Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2026 - Agenda Packet AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting 6:00 PM – Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S Grady Way Virtual: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/88034659736?pwd=z1TyxJNsMEloal0MglAamlJkjbnLaR.1 or call 253-215-8782 (meeting ID: 880 3465 9736, password: Weplan2024) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 4. AUDIENCE COMMENT Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. Groups or organizations may select a spokesperson to speak on their behalf. Alternatively, you are encouraged to provide written comments to planningcommission@rentonwa.gov at least five days before the meeting. 1. Virtual Attendees: Attendees will be muted and not audible to the Commission except during times they are designated to speak. Use the “Raise Hand” option to indicate you would like to speak (if you are calling in, use *9 to raise hand and *6 to mute/unmute). 2. In-person Attendees: Raise your hand to indicate you would like to speak. When recognized by the Chair, come to the podium to make your comments. 5. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2026 6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT 7. BRIEFING a. Group 20D D-248 Large Site Master Plans and Development Agreements b. Group 20D D-249 Planned Urban Development (PUD) Open Space c. Group 21A D-250 Affordable Housing Waived Fees 8. ROBERT’S RULES TRAINING 9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request. For more information on Planning Commission, visit: http://www.rentonwa.gov/Government/Boards-Committees-Commissions March 4, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION 6:00 PM - Wednesday, March 4, 2026 Zoom and Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way CALL TO ORDER Chair Artze called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Secretary Rochex called roll. Present: 1. Chair Artze 2. Commissioner Bayan 3. Commissioner Fiksdal 4. Vice Chair Plants 5. Commissioner Poole 6. Secretary Rochex 7. Commissioner Matson 8. Commissioner Kelly 9. Commissioner Petek Absent: None STAFF PRESENT 1. Matt Herrera - Planning Director 2. Angie Mathias - Long Range Planning Manager 3. Clark Close - Current Planning Manager (online) 4. Katie Buchl-Morales – Senior Planner 5. Ashley Wragge – Assistant Planner 6. Patrice Kent - Senior Assistant City Attorney 7. Jason Seth – City Clerk/Public Records Officer 8. Margarette Bravo – Planning Technician (online) 9. Muang Saelee - Recording Secretary PUBLIC ATTENDANCE 1. Ion Tomasan CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED None March 4, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUDIENCE COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) 1. Public attendee Ion Tamasan voiced his support for neighborhood retail. His mom lives in one of the densest neighborhood on Talbot Rd where corner stores are not allowed. To pick up a carton of milk, she has to get in her car and drive 7 minutes away to the nearest grocery store. If her car broke down, the nearest store would be a 45-minute walk next to a busy arterial road on a sidewalk that provides minimal protection for pedestrians and where cars speed and swerve. Ion believes neighborhood retail would benefit Renton in many ways: less cars on the roads, less accidents, less stress on our resources and infrastructure, less congestion. Neighborhood retail would integrate walking and create a sense of community when being able to interact with neighbors. APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 18, 2026 1. Chair Artze asked for motion to approve minutes from February 18th 2026 meeting. 2. Commissioner Fiksdal moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Bayan to approve the minutes. 3. Chair Artze and Secretary Rochex signed the minutes. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Matt gave Director’s Report: 1. 3/25/26 State of the City Address. Make sure to RSVP. Will be at the Hyatt. 2. Will be cancelling 3/18/26 meeting for lack of agenda items. 3. Went over agenda for 4/1/26. 4. Will be cancelling 4/15/26 meeting for Spring break. Will continue meetings again in May. OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT & PUBLIC RECORDS ACT TRAINING Jason Seth from Clerk’s office presented. 1. Secretary Rochex asked if they received large emails in the past, should they save those? 2. Jason said they need to keep them. 3. Sr. Asst. City Attorney Patrice Kent strongly encouraged the Commissioners to maintain their public records but informed them that they are not required to re-create records from the past. DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Docket 20 Group A, D-241: Neighborhood Scale Retail Katie presented. Chair Artze opened the floor for deliberations and recommendations. DISCUSSION Commissioner Comments 1. Chair Artze thanked Katie for a well-researched and well-thought-out presentation. Chair Artze asked for a motion to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Kelly made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Bayan and Vice Chair Plants. All ayes, motion carried. March 4, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Docket 20 Group C, D-246: Electric Fence Code Update Ashley presented. Chair Artze opened the floor for deliberations and recommendations. DISCUSSION Commissioner Comments 1. Chair Artze said there was a note on the electric fence regulations that said a sign is not required to be posted in residential zones but was required in other zones. Asked if they ever looked into that or followed up on it. 2. Ashley said Chair Artze was correct in that it was not a part of the existing code. It is something that the City has looked at and they are open to adding it to the ordinance. Decision has not been made, but it’s a good recommendation and the intention is to follow through with it. Chair Artze asked for a motion to accept the staff recommendation. Commissioner Fiksdal made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, seconded by Secretary Rochex. All ayes, motion carried. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Commissioner Fiksdal said she was thankful that the City provided the training on the Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records Act at the Planning Commission meeting. It made it convenient for her as she didn’t have to go elsewhere for this training. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Secretary Rochex, seconded by Commissioner Bayan. All ayes, motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Andy Artze, Commission Chair Dana Rochex, Secretary Muang Saelee Recording Secretary Page 1 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report Community & Economic Development // Planning Division STAFF REPORT #D-248: Large Master Site Plans and Development Agreements Staff: Matt Herrera, Planning Director, mherrera@rentonwa.gov, 425-430-6593 Date: April 1, 2026 Applicant or Requestor: Staff Summary The purpose of this Title IV text amendment is to incorporate regulations that provide opportunities for large, campus-sized development projects that span a decade or more to fully construct. Current development regulations anticipate projects to complete construction typically within a 2-5 year time period following the initial entitlement application. The following proposal would codify a development agreement option that would run concurrently with a master site plan application for certain projects located within the Valley Community Planning Area while also allowing flexibility in modifying development standards and providing a longer vested time horizon for the application. Background A land use application (Entitlement) is a precursor for the actual building permit and construction of a development. This process applies to residential subdivisions, commercial developments, multifamily buildings, and mixed-use projects. The entitlement application is reviewed by planning and engineering staff to ensure it meets development and design standards (e.g. height, setback, urban design, landscaping) as well as utility and transportation requirements. This review is in tandem with environmental review for compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Shoreline Master Program, and Critical Areas regulations. When an application is shown to meet these standards, a decision is issued administratively by the Planning Director or Community and Economic Development Administrator or the city’s Hearing Examiner. Following this decision, the applicant must submit building and construction permit applications within two (2) years (five [5] years for a subdivision), which are more detailed plans, and when approved, authorizes the actual clearing/grading of land, installation of utilities and streets, and construction of buildings. A master plan entitlement is a type of land use application that is phased and typically involves a large property or number of contiguous properties with several buildings along with a new street and infrastructure system. The application is reviewed at a broad and high level. The city would review cumulative aspects of the proposal such as land uses, total numbers of household units and Page 2 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report commercial square footage, street and utility capacity and alignment, and building massing models. Following an approved master plan, each individual phase of the plan would have its own site plan review application where more details are provided such building design, height, setbacks, landscaping, and parking. Master plan approvals have five (5) years (or up to ten [10] years with multiple phased projects) to obtain building and construction permits for each of the phases. Generally, a master plan under the city’s current development regulations is not vested (unless associated with a subdivision) and subject to code changes until a building permit application is submitted. In land use parlance, vesting is the date that a project is able to use the development regulations in place and future code amendments to those regulations will not affect or require a change to what has been approved. From a developer perspective, it is in their best interest to submit a building permit as soon as the land use decision is issued, because until such time, the city is able to process code amendments to the development regulations that could affect the design and/or outcome of their project. For a master plan project with multiple phases and longer time horizon, there is risk that future phases could be affected by code updates. A Development Agreement (DA) is a tool authorized by the State’s Local Project Review Act (RCW 36.70B.170) that