HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2026 - Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Planning Commission Meeting
6:00 PM – Wednesday, June 17, 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 (Opportunity for public to comment on agenda and non-
agenda items, with the exception of items for public hearings. Comments for
public hearing items will only be taken during the public hearing.)
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 MAY 20, 2026
6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
7. BRIEFING
a. Docket Group 21B, D-251: Child Care Centers
b. Docket Group 21B, D-252: Urban Design Regulations Update
c. Docket Group 21B, D-253: Comp Plan Map Amendments (RMF-2 Rezone)
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
9. ADJOURNMENT
Hearing assistance devices for use in the Council Chambers are available upon request.
For more information on the Planning Commission, visit
www.rentonwa.gov/Government/Boards-Committees-Commissions
May 20, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
6:00 PM - Wednesday, May 20, 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 Fiksdal
3. Vice Chair Plants
4. Commissioner Poole
5. Secretary Rochex
6. Commissioner Petek
Absent:
1. Commissioner Bayan
2. Commissioner Kelly
3. Commission Matson
STAFF PRESENT 1. Matt Herrera - Planning Director
2. Angie Mathias - Long Range Planning Manager
3. Maya Simon – Associate Planner
4. Muang Saelee - Recording Secretary
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
0
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED 1. 5/8/26 - Derek Sciba, CEO of Vision House – Comments on Docket 21A, D250:
Affordable Housing Waived Fees
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS)
None
APPROVE MEETING MINUTES FROM MAY 6, 2026
1. Chair Artze asked for motion to approve minutes from May 6th 2026 meeting.
2. Secretary Rochex moved to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Fiksdal to approve
the minutes.
May 20, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3. All ayes, minutes are approved.
4. Chair Artze and Secretary Rochex signed the minutes.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Matt gives Director’s Report:
1. CED had special sneak peek of Legacy Square today.
2. June 6th – “Hat trick” grand opening of Legacy Square, Pavillion, and Piazza.
3. CED capital team will be working on Logan St which bisects Legacy Square. Will
become a pedestrian street or festival street and possibly become a permanent
pedestrian street.
4. June 3rd meeting cancelled for lack of agenda items.
5. New set of docket items on June 17th and 2 more meetings in July. Break during August.
Will send out poll to see which Wednesdays in July we’d like to hold the meetings.
DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS – DOCKET 20 GROUP D, D248: LARGE SITE
MASTER PLAN & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS MATT presented.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Comments
None
Chair Artze asked if there is 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.
DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS – DOCKET 20 GROUP D, D249: PLANNED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OPEN SPACE MAYA presented.
Chair Artze opened the floor for deliberations and recommendations.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Comments
1. Chair Artze had question about fee structure. Asked if there is a process in place, is it
a flat fee? Or depends on number of residents expected?
2. Maya responded that the fee is determined by the size of the project and set by the
Parks and Rec department. Already written in code how the fee is determined and will
apply the same to these developments as it does now to other developments.
Commissioner Fiksdal made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, seconded by
Secretary Rochex. All ayes, motion carried.
DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - DOCKET 21 GROUP A, D250: AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WAIVED FEES
May 20, 2026 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
ANGIE presented.
Chair Artze opened the floor for deliberations and recommendations.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Comments
1. Secretary Rochex asked when the changes will take effect if accepted.
2. Angie responded that it depends on how quickly the ordinance gets finalized,
hopes it will be effective within two months.
3. VC Plants wanted to confirm if it is “5 units at 50% AMI” or “5 units at an average
of 50% AMI”?
4. Angie responded we have different provisions in code specifically for projects
that are funded with LITC funds if they are using these funds, then we use the
average, and for other ones, we would hold fast at 50%. We did not consider
making those changes at this time, but if that’s something that people want to
consider, we can do that when we come back and look at the 2027 expiration.
Chair Artze asked for a motion to accept the staff recommendation.
Secretary Rochex made a motion to accept the staff recommendation, seconded by
Vice Chair Plants. All ayes, motion carried.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 1. Sectary Rochex encouraged all Commissioners to make motions.
2. Commissioner Poole said he did not have the agenda in front of him and he was
hesitant to make a motion because he wanted to be able to site the specific
docket item name/number.
3. VC Plants wanted to share that this week is Affordable Housing week. Housing
Development Consortium has put on many events for Thursday and Friday to
learn more about affordable housing.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Poole, seconded by Commissioner Petek. All
ayes, motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:32 p.m.
Andy Artze, Commission Chair
Dana Rochex, Secretary
Muang Saelee
Recording Secretary
Page 1 of 3 // #D-251 Staff Report
Community & Economic Development // Planning Division
STAFF REPORT
#D-251: Child Care Centers
Staff: Maya Simon, Associate Planner, msimon@rentonwa.gov, 425-430-7294
Date: June 17, 2026
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
Summary
To make siting child care facilities easier, new state law (SB 5509) requires Renton to allow Child
Care Centers outright in almost all zones. These amendments are proposed to update zoning code
to permit Day Care Centers in all residential zones, adjust conditions in specialty zones, and possibly
add design standards for children’s health and safety. The proposal would also amend definitions
for Family Home Day Care Center and Child Care Center to align with a state waiver that allows
family day care providers to serve up to 16 children. Together, the proposed amendments should
increase access to childcare for the nearly 12,000 children under 10 living in Renton.
