Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Code Title IV Docket Items (2008)APPROVED By - PLANw tNG AND DEVELOPMENT COM#WfTEE Cd- COUNCI COMMITTEE REPORT April 212008 D4 4(i� City Code Title IV Tevelopment Regulations) Docket The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve docket item 06-28, Assisted Living, as follows. • Create a new definition for assisted living to replace retirement residence. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers to clarify that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Apply density standards to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. • Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. • Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zones to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. • include assisted living the parking standards table and require l parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility` fleetvehicles. The Committee further recommends concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve for docket item 07-01, Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones, as follows. • The proposed height for above ground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility of ■ 175 feet for above ground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir. ■. 50 feet maximum height -for waterfacilities, such as watertreatment facilities, and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. " Require graphic, treatment of new water tanks to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission) Rich Zwicker, Greg Tay ember C: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch April 21, 2008 *WW Renton City Council Minutes Page 128 the property owners as they are thereby prevented from exercising the same property rights as owners of similarly zoned properties. The Committee further recommended that Council direct staff to ignore these outdated restrictions. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Regulations (Title IV) Docket I regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Review Committee recommended concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Docket Item 06-28, Assisted Living, as follows: • Create a new definition for assisted living to replace retirement residence. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers to clarify that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Apply density standards to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. • Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. • Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zones to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. • Include assisted living in the parking standards table and require one parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. The Committee further recommended concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Docket Item 07-01, Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones, as follows: • The proposed height for above ground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility of: 1) 175 feet for an above -ground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, and a water treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir; and 2) 50 feet maximum height for water facilities such as water treatment facilities and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. • Require graphic treatment of new water tanks to be reviewed by the Municipal Arts Commission. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in Mayor Law's appointment of Ed Prince to the Planning Appointment: Planning Commission for an unexpired term expiring 6/30/2010.* Commission Councilmember Briere introduced Mr. Prince, who was present in the audience, and noted that he is the first resident of the Benson Hill Communities area to join the commission. *MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. EDNSP: 2008 Neighborhood Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report regarding the Program Grants 2008 neighborhood grant projects (first round). The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following grant awards: PLAN. ,,NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMN TEE C7 G y ��L COMMITTEE REPORT April 21, 2008 Date City Code Title IV (Development Reenlations) Dnckpt The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve docket item 06-28, Assisted Living, as follows. • Create a new definition for assisted living to replace retirement residence. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers to clarify that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Apply density standards to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. • Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. • Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zones to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. Include assisted living the parking standards table,and require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for, facilityfleet vehicles. The Committee further recommends concurrence in the Planning Commission recommendation to approve for docket item 07-01, Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones, as follows. • The proposed height for above ground and elevated'water reservoirs and public utility of: ■ 175 feet for above ground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility to the highest point` of the ,water storage reservoir. ■ 50 feet maximum height for water. facilities, such as water treatment facilities, and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. • " Require graphic,, treatment of new water tanks to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission' ng Parker hair Rich Zwicker, lqcc, Chair Greg Tay ember C: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch CM April 21, 2008 Monday, 7 p.m. RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting MINUTES Council Chambers Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERS; RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; TERRY FLATLEY, Parks Maintenance Manager/City Forester; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND, Planning Manager; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; DEPUTY CHIEF CHUCK DUFFY, Fire Department; CHIEF KEVIN MILOSEVICH, Police Department. PROCLAMATIONS A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring 4/26/2008 to be "Arbor Arbor Day/Earth Day - Day/Earth Day" in the City of Renton and encouraging all citizens to join in this 4/26/2008 special observance and to endeavor to think and act ecologically, economically, and ethically to create a sustainable future. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. Accepting the proclamation with appreciation, Parks Maintenance Manager/City Forester Flatley encouraged everyone to celebrate Arbor Day and Earth Day by helping to plant vegetation at Heritage Park on April 26. National Volunteer Week - A proclamation by Mayor Law was read declaring April 27 to May 3, 2008, to April 27 to May 3, 2008 be "National Volunteer Week" in the City of Renton and encouraging all members of the community to express appreciation to volunteers across the City for their commitment to service and to promote the spirit of volunteerism in families and neighborhoods. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE PROCLAMATION. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review ? H Community Services Administrator Higashiyama accepted the proclamation and acknowledged the approximately 3,500 volunteers who donated over 57,000 hours to the City in 2007. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to consider City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket Item 08-01: text amendments for Monopole I in residential zones and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Planning Manager Lind noted that the amendments are needed due to changes in industry standards, which include the public demand for greater wireless coverage and the need for more poles and smaller land areas. She defined a Monopole I as "A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet in height, erected to support wireless communication antennas and connecting appurtenances." April 21, 2008 *40111 Renton City Council Minutes Page 125 Ms. Lind explained that the proposal allows Monopole I structures on residentially zoned sites of one-half acre with an administrative conditional use permit when setbacks are 100 feet or more from adjacent residentially zoned properties, and with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit when setbacks are less than 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. Finally, the structure locations will be restricted within the public right-of-way to designated arterial roads. Pointing out that the proposed housekeeping amendments do not change the regulatory content of City Code, Ms. Lind stated that the amendments are needed to increase consistency and accuracy by clarifying language, adding cross-referencing, and changing the names of reviewing staff to the more generalized "Reviewing Official." In conclusion, she indicated that the next step is for the Planning and Development Committee to present its report on the matter to the full Council. Public comment was invited. Michael Cady (Sammamish), representing T-Mobile USA, Inc., expressed support for the amendment allowing Monopole I structures on half -acre lots in residential zones. However, he noted that the amendment does not address the need for additional height. Additionally, Mr. Cady voiced opposition to the amendment that allows the structures only on designated arterial roads, pointing out the lack of right-of-way space available to place necessary equipment. He recommended that the City allow additional height if a structure is located on a half -acre parcel and allow equipment on residential properties subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TWO MORE MINUTES. CARRIED. Mr. Cady submitted a letter outlining his comments. In response to Council inquiries, Mr. Cady detailed the size of space needed to contain the equipment in cabinets, shelters, and underground vaults. He indicated that once installed, the equipment may need maintenance once a month. Additionally, Mr. Cady noted that the equipment needs to be placed within 50 to 100 feet of the monopole, preferably within ten feet, and he affirmed that increasing the height of the monopole increases the coverage area. Michael Ekness (Renton) voiced his support for the amendments, especially the 100-foot setbacks and allowing the monopoles only in arterial rights -of -way. He noted that the poles are very obtrusive in neighborhoods. Responding to Councilmember Corman's inquiry, Ms. Lind explained that City Code distinguishes between different monopole heights, for example, the Monopole II is greater than 60 feet and has its own set of standards. Mr. Corman questioned whether a different set of standards is needed in the future for monopoles that are 30 or 40 feet in height. Chuck Gitchel (Renton) agreed with the amendment regarding the 100 foot setbacks on one-half acre lots; however, he expressed concern regarding the lack of setbacks for rights -of -way. Mr. Gitchel pointed out that these structures lower property values. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. MONOPOLE I PUBLIC HEARING April 21, 2008 Text Amendments for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in All Zones Changes in Standards for Monopole I The existing development standards for Monopole I require a minimum lot size of one acre for this facility in all residential zones, ranging from the Resource Conservation (RC) through the Residential — 14 (R-14). Monopole structures of this type currently are permitted with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (HE -CUP) and they are required to have a minimum setback of 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned property. A Monopole I is defined as "A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet (60 ) in height erected to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances. " The proposal is to • Allow Monopole I structures on residentially zoned sites of one half acre with o Administrative Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are 100 feet or more from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are less than 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Restrict locations within the public right-of-way to designated arterial roads. The proposed change would allow the Monopole I structure to be more easily sited within residential zones than is currently the case. Housekeeping Amendments Housekeeping amendments are needed to resolve inconsistencies within the existing code. These changes clarify language, make the processing of applications consistent with the existing requirements in the 4-2-080 Conditions for Zoning Use Tables, and add a cross reference to the code sections where the decision criteria for use permits are published. These amendments also change the names of reviewing staff to the more generalized "Reviewing Official". These proposed changes make no changes in the regulatory content of this section of code, but increase the consistency and accuracy of the code. "e Industry standards changed smce'ce adopted Public demand for greater coverage Emphasis on smaller poles, conversion of existing utility poles Need for more poles for residentialcoverage Can use smaller poles Need smaller land area to site in residential areas Less urban land available after 15 years of Growth Management •°t'rivate vrl 1 acre lots Resource. 14 (R-14);` Hearing Minimum s residential Public Rig Any right c Administra Rr46 . ZMEz Allouv M04 'Ad,,anistra1t`' PropQrt<? ; Allow flexibil}ty Public Hearing Restrict locations wit way to designated ar, Administrative CUP . p Amendmm ® No changes' Increase cons Make the reg Section 4-2-Of Add a cross k decision criter Change theni a DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC U � DEVELOPMENT � � ♦ CITY OF RENTON M E M O R A N D U M APR 2 2 2008 RECEIVED UITY CLERK'S OFFICF DATE: March 17, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager (x 6588) SUBJECT: Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in All Zones ISSUE: • Should the minimum lot size required for Monopole I facilities on private property in residential zones be reduced from one acre to one half acre? • Should Monopole I facilities in the public right-of-way be limited to designated arterials in residential zones? • Should the minimum setbacks from a Monopole I in a residentially zoned property be retained at 100 feet with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit process, but be eligible for reduction to less than 100 feet through a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit process? • Should housekeeping amendments be made to reconcile differences between the zoning notes and zoning use tables? • Should the proposed amendments to the Wireless Regulations be processed as an exception to the annual docket process? RECOMMENDATION: • Process the amendments as proposed through an exception to the annual docket process to provide a timely resolution to the current problem of citing wireless facilities that provide a reasonable network of service in residential areas. • Allow Monopole I structures on residentially zoned sites of one half acre with o Administrative Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are 100 feet or more from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are less than 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Restrict locations within the public right-of-way to designated arterial roads. • Reconcile inconsistencies within the existing code through housekeeping amendments. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2008\08-01 Wireless\lssue Paperv2.doc 'Marcie Palmer, Council Presideiit'" Page 2 of 3 March 17, 2008 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: Changes in Standards for Monopole I The existing development standards for Monopole I require a minimum lot size of one acre for this facility in all residential zones, ranging from the Resource Conservation (RC) through the Residential — 14 (R-14). A Monopole I is defined as "A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet (60 ) in height erected to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances. " Monopole structures of this type currently are permitted with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (HE -CUP) and they are required to have a minimum setback of 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned property. The proposal is to allow Monopole I structures on a one half acre lot with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit (A -CUP) provided that they meet a 100 feet minimum setback from residential, but create some additional flexibility within the code to allow a lesser setback with an HE -CUP. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. The proposed change would allow the Monopole I structure to be more easily sited within residential zones than is currently the case. At the present time, it is difficult for the wireless providers to find appropriately located parcels of one acre. This situation is a result of the urbanization of infill land in the City. As urban land is increasingly redeveloped for housing, it will be more difficult to find parcels of sufficient size in locations that can provide the kind of network needed to provide wireless service to customers throughout the City. Technology changes in the wireless industry over the last ten years have resulted in more requests from wireless providers for transmitters located on Monopole I facilities rather than the higher and more intrusive Monopole II towers. As a result, there is increased demand for Monopole I locations at a time when there are fewer large parcels of urban land. Both permit processes require notice to contiguous property owners and owners within 300 feet of the proposal. The Hearing Examiner Permit process requires a public hearing. The Administrative Permit process may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, while the HE -CUP is appealed to the City Council. Both processes require the Reviewing Official to approve based on the following criteria: J. SPECIAL DECISION CRITERIA FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN LIEU OF STANDARD CRITERIA: The governing authority shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that the goals of RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities, are better served thereby. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997) Height of the proposed tower. hAednsp\title iv\docket\2008\08-01 wireless\issue paperv2.doc Marcie Palmer, Council Presider Page 3 of 3 March 17, 2008 cm 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. 4. Surrounding topography. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage. 6. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 7. Proposed ingress and egress. 8. Potential noise, light and glare impacts. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures. 10. Compatibility with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997). Housekeeping Amendments Housekeeping amendments are needed to resolve inconsistencies within the existing code. These changes clarify language, make the processing of applications consistent with the existing requirements in the 4-2-080 Conditions for Zoning Use Tables, and add a cross reference to the code sections where the decision criteria for use permits are published. These amendments also change the names of reviewing staff to the more generalized "Reviewing Official'. These proposed changes make no changes in the regulatory content of this section of code, but increase the consistency and accuracy of the code. A draft of the proposed code amendments is shown in Attachment A. Docket Exception The docket process exception is requested because under the annual docket review cycle, this code amendment could not be processed for approximately one year. CONCLUSION: The changes proposed are needed by wireless providers to continue providing service to Renton residents. h:lcdnspltitle MdocketQ008108-01 wirelesslissue papervIdoe — — — — , — / m 2 A It I I 3 O 9 7 7$ / cl $/ Q I I(L I I < < _< / 7 \ # # c It I % # V < a- IL0- IL 7 ƒ 2 ƒ \ \ E E = c o O $$ 7$ 3 3 $ j\ I U I E CL I E < < I<#@ E V # It a) It � # / / I ƒ a ƒ ƒ < ƒ ƒ V c « # o # c � 2 ƒƒ aƒƒ 7 I 7ƒ < 2 / / / � U < < ƒ w w \ C- < / CL } } / C [ o I # < ƒ a 7 C- ƒ ƒ / ƒ \ \ 7 J$ J 7 /$ 0/ _ <& I I E = E < c O g o ƒ # # c i $ / ? < o 7 m 7 § CL17 \ § ? x I \ # c I / < /\? CD/J$ Ln / \a)< I CL E < < I k @\\\ //z LLJ < I & E < < < \ 7 ? LO ? o & 9 # c $ \ ƒ 2 / a 7} Lu< < < ƒ E cu e r o r = _ a z z J < I // Z 2 < < < e ƒ\ w 0 ) — \ 3 $ - / LO / � O� m < CL = E @ < < < 2.2 e e r O LLJ LU a$ Q < } \ \ / / I CL\ w \ \m nLL �3 g 0� M 2 O G 2 O 7 2 >o / ± ±A w w ® » _ / z 2 9 / t t q \ o ( cc } 2 g @t \ \ / o U o o 2 $ @ 2\ f//: n c Cl) \ E \= n 2 3 w 20 q e o=ƒ\\ q/ 2 2 2} w_ / 2=§ k} 0 °\ 2 E=q 0 =t ce 0 / / E _ 9 w e b /\ E E@ƒ $/ E q a-j/ f k k§ a/\ k // f\ F-Md 0 ti rL I {�7 C 0 a� Agenda Item No.: ! a RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE 42,11 DATE: U08 EEE 5 Minute Time Limit I Name: J ��U' lit Address: l Q M 7 i4A Cv, v 5 Name: Address: City �� �� Zip Code ���� Topic: ler, City Zip Code Topic: Name: /V\1 �-- c�[—yt-tf f Name: Address: C( o � /—j A L Address: city '-n Zip Code `� �' �3' 1-� Topic: ('Kv.rt�p% � a01 x h) City Zip Code Topic: 3 Name: 7 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 4 Name: 8 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) T • •Mobile April 21, 2008 City Council The City of Renton Renton City Hall — 6th Floor 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Honorable Council Members: T-Mobile has made a commitment to our customers to provide service in their homes as well as cars. This requires locating facilities close to their homes and often in residentially zoned locations. E-911 services are increasingly being made from wireless phones, too, requiring in -home and mobile service. Utility pole replacement is an excellent way of locating within residential areas. While the step you are taking now is a necessary one, it does not fully solve the problem of locating within residential areas. Lot sizes in residential areas are usually small and preclude locating poles and equipment due to setbacks. Good sites with excellent tree screening are often precluded due to these factors. T-Mobile has reviewed the proposed text amendment and we support the text amendment to allow Monopole I structures in residential zones on half acre lots with Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval and with the capability of allowing flexibility to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. We believe this change will provide flexibility needed to use some, but a very limited number, of parcels within the city. However, it should not be considered as a solution to providing residential service throughout the city. The text amendment also does not address the need for additional height if a monopole is located on a minimum %2 acre parcel. We do not support the change to allow Monopole I structures only on designated arterial roads. We have found that while there are utility poles that are useful on arterials roads, there is not enough right of way space available to place our equipment even if that equipment could be placed in an underground vault. T-Mobile USA, Inc. 19807 North Creek Par krvav North Bothe!I, WA 98011 fir' vr++ Arterial rights of way have many competing uses for the right of way space. Our need for equipment to be placed in the right of way conflicts with the need for water, sewer, sidewalks, underground power and telephone lines. So, the only way to fully utilize arterial right of way structures is to allow equipment to be placed on residential property. Using this scenario, T-Mobile would enter into a lease agreement with a private property owner for placement of the equipment. The equipment could be placed in cabinets and completely screened with landscaping, in an equipment shelter that could be built to blend in with the existing buildings, or placed underground. This approach to using utility poles is used very successfully in Sammamish, for instance. Therefore, we would recommend that the Text amendment be approved excluding the provision that allows Monopole I structures only on designated arterial roads. We would also recommend that the city proceed to revise the code to allow additional height if a pole is located on a %2+ acre parcel and to allow equipment on residential properties subject to the review of the Hearing Examiner. Thank you for considering these changes. !Ca y Supervisor 19807 North Creek Parkway North Bothell, WA 98011 ¢. CD (-D �UQ CD 7d o CD CD= C o� �o N 0 00 k y �8D o ��� n�v�a >y yrb 0 w �' U)Q � r" C O ¢• CD M CD C—D (,D � t 4 (D 7• n �- ('D-7�CO) �.�CD�z O W° CDxb+�o� (Q� CD n IQ CD CD CD "O`C ¢'� � O O �• i CDCD C) CD CD CD 0 o CD. �-� �.° o o as °��~ �- .. CD CD CD C .. C-Do(DCD CDa � CA o 'cra°tr 0 o h�iFp o C7(700 s ' -' —w °o -C-3� <?•N r)ELo-1 ao o > 1 D D(]- 0 77 cD D 07 0< a?, ... o G y cD m m t..i m ... '.n Z p? p° �cz a•� p7Xm °_.m =. E. .cc Ra: g ?».a¢•� oo e�e o`<' p CD >° O or oa _Q cD m o o s'na B 7Q00 .s F g �aoo � yG m so"o Oy oo � o. s c. c � o. � 00 0 o 'a N 5 - @ o = s n a �° o ❑ £ °; D c c aOfD o <. O m cDv Leo _ �a _o 0�0° ti Doo n. °,- 0Em I n �oofD-+7?ogco<`" qM2 o�--on a, 0. a ro <� �C�v 00o rA �. n oo £ o n Cp^¢�'� �'^ = xz,�7 •G m nw'o=0 g n D0 s< �'� a a 0 0 s.� ��C]�.m o�.�n�0 o s -. I�sJJ m oo £ �' 0. 0o F rn n ,T. 7 cD RioaDp'w. n o -, ca, off° °° :*o a (��'0 m C700r. a o C] n m .D .r.Ci7 F a S w o o a m o a o oA w o=o �£.� �D�.oc �£0 .�S.'N °w° N°= a°£.a�•�� °co ..oey� so c�D "`o<c ^$ �S� `mx �A ?�•�°£.m � c n xa �CCZ AEOZy a. OB 0,2 c r.00 b c �oo o o �DSaNZ.n.7�C D ? sN co F D£ o a £❑ a f) o 0 o G) �. cD m o �, ❑ � a a ;P-" ❑ ow ' £ saw ' CD n ano o m �5'o a oso�� a o a G7£ mo0 0o a.m s0 0 s£ ao00o m Do 0 n.l< o Amends ORDs: 4802, 4963, 5027, 5028, 5100, 5137, 5153, 5286, 5304, 5357 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 6 9 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 7, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 8, PERMITS — GENERAL AND APPEALS, AND CHAPTER 9, PERMITS — SPECIFIC, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone has three separate designations in City code that reflect the unique characteristics of the parcels; and WHEREAS, many of those parcels have been or are being developed and the need for three separate COR zones no longer exists; and WHEREAS, the area that was zoned COR 3 was rezoned to a different designation and the COR 3 zone is a designation that is no longer used in practice; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to eliminate inconsistencies and unnecessary provisions in Title IV; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to fulfill the vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zoning designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008, having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: *&* ORDINANCE NO. 5369 `00 SECTION I. Subsection 4-2-020 0, Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR 1, COR 2, and COR 3), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: O. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL ZONE (COR): The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high - quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. It is intended to implement the Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. Policies governing these uses are contained in the Land Use Element, Commercial/Office/Residential section of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives, and policy direction established in the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation, Objective LU-VVV, Policies LU-406 through LU-421, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION II. Note 23 of Subsection 4-2-080 A, Subject to the Following Conditions of the Conditions Associated with Zoning Use Tables, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled 2 .. ORDINANCE NO. 5369 •..r "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 23. Limited to existing uses. Only those modifications or expansions which do not increase production levels are permitted in the COR zone. Major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use require a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in the COR zone. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-120 B, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the column associated with the COR zone reads as shown in Attachment A. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-120 C, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the text of notes numbered 14, 22, 24, and 25 are hereby amended to read: "Reserved." SECTION V. Notes 6, 8 and 9 of Subsection 4-2-120 F, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read as follows: 6. UC-N2 Zone Upper Story Setback: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height which are located within one hundred feet (100') 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 6 9 *40 of a shoreline shall include upper story setbacks for the facade facing the shoreline and for facades facing publicly accessible plazas as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each story. Projects not meeting the upper story setbacks defined above may be approved through the modification process when superior design is demonstrated pursuant to RMC 4-9-250 D. For a modification to be granted, the project must also comply with the decision and design criteria stipulated in RMC 4-9-250 D 2 and D 4. 8. Shoreline Master Plan Setbacks in the UC-N2 Zone: In the UC-N2 Zone, where the applicable Shoreline Master Program setback is less than fifty feet (50'), the City may increase the setback up to one hundred percent (100%) if the City determines additional setback area is needed to assure adequate public access, emergency access or other site planning or environmental considerations. 9. UC-N2 Zone Modulation/Articulation Requirement: Buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items a. through c. and shall provide item d.: a. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings; or E ,%•- ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 6 9 r..p b. Provide at least one architectural projection for each dwelling unit of not less than two feet (T) from the wall plane and not less than four feet (T) wide; or c. Provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (T) at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and d. Provide building articulation and textural variety. SECTION VI. Subsection 4-3-100 B, Applicability, of the Urban Design Regulations of Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding a new subsection 7 to read: 7. This Section shall apply to all development in the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone. For the purposes of the design regulations, the zone shall be in District `C'. SECTION VII. Subsection 4-4-080 E 1 b, Attached Dwellings Greater Than Three (3) Units, of Chapter 4 City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is corrected to clarify the parking requirement for three or more units and is amended to read as follows: b. Attached Dwellings Three (3) or More Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided, the provisions of subsection E2 (Off - Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 5369 W SECTION VIII. The table in subsection 4-4-080 F 10 e, Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use, of Chapter 4 City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION IX. Subsection 4-7-230 A 1, Optional Methods of Subdivision, of Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Optional Methods of Subdivision: To provide an optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, COR, , UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM, and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter. SECTION X. Table 4-8-120 C, Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications, of Chapter 8 Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the row titled "Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. SECTION XI. Subsection 4-8-120 D 18, Definitions R, of Chapter 8 Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so the definition of "Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. Cel ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 6 9 ... SECTION XII. Subsection 4-9-065 B, Applicability, of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby to read as follows: B. APPLICABILITY: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4-9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14 and RM-U Zones. SECTION XIII. Subsection 4-9-065 D, Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria, of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by deleting the columns associated with COR 1 and COR 2 entirely. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-9-200 B 1 b, COR Zones, of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: b. COR Zone: Master Plan review is required for all development within the COR Zone that is not specifically exempted by subsection C of this Section. SECTION XV. Subsection 4-9-250 D 3 Additional Decision Criteria Only for Center Office Residential 3 (COR 3) Zone, of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted entirely. SECTION XVI. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five(5) days after publication. i *4W ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 6 9 *40 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14 t h day of April , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14 t h day of A p r i 1 , 2008. 1 Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 4/ 19/2008 (summary) ORD.1452:3/18/08:scr 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5369 Attachment A 4-2-120B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS COR LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for lots None created after July 11, 1993 Minimum Lot Width/Depth None for lots created after July 11, 1993 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage for 65% of total lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or Buildings within a parking garage. DENSITY Net Density in Dw Iling Units per Net Acre Minimum Net Residential Where a development involves residential, the minimum density shall be 30 Density dwelling units per net acre.9 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in.another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Maximum Net Residential 50 dwelling units per net acre. Density The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard18 Determined through site development plan review. Maximum Front Yard18 Determined through site development plan review. Minimum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review. A Street18 Maximum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review. A Street18 Minimum Freeway Frontage 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. Setback Minimum Rear Yard18 Determined through site development plan review. Minimum Side Yard18 Determined through site development plan review. Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. ON -SITE LANDSCAPING Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width — Along the Street Frontage Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required %W ORDINANCE NO. 5369 Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Lot is Adjacen? to Property Zoned R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM Minimum Landscape Width Determined through site development plan review. Required When a Commercial Lot is Abutting' Property Zoned Residential Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Zoned Lot is Adjacen? to Property Zoned Commercial, Office or Public/Quasi, i.e., CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, or COR HEIGHT Maximum Building Height 10 stories and/or 125 ft. Maximum Building Height Determined through site development plan review. When a Building is Abutting' a Lot Designated as Residential Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4-140G. Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING Minimum Required for See RMC 4-4-095. Outdoor Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Storage or Work Areas; Surface - Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. PARKING AND LOADING General See RMC 4-4-080 and RMC 10-10-13. Direct arterial access to individual structures shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. Required Location for NA Parkin PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General Determined through site development plan review. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. LOADING DOCKS Location Determined through site development plan review. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of Refuse See RMC 4-4-090. or Recycling Areas ORDINANCE NO. 5369 CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Regulations See RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations. Upper Story Setbacks Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each story. Roofline and Fagade Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and Modulation facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the roject. ORDINANCE NO. 5369 4-4-08OF PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (see RMC 4-9-250). USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: Mixed occupancies: (2 or 3 different uses The total requirements for off-street parking in the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 facilities shall be the sum of the requirements or more uses, see "shopping center" for the several uses computed separately, requirements) unless the building is classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. Uses not specifically identified in this Planning/Building/Public Works Department Section: staff shall determine which of the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below. RESIDENTIAL USES OU�'SIAE' OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: r Detached and semi -attached dwellings: A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Manufactured homes within a A minimum of 2 per manufactured home site. manufactured home park: Plus, a screened parking area shall be provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate residence: 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit; 1.6 COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio formula may be granted by the Development services Director allowing 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5369 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or less per unit provided adequate on -street parking is available in the vicinity of the development. Attached dwellings within the RM-F 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are Zone: not provided; and/or 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed. Attached dwellings within all other 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces zones: are not provided; and/or 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling for low income or 1 for each 4 dwelling units elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN" ZONE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income or 1 for every 4 dwelling units. elderly: Congregate Residences: 1 per 4 sleeping rooms and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Detached Dwellings(existing legal) 2 per unit. COMMERCIAL ACTIVI`T'IES.OUTSIDE` TEE' CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE AND EXCEPTSHOPPING CENTERS Drive -through retail or drive -through Stacking spaces: The drive -through facility service: shall be so located that sufficient on -site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of-way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. En In ORDINANCE NO. 5369 Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult day care (I and 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces II): within 100 feet of the main entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 Bed and breakfast houses: Mortuaries or funeral homes: Vehicle sales (large and small vehicles) with outdoor retail sales areas: Vehicle service and repair (large and small vehicles): Offices, medical and dental: Offices, general: Eating and drinking establishments and taverns: Eating and drinking establishment combination sit-down/drive-through restaurant: Retail sales and big -box retail sales: I per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is not a parking lot and does not have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: -A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping area is provided; -They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and -Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. 