels that are currently
underutilized or nonconforming, supporting long-term housing supply and reinforcing corridor
vitality along Edmonds Avenue NE and Sunset Boulevard NE.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Highlands Community Planning Area and
is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site includes a mix of apartment buildings, duplexes, townhome
apartments, and nonconforming single-family dwellings, with existing densities ranging from 6 to 43
dwelling units per acre. The site is located within 0.44 miles of a major King County Metro transit stop
and is adjacent to commercial and mixed-use zoning along Sunset Boulevard NE. The rezone is
evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with existing built densities and
supporting opportunities for infill on underutilized parcels. This advances City housing goals,
improves land use efficiency, and contributes to the supply of diverse housing opportunities near
transit. The location’s proximity to Edmonds Avenue NE, Sunset Boulevard NE, and regional
transit routes supports higher-density residential use. The rezone provides community value
through additional housing supply and choice in an appropriate location without adverse public
health, safety, or welfare impacts.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone is compatible with the established development pattern. The site is
bordered by single-family neighborhoods to the west and south, and adjacent to neighborhood
commercial (CN) and Center Village (CV) zoning to the north and east. Rezoning to RMF-2 would
maintain compatibility with surrounding multi-family development and create an appropriate
transition from the commercial corridor to nearby residential neighborhoods. The rezone would
not be materially detrimental to neighboring properties.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 16 of 96
#D-243 Page 15 of 52 October 10, 2025
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
The site contains a mix of apartments, duplexes, townhomes, and nonconforming single-family
dwellings, with multi-family densities ranging from 19 to 43 dwelling units per acre. These exceed
RMF standards and pre-date current zoning. Changed conditions include policy emphasis on
infill along transit-served corridors (0.44 miles to frequent service) and the ongoing presence of
nonconformities. Rezoning to RMF-2 reflects both existing densities and future reinvestment
potential.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last area-wide land use
and zoning analysis. The parcels remained RMF despite built densities exceeding RMF limits and
adjacency to higher-intensity zoning along Sunset Boulevard. Reconsideration through this
proposal is appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the intent of allowing higher-density multi-
family housing in areas with transit access and commercial adjacency. The Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential High Density expressly supports this density range. The rezone is
compatible with the RMF-2 purpose and implements Comprehensive Plan policies for housing
capacity, infill, and efficient use of urban land.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 3 (Edmonds Ave NE & NE Sunset Blvd) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 17 of 96
#D-243 Page 16 of 52 October 10, 2025
SITE 4 – NE SUNSET BLVD & UNION AVE NE
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 4 is located at the intersection of NE Sunset Boulevard and Union Avenue NE within the
Highlands Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 6). The site is located within the
Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The subject parcels total approximately 13.75
acres and are developed with large-scale apartment complexes constructed between 1974 and
1983. Existing development includes multi-family housing at densities ranging from 24 to 34 dwelling
units per acre, which exceed the maximum allowed under current RMF zoning.
The site is located approximately 0.02 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop on Union
Avenue NE, providing direct access to regional transit service. Surrounding development includes
commercial uses fronting NE Sunset Boulevard to the north, multi-family housing to the east and
south, and single-family residential neighborhoods to the west across Union Avenue NE. The
location functions as a transitional area between the Sunset Boulevard commercial corridor and
surrounding multi-family and single-family neighborhoods.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential Multi-family (RMF). The proposed rezone would change
the designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan
land use designation.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
PARCEL
NUMBER
ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT
DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
1023059050 4455 NE 12th St APARTMENTS 1976 25 DU/ACRE RMF
1023059301 1150 Union Ave NE APARTMENTS 1974 24 DU/ACRE RMF
1023059006 1190 UNION AVE
NE APARTMENTS 1983 34 DU/ACRE RMF
1023059152 1190 UNION AVE
NE APARTMENTS 1983 33 DU/ACRE RMF
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 18 of 96
#D-243 Page 17 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Built Density:
The subject site consists of multi-family apartment complexes constructed between 1974 and
1983, with built densities ranging from 24 to 34 dwelling units per acre. These densities exceed
the limits of the current RMF zoning. Rezoning to RMF-2 would align zoning with existing
conditions and support opportunities for future infill consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals.
• Land Use Transition:
The site is situated along NE Sunset Boulevard and Union Avenue NE, providing frontage on both
a principal and minor arterial. Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to function as a logical transition
in land use intensity, linking corridor commercial development on Sunset Boulevard with
adjacent multi-family and single-family neighborhoods.
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.02 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning is consistent with the intensity of nearby multi-family and
commercial uses along Sunset Boulevard. Rezoning provides continuity within an established
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 19 of 96
#D-243 Page 18 of 52 October 10, 2025
multi-family district and ensures long-term compatibility while advancing Comprehensive Plan
goals for housing capacity and efficient urban development.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Highlands Community Planning Area and
is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site consists of four contiguous apartment complexes
constructed between 1974 and 1983, with built densities ranging from 24 to 34 dwelling units per
acre, exceeding current RMF standards. The site is located approximately 0.02 miles from a major
King County Metro transit stop at Union Avenue NE. The rezone is evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2
rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone has merit by aligning zoning with existing multi-family densities and
supporting opportunities for infill on underutilized parcels. The location’s proximity to arterials
and immediate access to transit reinforce land use efficiency and housing policy objectives. The
rezone provides community value by ensuring zoning consistency without adverse effects on
public health, safety, or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The subject site is surrounded by multi-family housing and commercial uses along Sunset
Boulevard NE. Rezoning to RMF-2 is compatible with this development pattern and would not be
detrimental to adjacent single-family neighborhoods to the west. The rezone strengthens land
use compatibility by maintaining a cohesive multi-family district at the edge of a commercial
corridor.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
Large-scale apartment complexes built between 1974 and 1983 dominate the site at densities
between 24 and 34 dwelling units per acre, exceeding RMF standards. These higher densities
have persisted since before RMF zoning was applied. Coupled with immediate proximity to a
major transit stop (0.02 miles), regional housing policy, and ongoing reinvestment needs, these
conditions justify rezoning to RMF-2.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 20 of 96
#D-243 Page 19 of 52 October 10, 2025
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically reconsidered during the last area-wide land use update. The
properties remained RMF despite built densities that exceed current zoning limits.
Reconsideration through this proposal is appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the intent of accommodating higher-density
multi-family housing in areas with transit access and commercial adjacency. The
Comprehensive Plan designation of Residential High Density supports this level of intensity. The
rezone is compatible with RMF-2 purpose and implements Comprehensive Plan policies for
housing capacity, infill, and efficient use of urban land.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 4 (NE Sunset Blvd & Union Ave NE) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
SITE 5 – EDMONDS AVE NE AND NE 3RD ST
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 5 is located at the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 3rd Street within the Highlands
Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 7). The site is located within the Residential
High Density (RHD) land use designation. The subject parcels total approximately 24.86 acres and
are developed with a mix of apartments, condominiums, and a legal nonconforming warehouse use.
Residential structures on the site were constructed between 1979 and 1999, with densities ranging
from 14 to 31 dwelling units per acre. Two parcels exceed the maximum allowed under current RMF
zoning.
The site is located approximately 0.08 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
frequent and direct access to regional transit service. Adjacent land uses include multi-family
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 21 of 96
#D-243 Page 20 of 52 October 10, 2025
housing within the RMF zone to the west, R-8 single-family neighborhoods to the north, industrial
uses and R-10 single-family housing to the south, and CA-zoned commercial development to the
east.
The existing zoning of the site is a combination of Residential Multi-family (RMF) and Residential-10
(R-10). The proposed rezone would consolidate zoning under Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2),
consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
PARCEL
NUMBER
ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT
DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
1723059170 2307 NE 4TH ST Apartments 1986 31 DU/ACRE RMF
8880900000 2601 NE 4TH ST Condominiums 1979 27 DU/ACRE RMF
1623059046 2631 NE 4TH ST WSDOT Warehouse 1959 NA R-10
1623059117 2811 NE 4TH ST RHA Apartments 1983 14 DU/ACRE RMF
1623059120 2828 NE 3RD ST Apartments 1999 19 DU/ACRE RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 22 of 96
#D-243 Page 21 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Built Density:
Two parcels within the site exceed the RMF density threshold of 20 dwelling units per acre,
supporting a zoning correction to align with existing built conditions and prevent density conflicts
during reinvestment.
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.08 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
• Visual Privacy and Compatibility:
Adjacent lower-density zones (R-8 and R-10) to the north and south are naturally buffered by
slope, grade separation, and mature vegetation. These conditions provide visual screening and
maintain neighborhood character while allowing higher-density multi-family zoning within the
site.
• Nonconforming Use Resolution:
The site includes a legal, nonconforming WSDOT warehouse located in the R-10 zone. Rezoning
to RMF-2 would facilitate a transition to a conforming multi-family use, resolving a longstanding
inconsistency with zoning and Comprehensive Plan designations.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) and
Residential-10 (R-10) to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Highlands
Community Planning Area and is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation;
therefore, no Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The subject site is developed with multi-
family complexes constructed between 1979 and 1999, along with a legal nonconforming WSDOT
warehouse use. Existing densities range from 14 to 31 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the RMF
threshold in several locations. The site is located approximately 0.08 miles from a major King County
Metro transit stop on NE 4th Street, providing frequent regional transit service. The rezone is
evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with existing built densities that already
exceed RMF standards, avoiding nonconformity during reinvestment or redevelopment. The
rezone also supports efficient use of urban land by enabling modernization of multi-family
housing stock and allowing the potential transition of a nonconforming warehouse use to
residential development. However, the warehouse would remain a nonconforming use under the
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 23 of 96
#D-243 Page 22 of 52 October 10, 2025
RMF-2 zoning. Community value is provided through additional housing opportunities near
frequent transit without adverse impacts to public health, safety, or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone would be compatible with surrounding development patterns. The site is
bordered by RMF-zoned multi-family housing to the west, R-8 single-family housing to the north,
R-10 single-family housing and industrial uses to the south, and commercial uses (CA zoning) to
the east. This context demonstrates that RMF-2 provides a logical transition among varying land
use intensities, and would not be materially detrimental to neighboring properties.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
The site includes multi-family apartments and condominiums developed between 1979 and
1999 at densities of 14–31 dwelling units per acre, along with a nonconforming warehouse use
zoned R-10. Conditions have changed since the RMF and R-10 zoning were applied, with
persistent higher-density residential development and clear policy emphasis on infill near transit
(0.08 miles). Rezoning to RMF-2 consolidates zoning and reflects both built density and housing
policy direction.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for rezone during the last Highlands area-wide
land use and zoning analysis. Parcels remained zoned RMF and R-10 despite their built densities
and adjacency to higher-intensity development. Reconsideration through this rezone is
appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential High Density, which supports higher-density multi-family housing near transit and
commercial areas. Existing densities (14–31 du/acre) are already within or approaching the RMF-
2 range. The rezone ensures compatibility with the intent of RMF-2 by reinforcing higher-capacity
multi-family housing in appropriate urban areas.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 24 of 96
#D-243 Page 23 of 52 October 10, 2025
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 5 (Edmonds Ave NE and NE 3rd St) from RMF and R-10 to RMF-2 meets
all applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
SITE 6 – NE 4TH ST & QUEEN AVE NE
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 6 is located at the intersection of NE 4th Street and Queen Avenue NE within the Highlands
Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 8). The site is located within the Residential
High Density (RHD) and Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) land use designations. The subject parcel
totals approximately 7.30 acres and is developed with the Crown Pointe Apartments, built in 1987,
at a density of 27 dwelling units per acre. This density exceeds the maximum permitted under RMF
zoning.
Only the portion of the site currently zoned Residential Multi-family (RMF) is proposed for rezone to
Residential Multi-family – 2 (RMF-2). The southern portion of the parcel is zoned Commercial Arterial
(CA) and is not included in the rezone proposal.
The site is located approximately 0.04 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
direct and frequent access to regional transit service. Adjacent land uses include R-10 zoned single-
family to the north, R-10 zoned multi-family to the east, CA-zoned commercial uses to the south,
and RMF zoned multi-family to the west.