Background
The state has long de-regulated child care zoning in an attempt to increase access and affordability
of child care. Back in 1994, cities were required to allow “family day-care providers” in all residential
structures (RCW 36.70A.450), which Renton complies with. In 2025, the state passed SB 5509, which
requires cities and counties to allow “child care centers” as a permitted use in nearly all zones (RCW
35A.21.460). All facilities, whether in-home or not, still need to comply with state licensing and
regulations through the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). The RCW defines the
difference between family daycare and centers:
• Child care center is an agency that provides early learning for periods less than 24 hours.
• Family day care provider is providing early learning services in their living quarters. They
cannot have more than 12 children (16 if waived by DCYF).
The new law, which we must comply with by July 27, 2027, has three parts:
1. We must allow child care centers, and the conversion of existing buildings for use as child
care centers, as an outright permitted use in all zones, except industrial and open space
zones.
2. We can impose “reasonable restrictions,” such as pickup and drop-off areas.
Page 2 of 3 // #D-251 Staff Report
3. We can allow child care centers in other zones. In industrial zones, we must provide for
conditional approval for on-site childcare, except around high hazard facilities.
To comply with SB 5509, Renton needs to update code.
Proposed Code Amendments
Under current Renton code, Day Care Centers are permitted: in R-4 through RMF-2 with a Hearing
Examiner CUP (no CUP required if accessory to a public facility); in IL, IM, IH outright; in CN, CV, CA,
CD outright; and in COR, UC-1, UC-2 with certain restrictions. The proposed amendment would
outright permit Day Care Centers in all residential zones (RC through RMF-2). They would remain
permitted in IL, IM, IH, CN, CV, CA, and CD.
To comply with the directive to impose reasonable restrictions, the condition in COR to co-locate
with certain uses would be removed. Conditions in UC-1 and UC-2 that protect child welfare without
being overly restrictive would remain (centers cannot be within 1,000 feet of the Renton Municipal
Airport runway; they must be in a mixed-use structure; they must be architecturally and functionally
integrated into the development).
Additional restrictions are being considered to protect the health, safety, and welfare of children and
families. These could include safe pedestrian access, increased setbacks for outdoor play areas,
and adequate pickup/drop-off parking spaces.
In order to align with state regulations, Renton’s definitions also need updating. Family Home Day
Care Center (RMC 4-11-040.F) is defined as 12 or fewer children, not reflecting the waiver available
under state code to have 16 children. Similarly, Day Care Center (RMC 4-11-040.E) is defined as “13
or more children” or any number in a nonresidential structure, but should reflect the potential Home
Day Care waiver.
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. The 2026-2031 Business Plan includes
Page 3 of 3 // #D-251 Staff Report
the mission to “provide a safe, healthy, vibrant community.” Related goals from the Comprehensive
Plan 2024 are to “promote a balance between housing and the amenities needed by residents…such
as childcare,” “cultivate an energetic business environment,” and “build neighborhoods that
promote community resilience.”
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
Increasing access to childcare may increase 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 approval of the proposed amendments to the definitions, zoning use table, and
associated development standards regarding child care centers.
Page 1 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
Community & Economic Development // Planning Division
STAFF REPORT
#D-252: Urban Design Regulations Update
Staff: Angelea Weihs, Senior Planner, aweihs@rentonwa.gov, 425-430-7312
Date: June 12, 2026
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
SUMMARY
The City of Renton is proposing amendments to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-100, Urban
Design Regulations, to comply with Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 1293, codified in
Chapter 36.70A RCW. ESHB 1293 requires cities planning under the Growth Management Act to
ensure that design regulations are clear and objective and do not result in reductions in density,
height, bulk, or scale below what is otherwise allowed by underlying zoning standards.
The proposed amendments would revise portions of the City’s Urban Design Regulations to:
• Remove or modify subjective design review language;
• Eliminate discretionary standards that could reduce development capacity;
• Clarify objective design requirements; and
• Ensure consistency with state law requirements.
The amendments are procedural and regulatory in nature and do not change allowed land uses or
base development standards established elsewhere in the Renton Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature adopted ESHB 1293 relating to design review and
development regulation streamlining. The legislation applies to jurisdictions planning under the
Growth Management Act and limits the use of discretionary or subjective design review
requirements.
The legislation requires that design review regulations:
1. Be clear and objective; and
2. Not reduce density, height, bulk, or scale below otherwise applicable zoning standards.
The City’s current Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100 include a combination of objective
standards, discretionary design guidelines, defined design terms, and Administrator review
authority. Review of the regulations identified some provisions that rely on subjective
Page 2 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
determinations, such as whether a project provides an “appropriate transition,” reduces “apparent
bulk,” is “in scale” with surrounding development, or satisfies the “intent” of a standard. The review
also identified provisions that authorize discretionary Administrator approvals, contain undefined or
open-ended design criteria, or require additional setbacks and other design measures that may
affect building bulk, scale, or placement beyond the underlying development standards. In addition,
several sections contain overlapping requirements, exception provisions that reference other
exception provisions, and cross-references that reduce code clarity and predictability.
Several existing provisions may conflict with ESHB 1293 because they:
• Allow discretionary interpretation;
• Require applicants to demonstrate compatibility or transition without measurable criteria;
or
• Potentially reduce achievable development capacity through additional setbacks or scale
reduction measures.