allows cities to enter into a voluntary contract with a property owner. These contracts establish development standards and vest the overall project. If authorized in a city’s development regulations, DAs also allow the opportunity to modify development standards, however the project overall must be consistent with the city’s adopted planning documents such as the comprehensive plan and any other subarea or programmatic plans. Unlike typical land use applications where an applicant is entitled to an approval if they meet all of the development standards relative to their project, a Development Agreement is completely discretionary with the ultimate approval by the City Council. If approved by the council, the DA is recorded and binding on the property, not the owners, for the term of the agreement. Planning staff has brought this docket item forward for consideration because the city’s current development regulations do not contemplate a large campus project with an extended time horizon. Most projects that are reviewed have relatively shorter time horizons and can be completed within the regulatory framework that has been in place, however the city has received one (1) application and is anticipating another this year that will be a large campus with phases that extend past a decade. A Development Agreement provides certainty for developers that the development regulations will not change and it provides certainty for the city that the construction timeline and benchmarks in the agreement are made over the course of the contract’s term. A DA also provides an opportunity for the city to negotiate public benefits that otherwise could not be required by the development regulations. Currently, the city has limited language related to development agreements and does not expressly authorize the ability to modify development standards. However, modifying development standards in exchange for public benefits is not a new concept and the city’s existing development regulations Page 3 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report provide an option to do this via a Planned Urban Development application. This type of application is intended as a two (2) to five (5) year time horizon similar to other entitlements and therefore not an option for the large campus and longer time horizon projects. The proposal below would incorporate those development standard modification options into a Developer Agreement in limited circumstances within the Valley Community Planning Area for project sites greater than 40-acres. Proposed Code Amendments Staff provides the following recommendations for text amendments to Title IV Renton Municipal Code: RMC 4-9-200 Master Plan and Site Plan Review – Phased Plans • Provide flexibility for phased master plans that allow for more than the current 10-year time limitation if accompanied by a Development Agreement and located in the Valley Community Planning Area. • Authorize Development Agreements to allow modifications to development regulations when associated with a master plan located in the Valley Community Planning Area. • Qualifying Development Agreements and master plans within the Valley Community Planning shall contain a land area of 40 acres or greater. • Provide a menu of public benefits that may be considered by the city in exchange for the Development Agreement. Those benefits may be, but are not limited to, economic, environmental, recreation, design, infrastructure, and mixed income housing. Figure 1 The Valley Community Planning Area is located in the southwest portion of the city along the borders of Kent, Tukwila, and unincorporated King County. Page 4 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report Jurisdictional Comparison Currently the city has limited language related to development agreements and does not expressly authorize those agreements the ability to modify development standards. Adopting such language would not be new or unique to Renton should the Planning Commission move forward with staff’s recommendation. The table below provides information on how peer cities incorporate Development Agreements into their Development Regulations Jurisidiction Development Agreement Regulations Kirkland KZC 57.05.030 provides specific DA language for the 85th Street Station Planning Area that authorizes their City Council to approve specific variations or exceptions from the district regulations. Shoreline SMC 20.30.355 authorizes Development Agreements in all zones and allows modification of development standards. Bellevue LUC 20.25Q.030 authorize Development Agreements in Transit Oriented Development (TOD) districts. The DA may also modify development standards. Lynnwood LMC 8.90.0430 allows any property owner within the city to initiate a Development Agreement and authorizes City Council to provide flexibility in the development regulations for those DA’s Page 5 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report Kent KCC 15.08.450 allows any property owner within the city to submit an application for a Development Agreement. Requires the terms of the DA are “generally” consistent with the city’s development regulations. 