The proposed rezone would align zoning with the existing built density of the site, while remaining
consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan designation for that portion of the site.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
PARCEL
NUMBER
ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT
DENSITY CURRENT ZONE
0923059049 3788 NE 4TH ST APARTMENTS 1987 27 DU/ACRE RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 25 of 96
#D-243 Page 24 of 52 October 10, 2025
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Infill Development Opportunity:
The subject site is developed with the Crown Pointe Apartments, constructed in 1987 at a density
of approximately 27 dwelling units per acre, which exceeds the maximum permitted under
current RMF zoning. Rezoning to RMF-2 would align zoning with existing built density and provide
a framework for future reinvestment and infill on the site, supporting City housing targets and
preventing underutilization of established multi-family areas.
• Land Use Transition:
The site fronts NE 4th Street, a principal arterial, and lies adjacent to CA-zoned commercial uses
to the south and multi-family zoning to the west. Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to function
as a logical extension of higher-intensity multi-family development along the corridor, while
mature vegetation and grade separation provide screening from lower-density R-10 housing to
the east.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 26 of 96
#D-243 Page 25 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.04 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning is consistent with nearby multi-family housing densities and
compatible with adjacent CA-zoned commercial uses. The rezone reinforces Comprehensive
Plan goals for infill and efficient urban development by allowing the site to continue functioning
as a high-density residential node within the Highlands Community Planning Area.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). Only the portion of the site zoned RMF is subject to the rezone;
the CA-zoned portion would remain unchanged. The site lies within the Highlands Community
Planning Area and is within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The subject site is developed with the Crown Pointe
Apartments, constructed in 1987, at an approximate density of 27 dwelling units per acre—
exceeding the RMF density threshold. The site is located approximately 0.04 miles from a major King
County Metro transit stop on NE 4th Street, providing frequent regional transit service. The rezone is
evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with existing built density that exceeds
RMF standards, avoiding legal nonconformity during reinvestment or modernization. The rezone
supports efficient use of urban land, promotes reinvestment in aging housing stock, and
contributes to City housing targets. Community value is provided through preservation of multi-
family housing capacity in a transit-accessible location without adverse impacts to public
health, safety, or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone would be compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The site
is bordered by R-10 zoned single-family to the north, R-10 zoned multi-family to the east, CA-
zoned commercial uses to the south, and RMF zoned multi-family to the west. Rezoning the RMF
portion of the site to RMF-2 provides a logical transition between commercial and residential
uses and would not be materially detrimental to adjacent properties.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 27 of 96
#D-243 Page 26 of 52 October 10, 2025
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
The site includes multi-family housing built in 1987 at 27 dwelling units per acre within the RMF
portion of the property. The CA-zoned portion of the site is currently utilized as access for the
development and would remain unchanged. Existing development already exceeds RMF
thresholds, and the location’s adjacency to NE 4th Street transit service (0.04 miles) constitutes
a changed condition. Rezoning only the RMF-zoned portion to RMF-2 eliminates nonconformity
and better aligns zoning with built conditions and policy direction.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last Highlands area-wide
land use and zoning analysis. The apartments remained zoned RMF despite built densities that
exceed the RMF threshold. Reconsideration through this proposal is appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential High Density, which encourages higher-density multi-family housing near transit and
commercial corridors. The site’s built density of 27 dwelling units per acre falls within the RMF-
2 range. Rezoning ensures consistency between built form, zoning, and Comprehensive Plan
policy.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is within the Highlands Community Planning Area, and no governing Community
Plan has been adopted. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community
Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 6 (Crown Pointe Apartments – NE 4th St & Queen Ave NE) from RMF to
RMF-2 (the CA-zoned portion of site remains unchanged) meets all applicable criteria for approval
under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 28 of 96
#D-243 Page 27 of 52 October 10, 2025
SITE 7 – SW SUNSET BLVD & MAPLE AVE SW
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 7 is located at the intersection of SW Sunset Boulevard and Maple Avenue SW within the City
Center, Valley, and West Hill Community Planning Areas (See Attachment A – Exhibit 9). The site is
located within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The subject parcels total
approximately 44.31 acres and are developed with a mix of multi-family buildings, duplexes, and
single-family dwellings. The single-family dwellings are nonconforming under the existing RMF
zoning, and the nonconformity would continue under the proposed RMF-2 zoning. Existing
development includes condominiums built in the 1990s and 2007, as well as apartments
constructed in the 1980s and 1990s.
All parcels currently zoned Residential Multi-family (RMF) are proposed for rezone to Residential
Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). No Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The site is located adjacent
to a major King County Metro transit stop, providing direct and frequent access to regional transit
service. Adjacent land uses include R-8 zoned single-family neighborhoods to the north,
Commercial Arterial (CA) zoned commercial uses to the east, Medium Industrial (IM) zoned uses to
the south, and Commercial Office (CO) and Light Industrial (IL) zoned properties to the west.
The proposed rezone would align zoning with existing built densities and support reinvestment
consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan designation for the site.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
PARCEL
NUMBER
ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT
DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
1823059053 200 SW 5TH PL Plum Tree Park
Apartments
1991 24 DU/ACRE RMF
1823059052 500 SW 7th St BNSF Railway ROW N/A N/A RMF
7338250000 440 MAPLE AVE SW Rivers Edge
Condominium
1999 18 DU/ACRE RMF
1823059165 430 MAPLE AVE SW Vacant NA NA RMF
2143701215 510 STEVENS AVE
SW
Alaire Apartments 1988 20 DU/ACRE RMF
0194300000 611 SW 5TH CT Condominium 1981 19 DU/ACRE RMF
8119900000 833 SW SUNSET
BLVD
Sunpointe
Condominium
1990 6 DU/ACRE RMF
2143702200 521 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1950 N/A RMF
2143702195 513 SW 5th Pl Vacant N/A N/A RMF
2143702190 513 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1955 N/A RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 29 of 96
#D-243 Page 28 of 52 October 10, 2025
2143702185 509 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1994 N/A RMF
2143702180 505 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1994 N/A RMF
2143702175 501 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1994 N/A RMF
2143702170 425 SW 5th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1994 N/A RMF
2143702150 415 SW 5th Pl Duplex 1955 20 DU/ACRE RMF
2143701730 701 SW Sunset Blvd Single-Family
Dwelling
1920 N/A RMF
2143701720 625 SW 4th Pl Single-Family
Dwelling
1904 N/A RMF
2143701815 709 SW Sunset Blvd Single-Family
Dwelling
1912 N/A RMF
2143701825 709 SW Sunset Blvd Vacant Parcel N/A N/A RMF
2603000000 617 SW 4th Pl Condominium 2007 22 DU/ACRE RMF
2143701170 617 SW 4th Pl Vacant Parcel N/A N/A RMF
2143701180 617 SW 4th Pl Vacant Parcel N/A N/A RMF
2143701211 525 SW Sunset Blvd Single-Family 1918 N/A RMF
2143701325 423 Lind Ave SW Single Family 1912 N/A RMF
2143701310 438 SW 4th Pl Single Family 1912 N/A RMF
2143701315 430 SW 4th Pl Single Family 1912 N/A RMF
2143701410 412 SW 4th Pl Single Family 1949 N/A RMF
2143701400 400 SW 4th Pl Single Family 1913 N/A RMF
2143701395 316 SW 4th Pl Duplex 1955 14 DU/ACRE RMF
2143701390 308 SW 4th Pl Single Family 1920 N/A RMF
2143701385 431 Maple Ave SW Single Family 1927 N/A RMF
2143701415 461 Maple Ave SW Single Family 1960 N/A RMF
2143701550 469 Maple Ave SW Single Family 1948 N/A RMF
2143701551 469 Maple Ave SW Vacant Lot N/A N/A RMF
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 30 of 96
#D-243 Page 29 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Infill Development Opportunity:
The subject site includes a mix of vacant parcels, condominium complexes, and early- to mid-
20th-century single-family dwellings. Several parcels are underutilized at single-family densities
within the RMF zone, creating opportunities for reinvestment and higher-density infill
development. Rezoning to RMF-2 would align zoning with built conditions where existing
apartments already exceed RMF density thresholds, while also supporting future capacity
consistent with housing targets.
• Land Use Transition:
The area lies between CA-zoned corridor commercial uses along Hardie Ave SW and SW Sunset
Blvd, industrial and office uses to the south (IM/CO), and single-family neighborhoods to the
north across Sunset Blvd (R-8). RMF-2 provides a compatible step in intensity that consolidates
a multi-family district along Maple Ave SW and SW 5th Pl while maintaining separation from
lower-density areas; critical-area constraints on the west further shape an appropriate edge.
• Transit Access:
The site is located immediately adjacent to a major King County Metro transit stop on Sunset
Blvd, providing direct and frequent access to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning at
this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in an area already integrated with public transportation.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 31 of 96
#D-243 Page 30 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
Existing multi-family developments in and around the site operate at approximately 14–24
dwelling units per acre. RMF-2 aligns zoning with this established built form and enables modest
infill on underbuilt lots, advancing Comprehensive Plan goals for efficient urban land use and
expanded housing capacity while maintaining neighborhood compatibility.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton Staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). Site 7 is located at the intersection of SW Sunset Boulevard and
Maple Avenue SW within the City Center, Valley, and West Hill Community Planning Areas. The site
is located within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no
Comprehensive Plan amendment is required. The subject site includes multi-family apartments,
condominiums, several underbuilt single-family lots, and a small number of vacant parcels. Existing
densities within the site range from approximately 14 to 24 dwelling units per acre, already exceeding
the RMF maximum in multiple locations. The site is directly served by a major King County Metro
transit stop on SW Sunset Boulevard, providing frequent regional service. The rezone is evaluated
against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with existing built densities and
supporting infill on vacant and underutilized parcels. This advances City housing goals, improves
land use efficiency, and ensures continued reinvestment in established multi-family
communities. Community value is provided through housing supply that is transit-accessible
and compatible with surrounding uses, without adverse impacts to public health, safety, or
welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone is compatible with surrounding development patterns. Adjacent land uses
include R-8 single-family neighborhoods to the north, CA-zoned commercial uses to the east,
IM-zoned industrial uses to the south, and CO/IL-zoned office and light industrial properties to
the west. Consolidating zoning under RMF-2 provides a cohesive multi-family district that
transitions appropriately between commercial, industrial, and single-family neighborhoods,
without detriment to surrounding properties.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 32 of 96
#D-243 Page 31 of 52 October 10, 2025
Staff Comment:
The site is built with a mix of condominiums and apartments constructed in the 1980s–2000s,
with densities ranging from 14–24 dwelling units per acre, exceeding RMF standards in several
locations. Additional parcels include underbuilt single-family dwellings and vacant land.
Conditions have changed since the RMF zoning was applied, with long-standing multi-family
densities, adoption of the City Center Community Plan emphasizing infill and multimodal
access, and the presence of direct frequent transit service at the site. Rezoning to RMF-2 brings
zoning into alignment with both built conditions and adopted policy.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for rezone during the last citywide or area-wide
zoning analysis. The parcels remained RMF despite built densities exceeding RMF limits and
adjacency to higher-intensity commercial and industrial uses. Reconsideration through this
rezone is appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential High Density, which supports higher-density multi-family housing in transit-rich
areas. Existing built densities of 14–24 dwelling units per acre align with RMF-2 standards. The
rezone ensures compatibility with the intent of RMF-2 by reinforcing a cohesive multi-family
district while promoting infill and efficient urban land use.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is located within the City Center, Valley, and West Hill Community Planning
Areas. A governing Community Plan has been adopted for the City Center, which emphasizes
infill housing, multimodal access, and efficient use of land near transit. The proposed rezone is
consistent with these policies. No governing Community Plans have been adopted for the Valley
or West Hill areas. Therefore, the rezone does not conflict with any governing Community Plan.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 7 (SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 33 of 96
#D-243 Page 32 of 52 October 10, 2025
SITE 8 – BENSON RD S & I-405 INTERCHANGE
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 8 is located along the east side of Benson Road S, directly adjacent to the I-405 interchange (See
Attachment A – Exhibit 10). The site is within the Benson Community Planning Area and is located
within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The subject parcels total
approximately 2.34 acres and consist of a mix of vacant land, easements, and early 20th-century
single-family dwellings. Structures on the developed parcels were built between 1909 and 1962 and
consist of one-unit detached homes.