In addition to the state-mandated review required by ESHB 1293, the City previously received a
citizen-initiated docket request to amend provisions related to transition standards within RMC 4-3-
100 (See Attachment A). The request proposed expanding the geographic applicability of certain
transition requirements within District C of the Urban Design Regulations. As part of the broader
review of RMC 4-3-100, staff will evaluate the request in conjunction with the requirements of ESHB
1293 and the overall restructuring of the Urban Design Regulations.
The City is therefore proposing amendments to align the Urban Design Regulations with state law
requirements.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS
The City proposes amendments to RMC 4-3-100, Urban Design Regulations, to ensure compliance
with ESHB 1293 and improve the clarity, predictability, and administration of design requirements.
The amendments would revise, consolidate, remove, or replace provisions that rely on subjective
interpretation, discretionary decision-making, or standards that may reduce development capacity
below otherwise applicable zoning regulations.
Proposed amendments include, but are not limited to:
• Revising standards and definitions that rely on subjective terminology, including concepts
such as "appropriate transition," "apparent bulk," "compatibility," "prominence," "scale,"
and similar qualitative design criteria.
• Replacing discretionary design provisions with objective and measurable standards where
required by state law.
• Revising or removing Administrator approval provisions that rely on subjective
determinations or undefined approval criteria.
Page 3 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
• Reviewing and amending standards that may affect density, height, bulk, scale, or building
placement beyond otherwise applicable zoning requirements, including additional setback
and transition requirements.
• Clarifying defined terms and improving consistency between defined terms and their
application throughout the code.
• Consolidating overlapping or duplicative standards addressing similar design elements,
including building orientation, pedestrian access, building entries, frontage design,
screening, and site layout requirements.
• Reorganizing code sections to improve readability, eliminate nested exceptions and cross-
references, and provide clearer compliance pathways.
• Revising alternative compliance provisions to ensure any flexibility mechanisms are
structured in a manner consistent with state law requirements.
• Updating illustrative examples, figures, and supporting language as necessary to reflect
revised standards and improve code usability.
• Relocating certain standards from the Urban Design Regulations to other sections of the
Renton Municipal Code where the requirements can be administered as objective
development standards while preserving the underlying design and development objectives.
The proposed amendments are intended to preserve the City's urban design objectives while
ensuring that design review standards are clear, objective, and consistent with ESHB 1293. The
amendments do not modify permitted land uses, zoning classifications, density limits, height limits,
or other base development standards established elsewhere in the Renton Municipal Code.
Examples of provisions identified for review and potential amendment include:
• "Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition
with existing development."
• "The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby
buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures."
• " …the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order
to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent
and/or abutting yards."
• “For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants
must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial
uses.”
These examples illustrate the types of provisions being evaluated for consistency with ESHB 1293,
including standards that rely on subjective determinations, require qualitative design judgments, or
authorize discretionary review. Staff will evaluate these and similar provisions and may revise,
clarify, consolidate, relocate, or replace them with objective standards, as appropriate.
Page 4 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
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.
Staff Comment:
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and satisfy the review
criteria as follows:
The proposed amendments eliminate inconsistencies between existing Urban Design Regulations
and state law requirements established under ESHB 1293. The amendments provide clarity and
improve administrative consistency by replacing subjective standards with objective criteria and
removing discretionary provisions that may reduce development capacity below otherwise
applicable zoning standards.
The amendments support implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by maintaining predictable
and consistent development regulations while ensuring compliance with state law.
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. The amendments primarily modify design review procedures and standards
rather than permitted land uses or base zoning entitlements.
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
No significant impacts to population or employment growth are anticipated. The amendments
primarily revise regulatory procedures and design review standards.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Page 5 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
Comprehensive Plan objectives remain valid and desirable. The amendments support
implementation of adopted planning policies while ensuring compliance with updated state law
requirements.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The amendments are not anticipated to significantly affect land values. To the extent the
amendments reduce regulatory uncertainty and discretionary review, they may improve
predictability for future development applications.
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 applicable
Countywide Planning Policies. The amendments are specifically intended to implement state
requirements related to objective design review standards under ESHB 1293.
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 to RMC 4-3-100, Urban Design
Regulations, to ensure consistency with ESHB 1293 and applicable state law requirements
governing objective design review standards.
Page 6 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
Attachment A
Citizen-Initiated Request to Add Item to the Renton Community
and Economic Development Department Work Program
Request: Amend Renton Municipal Code, Title IV (Development Regulations),
Chapter 3 (Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts), 100 (Urban
Design Regulations)
4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: E. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Site Design and Building
Location:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision
of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy
visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity.
TRANSITION TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton’s long-
established, existing neighborhoods are preserved.
Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition
where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and
scale.
Standards:
Districts A,
B, and D
At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a transition
to surrounding uses:
1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with
the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or
2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller
increments; or
Page 7 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk
and transition with existing development.
Additionally, the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear
of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that
sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards.
District C
Both of the following are required:
1. For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North (between North
4th 3rd Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their
project provides an appropriate transition to the long-established, existing
residential neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton
Neighborhood.
2. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North,
applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides
transitions to existing industrial uses.
Rationale:
Current Code Requirements for a development applicant to demonstrate how
the project would provide an appropriate transition to the North Renton
Neighborhood apply from North 6th Street and Logan Avenue to North 4th Street
and Logan Avenue. The proposed change would expand the requirement to
North 3rd Street and Logan Avenue.