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 implement adopted City policies, including but not limited to the following: • Policy LU-2: Support compact urban development to improve health outcomes, support transit use, maximize land use efficiency, and maximize public benefit from public investment in infrastructure and services. • Goal LU-K: Cultivate an energetic business environment and commercial activity to provide a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed-use residential uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along arterial streets and in Countywide and Regional Growth Centers • Goal LU-BB: Ensure new development supports a high quality of life with design that is functional and attractive. • Goal LU-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development Additionally, the proposed text amendments provide clarity, consistency, or ease of administration by authorizing the City Council to approve modifications to Development Agreements if associated with master plan developments within the Valley Community Planning Area on project sites that are greater than 40 acres in size. Further, the proposal supports the 2026-2031 Renton Business Plan Page 6 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report goals of providing a safe, healthy, and vibrant community and promotes economic vitality and strategically positions Renton for the future. 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. Any modifications to the development regulations that are associated with a Development Agreement must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and supporting documents. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There are no anticipated effects on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment growth. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The proposed amendments support the Plan’s goals and objectives by providing flexibility for large developments that would bring economic, housing, employment, and place-making benefits to the city. Effect on general land values or housing costs The proposed amendments are not anticipated to affect land values or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected The proposed amendments would not result in new capital facility demands, so no effects on capital improvements or expenditures are anticipated. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act and King County Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands No adverse effects are anticipated. Critical areas are regulated by existing City development standards, which will continue to apply. Page 7 of 7 // #D-248 Staff Report Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments related to Development Agreements associated with large master plans located in the Valley Community Planning Area. Page 1 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report Community & Economic Development // Planning Division STAFF REPORT #D-249: Planned Urban Development – Open Space Staff: Maya Simon, Associate Planner, msimon@rentonwa.gov, 425-430-7263 Date: April 1, 2025 Applicant or Requestor: Staff Summary Planned Urban Developments (PUDs) are a type of land use application that allow development in Renton to modify development standards in exchange for public benefits such as protecting natural features and being innovative in the proposed development. However, the current PUD private open space requirements are too restrictive to allow for innovative multi-family mixed use developments. The proposed amendments would: • adjust the size of required private open space; and • add multiple alternatives to replace private open space with common open space. The proposed alternatives are 1) replacement with creative common amenity space or 2) provision of, or payment for, public parks. Background Access to environmental or recreational space is important for social, mental, and physical wellbeing. Open spaces can be public, common, or private. Types of public open space include parks and trails. Common open spaces, such as courtyards, rooftop decks, landscaping, or even gym or pool facilities, are usually built into multi-family residential developments. Most multi-family and single-family homes also include private open space in the form of a yard, deck, or balcony. Several different code sections govern open space standards for residential developments. Specifically for PUDs, RMC 4-9-150 requires different amounts of common open space for projects that are residential-only and for residential units in mixed-use projects. PUDs also require at least some private open space for every unit, while projects permitted under other Page 2 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report code sections can replace private open space with common open space. For ground-floor units, this means creating a yard, while for upper-floor units, it means building in decks or balconies. Regulations for PUDs should allow the same, if not more, flexibility as other permitting routes for residential development. As Renton grows, there is development with more units and larger buildings. Some larger buildings are designed as curtain wall construction, which does not lend itself to installing private open space, such as balconies, on upper-story units. That access to space for recreation and relaxation is important for multi-family building residents, but could be provided through amenity space such as rooftop gardens or courtyards . Consideration of construction techniques is another reason to allow greater flexibility for open space in PUDs. Peer