The site is located approximately 0.9 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
regional access. Surrounding development includes multi-family housing to the south, commercial
and multi-family development to the east across Benson Road S, and freeway infrastructure along
the site’s western and northern edges. The location functions as a transitional area between the I-
405 corridor and adjacent higher-density residential neighborhoods.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential Multi-family (RMF). The proposed rezone would change
the designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the RHD Comprehensive Plan
land use designation.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
PARCEL
NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
2023059023 1212 Benson Rd S Easement NA NA RMF
2023059024 1202 Benson Rd S Vacant NA NA RMF
2023059025 1206 Benson Rd S Easement NA NA RMF
2023059031 1240 Benson Rd S Single Family 1947 NA (1 UNIT) RMF
2023059029 1234 Benson Rd S Single Family 1909 NA (1 UNIT) RMF
2023059032 1236 Benson Rd S Single Family 1954 NA (1 UNIT) RMF
2023059033 1216 Benson Rd S Single Family 1916 NA (1 UNIT) RMF
2023059035 1228 Benson Rd S Single Family 1962 NA (1 UNIT) RMF
2023059055 1202 Benson Rd S Vacant NA NA RMF
2023059036 1114 Benson Rd S ROW NA NA RMF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 34 of 96
#D-243 Page 33 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from RMF to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Infill Development Opportunity:
The subject site includes vacant lots, easements, and early 20th-century single-family homes
that are reaching the end of their functional lifespan. These conditions create opportunities for
reinvestment and higher-density infill development, addressing current housing demand and
supporting City housing targets.
• Land Use Transition:
The site is situated between the I-405 freeway corridor and adjacent multi-family development.
Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to serve as a logical transition in land use intensity, buffering
the freeway edge while extending multi-family zoning along Benson Rd S. This reduces conflicts
between incompatible uses and ensures a cohesive urban fabric.
• Transit Access:
The site is located approximately 0.9 miles from a major King County Metro route, placing it
within a reasonable walking and biking distance to regional transit service. Higher-density zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging residential
growth in areas with public transportation access.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 35 of 96
#D-243 Page 34 of 52 October 10, 2025
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning is consistent with the intensity of nearby multi-family housing to the
south and east. Consolidating underbuilt parcels under a higher-density zone promotes
redevelopment at scales similar to adjacent projects, ensuring compatibility while advancing
Comprehensive Plan goals for efficient urban development.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton Staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential Multi-family (RMF) to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Benson Community Planning Area and is
within the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site includes vacant parcels and early 20th-century single-
family dwellings, located within 0.9 miles of a major King County Metro transit route, and adjacent
to higher-intensity multi-family development. The rezone is evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2
rezone criteria as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by supporting redevelopment of vacant parcels and
underutilized single-family lots with higher-density multi-family housing. This advances City
housing goals, improves land use efficiency, and contributes to the supply of diverse housing
opportunities near transit. The location’s proximity to I-405 and transit supports higher-density
use. The rezone provides community value through additional housing supply and choice in an
appropriate location without adverse public health, safety, or welfare impacts.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone would be compatible with the established development pattern. The site is
bordered by multi-family zoning (RMF) and development and buffered by the I-405 corridor.
Furthermore, the site is in close proximity to RMF-2 zoning. Transitioning single-unit lots to multi-
family reduces land-use conflicts and aligns with surrounding intensity. The rezone would not be
materially detrimental to neighboring properties and would improve land-use compatibility
along Benson Rd S.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
Conditions have changed since the original RMF designation, as the area has urbanized adjacent
to the I-405 corridor. While some parcels remain vacant or developed with older single-family
dwellings, the surrounding pattern is now higher-density multi-family consistent with RMF-2
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 36 of 96
#D-243 Page 35 of 52 October 10, 2025
standards. Regional housing demand and policy emphasis on infill near freeways and transit
stops reinforce the need to rezone, correcting the mismatch between existing development
capacity and current RMF limits.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last area-wide zoning and
land use analysis. The parcels remained RMF despite adjacency to higher-intensity multi-family
development. Reconsideration through this proposal is appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with the intent of allowing higher-density multi-
family housing in areas with transit access and established intensity. The Comprehensive Plan
designation of Residential High Density expressly supports this density range, and the site
functions as a logical extension of nearby multi-family. The rezone is compatible with the RMF-2
purpose and implements Comprehensive Plan policies for housing capacity, infill, and efficient
use of urban land.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is located within the Benson Community Planning Area, where a governing
Community Plan has been adopted. The Benson Community Plan calls for efficient use of
underutilized parcels, improved housing opportunities, and compatibility with adjacent land
uses. The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with these objectives.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 8 (Benson Rd S & I-405 Interchange) from RMF to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
SITE 9 – 108TH AVE SE & SE PETROVITSKY RD
1. SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 9 is located at the northeast corner of 108th Avenue SE and SE Petrovitsky Rd, within the Benson
Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 11). The site includes two parcels totaling
approximately 6.68 acres and is currently developed with a church facility constructed in 1951 and
a multi-family condominium complex built in 1993. The condominium development contains
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 37 of 96
#D-243 Page 36 of 52 October 10, 2025
approximately 21 dwelling units per acre, exceeding the R-14 zoning density limit, while the church
parcel remains underutilized with regard to density.
The site is situated approximately 0.15 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
direct access to regional transit service. Surrounding development includes multi-family housing to
the east, single-family to the north, commercial and medical office uses to the south (at the
intersection), and commercial uses (CVS and McDonald’s) across 108th Ave SE. This location
functions as a transitional area, connecting higher-density residential and commercial corridor
uses.
The existing zoning of the site is Residential-14 (R-14). The proposed rezone would change the
designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), consistent with the Residential High Density
(RHD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and aligning zoning with existing built density and
future redevelopment opportunities.
2. PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
3. SITE MAP:
The following map illustrates the location of the subject parcels, showing their relationship to
surrounding zoning designations, adjacent development, and nearby infrastructure.
PARCEL
NUMBER ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
2923059072 17418 108th Ave SE Church 1951 NA R-14
3530100000 11002 SE Petrovitsky Rd Condominiums 1993 21 DU/ACRE R-14
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 38 of 96
#D-243 Page 37 of 52 October 10, 2025
4. SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from R-14 to RMF-2. These factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent
with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Infill Development Opportunity:
The underutilized church parcel at 17418 108th Avenue SE offers potential for substantial
redevelopment, supporting up to 84 units based on gross acreage. In combination with the
adjacent condominium development, rezoning would align zoning with existing built density and
encourage reinvestment in a well-located site to meet housing demand.
• Land Use Transition:
The site is located at the intersection of 108th Avenue SE and SE Petrovitsky Rd, where
residential, commercial, and institutional uses converge. Rezoning to RMF-2 allows the site to
function as a logical transition between single-family housing to the north, higher-density multi-
family housing to the east, and commercial and medical office uses to the south and west.
• Transit Access:
The site is situated approximately 0.15 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop,
providing direct access to regional service. Higher-density zoning at this location supports
transit-oriented development principles by focusing residential growth in walkable, transit-
accessible areas.
• Consistency with Surrounding Development:
The existing condominium complex at 11002 SE Petrovitsky Rd already exceeds R-14 density
standards at 21 dwelling units per acre. Rezoning to RMF-2 would bring zoning into consistency
with built form and surrounding multi-family development patterns, while supporting corridor
vitality.
• Economic Reinvestment and Neighborhood Compatibility:
Rezoning could stimulate reinvestment in the church parcel and nearby distressed commercial
properties, improving the neighborhood environment and reinforcing compatibility with adjacent
higher-density residential and mixed-use development.
5. REZONE CRITERIA ANALYSIS:
City of Renton staff propose a rezone of the subject site from Residential-14 (R-14) to Residential
Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The site lies within the Benson Community Planning Area and is within the
Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation; therefore, no Comprehensive Plan
amendment is required. The subject site includes an underutilized church parcel and a multi-family
condominium complex that exceeds current R-14 density standards. The site is located within 0.15
miles of a major King County Metro transit stop and is directly adjacent to higher-intensity residential
and commercial uses. The rezone is evaluated against RMC 4-9-180F.2 rezone criteria as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 39 of 96
#D-243 Page 38 of 52 October 10, 2025
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning has merit by aligning zoning with the existing condominium density
and creating redevelopment potential on the underutilized church parcel. Rezoning supports
City housing goals by expanding multi-family capacity, improving land use efficiency, and
focusing growth in a transit-accessible corridor. The rezone provides community value through
increased housing opportunities in an appropriate location without adverse public health,
safety, or welfare impacts.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
Staff Comment:
The proposed rezone is compatible with the established development pattern. The site is
bordered by multi-family housing to the east, single-family to the north, and
commercial/medical office uses to the south and across 108th Avenue SE. The RMF-2
designation allows a logical step-up in density consistent with corridor development, reducing
conflicts and reinforcing compatibility with surrounding uses.
c. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, conditions affecting
the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to, public
improvements or permitted private development;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was zoned R-14 despite containing existing multi-family condominiums built at
21 du/acre, along with an established church use. Regional housing needs and transit
accessibility (0.15 miles to frequent service) represent changed conditions. The persistence of
multi-family at higher densities than R-14 standards supports rezoning to RMF-2 to align zoning
with built conditions and policy priorities.
d. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning;
Staff Comment:
The subject site was not specifically considered for a rezone during the last area-wide land use
and zoning analysis. The parcels remained R-14 despite adjacency to multi-family and
commercial development of greater intensity. Reconsideration through this proposal is
appropriate.
e. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as provided by the Comprehensive Plan; and
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 40 of 96
#D-243 Page 39 of 52 October 10, 2025
Staff Comment:
The proposed RMF-2 zoning is consistent with the intent of supporting higher-density multi-
family development in transit-accessible locations. The Comprehensive Plan designation of
Residential High Density expressly supports this range of density, and the existing condominium
complex already exceeds R-14 limits. Rezoning is compatible with RMF-2’s purpose and
advances Comprehensive Plan policies for housing capacity, infill, and efficient land use.
f. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for the
Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located.
Staff Comment:
The subject site is located within the Benson Community Planning Area, where a governing
Community Plan has been adopted. The Benson Community Plan calls for efficient use of
underutilized parcels, improved housing opportunities, and compatibility with adjacent land
uses. The proposed rezone to RMF-2 is consistent with these objectives.
6. CONCLUSION:
The proposal to rezone Site 9 (108th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd) from R-14 to RMF-2 meets all
applicable criteria for approval under RMC 4-9-180F.2.
UPDATE SUMMARY
The City of Renton proposes zoning map amendments for nine (9) sites currently zoned Residential
Multi-Family (RMF), Residential-14 (R-14), and Residential-10 (R-10), to Residential Multi-Family 2
(RMF-2). The affected sites are located within the Benson, Highlands, City Center, Valley, and West
Hill Community Planning Areas. All sites are designated Residential High Density (RHD) under the
Comprehensive Plan, with the exception of one site that partially falls within the Commercial & Mixed
Use (CMU) land use designation. No Comprehensive Plan amendments are required.
The RMF-2 zone allows for 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre and is intended for properties with
existing or planned higher-density residential development in proximity to transit and services. The
proposed rezonings will:
• Align zoning with existing built densities, many of which already exceed RMF limits.
• Reduce nonconformities and provide consistency for reinvestment, infill, and
redevelopment, where appropriate.
• Support City housing targets and Growth Management Act compliance by facilitating infill
and efficient use of urban land.