By adding another block to the requirement for District C, this also would
require the developer to demonstrate how the project would provide an
appropriate transition to the North Renton Neighborhood for the block
between North 3rd Street and North 4th Street.
The change in code would protect residences on the west boundary of the
North Renton Neighborhood from North 3rd Street to North 4th Street, insofar as
the applicant for a project would have to demonstrate that the project is an
appropriate transition from the North Renton Neighborhood.
Page 8 of 8 // #D-252 Staff Report
Such a change would be consistent with the Renton City Center Community
Plan, specifically about the need to:
“Goal 4: Protect … the residential neighborhoods in the City Center.” (City Center Community
Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 47)
“4.3: Enhance measures … to protect edges of single-family areas from adjacent development.”
(City Center Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 50)
“4.3.1: Protect edges of single-family areas by improving design standards for the transition
areas between zones…” (City Center Community Plan, 2011, revised 2017, page 50)
Such a change would also be consistent with the Intent and Guidelines under RMC
4-3-100 E.1 under “Transition to Surrounding Development”:
“Intent: To Shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton’s long-
established, existing neighborhood are preserved.”
“Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible
transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height,
bulk, and scale.”
And under RMC 4-3-100 E.1 “Building Location and Orientation” under
“Standards”
“District C: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to
nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting
structures.”
Such a change is also supported by elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan:
“L-46: Consider scale and context for infill projects to preserve privacy and quality of life for
residents.”
“L-52: Protect public scenic views and public view corridors, including Renton’s physical, visual
and perceptual linkeages to Lake Washington and the Cedar River”
Community & Economic Development // Planning Division
STAFF REPORT
#D-253: RMF-2 Rezone with Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff: Angelea Weihs, Senior Planner, aweihs@rentonwa.gov, 425-430-7312
Date: June 12, 2026
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Renton proposes zoning map amendments and corresponding Comprehensive Plan map
amendments for two (2) geographically distinct sites (See Attachment A – Exhibit 1). Site 1 is located
at SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW, within the City Center Community Planning Area. Site 2 is located
at 433 & 450 Bremerton Ave NE, within the Highlands Community Planning Area. The proposal would
rezone properties currently zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2).
Concurrently, the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for each site would be amended from
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) to Residential High Density (RHD).
The RMF-2 zone allows residential densities of approximately 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre and
is intended for areas with existing attached residential development or where conditions support
more intensive multi-unit housing near transit, commercial services, and employment areas.
The purpose of the proposal is to:
• Facilitate infill development on underutilized parcels, including properties where
commercial viability is limited or impractical due to site constraints;
• Encourage redevelopment of nonconforming uses; and
• Support housing growth in areas with proximity to transit and existing infrastructure.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the proposed rezone sites, including general location, community
planning area, proximity to major transit service, and existing and proposed zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations. Both sites are proposed for rezone to Residential Multi-Family 2
(RMF-2) with a corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendment from Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
to Residential High Density (RHD).
Site General Location
Community
Planning
Area
Distance
To Transit
Stop
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing Comp
Plan
Designation
Proposed
Comp Plan
Designation
1 SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW City Center 0.00 miles CA RMF-2 CMU RHD
2 433 & 450
Bremerton Ave NE Highlands 0.32 miles CA RMF-2 CMU RHD
#D-253 Page 2 of 18 June 12, 2026
CRITERIA FOR REZONES REQUIRING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
RMC 4-9-020.F Review Criteria or the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process lists
three (3) review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The three (3) criteria are as follows:
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in
the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being made or
completed as expected;
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is internally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide Planning
Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. Consistency with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan;
k. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
3. Proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with the decision criteria
for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
CRITERION 1 ANALYSIS
Per RMC 4-9-020.F.1, all Comprehensive Plan amendments are evaluated on their merits based
upon the following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan;
#D-253 Page 3 of 18 June 12, 2026
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.
b. The effect upon 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.
c. The effect upon 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.
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
The amendments support Comprehensive Plan objectives related to infill development, efficient
land use, and directing growth to transit-served areas by aligning zoning with existing development
patterns. The objectives remain valid and desirable, and the rezonings further their implementation
by reinforcing Residential High Density policies.
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
The rezonings are not expected to significantly increase land values or housing costs. 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.
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being made or
completed as expected;
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.
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is internally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide Planning
Policies for King County;
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.
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
#D-253 Page 4 of 18 June 12, 2026
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.
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application requirements
established in this section;
The proposed amendments are consistent with the locational criteria for the Residential High
Density (RHD) designation. RHD applies to areas with access to transit, urban services, and
infrastructure, and where existing development patterns support attached residential housing and
infill opportunities.
Both sites are located within approximately 0.00 to 0.32 miles of a major transit stop and are served
by existing infrastructure. The sites are located along or near arterial and collector roadways and are
in proximity to services and employment areas.
The sites contain one or more of the following:
• Existing multi-family development,
• Underutilized or vacant parcels,
• Limited or constrained commercial development potential, or
• Residential uses that are nonconforming under CA zoning.
The RMF-2 zone is intended for areas with existing multi-unit development and capacity for
additional density in transit-served locations.
The proposed amendments meet these locational criteria.
j. Consistency with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan;
The proposed amendments are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies supporting infill
development, efficient land use, and directing residential growth to areas with existing infrastructure
and access to transit.
The proposal:
• Aligns zoning and land use designations with existing development patterns;
• Reduces nonconforming uses and split zoning conditions; and
• Facilitates redevelopment of underutilized parcels.