1 per 75 square feet of net floor area. A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big -box retail sales, which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured arxinp- is Services, on -site (except as specified A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net below): floor area. Clothing or shoe repair shops, furniture, 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. appliance, hardware stores, household ..r ORDINANCE NO. 5369 Uncovered commercial area, outdoor 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales area in nurseries: addition to any parking requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor sports arenas, 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 square auditoriums, stadiums, movie feet of floor area of main auditorium or of theaters, and entertainment clubs: principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is greater. Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance clubs, and 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. skating rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses. 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN Zf)NE:' Convalescent center, drive -through These uses follow the standards applied retail, drive -through service, hotels, outside the Center Downtown zone. mortuaries, indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other recreational uses. All commercial uses allowed in the CD A maximum of 1 space per 1,000 square feet Zone except for the uses listed above. of net floor area, with no minimum requirement. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers (includes any type of A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net business occupying a shopping center): floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-N 1 and UC-N2 Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive -through retail or drive - through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above. En ORDINANCE NO. 5369 INDUSTRIAL/STORAAE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie -down areas: Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie - down areas are to be utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. Manufacturing and fabrication, A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of net laboratories, and assembly and/or floor area and a maximum of 0.15 spaces per packaging operations: 100 square feet of net floor area (including warehouse space). Self service storage: 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. Outdoor storage area: 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. Warehouses and indoor storage 1 per 1,500 square feet of net floor area. buildings: PUBLIC/QUAsI -PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seating capacity of the auditorium, see "outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor, plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community transition facilities: 1 per 3 beds, plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. ORDINANCE NO. 5369 Schools: Elementary and junior high: 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: public, parochial 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 and private: students enrolled. In addition, if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus Colleges and universities, arts and 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students crafts schools/studios, and trade or residing on campus, plus 1 space for every 5 vocational schools: day students not residing on campus. In addition, if buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. April 14, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes Page 118 Public Works: Principal Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding the request to Financial and Administrative overfill the Public Works Department's Principal Financial and Administrative Analyst Position Overlap Analyst position. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to overfill the position for 30 days prior to the accepted resignation of the current staff member for effective training purposes, which would allow a projected hiring date of 5/15/2008. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3941 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the first CAG: 07-068, Airport amendment to the memorandum of understanding regarding airport issues Memorandum of between the City of Renton and the City of Mercer Island. MOVED BY Understanding, Mercer Island PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3942 A resolution was read declaring an emergency for the purposes of repairing the Utility: Panther Creek Culvert culvert at the crossing of Panther Creek at Carr Rd. MOVED BY ZWICKER, Repair, Declaring an SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Emergency READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/21 /2008 for second and final reading: Vacation: Alley, Burnett Ave S An ordinance was read vacating a portion of alley right-of-way located south of & S 2nd St, Friedman S. Tobin St., between Burnett Ave. S. and Williams Ave. S. (Friedman Development, VAC-04-004 Development, LLC; VAC-04-004). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/21/2008. CARRIED. Transportation: Logan Ave N An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget to transfer from Fund 303 to Bicycle Lane, Boeing, Budget Fund 316 for the Cedar River Trail Extension Project (Logan Ave. N. Bicycle Amend Lane) expenses, and appropriating revenues in Fund 316 and authorizing expenses in that fund in the net amount of $111,875. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/21 /2008. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5368 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by increasing the funds in Utility: Ripley Lane N Storm the surface water revenue account and expenditure account in the amount of System Improvement, $678,223 pursuant to the state participating agreement with the Washington WSDOT Grant, Budget State Department of Transportation for the Ripley Lane N. Storm System Amend Improvement project. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5369 Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, COR Zone An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, and Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the ,regulations regarding the Commercial Office Residential zone. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. I � r- aw �. Q CD 0 va 7d o CD CD c� � D CD CD 0 CD N O 00 aR O ��� nr~�svoCD p yrb � CD Qn rM °, 1 ;ter .- CD x a C-D o CD~ Z �` o- •� 0 z i% b9 o ~ CAD ^" UQ 00 x� (� � � r. �� ¢ P o � cra CD CD m Ot It N �' C�a°� Q Cx o a' �A-�'`� 7�0 0'� ° 7z w00 CD n � CD -oZ CD "D `° o ad Ile .», Z a C='a.� a � o D � CD �'��ocrCD Lr o ►C o C7 = cn � � '"'� C ' CD CDna CD C a CD O z� CD__� ° � � ~ CD �v �. ��-("D OC3Z3CD z nCD �. CD '� CD 0" CD CD Q CD qq CD CA c ° to Vv ° ,o NboDo' �a ooOS o° ° cm w o n c c —ov ooCl ' y�'� co '0'o ° m m'o n�Cl7� 0 0 o e �< 0. N w �' p SOy vrx,.CD n� m CD o c"o c w ° ca. °-o ° p C �Oa ° tCC 2C a❑ ro ,_.., cc 'o �9 Q' o �m c° F, oo 'J ❑ 7c- p co^. a 7� co 00 B a [Z� S tOi is S �- QQ f» � '< t°o '�' a' C �`r"i7 o Q O O�p O O ca. ^.X� ��' �.yQO O � N '0 O (o (o b0' . O .+' S 7 (D LMM April 11, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 1 Ith day of April, 2008, at the hour of 4:30 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, Notice of Public Hearing to consider the following: Text Amendment to Renton City Code to 1) allow Monopole I structures in Residential zones on half acre lots with Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval, provided there is a 100 foot setback; create additional flexibility to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit; and to allow Monopole I structures in the public right-of-way only on designated arterial roads; and also 2) make non -substantive language corrections and cross references (housekeeping amendments) to wireless regulations in all zones. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk 5� SliBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 1 lth day of April, 2007. Cynth)a R. Moya " - Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton C CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21 st day of April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Text Amendment to Renton City Code to 1) allow Monopole I structures in Residential zones on half acre lots with Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval, provided there is a 100 foot setback; create additional flexibility to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit; and to allow Monopole I structures in the public right-of-way only on designated arterial roads; and also 2) make non -substantive language corrections and cross references (housekeeping amendments) to wireless regulations in all zones. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published: Renton Reporter April 12, 2008 Account No. 50640 4/11/2008 - Notice sent to 33 Parties of Record per attached Labels C. Moya cc: Rebbeca Lind Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.avery.com a AVERY@ 51600 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1-800-GO-AVERY Steven S. Cheesebrew 4229 SE 3rd St Renton, WA 98059 Sheila Croisier Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 777 108th Ave NE, Ste 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Newton & Joyleen Ellifrits 4218 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Richard Wasser 4107 SE 2nd PI Renton, WA 98059 Chuck & Fran Gitchel 4401 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Lewis Sezto 10875 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98178 .., . ,,.inda Atkins Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 777 108th Ave NE, Ste 2300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Michael & Valerie O'Halloran 4420 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98055 Van Slaughter 4409 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Stephen Northcraft Greg Schoendaller Alvin & Jacqueline Courtney 4209 SE 3rd Place 4408 SE 4th Street PO Box 2653 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Victor Bloomfield & Jennifer Skuk Michael, Debby, & Hannah Ekness John Ehle 4418 SE 3rd Place 4400 SE 3rd Place 406 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 John Megow Joel G. Smith 4408 SE 3rd Place 349 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Terry Clangh Dennis & Cindy Shimmel 4503 SE 3rd Place 4224 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Tapke Velquist Joel & Heidy Barnett 4309 SE 3rd Street 4212 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Gail & Anthony Knell Ken & Anne Miller 4425 SE 3rd Place 4415 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Doug Mears Bruce & Ruth Rutledge 4308 SE 3rd Place 4303 SE 3rd Street Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98059 Roger & Bickey Berry 4405 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 James & Kimberly Stark 4301 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Cory & Lori Foster 4413 SE 3rd Place Renton, WA 98059 Pauline Blue 420 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 Joyce M. Crock 414 Chelan Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 MBAV-0"08-L ®09Ls ®A219AVd ® uao:)vGane•NMW 009L51!aege6 al zes!i!;n ap!dea 96epas a ja 96eaanoq!jue uo!ssaadwi Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 James S. Dalgleish 407 Anacortes Avenue SE Renton, WA 98059 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Bonnie Watson Keller Williams Realty 615 E Pioneer ste: #203 Puyallup, WA 98372 QAVERVO 51600 Jeremy & Jill Peery 4432 SE 4th Street Renton, WA 98059 AU3Atl-09-008-L 009LS;!aegeG al zes!i!in 009LS OAU3AV uaorfGane-NLAw ap!dea 96epas a }a a6eaanoq!1ue uo!ssaadwi CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21 st day of April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Text Amendment to Renton City Code to 1) allow Monopole I structures in Residential zones on half acre lots with Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval, provided there is a 100 foot setback; create additional flexibility to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit; and to allow Monopole I structures in the public right-of-way only on designated arterial roads; and also 2) make non -substantive language corrections and cross references (housekeeping amendments) to wireless regulations in all zones. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. &A� 4. waltir- Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published: Renton Reporter April 12, 2008 Account No. 50640 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 21 st day of April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Text Amendment to Renton City Code to 1) allow Monopole I structures in Residential zones on half acre lots with Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval, provided there is a 100 foot setback; create additional flexibility to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit; and to allow Monopole I structures in the public right-of-way only on designated arterial roads; and also 2) make non -substantive language corrections and cross references (housekeeping amendments) to wireless regulations in all zones. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published: Renton Reporter April 12, 2008 Account No. 50640 April 7, 2008 N., Renton City Council Minutes r.,,j Page 109 Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in Mayor Law's appointment of Lee Chicoine to the Airport Appointment: Airport Advisory Committee, North Renton neighborhood primary position, for an Advisory Committee unexpired term expiring on 5/7/2010. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Human Services: Regional Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Affordable Housing Program concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk Fund Usage, King County to renew the interlocal cooperation agreement with King County for the Regional Affordable Housing Program (RAHP). The renewal of this agreement will allow Renton to continue its participation in the planning process for RAHP funds, which are used for local affordable housing and community development purposes. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3938 A resolution was read approving certain expenditures for reimbursement from Finance: Bond Proceed the proceeds of debt to be issued in the future related to the new Parks Reimbursement, Parks Maintenance Facility. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, Maintenance Facility COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3939 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the state Utility: Ripley Lane N Storm participating agreement with the Washington State Department of System Improvement, Transportation for the Ripley Lane N. Storm System Improvement project. WSDOT Grant, Budget MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Amend RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3940 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and Cites to sign the Human Services: Regional Regional Affordable Housing Program interlocal cooperation agreement for the Affordable Housing Program renewed agreement term of 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2011. MOVED BY Fund Usage, King County BRIERS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 4/14/2008 for second and final reading: Utility: Ripley Lane N Storm An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by increasing the funds in System Improvement, the surface water revenue account and expenditure account in the amount of WSDOT Grant, Budget $678,223 pursuant to the state participating agreement with the Washington Amend State Department of Transportation for the Ripley Lane N. Storm System Improvement project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/14/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Standards, Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, COR Zone Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards, Chapter 7, Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, and Chapter 9, Permits - T4 Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding the Commercial Office Residential zone. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE April 7, 2008 *WW Renton City Council Minutes Page 110 ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 4/14/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5366 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 10, Planning Commission, of Title II Board/Commission: Planning (Commissions and Boards) of City Code by increasing the membership of the Commission Membership Planning Commission from seven to nine. MOVED BY BRIERE, Expansion SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5367 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 11, Utility Tax, of Title V (Finance Finance: Utility Tax Non- and Business Regulations) of City Code by adding two new subsections, "A," Payment, Penalty and Interest Penalties For Nonpayment, and "B," Interest. MOVED BY PERSSON, Collection SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Palmer conveyed greetings from Councilmember Corman Community Services: Sister who is a member of the delegation currently visiting Renton's Sister City City Visit to Nishiwaki, Japan Nishiwaki. Mr. Corman reported that the Mayor of Nishiwaki presented the Renton delegation with a symbolic hanging picture and extended his best wishes to the people of Renton. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:40 )p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann April 7, 2008 April 7, 2008 14W Renton City Council Minutes Annexation: 11— t nQ Shamrock, Application Fee Waiver Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the Shamrock Annexation fee waiver request. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the waiver oft he $2,500 fee for the Shamrock Annexation, and to keep the issue of revising the annexation fee in Committee for further review and recommendation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) 2006 docket review. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on 4/28/2008 to consider the following docket items: T4 alleys, fast food, and towing. Alleys: Proposed changes in the R-8 zone include: implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the abutting alley. Fast Food: Proposed changes include: allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-throughs in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones and to allow stand-alone fast food with drive-throughs only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone. Definitions are revised for fast food restaurants and drive-in/drive-through retail/service. Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards: Proposed changes include: 1) A new definition for towing operations. 2) In the Industrial Light zone, allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building. 3) In the Commercial Arterial zone, allow as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops and if the tow truck is garaged. In both zones, tow vehicles will be limited to Class A, B, and E. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Regulations (Title IV) Docket, regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket review. COR Zone The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Docket Item 06-07, Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed City Code amendment would consolidate the existing three COR zones into one COR zone. The development standards would be amended to include: eliminating the height and density bonus provisions, setting the minimum density at 30 dwelling units per acre and maximum density at 50 dwelling units per acre, and placing two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and facade modulation in the table. Other City Code changes include striking instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replacing them with COR, and placing COR in the parking requirements section. Additionally, the COR zone will be placed in the Urban Design District C, and with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 109 for ordinance.) F, *46W A r- 17,70 VED By C;T; COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT Date April 7, 2008 Title IV 2006 Docket Review The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the . staff recommendation to set a public hearing April 28, 2008 for the following docket items: Alleys, Fast Food and Towing. Alleys: Proposed changes in the R-8 zone include: implementing parking and I loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the abutting alley. Fast Food: Proposed changes include: allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-thrus in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones and to allow stand-alone fast food with drive thrus only in the Employment Area Valley, in the Industria ' I Light zone. Definitions are revised for fast food restaurants and drive-in/drive-thro'ugh retail/service. Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards:, Proposed changes include: 1. A new definition for towing operations. 2. In the Industrial Light zone allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building. 3. In the Commercial Arterial zone allow as a shared use r/auto body shops and if the tow truck is garaged. In both zones tow e icles,,wifi be li ed to Class B, and E. Chair Kicn,/-WiCker, Vic Chair 0 _\� -_ Greg Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch April 7, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes • wol Page 108 Annexation: Shamrock, Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Application Fee Waiver regarding the Shamrock Annexation fee waiver request. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the waiver of the $2,500 fee for the Shamrock Annexation, and to keep the issue of revising the annexation fee in Committee for further review and recommendation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Regulations (Title IV) 2006 regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) 2006 docket Docket Review review. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on 4/28/2008 to consider the following docket items: alleys, fast food, and towing. Alleys: Proposed changes in the R-8 zone include: implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the abutting alley. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, COR Zone Tq Fast Food: Proposed changes include: allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-throughs in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones and to allow stand-alone fast food with drive-throughs only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone. Definitions are revised for fast food restaurants and drive-in/drive-through retail/service. Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards: Proposed changes include: 1) A new definition for towing operations. 2) In the Industrial Light zone, allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building. 3) In the Commercial Arterial zone, allow as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops and if the tow truck is garaged. In both zones, tow vehicles will be limited to Class A, B, and E. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket review. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Docket Item 06-07, Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed City Code amendment would consolidate the existing three COR zones into one COR zone. The development standards would be amended to include: eliminating the height and density bonus provisions, setting the minimum density at 30 dwelling units per acre and maximum density at 50 dwelling units per acre, and placing two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and facade modulation in the table. Other City Code changes include striking instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replacing them with COR, and placing COR in the parking requirements section. Additionally, the COR zone will be placed in the Urban Design District C, and with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 109 for ordinance.) 10 V E D BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE° 1OUNCiL COMMITTEE REPORT �l- y a2 DO Dufo April 7, 2008 City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve docket item 06-07, Commercial Office Residential (COR) Zone Text Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The proposed code amendment would consolidate the existing three commercial office residential (COR) zones into oneCOR zone. The development standards would be amended to include: elimination of the height and density bonus provisions, setting the minimum density at 30 du/acre and maximum density at 50 du/acre, and placing two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and faeade modulation in the table. Other code changes include striking instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replacing them with COR and placing COR in the parking requirements section. Additionally, the COR zone will be placed in the urban design district C and with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi- family zoning designations. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this ted for first reading. U Greg or, Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch April 7, 2008 `4►' Renton City Council Minutes °%.r Page 107 Annexation: New Life - Aqua Community and Economic Development Department recommended a public Barn, Development Agreement hearing be set on 4/21/2008 to consider a pre -annexation development with Cedar River Lightfoot agreement with Cedar River Lightfoot, Inc. regarding a six -acre parcel located within the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation area. Council concur. Lease: LSI Logic Corporation, Community Services Department recommended approval of an amendment to 200 Mill Bldg (3rd Floor), the lease with LSI Logic Corporation (LAG-00-002) for the 3rd floor of the 200 LAG-00-002 Mill Building to extend the lease for an additional year. Expenditure required: $2,627.19; revenue generated over one-year term: $105,087.48. Refer to Finance Committee. Finance: Bond Proceed Finance and Information Services Department recommended authorizing capital Reimbursement, Parks expenditures on the Parks Maintenance Facility project in anticipation of Maintenance Facility expenditure reimbursement from the proceeds of bonds. Council concur. (See page 109 for resolution.) Fire: 2007 Rainstorm, WA Fire Department recommended approval of an agreement with the Washington State Military Department State Military Department for a public assistance grant to receive up to 75 Grant percent of the eligible non -insurance covered damages sustained by the City during the December 2007 rainstorm. Estimated eligible expenses are $115,000. Council concur. CAG: 07-124, Emergency Fire Department recommended approval of an amendment to CAG-07-124, Management Performance agreement with the Washington State Military Department regarding Grant, WA State Military Emergency Management Performance Grant funds, which reduces the grant by Department $31,516 due to an accounting error that caused an excessive grant award. Council concur. Public Works: Principal Public Works Department requested authorization to overfill a Principal Financial and Administrative Financial and Administrative Analyst position for 30 days for training purposes. Analyst Position Overlap Refer to Finance Committee. Utility: Ripley Lane N Storm Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement with the System Improvement, Washington State Department of Transportation to accept $678,223 for the WSDOT Grant, Budget Ripley Lane N. Storm System Improvement project. Approval was also sought Amend to amend the 2008 Budget by $678,223 for the project. Council concur. (See page 109 for resolution and ordinance.) MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning & Development Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket item concerning the text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on 4/21/2008 to consider the proposal. 1 The proposed amendment application would allow Monopole I structures on a one-half acre lot with an administrative conditional use permit provided that they meet a one hundred feet setback from residential, and create some additional flexibility within the City Code to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. The housekeeping amendments would provide non -substantive language corrections and cross-references. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. CWT17 COUNCIL Date PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT April 7, 2005 Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in all Zones March 24, 200$ The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on April 21, 2008. The proposed amendment application would allow Monopole I structures on a one half acre lot with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit provided that they meet a one hundred feet (100') setback from residential, and create some additional flexibility within the code to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing- Examiner Conditional Use Permit. In the public right-of-way, --- ould only be allowed on designated arterial roads. Housekeeping amendments r would rovide on -subs t e language corrections, and cross-references. r, Chair Rich Zwicker, Vice Chair Greg or, Member March 24, 2008 *ANWW Renton City Council Minutes "we 95 disruptions to people's lives is needed; helicopters are dangerous and noisy; the conditional use permit process creates and continues confusion; preference for a third party to test the helicopter noise; and a better ordinance is needed. Correspondence in support of the helipad proposal was acknowledged from Thomas R. Dahlby and Kathleen I. Dahlby (Renton). Correspondence in opposition to the proposal was acknowledged from the following: Sandy Reisman (city of residence unknown); Thomas and Judith Skillman (Renton); Kim Loulias (Renton); Paul and Tami Skelton (Renton); Jodi Watson (Renton); Linda Fry (city of residence unknown); Robert L. Undsderfer (Renton); Betty Childers and Steve Denison (Renton); John Middlebrooks (Renton); Mary Lowry and Mike Lowry (Renton); and Joame Rosling (Renton). Correspondence regarding the proposal was also acknowledged from Steve F. (city of residence unknown) and Marleen Mandt (city of residence unknown). There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman, previously excused. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker announced that the hearing Planning & Development regarding the T-Mobile monopole conditional use permit appeal was continued Committee to April 4 at 1:30 p.m. Appeal: Monopole Conditional Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- 065 AUDIENCE COMMENT Pegi Galster (Renton) requested that before making a decision on the matter of Citizen Comment: Galster - the proposed zoning revision that would allow helipads in certain R-8-zoned Title IV Docket Review, properties, the City hire a consultant to conduct a noise study. She also urged Helipads Council to read the documentation she submitted regarding noise. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/17/2008. Council concur. 3/17/2008 Board/Commission: Planning Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval to Commission Membership expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur. Expansion (See page 97 for ordinance.) Planning: Development Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Regulations (Title IV) Docket Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones Review 1 and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to CI Planning and Development Committee. Human Services: Regional Human Services Division requested approval of an agreement with King Affordable Housing Program County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill) 2060 local low income Fund Usage, King County housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Sewer Extension Geotechnical of $35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Services, Kleinfelder Project geotechnical services. Council concur. CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL ENDA BILL 4 Al #: U i Submitting Data: For Agenda of- Dept/Div/Board.. CED/Planning Division March 24, 2008 Agenda Status Staff Contact...... Rebecca Lind (x6588) Consent .............. X Public Hearing.. Subject: Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Correspondence.. Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Ordinance ............. X Wireless Regulations in All Zones Resolution............ Old Business........ New Business....... Exhibits: • Issue Paper • Ordinance Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to Planning & Development Committee Legal Dept......... X Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget City Share Total Project.. SUMMARY OF ACTION: The wireless communications section of Title IV currently requires a one - acre minimum land area to site a Monopole I on private property within residential zones Residential Conservation (RC) through Residential 14 (R-14). The proposal is to amend the code to allow this use on a minimum half -acre site. The code currently requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit and a setback of 100 feet from a residentially zoned property for a Monopole I on private property. Current code requires an Administrative Conditional Use Permit and no minimum setback from residential to establish the use in a right-of-way. The proposal is to amend Note 45 to allow the use in both locations with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit when a setback of 100 feet is maintained, but allow the Hearing Examiner to approve a setback less than 100 feet with a Conditional Use Permit. The amendment would also only allow a Monopole I on public right-of-ways that are designated arterials. Several housekeeping amendments are also proposed to resolve existing conflicts between the content of Notes 44 and 46, and the Conditional Use Permit process categories presented on the Zoning Use Tables. The Zoning Use Tables are corrected to match the content of the existing notes. Staff titles are revised to state "Reviewing Official" rather than a specific staff position. This zoning text amendment is proposed for processing outside the annual Title IV amendment cycle under Section 4-9-025C. Exemption. In the annual process, several amendments are bundled together for consideration and are processed over the year. Amendments needed on a shorter timeline may be processed outside of the annual cycle when requested by the Mayor, City Council, or Department Administrators. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations. Renton net/agnbill/ bh y DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY &ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ��� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 17, 2008 TO: Marcie Palmer, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: ,w Denis Law, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator k v` STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager (x 6588) SUBJECT: Docket 08-01: Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in All Zones ISSUE: • Should the minimum lot size required for Monopole I facilities on private property in residential zones be reduced from one acre to one half acre? • Should Monopole I facilities in the public right-of-way be limited to designated arterials in residential zones? • Should the minimum setbacks from a Monopole I in a residentially zoned property be retained at 100 feet with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit process, but be eligible for reduction to less than 100 feet through a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit process? • Should housekeeping amendments be made to reconcile differences between the zoning notes and zoning use tables? • Should the proposed amendments to the Wireless Regulations be processed as an exception to the annual docket process? RECOMMENDATION: • Process the amendments as proposed through an exception to the annual docket process to provide a timely resolution to the current problem of citing wireless facilities that provide a reasonable network of service in residential areas. • Allow Monopole I structures on residentially zoned sites of one half acre with o Administrative Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are 100 feet or more from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit when setbacks are less than 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned properties. o Restrict locations within the public right-of-way to designated arterial roads. • Reconcile inconsistencies within the existing code through housekeeping amendments. HAMNSP\Title IV\Docket\2008\08-01 WirelesAssue Papervldoc Marcie Pahner, Council Presiden' *00 Page 2 of 3 March 17, 2008 BACKGROUND SUMMARY: cm Changes in Standards for Monopole I The existing development standards for Monopole I require a minimum lot size of one acre for this facility in all residential zones, ranging from the Resource Conservation (RC) through the Residential — 14 (R-14). A Monopole I is defined as `A wireless communication support structure which consists of a freestanding support structure, less than sixty feet (60) in height erected to support wireless communications antennas and connecting appurtenances. " Monopole structures of this type currently are permitted with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit (HE -CUP) and they are required to have a minimum setback of 100 feet from adjacent residentially zoned property. The proposal is to allow Monopole I structures on a one half acre lot with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit (A -CUP) provided that they meet a 100 feet minimum setback from residential, but create some additional flexibility within the code to allow a lesser setback with an HE -CUP. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. The proposed change would allow the Monopole I structure to be more easily sited within residential zones than is currently the case. At the present time, it is difficult for the wireless providers to find appropriately located parcels of one acre. This situation is a result of the urbanization of infill land in the City. As urban land is increasingly redeveloped for housing, it will be more difficult to find parcels of sufficient size in locations that can provide the kind of network needed to provide wireless service to customers throughout the City. Technology changes in the wireless industry over the last ten years have resulted in more requests from wireless providers for transmitters located on Monopole I facilities rather than the higher and more intrusive Monopole II towers. As a result, there is increased demand for Monopole I locations at a time when there are fewer large parcels of urban land. Both permit processes require notice to contiguous property owners and owners within 300 feet of the proposal. The Hearing Examiner Permit process requires a public hearing. The Administrative Permit process may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner, while the HE -CUP is appealed to the City Council. Both processes require the Reviewing Official to approve based on the following criteria: J. SPECIAL DECISION CRITERIA FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN LIEU OF STANDARD CRITERIA: The governing authority shall consider the following factors in determining whether to issue a conditional use permit, although the governing authority may waive or reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if the governing authority, concludes that the goals of RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities, are better served thereby. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997) Height of the proposed tower. h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2008\08-01 wireless\issue paperv2.doc • Marcie Palmer, Council Presiden-,, Page 3 of 3 March 17, 2008 .r° 2. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 3. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. 4. Surrounding topography. 5. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage. 6. Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 7. Proposed ingress and egress. Potential noise, light and glare impacts. 9. Availability of suitable existing towers and other structures. 