Jurisdictions In looking at five other Washington cities, there are many approaches to how much and what type of open space should be required for residential development. Seattle, Spokane, and Bellevue are included as cities that have higher-density, taller, curtain wall buildings. Kent and Federal Way round out the comparison, as nearby jurisdictions with similar development patterns to Renton. Below is a general summary of regulations from each jurisdiction, though there may be other requirements that apply in specific cases. Note that these are also their baseline regulations, not specific to PUDs. Is private open space required for every unit? Seattle: No. Spokane: No. Bellevue: No. Kent: No. Federal Way: No. Renton baseline regulations: In some cases. Private space is required for cottage housing developments, ground-floor units in R-10 and R-14 zones, and attached dwellings in Urban Design District B. Renton PUD regulations: Yes. How much total open space is required? Page 3 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report Seattle: For low-rise residential zones: 25% of the lot area. For medium-rise, high-rise, and commercial zones: 5% of the residential gross floor area. In downtown and mixed-use zones: 5% of the residential gross floor area (developments with 20 or less units are exempt). Spokane: It is based on the zoning, type of space provided, unit size, and number of units. The largest required is 250 square feet per unit for private open space in low-density residential zones, while the smallest is 36 square feet per unit for common open space for studio units in high- density residential zones. Any development with pedestrian access to a public park within 800 feet has to provide only 36 square feet per unit, regardless of zoning or unit size. Bellevue: For PUDs, 10% of the gross land area must be indoor or outdoor “common recreation space.” For non-PUD developments, multi-family projects must have a children’s play area of 800 square feet plus 50 square feet per unit. Kent: For PUDs, 35% of the total site area, or residential use area if mixed-use, must be “common open space.” For non-PUD developments, mixed-use projects in certain zones must have 200 square feet per unit. Federal Way: In most zones, 100 square feet per dwelling unit (developments with five or less units are exempt). At least 25% of this must be common open space . Private open space must be at least 48 square feet to count towards the total area required. Renton baseline regulations: For R-10 and R-14 properties, 600 square feet per unit of private open space for 1-3 unit developments; 350 square feet per unit of common open space plus 250 square feet per unit of common (upper-story units) or private (ground-floor units) open space for 4+ unit developments. For cottage housing, 350 square feet per unit of common open space plus 250 square feet per unit of private open space. In Urban Design Districts A, C, and D, 50 square feet of common open space per unit (developments with nine or less units are exempt). However in District B, attached housing developments require 150 square feet per unit of private open space. A comparison of Spokane's per unit open space requirements, which vary based on type of space and unit size. Page 4 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report Renton PUD regulations: 50 square feet per unit of common open space (mixed-use developments with 9 or less units are exempt). Residential only projects require an additional 10% of the gross site area as common open space. For private open space, ground floor units require a minimum area of 15 feet by 15 feet (225 square feet). Units on floors two to six require a 60 square foot deck, while units on and above the 7th floor can have a “shallow balcony” if the rest of the 60 square feet is added to the common open space. How should the open space be designed? Seattle: All units must have access to either private or common space. In certain zones it must be open space, while in others up to 50% can be enclosed amenity space. Private spaces have no minimum size. Common spaces must be a minimum of 250 square feet (225 in downtown and mixed-use zones). Drive and parking areas cannot be counted unless developed as a woonerf. Spokane: Units must have direct access to the space. Indoor, reservable rooms can count towards the required common area. Bellevue: No specific requirements. Kent: For PUDs, the open space must be available “for common use ,” containing both active and passive recreation opportunities. The open space area cannot include buildings, right-of-way, roads, parking, storage, or required sidewalks. Federal Way: Common spaces must be accessible from units and a minimum of 225 square feet. The design should create a “focal point and gathering place” with appropriate furnishings and area for active recreation. Pedestrian accesses over 15-feet wide are included in the required area. These areas are not: pavement, areas near parking or blank walls, parking itself, or vehicle accesses. Renton baseline regulations: All units must have access to common open space. Additionally, the space should be “usable” space, visible to the street, and provide sunlight exposure. In R-10, R-14, and cottage housing developments, common space must have a minimum dimension of 30 feet and maximum slope of 5%, while private space has a minimum