• Concentrate housing growth near major King County Metro transit stops, consistent with
Comprehensive Plan goals for compact, transit-supportive development.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 41 of 96
#D-243 Page 40 of 52 October 10, 2025
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendments for nine (9) sites currently
zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF), Residential-14 (R-14), and Residential-10 (R-10), to
Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). The amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s
Residential High Density land use designation, further citywide housing objectives, and meet the
criteria for rezones under RMC 4-9-180F.2. Adoption of the proposed amendments will eliminate
zoning inconsistencies, encourage higher-density infill in appropriate locations, and better position
the City to meet its long-term housing growth targets.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposed amendments do not alter the overall rate of growth anticipated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, they provide consistency between existing development patterns and zoning
regulations, facilitating infill and reinvestment on underutilized parcels in line with the City’s planned
growth strategy.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
No adverse effects are anticipated. All sites are already served by existing infrastructure, including
water, sewer, and transportation facilities. Aligning zoning with existing development reduces
uncertainty and allows the City to plan capital improvements more efficiently, consistent with
adopted level-of-service standards.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed rezonings will not accelerate regional growth beyond adopted targets but will help
direct anticipated population increases to areas designated for higher-density housing. This
improves the City’s ability to meet its growth allocation under the Growth Management Act (GMA)
without dispersing growth into lower-density areas.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The amendments advance key Comprehensive Plan objectives, including efficient land use, transit-
oriented growth, housing diversity, and climate resilience. The objectives remain valid and desirable,
and the rezonings further their implementation by reinforcing Residential High Density policies.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The rezonings are not expected to significantly increase land values or housing costs, as the sites
are already largely built at multi-family densities. By aligning zoning with existing conditions and
facilitating infill on vacant and underutilized parcels, the amendments provide opportunities to add
housing capacity without displacing existing development. This supports predictable growth and
contributes to a broader range of housing options, consistent with affordability goals.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 42 of 96
#D-243 Page 41 of 52 October 10, 2025
The amendments do not trigger new capital facility demands, as infrastructure and services are
already established in these areas. Aligning zoning with existing built densities supports efficient use
of current public investments and planned infrastructure.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed rezonings are consistent with the Growth Management Act and King County
Countywide Planning Policies. They direct growth to designated high-density areas, support
compact development, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and promote efficient land use within
Regional and Countywide Growth Centers.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
No adverse effects are anticipated. All sites are within the urban area and are already developed or
previously disturbed. Critical areas are regulated by existing City development standards, which will
continue to apply.
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 43 of 96
#D-243 Page 42 of 52 October 10, 2025
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL
RC IL
R-1 IM
R-4 IH
R-6 COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
RMH COR
UC-1
UC-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 1
RMF-2 Citywide Rezone Map
SITE 7
SITE 8
SITE 9
SITE 1 SITE 2
SITE 3
SITE 4
SITE 5
SITE 6
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 44 of 96
#D-243 Page 43 of 52 October 10, 2025
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL
RC IL
R-1 IM
R-4 IH
R-6 COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
RMH COR
UC-1
UC-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 2
RMF-2 Citywide Rezone Map
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 45 of 96
#D-243 Page 44 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.55 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 3
SITE 1 – Sunset Blvd NE & Aberdeen Ave NE
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
APTS. (31 DU/AC)
SELF-STORAGE
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 46 of 96
#D-243 Page 45 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.43 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 4
SITE 2 – Sunset Blvd NE & NE 10th Pl
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
APTS. (29 DU/AC)
APTS. (36 DU/AC)
APTS. (29 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 47 of 96
#D-243 Page 46 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.44 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 5
SITE 3 – NE 9th Pl & NE Sunset Blvd
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
CHURCH
SINGLE-
FAMILY (SF)
APTS. (43 DU/AC)
SF
SF SF
SF
APTS. (25 DU/AC) APTS.
(21 DU/AC)
DUPLEX
(6 DU/AC)
TOWNHOMES
(19 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 48 of 96
#D-243 Page 47 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.02 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 6
SITE 4 – NE Sunset Blvd & Union Ave NE
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
APTS. (33 DU/AC)
APTS. (24 DU/AC)
APTS. (25 DU/AC)
APTS. (34 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 49 of 96
#D-243 Page 48 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.08 miles RMF & R-10 RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 7
SITE 5 – Edmonds Ave NE and NE 3rd St
APTS. (31 DU/AC)
APTS. (27 DU/AC)
WSDOT
WAREHOUSE
APTS.
(14 DU/AC)
APTS.
(19 DU/AC)
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL
RC IL
R-1 IM
R-4 IH
R-6 COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
RMH COR
UC-1
UC-2
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 50 of 96
#D-243 Page 49 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
HIGHLANDS 0.04 miles CA & RMF CMU & RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 8
SITE 6 – NE 4th St & Queen Ave NE
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
APTS. (27 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 51 of 96
#D-243 Page 50 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
CITY CENTER,
VALLEY, AND
WEST HILL
0.0 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 9
SITE 7 – SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
APTS. (20 DU/AC) APTS.
(20 DU/AC)
APTS. (6 DU/AC)
APTS.
(24 DU/AC)
APTS. (24 DU/AC)
APTS.
(18 DU/AC)
VACANT
APTS.
(19 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 52 of 96
#D-243 Page 51 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
BENSON 0.9 miles RMF RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 10
SITE 8 – Benson Rd S & I-405 Interchange
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
VACANT
SF SF
SF
SINGLE-FAMILY (SF)
SF
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 53 of 96
#D-243 Page 52 of 52 October 10, 2025
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
ZONING
BENSON 0.15 miles R-14 RHD RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 11
SITE 9 – 108th Ave SE & SE Petrovitsky Rd
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
CHURCH
CONDOS (21 DU/AC)
AGENDA ITEM #7. a)
Page 54 of 96
Page 1 // Staff Report
Community and Economic Development
Department // Planning Division
#D-244: Contractor Yards and Offices
Staff: Maya Simon, Associate Planner
Date: October 15, 2025
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
Construction and Contractor’s Offices are currently only permitted in industrial zones. However,
many contractor trades do not have an industrial impact on surrounding properties. These
businesses are looking for more office space options in Renton. The proposed amendment would
integrate low-impact contractor businesses into the definition of Off-Site Services and allow them
in certain zones throughout the city with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Higher-intensity
Construction and Contractor’s Yards would remain permitted only in industrial zones.
Background
The current definition of Construction/Contractor’s Office is “An area where a construction
contractor maintains its office, as well as storage for equipment and materials, for the construction
and landscaping trades.” The zoning use table permits this use in Light Industrial (IL), Medium
Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. Since the city’s industrial zones are primarily
concentrated in the Valley, with additional pockets near the City Center and within the Highlands,
there is limited space available for contractors looking to operate in Renton. Under the existing
code, trade businesses with all indoor office and storage, such as painting companies or
electricians, would have to be located in the same area as manufacturing plants and warehouses.
Many of these types of businesses do not generate the same level of traffic, noise, dust, light, and
exhaust as traditional industrial uses. Contractor businesses typically entail administrative offices,
shelving to store materials or tools, and parking for employees to load and unload fleet trucks
before heading out to the construction site.
In looking at the potential impacts of contractor businesses, staff realized they are similar in nature
to the existing use “Off-Site Services.” Both contractors and Off-Site Services involve office space,
limited storage, and fleet activity at the beginning and end of the workday. Currently, Off-Site
Services are defined as businesses that are “providing individual or professional services at the
customer’s home or place of business” and are restricted to the industrial zones and the
Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, only in the area west of Rainer Ave South/SR-167. If it is appropriate
to allow contractors to locate in the CA zone beyond the Valley, the same consideration should be
given to all Off-Site Services. However, the site-specific contexts of the CA parcel, proposed
business, and surrounding properties will differ, and may necessitate conditional approval. To
balance flexibility for businesses with protections for residential areas, we propose to add
contractor trades to Off-Site Services and permit Off-Site Services east of Rainer Ave South/SR-167
with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
AGENDA ITEM #7. b)
Page 55 of 96
Page 2 // Staff Report
Proposed Code Amendments
RMC 4-11-190 Definitions S:
• Edit the Off-Site Services definition to specifically include contractor’s office businesses,
and clarify that the definition does not include Construction/Contractor’s Yards .
RMC 4-11-030 Definitions C:
• Edit the Construction/Contractor’s Office definition to refer readers to Off-Site Services.
• Add a definition for Construction/Contractor’s Yard that addresses higher-intensity uses
with outdoor storage, dust, and noise.
RMC 4-2-060 Zoning Use Table:
• Edit Off-Site Services to be permitted in IL, IM, IH, and CA with a new condition stating that:
o East of Rainer Ave South/SR-167, the use requires an Administrative Conditional
Use Permit.
• Change the title of Construction/Contractor’s Office to Construction/Contractor’s Yard,
still permitted only in industrial zones (IL, IM, IH).
Review Criteria
Per RMC 4-9-025.E, all Title IV amendments must be evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Consistency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
2. All revisions must meet with at least one of the following criteria:
a. The revision eliminates conflicts within the code or between the code and the
Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The revision changes code language to provide clarity, consistency, or ease of
administration; or
c. The revision directly implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan or City
Business Plan; or
d. The revision accommodates new policy directives of the City Council or
Administration.
In accordance with these criteria, the proposed amendments are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and directly implement its policies. The 2024-2029 Business Plan includes
goals to “ensure a dynamic, diversified employment base” and “nurture entrepreneurship.”
Related goals from the Comprehensive Plan 2024 are to “provide a range of service, office,
commercial, and mixed-use residential uses” in certain areas and to “expand access to economic
opportunity and identify and remove barriers” for disconnected communities.
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
AGENDA ITEM #7. b)
Page 56 of 96
Page 3 // Staff Report
The proposed changes may create a small increase in employment growth by allowing off-site
businesses in more locations.
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.
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.
Staff Recommendation
Amend city code, as described above, to redefine Construction/Contractor’s Office to
Construction/Contractor’s Yard and integrate contractor offices into the definition of Off-Site
Services. Then change Off-Site Services to permitted outright west of Rainer Ave South/SR-167 and
permitted east of Rainer Ave South/SR-167 with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit.
AGENDA ITEM #7. b)
Page 57 of 96
Page 58 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 1 of 7
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations
Staff: Margarette Bravo, Planning Technician
Date: October 10, 2025
Applicant or Requestor: City Staff
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Title IV, Development Regulations, of Renton Municipal Code (RMC) are proposed to be amended
based on recent administrative policy and code interpretations (copies attached) of unclear or
contradictory code. Administrative policy and code interpretations are binding interpretations
concerning land use codes administered by the City. These administrative decisions have already
become effective. This staff report to the Planning Commission is part of the formal process by which
code is to be amended based on such decisions. RMC 4-1-080.A.1. provides guidance for
administrative policy and code interpretations as it states:
“The Community and Economic Development Administrator is hereby authorized to make
interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or contradictory regulations
contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Title IV Development Regulations shall
be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation and
the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations are assumed to prevail
over other regulations.”
As stated in RMC 4-1-080.A.1., interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory
regulations. Examples include mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for
users, and where certain situations were not evaluated in updating Title IV.
Draft code interpretations are posted online, and public comments may be provided during a 14-day
comment period following the posting. Interpretations are then issued at the end of the comment
period, subject to comments received. The interpretation may be appealed provided it is filed with
the City's Hearing Examiner within 14 days from the date of issuance. None of the Code
Interpretations presented below had comments received and none were appealed. As Code
Interpretations are codified in the Renton Municipal Code, they are removed from the online list. This
docket item is to codify a group of those code interpretations.
For more information about the process or each determination, visit the following links:
•Process: Section 4-1-080 (codepublishing.com)
•Background and decision: Administrative Policy & Code Interpretations - City of Renton
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 59 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 2 of 7 October 10, 2025
BACKGROUND
1.CI-164, Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program (See Attachment
A, Exhibit 1)
Background:
In 2021, Ordinance No. 5913 established a Residential Rental Registration and Inspection
Program in RMC 4-5-125. The program requires all landlords to register their
rental properties. However, inspections are not automatic and they are initiated
only when requested by a tenant, when the City identifies a potential violation, or when
an order to correct a violation has been issued.
Current language is ambiguous as to what process applies when “a landlord shall have
a certificate of inspection completed and submitted to the Administrator,” as stated
in subsection F of RMC 4-5-125, Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program.
Staff Recommendation:
To resolve ambiguity, staff recommends amending RMC 4-5-125.F., Certificate of
Inspection to clarify that code enforcement processes of RMC Chapter 1-3, Remedies
and Penalties apply.