10. Compatibility with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and any other plan, program, map or ordinance of the City. (Ord. 4689, 11-24-1997). Housekeeping Amendments Housekeeping amendments are needed to resolve inconsistencies within the existing code. These changes clarify language, make the processing of applications consistent with the existing requirements in the 4-2-080 Conditions for Zoning Use Tables, and add a cross reference to the code sections where the decision criteria for use permits are published. These amendments also change the names of reviewing staff to the more generalized "Reviewing Official'. These proposed changes make no changes in the regulatory content of this section of code, but increase the consistency and accuracy of the code. A draft of the proposed code amendments is shown in Attachment A. Docket Exception The docket process exception is requested because under the annual docket review cycle, this code amendment could not be processed for approximately one year. CONCLUSION: The changes proposed are needed by wireless providers to continue providing service to Renton residents. h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2008\08-01 wireless\issue paperv2.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING REGULATION OF WIRELESS FACILITIES WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted regulations for wireless communication facilities within the City, and WHEREAS, the current standard for wireless regulations requires a lot size standard of over an acre within residential zones, and WHEREAS, density of development required under the Growth Management Act, requires lot areas of less than one acre in residential zones, and WHEREAS, the amount of infill development that has occurred in the City since the adoption of the Growth Management Comprehensive Plan has resulted in the redevelopment of many larger parcels within residential areas, and WHEREAS, industry standards have changed to allow more service to be provided from the shorter Monopole I compared with the taller Monopole II, and there is a greater need to provide more Monopole I facilities within existing urban areas, and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide zoning and development standards that facilitate provision of a wireless communication network that services residential areas, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that revisions are needed to the minimal lot size standard for wireless facilities in residential zones in order insure that there is sufficient land available to insure that a reasonable network of service can be provided, and Page 1 of 4 NOW WHEREAS, the current wireless regulations include inconsistencies between process requirements in current zoning table notes, and process requirements as shown on the zoning use tables, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 4-2-060 P Wireless Communication Facilities Section of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as shown in Exhibit A. SECTION IL Section 4-2-080 Conditions Associated With Zoning Use Tables, Notes 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 are amended to read as follows: 44. Permitted provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one hundred feet (100feet) from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel, if the setback is less than 100 feet an administrative conditional use permit is required pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria. 45. For Monopoles Proposed on Private Property: May be allowed via an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria; provided, that the site is over one half acre in size and the facility has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet (100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. For Monopoles Proposed on Public Right -of -Way: May be allowed via an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, and right-of-way use permit. provided, the facility is located on a principal, minor, or collector arterial and has minimum setbacks of one hundred feet (100') from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100' a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. 46. Eligible for an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, provided that the facility has a minimum setback of one Page 2 of 4 cm M hundred feet (100 feet) from any adjacent residentially zoned parcel; if the setback is less than 100 feet a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit is required. 47. May be allowed by an administrative conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, if the monopole II facility is to be constructed on property where wireless communication support structures presently operate, and the new monopole II facility will not exceed the height of the existing support structures. Prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone unless the Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300feet) of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050); then the administrative conditional use process shall apply. 48. A Hearing Examiner conditional use permit pursuant to 4-9-030J Decision Criteria, is required. This use is prohibited if located within three hundred feet (300') of an RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, or R-14 Zone, unless the Reviewing Official determines that all residentially zoned property within three hundred feet (300') of the proposed facility is undevelopable due to critical areas regulations (RMC 4-3-050), in which case the new wireless support structure can be reviewed as a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. 49. Emergency or routine modifications are permitted, when there is minimal or no change in the visual appearance, as determined by the Reviewing Official. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 12008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 52008. Page 3 of 4 .400, Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Denis Law, Mayor Page 4 of 4 N Z 0 a z 0 N W a C) Z_ z 0 N Z 0 w 0 J J a W N W J 00 a F- W in a 0 W Z 20 = N Uo a to 1- C N Q � 6 N 0 mz = a ¢ NOW LO 61 0 C? Mz 2 d ¢ CL U O It It v v 0 � 0 cc V = a- CL m m ¢ ¢ _¢ Cn O 0 v v v v v 0 v V ¢ a. a. a. a. a. d ¢ a �5 C a) CD v v ., 0) v Cb i<a �j aa) 2 U =a�aa o Q CL U 00 't -t 0) 00 1 = qO a :Ia a a a a IL Q a� w Z Cfl � v m r v N � 0¢ 0¢ d d a d a C O m V' Cn V VID �aa as a a °a g m c o m U v v ao co =a�aa Q Q == w c0 V Lo 0 v v 0 `t 0 0 C C ¢ CL a- m ¢ ¢ ¢ � Cu o U c o Co Cn Cn Cn CCLaa o 0 0= cr (N � o _ v t o 0 .� ¢ d d d �••. ¢ ¢ ¢ cocm L CD V' <ELaa Wo 0 0 =2 et v v 0')LZ v v v o CL a. � 2 O 0 "0 Cn Cn 0 Cn 0 a� N ¢ a. d a. (1) ¢ ¢ ¢ a� V ~ t� ~ 0 0 N -� ¢ a. a a. -� ¢ ¢ ¢ C) s C? a) aa LL LL tv Z ai Z > v U �o O O C 7 Ch Q a a � d Q y 3 Q 0 0 �U Z0 = c V Q) 2 N ` �� = j _tn Z D 7 7 a� <T ` N m N U ? i J N 0 .�`. U a w c c n C� o o ° Coo t vm c ;? c c :: g ro c cn a a a c c m �'M r m jr W U uJ N � A CO J - Tcn Co cc W0(oC) �WO>o3-0 coQ N = w c w E 5 CC a� ao a o E E (J� U 0 O 'c `p o m C a o C o� c 2 a� a. N U N O n-i� O c o f o a 0 0 2, a 0 2 o 2 Co cL a I a Cn I DU m 0 00. v C: a)O o co tN CZ a) O + a) L C0 p 'C c 0 ° C:= M . O ` NU a)° cn > C N O cz ° C 1 = U C U j N 73 -' �M O w O UE, 7 ° cQ 0 ° '- > E� Fz o ° c E 0 E c c c c cz E 0.0 c (C -c ¢ CZ X 0 > C E O O - w 0(n CZ - ( C 0 E � ul - �-r c 0cz mE cam c0 (1) N N_ O cz N co — N .0 a> > 0 0 0 o o �I.� := O O a) Y M c > _0 v0 0 0� a -0 0 >%wa U cz 0 to O Cn > g E =3 coL t ° n�, a c I--L t0 E O ° yc N t "0 CZ V CZ� > -0 o >, • O a 0 N CL '2 a a U«' a p 0 C O � c a) c N 0 N (z O G +• CL 0. 0 °v°' O a� a� . rn U O U d C CL a) CL I - O 'U -0-0 O0C' 0� E0 o ME o O Wo, L 0 C U N Y U a) X CCO a) U 0 'C _ O C: a a) > 0).0 O O O w O O !E Q) E 0U CU �.� Y O C 01 r a) ._ CO — v- cU Q) E cn = U — L cU — '= U > Q a)X co 7 tcU ��v3 �' �w a) — O > a) a C_ �, An 0) > 0 N c 0 o' 0 ca +r 0 N CC- C �_ N i U � cU U _� C C)>' O U "U O Q O U O N cd O ..— 0 3 O O N Q) C > Y C ^ a) O c 0 O = Y O D U Ns(l) Lo C)o p co D " N cU cU C: a) a) a) � c o Q) 'c C UJ N O a `►- L d N O U 7 .-. r p �j co a) CO rr - U o C °' c y �� cUN 'y O C c�Oj a) 0 C`. C) CDa) '� '� L 0: 'O .cn Q) Q) cp a) ...' 75 C O -O O CL o c .'_ 3 N cU a�i CC m v) � ct a � 6 U cU j 0 0 Y= CZ —_ C) a) U)) O N O� �a�O O�CO 0O C c Q UO CY U N L cU N .- C U '_ '- 'C ch •(Z U) C o a) 0 ci O T 'C C O 7 cU a > O cU > 0 D: a) Q) O > cz U c E N > E a. m a) Q co CO E N N <U C co U '> 0)) C = U O ,0 "= O O U N 0= U C:r a) "= � L co 16 O cU o a) i Q) a) �_ j U a O v- C 7 N O O O , E. C co .� _ a) O .- N O a a) .� tf') C) C 'a N U E� )O C) �_� C y — N Q O N— >w Cc �30) C:c =00 o N C Q X U) fU Os� U N [[ O > N O O a) N Q) cn c a) E Q) fl' -0 a a) O C C c ... c w No C .� .L O , ,�,, E C E O N (U cU c c 0 a) — � — 5 0)rw W "= N Q) N W�c o O O cU O .- � O. 0)3� C) c p i ' p -0 N L O O cz _U cU E a) C O A Cp O O O cz N— a) U - N D O 0 a rtO N 0 WO U U .�- Q (6 "qt ti d 06 Nt Oi 'I 14 From: "'Kathi Kowalis'<KLKowalis@comcast.net>" <KLKowalis@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> CC: <KLKowa] is@comcast.net> Date: 3/24/2008 6:55 PM Subject: COUNSELMEMBERS I'm absolutely opposed to allowing new heliports to be built and helicopters to be based on residential properties that front on Lake Washington. I've been a resident of Renton / lower Kennydale for 12+ years and we experience enough noise pollution from the normal traffic patterns in and out of the Renton Airport. Given the close proximity of the airport, less than a 10 minute car drive. I see no reason that the entire neighborhood should experience additional noise pollution for the convenience of a very few landowners. Thank you for your consideration. Kathi and Jason Kowalis March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes *.d Page 95 disruptions to people's lives is needed; helicopters are dangerous and noisy; the conditional use permit process creates and continues confusion; preference for a third party to test the helicopter noise; and a better ordinance is needed. Correspondence in support of the helipad proposal was acknowledged from Thomas R. Dahlby and Kathleen I. Dahlby (Renton). Correspondence in opposition to the proposal was acknowledged from the following: Sandy Reisman (city of residence unknown); Thomas and Judith Skillman (Renton); Kim Loulias (Renton); Paul and Tami Skelton (Renton); Jodi Watson (Renton); Linda Fry (city of residence unknown); Robert L. Undsderfer (Renton); Betty Childers and Steve Denison (Renton); John Middlebrooks (Renton); Mary Lowry and Mike Lowry (Renton); and Joanie Rosling (Renton). Correspondence regarding the proposal was also acknowledged from Steve F. (city of residence unknown) and Marleen Mandt (city of residence unknown). There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman, previously excused. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker announced that the hearing Planning & Development regarding the T-Mobile monopole conditional use permit appeal was continued Committee to April 4 at 1:30 p.m. Appeal: Monopole Conditional Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- 065 AUDIENCE COMMENT Pegi Galster (Renton) requested that before making a decision on the matter of Citizen Comment: Galster - the proposed zoning revision that would allow helipads in certain R-8-zoned Title IV Docket Review, properties, the City hire a consultant to conduct a noise study. She also urged Helipads .?4 Council to read the documentation she submitted regarding noise. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/17/2008. Council concur. 3/ 17/2008 Board/Commission: Planning Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval to Commission Membership expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur. Expansion (See page 97 for ordinance.) Planning: Development Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Regulations (Title IV) Docket Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones Review and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Human Services: Regional Human Services Division requested approval of an agreement with King Affordable Housing Program County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill) 2060 local low income Fund Usage, King County housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Sewer Extension Geotechnical of $35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Services, Kleinfelder Project geotechnical services. Council concur. M sm RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 24, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; GREG TAYLOR; RICH ZWICKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERS; KING PARKER; DON PERSSON. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER RANDY CORMAN. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; ERIKA CONKLING, Senior Planner; ANGELA MATHIAS, Assistant Planner; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; SONJA MEJLAENDER, Community Relations and Event Coordinator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PREETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE and DEPUTY CHIEF MARK PETERSON, Fire Department; COMMANDER DAVID LEIBMAN, Police Department. SPECIAL Public Works Administrator Gregg Zimmerman recognized the PRESENTATIONS Planning/Building/Public Works employees nominated and chosen by their Public Works: Employee peers to receive 2007 Good Work awards, as follows: Principal Financial and Recognition Administrative Analyst Nenita Ching, Engineering Specialist Jun Aesquivel, and Construction Inspector Pat Miller. Vehicle and Equipment Mechanic Tom Guesman was selected as the 2007 Planning/Building/Public Works Employee of the Year. Mr. Zimmerman then announced that the following employees who contributed to the Springbrook Creek Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank project were awarded the 2007 Good Teamwork Award: Parks Director Leslie Betlach, Senior Planner Jill Ding (former employee); Utility Engineering Supervisor Dave Christensen, Mapping Coordinator Bob Mac Onie, Civil Engineer Allen Quynn, and Utility Engineering Supervisor Ron Straka. Community Services: Sister Community Relations and Event Coordinator Mejlaender introduced Roger City Visit to Nishiwaki, Japan Richert, Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Committee Chairman, who reviewed the history and evolution of the Renton and Nishiwaki relationship, which began in 1969. Pointing out that the Renton-Nishiwaki Sister City Committee became an official committee of the City in 1994, Mr. Richert detailed the striking similarities between the two cities. Ms. Mejlaender named the 16 delegates who will visit Nishiwaki from April 5 to 12, and she reviewed the itinerary for the trip. In conclusion, Ms. Mejlaender and Assistant CAO Wine displayed the gift that will be presented to the Mayor of Nishiwaki during the trip, a glass blown square shaped platter from Uptown Glassworks to add to the collection of previous art given by the City of Renton. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Development accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Regulations (Title IV) Docket consider revisions to the following City Code Title IV (Development T-� March 24, 2008 *4r Renton City Council Minutes `ov Page 93 Regulations) docket items: Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) Zone, Assisted Living, Helipads, and Utilities Height. Reporting on the docket item concerning the COR zone, Assistant Planner Mathias explained that each of the current three COR zone designations were generally assigned to single, large properties with unique attributes. The proposed revisions will consolidate the COR zone into one designation, place the COR zone in Urban Design District C, and place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations. Turning to the docket item concerning assisted living, Ms. Mathias stated that Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living, and the proposal includes implementing a new definition for assisted living and for multi -family assisted living; revising the definition for convalescent centers; striking the retirement residences definition; applying density to assisted living facilities; allowing assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone; limiting assisted living facilities to 18 units in the R-1 and R-10 zones; and establishing parking standards of one space per unit, plus dedicated parking for facility fleet vehicles. Continuing, Ms. Mathias reviewed the proposed revisions to the height requirements for utilities, which include: allowing additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities, treating public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height with public art, and adding language to allow administrative modification of setbacks and lot coverage to trigger site plan review. Senior Planner Conkling reported on the docket item concerning helipads. She indicated that helipads are currently allowed with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in commercial, industrial, and urban center zones. Ms. Conkling noted that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates helipad construction, siting, and all airspace issues, including the approach for take -offs and landings. Ms. Conkling explained that the proposed revision will allow helipads in the R- 8 zone, if accessory to a residential use, with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. The helipad use is limited to properties fronting Lake Washington, where one seaplane per residence is already allowed. Additionally, compliance with FAA regulations is required, and properties will be limited to one aircraft. In conclusion, Ms. Conkling reported that the Planning and Development Committee will review this group of docket items and then present a report to the full Council. She noted that the Environmental Review Committee's determination regarding the helipads has been appealed to the Hearing Examiner; therefore, the Committee will not review that docket item until the appeal issue has been settled. In response to Council inquiries, Ms. Mathias stated that the funding for graphic treatments on water tanks is usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade, and the cost averages out to be approximately one percent of the budget. Ms. Conkling estimated that seven or eight of the lakefront properties may be eligible to have a helipad. She indicated that when approving private helipads, the FAA prohibits the allowance of an approach over a residential area; however, helicopters are not prohibited from flying over Kennydale Hill. Ms. Conkling explained that a helicopter would land on the ground unless it has pontoons. A seaplane lands on the water, is usually placed on a surface, and is pulled onto the lake and taxis off from there. Public comment was invited. March 24, 2008 *%w Renton City Council Minutes -me Page 94 The following speakers spoke in support of the helipad proposal: Steve Maxwell (Renton); Robert Watson (Seattle); Marlene Winter (Renton); Dr. Paul Joos (Renton); Dorothy Simpson (Mercer Island); Gary Pipkin (Renton); Charlie Conner (Renton), who also submitted 46 support signatures and a support letter from Monica Fix (Renton); Gene Heuschel (Renton); Sharon Smith (Renton); Kim Bowden (Renton); Buzz Dana (Renton); Jerry Brennan (Renton); Brian Fife (Renton); Joe Boehme (Renton); Tom Dahlby (Renton); Don Jacobson (Renton); Marc Pritchard (Renton); Don Savoy (Renton); John Hempelmann (Seattle); Kelly Grace (Renton); Steve Porter (Renton); Mike Holmes (Renton); Steve Miller (Renton); Jim Hess (Renton); Bob Goetz (Renton); Carrie Krape (Renton); Pat Dana (Renton); Kevin Iden (Renton); and Bill Stoneman (Renton). Support comments indicated that the lakefront community will be a more interesting place to live due to all of the activity; the noise is minimal; the neighborhood will be improved; the lake is enjoyed in many ways, which includes the use of aircraft; space requirements to land helicopters are very restrictive; safe environment in which to operate helicopters; zoning revision will result in only a few helipads; Renton is a progressive city; property values will be enhanced; helicopters will add to the character of the City; increased quality of life; reflection of Renton's aviation history; requirement for conditional use permit will shepherd the use of helicopters in this area; the majority of the City of Issaquah's helicopter rules are FAA requirements; and helicopters are under the control of the Renton Airport unlike at other cities. Other comments included: important to maintain affected properties' seaplane sites and that potential use for any future owners; helipads should be considered in the same manner as seaplane sites; helicopter approaches are not allowed over Kennydale Hill; air traffic issues are regulated by the FAA; potential usefulness of helicopters during public disaster situations; property rights maintained; lack of notice for public hearing; preference for City to use the administrative conditional use permit process; and helicopters are not operated when the weather is marginal. The following speakers spoke in opposition of the proposal: Joanie Rosling (Renton), John DuBois (Renton), Pegi Galster (Renton), Victoria Kapetan (Renton), Kim Loulias (Renton), Bill Johnson (Renton), John Middlebrooks (Renton), Brian Shine (Renton), Trudy Neumann (Renton), and Mark Hancock (Seattle). Objections included increased noise; helipads will only benefit a few people to the detriment of the entire Kennydale neighborhood; helicopters require considerable skill and continued practice to fly; the lack of a noise study; decreased property values; public safety concerns; reduced quality of life; large amount of noise already endured in the neighborhood; lack of tangible benefits for the entire City; and the efforts of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee are countered. Other comments indicated that the Renton Airport is nearby, therefore private helipads are not needed; the City of Issaquah has numerous rules regarding the operation of helicopters; the environmental issues have been overlooked; the allowance of helicopters with floats reduces safety hazard; helicopters do not belong in residential neighborhoods or on the water front; large birds may present safety hazard to the helicopter; water -based helipad should be required; legal issue concerns if an accident occurs; helicopters fly over Kennydale Hill and cause disruptions; even distribution of the costs and benefits of the March 24, 2008 *..r Renton City Council Minutes .✓ Page 95 disruptions to people's lives is needed; helicopters are dangerous and noisy; the conditional use permit process creates and continues confusion; preference for a third party to test the helicopter noise; and a better ordinance is needed. Correspondence in support of the helipad proposal was acknowledged from Thomas R. Dahlby and Kathleen I. Dahlby (Renton). Correspondence in opposition to the proposal was acknowledged from the following: Sandy Reisman (city of residence unknown); Thomas and Judith Skillman (Renton); Kim Loulias (Renton); Paul and Tami Skelton (Renton); Jodi Watson (Renton); Linda Fry (city of residence unknown); Robert L. Undsderfer (Renton); Betty Childers and Steve Denison (Renton); John Middlebrooks (Renton); Mary Lowry and Mike Lowry (Renton); and Joame Rosling (Renton). Correspondence regarding the proposal was also acknowledged from Steve F. (city of residence unknown) and Marleen Mandt (city of residence unknown). There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. RECESS MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. Time: 9:12 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:17 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman, previously excused. APPEAL Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker announced that the hearing Planning & Development regarding the T-Mobile monopole conditional use permit appeal was continued Committee to April 4 at 1:30 p.m. Appeal: Monopole Conditional Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- 065 AUDIENCE COMMENT Pegi Galster (Renton) requested that before making a decision on the matter of Citizen Comment: Galster - the proposed zoning revision that would allow helipads in certain R-8-zoned Title IV Docket Review, properties, the City hire a consultant to conduct a noise study. She also urged Helipads Council to read the documentation she submitted regarding noise. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 3/17/2008. Council concur. 3/17/2008 Board/Commission: Planning Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval to Commission Membership expand the Planning Commission from seven to nine members. Council concur. Expansion (See page 97 for ordinance.) Planning: Development Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Regulations (Title IV) Docket Title IV docket item 08-01: text amendment for Monopole I in residential zones Review and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Human Services: Regional Human Services Division requested approval of an agreement with King Affordable Housing Program County regarding the use of SHB (Substitute House Bill) 2060 local low income Fund Usage, King County housing funds for the Regional Affordable Housing Program. Refer to Community Services Committee. Utility: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the amount Sewer Extension Geotechnical of $35,752 with Kleinfelder for the White Fence Ranch Sewer Extension Services, Kleinfelder Project geotechnical services. Council concur. Iwo, *r Y 2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING March 24, 2008 1. COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (COR) ZONE CODE AMENDMENT Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. The intent of having three different COR zones was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Many of the COR parcels are largely built out with projects that are completed or underway making the specialized need for three different sub -zones no longer necessary. Consolidating the COR zone into one designation is appropriate and simplifies existing code. Applying a minimum density of 30 dwelling units/acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is appropriate in fostering the Comprehensive Plan intension of creating compact urban development. The proposed standards are outline below. Additionally, in order to ensure that the development that occurs fulfills the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zone should be place in Design District C. Proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and Development Committtee consider them. RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate the three existing COR zones into one zone: o Eliminate the height and density bonus provisions o Set the minimum density at 30 du/acre o Set maximum density at 50 du/acre o Place two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and facade modulation in the development regulations table o Strike instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replace with COR Place the COR zone in Urban Design District C Place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations 2. ASSISTED LIVING CODE AMENDMENT The City of Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living. However, there are definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers. Assisted living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place for a number of years, the City needs to respond and include a new definition for this housing type and implement some new standards regarding this type of housing. Assisted living facilities develop with smaller unit sizes and with a different unit mix than the average apartment building. This makes it appropriate to allow assisted living facilities a ratio to apply to the maximum density of the zone they seek to build in. The amount of parking required at assisted living facilities needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents do bring cars. However, not all residents of assisted living facilities have cars. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit will balance the parking needs for staff and guests with the cars brought with residents. Finally, limitations on the maximum number assisted living residential units allowed in the R- I zone are appropriate to ensure the residential character of that zone. Proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commision has recommended that the Planning and Development Committtee consider them. M cm 1 RECOMMENDATION: • Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. • Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. • Implement a new definition for multi -family assisted living. • Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. o Example: an assisted living facility that wanted to locate in the RMF zone would determine density by multiplying 1.5 x 20 to determine a maximum number of residential units of 30. • Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zone to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. • Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. 3. HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an approved conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that limits sites to a single aircraft, restricts the use to properties along Lake Washington, and direct helipads to be in compliance with FAA guidelines. In summer 2007, the City was alerted to the operation of a helipad from a residential property along Lake Washington. Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are allowed in that area, but helipads are prohibited in the R-8 zone. A line in the zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) allows helipads as an accessory use in a number of commercial and industrial zones (IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR, UC-Nl and UC-N2) with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Several property owners along Lake Washington have expressed their support for aviation uses in general, and specifically for helicopters, in their neighborhood. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates helipads and has jurisdiction over air traffic. FAA approval of a helipad includes an aeronautical study of the pad's construction and dimensions, the approach to the pad (which must not be over any residential property), and known flight paths. Aeronautical studies are based on the specific aircraft to be used on the site, so the exact dimensions necessary to safely operate a helipad can vary. However, even with a very small helicopter, only about nine properties along Lake Washington would have enough space for a helipad (unless the existing home was significantly reduced in size). Conditional use permits are subject to review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, which includes consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. Conditional use permits can include reasonable conditions, such as limitation on hours of operation, that address community concerns and ensure that the use is safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. Renton has both an Administrative and a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Both include public notification, but the latter allows for an open public hearing and a better opportunity for public involvement. FAA and City measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non -Significance for this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Waslungton'with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit • Planning Commission recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. 4. MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR UTILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES BACKGROUND: • Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones are two stories and 30 feet. Above ground and elevated water tanks cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses of the facilities. Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water system; storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreation facilities, schools, public buildings In the past, variances have been granted to height standards for the construction of new public facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on the physical constraints of the parcel. The Hearing Examiner requested this code amendment. RECOMMENDATION: • Allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities. 0 175 feet for aboveground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir. 0 50 feet maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facilities, and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. • Require graphic treatment of water tanks. o Public art to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission • Cost of public art on water tanks o Staff contacted three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, and Northshore Utility District) and a Renton -based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in the Puget Sound area. o Usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade. o $30,000 for 3-million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall for a two colors tree pattern 360 ° in circumference. o $18,000 for design and painting and covered 180' of the tank's circumference. o Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District has recently cleaned and painted a 7- million gallon tank with a mural for $25,000. City of Renton City Council Public Hearing Docket Items: COR Zone, Assisted Living, Helipads, and Utilities Height March 24, 2008 Background ■ Three COR zone designations. • Stoneway Concrete (1), Port Quendall (2), and the area of Southport and Fry's (3). • Each different designation was generally assigned to single large properties with unique attributes. • Most properties have been built out or have projects underway. ■ Docket request was to consolidate these 3 designations and implement Comp Plan policies. Consolidation (cont.) ■ Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes (cont): • Include the COR in design district C to ensure that Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives for the COR zone are met. • Development should be cohesive, high quality, and landmark developments that create a prominent identity (Objective LU-VW) • Also, helps ensure that the additional density is accommodated in a visually appealing way. Docket Item 06-07 Commercial -Office - Residential Zone Consolidation • Standards will generally remain the same (height, uses, etc.) • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes: • Establishment of parking standards for the COR zone that are the same as other multi -family zones. • Elimination of a height bonus and a density bonus. • Set minimum density 30 du/acre and maximum density be 50 du/acre. • A higher minimum and maximum facilitates the Comprehensive Plan objective and goals of the COR zone for the creation of development that is compact and urban (Objective LU-VVV). Docket Item 06-28 Assisted Living 1 M M Background ■ There is no definition for Assisted living • This land use has generally been accommodated as retirement residences. • However, in practice kitchens are a key component and this land use needs to be defined. ■ Proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle. (Land Use goal 7d) Recommendation (cont.) ■ Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes (cont.): • Limit assisted living to 18 units in the R-1 and R-10 zones • This is to balance the intent of the zone with other allowed uses. (Retirement residences were not limited by density.) • "prohibit the development of uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment" • Bed and breakfast houses (maximum 10 guest rooms) • Convalescent centers (No maximum number of residents) • 10 guest room maximum for Bed and Breakfast + 2 bedrooms for proprietor x 1.5 = 18 Background Docket request to evaluate the height requirements for water system facilities. • City's new water tower in the Highlands required a variance for approval. • City Hearing Examiner requested a code amendment be processed to provide new standard. Proposed changes comply with Comp Plan policies and objectives. • Objective LU-R: Locate and plan to benefit potential public uses. • Policy LU-79: Guide and modify development of essential public facilities to meet Comp Plan policies and mitigate impacts and costs to the City. Recommendation • Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the following changes: • Implement a new definition for Assisted living and Multi- family assisted living. Also, revise definition for Convalescent centers and strike Retirement residences. • Count Assisted living towards density, but allow a bonus of 1.5x base density. • Based on smaller unit sizes and different unit mix • Allow in R-14 zone. ■ Establish parking standards of 1 space per unit, plus dedicated parking for facility fleet vehicles. Docket Item 07-01 Height Requirement for Utilities Recommendation Planning Commission and Staff recommend the following changes: • Amend height standards: • Up to 175 ft. - towers • Up to 50 ft. - water treatment facilities • Public utility facilities exceeding 50 ft. in height shall be treated with public art. • Reviewed by the Renton Arts Commission • Add language allowing administrative modification of setbacks and lot coverage to trigger site plan review. L �Aw Recommendation ■ Graphic treatment of towers • Renton Utilities, Soos Creek, and Water District 90 were contacted. • Either no response (90), graphic treatment is acceptable (Renton), or already doing (Soos Creek). • Estimated costs: • Tacoma: $18,000 for 180° of the tank. • Mural Design (local company): $30,000 for 360 ° of the tank. Issue • Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 (Residential — eight units per net acre) zone along Lake Washington? ■ Helipads are allowed with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in commercial, industrial, and urban center zones Community Concerns • Concern expressed that the proposal does not have enough regulations, but the City does not have jurisdiction over airspace ■ Conditional Use process is an effective tool ■ Noise on Kennydale Hill comes from aircraft traffic over the lake, regardless of landing area -I& 4F ". Docket Item 07-15 Helipads Analysis 'L-� • FAA regulates pad construction and siting and all airspace issues, including approach for take -off and landing • One sea plane is allowed per residence along the Lake, so aircraft uses are well established there ■ Lake front property owners overwhelmingly support the proposed amendment ■ Aircraft uses are an important aspect of the quality of life of this neighborhood Recommendation T11 • Allow helipads in the R-8 zone, if accessory to a residential use, with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit • Limit use to properties fronting Lake Washington, where aircraft are already a customary use ■ Require compliance with FAA requirements • Limit properties to one aircraft • Supported by the Planning Commission 3 in M Next Steps for This Docket Group ■ Planning and Development Committee Recommendation ■ City Council Action 4 14W VrI Docket Item 06-07: Commercial Office Residential (COR) Zone Code Amendments Background: Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. When the three COR designations were established each different designation was generally assigned to single large properties abutting Lake Washington and the Cedar River. The intent was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Those three areas in general were: Stoneway Concrete, Port Quendall, and the area of Southport and Fry's. Several of those properties have been developed or are currently being developed, making the specialized sub -zones unnecessary. These code revisions eliminate some of the length of Title IV and help to ensure fulfillment of the Comprehensive Plan purpose and objectives for the COR zone. Summary of proposed changes: • Consolidate the three existing COR zones into one zone: - Eliminate the height and density bonus provisions - Set the minimum density at 30 du/acre - Set maximum density at 50 du/acre - Place two associated footnotes regarding upper story setback and facade modulation in the development regulations table - Strike instances of COR 1, COR 2, or COR 3 and replace with COR • Place the COR zone in Urban Design District C • Place the COR zone with the parking standards for other mixed use/multi-family zoning designations Available Appeals: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. r low " �Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' - ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'a M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 18, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-07 Commercial -Office -Residential Zone ISSUES: Should COR 1, COR 2, and COR 3 be consolidated into one COR zone? What is the appropriate minimum density for a consolidated Commercial -Office - Residential (COR) zone? What is the appropriate maximum density for a consolidated Commercial -Office -Residential (COR) zone? Should the Urban Center Design guidelines be applied to the COR zone? RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate the three COR zones into one zoning designation. Based on Comprehensive Plan policies establish an appropriate minimum density (30 dwelling units/acre) and apply the maximum density of the COR 3 zone (50 dwelling units/acre) as a standard to all of the COR. Place the consolidated COR zone in the Urban Center Design District C. BACKGROUND: Consolidation of Three COR Designations Currently, in the City of Renton there are three different COR zones (COR 1, COR 2, COR 3) with varied development standards. These three different designations have two different maximum densities, two different bonus possibilities, and different criteria to achieve those bonuses. The exiting three COR zones are outlined below. COR1 COR 2 COR I Location Stoneway Concrete Port Quendall Southport and Fry's Minimum Density Mixed use — 16 du/acre Mixed use — 16 du/acre Mixed use — 16 du/acre Other — 5 du/acre Other — 5 du/acre Other — 5 du/acre Maximum Density 25 du/acre 25 du/acre 50 du/acre Density bonus Up to 5 du/acre Up to 2 du/acre None Criteria Provision of balance of Provision of: None height, bulk, and density • Continuous pedestrian access to shoreline • Additional 25' H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc LIJ M shoreline setback • Establishment of view corridor • Establishment of water related uses • Daylighting of piped streams Maximum Height 10 stories/125 ft. 10 stories/125 ft. 10 stories/125 ft. (if there is a balance in (75 ft when within 100 height, bulk, and ft of shoreline) density) Height Bonus Amount of additional None None height not specified Criteria Provision of any of the None None following: • Pedestrian access to shoreline • 5 affordable units/50 units • Additional 25' shoreline setback • Establishment of view corridor • Establishment of water related uses Table 1: Existing COR Zones and Standards When the three COR designations were established each different designation was generally assigned to single large properties. The intent was to address the varied conditions of the sites including their environmentally sensitive features, but also to address their potential for large and significant development. Those three areas in general were: Stoneway Concrete, Port Quendall, and the area of Southport and Fry's. Several of those properties have been developed or are currently being developed. The parcels that were in the COR 3 zone were rezoned as Urban Center North 1 in 2005. Currently, those parcels are largely built out with projects that are completed or underway. The COR 2 zone has two projects that are underway, leaving only one parcel in the COR 2 designation. This leaves only the COR 1 as a COR designation that bears the same conditions that were in place when the COR zones were assigned. These conditions make the specialized need for three different sub -zones no longer particularly useful or necessary. Additionally, the critical areas and shoreline updates supersede the need to address the environmentally sensitive features of the three different sites also making three different sub -zones unnecessary. It is recommended that the three different sub -zones be consolidated into one COR zone. Minimum Dens The purpose statement of the COR designation is: "The Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) designation provides opportunities for large-scale office, commercial, retail, and multi family projects developed through a master plan and site plan process incorporation significant site amenities and/or features. COR sites are typically H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc transitions from an industrial use to a more intensive land use. The sites offer redevelopment opportunities on Lake Washington and/or the Cedar River". Currently, the minimum density in COR depends on the type of development: 16 dwelling units/acre for mixed -use and 5 dwelling units/acre for any other type of development. Originally, the designation was not intended to develop with single use projects, but the practicality of listing the allowed uses on the zoning table lead to the interpretation that single uses were allowed. However, the minimum density of 5 dwelling units/acre for projects when they are residential does not meet the purpose or intent of the designation. The Comprehensive Plan states the objective for the COR designation is for the development in the zone be "high quality, landmark developments" (Objective LU- VVV). Further, "the intention (of the COR zone) is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity" (Objective LU- VVV). This objective makes it clear that the City intends for development in the COR designation to be urban in its features and densities while helping to promote the image of the City as a whole. Criteria number one for mapping the COR designation is for there to be `potential for redevelopment, or a sufficient amount of vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development" (Policy LU-406). The Comprehensive Plan is silent on specifics for minimum densities in the COR. However, a minimum of 5 dwelling units/acre is not typically development that is compact or of a type that results in significant concentration. Therefore, in order to ensure development in COR is compact, urban, and of significant concentration, it is recommended that the minimum density for the consolidated COR zone be 30 dwelling units/acre. Maximum Density The Comprehensive Plan policies specify that the "maximum residential density at COR designated sites should range between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre" (Policy LU-417). Currently, the range of maximum densities of the three COR zones is between 25 — 50 dwelling units per acre. This bottom threshold of 25 dwelling units/acre for the existing range does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan stated policies of a range of maximum density that starts at 30. The Comprehensive Plan objective and policy that were relevant for establishing the minimum density are also appropriate to the establishment of the maximum density. Therefore, in order to ensure development in COR is compact, urban, and of significant concentration, it is recommended that the maximum density for the consolidated COR zone be 50 dwelling units/acre. Development Standards The stated objective of the COR zone is "development at Commercial/Office/Residential designations should be cohesive, high quality, landmark developments that are integrated with natural amenities. The intention is to create a compact, urban development with high amenity values that creates a prominent identity (Objective LU-VVV). The standards sought in Urban Design District C are intended to encourage development that is urban in character, adds ascetic appeal to the community, and encourages active and lively uses. The elements included in these standards apply to features such as: building entry, gateway features, parking, pedestrian features, landscaping, and building architectural design. These standards are of the nature that the City seeks for the COR H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc zone as outlined in Policy LU-421. "Commercial/Office/Residential developments should have a combination of internal and external site design features, such as: public plazas, prominent architectural features, public access to natural features or views, distinctive focal features, indication of the function as a gateway, if appropriate, structured parking, and other features meeting the spirit and intent of the COR designation. "(Policy LU-421). Therefore, in order to help ensure that the development that occurs in the COR zone meets the stated policies and objective it is recommended that the COR zoning designation be placed in the Urban Center Design District C. The City would like to retain two of the development standards of the COR 3 zone that further help to ensure that development meets the stated policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. First, the COR 3 zone requires setbacks on upper stories that are taller than fifty feet. It requires projects taller than fifty feet setback the fifth story and succeeding stories a minimum of ten feet from the preceding story. Second, the City would like to retain the modulation/articulation requirements of COR 3. Specifically, it requires that buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail provide vertical and horizontal modulation of rooflines and facades. The modulation is required to occur at an interval of every forty feet with a minimum two feet wide modulation on the building face. This modulation and articulation is important to all locations of the COR zone, not simply in the locations that are in proximity to public parks, etc. These development standards should both be retained in the consolidated COR zone. The COR zone is not identified in the number of required parking spaces table in Title IV. This needs to be resolved appropriately. The proposed standards for the COR zone closely match the use for attached dwellings outside the downtown core in the CD, RM- U, RM-T, UC-N1, and UC-N2 zones. The parking requirements for atached dwellings in these zones are: 1.8 parking spaces per 3 bedrooms or larger units, 1.6 parking spaces per 2 bedroom unit, and 1.2 parking spaces per 1 bedroom or studio. Staff recommends placin the COR zone in with these zones, so that the aforementioned standards apply to the COR zone in the future. Elimination of the Bonus Criteria The bonus criteria that are currently included in the COR zone are generally associated with shoreline regulations. These bonus criteria were developed in 1993; prior to revisions of the shoreline regulations that make several of the items listed as bonus criteria mandatory. Additionally, the City has begun a new process to rewrite the shoreline regulations. The State has directed municipalities to achieve a balance of the natural, recreational, and economic uses of shorelines in their shoreline regulations. This current initiative is expected to ensure that all of the items that are included as bonus criteria will be encompassed in the regulations. The remaining bonus criterion is targeted towards affordable housing. To achieve a height bonus, one of the options is to provide five units of affordable housing per every fifty units of market rate housing. The City defines affordable housing as: "Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eight percent (80%) H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc *Age, VOW of' the median annual income adjusted for household size, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Seattle Metropolitan Statistical Area, and who pay no more than thirty percent (30%) of household income for housing expenses. Affordable housing used to satisfy zoning requirements, whether for inclusionary or bonus provisions, must be secured to remain affordable in perpetuity, as determined by the City Attorney." This bonus in the COR zone has never been used. The R-14 zone also has a density bonus. One of the four options is: for the provision of two affordable units per net developable acre, a range of between one to four units of additional housing over the maximum density is allowable. There has been interest in the %100 Median 80% Median 50% Median Unit Size Income Income Income 0 Bedrooms $1,361 $1,090 $680 1 Bedroom $1,459 $1,169 $730 2 Bedrooms $1,752 $1,403 $877 3 Bedrooms $2,025 $1,620 $1,012 utilization of this affordable housing bonus. A few preliminary plans have been brought forward, but have not moved forward as projects. The issue of affordable housing and the development of units that are considered affordable is a large issue that goes beyond just the COR zone. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development establishes the maximum rent that can be charged to affordable housing tenants by county. The 2007 table for King County is below. These figures also are to include utilities paid by the tenant. Many of the market rate apartments available in the City of Renton meet the threshold for the 80% median income category, but not the 50% median income category. The table below includes information about current rents at 95 Burnett which is a brand new apartment building located in downtown Renton, Brighton Court which is an apartment built approximately in the 1980's located on NE 41h, and Springbrook which is a an apartment building that was built in the early 2000's and located on Talbot. 95 Burnett Unit Size Monthly Rent 0 Bedrooms $915- $950 1 Bedroom $1165 - $1250 2 Bedrooms $1465 - $1580 3 Bedrooms n/a Brighton Ridge Monthly Rent n/a $790- $875 $975 - $1005 n/a Springbrook Monthly Rent n/a $1060 - $1100 $1175 - $1535 $1665 - $1715 H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc The bonus criteria that are included as options for the COR as it exists and the R-14 zone do not specifically target any subcategory within the affordable housing thresholds. Any housing that is targeted toward at least 80% median income residents would qualify for a bonus. The market as it exists in Renton is already meeting much of this need. The subcategory of affordable housing that is not being met is at the lower levels, such as 50%. The bonus criteria and the definition of affordable housing do not mandate for accommodation for any median income level lower than 80%. Thus, it appears that the elimination of the COR height bonus and its option for a provision of affordable housing would not cause harm to the affordable housing that is needed in Renton. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan objective for COR zone, which call for compact, urban development that is of a high quality and serve as landmark developments (Objective LU-VVV). CONCLUSION: Consolidating the COR zone into one designation is appropriate and simplifies existing code. Applying a minimum density of 30 dwelling units/acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre is appropriate in fostering the Comprehensive Plan intension of creating compact urban development. The proposed standards are outline below. Additionally, in order to ensure that the development that occurs fulfills the policies and intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zone should be place in Design District C. COR Location Stoneway Concrete and Port Quendall Minimum Density 30 du/acre Maximum Density 50 Density Bonus None Criteria None Maximum Height 10 stories/125 ft. Height Bonus None Criteria None Table 2: Proposed COR Zone and Standards AVAILABLE APPEALS: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-07 COR Zone\Issue Paper#2.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING COMMERCIAL OFFICE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. WHEREAS, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone has three separate designations in City code that reflected the unique characteristics of the parcels; and WHEREAS, many of those parcels have been or are being developed and the need for three separate COR zones is no longer applicable; and WHEREAS, the area that was zoned COR 3 was rezoned to a different designation and the COR 3 zone is a designation that is no longer used in practice; and IV; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to eliminate inconsistencies and unnecessary length in Title WHEREAS, the City seeks to fulfill the vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the COR zoning designation; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Section 4-2-0200 the purpose statement for the Commercial Office Residential zone of the Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Page 1 of 9 En M Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: O. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL ZONE (CORD 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Commercial/Office/Residential Zone (COR) is to provide for a mix of intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high -quality, master -planned development that is integrated with the natural environment. It is intended to implement the Commercial/Office/Residential Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Commercial retail and service uses that are architecturally and functionally integrated are permitted. Also, commercial uses that provide high economic value may be allowed if designed with the scale and intensity envisioned for the COR Zone. Policies governing these uses are contained in the Land Use Element, Commercial/Office/Residential section of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The scale and location of these sites will typically denote a gateway into the City and should be designed accordingly. gateway and e�-virc—='e ensiti­@ features okhese sites thi _(*-ie4,� ,u h COR 2 i plied to p pertyi.n_theyieinit., 4the aFe eominon1y4newn_as the"Port Quendall-Site. Page 2 of 9 CM ♦.• t. V R J 1J Llpt111eU LV thepfepet4ies eemfflenly knowii eelleetively as Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives, and policy direction established in the Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation, Objective LU-VVV, Policies LU-406 through LU-421, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Amd. Ord. 5001, 2-10-2003) SECTION II. Section 4-2-080A Subject to the Following Conditions of the Conditions Associated with Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that note number twenty three read as follows: 23. Limited to existing uses. Only those modifications or expansions which do not increase production levels are permitted in the COR zone ' and COR ''. Major modifications, production increases, or expansions of existing use require a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit in the COR zone. ' or COR '' '`T^ nie#i-€e allowed is CO SECTION III. Section 4-2-120B Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Page 3 of 9 M Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the column associated with the COR zone reads as shown in Attachment A. SECTION IV. Section 4-2-120C Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that notes numbered 14, 22, 24, and 25 are stricken entirely and the notes are renumbered accordingly. SECTION V. Section 4-2-12OF Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that in note 6 reads: 6. COR ? Zone-and-UC-N2 Zone Upper Story Setbacks: Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height which are located within one hundred feet (100') of a shoreline shall include upper story setbacks for the facade facing the shoreline and for facades facing publicly accessible plazas as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (10') minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each story. Projects not meeting the upper story setbacks defined above may be approved through the modification process when superior design is demonstrated pursuant to RMC 4-9- 250D. For a modification to be granted, the project must also comply with the decision and design criteria stipulated in RMC 4-9-250D2 and D4. Page 4 of 9 Also to amend note 8 to read: 8. In COR 3—atid—the UC-N2 Zones, where the applicable Shoreline Master Program setback is less than fifty feet (50% the City may increase the setback up to one hundred percent (100%) if the City determines additional setback area is needed to assure adequate public access, emergency access or other site planning or environmental considerations. And to amend note 9 to read: 9. COR 3 arm UC-N2 Zones Modulation/Articulation Requirements: Buildings that are immediately adjacent to or abutting a public park, open space, or trail shall incorporate at least one of the features in items a. through c. and shall provide item d.: a. Incorporate building modulation to reduce the overall bulk and mass of buildings; or b. Provide at least one architectural projection for each dwelling unit of not less than two feet (2') from the wall plane and not less than four feet (4') wide; or c. Provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty feet (40') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project; and d. Provide building articulation and textural variety. SECTION VL Section 4-3-100B Applicability of the Urban Design Regulations of Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, of Title IV (Development Page 5 of 9 En Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new number 7 which reads: 7. This Section shall apply to all development in the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone. For the purposes of the design regulations, the zone shall be in District `C'. SECTION VII. Section 4-4-08OF Parking Lot Design Standards of Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations of Chapter 4 City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so number 10 subpart e Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use, the table is amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION VIII. Section 4-7-230A Purpose and Intent of Binding Site Plans of Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that number 1 reads as follows: 1. Optional Methods of Subdivision: To provide an optional process for the division of land classified for industrial, commercial, or mixed use zones CN, CV, CA CD CO COR4FOR O UC-NI, UC-N2 IL IM and IH through a binding site plan as authorized in chapters 58.17 and 64.34 RCW. This method may be employed as an alternative to the subdivision and short subdivision procedures in this Chapter. SECTION IX. Table 4-8-120C Submittal Requirements for Land Use Applications of Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Page 6 of 9 ..,01 of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the row titled "Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. SECTION X. Table 4-8-120D.18 Definitions R of Definitions of Terms Used in Submittal Requirements for Building, Planning and Public Works Permit Applications of Chapter 8 Permits General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so the definition of "Report on Design Criteria for Modifications" is deleted entirely. SECTION XI. 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby so that Section B reads: B. APPLICABILITY: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4=9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14— and RM-U, GO '— and —OR 2-Zones. (Amd. Ord. 4985, 10-14-2002; Ord. 5137, 4-25-2005) Also, to amend Section D Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria to delete the columns associated with COR 1 and COR 2 entirely. SECTION XII. 4-9-200B Applicability of Site Development Plan Review of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 Page 7 of 9 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby so that section b of number 1 Master Plan Review — Applicability reads as follows: b. COR Zones: Master Plan review is required for all development within the COR Zones that is not specifically exempted by subsection C of this Section. SECTION XIII. Section 4-9-250D Modifiacation Procedures of Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby to strike number 3 entirely. SECTION XIV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Denis Law, Mayor Page 8 of 9 Date of Publication: Pagc 9 of 9 Attachment A 4-2-120B , DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS COR LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for lots None created after July 11, 1993 Minimum Lot Width/Depth None for lots created after July 11, 1993 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage for 65% of total lot area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or Buildings within a parking garage. DENSITY (Net Density in Dw lling Units per Net Acre) Where a development involves a mix f uses then minimum residential_, the Minimum Net Residential minimum density shall be 4-6-30 dwelling units per net acre.9'24 Density When development doe-, invelve pfoposed not a mix of uses, then minimum The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Maximum Net Residential Density}te, COR " respeetiveljz} 2-5-50 dwelling units per net acre.: �vil3t}bf};3f}�rs de}�;tty-nl�r�be--ask}�vt�.Sub}E�;-�t�>}�cjtc�c{un-en3ents-}}}-1�#IL--4--�}-E16:5� 49 GOR-3--(GenetsallyAht Sotttlrpm"t-Site and-F3 y'S Site)--_54—dw -lli} b }nits 9;25 lI-r-}x t-aer-e The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.--' Maximum Front Yards Determined through site development plan review. -'-� Minimum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review. A Street18 Maximum Side Yard Along Determined through site development plan review. 2-'- A Street18 Minimum Freeway Frontage 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. Setback Minimum Rear YardB Determined through site development plan review.`-= Minimum Side Yard18 Determined through site development plan review.--" Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RNIC 4-11-030. n n ON -SITE LANDSCAPING Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width - Along the Street Frontage Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Lot is Adjacent$ to Property Zoned R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM Minimum Landscape Width Determined through site development plan review. Required When a Commercial Lot is Abutting' Property Zoned Residential Minimum On -site Determined through site development plan review. Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Zoned Lot is Adjacent8 to Property Zoned Commercial, Office or Public/Quasi, i.e., CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, or COR HEIGHT Maximum Building Height COR I -(Generally the Stonow a y Concrete Site): 10 ..tortes and/or 125 E, C-OIL-� �t:nd-�-((rener-ally-the Pori-i}uen�all-Sit�F��'s�ite�nd--the �outhpnrt-file} 10 stories and/or 125 ft.; provided, tl ' •Y a,,ter plan includes „ balance of 1., il4i., 1i,.4�ht,�ul.6 and provided, that4n4hc GOR 3 Zone buildings buildings 10 only, OF POFtiOnS of whiGhaFe within o f the shoreline- shall not exceed ,5 maximum height of 75 +'t =�- Maximum Building Height Determined through site development plan review.2 When a Building is Abutting? a Lot Designated as Residential Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4-140G. Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING See RMC 4-4-095. Minimum Required for Outdoor Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Storage or Work Areas; Surface - Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Regulations See RMC 4-3-040. Upper Story Setbacks Buildings or portions of buildings which exceed fifty feet (50') in height shall include upper story setbacks as follows: The minimum setback for a fifth story and succeeding stories shall be ten feet (' 10') minimum from the preceding story, applicable to each store. Roofline and Facade Buildings shall provide vertical and horizontal modulation of roof lines and facades of a minimum of two feet (2') at an interval of a minimum of forty Modulation feet 0') on a building face or an equivalent standard which adds interest and quality to the project. Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. PARKING AND LOADING General See RMC 4-4-080 and RMC 10-10-13. Direct arterial access to individual structures shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. Required Location for Parkin NA PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General Determined through site development plan review. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. LOADING DOCKS Location Determined through site development plan review. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of Refuse or Recycling Areas See RMC 4-4-090. CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Guidelines I NA .� Attachment B 4-4-08OF PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (see RMC 4-9-250). (Ord. 4517, 5-8-1995; Amd. Ord. 4790, 9-13-1999; Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002; Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) USE JNUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: Mixed The total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the occupancies: requirements for the several uses computed separately, unless the building is (2 or 3 different classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. uses in the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 or more uses, see "shopping center" requirements) Uses not Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff shall determine which of specifically the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses identified in this and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking Section: for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below. RESIDENTIAL USES OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN CORE: Detached and A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum semi -attached of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair dwellings: and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Bed and breakfast 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required houses: setback. Manufactured A minimum of 2 per manufactured home site, plus a screened parking area homes within a shall be provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a manufactured ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be home park: parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each residence: 4 persons employed on the premises. Attached 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit; dwellings in CD, 1.6 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; RM-U, RM-T, 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. COR, UC-NI and RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio cm UC-N2 Zones formula may be granted by the Development Services Director allowing 1 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or less per unit provided adequate on -street parking is available in the vicinity of the development. (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004) Attached 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or dwellings within 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the the RM-F Zone: criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Attached 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is dwellings within allowed. the CV Zone: Attached 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or dwellings within 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the all other zones: criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling 1 for each 4 dwelling units. for low income elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN DOWNTOWN CORE: Attached 1 per unit. dwellings: Attached I for every 3 dwelling units. dwellings for low income elderly: COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE, EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: Drive -through retail or Stacking spaces: The drive -through facility shall be so located that drive -through service: sufficient on -site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of-way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces within 100 feet of the main day care (I and II): entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. Mortuaries or funeral 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. homes: Vehicle sales (large 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is not a parking lot and does not and small vehicles) have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk with outdoor retail storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any sales areas: arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping area is provided; They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. Vehicle service and 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. repair (large and small vehicles): Offices, medical and 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. dental: Offices, general: A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Eating and drinking 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. establishments and taverns: Eating and drinking 1 per 75 square feet of net floor area. establishment combination sit- down/drive-through restaurant: Retail sales and big- A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big -box box retail sales: retail sales, which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. Services, on -site A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area. (except as specified below): Clothing or shoe repair 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. shops, furniture, appliance, hardware stores, household equipment: Uncovered commercial 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales area in addition to any parking area, outdoor nurseries: requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of main sports arenas, auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, auditoriums, stadiums, whichever is greater. movie theaters, and entertainment clubs: Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. cm M clubs, and skating rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses: 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: I 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORE, EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: All uses allowed in the 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. CD Zone except for the following uses: Excepted uses follow the standards applied outside the Downtown Core. Excepted Uses: Convalescent center, drive -through retail, drive -through service, hotels, mortuaries, indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other recreational uses. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum (includes any type of of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-N1 and UC-N2 business occupying a Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is shopping center): permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive -through retail or drive -through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above. INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie- Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie -down areas are to be down areas: utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. Manufacturing and A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum fabrication, of 0.15 spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area (including laboratories, and warehouse space). assembly and/or .-n 0 packaging operations: Self service storage: 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. Outdoor storage area: 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. Warehouses and indoor 1 per 1,500 square feet of net floor area. storage buildings: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seating capacity of the auditorium, see "outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor, plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community 1 per 3 beds, plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. transition facilities: Schools: Elementary and junior 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students high: are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 students enrolled. In addition, public, parochial and if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, private: 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Colleges and 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students residing on campus, plus 1 universities, arts and space for every 5 day students not residing on campus. In addition, if crafts schools/studios, buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street and trade or vocational parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park schools: each bus. (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) on Docket Item 06-28: Assisted Living Code Amendments Background- The City of Renton currently does not have a definition for assisted living. Assisted living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place as a housing type for a number of years. The City needs to implement a definition for this housing type and some development standards regarding this type of housing. Summary of proposed changes: ■ Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. ■ Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. ■ Implement a new definition for multi -family assisted living. ■ Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. - Example: an assisted living facility that wanted to locate in the RMF zone would determine density by multiplying 1.5 x 20 to determine a maximum number of residential units of 30. ■ Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Limit assisted living facilities in the R-1 and R-10 zone to a maximum of 18 total residential units per acre. ■ Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Issue Discussion: An administrative determination was made that assisted living is "most similar to convalescent centers/nursing homes in the care and type of services they provide" and the facilities were considered a commercial use. As a commercial use assisted living has not been subject to the density limits of the zone they located are in. Assisted living being built now typically includes full kitchens and is more similar to apartment buildings than convalescent centers and should be subject to density. However, assisted living units are smaller than apartment units and built with a higher percentage of studios and one -bedrooms than apartment buildings. Therefore, a density ratio of 1.5 should be allowed for assisted living facilities. The amount of parking required for assisted living needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents do bring cars, but not with as much frequency as typical multi -family. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit balances the parking needs of staff and guests with the cars brought by residents. Finally, retirement residences are allowed in the R-1 zone with no maximum density. In replacing retirement residences with assisted living in the use table and applying density standards to assisted living, it would leave assisted living in R-1 with a maximum density of 1 residential unit. It is recommended that the maximum allowable number of guest rooms for bed and breakfast houses (10) allowed in the R-1 be used as a base to determine assisted living maximum density, assume 2 bedrooms for the proprietor, multiply by the 1.5 ratio, to determine a maximum 18 units in the R-1 zone for assisted living facilities. This maximum would also be allowed in the R-10 zone. Available Appeals: Appeals regarding these zoning text changes can be made to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board. Y " ;; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 27, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket 06-28 Assisted Living ISSUES: ■ Assisted living facilities as a land use needs to be defined. ■ The definition for convalescent centers needs to be amended. ■ Assisted living facilities should be counted towards density, but should also be allowed additional density with a ratio. ■ Assisted living will replace retirement residences in the zoning use table, should they be allowed in the same zoning designations? ■ The ratio for the number of required parking spaces for assisted living facilities needs to be determined. RECOMMENDATION: ■ Implement a definition for assisted living that allows kitchens in units and indicates that the staff administers an element of personal care to residents. ■ Revise the definition for convalescent centers so that the distinction between assisted living and convalescent is clear and identifies that a skilled nursing staff administers convalescent care. ■ Apply density to assisted living facilities, but allow them to develop at a ratio of 1.5 units per the base density of the zone. Also, implement a new definition for multi -family assisted living. ■ Replace retirement residences with assisted living in the zoning use tables. Allow assisted living facilities in the R-14 zone. Place a maximum density maximum of 18 total residential units per acre on assisted living facilities in the R-1 zone and R-10 zones. ■ Require 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. BACKGROUND: The term "assisted living" is a somewhat newer term and concept in housing and care for people as they age. The City of Renton currently does not have a definition for H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page I of 9 t %W assisted living. However, there are definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers, as well as, two interpretation/policy decisions regarding assisted living and retirement residences that frame the policy discussion regarding assisted living. The definitions for retirement residence and convalescent centers read: "RETIREMENT RESIDENCE: A building or group of buildings which provide residential facilities, including a common kitchen and dining room but without full kitchen facilities (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) in each unit, for residents sixty-two (62) or more years in age, except for spouses for whom there is no minimum age requirement. This definition excludes multi -family (attached) dwelling units, boarding and lodging houses, convalescent facilities, adult family homes, and group homes I and II." "CONVALESCENT CENTERS: Facilities for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses where care includes ongoing medical treatment and extended care facilities. This definition does not include retirement residences, adult family homes, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities." Administrative Interpretations/Policy Decisions Due to the lack of a definition for assisted living, the Development Services Division made an interpretation/policy decision regarding assisted living facilities in June 2000. The policy decision determined, at that time, that assisted living facilities were "most similar to convalescent centers/nursing homes in the care and type of services they provide". With this determination, the facilities were considered a commercial use that required a business license and would be allowed in "Center zones where Convalescent Centers/Nursing Homes are allowed". The rationale for this determination was in part: "As described by an industry source, Assisted Living Facilities are for seniors who are usually in their mid 80's and 90's and are no longer active. Assisted Living Facilities are licensed and monitored by the Washington Department of Health. The care involves assisting the residents with the activities of daily life such as dressing, bathing, and medication reminders. Three meals are provided daily, including special dietary requirements. Due to the age and frailty of the residents, activities are usually on site. Assisted Living residents no longer drive and van services is provided to meet transportation needs. Externally, an Assisted Living Facility may look very similar to retirement or congregate care residences but internally the design and level of care is much more intense due to the age and frailty of the residents. Often these facilities provide specialized medical services such as Alzheimer's Care." In 1997, an interpretation made a clarification of the definition of retirement residences that determined retirement residences could only include an appurtenant kitchen in individual living units. An appurtenant kitchen was considered "a microwave, a '/2 to 3/ refrigerator, sink, and toaster oven. These appliances are intended to be used for meal preparation of snacks, coffee/tea, etc.". The determination further stated that if units were to have individualized cooking facilities, those cooking facilities would preclude the building from meeting the definition of retirement residence. Additionally, "to qualify as a retirement residence, the facility H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper 42.doc Page 2 of 9 must include a central, common kitchen and dining area which prepares and serves the primary 3 meals per day. Appurtenant kitchen facilities in the individual units are intended only for personal convenience and do not constitute individualized cooking facilities." In several ways these determinations and the definitions do not accurately represent the current standards for assisted living facilities. For example, assisted living facilities often present themselves as residences for active seniors, not for those who are frail. Additionally, since assisted living was determined to be most similar to convalescent centers and it was determined that retirement residences are not allowed to have full kitchens, it would seem that the determinations would preclude assisted living facilities to not have full kitchens; which most seem to include. ISSUE DISCUSSION: Definitions for Assisted Living and Convalescent Centers A survey of web -based information and other municipalities indicates that assisted living is generally considered to be a "bridge between independent living and a nursing home/convalescent center". Many residents are not able to completely care for themselves, but they also do not require full time care by a skilled medical staff. Many assisted living facilities also include independent living at the same facility, as well as, a dedicated area where residents may be able to receive skilled nursing care on a temporary/recovery basis. Convalescent centers are places where people live as they receive skilled nursing care while they recover or decline from age, illness, or injury. Residents typically do not live single occupant rooms or units that include kitchens. Convalescent centers are often more institutional in nature than an assisted living home. In developing definitions for these two different types of living situations for older people, the table below is helpful to illustrate the similarities and differences. Assisted Living Convalescent Center Self contained living units Yes No Private bath in unit Yes No Kitchen in unit Yes No Housekeeping offered Yes Yes Laundry services offered Yes Yes Centralized kitchen and dining Yes Yes Common areas for social/recreational purposes Yes Yes 24-hour staff Yes Yes In unit "panic button" Yes Yes Skilled nursing staff on -site No Yes Residents own automobiles Maybe No Transportation provided Yes Maybe Scheduled trips provided Yes No Table 1: Comparison of Standards at Assisted Living Facilities and Convalescent Centers H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\lssue Paper #2.doc Page 3 of 9 To better reflect the current manner in which assisted living facilities are implemented and to further clarify the differences between assisted living and convalescent centers, it is recommended that the definition of retirement residence be stricken and the following definitions are proposed for implementation. ASSISTED LIVING: A facility where residents live in private units and receive assistance with limited aspects of personal care, such as: taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Meals are provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. Staff is on duty 24-hours per day to ensure the welfare and safety of residents. This definition does not include: convalescent centers, congregate residences, boarding and lodging houses, adult family homes, and group homes I and II. CONVALESCENT CENTER: A facility licensed by the State for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses. Facilities provide 24-hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activites. This definition does not include adult family homes, assisted living, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities. Density Standards for Assisted Living Currently, City standards do not apply density standards to retirement residences. With the amendment to assisted living facilities it is recommended that density standards be applied to such facilities. The manner in which the market constructs assisted living facilities, makes it seem that the City needs to modify this standard so that density does apply. The product the market seems to be generating in assisted living complexes where units are most similar to individual apartment units and not shared. Assisted living units typically include kitchenettes, at minimum, and bathrooms in each unit. This unit model does not differ from apartment construction and apartments must adhere to the density standards of the zone they are built in. Therefore, it is appropriate for density standards to be applied to assisted living facilities. In order to facilitate the inclusion of assisted living facilities in uses that adhere to density standards, a definition of the units must be written and implemented. The proposed definition for these units is: Assisted Living: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units where residents receive assistance with personal care. Dwelling units include a full kitchen (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) or a kitchenette, a bathroom, a living area, and may include a call system. On the premises, facilities shall include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. An on -site small-scale facility that offers skilled nursing care on a temporary basis is allowable when the number of beds reserved for the medical care is no greater than five percent (5%) of the total number of living units at the premises. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 4 of 9 In surveying the standards that other municipalities place on assisted living facilities, it became apparent that many cities allow assisted living facilities to be built at a higher density than is allowed outright in the zone. For example, the City of Kirkland allows assisted living facilities to be built at a 2:1 ratio. So, in a zone that allowed a maximum density of 25 dwelling units/acre, an assisted living facility would be allowed a maximum density of 50 dwelling units. Staff investigated the average square footage that apartments and assisted living facilities are built at to determine an appropriate ratio for density calculations. The square footage of units at fifteen local apartment buildings with a total 72 floor plans and fifteen assisted living facilities with a total 57 floor plans were averaged to determine the average square footage at which each are being constructed with (this set of data for assisted living facilities included facilities throughout the United States). Staff also calculated the standards for assisted living facilities in the City of Renton. It is important to note that none of these facilities are entirely assisted living; they all encompass both independent living and assisted living. As a whole, the reported number of assisted living units accounted for only 43% of the total and independent living represented 57% of the total. In light of this, while the figures for City of Renton are an accurate representation of the existing stock of assisted living in the City they may not accurately reflect the market demand for assisted living in the City. With the administrative interpretations current City code has not allowed assisted living to be built with full kitchens and has required facilities to generally fall under the guidelines for multi -family to meet market demand for such kitchens in the units. Therefore, both the national data and the City of data were considered in the staff recommendation. The table below indicates that assisted living units are notably smaller than apartment units. Also included in the table are percentages that the units represent in the overall development. The information for_ Assisted Living (National) is from the "2006 Overview of Assisted Living" published by the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, American Seniors Housing Association, Assisted Living Federation of American, National Center for Assisted Living, and the National Investment Center for the Seniors Housing and Care Industry. Assisted Living (Renton) is the data for the existing facilities in the City only. The information for apartments was calculated from the information gathered in the survey of 15 apartment buildings. % of % of % of % of Total 1 Total 2 Total 3 Total Studio Units Bedroom Units Bedroom Units Bedroom Units Assisted Living 404 51% 559 39% 835 6/o 0 n/a 0 0/o (National) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Assisted Living 379 28% 526 56% 913 16% n/a 0 /o o (Renton) sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Apartments 595 13% 772 36% 1,044 35/o 0 1,309 170 �° sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. sq. ft. Table 2: Average Unit Size at Assisted Living Facilities and Apartments with Unit Mix Percentage of the Total Building H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 5 of 9 Table 2 indicates that the City should consider establishing some ratio that allows assisted living facilities to develop with more units. Table 3 below applies the percentage mix indicated in Table 2 to a 100,000 square foot building in order to approximate the total number of units the different land uses would result in. This calculation considers only the gross building size and does not consider a deduction for hallways, common areas, recreation areas, etc. The ratio of assisted living units to apartment units that this gross calculation produces is 1.76 for the national data and 1.71 for the Renton only data. This ratio also does not reflect a key component of assisted living facilities that apartments do not typically include, a common kitchen, and dining room. To reflect the differences in typical amenities that are offered at an assisted living facility in comparison with the typical apartment building, staff recommends a ratio of 1.5. Studio 1 Bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom # of units # of units # of units # of units Total Units Assisted Living 126 70 7 0 203 (National) Assisted Living 74 106 18 0 198 (Renton) Apartments 10 66 34 6 116 Table 3: Gross Calculation of Number of Units in 100,000 Square Foot Building for Assisted Living and Apartments Zoning for Assisted Living and Convalescent Centers The zones where retirement residences are currently allowed translate well for assisted living facilities. Staff recommends that in the zoning use table, retirement residences be stricken and replaced with assisted living. This will allow assisted living in the same zones that retirement residences are currently allowed in. However, staff would also like to allow assisted living in the R-14 zone as an administrative conditional use. Attached dwellings and convalescent centers are allowed in the R-14. It is appropriate to allow assisted living in the R-14 zone and it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone, "to encourage development and redevelopment of residential neighborhoods that provide a mix of detached, semi -attached, and attached dwelling structures organized and designed to combine characteristics of both typical detached single family and small-scale multi family developments". City code allows retirement residences in the R-1 zone as a hearing examiner conditional use. There are currently no restrictions on the scale or density at which an assisted living facility could be built. However, if assisted living is going to be considered in density, then this would limit people to building a single unit assisted living facility in the R-1 zone. Staff does not wish to impose this on landowners in the R-1 zone. Yet, staff is concerned about the scale of development that would be allowed to occur in the R-1 zone under the current parameters. The development regulations for R-1 allow 35% of the lot to be built on with a maximum height of two stories or 30 feet. Applying this standard would allow a one -acre parcel to build a two story building on a 15,246 square foot building footprint, for a total 30,492 square foot facility. Below are two images of 30,000 square foot buildings to illustrate the scale of such a building size. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 6 of 9 This scale of building is inconsistent with the purpose of the R-1 zone. The R-1 zone is applied to land that is environmentally constrained and is intended to `prohibit the development of uses that may be detrimental to the residential or natural environment". However, it is important to consider that assisted living is a residential use and relatively low intensity. As a land use, the traffic generated by an assisted living facility is generally lower than a grouping of single-family homes. Additionally, there are other uses allowed in the R-1 zone that function with a higher intensity land use than a single-family house on one acre of land. Many of them have similar characteristics of use to assisted living facilities such as: visits, employees, and traffic generation. Those land uses include: convalescent centers, group homes II for seven or more, bed and breakfast houses, and family day care. Family day care allows for the care of 12 or fewer children in a 24-hour period. The maximum number of allowed residents at a convalescent center is not limited. Group homes II are not limited to a specified number of people and includes staff who provide care. Professional bed and breakfast houses allow for overnight accommodations for a range of 4 to 10 guest rooms. All of these uses involve a staff and residents or customers. The City of Kenmore allows apartments style assisted living facilities in the R-1 zone when the density does not exceed 18 units per net acre of developable land. Staff applied the maximum number of guest rooms (10) allowed at a professional bed and breakfast as a base to determine the maximum number of assisted living residential units to allow in the R-1. It is reasonable to assume that a proprietor of a bed and breakfast would have 2 bedrooms for themselves. This base number of 12 multiplied by the density ratio 1.5 results in a maximum number of allowable residential units in an assisted living facility of 18. Therefore, it is recommended that a maximum of 18 assisted living residential units per acre be placed on the R-1 zone. This maximum would be absolute and would not be allowed to have the density ratio applied to it again. In the R-10 zone if the 1.5 ratio for assisted living is applied to the base density of 10, the maximum density allowed would be 15. This maximum is lower than what has been recommended for the allowable density in the R-1 zone for assisted living. Therefore, it is recommended that in the R-10 zone the maximum number of assisted living units allowed be 18. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 7 of 9 M Parking Standards for Assisted Living Currently, retirement residences are not included in the parking standards table. This needs to be rectified with this group of amendments. In order to provide some starting points for determining the appropriate parking ratio, staff examined other municipalities parking standards and City code for the standards for similar uses. Below Table 4 shows City of Renton parking standards for land uses similar to assisted living. Table 5 shows other municipal standards for required parking for assisted living facilities. Land Use Required Parking Spaces Convalescent Centers 1 for every 2 employees, plus 1 for every 3 beds Attached dwellings for low income elderly in downtown 1 for every 4 dwelling units core Attached dwellings for low income elderly outside 1 for every 3 dwelling units downtown core Bed and Breakfast houses I per guest room Table 4: City of Renton Land Uses and Parking Standards City Required Parking Spaces City of Kirkland 1 per living unit City of Denton 1 space per 2 beds, or 1 space per apt. unit City of Douglas 0.3 parking space per unit, plus 1 for every 3 employees during the largest shift. City of Mesa 1 per dwelling unit Midford Township 1 per 2 beds, plus 1 for each staff and employee on the two major shifts City of Riverside 1 space per 3 beds Table 5: Comparison of Other City Standards for Required Parking for Assisted Living In examining these tables it seems that a one bed per unit standard is the most common. For the standards that are different it may be that when calculated there is little difference in the resulting number of required parking spaces. Although it is often assumed that assisted living residents do not drive, in many facilities they are not required to discontinue driving. Additionally, most assisted living facilities feature services and amenities that are heavily dependent on staff. It is reasonable that the parking needs of the staff, residents, and guests would be higher than at a convalescent center but accommodated with a parking requirement of one space per living unit. The parking requirement for the bed and breakfast houses, one space per residential unit is adequate to accommodate customers who park on -site and the parking needs for the proprietors H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 8 of 9 0*1 w and any staff. This standard of one space of parking per residential unit is suitable for assisted living. The one to one requirement facilitates a reasonable standard for urban areas with higher density allowances that have access to public transit for employees, but also does not result in large parking areas in residentially zoned areas. However, most assisted living facilities offer transportation to medical appointments and/or activities for residents. The vehicles that they use for transportation are typically small shuttle bus type vehicles. These vehicles take more than one a passenger vehicle parking space. Therefore, it is recommended that the parking standard for assisted living be to require 1 parking space per residential unit, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element goal to promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: • Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle. • Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. • Are varied or unique in character • Offer connection to the community instead of isolation • Provide a sense of home CONCLUSION: Assisted living is a type of housing for older people that has been in place for a number of years, the City needs to respond and include a new definition for this housing type and implement some new standards regarding this type of housing. It has been shown that assisted living facilities develop with smaller unit sizes and with a different unit mix than the average apartment building. This indicates that it is appropriate to allow assisted living facilities a ratio to apply to the maximum density of the zone they seek to build in. The amount of parking required at assisted living facilities needs to be higher than the requirements for a convalescent center because residents sometimes bring cars. However, not all residents of assisted living facilities have cars. A requirement of one parking space per one residential unit will balance the parking needs for staff and guests with the cars brought with residents. Finally, limitations on the maximum number assisted living residential units allowed in the R-1 zone are appropriate to ensure the residential character of that zone. APPEALS AVAILABLE: Development regulation text amendments referred to the Planning Commission are a Type X land use. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-28 Assisted Living\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 9 of 9 ..101 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING ASSISTED LIVING. WHEREAS, the City does not have a definition for assisted living; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to define assisted living as a land use and ensure appropriate development regulations regarding assisted living facilities; and WHEREAS, in light of the definition for assisted living, the definition for convalescent centers needs to be amended to provide clarity; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-2-060D the other residential, lodging and home occupations section of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code Page I of 44 r M of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the words "Retirement residences" are stricken and replaced in alphabetical order with "Assisted living", but all letters and numbers associated with the zones allowed the use is allowed in are retained and applied to "Assisted living". Also, in the same row, now named "Assisted living", place a letter "P" in the column associated with the R-14 zone. SECTION II. Section 4-2-070 Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that in all tables all instances of the phrase "Retirement residences" is stricken and replaced in alphabetical order with "Assisted living"; in all instances the letters and/or numbers in the Type column are to be retained from the "retirement residences" and applied to "assisted living". SECTION M. 4-2-07OG Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that "Assisted living" is added alphabetically to the Other Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations category with the letter "P" placed accordingly in the Type column. SECTION IV. 4-2-110A Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code Page 2 of ' ; 1 1-14 v..Y of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-1 zone reads: 1 dwelling unit per 1 net acre except that in designated Urban Separators, density of up to 1 unit per gross acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC-3-110, Urban Separator Overlay. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION V. 4-2-11OF Development Standards Residential Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-10 zone reads: For developments or subdivisions including attached or semi -attached dwellings: 10 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9- 065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the R-14 zone reads: For developments or subdivisions: 14 dwelling units per net acre, except that density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Page 3 of 44 M cm Affordable housing bonus: Up to 30 dwelling units per acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income. Up to 45 dwelling units per net acre for assisted living may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income and subject to the conditions in RMC 4-9- 065. Finally, so that the box associated with Maximum Housing Density in the RM zone reads: For any subdivision and/or development: 4 "U" suffix: 75 units per net acre. 10, 24 "T" suffix: 35 units per net acre.10 "F" suffix: 20 units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION VI. 4-2-120A Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CN zone reads: 4 dwelling units per structure. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Page 4 of ; J 144 Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CV zone reads: 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION VII. 4-2-120B Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the CD zone reads: 100 dwelling units per net acre.9 Density may be increased to 150 dwelling units per net acre subject to Administrative Conditional Use approval. Assisted living bonus: 1 5 times the maximum density be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the COR zone reads: 50 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted livinIt bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Page 5 of 44 M M SECTION VIII. 4-2-120E Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the UC-NI zone reads: 85 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subiect to conditions of 4-9-065. 4 he rs rous�lml'lc�r oannercial usesz e inco por�rte d into the structure: density for flats may be increased up to 150 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted livinLy bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subiect to conditions of 4-9-065. Also, so that the box associated with Maximum Net Residential Density in the UC-N2 zone reads: South of North 8th Street: 150 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. North of North 8th Street: 250 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density tnav be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. SECTION IX. 4-4-08OF Parking Lot Design Standards of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that part e Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Page 6 of ' 44 Use of number 10 Number of Parking Spaces Required so that in the Residential Uses Outside of Downtown Core category a new row is added to be read "Assisted living" in the Use column. Also, so that the same new row associated with "Assisted living", reads: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Also, to add a new row titled "Assisted living" in the Residential Uses in Downtown Core category and so that in the column associated with Number of Required Spaces reads: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living plus dedicated parkingspaces for facility fleet vehicles. SECTION X. RMC 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that Section B Applicability reads: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4=9 RMC contains density bonus procedures and review criteria for the R-14, RM-U, and assisted ]ivin; . Also, so that in section D Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria a new column titled "ASSISTED LIVING" is added. In the new column in the box associated with Density and Unit Size Bonus — Purpose to add new text to read: Page 7 of =44- M M The bonus provisions are intended to allow assisted living to develop with higher densities but with a building footprint and scale of building that would be expected for other multi -family structures in the applicable zone. It is expected that the density bonus will be achieved with no variances to the development regulations of the applicable zone. In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Maximum Additional Units Per Acre new text to read: The units in a project that are for assisted living are allowed to develop at 1.5 times the maximum density of the zone the project is in. In the R-I and R-10 zones the maximum density for assisted living shall be 18 nnitc/not noro In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Maximum Allowable Bonus Dwelling Unit Mix/Arrangement new text to read: Projects that include both assisted living and independent living may apply the density bonus ratio to the units that are built as assisted living units. In the new column "ASSISTED LIVING" in the box associated with Bonus Criteria new text to read: Assisted living units must be designated for people who are at least 55 years of age. The definitions of Assisted Living in RMC 4-1 1-010 and Dwelling Multi -Family, Assisted Living in RMC 4-11-040 must be met. SECTION XL 4-11-010 Definitions A of Chapter I Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Page 8 of ' 44 Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new definition to read: ASSISTED LIVING: A facility where residents live in private units and receive assistance with limited aspects of personal care such as: takinS, medication, bathing, or dressing. Meals are provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. Staff is on dutv 24-hours per day to ensure the welfare and safety of residents. This definition does not include: convalescent centers, congregate residences, boarding and lodging houses, adult family homes, and group homes I and II. SECTION XIL 4-11-030 Definitions C of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the definition for Convalescent Centers reads: CONVALESCENT CENTER: A Facilities z-facility licensed by the State for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or tenninal illnesses.-mil+ere-sage and ex- ndt-d cafe flies Facilities provide 24-hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing; staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activities. This definition does not include adult family homes, assisted Page 9 of 144 n living, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities. SECTION XIII. 4-11-040 Definitions D of Chapter I 1 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add a new definition lettered F in the "Dwelling, Multi -Family definitions, to read: F. Assisted Living: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units where residents receive assistance with personal care. Dwelling units include a full kitchen (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) or a kitchenette, a bathroom, a living area, and may include a call system. On the premises, facilities shall include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. An on - site. small-scale facility that offers skilled nursing care on a temporary basis is allowable when the number of beds reserved for the medical care is no greater than five percent (5%) of the total number of living units at the premises. SECTION XIV. 4-11-180 Definitions R of Chapter 11 Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the definition for Retirement Residence. SECTION XV. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. Page 10 of 44 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2008. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Denis Law, Mayor Page 11 of ____ °_ ` 44 14ma. No, 2007 DOCKET- HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT In summer 2007, the City was alerted to the operation of a helipad from a residential property along Lake Washington. Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are allowed in that area, but helipads are prohibited in the R-8 zone. A line in the zoning use table (RMC 4-2-060) allows helipads as an accessory use in a number of commercial and industrial zones (IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR, UC-N1 and UC-N2) with an approved Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Several property owners along Lake Washington have expressed their support for aviation uses in general, and specifically for helicopters, in their neighborhood. The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an approved conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that limits sites to a single aircraft, restricts the use to properties along Lake Washington, and direct helipads to be in compliance with FAA guidelines. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates helipads and has jurisdiction over air traffic. FAA approval of a helipad includes an aeronautical study of the pad's construction and dimensions, the approach to the pad (which must not be over any residential property), and known flight paths. Aeronautical studies are based on the specific aircraft to be used on the site, so the exact dimensions necessary to safely operate a helipad can vary. However, even with a very small helicopter, only about nine properties along Lake Washington would have enough space for a helipad (unless the existing home was significantly reduced in size). Conditional use permits are subject to review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, which includes consideration of. compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. Conditional use permits can include reasonable conditions, such as limitation on hours of operation, that address community concerns and ensure that the use is safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. Renton has both an Administrative and a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. Both include public notification, but the latter allows for an open public hearing and a better opportunity for public involvement. FAA and City measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. The Environmental Review Committee has issued a Determination of Non -Significance for this proposal. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The Single Family Residential land use designation was created for quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Part of the unique quality and character of the properties on Lake Washington is the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, lifestyle and transportation purposes. RECOMMENDATION: • Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit • Planning Commission recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit �Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS AND STRATEGIC .ER PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 7, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission FROM: Erika Conkling, Senior Planner SUBJECT: 2007 Docket- Helipads In response to the proposed docket item that would amend the zoning code to allow helipads in the R-8 zone for properties fronting Lake Washington, staff and the Planning Commission received a variety of comments. The overwhelming majority of these comments were positive and in favor of allowing helipads, but a few expressed concerns to be considered. This memo addresses the comments of concern. Some of the concerns are related to the environmental review of the proposal. Environmental review in the City of Renton is conducted by the City Environmental Review Committee (ERC). On February 4, 2008, the ERC met and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS), which means that the ERC did not anticipate any significant or adverse impacts from the proposed code amendment. A copy of the ERC's report is attached to this memo. At its last meeting, the Planning Commission was presented with a copy of Issaquah's regulations for heliports. Issaquah lists 15 criteria for the approval of heliports. The first caution in reviewing these regulations is that they apply to the operation of heliports as commercial uses. In the proposed code amendment, Renton would not allow the operation of a commercial heliport in the R-8 zone; the use would be limited to that which was accessory to the primary, residential use and commercial operations would be prohibited. However, review of Issaquah's code provides a useful structure for responding to a variety of public comments about this proposal. The majority of the criteria in the Issaquah code merely repeat the FAA requirements, including the regulation of flight paths and approaches and construction specifications for the landing site (criteria B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O). Proposed code language confirms that FAA requirements must be met for helipads along Lake Washington. It is completely unnecessary to repeat the requirements from the FAA. Furthermore, the City of Renton only has jurisdiction over land use, so the City cannot control where or how aircraft fly, only where they land. It is not legal for Renton to h:Acdnsp\title ivAdocket\2007\he11pads\memo to pc (feb 7).doc Ray Giometti Page 2 of 2 February 7, 2008 cm specify flight paths or make them conditions of a permit because it is not within the City's jurisdiction. It is also unnecessary to repeat provisions from the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). Issaquah's criteria to minimize noise and disruption (criteria A, B, and E) are already provided for by Renton's criteria for approval of conditional use permits under RMC 4-9- 030. Decision criteria for conditional uses include a review of the effects on adjacent properties and an evaluation of noise and glare. Additionally, a number of restrictions and conditions can be attached to conditional use permits that provide reasonable operational limits, including hours of operation and participation in a voluntary noise reduction program as called out in Issaquah's regulations. RMC 8-7 regulates and limits noise to state established limits. Anticipated noise above state limits should be addressed and mitigated for during project specific environmental review and conditional use permit approval. Conditional use permits are a flexible and effective regulatory tool. Permits could contain renewal provisions based on any number of circumstances including change in ownership, substitution of aircraft, or discontinuance of the use over a period of time. Leaving these provisions open in the code allows for maximum flexibility for the reviewing official to respond to the specific citizen concerns on each project. Yet, the power to establish reasonable conditions is well established. Conditional uses can also be revoked if conditions are not being met. Renton uses code compliance officers to address non-compliance with conditional use permits. If an operator does not abide by the terms of the permit, the permit can ultimately be revoked. There was question of whether or not an administrative conditional use process was appropriate. Staff would support a Hearing Examiner conditional use process, if the Planning Commission wished to modify the proposal. A Hearing Examiner conditional use process provides a slightly larger opportunity for public involvement. Also, since a Hearing Examiner process is required for helipad uses in commercial and industrial districts, this proposed change would be consistent with the process used elsewhere in the City. More than one citizen asked both of the following questions: Why not use the airport? and Why not allow helipads in any area the FAA would approve a helipad site`? Renton could encourage either option, but the proposed amendment makes the most sense. Aircraft uses, in the form of seaplanes, are part of the neighborhood character for properties on Lake Washington. There are few reasons why a helicopter could not substitute for a seaplane, and any concerns can be addressed in project specific review. Seaplanes are allowed without any regulation or conditions at all. It also would not be consistent with Renton policy to allow helipads in neighborhoods where aircraft is not already a customary use. As a result, allowing helipads on residential properties along Lake Washington is an appropriate expansion of a customary use. Attachment: Environmental Review Committee Report, February 4, 2008 h:lcdnsp\title iv\docket\2007\helipads\memo to pc (feb 7).doc -Nwe ...o� 2007 DOCKET- HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ISSUE: Should helipads be allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential- eight units per net acre) along Lake Washington? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends allowing Helipads as accessory to residential uses on properties abutting Lake Washington with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. BACKGROUND: In summer 2007, the City was contacted by a person complaining about a neighbor landing a helicopter in the residential neighborhood. Code compliance officers investigated the claim and began working with the helicopter owner on this issue. The helicopter owner applied for a Temporary Use Permit, to allow him to operate a helipad on his property. In the course of processing this permit, the Development Services division gathered comments from more than 50 interested parties. Although some were opposed to the operation of a helipad in this area, the vast majority were in favor of allowing this use. The City of Renton zoning code regulates helipads used for commercial purposes, as well as helipads which are accessory to a primary use. Accessory uses are activities that are subordinate or incidental to the main use of the property. Usually the uses are related to the main use, for example: outdoor materials storage for a manufacturing plant, a small workshop or extra garage behind someone's home, a home daycare business, or a drive through feature at a fast food restaurant or bank. Renton currently allows helipads as an accessory use with a conditional use permit issued by the Hearing Examiner in the light, medium and heavy industrial zones (IL, IM, IH), the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, the Commercial Office (CO) zone, the Commercial Office Residential (COR) zone, and the Urban Center North 1 (UC-NI) zone. Helipads are currently prohibited in all residential zones. There are two types of conditional use permits issued by the City of Renton. Administrative conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for final decision making. Hearing Examiner conditional use permits are reviewed by staff and presented at a public hearing in which the Hearing Examiner makes the final decision on approval or denial of the permit. Both processes require public notification and comment and both processes are subject to review under the decision criteria in RMC 4-9-030. These criteria instruct the reviewing official to consider the following factors in deciding whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit and include consideration of: compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, community need, effect on adjacent properties, compatibility with the neighborhood, effects on traffic, and the production of noise and glare. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the design, siting, and use of helipads. Those who wish to establish a helipad, even for private use, must submit a proposal to the FAA for review and approval. As part of the approval process, the FAA conducts an aeronautical study to review safety issues and to ensure the helipad meets applicable design criteria. FAA rules do not allow aircraft to approach landing spaces over residential neighborhoods. As a result, only lake front properties would be considered for possible helipad use. Furthermore, the FAA regulates the size of helipads based on the size of aircraft that will land there. Even with M M the smallest size of helicopter, only a few properties are large enough to accommodate an FAA approved facility. Two other communities in the area allow private helipads on residential lands. Hunts Point welcomes private helipads as a lifestyle choice and for the services they may provide in case of emergency. Redmond allows properties with frontage on Lake Sammamish to have a helipad for the use of a single aircraft. Other communities in the area do not allow helipads in residential areas unless they are established and used for emergency purposes only. Under RMC 4-3-090 L(1)b, Specific Use Regulations of Renton's Shoreline Master Program, residences along the lake front are allowed to use seaplanes. Seaplanes are limited to one per residence, and for private use only. Thus, the ability to use aircraft along the waterfront is well established. Additionally, many of the neighbors writing to the City in support of the specific proposal for the establishment of a helipad last summer expressed the importance of maintaining aviation uses for lake front properties. Aviation uses provide a number of potential benefits for lake front property owners including: recreation, increased property values, entertainment, transportation, and lifestyle enhancement. Allowing helipad use on residential properties abutting Lake Washington is a natural extension of the provisions that allow sea plane useage. The proposed zoning code change would allow helipads as an accessory use in the R-8 zone with an administrative conditional use permit. Helipad use would be restricted by a note on the zoning use table that read: Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington. Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for siting and design. In addition, the permit would be subject to the standard conditional use review criteria in RMC 4-9-030, as described above. Neighbors would be given the opportunity to comment on each specific helipad proposal through this process. The Administrator also has the ability to condition approval of the conditional use permit based upon such comments. Complying with FAA and City of Renton provisions should ensure that helipad uses are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: This proposed zoning code amendment does not conflict with any of the goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Single Family Residential land use designation is to create quality neighborhoods at urban densities. Throughout the City, different neighborhoods may have different factors that contribute to a quality environment. For properties on Lake Washington, the ability to operate aircraft for personal, recreational, and transportation purposes has always been an important factor in the lifestyle choices and quality of the neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Aircraft, in the form of seaplanes, are already allowed as accessory uses for properties abutting Lake Washington. This code change would allow property owners to operate either a seaplane or a helicopter from their property. Proposed helipads would have to meet all FAA guidelines as well as the criteria for a conditional use permit under RMC 4-9-030 in order to be approved. These measures should ensure that any helipads would be located in places that are safe and compatible with surrounding land uses. 2 § :i k \ m 2 ~ @ G O § E � Z R i % J m - LIJ o U e < G e < ° / m = 2 § = Q E co\ § R e <CL N § { § < ° } } } 0)v / } a = w > � / J 8 J 2 Q E ) Q , /o / / _ co_ IL a_2 E co $ co/ } ® \ \ _ \ c = 2/ r m / � § 0 T- co k c 2 o _ /<�� } �Z 2 f G w / E § f / gw k LU w w L U a � > R / w U = o & w • 0u ' 2 @ \ 7 2 m Q d °$ [ a 2 : w g \_ 0 t 2 « o aS 002n 22 w3 �—■ Lo $ / 2 2 k � § a ' / ■ � § @ ■ � ° ° m �: ° m _ _ @ > _ ° _ c � 2 ■ — o g= o = m — ■ ng @ ' �\ _ 2 — 6E __ u ■ 2 2 m i ■ m ■ 2 c ov c a E■ c c § 2 _/ i 7= f/ 7 /. w > a»= = 22 0 § 2 (n o S § - ' � E > § 0. 5 © [_�No n o% x— m m §@ o § § CD■ 0 =� m Q u U. a. a CL a W w R R J R>> > m M E A- U) z N O H Q =)z z CD Fn O� _ 0 0 O z Z U = N p U Q U a = LU U a O, U z o U Q 00 d = M = Q d Q Q 00 = 2 p Z J a = 11 T I^ V o z N Oz _ N 0 as � c �Z z °•) Q w cn v pw N p � w U L W p 3 •O O V1 d •F+ i c9 m O _O O O V V U C IC N 7 O d 41 _ V 4+ d N y W C fC C m f V V = O j N y E E 0 Z N y Q CC ca co v mp C m E m z W G> L6. v i F- Q. Q. ci fl. Q Q. R u. •r_ Q Q. o N > > L 4-2-070D RESIDENTIAL-8 DU/AC (R-8) Uses allowed in the R-8 Zone are as follows - USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES 3. $ t..fS�a;�3 f-. . .. �. �, •P{�;:.J4--'- ,E ..:.-'.. .,. C s 9 E ,U rE�£-i� .,.(1'�4 §,.4i: ��i.i �._.v ,, t_ . •'...IPi._F-..,sz#. t.ri r i'l: i%1`i'. .. .-�:1 ..Y:::�C. `t':-?}:. :. �Z �r �.F:'i:�� 3 .-3. dao' e (�='- Beekeeping P #35 -} •" z s, �. ...,i �':. .i <<z:--� ,..f P'F.. c... .',F_L'�R>i(S 3"� _S'�': E'�'f ii(.,' RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling P #19 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal) P Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes, designated P #19 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home p Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC #6 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H In M RETAIL Eating and drinking establishments P #1 Horticultural nurseries H ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities H Recreation Golf courses (existing) P Golf courses (new) H SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD Day Care Services Adult day care I AC Adult day care II H Day care centers H #25 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Park and ride, shared -use P #108 Helipads _Ar cf ssory to l'€ir an/ Use ...... AD ......... #111 UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas AD #46 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures on private property H #45 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD #45 Parabolic antennas — Large IH #45 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table JAC TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 111. Limited to one aircraft per site. Helipads allowed only abutting Lake Washington. Helipads must be in conformance with applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for siting and design. Maximum Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones Background • Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones are two stories and 30 feet. Above ground and elevated water tanks cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses of the facilities. • Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water system; storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreation facilities, schools, public buildings • In the past, variances have been granted to height standards for the construction of new public facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on the physical constraints of the parcel. The Hearing Examiner requested this code amendment. Recommendation Allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities. 0 175 feet for aboveground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility to the highest point of the water storage reservoir. 0 50 feet maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facilities, and pump stations. • Allow additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the administrative site plan review process. • Allow modification to lot coverage through the administrative site plan review process. • Require graphic treatment of water tanks. o Public art to be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission • Cost of public art on water tanks o Staff contacted three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District, and Northshore Utility District) and a Renton -based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in the Puget Sound area. o Usually part of a new construction budget or a maintenance upgrade. o $30,000 for 3-million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall for a two colors tree pattern 360 ° in circumference. o $18,000 for design and painting and covered 180' of the tank's circumference. o Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District has recently cleaned and painted a 7-million gallon tank with a mural for $25,000. Appeal Process: To the Hearing Examiner for administrative determinations; to the City Council for Hearing Examiner determinations or Arts Commission decisions ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, s; * NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC UPLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 1, 2008 TO: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager FROM:*fgkensen, Planner Intern, phone# 425-430-6593 SUBJECT: Costs associated with Murals on Water Tanks The Planning Commission requested an investigation of the cost of placing murals on water tanks over fifty feet in height as part of siting such a structure in the future. This memo provides background information, financing sources and other insights that support a quality discussion of the issue. Planning staff collected information from three regional water utility providers with murals on water tanks (City of Tacoma, Sammamish Plateau Water and Sewer District and Northshore Utility District) as well as a Renton - based artist who has painted more than a dozen murals on water tanks in the Puget Sound area. Financing sources: A mural for Sammamish was part of a new facility construction budget including a tank, booster station and piping ($2.5 million project). Northshore funded a mural through an operations budget and a Tacoma project was funded through a maintenance account. Usually a mural is either included as part of a new construction budget or as part of a maintenance upgrade. Costs for a Mural: Costs for mural painting increase or decrease depending on various factors including how much surface area will be painted, how accessible the area is to artists, time of year and temperature, etc. In addition, costs can be reduced if a mural's background colors are incorporated in the protective coat rather than completely covering a tank in one color and then painting the mural as seen in pictures below. h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\07-01 height requirement\mural and water tanks memo_febl_2008.doc Rebecca Lind, Long Range Feting Manager Page 2 of 2 February 1, 2008 In talking with the Renton -based mural artist, he roughly estimates that a 3 million gallon tank up to 65 feet tall would cost $30,000 plus or minus $5,000 for a two color tree pattern 360 ° in circumference. The Tacoma mural example cost $18,000 for design and painting and covered 180' of the tank's circumference. Sammamish has recently cleaned and painted a 7 million gallon tank with a mural for $25,000 as part of maintenance. Long-term maintenance costs: Outside of regular maintenance costs for a tank, murals do not pose additional long-term maintenance costs. High quality graffiti resistant paint used for the main protective coat is the same paint used for a mural. The Renton -based artist has not returned to any of the tanks his company has painted for maintenance painting, including murals that were painted almost 20 years ago. They have returned to add to graphics to a couple murals. Due to the quality of paint used, there is little need for mural maintenance. The Tacoma mural had been "tagged" but removal of the graffiti did not damage the mural. Some murals will have dirt streaks that need to be cleaned. To avoid vertical "streaking" on the side of tanks caused by rain collecting and mixing with dust and particles, a gutter and vertical drains should be part of tank design. Additional information about murals and a Powerpoint can be found on the Renton -based mural company's website: www.muraldesign.com and http://www.muraldesign.com/towers/HennigTankArt Presentation.ppt KS h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\07-01 height requirement\mural and water tanks memo_febl_2008.doc DOCKET ITEM 07-01 Maximum Height Requirement for Utilities in Residential Zones Revised January 29, 2008 ISSUE: • Should zoning rules allow for additional height for essential public utility facilities within residential zones including but not limited to above -ground water reservoir standpipes, elevated water tanks, water treatment facilities, wastewater and storm water treatment facilities? • Is the proposed 175 -foot height maximum for water reservoirs and 50-foot maximum height sufficient for public utility facilities needs while still providing opportunity for buffering of residential properties? • Should additional setback be required for the 50-foot maximum height? RECOMMENDATION: Approve a code modification to allow additional height for aboveground and elevated water reservoirs and public utility facilities. This amendment is proposed as a note in the development standards table allowing the height of a publicly owned utility facility, such as an above -ground standpipe water reservoir, an elevated water tank, a water treatment facility, to be increased up to a maximum height of one hundred and seventy-five feet (175 feet) to the highest point of the water storage reservoir and fifty feet (50 feet) maximum height for water facilities, such as water treatment facility, and pump stations. Allow staff to require additional setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump stations through the site plan review process. Approve language requiring graphic treatment of water tanks that exceed the height standard in the zone. BACKGROUND: Current zoning treats public facilities the same as all other structures in a zone with respect to height, setback, and lot coverage. Height in Renton's R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones are two stories and 30 feet. Existing and proposed aboveground and elevated Water reservoirs cannot meet these standard heights due to the operational and functional uses of the facilities. Public facilities are defined in the Renton Municipal Code as: streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, street lighting systems, traffic signals, domestic water system; storm and sanitary sewer systems, park and recreation facilities, schools, public buildings. Most of these public facilities can appropriately meet height requirements because, where structures are required (e.g. parks buildings, schools and public buildings), the function of the building does not necessitate greater height. However, water storage reservoirs and water treatment facilities, which are needed for fire protection and for domestic water uses, are an exception to that rule. The height and storage capacity of the water reservoir are needed to provide required storage capacity and to deliver the required minimum water pressure and volume for fire protection and for domestic uses. The height of water H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.doc\AG M M treatment facilities must be sufficient to accommodate the height of various filters and water processing and treatment equipment. In the past, variances have been requested and granted to height standards for the construction of new public facilities in residential zones. However, the variance is not the correct zoning tool to use in this instance because variances are property specific, and findings are required for hardship based on the physical constraints of the parcel. For a typical structure in the zone, these findings would be based on evidence that the size, shape or environmental constraints of a site prevent reasonable use of the parcel. However, aboveground water reservoirs and water treatment facilities, by function, typically require height much greater than 35 feet. The need for additional height is not created by any physical constraint of the site, but by the function of the use. Sites proposed for water reservoirs, water treatment facilities and pump stations, typically are larger than the minimum lot size allowed in the zone and are selected because they do not have physical constraints and also because they meet the operational and functional requirements of the facilities. The facilities typically do not require the entire 35 percent lot coverage allowed for other structures in the zone, and land is available in the larger setback for buffering adjacent uses. The water reservoir, pump station, and water treatment facility uses requires a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit as a large utility and requires a public hearing with an opportunity for public comment on site planning and buffering issues. The Planning Commission did not support a requirement for graphic design for water treatment facilities as these structures can be designed to resemble domestic architecture. The Commission expressed concern about potential setbacks for water treatment facilities and pump houses. The Commission felt that the additional height of up to 50 feet, while needed for the functionally of a facility, may not be appropriate within a standard 5 feet of a side setback, or standard 20 foot front setback. o It is recommended that staff be given the authority to require additional setbacks through the site plan review process. In residential zones projects do not normally trigger site plan review. If the water utility is requesting additional height it is recommended that the height modification trigger site plan review. Through the site plan review process city staff could require additional setbacks, landscaping or other improvements to improve the appearance and fit of the facility in a single family neighborhood. o This site plan review trigger is recommended to address the Planning Commission's concern about the potential visual impact of large box -like structures within single-family neighborhoods. The code has existing language for P-1 public facility height bonuses allowing additional height with a requirement for a proportional increase in setbacks. Staff considered enacting this standard for the public utility 50' height bonus. The prior recommendation to enact this language for water facilities is amended to substitute the site plan review requirement. Allowing administrative staff the ability to review setbacks through site plan H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.docAAG review is more flexible, and does not lock the city into a set standard. The site plan review process can also be used to require other site planning features that integrate the facility into the neighborhood. LPublic facilities, are allowed the following height bonus: a. Water tanks resertorrs aret�erlydtted yap to �a inaxiniunt height of I ldik"d WI to thc. hi 11cst iii of the reservoir b. Water treatment facilities and pump stations are allowed a height bonus up to fifty (50 feet) subject to administrative site plan review. The reviewing official may modify setback standards to increase setbacks as part of the site plan review approval. c. Public Utilitiy facilities greater than 50 feet in height shall be treated with public art pursuant to RMC 4-9-160 and shall be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission and be eligible for 1 % for art funding. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.docAAG n M COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Implementation of a height exception for essential public facilities in residential zones meets Land Use Element Objective LU-R: Locate and plan for public facilities in ways that benefit abroad range of potential public uses. It also meets Policy LU-79: Guide and modify development of essential public facilities to meet Comprehensive Plan policies and to mitigate impacts and costs to the City. A height exception complies with the Comprehensive Plan because the facility could not be located or planned for in a residential area with a conventional height. CONCLUSION: Allowing additional height of a maximum of 175 feet for water reservoirs and 50 feet maximum height for public utility facilities allows these facilities to be constructed in neighborhoods where they are needed in order to provide required water storage for fire protection of public and private properties and for domestic water uses H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\07-01 Height Requirement\Revised Issue Paper 1-29.docAAG 4-2-11 OD CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS ' Rublic Suffix, {P) properties Pu bl ic facilities, are allowed the following height bonus: a.Water towers/reservoirs are permitted up to a maximum height of one hundred and seventy-five feet (175 feet) to the highest point of the reservoir b. Water treatment facilities and pump stations are allowed up to fifty (50 feet) su jbect to site 1­1 rc i w i m-, official ii—my rnodi y setback standards to increase setbacks as part c)f'thc site trlan re ie�N,' ap pro w al. c. Public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height shall be treated with public art consistent with RMC 4-9-160. SUclr pudic art shall be eli<uYhic for _i_N) cat art fundhi€; and'shall be reyiew cd b , the; Renton Art C omniiss on c. Other Ppublicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional fifteen feet (15') in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent (60%) or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, the height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows, a. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one-half feet (1-1/2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; end/or bd. When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet (2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. Page 1 Dot ^' 4jem 5 Agenda Item No.: /' RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING /MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) 3 CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE: VP49-009 PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 6 n I)x LJ ,6 L ,� Name: S' % v� 5 Name: f� n r' PA,1, � �c► d S Address: ;Z 9 oZ % I�ATll •yc.) j4/I A/. Address:4 a s -� s � City lc4`/TC9G` / Zip Code !DS c Topic: i��L i �v/2 i �. City e ^' ^' Zip Code Topic: OJ d.. _-- Name: 6 Name: Address: `D2 3 _ /V 3 -�� Address: City �C—�11�1% Zip Code %0..� Topic: CitAa ", Zip Code 5dSly Topic: �� �� .v ✓'� Name: 1 l d 1'3L"YL S0-1 Name:�s tx2 Zs3 Address: Rf-co -!�-o l �` � Address: �1,4a City�61z�, Zip Code b 7k Topic: qt 4e f , ��� City 11 Zip Code_ Topic: 6eC4� Name: Address: �f ij Ayc - Name: Address: City Zip Code �( Topic: �- City Zip Code�S Topic: l` (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) Le 10 11 12 r (Continued from Reverse Side - Page 2�j� RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT Name: GflrV C c Address:/J Z- 0 City Zip Code OJ�� L Topic: co aTie Name: COfAfa_I )_�- GD Address: �D0 p'iouw }Aiy1 VIew AV N City go�Y` Zip Code q$ b Topic: 141' ; Li 1" ? Name: Address: City Zip Code Topic://5/a I Name: Address: Zip Code- FF 5 Minute Time Limit 13 Name:_!�6 )) '" �� j Address: 3 �J'I & City Zip Code Topic: 14 Name: Address: City Q4416'[^ Zip Code_1�7W� Topic: 4df,ed 15 I Name: Address: "_�--�-Z, City Z? Topic: l� ;��►� Zip Code ,"t 16 Name: ' 1� �� Vt Vl 0 ►�% Address:K City Topic: Zip Code 1, ()y 5(,,o U4+ agenda Item No.: L. Pa: �fem RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING -07 DATE PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit Name: l�-2 Z Address: 5 Name: o F !Jo E� -r, E Address: �2 6 b 7 In Fa 13 D 4) j u F N tt'tvN City 01-c kJ1+ Zip Code �% Topic: p City Zip Code l7 Topic: r p Name: ' V y✓ JY 1'1 Name- v W JJ Address: (P% Address: 3 ol , ZAll 0, k�h�Jv� City k2 1 �Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 3 �—� Name: Z / 7 Name: Address: .8 [l/ 11v Address: City Zip Code �06z Topic: /v j C� City Zip Code Topic: 4 Name: Jb \ h No i (mob r )-A"s 8 Name :v U N J, o i�Sc Address: -5) d S ec.c` �j 1J Address: ' -7 City Zip Code Topic: � � City �zr Zip Code Topic: 14z (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) Na/ SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: R) A 0 , 1+1y Phone # 426 --2-2 -'j —01 % 6 Address: G sip �J Z, Y#Gn-' A E-mail City State V `. A Zip Code ,4; Topic: ��{�C2D M9 To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: C 1�-I ; \ D Phone # -� d & 7 7� Address:-.2 d 0 %� d u �� I �✓ � l�v E-mail %1�ItRG � NPiZ L--2a��} 2 i� @ co Cit ��/� O �6 Y �) /U State -�!� � `1---_._Zip Code 1 Topic: �-/F Lf, �� V To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to CityClerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name:ON v Phone # Address: c_) J E-mail City _/� `V State Zip CodeS� Topic:4�Z4p v 4-2s -a-7/ -1 Via/ To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. low, SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name:­V—A L 61ra L1419 Phone # ` � ` 1 Address: .E-mail lCp eY i State Zip Code_�p Topic: To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: �'`._ ���� Phone # ._ 3 % - J 6- Address: 3ZO t� � qi� > �� �'1"� �, E-mail Si"ev,e Q. C PZ]/llC ' (07r,, City e-�iIt }`(;�tr� State , Topic: ��,? ,'�" ri 1 t � (t, pot vtjA Zip Code �Ca6111;(r" To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: � /Af I- Ale-1114.e� Phone # Address: /j G2- cgM 1�Alt, -5X E-mail City=�- State L� -�--- Topic: C� Zip Code 94'f-� To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. �.. � moo SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Na Phone # Address: L-0�2.2 l C arc Aaw E-mail City A r _ State Topic:&�z � �/}0 �jILJ Zip Code To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: ! "� V �— j ti cwD 61, Phone # Address: TO 6?C 6809 1 I E-mail t9A( Kr'►^a%< e0'm /ktC. e',-5.�, City � �e State �,.., Zip Code 9�'` �8 Topic: k 1 L �--4 PA-3) To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: --� 4 vN 1A V\� Phone # -�,O (6 9 7 a.. -3 3 Address: 4- y' v-t t/� ��CJ E-mail'j�j�?K,cP�.� a vtv► f'_ft r fnc#^OXS.co City s eCt. f � State l") X+ Topic: P J-a 219--sit-cam✓+ .c, Ca Zip Code `�10 j( To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. low tTn S��rh SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. 1 Name: �—Aft� Phone #��� Address: E-mail CGn u City Topic: State Zip Code To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. (Ibtel no+ S"<) SPEAKER CARD Hand to City Clerk prior to addressing Council In order to be contacted by City officials or staff, or to become a party of record to a certain issue, complete this card, providing your name, address, phone number, and/or email address. Name: awen " d �`-e1r Phone # Address: tZ & 5 5r" d 5 b E-mail �Wwsl Topic: State Jal Zip Code q 0--/ To address the Renton City Council, please walk to the front, hand the speaker card to the City Clerk, stand at the podium microphones facing Council, and state your name and city of residence for the record, SPELLING YOUR LAST NAME. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. March 24, 2008 Mayor Law and members of the Renton City Council Respected members of the Council: My name is Pegi DuBois Galster I have lived in Renton on the shore of Lake Washington since 1970. I bought my home at a time when the shores of the lake contained, log booms, remnants of mills and creosote plants. A time when most septic systems drained directly into the lake. Crayfish were so plentiful, they were fished daily, (only because the water was so dirty.) We all swam in the lake; however, we certainly took a bath once we got out In the early to mid 1970's the citizens of Renton began a mission of becoming stewards of the water and the shoreline as well as our neighborhoods and our city. As citizens we worked diligently on the Shoreline Master plan. Even voting for rules that as home owners would make it difficult or impossible for us to do many of the things we might want to do with our property. We passed a sewer LID, costing each waterfront home owner many thousands of dollars. We passed a local bond issue of over 8 million dollars (a lot of money back then) to build Gene Coulon Park. We did these things because we realized it was our responsibility to protect one of our most valued resources. To make certain that ALL the citizens could enjoy the beauty and tranquility of their neighborhoods and the lake safely. I come here tonight, hopefully not as a lone voice in the wilderness, to ask you not to change the ordinance to allow private heliports to be build, not just on the shores of our lake, but in our neighborhood. I realize that The ERC has issued a decision of non -significance, however, I feel strongly that much of the information they received is in error. Reading thru the study, I could not find any information as to how it was obtained, or what sources were relied upon. Tonight I will focus on only one of the determinations as an example. Noise I have taken the liberty of quoting other agencies countering much of the information provided to the ERC. These studies state that helicopter noise is quite different from fixed wing aircraft, that the noise perceived by the human ear increases one and a half times for ever)Adecibel increase. They state that indeed helicopters are much louder that any other single source of noise usually found in neighborhoods, i.e. leaf blowers, weed whackers. The agency studies state at 100 feet helicopters are 50% louder than a weed whacker, and can easily reach over 150 decibels as perceived by the human ear... Helicopters do not have a slow gain to full throttle, as does a seaplane They are either on or off...either full decibel noise level or none at all. If you change the ordinance, this noise will not occur hundreds of feet off shore or hundreds of feet in the air as does a seaplane or one of our Boeing Jets. It will occur 50-100 away from someone's bedroom window. Lower Kennydale is an extremely quiet neighborhood; we hear practically no freeway noise, traffic on Lake Washington Blvd travels at 25 miles per hour. Certainly in the summer months, when the weather is good we have recreational vehicle noise The news helicopters fly overhead.... hundreds of feet away from our homes, and yet people still complain. What will happen when the noise is in our backyards? If you pass this ordinance change, it will set a very serious precedent. At this juncture only Hunts Point with 5 acre parcels allows helicopters on private residences. Several communities forbid them completely on shore and those that would consider them have several pages of restrictions that must be met before doing so. I urgently request that before you consider passing this change you require an in-depth noise study conducted by people trained in the use of such sound meters Many of the studies say that a simple decibel meter purchased at a place similar to Radio Shack is not able to accurately register the level of noise .Specific meters are required I realize that change is always going to occur. However, I ask: Is increasing noise, increasing safety concerns and decreasing the quality of life in our neighborhood the kind of change that will make Renton a better place to live? I have attached copies of the sound studies I have quoted for your consideration. Thank you. Respectfully Pegi Dubois Galster Noise Levels - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 1 of 2 NOISE LEVELS g INFORMATION SEARCH Donations Give Money Volunteer To Help Sign -UP -Here Compare Helicopter NOISE to Everyday Sound: [Each 10-decibel increase in sound level is perceived as The Petition: approximately a doubling of loudness.] Sign the Petition Keep Informed: Sound Decibel Join Our MailineL_i_st Level Rustling More Information: Leaves 20 dB Bay Area Hospital Het_ipads San Frantisco_Helipads Whispering 25 dB Who will use SFGH Eetip_ad? Library 30 dB EnvironmentalI_mDact 40 dB Propertyyalues Noise Avera g e 50 d6 _ Fli light Paths Home Heti_co ter Fli ht_Costs Normal conversation 60 dB Normal speech at 3-5 feet. Fatal Helicopter C_rashes S GH Nei hbors'_Comment Telephone 65 dB ring Idling 70 dB Idling motorcycle sounds twice as loud motorcycle as normal conversation, because 10 Busy Traffic 75 dB dBs louder. Accelerating motorcycle 80 dB Motorcycle at full throttle sounds twice as loud as at idle, because 10 dBs Electric louder. drill, weed 85 dB whacker at This is the predicted noise level that 6 feet nearby residents will hear at night with Screaming 85 dB windows closed. Imagine sleeping Child through the noise of an electric drill at 95 dB the foot of your bed. Jack 100 dB Hammer Helicopter 105 dB Jackhammer another doubling of the noise level. Helicopter at 100 feet is 500/6 louder than a jackhammer. Helicopter Noise Noise from the large twin -engine medical transport helicopters in a metropolitan area is a serious problem. It will rattle windows and knock pictures off the wall, because there is a strong low and subsonic frequency component to this type of noise. http://stophelipad.org/noise—levels.shtml 3/22/2008 Noise Levels - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 2 of 2 �� M�bbge fW i �p m / Y n1: tl t V t� \ Twq. Nc. FiSwc ?_ Estimated mellow and rotenor worse levels from helicapter i-river Structural Vibration is created by helicopter noise. A helicopter produces long -wave infrasound that is NOT blocked by walls and windows, acoustic absorbers or atmosphere to the same degree as audible sound. The vibration and rattle induced in buildings by helicopters caused human test subjects a level of "annoyance" equivalent to control noise that was 20 dB higher. See: FAA Aviation Noise Effects, p. 70. http://www.nonoise.ore/librarv/a e/ ane. htm Effect of Aircraft Noise on Property Values Many studies have tried to establish the impact on land values that results from overhead aircraft noise. Learn more about the effects of air traffic noise on property values. Contact Us I Petition I Mailing List I Site Map http://stophelipad.org/noise—levels.shtml 3/22/2008 ,Costs - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad w Page 1 of 2 COSTS g INFORMATION Property Values will drop significantly SEARCH The mantra of real estate professionals is "location, location, Donations Give Monte location" . No one willingly chooses to buy a home under a flight path, unless they are enticed by a low price for the property. volunteer To Help Sign Up Here Real estate law requires sellers to reveal noise and other nuisance factors prior to sale, using a Real Estate Transfer The Petition: Sign the Petition Disclosure Statement. This allows informed buyers to look elsewhere, or to lower their offer. It follows that home values will Keep Informed: be substantially lower near a hospital helipad with "up to 3 flights Join _Our Mailing List a day", as predicted by SF General in the Helipad Initial Study. More Information: STUDIES MEASURE AIRPORT IMPACT os San Fran Hospital Hadsk San Francisco Hel�ads Who will us_e_SFGH helipad? In 1994, the consulting firm of Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. was Enyironmentat_I_mpact commissioned by the Federal Aviation Administration to prepare Property -Values a study entitled, The Effect of Airport Noise on Housing Values., A Noise SummarryRe�ort. The study developed a methodology for Flues ht Paths Helicopter Flight Costs evaluating the impact of noise on housing values by comparing Fatat Helicopter Crashes market prices in similar neighborhoods that differed only in the SFGH_Neighbors: Comment level of airport related noise. The study found that the effect of noise on prices was highest in moderately priced and expensive neighborhoods. For two moderately priced "paired" neighborhoods north of LAX, the study found "an average 18.6 percent higher property value in the quiet neighborhood, or 1.33 percent per dB of additional quiet." A 1996 study, funded by a grant from the Legislature of the State of Washington, used somewhat similar methodology and found that the proposed expansion of Seattle -Tacoma Airport would cost five nearby cities $500 million in property values and $22 million in real-estate tax revenue. The study of single family homes in "very good" condition, with "three or more bedrooms and two or more baths" and "excluding the most expensive and inexpensive units to provide more representative comparisons" found that "a housing unit in the immediate vicinity of the airport would sell for 10.1 percent more-- if it were located elsewhere." The study also concluded that, "all other things remaining equal, the value of a house and lot increases by about 3.4% for every quarter of a mile the house is farther away from being directly underneath the flight track of departinglapproaching jet aircraft". In 1997, Randall Bell, MAI, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Licensed Real Estate Broker and instructor for the http://stophelipad.org/property_yalues 1.shtml 3/22/2008 -Costs - Stop the SF General Hospital Helipad Page 2 of 2 Appraisal Institute, provided the results of his own professional analysis to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. After examining 190 sales comparables over the previous six months, in communities near LAX, John Wayne airport and Ontario Airport, Mr. Bell found a diminution in -value -due -to airports averaging_ 27.4 percen_ t The noise and danger of low -flying helicopter landings and departures over San Francisco's Mission District and Protrero Hill, will reverse significant improvements in these neighborhoods that has occurred in the last 10 years. In addition, lower prices for home sales will reduce real-estate tax revenues to the city of San Francisco. This loss will far outweigh the expected increase in revenue to the Hospital generated by the insured patients flown in by helicopter from surrounding counties. Contact Us I Petition I Mailing List I Site Map http://stophelipad.org/property—values l . shtml 3/22/2008 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart Pagel of 3 *4"W* How -To suer,v r JR HOW-TO't Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Here are some interesting numbers, collected from a variety of sources, that help one to understand the volume levels of various sources and how they can affect our hearing. Environmental Noise Weakest sound heard OdB Whisper Quiet Library 30dB Normal conversation (3-5') 60-7OdB Telephone dial tone 8OdB City Traffic (inside car) 85dB Train whistle at 500', Truck Traffic 9OdB Subway train at 200' 95dB Level at which sustained exposure may result in hearing loss 90 - 95dB Power mower at 3' 107dB Snowmobile, Motorcycle 100dB Power saw at 3' 11 OdB Sandblasting, Loud Rock Concert 115dB Pain begins 125d8 Pneumatic riveter at 4' 125dB Even short term exposure can cause permanent damage - Loudest recommended exposure WITH hearing protection 14Od8 Jet engine at 100', Gun Blast 140dB Death of hearing tissue 18OdB IF -Loudest sound possible 194dB OSHA Daily Permissible Noise Level Exposure Hours per day ISound level 8 90dB 6 92dB 4 IF 95dB 3 97dB 2 100d6 1.5 102dB 1 105d6 http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html 3/21/2008 Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart f� Page 2 of 3 Perceptions of Increases in Decibel Level Imperceptible Change 1dB Barely Perceptible Change 3dB Clearly Noticeable Change 5dB About Twice as Loud 10dB About Four Times as Loud 20dB Sound Levels of Music Normal piano practice 60 -70dB Fortissimo Singer, 3' 70dB Chamber music, small auditorium 75 - 85dB Piano Fortissimo 84 - 103dB Violin IF 82 - 92dB Cello 85 -11 1dB Oboe 95-112dB Flute 92 -103dB Piccolo IF90 -106dB Clarinet 85 - 114dB French horn 90 -106dB Trombone IF 85 - 114dB Tympani & bass drum 106dB Walkman on 5110 94dB Symphonic music peak 120 - 137dB Amplifier rock, 4-6' 120dB Rock music peak 150dB NOTES: • One-third of the total power of a 75-piece orchestra comes from the bass drum. • High frequency sounds of 2-4,000 Hz are the most damaging. The uppermost octave of the piccolo is 2,048-4,096 Hz. • Aging causes gradual hearing loss, mostly in the high frequencies. • Speech reception is not seriously impaired until there is about 30 dB loss; by that time severe damage may have occurred. • Hypertension and various psychological difficulties can be related to noise exposure. • The incidence of hearing loss in classical musicians has been estimated at 4-43%, in rock musicians 13-30%. Statistics for the Decibel (Loudness) Comparison Chart were taken from a study by Marshall Chasin , M.Sc., Aud(C), FAAA, Centre for Human Performance & Health, Ontario, Canada. There were some conflicting readings and, in many cases, authors did not specify at what distance the readings were taken or what the musician was actually playing. In general, when there were several readings, the higher one was chosen. http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html 3/21/2008 Noise pollution -, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 6 Noise pollution From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Noise pollution (or environmental noise) is displeasing human or machine created sound that disrupts the activity or happiness of human or animal life. A common form of noise pollution is from transportation, principally motor vehicles.