dimension of 8 feet. Page 5 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report Developments subject to Urban Design regulations can include stormwater facilities for up to 50%. They cannot include drives, parking, required landscaping, yard setbacks, private open space, or sensitive area buffers towards the total area. Renton PUD regulations: Common space should be accessible to residents and provide sunlight exposure. It has no minimum area but can include stormwater facilities in residential-only developments. Common space cannot include drives, parking, required landscaping, yard setbacks, private open space, or sensitive area buffers towards the total area. Private open space has minimum dimensions as follows: ground-floor units must be 15 feet by 15 feet, units on floors two to six must be five feet deep or wide. Are there alternative options? Seattle: Yes. If the project is on a designated “green street,” the developer can contribute to the green street to reduce the space required by up to 50%. In downtown and mixed-use zones, the amount required can be replaced with public open space at the Administrator’s discretion. Also in those zones, open space provided at ground level counts for twice the square footage. Spokane: No. Bellevue: No. Kent: No. Federal Way: Yes. The developer can pay a fee-in-lieu for up to 50% of the required space at the Parks Department’s discretion. Renton baseline regulations: Yes. RMC 4-1-240 allows a 1:1 substitute for providing an on- site public trail or public park in line with adopted City plans. It also allows a fee-in-lieu if the site has pedestrian access to a public park within ¼ mile of the development (value determined by the Parks and Recreation Department). Renton PUD regulations: Not really. As part of the PUD review process, the minimum private open space dimensions can be altered, if area is added to the common open space required (meaning the total area requirement is maintained). Proposed Code Amendments - Preliminary The spirit of these changes are to add options to the menu for PUDs while ensuring development in Renton provides recreation space for residents. The required amount of Page 6 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report common open space would remain unchanged (50 square feet per unit for all developments, plus 10% of the gross site area for residential-only developments). Private Open Space Private open space is currently required for every residential unit in PUDs, with different dimensions prescribed to units on different floors. Updates are suggested to the required amount and dimensions. Unit Type Current Private Space Requirements Proposed Private Space Requirements Units on the ground-floor At least 15 feet in every dimension. Must be contiguous to the unit. Decks can be substituted if the unit is multi-story. At least 15 feet in every dimension. Must be contiguous to the unit. Decks can be substituted if the unit is multi-story. Units on the upper floors Floors 2 to 6: • Deck areas totaling 60 square feet. • No dimension less than 5 feet. Floors 7 and up: • May have a shallow balcony with a door of at least 50% glazing. • Remainder of the 60 square feet gets added to the required common open space. Private space contiguous to the unit totaling 60 square feet. No area smaller than four feet by eight feet. Alternative Options Three alternatives are also proposed: modifying the dimensional standards, substituting with a common amenity, and substituting as allowed for non-PUD developments. 1. Modifying dimensional standards is already allowed for private open space. It is at the Administrator’s discretion and the total minimum area must be maintained. Page 7 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report 2. Substituting with a common amenity would allow a 1:1 replacement of private open space with a common amenity area. Unique amenities such as grill areas, saunas, or game rooms would be encouraged. 3. Substituting as allowed for non-PUD developments gives two options for replacing both private and common open space. RMC 4-1-240 allows a 1:1 substitute for providing an on-site public trail or public park, if in line with adopted City plans. Or the developer can pay a fee-in-lieu if the site has pedestrian access to a public park within ¼ mile of the development (value determined by the Parks and Recreation Department). 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 implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan and City Business Plan. The 2026-2031 Business Plan includes the mission to “provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community” and “preserve and expand open spaces.” Policy goals from the Comprehensive Plan 2024 are to have “residential growth that…creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating both built amenities and natural features” and “ensure new development supports a high quality of life with design that is functional and attractive.” Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Page 8 of 8 // #D-249 Staff Report There are no anticipated effects on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There are no anticipated effects on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment growth. 