While the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation is intended to support mixed-use
redevelopment, the subject sites exhibit existing development patterns and site constraints that
limit the practicality of achieving that objective.
Applying the Residential High Density designation better reflects existing conditions and supports
anticipated development patterns.
k. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department.
The Department of Community and Economic Development has not identified any additional
considerations.
CRITERION 2 ANALYSIS
#D-253 Page 5 of 18 June 12, 2026
Per RMC 4-9-020.F.2, all applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
Staff Comment:
The proposed amendments meet Criterion 2(a), as they support the vision embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan by aligning land use designations and zoning with existing development
patterns and directing residential growth to appropriate urban locations.
The Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation applies to areas where access and
surrounding conditions support a range of housing types, including multi-family development, and
where infill opportunities exist near transit and services. The RMF-2 zone implements this
designation and is intended for areas with existing multi-unit development or where additional
density is appropriate.
Policy LU-15 and Policy LU-16 provide direction for the application of the Residential High Density
(RHD) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designations, as follows:
• Policy LU-15: Residential High Density (RHD) – Apply to lands where access, topography,
and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of housing unit types,
support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, have close access to transit
service, and efficiently use urban services and infrastructure.
• Policy LU-16: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) – Apply to lands with established commercial
and office uses near principal arterials and support redevelopment of strip commercial areas
into cohesive mixed-use districts through the maximization of uses and coordinated site
planning.
The subject sites exhibit characteristics consistent with Policy LU-15. The subject sites are located
within approximately 0.00 to 0.32 miles of a major transit stop, are served by existing infrastructure,
and include a mix of multi-family housing, nonconforming residential uses, and underutilized
parcels.
While currently designated CMU, the subject sites do not exhibit development patterns consistent
with Policy LU-16. The properties have not developed with the level of commercial intensity,
coordinated site planning, or mixed-use character anticipated under the CMU designation.
Furthermore, site characteristics such as shallow lot depth, anticipated right-of-way dedication, and
site topography limit the feasibility of redevelopment consistent with a coordinated mixed-use
corridor.
The proposed amendments advance these policies by:
• Aligning zoning and land use designations with existing development patterns where mixed-
use development is not occurring;
• Reducing nonconforming uses and split zoning conditions; and
#D-253 Page 6 of 18 June 12, 2026
• Facilitating infill development on underutilized parcels in transit-served areas where site
constraints limit viable mixed-use redevelopment.
Collectively, the proposal supports the Comprehensive Plan by applying the RHD designation in
locations where it is most appropriate and consistent with existing and anticipated development
patterns.
CRITERION 3 ANALYSIS
Per RMC 4-9-020.F.3, proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with
the decision criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
Because this proposal requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it is governed by RMC 4-9-
180.F.1, which subjects the rezone to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment review process. To
satisfy the site-specific requirements of a zone change and avoid circular logic, the proposal is
further evaluated against the substantive standards of RMC 4-9-180.F.2 and the required findings
for a rezone.
The proposed rezonings meet the decision criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-
180.F.2, as follows:
a. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare;
The proposed rezonings have merit and value for the community by enabling additional housing
capacity in transit-served areas and aligning zoning with existing development patterns. The
proposal reduces nonconforming uses and facilitates reinvestment and infill on underutilized
parcels without adversely affecting public health, safety, or welfare.
b. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof;
The surrounding areas include a mix of multi-family residential, single-family residential, and low-
intensity commercial uses. The RMF-2 zone is compatible with this context, reflects existing multi-
family development patterns, and does not introduce a level of intensity beyond what is already
present or established in the surrounding area.
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;
Conditions affecting the subject properties have changed since the original zoning, including the
development of multi-family housing within commercially zoned areas, persistence of
nonconforming residential uses, and limited commercial reinvestment on certain parcels. These
changes support a transition from commercial to residential zoning.
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;
The subject properties were not specifically considered for a rezone at the time of the last area-
wide land use analysis and zoning. This proposal reflects updated site-specific analysis of existing
development patterns, parcel configuration, and redevelopment constraints.
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
#D-253 Page 7 of 18 June 12, 2026
Existing development on the subject sites is already generally consistent with RMF-2 development
patterns, and remaining underutilized parcels are capable of redevelopment at similar intensity
based on lot configuration, access, surrounding development, and available infrastructure. The
proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the RMF-2 zone and the Residential
High Density designation.
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.
Site 1 is located within the City Center Community Planning Area, which has an adopted
Community Plan. The proposed rezone and corresponding Comprehensive Plan map amendment
are consistent with the City Center Community Plan by supporting residential development in
proximity to transit, services, employment opportunities, and existing urban infrastructure.
Site 2 is located within the Highlands Community Planning Area, which does not have an adopted
Community Plan. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to Site 2.
SITE 1 – SW SUNSET BLVD & MAPLE AVE SW
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 1 is located at the intersection of SW Sunset Blvd and Maple Ave SW within the City Center
Community Planning Area (See Attachment A – Exhibit 3). The site is located west of the Fred Meyer
store on Rainier Avenue South and includes multiple parcels totaling approximately 1.63 acres. The
site is currently developed with a mix of nonconforming commercial and residential uses, including
auto sales, dog grooming/daycare services, single-family residential development, and vacant
properties. Existing development within the site reflects a fragmented pattern of low-intensity
commercial activity and residential occupancy that is inconsistent with the long-term intent of the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning district. The City
also received a request from the property owner to rezone Site 1 to RMF-2 (See Attachment B).