['] The word "noise" comes from the Latin word nausea meaning "seasickness", or from a derivative (perhaps Latin noxia) of Latin noceo = "I do harm", referring originally to nuisance noise.121 Contents a 1 Sources of noise ■ 2 Human health ■ 2.1 Hearing ■ 2.2 Cardiovascular health ■ 2.3 Annoyance ■ 3 Environment ■ 3.1 Habitat reduction ■ 3.2 Lombard vocal response ■ 3.3 Other habit changes ■ 4 Mitigation and control of noise . 5 Legal status ■ 6 See also ■ 7 References ■ 8 External links ■ 9 Geographical links Sources of noise The source of most noise worldwide is transportation systems, motor vehicle noise, but also including aircraft noise and rail noise.[3][11 Poor urban planning may give rise to noise pollution, since side -by -side industrial and residential buildings can result in noise pollution in the residential area. Pollution Air pollution Acid rain • Air Quality Index • Atmospheric dispersion modeling • Chlorofluorocarbon • Global dimming - Global warming • Haze • Indoor air quality • Ozone depletion • Particulate - Smog Water pollution Eutrophication • Hypoxia • Marine pollution • Ocean acidification • Oil spill • Ship pollution • Surface runoff • Thermal pollution • Wastewater • Waterborne diseases • Water quality • Water stagnation Soil contamination Bioremediation • Herbicide • Pesticide • Soil Guideline Values (SGVs) Radioactive contamination Actinides in the environment • Environmental radioactivity • Fission product • Nuclear fallout • Plutonium in the environment • Radiation poisoning • Radium in the environment • Uranium in the environment Other types of pollution Invasive species • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Radio spectrum pollution - Visual pollution Inter -government treaties Montreal Protocol • Nitrogen Oxide Protocol • Kyoto Protocol • CLRTAP Major organizations DEFRA • EPA • Global Atmosphere Watch • Greenpeace • National Ambient Air Quality Standards Related topics Environmental Science • Natural environment Other sources are office equipment, factory machinery, construction work, appliances, power tools, lighting hum and audio entertainment systems. Noise from recreational vehicles has become a problem. ATVs, also known as quads, have increased in popularity and are joining the two wheeled dirt motorcycles for off -road riding. The noise produced by these vehicles is particularly disturbing due to the wide variations in frequency and volume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiNolse_pollution 3/21 /2008 Noise pollution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 6 Human health Noise health effects are both health and behavioral in nature. The unwanted sound is called noise pollution. This unwanted sound can damage physiological and psychological health. Noise pollution can cause annoyance and aggression, hypertension, high stress levels, tinnitus, hearing loss, and other harmful effects. 141151 Furthermore, stress and hypertension are the leading causes to health problems, whereas tinnitus can lead to forgetfulness, severe depression and at times panic attacks. [5]16] Hearing The mechanism for chronic exposure to noise leading to hearing loss is well established. The elevated sound levels cause trauma to the cochlear structure in the inner ear, which gives rise to irreversible hearing loss.[41 A very loud sound in a particular frequency range can damage the cochlea's hair cells that respond to that range thereby reducing the ear's ability to hear those frequencies in the future. [7] However, loud noise in any frequency range has deleterious effects across the entire range of human hearing.[$] The outer ear (visible portion of the human ear) combined with the middle ear amplifies sound levels by a factor of 20 when sound reaches the inner ear.191 In Rosen's work on health effects and hearing loss, one of his findings derived from tracking Maaban tribesmen, who were insignificantly exposed to transportation or industrial noise. This population was systematically compared by cohort group to a typical U.S. population. The findings proved that aging is an almost insignificant cause of hearing loss, which instead is associated with chronic exposure to moderately high levels of environmental noise.141 Cardiovascular health High noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects and exposure to moderately high levels during a single eight hour period causes a statistical rise in blood pressure of five to ten points and an increase in stressllol and vasoconstriction leading to the increased blood pressure noted above as well as to increased incidence of coronary artery disease. Annoyance Noise pollution is a cause of annoyance: A landing Qantas Boeing 747- 400 passes close to houses on the boundary of London Heathrow Airport, England 1. The meaning listeners attribute to the sound influences annoyance, so that, if listeners dislike the noise content, they are annoyed. What is music to one is noise to another. 2. If the sound causes activity interference, noise is more likely to annoy (for example, sleep disturbance) 3. If listeners feel they can control the noise source, the noise is less likely to be annoying. 4. If listeners believe that the noise is subject to third -party control, including police, but control has failed, they are more annoyed. 5. The inherent unpleasantness of the sound causes annoyance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 -Noise pollution ; Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 6 6. Contextual sound. If the sound is appropriate for the activity it is in context. If one is at a race track the noise is in context and the psychological effects are absent. If one is at an outdoor picnic the race track noise will produce adverse psychological and physical effects. A 2005 study by Spanish researchers found that in urban areas households are willing to pay approximately four Euros per decibel per year for noise reduction. [ 1] Environment Noise can have a detrimental effect on animals by causing stress, increasing risk of mortality by changing the delicate balance in predator/prey detection and avoidance, and by interfering with their use of sounds in communication especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.[12] Habitat reduction An impact of noise on animal life is the reduction of usable habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in the case of endangered species may be part of the path to extinction. One of the best known cases of damage caused by noise pollution is the death of certain species of beached whales, brought on by the loud sound of military sonar.1131 Lombard vocal response Noise also makes species communicate louder, which is called Lombard vocal response.[14] Scientists and researchers have conducted experiments that show whales' song length is longer when submarine - detectors are on. [15] If creatures don't "speak" loud enough, their voice will be masked by anthropogenic sounds. These unheard voices might be warnings, finding of prey, or preparations of net -bubbling. When one species begins speaking louder, it will mask other species' voice, causing the whole ecosystem to eventually speak louder. Other habit changes Zebra finches become less faithful to their partners when exposed to traffic noise. This could alter a population's evolutionary trajectory by selecting "sexy" traits, sapping resources normally devoted to other activities and thus lead to profound genetic and evolutionary consequences.116] Mitigation and control of noise Technology to mitigate or. remove noise can be applied as follows: There are a variety of strategies for mitigating roadway noise including: use of noise barriers, limitation of vehicle speeds, alteration of roadway surface texture, limitation of heavy duty vehicles, use of traffic controls that smooth vehicle flow to reduce braking and acceleration and tire design. An important factor in applying these strategies is a computer model for roadway noise, that is capable of addressing local topography, The sound tube in Melbourne. hnp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution 3/21/2008 Noise pollution.- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 4 of 6 meteorology, traffic operations and hypothetical mitigation. Costs of building -in mitigation can be modest, provided these Australia, designed t reduce solutions are sought in the planning stage of a roadway project. roadway noise without detracting from the area's Aircraft noise can be reduced to some extent by design of quieter aesthetics. jet engines, which was pursued vigorously in the 1970s and 1980s. This strategy has brought limited but noticeable reduction of urban sound levels. Reconsideration of operations, such as altering flight paths and time of day runway use, have demonstrated benefits for residential populations near airports. FAA sponsored residential retrofit (insulation) programs initiated in the 1970s has also enjoyed success in reducing interior residential noise in thousands of residences across the United States. Exposure of workers to Industrial noise has been addressed since the 1930s. Changes include redesign of industrial equipment, shock mounting assemblies and physical barriers in the workplace. Legal status Governments up until the 1970s viewed noise as a "nuisance" rather than an environmental problem. In the United States there are federal standards for highway and aircraft noise; states and local governments typically have very specific statutes on building codes, urban planning and roadway development. In Canada and the EU there are few national, provincial, or state laws that protect against noise. Noise laws and ordinances vary widely among municipalities and indeed do not even exist in some cities. An ordinance may contain a general prohibition against making noise that is a nuisance, or it may set out specific guidelines for the level of noise allowable at certain times of the day and for certain activities. Most city ordinances prohibit sound above a threshold intensity from trespassing over property line at night, typically between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and during the day restricts it to a higher sound level; however, enforcement is uneven. Many municipalities do not follow up on complaints. Even where a municipality has an enforcement office, it may only be willing to issue warnings, since taking offenders to court is expensive. Many conflicts over noise pollution are handled by negotiation between the emitter and the receiver. Escalation procedures vary by country, and may include action in conjunction with local authorities, in particular the police. Noise pollution often persists because only five to ten percent of people affected by noise will lodge a formal complaint. Many people are not aware of their legal right to quiet and do not know how to register a complaint. See also . A -weighting . Aircraft noise ■ Light pollution ■ List of environmental health hazards ■ Noise barrier . Noise -induced hearing loss ■ Noise measurement ■ Noise regulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiNoise_pollution 3/21 /2008 �Gt:C�Gci �-p� S 2 (IS'o DAN N 2doS0 Snr N 2640 MAP i Diz(y z to 7G we�� z3a FIFE 130829JO N 37rM ST I -a' ., 12�1 b-1 L � LEy 9320 030% R 0369 0310 (GNP L'33O ( r 0360 0364 U366 3 � 3010 3045 (] 's N 36TH ST 3061 Kenn ydale 0, 1'0 Park V 2159 2185 2/90 2610 2825 2911 2951 2926 3001 2985 2940 N 35TH ST �' y0t5 2510 2531 2US 2%o 2515 0020 7735 2125 2100 2fiJS 016 2150 N 31N ST V Y/1 2261 2281 2295 2* 2340 90!! Coss 0065 2480 2460 2441 2495 2425 N 33RD Pi, GtJR Rjk4V r- SJ-rA PL A£ BAS ,. °d'*t Doll 2010 2025 DOSS 2040 2050 20112085 Sahf 3JlS fiL 0070 . pAtiLi;Y f`"� Oi00 0115 2243 2230 2215 2165 y 3l95 N 33RD Sr 7p007 kD I V $ �( Pr,� boETz ��� < Ot65 0150 0140 1776 1190 1806 1826 Yoy Q Fit L 31840 0116 0205 19N 51980 ail t 961 i 955 1935 C!tootcER 3855 3 N32NOST )930 A M ort g4'O"j ItA60 STn� L S E*PI-A*-jt. 5AS E - M oA (6AA 368b S Ta ri EN AN 1 3090 SA Joy 369s 3906 :i90S SHAJ'Auc 3924 3920 P 1)4 3930 Lak$ Washing tc,n coN.tE�, j ?0 hlk/L5HAL�, 3953 STORE 5�-APa•W"�E BASE GALSTE 3 1+ Y, W r- L L d0078 BURRoJGH s 1010 PRtTca+.A�p G-fz3! r (029 G �Ot 4LK �7'! er-E T�F+f L `l At A( 4040 iK1Ee JE 4046 'Ah&4,tc l3t5tAG 4t: Sow 0E-W S P PO P-:rF P--5 o P P©lu I5— M75 Lo-'S t-AP-6L 0275 Renton 1510 i530 iso i555 16/41585 0285 ?130 1115 16931675 0300 11551145 N 31ST ST 038D Q3/5 0346 12W 1265 1281)1290 13M 13211325 D385 13911 WOO 0410 1490 1460 14/0 1444 Z 1434 .0 ►d�}ItiSt 1425 D460 0486 0454 d 1005 1025 104010511065 0dt5 OSitl 1235 1215 1190 1+83 1160 ,` 55 j N 29N ST 1182 e1556 0640 Ol40 0170 0169 0805 0825 0093tl O565 058D 0985 0910 4910 0895 N �rH PL t tl58s 0625 >s�r 0615 U630 N 29TH ST 0680 0fi90 {f3g0 0280 a 0420 r� bt 27rm PL +4n 0131) Dow r'- 9160 ` 0060 0190 ZDow 021a /+ oi10 F->LIe)ULF-I - T - I- Mrz--(:-:: 77— 2EQJIR.&-ME,NTTS 0185 <rl 13180 Gene COUI' %emarikl Beach Park 9292 !C f 2MS K utg Cau ety 0 S 61 ft The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no represaniations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness. timeliness, or rights to the use wi such information. This document is not intended for use as a survey product King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential W damages including, but not hmr*d to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of this e information contained on this map. Any sale ofKing County this map or information on this map prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 8(7/2007 Source: King County MAP - property Information jhitp://www.metrokc.gov/GISTMAP) We, the undersigned, suppor*rCharlie Conner and Anne Simp*!!ron and land their Helicopter from their residence at 3001 Mt View AVE - , Name Address in their privilege to takeoff N., Renton. qidnn.qfiirck r)afm t Jt O-A "'j 7A rV. vtcw R--P, �2 W L/I E2-& j4 U67 A� le:pr -4 fit L to I IV -r 0 Al 3/ev CV. 7/0 7-� La' -7 /AA 7-1y • V 4z,' - vl k1. Al 7 v'Qu,� Ave PD�� plk k "6, Um -A,.4a- Lay� Law--g o tj ;�-)9'7 N4-tJ Vie4JAVitJ qWS(,o /-L7(4&;Or7,,, 2-0) C7; 5807 AATN V1 OVAVF- IQ 9WE4or 912467- M L I q- e, I I ("D. ve� '3111 MD"TA►r4 V i EL..,J A\`f- h'I /18/0/ 7 ��►hO�� i� _J i.t�S� �' 3133 V') U► Q, ��o Gw '� ��� .rr° We, the undersigned, suppo harlie Conner and Anne Simpson in their privilege to takeoff and land their Helicopfer from their residence at 3001 Mt View Ave N., Renton. Name Address Sin natur 9 e Datc oL L K wa-r, h /I r- a InT 0 el�j /(,{) 91f Z73 l 97n �I« � 44 �4) �p G •J- -7 0 - v CA-44 LL�A NPIJ&C, A) IS015 hA-t. -e✓ Iq o G 2v V- Vs W A107 �� . S 7! 8 oV. 30" 5 r . ILI, �' 6AV ue.AJt' ao•s,�� �n�. P� �l►Id7 *Moe September 14, 2007 Elizabeth Higgins Senior Planner, Development Services Division City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Dear Ms. Higgins, My comments below are in regards to the following application with the City of Renton: Project Name/ Number: Conner Heliport/ LUA07-097, TP Project Location: 3001 Mountain View Ave N, Renton, WA 98056 I live on Mountain View and am the adjacent neighbor to the north of the Conner residence. I fully support this application granting Mr. Conner the use of his residence as a private helicopter landing and takeoff area. The frequency of take off and landings are minimal and time of day has always been acceptable. Mr. Conner gives me advanced notice when he plans to use his helicopter and ensures he flies after early morning hours. Noise and wind surprisingly are not as issue. I have been sitting outside under my covered patio during both take off and landings and am fine with this activity. Quite honestly, float plane activity which flies over the top of Coleman Point, far exceeds any noise concerns I may have with this application. In regards to safety, I have complete confidence with Mr. Conner's usage of this location. With 28 years experience at The Boeing Company and 16 years in selling aircraft, I understand the criticality of safety and the elements required to ensure this. I have no hesitation flying with Mr. Conner. I have experienced first hand his disciplined routine which he conducts prior to each departure and landing. It is all by the book; he follows a robust check list, communicates well with the flight tower, and keeps his aircraft well maintained. His flying skills are solid and he conducts himself in a very professional manner. I encourage the City of Renton to approve this application. Feel free to contact me as necessary. Monica Fix 3007 Mountain View Ave N. Renton, WA 98056 Deputy VP, Middle East & Africa Sales Boeing Commercial Aircraft 206-321-6154 Copy: Mr. Charlie Conner `W Town if Semov Cluj/?e 1Li Hunts Print 3000 Hunts Point Road Hunts Point, Washington 98004 425-455-1834 Fax 425-454-4586 www.ci.hunts-point.wa.us September 5, 2007 Mr. Jeff Wright 4056 Hunts Point Road Hunts Point, WA 98004 Re: Helicopters Dear Jeff: This letter is to provide information on how we deal with helicopters on Hunts Point. Over the years, we have always had three or four helicopters on Hunts Point. A couple of them are kept at the homes or on docks, and others stay at Boeing Field, and occasionally fly in and out of Hunts Point, landing on the owner's dock or lawn. Hunts Point has no provision for or against helicopters in our zoning code. The helicopter owner needs to be sensitive to his neighbors with regard to noise, time of day, clearances, etc. Over the years, we have never had a problem that couldn't be resolved by the helicopter owner talking to his neighbors and respecting their concerns. Lately, we feel fortunate to have helicopters on Hunts Point, as they are key to our Town's Emergency Plan. In the event of a major earthquake, the 520 bridge and the 84t" Ave. access bridge to Hunts Point would likely go down. Our only means to transport injured residents to a hospital would be by land or sea. We have 3 helicopters and 6 float planes standing by as part of our emergency team. The more senior residents are very happy we have these helicopters to available to transport them to a hospital in the event of an emergency. I hope this information is helpful to others in resolving their helicopter issues. Sincerely, Fred McConkey Mayor March 24, 2008 To Renton City Council Members As a member of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee representing the community I am opposed to any City ordinance that would allow Helipads on private property in the City. This Committee has been engaged in minimizing the noise impact of aircraft operating within the city for some time. Allowing the operations proposed in this ordinance would spread the noise exposure area and is counter to these efforts. Also as a long time resident of the City I feel that we should utilize the fact that we have a close in airport and limit aircraft operations to that facility. Respectfully Submitted, John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 0 WE Z MARK HANCOCK PO Box 88811 Seattle, WA 98138 March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Helipad Ordinance Dear Honorable Councilmembers: As an 9-year resident of Lower Kennydale, I wish to express my concern and opposition to the helipad ordinance that you are considering. We love our quiet little neighborhood, and wish to keep it that way. Helicopters belong at the airport, not based in our neighbors' backyards, and the airport is only one mile away. Plenty, if not most, other cities forbid helicopters in their residential areas — why not Renton? This isn't about one helicopter, it's about an ordinance that will literally create a new helicopter district that allows helipads on all of the Renton parcels fronting Lake Washington, mostly below Kennydale (with the balance north of the Seahawks). There are about 7 lots that could accommodate helipads now, and there is no reason why other lots could not be combined to create room for others, and new homes built with a design to make room for more (even on a flat rooftop). Since helicopters are not allowed on most of the properties around Lake Washington, it will draw attention and put pressure on our neighborhood to keep them. It can be expected that the Seahawks will have a heliport on their commercial parcel, so with the current application there will already be two coming to the neighborhood that we don't have now. With the increasing traffic, congestion, and affluence in the region, this is a bad precedent and who knows what will follow once you open Pandora's box. Nobody has addressed the combined impact of them all. Looking at the arguments being made for the helicopter: 1) "Houses have seaplanes, and helicopters are much the same thing." No, they are not. Seaplanes taxi out into the lake to take off, and land on the lake. When they do fly over our homes they are above the 500 foot altitude minimum. Helicopters generally fly below the light plane patterns, and can fly nearly everywhere with no real altitude restriction other than avoiding obstructions. They are especially noisy taking off and landing, which should be done at the airport. \J Helipad hearing, 3/24/07, page 2 2) "Lower Kennydale is already a noisy neighborhood." Actually, it is a very quiet neighborhood. We are protected from the freeway by a sound wall, and we lie below the freeway as well. We rise above the lake, and are buffered by that noise by trees and homes. There are a few sunny weekends in the summer that are busy, but that's about it — the rest of the year and every night it is very peaceful. With the air traffic patterns such as they are, we do get more than our share of the aviation activity, which is another reason not to bring more of it right into the neighborhood. 3) "Helicopters are not so noisy." No, by their nature they are noisy, especially taking off and landing. They also generally fly below the light plane flight patterns, lower over our homes. There are plenty of helicopters at the airport — have in independent third party take a sound meter and test them, so that you can make an informed decision based on facts, not generalities. 4) "Homeowners have a right to keep a helicopter at home." No, not any more than they have a right to conduct other objectionable activities at home. There are plenty of restrictions in Renton's code for activities at homes and in neighborhoods that are much less intrusive than a helicopter. The City's strict and detailed rules on keeping animals at home comes to mind. 5) "Hunts Point allows helicopters." Hunts Point has large lots, while our lots are small in a neighborhood densely zoned R-8. 6) "Other parts of the code will protect the neighborhood" If that were the case, why does the City Code have so much extra language about troublesome dogs, or keeping pets, or building construction hours (and plenty of other issues)? This is too serious a matter not to handle at least as well as those. 7) "There won't be very many helicopters" As noted above, there are two on the horizon, plus other lots that are ready, plus smaller lots that could be combined, plus new homes that could be designed with rooftop landing pads. Since this would be one of the few areas that allows them, there will be more over time. 8) "Helicopters will fly over the lake" Since the City cannot regulate helicopters after they leave the ground (only the FAA), there is no way to assure this or enforce it. If you do plan to pass this ordinance, then the ordinance as proposed is weak - lacking almost any restrictions. Only that the helipad design meet FAA standards, and that the home can keep only one helicopter or seaplane. Then everything else is left open-ended, to be sorted out during a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Staff says this is for flexibility, but in reality it creates and continues confusion. The lack of any direction at all forces all of us, on both sides, to fight from extreme positions all the way through the process. Please give us an ordinance which gives upfront guidance where possible, containing some of the most basic restrictions that belong in an ordinance such as this and would show up in any CUP thereafter. A good idea put forth by the current applicant was a limitation on the size of helicopters that would be allowed. Even the cities that do Helipad hearing, 3/24/07, page 3 allow helicopters have well thought out restrictions and conditions in their ordinances that do not leave so much open-ended - please have your staff report and propose them to you. Here are some that come to mind: - Helipad for occasional private personal use, and only by the homeowner - Only one specific helicopter in the permit (if it is changed, a new permit is required) - Helipad cannot be leased or used by outside pilots or helicopters - Not a shared -owner helicopter, where other pilots would also fly from the home - No commercial activities, including pilot training - Helicopter maximum size and/or weight - Permit expires when the house is sold, or the specific approved helicopter is gone - Restrict hours and days of flying (much like home construction regulations) - Limit on the number of flights per week (no regular daily commuting) - Helicopters to be outfitted with least -noise blade assemblies and engines - What is the recourse for the City and neighbors if there is a problem? - Better and broader pubic notice to the impacted neighborhood of an application. The 300' horizontal notice requirement does not apply to an intrusion that when allowed could disturb an entire neighborhood from 100+ feet vertically above their homes. In the recent TUP application there wasn't even a notice on Lake Washington Boulevard, let alone up into the neighborhood. Given the neighborhood -specific nature of this hearing, was public notice adequate for tonight? How did you really expect anybody in Kennydale to know about this ordinance and its impacts? While the initial application doesn't sound too bad (occasional private use, mostly during the business day), what about the next one, or the one after that? They may have larger helicopters, which fly every day, and may not be such good citizens of Renton and thereby more difficult to deal with for the City and neighborhood. The ordinance is our first line of defense, laying out the ground rules. The ordinance and CUP are also our only means to influence the impact, as once a helicopter is in the air it cannot be regulated by the City (only the FAA; and homeowner calls to the City will be fruitless). We all need a better ordinance if you are going to pass one, that will save us all a lot of time and effort. Please do not defer to and rely on the CUP process — the Renton code is very specific on many other issues and should be here too. For example the Use Tables are full of additional criteria, and Conditional Use Permit section 4-9-030 of the Renton Code lists many additional approval criteria for wireless towers and dog kernels — why not for helicopters? Lastly, I wish to support staff s recommendation that a CUP application be heard before the Hearing Examiner. This is consistent with helipads in commercial districts, and many other lesser issues in the City Code, so it certainly should apply to the important residential situation here. A decision such as this should not be made administratively behind closed doors. If you have problems with any of the above, remember that you don't have to allow helicopters at all — the airport would be happy to have them. Thank you very much for your time and considering my thoughts. Sincer ly, Mark Hancock Mar 24 08 04:3,2p I'►= 3213 Mountain View Avenue North Renton, WA 98056-2512 March 24, 2008 Renton City Council Attention: Mr. Mayor and City Council Members 425 226 6063 p.1 011C "In CITY OF RENTON MAR 2 4 z0oe RECEIVED '.:ITY CLERK'S OFFIC} eleI RE: Proposed Zoning Change to Allow Private Heliports Along Lake Washington Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members: We have been residents of Mountain View Avenue North in Renton since 1972 and have always enjoyed the characteristics of the waterfront neighborhood. We are in full support of passing the proposed zoning change to allow priv,P,te heliports in our area along Lake Washington. Sir Kathleen I. Dahlby From: "'Sandy'<b.reisman@comcast.net>" <b.reisman@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 12:16:30 PM Subject: Councilmembers We cannot attend the meeting on Monday, 3/24/08; however, we're opposed to allowing helicopters in Kennydale because of the noise. Please vote against it. Thank you. This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <b.reisman@comcast.net> VAW From: "'Thomas and Judith Skill man'<tom.skillman@comcast.net>" <tom.skillman@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 2:48:22 PM Subject: NO HELIPORTS IN KENNYDALE Dear Council Members, We are unable to attend the public hearing on March 24, where the topic of Heliports in Kennydale will be discussed. As residents, and homeowners, we are concerned that the heliports will add to the noise in the Kennydale community, including the neighborhood beach front park. Specifically, we strongly oppose the heliport/helicopter ordinance Our quiet community, already impacted by the added traffic and noise from the Barbee Mill homesites, Seahawks facility, and The Landing, does not need the additional noise of the deep penetrating thwump- thwump-thwump that helicopters, necessarily, bring with them. Please take this note, and our past and future voting record, into consideration, and vote - NO HELIPORTS IN KENNYDALE. Thanks, Thomas and Judith Skillman 1017 North 31 st Street Kennydale, WA 98056 425-235-0504 This email request originated from the following link: http://www.rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <tom.skillman@comcast. net> 11gV )ice ,low 1"W From: "'Kim Loulias'<knloulias@comcast.net>" <knloulias@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 4:56:19 PM Subject: Re: 2007 DOCKET- HELIPAD ZONING CODE AMENDMENT Comments from Kim Loulias who resides in lower Kennydale at 1112 N 31st Street. I do not support land based helipads being allowed in the R-8 zone (Residential- eight units per net acre) along Lake Washington. My two concerns regarding allowing helicopters to land on shoreline properties in Kennydale are public safety and noise. • Allowing helicopters to land in close proximity to residential properties will increase the risk of injury to people or property. • Additional noise would be perceived locally. There would be additional noise from all phases of a flight. The increased noise does not fit into my definition of being a good neighbor. Adding unwanted noise can cause conflicts between neighbors which lowers the quality of life in the neighborhood along with perceived decreases in property values for non helicopter owners/operators. Basis for my concerns: Public Safety A helicopter approach/takeoff perpendicular to the shore would seem to be optimum for providing the most safety to shoreline property and people. A perpendicular approach would also minimize noise on shore. However, I do not believe that all safe takeoffs and landings would take place perpendicular to the shore. Not all helicopter takeoffs/landings can be executed in a pure vertical direction due to the performance characteristics of the helicopter as well as wind conditions. Thus a virtual ground "runway" is sometimes required for a safe landing/takeoff. Small helicopters, like fixed wing aircraft, should takeoff and land into the wind, but never downwind. The virtual runway should be parallel to the winds and thus on any given day, could be over adjoining Kennydale properties and not perpendicular to the shore. The wind does not always blow perpendicular to shore in Kennydale. Thus an optimum helicopter approach/takeoff cannot always be executed without flying low over adjoining properties. Local shoreline properties would therefore be under increased risk of injury by helicopters vs. no helicopters close to their properties. FAA design rules would have to consider these factors in approval of any land based helipad designs in Kennydale. There are many types of large birds that fly along the shore in Kennydale: bald eagles, herons, seagulls, etc. Impacting a large bird could cause damage to a helicopter in flight and thus could cause a crash above inhabited properties. Community Noise Adding helipads and associated aircraft will cause additional noise in Kennydale. Additional noise from any type of vehicle is not acceptable in our neighborhood. We already endure the noise of loud "cigarette" boats in the summer, highway 405 (including traffic helicopters hovering) and aircraft to and from Renton airport. Adding helipads in Kennydale will lower the neighborhood quality of life for non helicopter owners. Alternatives There is already convenient controlled airspace with helicopter operations at Renton airport which is within a 15 minute car ride from Kennydale. A 15 minute excursion would not seem to be an inconvenience for access to a personal helicopter. Renton airport also has fueling and other services in place for helicopters Renton airport seems to be the optimum place for safe and convenient helicopter operations. An alternate shoreline option would be a floating or fixed dock or pontoon landing directly on Lake Washington. The takeoff and landing phase for these alternatives would be well offshore away from people and properties much like seaplane operations already taking place on the lake. Thus the noise impact is minimized along with maximizing public safety. There are already water based helipads on docks in operation on Mercer Island (see Paul Allen property on South West corner of Mercer Island). Obviously building a water based helipad would be more costly than land based designs, but public safety would seem to outweigh such costs. Future Legal Issues? Aircraft accidents are highly visible events in the media and can entangle many parties into potential liabilities. Does the City of Renton want to take on that potential risk by allowing a minority of residents to land personal helicopters close to the general public in unmonitored airspace when convenient helicopter operation/access is already available at Renton Airport KRNT? Regards, Kim Loulias- Senior Aerospace Engineer This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <knlouIias@comcast. net> 31��/��� From: "'Tami & Paul Skelton'<tamiskelton@hotmail.com>" <tamiskelton@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 6:22:00 PM Subject: No Helicopters in Kennydale Dear Councilmembers, We urge you to stop the proposed ordinance that would allow helicopters in our peaceful neighborhood. Allowing helicopters and helipads would degrade our quality of life, our property values and would detract from our right to enjoy peace in our neighborhood and home. We urge you to vote NO on this ordinance. Yours truly - concerned homeowners, Paul & Tami Skelton This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <tamiskelton@hotmail.com> 3JaLIJ'�O0 pd'&� 1k&xJg9 From: "'Jodi Watson'<jodikwatson@hotmail.com>" <jodikwatson@hotmail.com>. To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 6:24:05 PM Subject: no helicopters in Kennydale As a resident of Kennydale, I urge you to stop the passing of the ordinance that would allow for heliports in my neighborhood. I live here because of the quiet and this ordinance would intrude on our right to peaceful enjoyment of our home. Thank you, Matson This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <jodikwatson@hotmail.com> From: "'Linda Fry'<frypenny@hotmail.com>" <frypenny@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 1:54:56 PM Subject: Councilmembers - helipad It must be nice to have money enough to pay off the city council members in order to have ordinances changed that will ruin a lovely, quiet neighborhood like Kennydale by allowing the very rich to have helicopters in their yards! Do any of you people even live in Kennydale? This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <frypenny@hotmail.com> VqPI-ot 6 vow pu,&& From: "'Robert L. Undsderfer'<bobhome007@msn.com>" <bobhome007@msn.com> To: <mpalm er@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 12:45:44 PM Subject: CouncilMembers Please make this part of Public Record and read, if possible at the Public Hearing the 24th day of March 2008, at 7:00 PM, 7th floor Council Chambers of Renton City. do not want the value of my property diminished because the want of a few! Helicopters belong at the Airport and not in our neighborhood! We have a quiet neighborhood and would like to keep it that way! Years ago there was a very annoying noise four to eight times a day by a helicopter or two taking off and landing from the shores of Mercer Island(that was across the water from Kennydale)then Mercer Island code enforcment or codes finally eliminated that problem. We have more noise now than when I moved in here in 1975, because we have the Jets flying overhead, but let's not make it worse! If people want to fly to work or anywhere by helicopter they can certainly afford to have a chauffer or limousine take them to the airport, which is only a few minutes away, rather than disturbing the many that doi not want to be disturbed by the noise!! I have lived here since 1975 and would like to keep intrusions to my peace, serinity, privacy,and value to a minimum. Our taxes help support the airport --have them use it like many other cities require. Helicopters are a very noisy intrusion and invasion to life in a neighborhood. You cannot talk on your deck, keep your babies asleep, and many other things when a helicopter is taking off or flying over your house. This side of the lake does not need to open up for this activity. It will not be just the fewyou want to please now by letting this be approved, but the others that can't have it elswhere will be attracted here to where they can have it and we will have many of these around this neighborhood ---Please do not devalue my and many other peoples home and property by allowing this. Robert L. Undsderfer This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <bobhome007@msn.com> V.r From: Betty Childers <betc2@yahoo.com> To: <dlaw@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 1:14:38 PM Subject: helicopters Dear Mayor and Council People, We quite concerned about the possibility of helipads and helicopters in the Kennydale neighborhood. We have already absorbed a huge amount of traffic and its accompanying noise on Lake Washington Blvd and 1405. This used to be a quiet little neighborhood, but it's not anymore. We think that adding helicopters, which are EXTREMELY NOISY, to the mix would seriously interfere with our quality of life in this lovely area. Please keep the helicopters at the airport! Betty Childers Steve Denison Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping CC: <rcorman@ci.renton.wa.us>, <dpersson@ci.enton.wa.us>, <tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us>, <gtaylor@ci.renton.wa.us>, <rzwicker@ci.renton.wa.us>, <mpalmer@ci.renton.wa.us> From: "'John Middlebrooks'<Jmidbk@aol.com>" <Jmidbk@aol.