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 The proposed amendments should not have significant effect on land values or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected The amendments do not trigger new capital facility demands, so no effects on capital improvements or expenditures are anticipated. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act and King County Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands No adverse effects are anticipated. Critical areas are regulated by existing City development standards, which will continue to apply. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the proposed amendments to add alternatives to private and common open space for Planned Urban Developments. Page 1 of 5 // #D-250 Staff Report Community & Economic Development // Planning Division STAFF REPORT #D-250: Affordable Housing Waived Fees Staff: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager, amathias@rentonwa.gov, 425.430.6576 Date: April 1, 2026 Applicant or Requestor: Staff Summary The Waived Fees provisions allow the Council to approve a waiver of some land use and development fees for affordable housing projects. The provisions have been in place since 2001 and have recently helped Renton Housing Authority and Homestead Community Land Trust to develop affordable rental homes as well as affordable ownership homes. Currently, a home ownership project must have a minimum of 10 units to be eligible. For rental projects to be eligible in residential zones it must have 8 units and in mixed use zones projects must have a minimum of 30 units. Staff would like to consider lowering these minimums. Additionally, code needs to be amended to be consistent with changes the Legislature has made to the Growth Management Act addressing some affordable housing incentives. Background The City is enabled by the RCW’s of the Growth Management chapter to enact regulations that incentivize development of affordable housing. Renton has enacted many of the enabled incentives such as density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, and waived or reduced fees. The waivers are at the discretion of Council and Council may waive up to 80% of the transportation and parks impact fees and up to 100% of the following development fees: • Building permit fees • Building permit plan review fees • Water, surface water, and wastewater system development charges • Public Works plan review and inspection fees • Transportation and parks impact mitigation fees • Fire impact mitigation fees, to the extent such waiver is authorized by interlocal agreement with the Renton Regional Fire Authority • Civil plan review and inspection fees Page 2 of 5 // #D-250 Staff Report • Technology surcharge fees • Administrative fees for collecting, processing, and handling school impact fees Council may approve a waiver of up to 100%, but they could also waive only 50% or whatever portion they deem appropriate. The decision is based on what the public benefit is, if there are impacts on public facilities, and if the action is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and any other affordable housing policies in other adopted plans. The maximum number of units that fees can be waived for is 100 units total. So, large affordable housing projects would only be eligible to receive a waiver on a portion of the overall project. The Waived Fees code provisions were initially adopted in 2001 as an incentive for the construction of new owner-occupied housing in Downtown Renton. The waiver was open to market rate construction. It was established as an incentive to encourage more residents living in the Downtown area. 55 Williams with 37 units and Chateau de Ville with 50 units utilized this incentive to construct new housing that was sold as condominiums, helping to further the intent of the incentive. The incentive was only available to multifamily projects that created at least 4 new units. In 2007, the incentive to create new owner-occupied housing was extended to the Sunset area. In 2011, following the recommendations of the Highlands Task Force, the Waived Fees incentive was extended to rental housing. At the time the waiver of fees was for up to 100% for affordable rental and 50% for market rate multifamily new construction. In 2018, the City removed the incentive for market rate housing and made it only available for affordable housing, both owner-occupied and rental. At this time, the waiver was also made available to the entire city, not just in Downtown and Sunset. The provision was also amended to require annual reporting to ensure the affordable units maintained the affordability required to receive the incentive. In 2020, Waived Fees code was amended to establish that no more than 100 units of a project are eligible for potential fee waivers. This incentive has been used by the Renton Housing Authority for numerous rental projects and Willowcrest Townhomes for owner-occupied projects. Waiving fees for affordable housing helps reduce costs for the construction of the new affordable housing units in Renton and helps providers better utilize their funding. Eligibility criteria are below: Affordable Home Ownership Affordable Rental Housing • At least ½ # of units must be 80% AMI • 80% units must remain affordable in perpetuity • Up to ½ # of units can be 120% AMI • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 10 units • All units must be 60% AMI • Units must remain affordable for 30 years • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 8 units in residential zones • Minimum 30 units in mixed use zones Page 3 of 5 // #D-250 Staff Report Staff have reviewed some past projects and some current projects that have or would like to utilize the incentive. Based on this and other circumstances that have changed since the Waived Fees section was amended in 2018 for use as an affordable housing incentive, staff recommend lowering the minimum number of homeownership units from ten (10) to four (4). Affordable homeownership is a priority of the Council, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Housing Action Plan. It also aligns well with the adopted targets to accommodate 1,019 units at 50 – 80% AMI. Additionally, middle housing allows (four) 4 units on all lots, potentially encouraging more middle housing being constructed as affordable. For affordable rental housing, staff recommend lowering the minimum number of units in residential zones from (ten) 10 to (six) 6 and in mixed use zones from 30 to 25. In many instances, the eligibility standards (10 units and 30 units) are not achievable because projects would exceed maximum density of their site. Exceeding density is not allowed by code and could mean that an opportunity to create new affordable housing is lost to projects that are built as market rate because the minimum number of units to qualify for the waived fees is too high. Staff are also concerned that the existing minimums may be incentivizing the construction of smaller units so the minimum can be achieved missing an opportunity to develop larger units that could accommodate a family, such as two (2) and three (3) bedroom units. This also aligns with the adopted target to accommodate 5,734 units at zero to fifty percent (0 – 50%) AMI. Legislative changes to the Growth Management chapter of the RCW’s require that rental housing units be affordable at fifty percent (50%) AMI and at eighty percent (80%) to one hundred percent (100%) AMI for ownership housing. Also, the timeframe for how long the affordable rental units must remain affordable is 50 years. Current code requires 30 years of maintenance as affordable housing and it should be amended to reflect the state changes. The affordable housing incentives for Waived Fees have sunset provisions that require the city to review the provisions and consider whether or not to continue the program every three (3) years. The current sunset date is December 31, 2027. Next year when this item is considered for renewal or sunsetting it will provide an opportunity to review the revised lower minimum number of units to consider if the amendments are working as intended and if they should remain in place or be otherwise amended. Staff would also like to revise the code section to consolidate redundancies and some other non- substantive amendments. Proposed Code Amendments Page 4 of 5 // #D-250 Staff Report Type Current Regulations Proposed Regulations (new facilities only) Affordable Ownership Incentive • At least ½ # of units must be 80% AMI • 80% units must remain affordable in perpetuity • Up to ½ # of units can be 120% AMI • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 10 units • At least ½ # of units must be 80% AMI • 80% units must remain affordable in perpetuity • Up to ½ # of units can be 100 % AMI • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 4 units Affordable Rental Incentive • All units must be 60% AMI • Units must remain affordable for 30 years • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 8 units in residential zones • Minimum 30 units in mixed use zones • All units must be 50% AMI • Units must remain affordable for 50 years • Annual compliance certification • Minimum 6 units in residential zones • Minimum 25 units in mixed use zones 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. The proposed code amendments meet all of the above criteria. They will remove conflict between the code and the RCW’s, they will provide clarity and consistency by eliminating redundant code, the revisions implement the Comprehensive Plan by further incentivizing affordable housing, and they work to accommodate a newer policy directive of the Council for encouraging affordable home ownership. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Page 5 of 5 // #D-250 Staff Report There are no anticipated effects on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There are no anticipated effects on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There are no anticipated effects on the rate or population and employment growth by simplifying indoor recreation regulations. 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 The proposed amendments should not have significant effect on land values or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected The amendments do not trigger new capital facility demands, so no effects on capital improvements or expenditures are anticipated. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed amendments are consistent with the Growth Management Act and King County Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands No adverse effects are anticipated. Critical areas are regulated by existing City development standards, which will continue to apply. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments as shown above and to remove redundancies and provide more consistency.