The site is located directly on a major King County Metro transit stop and is served by existing urban
infrastructure, including transit, utilities, and arterial roadway access. Surrounding development
includes a mix of commercial uses along SW Sunset Blvd, multi-family residential development, and
other urban residential uses within the City Center area. The site functions as a transitional area
between commercial corridor activity and surrounding residential development.
The existing zoning of the site is Commercial Arterial (CA) with a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The proposed rezone would change the zoning
designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), with a corresponding Comprehensive Plan map
amendment to Residential High Density (RHD). The proposed amendments would align the zoning
and land use designations with existing development patterns and facilitate future infill residential
development in proximity to transit, services, and employment areas.
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
#D-253 Page 8 of 18 June 12, 2026
SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from Commercial Arterial (CA) to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). These
factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding
land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Limited Commercial Redevelopment Potential: Site characteristics, including shallow lot
depth, parcel configuration, existing development patterns, and anticipated right-of-way
dedication along SW Sunset Blvd, limit the practicality of redevelopment consistent with the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning objectives. The
proposed rezone better reflects existing site conditions and anticipated long-term development
patterns.
• Infill Housing Opportunity: The site contains underutilized parcels and nonconforming
residential uses capable of supporting additional multi-family residential development within an
urbanized area served by existing infrastructure and services. Rezoning to RMF-2 would facilitate
infill residential redevelopment and support City housing targets.
• Transit Access: The site has direct access to a major King County Metro transit service, providing
access to local and regional transit connections. Higher-density residential zoning at this
location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging housing growth in
areas with access to public transportation and existing infrastructure.
• Consistency with Surrounding Development: Surrounding development includes commercial
corridor uses, multi-family residential development, and urban residential neighborhoods within
the City Center area. The proposed RMF-2 zoning is compatible with the surrounding
development pattern and would reinforce the existing residential character present within
portions of the site and surrounding vicinity while maintaining proximity to services and
employment areas.
• Reduction of Nonconforming Uses: Portions of the site contain existing residential uses that
are nonconforming under the current Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. The
proposed rezone would reduce zoning nonconformities by aligning the zoning designation more
closely with the established residential-oriented development pattern.
SITE 2 – 433 & 450 BREMERTON AVE NE
2143700030 420 Lind Ave SW Single-Family 1946 NA (1-Unit) CA
2143700011 420 Lind Ave SW Vacant NA NA CA
2143700012 420 Lind Ave SW Vacant NA NA CA
2143700055 315 SW Sunset Blvd Nonconforming Auto Sales and
Single-Family
1930 NA CA
2143700021 215 SW Sunset Blvd Nonconforming Auto Sales 1913 NA CA
2143700019 203 SW Sunset Blvd Nonconforming Fuzzy Friends Dog
Grooming & Doggie Daycare Inc
1946 NA CA
#D-253 Page 9 of 18 June 12, 2026
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Site 2 is located at 433 and 450 Bremerton Ave NE within the Highlands Community Planning Area
and Commercial Arterial (CA) Zone (See Attachment A – Exhibit 5). The site includes four parcels
totaling approximately 2.5 acres and is currently developed with multi-family residential uses,
associated surface parking areas, and vacant property. The site has limited access and visibility from
the NE 4th St arterial corridor, and the surrounding development pattern is predominantly residential
in character. As a result, the site has limited potential for redevelopment consistent with the
Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning objectives.
The site is located approximately 0.32 miles from a major King County Metro transit stop, providing
access to local and regional transit service. Surrounding development includes a mix of multi-family
residential uses, commercial development along NE 4th St., and institutional and service-oriented
uses within the broader Highlands area. The site is situated along Bremerton Ave NE in an area
characterized by existing residential development patterns and established urban infrastructure.
The existing zoning of the site is Commercial Arterial (CA) with a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The proposed rezone would change the zoning
designation to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2), with a corresponding Comprehensive Plan
amendment to Residential High Density (RHD). The proposed amendments would align the zoning
and land use designations with the existing residential-oriented development pattern and support
future infill residential development in proximity to transit and services.
PARCEL TABLE:
The following table provides parcel-specific information including addresses, current uses, year
built, and existing zoning.
SITE-SPECIFIC JUSTIFICATION:
The following justification identifies the planning principles and site-specific conditions that support
the proposed rezone from Commercial Arterial (CA) to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2). These
factors demonstrate how the rezone is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies, surrounding
land use patterns, and citywide housing objectives.
• Limited Commercial Redevelopment Potential: Site characteristics, including parcel
configuration, shallow lot depth, and the surrounding residential context, limit the
practicality of redevelopment consistent with the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation
and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning objectives. The proposed rezone better reflects existing
site conditions and anticipated long-term development patterns.
PARCEL
NUMBER
ADDRESS CURRENT USE YEAR
BUILT
DENSITY CURRENT
ZONE
1023059066 450 Bremerton Ave NE Vision House Multifamily
Housing
2004 21
DU/ACRE
CA
1023059065 450 Bremerton Ave NE Vision House Multifamily
Housing
2004 16
DU/ACRE
CA
1023059086 450 Bremerton Ave NE Vision House (Vacant) NA NA CA
1023059054 433 Bremerton Ave NE Vision House (Vacant) Vacant NA CA
#D-253 Page 10 of 18 June 12, 2026
• Infill Housing Opportunity: The site includes developed and underutilized areas capable of
supporting additional multi-family residential development in an urbanized area with existing
infrastructure and services. Rezoning to RMF-2 would facilitate future residential
reinvestment and support City housing targets through infill development.