2.CI-176, Compliance with RCW 35A.21.430 (See Attachment A, Exhibit 2)
Background & Prior Action:
RCW 35A.21.430 requires that cities not prohibit transitional housing or
permanent supportive housing (TH/PSH) in any area where either residential dwelling units
or hotels are allowed.
To comply, the City adopted Ordinance No. 6026, allowing TH/PSH in every zone because
each zone permits either a hotel or residential dwellings. State definitions in RCW
36.70A.030 and RCW 84.36.043 clarify that TH/PSH must contain complete “dwelling units,”
meaning spaces with exclusive cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities. These uses
are therefore subject to development standards such as maximum density. However, in
zones that allow hotels but not residential dwellings, no maximum density standard exists,
creating ambiguity for applying RMC Title IV. It was also unclear whether all standards
that apply to attached dwellings in commercial zones should likewise apply to TH/PSH
dwellings.
Code Interpretation & Initial Docket Work:
CI-176 was included in the previous docket to address these ambiguities. That cycle adopted
several amendments to RMC Title IV, and most of the CI’s direction was codified. However,
some elements were not captured in the final ordinance in error, leaving incomplete
guidance in the Zoning Use Table (RMC 4-2-060).
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 60 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 3 of 7 October 10, 2025
Current Action:
This docket item completes the work by:
•Amending the Zoning Use Table (RMC 4-2-060) to remove remaining ambiguity.
•Clarifying that when TH/PSH is provided in the form of attached dwellings, all
standards for attached dwellings in commercial zones, including Conditions #6 and
#16 of RMC 4-2-080 apply, consistent with how “assisted living facilities” are treated.
•These updates ensure that the original intent of CI-176 and Ordinance No. 6026 is
fully codified and consistently applied.
3.CI-183, Applicability and Definitions for Building/Lot Coverage (See Attachment A, Exhibit
3)
Background:
CI-183 seeks to resolve long-standing confusion between the terms “building coverage,” “lot
coverage,” and “building footprint.”
•“Building coverage” is frequently used in RMC tables but was never defined.
•In practice, the intended meaning matches the existing definition of “lot coverage”.
•The CI adds a definition for “building coverage” that simply references “lot
coverage”, refines the definition of “building footprint”, and applies Condition #17 to
RMC 4-2-110A Residential Development Standards to ensure consistency across
residential development standards.
Status Since CI Adoption:
After CI-183 was issued, Ordinance No. 6061 (D-236) amended RMC 4-2-110E as part of the
City’s Middle Housing (HB 1110) and ADU (HB 1337) updates. Those amendments
incorporated the language that the CI had intended to add regarding Condition #17, so no
further edits to Condition #17 are required in this docket cycle.
Staff Recommendation:
To fully implement the CI while reflecting these newer amendments, staff recommends:
•Adding a definition for “Building Coverage” in RMC 4-11-020 to read “See definition
of Lot Coverage,” ensuring consistency with how the term is used in development
standards tables.
•Further refine the “Building Footprint” definition beyond the original CI language for
clarity and completeness.
•Further refine the “Lot Coverage” definition to remove outdated references (e.g.,
uncovered decks and porches) and provide an updated illustration for consistent
application.
These proposed amendments further the intent of the original CI, but Condition #17 edits are
no longer necessary because Ordinance No. 6061 already addressed them. These proposed
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 61 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 4 of 7 October 10, 2025
amendments recommended with this current docket item focuses on sharpening and
finalizing the definitions.
4. CI-184: Limits on Alterations of Single-family Dwellings (See Attachment A, Exhibit 4)
Background:
Clarification was needed with regard to limits on alterations of nonconforming structures,
specifically replacement of single-family dwellings. RMC 4-10-050A.3 states that
“Nonconforming single-family dwellings may be replaced, enlarged, altered, remodeled, or
renovated, without limitation of cost, pursuant to current code requirements (e.g., height
limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.).” However, this code excerpt includes a
direct conflict as non-conforming single-family dwellings do not comply with current code
and, therefore, cannot be replaced pursuant to current code.
Staff Recommendation:
In order to eliminate the code conflict described above, staff proposes removing
“replacement” as an allowed alteration under RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures.
This decision is justified based on three (3) considerations:
1. RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures, is intended to allow legal nonconforming
structures to remain, not to allow full replacement without meeting current
standards (unless damaged or unsafe).
2. If a full replacement is proposed, compliance with current code is reasonable.
3. RMC 4-10-050A.3, Limits on Alterations, is intended to regulate alterations, not
replacement.
5. CI-185, Public Notice for Additional Vehicle Permits (See Attachment A, Exhibit 5)
Background:
The city limits the number of vehicles on residential lots but allows additional vehicles on a
case-by-case basis through an Additional Vehicles Permit, similar to how Additional Animals
Permits are processed. Both are classified as Type II permits under RMC 4-8-080 and require
public notification per RMC 4-8-090. While public information signs are generally required
for Type II and III permits, Additional Animals Permits are exempt.
The impact of having additional vehicles on a lot is a local impact and it is unnecessary to
notify the public beyond a notice of application letter to neighboring properties (within 300
feet). Additionally, the cost of labor and materials required for posting a sign is greater than
the fee charged for an Additional Vehicles Permit, and the permit review period is too short
to justify the burden to the applicant.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 62 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 5 of 7 October 10, 2025
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends amending RMC 4-8-090.C, Public Information Signs, to exempt Additional
Vehicles Permits from the requirement to post a public information sign.
6.CI-186, Definition of Adult Family Home (See Attachment A, Exhibit 6)
Background:
Pursuant to RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A, the definition of “Adult Family Home” limits
provision of personal care, room and board within a dwelling unit to up to four (4) adults who
are not related by blood or marriage to the person(s) providing the service. However, the
Washington State Legislature, RCW 70.128.010, allows a maximum of six (6) adults, with the
possibility to allow services for up to eight (8) individuals provided that the Washington State
Department of Social and Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and the
home and the provider are capable of meeting standards and qualifications as provided for
in chapters 70.128 RCW and 388-76 WAC.
Staff Recommendation:
To be consistent with Washington State Legislature, staff recommends amending RMC 4-11-
010 to revise the definition of “Adult Family Home” to allow service for up to six (6) adults
who are not related by blood or marriage to the person(s) providing the service, for
consistency with RCW 70.128.010.
7.CI-187, Permit Requirements for Fences (See Attachment A, Exhibit 7)
Background:
RMC 4-4-040.B.5.a currently states that a “fence taller than seven feet (7') shall require a
building permit or a written exemption from the Building Official.” However, this is
inconsistent with identified exemptions from permit requirements under the Construction
Administrative Code (specifically RMC 4-5-060E.2.c.ii.) which states that permits shall not
be required for “fences not over six feet (6') (1,829 mm) high”, thus exempting fences from
requiring a permit if they are under six feet (6’) tall.
Staff Recommendation:
These two (2) code sections are not congruent and can cause confusion regarding what
fence height threshold triggers the requirement for a building permit. Therefore, in order to
clarify the threshold at which a building permit is required and eliminate internal code
inconsistencies, staff recommends amending RMC 4-4-040B.5.a to state fences taller than
six feet (6’) shall require a building permit.
8.CI-188, Minimum Dimensions for Parking Stalls (See Attachment A, Exhibit 8)
Background:
In 2024, Washington State Senate passed Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6015, aimed at
modifying residential parking requirements in cities and counties planning under the state’s
Growth Management Act (GMA). SSB 6015 establishes new statewide standards for what
cities can include in their parking requirements. One of the key provisions indicates that
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 63 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 6 of 7 October 10, 2025
parking spaces may not be required to exceed eight feet (8’) by twenty feet (20’), except for
required parking for people with disabilities.
Staff Recommendation:
Currently, RMC Sections 4-4-080F.8.a. and 4-4-080F.8.b. require minimum parking space
dimensions of nine feet (9’) in width by twenty-three feet (23’) in length. The current minimum
parking dimensions provided in RMC are not consistent with the required parking space
dimensions permitted by Washington State. Therefore, staff recommends amending RMC 4-
4-080F.8.a. and RMC 4-4-080F.8.b. to ensure consistency with Substitute Senate Bill (SSB)
6015.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as described for administrative policy and code
interpretations: CI-164, CI-176, CI-183, CI-184, CI-185, CI-186, CI-187 and CI-188. For more
detailed description and drafted code amendments for individual interpretations, see Attachment
A, Exhibits A-H.
IMPACT ANALYSIS
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There are no significant 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 significant anticipated effects on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public
facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There are no significant 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.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 64 of 96
D-245: Administrative Code Interpretations Page 7 of 7 October 10, 2025
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Determinations are based on proposed development standards that have been previously reviewed
considering these plans and policies. Code Interpretations are consistent with these plans.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 65 of 96
C:\Users\DMarshall\Desktop\CI-164.docx
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION #: CI-164
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: 4-5-125, Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program
REFERENCE: N/A
SUBJECT: Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program
BACKGROUND: Ordinance 5913 established a Residential Rental Registration and Inspection Program in code Section 4-5-125. Current language is ambiguous as to what process applies when “a landlord shall have a certificate of inspection completed and submitted to the Administrator,” as stated in subsection F.
DECISION: Resolve ambiguity by amending 4-5-125(F) to clarify that code enforcement processes of RMC 1-3 apply.
JUSTIFICATION: Necessary to resolve ambiguity.
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL: _______________________________________ C. E. “Chip” Vincent
EFFECTIVE DATE: _______________________________________
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 66 of 96
CI-XX Page 2 of 2
APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result the Administrator shall determine the effective code.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT Subsection 4-5-125.F of the Renton Municipal Code is amended as shown
below:
F. CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION:
A landlord shall have a certificate of inspection completed and submitted to the
Administrator under the following circumstances:
1. When a tenant requests an inspection, and the landlord appears to have failed
to fulfill an obligation imposed under RCW 59.18.060 of the Landlord-Tenant Act,
and the City engages in the enforcement provisions of chapter 1-3 RMC;
2. When the City discovers or is made aware of a violation of this Section and
engages in the enforcement provisions of chapter 1-3 RMC; or
3. If an order to cure a violation of this Section has issued.
DETERMINATIONS:
STAFF CONTACT: Hannah Bahnmiller, x7262
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 67 of 96
CI-176 Page 1 of 9
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE
INTERPRETATION #:
CI-176
MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS: RMC 4-2-060, Zoning Use Tables – Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations
RMC 4-2-080, Conditions Associated with Zoning Use Tables
RMC 4-11-040 Definitions D
RMC 4-11-080 Definitions H
RMC 4-11-110 Definitions K
RMC 4-11-160 Definitions P
RMC 4-11-200 Definitions T
REFERENCE: WA State Engrossed 2nd Substitute - E2SHB 1220
RCW 35A.21.430
SUBJECT: Compliance with RCW 35A.21.430
BACKGROUND: RCW 35A.21.430 states, in part, that a code city shall not prohibit
transitional housing or permanent supportive housing (referred to herein as
TH/PSH) in any zones in which residential dwelling units or hotels are
allowed. Ordinance 6026 amended Renton Municipal Code (RMC) to comply
with RCW 35A.21.430 and established that TH/PSH are allowed in every zone
because either a hotel or residential dwelling units are allowed in every zone
within the City of Renton.
RCW 36.70A.030 and RCW 84.36.043 provide the definitions of “permanent
supportive housing” and “transitional housing,” respectively, which each
state that dwelling units are provided within each facility. A ‘dwelling unit’ is
defined as a structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied, or
intended for occupancy as separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping
and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use of a single household.
Because both TH/PSH provide complete dwelling units for residents, they are
regulated by development standards such as the maximum density;
however, in zones where dwelling units are not allowed but hotels are
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 68 of 96
CI-176 Page 2 of 9
allowed, there exists no maximum density standard to apply, which creates
ambiguity in the application of Title IV, RMC.
Staff have identified three zones or areas where hotels are allowed and
therefore, TH/PSH are allowed, but residential dwelling units are prohibited
and therefore, no residential density standard is applied:
1. Industrial Zones (IL, IM, & IH) in the Employment Area (EA) land use
designation west of Rainier Avenue South/ SR-167;
2. The CO Zone outside of a ¼ mile radius from qualifying mass transit
facilities; and
3. The CA Zone within the Benson, Cedar River, Talbot, or Valley
Community Planning Areas.
