Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT_D252_Urban Design Regulations Update 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”