• Transit Access: The site is located 0.32 miles from a major King County Metro transit service,
providing access to local and regional transit connections. Higher-density residential zoning
at this location supports transit-oriented development principles by encouraging housing
growth in areas with access to public transportation and existing infrastructure.
• Consistency with Surrounding Development: Surrounding development includes multi-
family residential uses, institutional and service-oriented uses, and commercial
development along the NE 4th St. corridor. The proposed RMF-2 zoning is compatible with
the surrounding development pattern and would reinforce the existing residential character
of the area while maintaining proximity to neighborhood services and employment areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning map amendments and corresponding
Comprehensive Plan amendments for two (2) geographically distinct sites currently zoned
Commercial Arterial (CA) with a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use
designation, to Residential Multi-Family 2 (RMF-2) and Residential High Density (RHD), respectively.
The proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, support citywide housing
objectives, and meet the applicable criteria for Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezones
under RMC 4-9-020 and RMC 4-9-180.F.2. Adoption of the proposed amendments would reduce
zoning inconsistencies, facilitate higher-density infill development in appropriate urban locations,
and support long-term housing growth in areas with access to transit, services, and existing
infrastructure.
#D-253 Page 11 of 18 June 12, 2026
Attachment A – Exhibit 1
RMF-2 Rezone Map
SITE 1
SITE 2
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
#D-253 Page 12 of 18 June 12, 2026
Attachment A – Exhibit 2
RMF-2 Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment
SITE 1
SITE 2
#D-253 Page 13 of 18 June 12, 2026
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING PROPOSED
ZONING
City Center 0.00 miles CA RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 3
SITE 1 – SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW
Rezone Map
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
Single
Family Vacant
Auto Sales
Single Family
Auto Sales
Dog
Grooming/
Daycare
#D-253 Page 14 of 18 June 12, 2026
COMMUNITY
PLANNING
AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP
EXISTING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
City Center 0.00 miles CMU RHD
Attachment A – Exhibit 4
SITE 1 – SW Sunset Blvd & Maple Ave SW
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
LEGEND
Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment
Comprehensive Land Use
Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU)
Commercial Office Residential (COR)
Employment Area (EA)
Residential Low Density (RLD)
Residential Medium Density (RMD)
Residential High Density (RHD)
#D-253 Page 15 of 18 June 12, 2026
Vision House Transitional Housing
COMMUNITY
PLANNING AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR TRANSIT
STOP
EXISTING
ZONING PROPOSED
ZONING
Highlands 0.32 CA RMF-2
Attachment A – Exhibit 5
SITE 2 – 433 & 450 Bremerton Ave NE
Rezone Map
LEGEND
REZONE TO RMF-2
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
R-8 CN
R-10 CV
R-14 CA
RMF CD
RMF-2 CO
Vision House
Transitional Housing
Vacant
Vacant
#D-253 Page 16 of 18 June 12, 2026
COMMUNITY
PLANNING
AREA
DISTANCE TO
MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP
EXISTING
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
PROPOSED
COMP PLAN
DESIGNATION
City Center 0.00 miles CMU RHD
Attachment A – Exhibit 6
SITE 2 – 433 & 450 Bremerton Ave NE
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
#D-253 Page 17 of 18 June 12, 2026
From: Campbell Mathewson <cmathewson@cmrepartners.com>
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Angie Mathias <AMathias@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc: Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov>; Clark Close <CClose@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Rezone request: 425 Maple Ave SW
Hi Angie. I hope you are well. This email is intended to provide a formal request for a rezone of the
property owned by my family located at 425 Maple Ave SW, more specifically identified in the table
below. My grandparents lived on this property for many decades and it is where my father, Kirk
Mathewson, grew up. Since 2019 we have unsuccessfully attempted to redevelop the property
under the current CA zone. Unfortunately, the commercial requirement has hindered our ability
because the market simply hasn’t been there to support its use. As you may know, the immediate
neighborhood is comprised of dense residential uses including many parcels that were recently
rezoned to RMF-2. The commercial uses that are nearby are very dilapidated in nature. For these
reasons, and since significant commercial is available in the Fred Meyer shopping center within
walking distance to the east, we respectfully request a rezone for the six properties below from CA
to RMF-2. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Parcel
Number
Address Bldg SF Land SF Land Acre Owner Current
Zoning
Requested
Zoning
Renton, WA
214370-
0030-03
420 Lind Ave SW 1,285 9,300 0.21 Ditty
Properties LP
CA RMF-2
214370-0011 313 SW Sunset
Blvd
5,995 0.14 Ditty
Properties LP
CA RMF-2
214370-
0012-05
315 SW Sunset
Blvd
6,650 0.15 R. Kirk
Mathewson
CA RMF-2
214370-
0055-03
425 Maple / 315
SW Sunset Blvd
1,250 25,850 0.59 R. Kirk
Mathewson
CA RMF-2
214370-
0021-04
215 SW Sunset
Blvd
4,538 17,190 0.39 Ditty
Properties LP
CA RMF-2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open
attachments unless you know the content is safe.