Furthermore, it is unclear if all standards that apply to attached dwellings in
commercial zones are also applicable to attached dwellings within TH/PSH
where located within commercial zones.
DECISION: RMC shall be interpreted by:
1. moving “permanent supportive housing” and “transitional housing”
in the Zoning Use Table under the subsection “D. Other Residential,
Lodging and Home Occupations”;
2. applying Condition #88 of RMC 4-2-080 to both uses, and stating the
uses are allowed only where either residential dwelling units or
hotels are allowed;
3. amending Condition #88 of RMC 4-2-080 to state that a maximum
density of 30 dwelling units per net acre is allowed where no
maximum density standard is applied or where dwelling units are
prohibited;
4. applying Condition #6 of RMC 4-2-080 to “transitional housing” and
“permanent supportive housing” in all commercial zones, except for
the CO Zone to which Condition #16 is applied. Similarly, applying
Condition #6 to “assisted living facilities” in all commercial zones
except the CO Zone to which Condition #16 is applied;
5. amending the definition of “attached dwelling” so the definition
includes all buildings with attached dwelling units but excludes
specified land uses;
6. amending the definition of “dwelling unit” to be more aligned with
that of the International Building Code, specifying that a “kitchen” is
required, and that “sanitary facilities” includes a sink, a toilet, and a
shower or bathtub;
7. adding a definition for “kitchen”;
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 69 of 96
CI-176 Page 3 of 9
8. amending the definitions of “transitional housing” and “permanent
supportive housing” by linking said definitions to codified state
definitions; and
9. Amending the definition of “homeless services use” so “emergency
shelter” and “emergency housing” are linked to the state definitions.
JUSTIFICATION: The ambiguity created by these conflicting provisions requires clarification
for proper administration of Title IV of RMC and compliance with RCW
35A.21.430. The justifications below correspond with the decisions above.
1. This is a more fitting category that includes similar uses like “assisted
living facilities”;
2. Both uses are required by state law to be allowed where either
residential dwellings or hotels are allowed, so this change will likely
ensure RMC remains in compliance with state law;
3. Thirty dwelling units per net acre is a moderate density with respect
to the various density maximums of other zones;
4. Much like “assisted living facilities” that provide housing and support
services to a specified population, if TH/PSH is provided in the form
of attached dwellings then all provisions normally applied to such
dwelling units shall be applied to TH/PSH, specifically Conditions #6
and #16 of RMC 4-2-080. Because the current definition of “attached
dwelling” includes “assisted living facilities” it is logical to also apply
Conditions #6 and #16 as applied to TH/PSH;
5. “Attached dwelling” is defined to include one specified land use
(assisted living facility) but to exclude several other land uses:
boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family
homes, and group home I or group home II. Amending the definition
to include all buildings or portions of buildings meeting the
definition will ensure any land use providing attached dwellings is
included in the definition by default. Conversely, any new exclusions
will need to be carefully considered and added to the definition.
6. The current definition of “dwelling unit” cites various aspects that
comprise a unit, specifically “cooking, sleeping, and sanitary
facilities.” “Cooking facilities” could be misinterpreted to mean the
most basic provisions for cooking food (e.g., a microwave). Similarly,
“sanitary facilities” is somewhat vague. Clarity is provided by
amending the definition to require a kitchen and specifying that
sanitary facilities include a sink, a toilet, and a shower or bathtub.
7. A definition for “kitchen” is required due to the amended definition
of “dwelling unit” (see #6 above).
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 70 of 96
CI-176 Page 4 of 9
8. Because the city is required to permit TH/PSH pursuant to RCW
35A.21.430, it is prudent to link the definitions of TH/PSH to the
state definitions in case the state changes the definitions; and
9. The same reasoning for linking the definitions of TH/PSH to the state
definitions can be applied to the definitions of “emergency shelter”
and “emergency housing.”
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
C. E. “Chip” Vincent
EFFECTIVE DATE:
May 23, 2022
BINDING:
Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code interpretations that
are not timely appealed are binding. This binding decision is a formally
adopted interpretation of existing Renton Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCESS:
To appeal this determination, a written appeal accompanied by the required
filing fee must be filed with the City’s Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6551) no more than 14 days from the date
of this decision. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides
further information on the appeal process.
DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most recently
codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative Code
Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code
Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result, the
Administrator shall determine the effective code.
SPECIFIED CODE SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES
SHALL BE READ
AS FOLLOWS:
STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz x7436
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 71 of 96
CI-176 Page 5 of 9
USES: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC-1 UC-2
D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS
Accessory dwelling unit AC7 AC7 AC7 AC7 AC7 AC7 AC7
Adult family home P P P P P P P P P P P3
Assisted living AD AD P P P6 P3,6 P40,16 P6 P96,6 P96,6
Caretaker’s residence AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC
Congregate residence AD P P3
Group homes I AD H3
Group homes II for 6 or less AD P P P P P P P P P P3 P
Group homes II for 7 or more H H H H H H H H P H H3 AD
Home occupations (RMC 4-9-090) AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC
Live-work unit AD AD AD
Permanent supportive housing88 H H H H H H H H H H H H H6 H6 H6 H6 H16 H6 H6 H6
Transitional housing88 H H H H H H H H H H H H H6 H6 H6 H6 H16 H6 H6 H6
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
7
.
c
)
Pa
g
e
7
2
o
f
9
6
CI-176 Page 6 of 9
4-2-080 CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES:
A. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
88. Permanent supportive housing, as defined under RCW 36.70A.030, and Ttransitional housing, as
defined under Chapter 84.36 RCW, is are allowed land uses where residential dwellings and/or hotel
uses are allowed, subject to the density and dimensional standards of the corresponding zone or to no
more than one hundred (100) dwelling units, whichever is less; where no density maximum is applied or
dwelling units are prohibited, the maximum density allowed shall be thirty (30) dwelling units per net
acre. The cap of one hundred (100) may be increased to one hundred fifteen (115) dwelling units if there
is a written agreement with the City to designate at least fifteen percent (15%) of the dwelling units to
those currently experiencing homelessness in the City.
89. Reserved. Minimum net residential density and structured parking requirements in RMC 4-2-120B,
and all requirements in RMC 4-2-080A16 and RMC 4-4-150 shall not apply to new transitional or
permanent supportive housing that is converted from an existing building originally permitted as a hotel
in which the rooms contain both bathrooms and kitchens so that they may be converted into a number
of residential dwelling units that do not exceed the number of previously approved hotel rooms.
4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D:
DWELLING, ATTACHED: A dwelling unit connected to one or more dwellings by common roofs, walls, or
floors or a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition
includes all buildings or portions of buildings meeting this definition, assisted living facilities but excludes
boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home
II as defined herein. Attached dwellings include the following types:
A. Flat: A dwelling unit attached to one or multiple dwelling units by one or more common roof(s),
wall(s), or floor(s) within a building. Typically, the unit’s habitable area is provided on a single level. Unit
entrances are provided from a common internal corridor.
B. Townhouse: A ground-related dwelling attached to one or more such units in which each unit has its
own exterior, ground-level access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is
separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common walls. Townhouse units may be multi-
story.
C. Carriage House: One or more dwelling units built above one or more private garage(s). The attached
garage(s) typically contains vehicles and/or storage for people living in another building as well as
occupants of the carriage house. This definition does not include accessory dwelling unit.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 73 of 96
CI-176 Page 7 of 9
D. Garden Style Apartment(s): A dwelling unit that is one of several stacked vertically, with exterior
stairways and/or exterior corridors and surface parking. Parking is not structured and may include
detached carports or garages. Buildings and building entries are oriented toward internal drive aisles
and/or parking lots and not street frontage. There is typically no formal building entry area connected to
a public sidewalk and a public street. Site planning may incorporate structures developed at low
landscaped setbacks.
DWELLING UNIT: A structure or portion of a structure designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as
a single unit providing complete, independent living facilities with separated living quarters, with a
kitchen, cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities provided for the exclusive use of a single household.
For the purposes of this definition, sanitary facilities shall include a sink, a toilet, and a shower or
bathtub.
4-11-080 DEFINITIONS H:
HOMELESS SERVICES USE: Shelters or housing as defined below:
1. Day Shelter: A facility that offers a haven to people experiencing homelessness by providing a safe
place to rest during the day or evening, but with no overnight stays. Support services for homeless
populations is an integral part of a day shelter use and may include access to food, seating, showers,
laundry, restrooms, storage, a computer lab, phones, fax, and a critical mailing address. Spaces for
meetings and examinations are generally provided to accommodate counseling and access to
medical/dental and legal assistance.
2. Emergency Shelter: Emergency shelter has the same meaning as Consistent with RCW 36.70A.030,
“emergency shelter,” and as thereafter amended. a facility that provides a temporary shelter for
individuals or families who are currently homeless. Emergency shelter may not require occupants to enter
into a lease or an occupancy agreement. Emergency shelter facilities may include day and warming
centers that do not provide overnight accommodations.
3. Emergency Housing: Emergency housing has the same meaning as Consistent with
RCW 36.70A.030, “emergency housing,” and as thereafter amended. temporary indoor accommodations
for individuals or families who are homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless that is intended to
address the basic health, food, clothing, and personal hygiene needs of individuals or families.
Emergency housing may or may not require occupants to enter into a lease or an occupancy agreement.
A COVID-19 deintensification shelter meeting this definition is a homeless services use.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 74 of 96
CI-176 Page 8 of 9
4-11-110 DEFINITIONS K:
KITCHEN: a kitchen means an area within a dwelling unit that is used or designed to be used for the
preparation or cooking of food and that contains the following: gas line and/or 240-volt electrical outlet;
a stove/range with an approved exhaust system; a sink with dimensions no less than twenty-two (22)
inches wide, sixteen (16) inches long, and eight (8) inches deep with a waste line drain one-and-one-half
(1-½) inches or greater in diameter; and a refrigerator exceeding five (5) cubic feet in capacity or space
opening with an electrical outlet that may reasonably be used for a refrigerator exceeding five (5) cubic
feet in capacity.
4-11-160 DEFINITIONS P:
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: Permanent supportive housing has the same meaning as RCW
36.70A.030, “Permanent supportive housing,” and as thereafter amended. Consistent with
RCW 36.70A.030, subsidized, leased dwelling units with no limit on length of stay that prioritizes people
who need comprehensive support services to retain tenancy and utilizes admissions practices designed
to use lower barriers to entry than would be typical for other subsidized or unsubsidized rental housing,
especially related to rental history, criminal history, and personal behaviors. Permanent supportive
housing is paired with on-site or off-site voluntary services designed to support a person living with a
complex and disabling behavioral health or physical health condition who was experiencing
homelessness or was at imminent risk of homelessness prior to moving into housing to retain their
housing and be a successful tenant in a housing arrangement, improve the resident's health status, and
connect the resident of the housing with community-based health care, treatment, or employment
services. Permanent supportive housing is subject to all of the rights and responsibilities defined in
Chapter 59.18 RCW.
4-11-200 DEFINITIONS T:
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING: Transitional housing has the same meaning as RCW 84.36.043, “Transitional
housing,” and as thereafter amended. Consistent with RCW 84.36.043, a project that provides one or
more dwelling units and supportive services to homeless persons or families for up to two (2) years and
that has as its purpose facilitating the transition of homeless persons and families into independent
living.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 75 of 96
CI-183 Page 1 of 4
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE
INTERPRETATION #:
CI-183
MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS:
RMC 4-2-110E, RMC 4-11-020, RMC 4-11-120,
REFERENCE:
Ordinance 6049
SUBJECT:
Applicability and Definitions for Building/Lot Coverage
BACKGROUND:
Two terms with seemingly similar meanings are utilized throughout Renton
Municipal Code (RMC) and therefore have created opportunities for
misinterpretation and inconsistent application. Review of and clarifying
language for “building coverage,” “lot coverage” and “building footprint” are
needed to reduce ambiguity and ensure consistent application of standards.
Building coverage is an undefined term that is frequently referenced where
lot coverage, a defined term, is the intended meaning. To further complicate
the issue, building coverage is the term used in the various tables where
development standards are located. For reference, see RMC 4-2-110A,
Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations, RMC 4-2-110D,
Development Standards for Residential Manufactured Home Park Zoning
Designation, RMC 4-2-120A and RMC 4-2-120B, Development Standards for
Commercial Zoning Designations. Considering the frequency in which building
coverage and lot coverage are referenced, Staff recommends amending code
to include a definition for building coverage (“See definition of lot coverage”)
to address the discrepancy created by interchangeable use of terms while
avoiding the need for minor code amendments to a substantial number of
code sections.
Related to maximum building coverage, Ordinance 6049 adopted several
amendments to improve feasibility of siting detached accessory buildings (i.e.,
garden and storage sheds) and providing overhead weather protection for
patios and decks “attached” to the primary residence. The ordinance included
an amendment to condition number 17, which created an additional
building/lot coverage allowance. The condition was amended as follows:
17. The lot coverage of accessory dwelling units shall not be calculated
towards maximum building/lot coverage. Coverage attributed to detached
accessory structures, and roofs attached to the façade of the primary structure
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 76 of 96
CI-183 Page 2 of 4
may exceed the maximum building/lot coverage by five percent (5%).
Condition 17 is applied to RMC 4-2-110B, Development Standards for
Residential Development (Detached Accessory Buildings) and RMC 4-2-110C,
Development Standards for Residential Development (Accessory Dwelling
Units), but was inadvertently omitted from RMC 4-2-110A, Development
Standards for Residential Zoning Designations. This omission is an error, and
the footnote should be applied to allow property owners to enjoy the benefit
of the additional building/lot coverage allowance.
DECISION: Amend Title 4 of the Renton Municipal Code to add clarity to the definitions
of lot coverage and building footprint, adopt a definition for building coverage
that is synonymous with lot coverage, and apply condition 17 to RMC 4-2-
110A to grant residential primary structures flexibility to exceed the
building/lot coverage of the underlying zone by five percent (5%) as intended
by D-199/Ord. 6049.
JUSTIFICATION: Adopting the proposed definition for "building coverage" is the most efficient
way to address the inconsistent use of language/discrepancies without
potentially creating other code conflicts due to pending and anticipated code
amendments in the current docket cycle.
Related to the applicability of condition 17, a public hearing for the docket
item associated with ORD. 6049, D-199, was held on August 18, 2021, where
staff presented a summary of proposed code amendments, which included
the additional building/lot coverage allowance for roofs attached to the
façade of the primary structure. Therefore, omitting condition 17 from RMC
4-2-110A conflicts with Planning Commission’s recommendation and the City
Council’s legislative intent.
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
Vanessa Dolbee
EFFECTIVE DATE:
October 4, 2023
BINDING:
Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code interpretations that
are not timely appealed are binding. This binding decision is a formally
adopted interpretation of existing Renton Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCESS:
To appeal this determination, a written appeal accompanied by the required
filing fee must be filed with the City’s Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6551) no more than 14 days from the date
of this decision. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides
further information on the appeal process.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 77 of 96
CI-183 Page 3 of 4
SPECIFIED CODE
SECTIONS SHALL BE
READ AS FOLLOWS:
RMC 4-2-110E CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
17. The lot coverage of accessory dwelling units shall not be calculated
towards maximum building/lot coverage, however impervious surface
standards remain applicable. Coverage attributed to detached accessory
structures, and roofs attached to the facade of the primary structure may
exceed the maximum building/lot coverage allowed by five percent (5%).
(Ord. 6049, 12-13-2021)
RMC 4-11-020, DEFINITIONS B
BUILDING COVERAGE: See LOT COVERAGE.
BUILDING FOOTPRINT: The area of a lot or site included within the
surrounding exterior walls of a building or portion of a building, exclusive of
courtyards and uncovered decks and porches. In the absence of surrounding
exterior walls, the building footprint shall be include the area under the
horizontal projection of the roof.
RMC 4-11-120, DEFINITIONS L
LOT COVERAGE: The horizontal area measured within the outside of the
exterior walls of all principal and accessory buildings on a lot including all
covered decks and porches The percentage of the lot area covered by principal
and accessory buildings as projected on a horizontal plane. The lot coverage
calculation shall include the area enclosed by the exterior walls of a building
or accessory building, including all covered decks, porches, and stairs. Where
lot coverage is referenced refer to the applicable building coverage standards.
Should any conflict result, the Administrator shall determine the effective
code.
STAFF CONTACT: Katie Buchl-Morales, x. 6578
DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most
recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative
Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code
Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result, the
Administrator shall determine the effective code.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 78 of 96
CI-183 Page 4 of 4
4-2-110A1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (PRIMARY STRUCTURES)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF
Maximum Building
Coverage (including
Primary and Accessory) 17
10% 20% 35% 40% 50% 55% 65% Townhouses: 70%
Other Attached Dwellings: 35%
A maximum coverage of 45% may be allowed
through the Hearing Examiner site
development plan review process.
AG
E
N
D
A
I
T
E
M
#
7
.
c
)
Pa
g
e
7
9
o
f
9
6
CI-184 Page 1 of 3
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE
INTERPRETATION #:
CI – 184
MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS:
RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures
REFERENCE:
N/A
SUBJECT:
Limits on Alterations of Single Family Dwellings
BACKGROUND:
Clarification is needed with regard to limits on alterations of nonconforming
(NC) structures, specifically “replacement” of single family dwellings. RMC 4-
10-050A.3 states that “Nonconforming single family dwellings may be
replaced, enlarged, altered, remodeled, or renovated, without limitation of
cost, pursuant to current code requirements (e.g., height limits, lot coverage,
density limits, setbacks, etc.).” However, this code excerpt includes a direct
conflict as non-conforming single family dwellings do not comply with current
code and, therefore, cannot be replaced pursuant to current code.
Furthermore, this specific code subsection, RMC 4-10-050A.3, pertains to
alterations, rather than replacement, of structures. Instead, allowances for
the replacement of structures is provided in RMC 4-10-050A.5 Limits on
Restoration.
DECISION: RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures, shall be amended to eliminate the
conflict regarding replacement of nonconforming single family dwellings, as
specified below.
JUSTIFICATION: In order to eliminate the code conflict described above, staff proposes to
eliminate replacement as an allowed alteration option for nonconforming
single family dwellings. This decision is justified based on three
considerations:
1. The code section RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures, is intended
to allow any legally established nonconforming structure to remain,
although such structure does not conform to the provisions of this Title;
however, this section is not intended allow total replacement of any
structure without compliance with current code, unless the
replacement is for a dwelling deemed unsafe by the Building Official,
damaged by fire, explosion, or act of God, and compliant with RMC 4-
10-050A.5, Limits on Restoration.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 80 of 96
CI-184 Page 2 of 3
2. If an applicant is replacing the entire nonconforming structure,
compliance with current code is reasonable.
3. As stated above, subsection RMC 4-10-050A.3, Limits on Alterations,
pertains to alterations, rather than replacement, of structures.
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
_____________________________________
Vanessa Dolbee, Interim CED Administrator
EFFECTIVE DATE:
BINDING:
Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code interpretations that
are not timely appealed are binding. This binding decision is a formally
adopted interpretation of existing Renton Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCESS:
To appeal this determination, a written appeal accompanied by the required
filing fee must be filed with the City’s Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady
Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6551) no more than 14 days from the date
of this decision. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides
further information on the appeal process.
SPECIFIED CODE
SECTIONS SHALL BE
READ AS FOLLOWS:
4-10-050 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES:
A. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES – GENERAL:
Any legally established nonconforming structure may remain, although such
structure does not conform to the provisions of this Title; provided, that:
1. Not Vacant or Left Abandoned: The nonconforming structure has not
been vacant for more than one year, or has not been abandoned; and
2. Unsafe Structures: The structure is kept in a safe and secure condition.
DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most
recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative
Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code
Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result, the
Administrator shall determine the effective code.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 81 of 96
CI-184 Page 3 of 3
3. Limits on Alterations: The cost of alterations, remodels, or renovations of
a legal nonconforming structure, except single family dwellings, shall not
exceed an aggregate cost of forty percent (40%) in twelve (12) months or
sixty percent (60%) in forty-eight (48) months of the value of the structure,
based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal, unless the changes
make the structure more conforming, or are used to restore to a safe
condition any portion of a structure declared unsafe by the Building Official.
Mandatory improvements for fire, life safety or accessibility, as well as
replacement of mechanical equipment, do not count towards the cited
monetary thresholds. Alterations, remodels, or restoration work shall not
result in or increase any nonconforming condition unless permitted by
subsection A4 of this Section, Limits on Enlargement. Nonconforming single
family dwellings may be replaced, enlarged, altered, remodeled, or
renovated, without limitation of cost, pursuant to current code
requirements (e.g., height limits, lot coverage, density limits, setbacks, etc.),
unless such actions would increase one or more nonconformity.
STAFF CONTACT: Angelea Weihs
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 82 of 96
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 83 of 96
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 84 of 96
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 85 of 96
CI-186 Page 1 of 2
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION #: CI-186
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A
REFERENCE: N/A
SUBJECT: Definition of Adult Family Home
BACKGROUND: RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A, limits provision of personal care, room and
board within a dwelling unit up to four (4) adults who are not related by
blood or marriage to the person(s) providing the service while the
Washington State Legislature RCW 70.128.010, Definitions, allows a
maximum of six (6) adults with the possibility to allow services for up to
eight (8) individuals, provided that the Washington State Department of
Social and Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and
the home and provider are capable of meeting standards and
qualifications as provided for in chapters 70.128 RCW and 388-76 WAC.
Therefore, the current definition provided in Renton Municipal Code is
not consistent with the definition and maximum capacity permitted by
Washington State.
DECISION: Amend RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A, as specified below.
JUSTIFICATION: To be consistent with Washington State Legislature, RMC 4-11-010
should be amended to revise the definition of Adult Family Home to
allow services for up to six (6) adults who are not related by blood or
marriage to the person(s) providing the service.
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL: _______________________________________ Gina Estep
EFFECTIVE DATE: _______________________________________ September 9, 2024
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 86 of 96
CI-186 Page 2 of 2
BINDING: Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code interpretations
that are not timely appealed are binding. This binding decision is a
formally adopted interpretation of existing Renton Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process.
DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result the Administrator shall determine the effective code.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT
DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-11-010, Definitions A
ADULT FAMILY HOME: A state-licensed facility providing personal care, room and board within a dwelling unit to more than one person, but not more than four six (4 6) adults, not related by blood or marriage to the person(s) providing the service. A maximum of eight (8) adults may be permitted if the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services determines the home is of adequate size and the home and provider are capable of meeting standards and qualifications as provided for in chapters 70.128 RCW and 388-76 WAC.
STAFF CONTACT: Margarette Bravo
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 87 of 96
CI-187 Page 1 of 2
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION #: CI-187 MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION: RMC 4-4-040, Fences, Hedges, and Retaining Walls
REFERENCE: RMC 4-5-060, Construction Administrative Code
SUBJECT: Permit Requirements for Fences
BACKGROUND: Currently, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-040.B.5.a states “[a] fence
taller than seven feet (7’) shall require a building permit or a written
exemption from the Building Code.” A second construction code Section
105 – Permits under RMC 4-5-060E.2.c.ii states that permits shall not be
required for the following building work “[f]ences not over six feet (6')
(1,829 mm) high” thus exempting fences from requiring a permit if they
are under six feet (6’) tall. These two (2) code sections are not congruent
and can cause confusion regarding what fence height threshold triggers
the requirement for a building permit. Updating the code language would
resolve the conflicting code sections.
DECISION: Amend RMC 4-8-040B.5.a to state fences taller than six feet (6’) shall require a building permit.
JUSTIFICATION: In order to maintain consistency among these two separate code sections,
the fence heights describing the threshold for requiring a building permit
need to match. The current development standard RMC 4-8-040B.5.a
inconsistently describes the trigger for a building permit, as it relates to the
construction administrative code, and therefore is the proposed section to
amend to provide consistency.
ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL: _______________________________________ Gina Estep
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 27, 2024
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 88 of 96
CI-187 Page 2 of 2
BINDING: Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code interpretations
that are not timely appealed are binding. This binding decision is a formally
adopted interpretation of existing Renton Municipal Code.
APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process. DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the most recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this Administrative Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and past/future Administrative Code Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as shown below. Should any conflicts result the Administrator shall determine the effective code.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT
DETERMINATIONS: RMC 4-4-040B.5.a “a. Fences: A fence taller than sevensix feet (76') shall require a building permit or a written exemption from the Building Official.” STAFF CONTACT: Ashley Wragge, x7314
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 89 of 96
CI-188 Page 1 of 1
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY/CODE
INTERPRETATION #: CI-188
MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS: RMC 4-4-080F.8.a Standard Parking Stall Size – Surface/Private
Garage/Carport
RMC 4-4-080F.8.b Standard Parking Stall Size – Structured Parking
REFERENCE: Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 6015: Minimum Parking Requirements-
Residential Development
SUBJECT: Minimum Dimensions for Parking Stalls
BACKGROUND: In 2024, Washington State Senate passed SSB 6015, aimed at
modifying residential parking requirements in cities and counties
planning under the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA). SSB 6015
establishes new statewide standards for what cities can include in
their parking requirements. One of the key provisions indicates that
parking spaces may not be required to exceed eight feet (8’) by twenty
feet (20’), except for required parking for people with disabilities.
Currently, Renton Municipal Code, Sections 4-4-080F.8.a. and 4-4-
080F.8.b. require minimum parking space dimensions of nine feet (9’)
in width by twenty-three feet (23’) in length. Therefore, the current
minimum parking dimensions provided in code are not consistent with
the required parking space dimensions permitted by Washington
State.
DECISION: RMC 4-4-080F.8.a. and RMC 4-4-080F.8.b. shall be amended to
update the required minimum dimensions for parking stalls, as
specified below. This interpretation is correct under the code as
currently written.
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 90 of 96
CI-188 Page 2 of 3
JUSTIFICATION: To comply with recent amendments adopted by SSB 6015, RMC 4-4-
080F.8.a. and 4-4-080F.8.b. should be amended to reduce the
required minimum parking space dimensions to eight feet (8’) in width
by twenty feet (20’) in length, instead of nine feet (9’) in width by twenty
feet (23’) in length, in compliance with SSB 6015.
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL: _______________________________________
Gina Estep
EFFECTIVE DATE: _______________________________________
BINDING Under principles of judicial finality, administrative code
interpretations that are not timely appealed are binding.
APPEAL
PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal accompanied by the
required filing fee must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055
South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6551) no more than 14
days from the date of this decision. Section 4-8-110 of the Renton
Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal process.
DISCLAIMER: Excerpts from the Renton Municipal Code shown below may not contain the
most recently codified text. In such instances, code amendments implemented through this
Administrative Code Interpretation shall be construed to affect the current code and
past/future Administrative Code Interpretations not yet codified in the same manner as
shown below. Should any conflicts result, the Administrator shall determine the effective
code.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT
DETERMINATIONS:
8. Parking Stall Types, Sizes, and Percentage Allowed/Required:
a. Standard Parking Stall Size – Surface/Private Garage/Carport:
i. Minimum Length in All Zones Except UC Zone: A parking stall shall be a minimum of
twenty feet (20') in length., except for parallel stalls, measured along both sides of the usable
portion of the stall. Each parallel stall shall be twenty three feet by nine feet (23' x 9') in size .
ii. Minimum Length in UC Zones: A parking stall shall be a minimum of nineteen feet (19') in
length, except for parallel stalls, measured along both sides of the usable portion of the stalls.
Each parallel stall shall be twenty three feet by nine feet (23' x 9') in size.
06.17.25
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 91 of 96
CI-188 Page 3 of 3
iii. Minimum Width: A parking stall shall be a minimum of nine eight feet (98') in width
measured from a right angle to the stall sides.
iiiv. Reduced Width and Length for Attendant Parking: When cars are parked by an
attendant, the stall shall not be less than eighteen feet long by eight feet wide (18' x 8').
b. Standard Parking Stall Size – Structured Parking:
i. Minimum Length: A parking stall shall be a minimum of fifteen feet (15'). A stall shall be a
minimum of sixteen feet (16') for stalls designed at forty forty-five degrees (45°) or greater.
Each parallel stall shall be a minimum of twenty three feet by nine eight feet (230' x 98') in
size.
ii. Minimum Width: A parking stall shall be a minimum of eight feet, four inches (8'4") in
width.
STAFF CONTACT: Margarette Bravo, Planning Technician x6555
AGENDA ITEM #7. c)
Page 92 of 96
Resource Center in the Valley October 9, 2025
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
STAFF REPORT
Resource Center in the Valley
Staff: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
Date: October 9, 2025
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
The City of Renton is planning to expand its resources for the City’s unhoused and at-risk
population that is modeled after successful strategies adopted by the City of Auburn. The
approach includes operation of a resource center that provides services classified in the municipal
code as Homeless Services. After reviewing potential locations, the City identified an area in the
Commercial Arterial (CA) zone located south of I-405 and west of SR-167 as an appropriate area to
accommodate this type of use. However, other areas of the CA zone would not be appropriate for
this use. The City also intends to use a site in the area for a parks maintenance facility and while
City Government Facilities, the parks maintenance facility, are permitted in the CA zone, Homeless
Services are not. A code amendment is therefore necessary to allow the establishment of a
resource center with overnight accommodations within this subarea of the CA zone, aligning the
zoning framework with the City’s service delivery goals.
BACKGROUND
Currently, the City of Renton does not operate a year-round overnight shelter for unhoused
residents. The only option available is through severe weather activation, which the City
coordinates in partnership with a nonprofit and a local church. By King County Regional Homeless
Authority standards, this activation is classified as a Tier 4 response, short-term, emergency-only,
and dependent on volunteers. While essential in extreme weather, this model is not designed for
long-term stabilization and has limited effectiveness compared to more comprehensive
approaches.
The City’s “Support for Ordinance 5983 Sales Tax Funding” document identifies the development
of a permanent resource center with supportive services such as meals, laundry, hygiene facilities,
and housing navigation as one of the top priorities for utilizing HB 1590 funds. A second-tier priority
is the ongoing support and operation of such a center.
To inform the establishment of a successful resource center, City staff and the Mayor have met
with the City of Auburn, which has operated their resource center since 2021. Unlike traditional day
or night shelter models in the region, Auburn’s model requires individuals to go through an intake
process and work directly with city staff to access services. This intake-based structure allows
participants to receive personalized case management and direct connections to medical,
behavioral health, employment, and housing resources, rather than simply being referred or
AGENDA ITEM #7. d)
Page 93 of 96
Resource Center in the Valley October 9, 2025
“brokered out” to external providers. As a result, Auburn’s Resource Center helped over 200
people transition into housing in 2024 alone.
The resource center is open daily for those experiencing homelessness to become connected to
local and regional resources for basic needs, medical, behavioral health, and housing. It also
offers:
• Laundry and shower facilities
• Meals and food access
• Identification and work assistance
• Connection to medical and behavioral health care
• Legal and educational support
• Mail, phone, and volunteer resources
• Safe overnight accommodations
• Substance Use Disorder (SUD) treatment
By adopting a similar model, Renton will be able to provide direct outreach, stabilization, and
housing navigation services in a coordinated and effective manner. This approach gives the City
greater quality control, reduces reliance on contracted service providers, and increases
accountability for outcomes.
The specific service providers that the City of Auburn partners with to support their resource center
are robust and help to meet a wide array of needs. They are:
• Auburn Community Court
• We Care Daily Clinics
• Orion Industries
• King County Library System
• Eastside Legal Assistance Program
• Ideal Options
• United Healthcare
• Green River College
• Multi-Service Center
• Hopelink
• HealthPoint - Auburn
• King County Public Health
• AAHAA Supportive Housing
• A Walk to Freedom
AGENDA ITEM #7. d)
Page 94 of 96
Resource Center in the Valley October 9, 2025
• Department of Social and Health Services
The City of Renton is in the process of acquiring Commercial Arterial (CA) zoned properties in the
Valley (4 parcels at 2940, 2960, 2980, and 2990 East Valley Road). The intended use for the
property is for a new parks maintenance facility and the Renton Resource Center modeled after the
City of Auburn’s successful Resource Center. City Government Facilities (the parks maintenance
facility) may be permitted with a Hearing Examiner’s Conditional Use Permit, however Homeless
Services (the resource center) is not an allowed use. Code needs to be amended to facilitate the
city’s intent to utilize the property for a resource center for the homeless population. The proposed
amendment would apply to all CA zoned parcels in the Valley, not just the parcels the city is
seeking to acquire.
Although the site is in the Valley and seems
somewhat removed from the rest of the city, it is
actually well served with Metro Route 153. The
route map for Route 153 is to the right. The
approximate location of the site is indicated by an
orange star. The route begins at the Renton
Transit Center, serves the South Renton Park and
Ride, then follows Lind Ave SW in Renton until
city limits, before continuing along East Valley Rd
to the Kent Transit Center. The nearest bus stop
to the site being purchased is located at Lind Ave
SW and SW 27th St approximately 0.3 miles away.
Also along the bus route at SW 7th Street is Ideal
Option, an addiction treatment program. To the
South, there is a stop at Lind Ave SW and SW 43rd
St, which is approximately 0.5 miles from Valley
Medical. This route from the Renton Transit
Center runs 5:58 am to 7:47 pm approximately
every 30 minutes. Along the route are several
restaurants, DK Market, and Walmart
Supercenter. Additionally, from the Renton
Transit Center there are frequent buses that run
to Seattle and Bellevue. From the Kent Transit Center frequent bus routes serve destinations south
to Tacoma and east/west to Des Moines, Federal Way, and Covington.
Renton Municipal Code defines Homeless Services as:
1. Day Shelter: A facility that offers a haven to people experiencing homelessness by
providing a safe place to rest during the day or evening, but with no overnight stays. Support
services for homeless populations are an integral part of a day shelter use and may include
access to food, seating, showers, laundry, restrooms, storage, a computer lab, phones,
AGENDA ITEM #7. d)
Page 95 of 96
Resource Center in the Valley October 9, 2025
fax, and a critical mailing address. Spaces for meetings and examinations are generally
provided to accommodate counseling and access to medical/dental and legal assistance.
2. Emergency Shelter: “Emergency shelter” has the same meaning as “emergency shelter”
in RCW 36.70A.030, and as may be hereafter amended.
3. Emergency Housing: “Emergency housing” has the same meaning as “emergency
housing” in RCW 36.70A.030, and as hereafter amended.”
Renton’s intended use for the CA zoned parcels would be considered Homeless Services,
specifically a Day Shelter and Emergency Housing. The use is allowed in 11 zones that include
residential such as R-14, all industrial zones, and many commercial zones. However, the CA zone
is not one of the zones it is currently permitted in.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan update, the city was required to show that there is adequate
capacity to accommodate the allocated emergency housing target of 3,248 beds. The analysis took
account of the requirements code has for emergency housing, such as allowance at the density of
the underlying zone with a maximum of 115 residents per facility and not closer than one-half (½)
mile to another emergency housing provider (unless the combined total of another facility totaled
115 between the two sites). Also, if more than 50 beds, the site must be within one (1) mile of a
transit stop. The analysis showed that Renton has capacity to accommodate 3,406 emergency
housing units. Given that the city does not need more capacity, it is reasonable to limit Homeless
Services to being allowed in the CA zone only in the Valley, not throughout the entire CA zone.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend amending code to allow a resource center and overnight shelter in the CA zone in
the Valley with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Footnote #29 limits uses in
certain zones only in the Valley. It reads, in part:
“b. The following uses are only allowed in the area south of I-405 and west of Rainier Avenue
South/SR-167:
i. Indoor or outdoor sports arenas, auditoriums, and exhibition halls;
ii. Outdoor storage (existing and new) as a primary use (outdoor storage is allowed as an
accessory use in all industrial zones);
iii. Vehicle storage; and
iv. Large vehicle sales.”
Staff recommend adding Homeless Services to this list of allowed uses in the CA zone in the Valley.
AGENDA ITEM #7. d)
Page 96 of 96