Attachment B
Property Owner Request
#D-253 Page 18 of 18 June 12, 2026
214370-
0019-08
203 SW Sunset
Blvd
2,304 5,836 0.13 Ditty
Properties LP
CA RMF-2
70,821
1.63
Sincerely,
Campbell Mathewson | Vice President | Ditty Properties, Inc., the General Partner of Ditty
Properties LP
& Authorized Representative for R. Kirk Mathewson
11647 NE 8th Street, Bellevue, WA 98005
M 206.910.2448 | E cmathewson@cmrepartners.com
D-251 Child Care Centers
Planning Commission // June 17, 2026
Maya Simon, AICP // Associate Planner
SB 5509 Requirements
•Under state law adopted in 2025, cities:
•Must allow child care centers in all zones except industrial zones,
light industrial zones, and open space zones.
•May impose reasonable restrictions on the permit.
•Must implement the requirements by July 27, 2027.
•Can allow child care centers in other zones, but must provide for a conditional use approval of an on-site child care center in
industrial zones (except in or around high hazard facilities).
2
Current Code
•Family Home Day Care•Defined as an operation
licensed by the state with 12 or fewer children in the caregiver’s place of residence.
•Allowed as an accessory use in all zones.
•Day Care Center
•Defined as an operation licensed by the state with 13 or more
children, or any number in a nonresidential structure.
•Hearing Examiner CUP in R4 through RMF-2
•Outright permitted in industrial and commercial districts.
•Permitted with certain conditions in COR, UC-1, and UC-2.
3
Proposed Code
•Family Home Day Care
•Update definition to align
with state regulations.
•Day Care Center
•Update definition to align
with state regulations.
•Permit outright in all
residential zones.
•Update conditions in COR.
•Consider reasonable
restrictions in all zones to protect children.4
Recommendation and Next Steps
5
•Staff recommend adopting the amendments proposed to comply
with state regulations.
June 3, 2026
P&D Committee
briefing
June 17, 2026
Planning Commission
briefing
July 1, 2026
Public Hearing
July 15, 2026
Planning Commission
deliberations
July 27, 2026
P&D Committee
recommendations
City Council
adoption
D-252
Urban Design Regulations Update
PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFING, JUNE 17, 2026
ANGELEA WEIHS, SENIOR PLANNER
PURPOSE
In 2023, the Washington State Legislature
adopted ESHB 1293, which streamlines
design review and development
regulations.
ESHB 1293 requires cities to ensure that
design review regulations are:
Clear and objective, rather than
subjective
Do not result in reductions in density,
height, bulk, or scale below what is
otherwise allowed by underlying zoning
standards
Vague
EXAMPLES
Examples of subjective/discretionary language identified for review and potential revision include:
"Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development."
"The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures."
" …the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards."
“For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses.”
PROPOSAL
Therefore, staff proposes amendments to Renton’s Urban Design Regulations to:
Remove or replace subjective design review language
Remove or replace discretionary standards
Ensure standards do not reduce building scale beyond zoning standards
Ensure consistency with state law (ESHB1293), codified in Chapter 36.70A
RCW
Staff received a citizen-initiated request to amend the City’s urban design
regulations, which will be incorporated into this docket item.
NEXT STEPS
Planning Commission Public Hearing – July 1, 2026
Planning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation – July 15, 2026
Planning & Development Committee Recommendations – July 27, 2026
D-253
RMF-2 Rezone with
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
PLANNING COMMISSION BRIEFING, JUNE 17, 2026
ANGELEA WEIHS, SENIOR PLANNER
Staff proposes zoning map amendments and corresponding Comprehensive Plan
amendments for two sites:
The RMF-2 zone allows residential densities of 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre.
The purpose of the proposal is to facilitate infill development on properties where
commercial viability is limited due to visibility or site constraints.
Staff received a citizen-initiated request for rezone (site 1).
PURPOSE
Site General Location Community
Planning Area
Distance To
Transit Stop
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing Comp
Plan Designation
Proposed Comp
Plan Designation
1 SW Sunset Blvd &
Maple Ave SW City Center 0.00 miles CA RMF-2 Commercial
Mixed Use (CMU)
Residential High
Density (RHD)
2 433 & 450
Bremerton Ave NE Highlands 0.32 miles CA RMF-2 CMU RHD
SITES
SITE 1
SW SUNSET BLVD & MAPLE AVE SW
Site General Location Community
Planning Area
Distance To
Transit Stop
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing Comp
Plan
Designation
Proposed Comp
Plan
Designation
1 SW Sunset Blvd &
Maple Ave SW City Center 0.00 miles CA RMF-2
Commercial
Mixed Use
(CMU)
Residential
High Density
(RHD)
Single
Family Vacant
Auto Sales
Single Family
Auto Sales
Dog
Grooming/
Daycare
SITE 2
433 & 450 BREMERTON AVE NE
Site General Location Community
Planning Area
Distance To
Transit Stop
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing Comp
Plan
Designation
Proposed Comp
Plan
Designation
2 433 & 450
Bremerton Ave NE Highlands 0.32 miles CA RMF-2
Commercial
Mixed Use
(CMU)
Residential
High Density
(RHD)
Vision House
Housing
Vacant
Multi-Family
Development
Proposed
Vacant
NEXT STEPS
Planning Commission Public Hearing – July 1, 2026
Planning Commission Deliberations and Recommendation – July 15, 2026
Planning & Development Committee Recommendations – July 27, 2026