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:34:25 PM Subject: Helicopter Waterfront Pad Ordinance As a member of the Renton Airport Advisory Committee representing the community I am oposed to any City ordinance that would allow Helipads on private property in the City. This Committee has been engaged in minimizing the noise impact of aircraft operating within the city for some time. Allowing the operations proposed in this ordinance would spread the noise exposure area and is counter to these efforts. Also as a long time resident of the City I feel that we should utilize the fact that we have a close in airport and limit aircraft operations to that facility. John Middlebrooks 510 Seneca Ave NW Renton, WA 98057 CC: <Jmidbk@aol.com> low March 19, 2008 Renton City Council As residents of Kennydale, we are writing to state our opposition to the ordinance being considered which would allow heliports to be built and maintained by private citizens around Lake Washington. We do not see a need or problem that justifies this change. The impact of the increased noise from the take off and landing of helicopters in our neighborhoods as well as potential safety and environmental risks outweigh any possible benefits the ordinary citizens of Renton might receive from private heliports. The proximity of the Renton Airport which is built and maintained for both security and noise containment would suggest that additional helipads in our neighborhoods are unnecessary. Unless it could be shown that a helipad was needed for emergency or citizen safety this measure would not in our opinion enhance the quality of life for Renton residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Lowry (� Mike Lowry 3326 Park Ave N. Renton, WA 98056 marylowry@comcast.net From: "'Mike Lowry'< m arylowry@co m cast. net>" <marylowry@comcast. net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:38:25 PM Subject: Councilmembers March 19, 2008 Renton City Council As residents of Kennydale, we are writing to state our opposition to the ordinance being considered which would allow heliports to be built and maintained by private citizens around Lake Washington. We do not see a need or problem that justifies this change. The impact of the increased noise from the take off and landing of helicopters in our neighborhoods as well as potential safety and environmental risks outweigh any possible benefits the ordinary citizens of Renton might receive from private heliports. The proximity of the Renton Airport which is built and maintained for both security and noise containment would suggest that additional helipads in our neighborhoods are unnecessary. Unless it could be shown that a helipad was needed for emergency or citizen safety this measure would not in our opinion enhance the quality of life for Renton residents. Thank you for your consideration. Mary Lowry Mike Lowry 3326 Park Ave N. Renton, WA 98056 marylowry@comcast.net CC: < m arylowry@com cast. net> From: "'joanie rosling'<jfrosling@aol.com>" <jfrosling@aol.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/23/2008 7:46:26 PM Subject: Councilmembers I look forward to presenting my position regarding the re -zoning of the Kennydale waterfront to accommodate heliports at the meeting tomorrow night!! This email request originated from the following link: http://www.rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=3212 CC: <jfrosling@aol.com> From: "'Steve F.'<bigfootforsale@hotmail.com>" <bigfootforsale@hotmail.com> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 4:41:07 PM Subject: Councilmembers - HELIPAD Helipad Amendment - I was wondering if the council has addressed some issues with respect to the helipads: (1) Renton airspace — Is landing orthogonal to the class D airspace for the Renton airport going to increase risks for collision? Will the pilots contact Renton control for clearance? (2) "Go Around" — What is the go around plan for a missed approach? A straight in approach from the water would result in a go around into the hill. Would this not require him to approach down the waterfront potentially upsetting numerous residents? (3) Operating hours — the operating hours seem to be very long. How will the helipad be lit at night? Will the helicopter approach with the 300,000 candlepower landing lights on? Is the pilot IFR approved? (4) Noise — how will the noise pollution be mitigated? How will the wildlife (including eagles and other wild birds) impact be mitigated? (5) Complaints — What will the mechanism be to address noise and compliance issues? Who would be called — the FAA, Flight services, or the tower? How would the issues be addressed? (6) Enforcement — How will violation of the rules be enforced? (7) Emergency Response — Does the Fire Dept have training to necessary to respond to a aircraft fire involving jet fuel? (8) Environmental issues — what special provisions will be required for a fuel leak? Will the EPA be involved in approving the fuel spill retention system? (9) Noise Mitigation for Affected Homes — Will the City provide funds to improve insulation and windows in neighboring homes? This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=1082 CC: <bigfootforsale@hotmail.com> pui*v ?j-q/0o� From: "'Marleen Mandt'<mkmandt@comcast. net>" <mkmandt@comcast.net> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 3/24/2008 5:08:04 PM Subject: Amendment to Code - Helipads Since I can not be at tonight City Council meeting I would to submit this for public record. Conditions on Helipads 1. All noise and safety concerns be reported to the Renton city airport manager so that he can track all problems related to helicopter noise complaints. 2. No helicopter leaving or returning to the helipad fly over residential lower kennydale area. Possible to fly over commerical zoned area. If this is not possible that they woul maintain a 1000 ft clearance from the top of houses. 3. All noise and safety compliants be taken care of within 24 hours. 4. Any emergency safety complaints be directed to???? (City of Renton) focal or FAA. CC: <mkmandt@comcast. net> cm 0 TJ C 0 r-q;u U, -q -4 ?m 010 .4 lzo oor :u-lz w D x All ;Uzx. 00 0 c 4A. z MA tA 0 mm mb xm 6`� m oom z C=) CD co, m M co cl) cn m m x m m to 4 m 0 PRESRTED FIRST OCLASS r UNIJZ6 cn 0 z, le 3 cr, Li) (4 , 0 0 m to I X, CO W 4o� CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 24th day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - Title W Docket Items: Commercial Office Residential (COR), Assisted Living, Helipad, and Utilities Height zoning text amendments. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Saturday, March 15, 2008 Account No. 50640 3/13/2008 - Notice sent to 37 Parties of Record per attached labels. J. Seth cc: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager Mark Hancock Tian and Tom Rosling 11.11ke Vowels PO Box 88811 1023 N 34th Street 12717 322nd Ave NE Seattle, WA 98138 Renton, WA 98056 Duvall, WA 98019 Roger & Marlene Winter Steve & Marcie Maxwell Martin & Pegi Galster 2731 Mountain View Avenue N PO Box 2048 2907 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Jim & Laura Morgan Bill & Debra Keppler Marleen Mandt 3103 Mountain View Avenue N 2805 Mountain View Avenue N 1408 N 26th St Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA. 98056 Thomas Dahlby Lisa Dahlby John Hempelmann 3213 Mountain View Avenue N 3217 Mountain View Avenue N 524 Second Ave Suite 500 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98104-2323 Charles F. Conner Buzz & Pat Dana Peter Spouse & Kelly Grace 3001 Mountain View Avenue N 5219 Ripley Lane N 3011 Mountain View Avenue N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Monica Fix Jerry Brennan Neal Shinery 3007 Mountain View Avenue N 3405 Lake Washington Blvd N 1705 147th PI SE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Bellevue, WA 98007 Eugene Heurchel Randy & Linda Ritualo Greg & Karen Krape 14408 149th PI SE 701 N 30th St 1101 N 27th PI Renton, WA 98059 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 David Tryc Mike O'Leary Sharon Smith 3411 Meadow Ave N 800 W Perimeter Rd #A 5143 Ripley Lane N Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98056 Marc Pritchard Laurey Carolus Inez Somerville Petersen 2807 Mountain View Avenue N 14502 Wallingford Avenue N 1166 Edel Court Renton, WA 98056 Seattle, WA 98133 Enumclaw, WA 98022 Kim Skaar John Middlebrooks Karen Walter -Muckleshoot Indian PO Box 2945 510 Seneca Ave NW Tribe Fisheries Division Chelan, WA 98816 Renton, WA 98057 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 Ann & Bernie Moskowitz !avid Halinen ^fin Merlino 8251 South 121 st Street Halinen Law Offices Stoneway Concrete Seattle, WA 98178 1019 Regents Blvd, Ste 202 9216 8th Ave S Fir Crest, WA 98466 Seattle, WA 98108 Michael Merlino Stoneway Concrete 9216 8th Ave S Seattle, WA 98108 Bradley Karvasek Equity Residential 16400 Southcenter Parkway, Ste 301 Tukwila, WA 98188 Jim Hambuechen Prudential NW Realty 200 112th Ave NE, Ste 200 Bellevue, WA 98004 Joseph Ho Prudential NW Realty 200 112th Ave NE, Ste 200 Bellevue, WA 98004 rr+' CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 24th day of March, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - Title IV Docket Items: Commercial Office Residential (COR), Assisted Living, Helipad, and Utilities Height zoning text amendments. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Saturday, March 15, 2008 Account No. 50640 ti T'C N c s��sc3 b av 2b� r t '� U O O O E v 00 O N��4. C M .+ a• v z Q zt. o 0 o 3 3 Z�OUC7� E o ° a a3 3.� x a� w 01 F W s o .�U 50 a c �.� non_ ❑ n o.� OY°'a C 0.�b •� U O D U C[ Q .� -•� O b2A C C7000 l� ti 1' I I w U T f1 O O d r bA n z o 8 � � v�� � o Oar oU�QE- Qr °UO ° m-a ,O 00 O 0 N U �. cl rx o �00 6 E � 3 a4 CA •4 March 10, 2008 `W Renton City Council Minutes M0 Page 76 Community Services: City Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Space Planning & Move amount of $224,000 with Heery International for space planning, architectural, Management, Heery and move management services necessitated by the Benson Hill Communities International Annexation. Council concur. Community Services: Parks Community Services Department recommended approval of the Parks Consultant Roster Consultant Roster, valid from March 2008 to December 2010, listing 66 professional consultants. Council concur. Community Services: Police Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Department Locker Purchase, amount of $251,442.48 with sole source supplier Saxton, Bradley, Inc. to Saxton Bradley purchase lockers for the Police Department. Council concur. Fire: Records Management Fire and Emergency Services Department recommended approval of a contract System, FDM Software in the amount of $24,340.78 with FDM Software Ltd. for software support and maintenance related to the department's records management system. Council concur. Utility: Annual Consultant Utility Systems Division recommended approval of the annual roster of Roster, Telemetry & SCADA consultants chosen to provide telemetry and supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) services, which is valid from March 2008 to March 2009 and lists nine professional consultants. Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning & Develoament Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review V+ Finance Committee Finance: Vouchers Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Committee recommended that a public hearing be set on 3/24/2008 to consider the proposed commercial office residential (COR), assisted living, helipad, and utilities height zoning text amendments. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 269561 - 270146 and three wire transfers totaling $5,365,841.39; and approval of 163 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 699 direct deposits totaling $2,420,934.61. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: Urban & Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Community Forestry concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract with Worthy Development Plan, Worthy and Associates, LLC, in the amount of $119,654 to provide consulting services and Associates for an Urban and Community Forestry Development Plan. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utility: Low -Income Senior Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report regarding utility discount Utility Rates rates for low-income senior/disabled residents. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following: • Eliminate the two-tier structure (40 percent and 75 percent) and implement a single discount level of 50 percent. • Eliminate the 900 cubic feet of water subsidy to send a consistent water conservation message to all customers. BY CTY CGUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date COMMITTEE REPORT March 10, 2008 Title IV Docket Referred May 14, 2007 The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the public hearing on proposed, Commer ffice Residential (COR), Assisted Living, Helipad, and Utilities Height zoning text en s be set for March 24, 2008. King Parker, Chair Rich Zwicker, Vi Chair Greg ii3r, Member cc: iay-e-0V4kgtM Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind March 3, 2008 %W Renton City Council Minutes fto� Page 68 Budget: 2008 Amendment, Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval to amend Benson Hill Communities the 2008 Budget in the amount of $1,189,368 to provide for additional costs Annexation related to serving the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area. Council concur. (See page 69 for ordinance.) Finance: Carry Forward Finance and Information Services Department requested approval of the carry Ordinance forward ordinance in the amount of $31,097,336, which increases the 2008 Budget by carrying forward funds from 2007 for projects that were not completed in 2007. Council concur. (See page 70 for ordinance.) Legal: Parking Sign Legal Division recommended approval to clarify language in City Code Section Regulations 10-10-6, Signs And/Or Markings Required, to require parking signs on City streets only for those regulations that are unique to a particular street. Council concur. (See page 70 for ordinance.) Airport: T-Hangar Unit & Tie- Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of the following at the Down Space Waiting List Fees airport: a $100 City T-Hangar unit and hangar waiting list fee, and a $25 City tie -down space waiting list fee. Council concur. (See page 69 for resolution.) CAG: 07-044, Phase II Utility Systems Division recommended approval of an amendment to CAG-07- Municipal Stormwater Permit 044, Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit appeal agreement with a coalition Appeal, Interlocal Agreement of government entities to fund legal services, which increases the City's share of the legal services by up to $25,000. Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Zwicker presented a report Planning & Development regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Committee Committee recommended that the public hearing set for 3/10/2008 on the Planning: Development proposed helipad and commercial office residential zoning text amendments be Regulations (Title IV) Docket cancelled. The hearing on the helipad amendments will be re -set at a later date Review following completion of an appeal on the issue. The hearing on the commercial office residential amendments will be re -set in combination with other Title IV docket items at a later date. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending Latecomer Agreement: Conner concurrence in the staff recommendation to grant preliminary approval of the Homes, Puget Colony request for a latecomer agreement from Conner Homes Company, for a period Development, LA-07-002 of two years. The application for a latecomer agreement was submitted to recover the $164,905.79 estimated cost for a sewer main extension along SE 2nd Pl. and SE 2nd St. to serve the proposed Puget Colony Short Plats 1 and 2 (SHP-06-146 and SHP-06-147). The Committee further recommended that Council authorize the preliminary assessment roll to be forwarded to the City Clerk, who will notify the affected property owners. If no protests are received, after construction of the facilities and approval of the final costs, staff shall present the latecomer agreement for final approval by Council and authorize preparation of the final assessment roll and latecomer agreement. In the event there is a protest for valid cause, a public hearing will be held to resolve any issues prior to proceeding with this matter. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Did' Date 3- 3- 4008 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT March 3, 2008 Title IV Docket (Referred February 25, 2008) (Aft IN k Uo 7) The Planning and Development Committee recommends that the public hearing on proposed Helipad and Commercial Office Residential zoning text amendments set for March 10, 2008 be canceled. The hearing on the helipad amendments will be re -set at a later date following completion of an appeal on the issue. The hearing on the Commercial Office Residential amendments will be re -set in combination with other Title IV Docket items at a later date. cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind em 41:50 M u>7b"•"•vC7 "-' G— •• C% �> � O ° 00 i- O"'^•O cd aJ v M^ �t V N T C N r •b N N N° 0. R R N d :� u U U •�- V cEV .0 U U 1.01 N N GNU ou3 to °>u N oaMo ccocxoas rwlV o.•>a°+z c°> c°7 d 1n tz> �� o 0n n U zU>Z c, ab�bOCD U 0G7 LtLN vvryi Z'U dQ ozOU0 gv o¢ ° �oN o ERCS uo O Lu c °' ° u c m'o E a; 2 d ounce y �b w 5 M �1 C A U Qr O U O A C b O b .0 E cd NO C cGO O ai Mai C C .3 ° G d ^, Cq G M ..+ O U O •C1 O O O cK6 w tD- •Q -CJ F y O.N N c[ U L� '•bC... Uc ..bcG`dd. x 'i EN O N c� U U a>i 4d: ^N 1J .Cc> NL .a7�i ti yO IVCO sdQ'�d �N -E a � s C .N(n U� � ¢ `°n cCd 'G a^i .c w�0'azU c ° ° pN 7 ° °05" c � QzA� a'CmWO a`nt�odo �o�c �oU�o°nvc°U;,C7mU��c w = V> C zQ°°U M°o.Euz MMo,=�acZ:��>��duoE U}' U OU C d> aui O�j z.Et va OU OU cOi Yr �!C> gib': U y> zV s c z u z Z s° Z ono y aciU daui `" c c c�^ a3i Zz E c U� one a0i UL �0 3�a�V r ono aui UL cW� c " °'cn•Yu nQ i > U o E O�OF �ooQ ° a�d�c''oZ 0 a�3��oz °'o^ o�o.NO cb oFx z o oQ �. G qq Kx o F° .� rgAzr v j 3° aui O �c z-i cOe o �p rzi N s Q. ►'4 u c W 0 >, C ri cd p cod 8 0 UuO ao>� tYi cd d a L no�� ro C.Er� nC� _:3 oA w G Dry C O w bKn�U C° O bon O C C F4 c V M O _UF oa �°>.�C).5 o by ° E.�° o c ar ?°�On �'� ° �O.c vE o u t T'� L ad v c c aui c E° n a� a Ll E. G u ti y a OWfi b an~ Q a vzU7 Q d d a of w ¢ d xN c a° vN� b� °a�° b aci d End mW V#(- b 2- oG 3 m-(-07--00A l/e, coos �gmdy� rile T ' �ev 1A NO �4 .� i 10 i }' SOP O y6,,�� o Aj�h ST 06 0 0 U °0. N 0 o 03 �nz� �b � M y a, 0 i 03 j ct uo on � an 0 b ° x 0 an v-. 0 a, ct V) I Amends Ords: 4720, 4843 4963, 4971, 5087 5286, 5330, 5355 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5357 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER 4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT FOR DOWNTOWN RENTON, INCLUDING REMOVING THE DOWNTOWN CORE AREA DESIGNATION, AMENDING THE BOUNDARY OF THE DOWNTOWN PEDESTRIAN DISTRICT, AMENDING THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS, AMENDING THE PARKING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, AND AMENDING THE CITY CENTER DISTRICT SIGN REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, there are several regulatory and regulatory overlay districts that affect Renton's Downtown, including: the Center Downtown zone, the City Center sign regulations, the Downtown Core Overlay district, Urban Design Regulation District `A', and the Pedestrian Overlay District; and and WHEREAS, the established boundaries of these districts have never been coordinated; WHEREAS, the lack of coordination between the boundaries of these regulatory districts has been confusing for the public and for applicants for development; and WHEREAS, the coordination of these boundaries provides a more consistent implementation of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 4, 2008, having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: M I M I ORDINANCE NO. 5357 SECTION I. Subsection 4-2-010 E, Additional Restriction on Land Use, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-080 C, Downtown Core Area, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-080 D, Downtown Pedestrian District, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment B. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-120 B, Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment C. SECTION V. Subsection 4-2-120 C, Number 11, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 11. Reserved. SECTION VI. Number 20 of Subsection 4-2-120 C, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Tables for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning 2 ..r ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Districts- Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 20. "Public Suffix" (P) properties are allowed the following height bonus: Publicly owned structures shall be permitted an additional fifteen feet (15') in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent (60%) or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, in zones where the maximum permitted building height is less than seventy five feet (75'), the maximum height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows, up to a maximum height of seventy five feet (75') to the highest point of the building: a. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one half feet (1-1/2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required at street level unless such setbacks are otherwise discouraged; and b. When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet (T) of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line; and c. On lots four (4) acres or greater, five (5) additional feet of height for every one percent (1 %) reduction below a twenty percent (20%) maximum lot area coverage by buildings for public amenities such as recreational facilities, and/or landscaped open space areas, etc., when these are open and accessible to the public during the day or week. 3 S SECTION VII. ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Subsection 4-4-080 B, Scope of Parking, Loading and Driveway Standards of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: B. SCOPE OF PARKING, LOADING AND DRIVEWAY STANDARDS: 1. Applicability: a. Within the Center Downtown Zone: This Section, except for subsections F1 through F9 and J of this Section, shall apply in the following cases: i. New Buildings or Structures: If construction replaces an existing building, only the area exceeding the area of the original structure shall be used to calculate required parking. ii. Building/Structure Additions: Only the area exceeding the area of the original structure shall be used to calculate required parking. b. Outside the Center Downtown Zone: Off-street parking; loading areas, and driveways shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Section in the following cases: i. New buildings or structures. ii. Building/Structure Additions: The enlargement or remodeling of an existing building/structure by more than one-third (1/3) of the area of the building/structure. iii. Paving or Striping: The paving of a parking lot with permanent surface, or striping a previously unstriped lot. M ORDINANCE NO. 5357 iv. Change in Use: The change of all or a portion of a building/structure or land use to a use requiring more parking than the previous use, as specified in subsection F 10 of this Section, except when located in a shopping center. v. Activities Requiring Deliveries or Shipments: Uses requiring merchandise deliveries and/or shipments shall provide adequate permanent off-street loading space in addition to required parking for the use. 2. Conformance Required: It shall be unlawful for any person hereafter to erect, construct, enlarge, move or convert any parking lot, parking structure, loading area, or driveway in the City or cause or permit the same to be done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section. Driveways shall be constructed to City standards. 3. Plans Required: Where off-street parking is required, except for single- family dwellings, a plan shall be submitted for approval by the Building Department. The plan must be accompanied by sufficient proof of ownership that indicates the spaces contemplated will be permanent. 4. Future Changes to Parking Arrangement: Any future changes in parking arrangements or number of spaces must be approved by the Development Services Division. 5. Timing for Compliance: a. Building Permit Required: No construction, alteration or changes in uses are permitted until all the information in RMC 4-8-120D16p, Parking 5 ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Analysis, and 4-8-120D19s, Site Plan, has been submitted and approved by the appropriate City departments and building permit has been issued. b. Requirements Prior to Occupancy Permit: The premises shall not be occupied until the parking lot is paved, marked, landscaped and lighted (if the lot is to be illuminated) and an occupancy permit has been issued, unless a deferment has been granted. c. Requirements Prior to Business License Issuance: A business license shall not be issued until an occupancy permit has been issued. SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-4-080 C, Downtown Core Area Map, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby deleted. SECTION IX. Subsection 4-4-080 E, Location of Required Parking, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: E. LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING: 1. On -Site Parking Required: Required parking as specified herein shall be provided upon property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the specified parking is located or upon leased parking. Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified: a. Detached, Semi -Attached and Two (2) Attached Dwellings: On the same lot with the building they are required to serve. E `W "► ORDINANCE NO. 5357 b. Attached Dwellings Greater Than Three (3) Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided, the provisions of subsection E2 (Off -Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. c. Boat Moorages: May have parking areas located not more than six hundred feet (600') from such moorage facility nor closer than one hundred feet (100') to the shoreline (see subsection F 10 of this Section). Accessible parking as required by the Washington State Barrier Free Standards can be allowed within one hundred feet (100') per subsection He of this Section. d. Other Uses: On the same lot with the principal use except when the conditions as mentioned in subsection E2 (Off -Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. 2. Off -Site Parking: a. When Permitted: If sufficient parking is not available on the premises of the use, a private parking area may be provided off -site, except for single and two (2) family dwellings. b. Agreement Required: A parking agreement ensuring that off -site parking is available for the duration of the use shall be approved by the Development Services Director, following review by the City Attorney. c. Additional Information Required: The Development Services Division shall review the following as part of the permit process: i. A letter of justification addressing the need for off -site parking and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5357 ii. A site plan showing all dimensions of parking spaces, aisles, landscaping areas, adjacent street improvements, curb cuts, and on -site and adjacent uses and buildings. d. Fees: No charge for use of such parking area shall be made in any residential zone except on a weekly or monthly basis. e. Maximum Distance to Off -Site Parking Area: i. Within the Center Downtown Zone: No distance requirements apply when both the use and off -site parking are located within the Center Downtown. ii. Within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Off -site parking shall be within five hundred feet (500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. iii. All Other Zones: Off -site parking shall be within five hundred feet (500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. f. Transportation Management Plan Exception: The Planning/Building Public Works Department may modify the maximum distance requirements if a Transportation Management Plan or other acceptable transportation system will adequately provide for the parking needs of the use and the conditions outlined in RMC 4-9-250D2 are met. ORDINANCE NO. 5357 3. Joint Use Parking Facilities: a. When Permitted: Joint use of parking facilities may be authorized only for those uses that have dissimilar peak -hour demands. b. Agreement Required: A parking agreement ensuring that joint use parking is available for the duration of the uses shall be approved by the Development Services Director, following review by the City Attorney. c. Maximum Distance to Joint Use Parking: i. Within the Center Downtown Zone: No distance requirements apply when both the use and joint use parking are located within the Center Downtown. ii. Within the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones: Joint use parking shall be within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use if it is intended to serve residential uses, and within one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') of the building or use if it is intended to serve nonresidential uses. iii. All Other Zones: Joint use parking shall be within seven hundred fifty feet (750') of the building or use it is intended to serve. d. Special Provisions for Subdivision of Shopping Center: Parking areas in shopping centers may operate as common parking for all uses. If a shopping center is subdivided, easements and/or restrictive covenants must grant use and provide for maintenance of common parking and access areas. SECTION X. Subsection 4-4-080 F, Number 10, Number of Parking Spaces Required, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development I 1*W ORDINANCE NO. 5357 141110 Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in attachment D. SECTION XI. Subsection 4-4-100 H, Number 2, Applicability, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as follows: 2. Applicability: The sign standards of this subsection shall apply to the property contained within the City Center sign regulation boundaries as shown in the following figure, generally described as including: land which is within the Urban Design Regulations District `A'. SECTION XII. Subsection 4-4-100 H, Number 3, Map of City Center Sign Regulation Boundaries, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment E. SECTION XIII. Subsection 4-4-100 H, Number 4, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment F. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-4-100 H, Number 5, Size, Height and Locations Allowed for Permanent Signs for Nonresidential Uses Based Upon Sign Type, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment G. 10 SECTION XV. 'OP :.., ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Subsection 4-4-100 H, Number 6, Letter Size Limitation for Permanent Signs for Nonresidential Uses Based Upon Distance from Right -of -Way, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended as shown in Attachment H. SECTION XVI. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of February , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of February Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 3/1/2008 (summary) ORD.1442:2/5/08:scr i - &R� Denis Law, Mayor 2008. 11 ATTACHMENT A ;W0 ORDINANCE NO. 5357 4-2-010 E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE: TYPE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION ZONING MAP SYMBOL Automall Restrictions Dot Pattern Public Use Designation "P" TYPE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION REFERENCE OR CODE SECTION NO. Airport -Compatible Land Use Restrictions RMC 4-3-020 Aquifer Protection Area RMC 4-3-050 Automall Improvement District RMC 4-3-040 Downtown Pedestrian District RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080D Northeast Fourth Street Business District RMC 4-3-040 "P" Suffix Procedures RMC 4-3-080 Planned Unit Development RMC 4-9-150 Rainier Avenue Business District RMC 4-3-040 Restrictive Covenants See Property Title Report Sunset Blvd. Business District RMC 4-3-040 Urban Design Districts (Areas "A," "B," "C," "D," and "E") RMC 4-3-100 12 ATTACHMENT B — ORDINANCE NO. 5357 ."e. Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Legend Strategic Planning Parcels Aex Pidsch,Administratur Pedestrian District Adnana Johns on Pl ann ing Te on nician Downtown Pedestrian District Overlay) is - t�x ` "3 . H'.EC�M SPtGI �y -)u ct-'!�odP a en dmentlrront February,2006 n 0 2M M0 1,000 et +" �" Fe 1:6,000 13 ATTACHMENT C' CM ORDINANCE NO. 5357 4-2-120B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD CO COR LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for None 25,000 sq. ft. None lots created after July 11,1993 Minimum Lot None None None Width/Depth for lots created after July 11, 1993 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot None. 65% of total lot 65% of total lot Coverage for Buildings area or 75%19 if area or 75% if parking is parking is provided provided within within the building the building or or within a parking within a parking garage.25 garage. DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre 25 dwelling units NA Where a Minimum Net per net acre.9 development Residential Density The minimum involves a mix of density uses then minimum requirements shall residential density not apply to the shall be 16 dwelling subdivision and/or units per net development of a acre.9,25 legal lot 1 /2 acre or When proposed less in size as of development does March 1, 1995. not involve a mix of uses, then minimum residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per net acre.9,25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are 14 ATTACHMENT C — ORDINANCE NO. 5357 .W utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Maximum Net 100 dwellin units NA COR 1 and 2 Residential Density per net acre. (Generally the Density may be Stoneway increased to 150 Concrete Site and dwelling units per Port Quendall net acre subject to Site, respectively): Administrative 25 dwelling units Conditional Use per net acre, approval. without bonus. Bonus density may be achieved subject to noted requirements in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review.9 COR 3 (Generally the Southport Site and Fry's Site): 50 dwelling units per net acre.9,25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of 15 ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 5357 *00 density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. SETBACKS Minimum Front None. Buildings less Determined through Yard" than 25 ft. in site development height: 15 ft.19 plan review.22,24,25 Buildings 25 ft. to 80 ft. in height: 20 ft."," Buildings over 80 ft. in height: 30 ft.13,19 Maximum Front 15 ft. — for None Determined through Yard18 buildings 25 ft. or site development less in height. plan review.22,24,25 None — for that portion of a building over 25 ft. in height. Minimum Side Yard None 15 ft. 19 —for Determined through Along A Street18 buildings less site development than 25 ft. in plan review.22,24,25 height. 20 ft. "" — for buildings 25 ft. to 80 ft. in height. 30 ft.13,19 — for buildings over 80 ft. in height. 15 ft. — for None Determined through Maximum Side Yard buildings 25 ft. or site development Along A Street18 less in height. plan review.22,24,25 None — for that ATTACHMENT C .• ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Minimum Freeway Frontage Setback Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Side Yard Clear Vision Area portion of a building over 25 ft. in height. 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. None, unless the CD lot abuts a residential zone, then there shall be a 15 ft. landscaped strip or a 5 ft. wide sight -obscuring landscaped strip and a solid 6 ft. high barrier used along the common None ON -SITE LANDSCAPING Minimum On -site None Landscape Width — Along the Street Frontage Minimum On -site None Landscape Width Required Along the Street Frontage When a Commercial Lot is Adjacent$ to Property Zoned R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. None required, except, 15 ft. if abutting a residential zone. None required, except 15 ft. if abutting or adjacent to a residential zone. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. 10 ft., except where reduced through the site development plan review process. 15 ft. sight - obscuring landscaping. If the street is a designated arterial, I non - sight -obscuring landscaping shall 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. Determined through site development plan review. 22,24,25 Determined through site development plan review.22,24,25 In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11-030. Determined through site development plan review. Determined through site development plan review. 17 ATTACHMENT C 144W M ORDINANCE NO. 5357 be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official through the site development plan review process. 3 Minimum Landscape 15 ft. landscaped 15 ft. wide Determined through Width Required When strip consistent with landscaped site development a Commercial Lot is the definition of visual barrier plan review. Abutting Property landscaped visual consistent with Zoned Residential barrier in RMC 4- the definition in 11-120; or 5 ft. RMC 4-11-120, wide sight- when abutting a obscuring residentially landscaped strip and zoned property. a solid 6 ft. high A 10 ft. sight - barrier used along obscuring the common landscape strip boundary of may be allowed residentially zoned through the site property. development plan review process. 3,4 Minimum On -site NA 15 ft. wide sight- Determined through Landscape Width obscuring site development Required Along the landscape strip. plan review. Street Frontage When a Commercial Zoned Lot is Adjacent$ to Property Zoned Commercial, Office or Public/Quasi, i.e., CN, CV, CA, CD, CO, or COR HEIGHT Maximum Building 95 ft. 6,10 250 ft.""2 COR 1 (Generally Height the Stoneway Concrete Site): 10 stories and/or 125 ft 6,14 COR 2 and 3 (Generally the Port Quendall 18 ATTACHMENT C � ORDINANCE NO. 5357 ow Site, Fry's Site and the Southport Site): 10 stories and/or 125 ft.; provided, the master plan includes a balance of building height, bulk and density;6 and provided, that in the COR 3 Zone only, buildings or portions of buildings which are within 100 ft. of the shoreline shall not exceed a maximum height of 75 ft.25 Maximum Building 20 ft. more than the 20 ft. more than Determined through Height When a maximum height the maximum site development Building is Abutting? a allowed in the height allowed in plan review.25 Lot Designated as abutting residential the abutting Residential zone.6,17 residential zone.6 Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- Wireless 140G. 140G. 140G. Communication Facilities SCREENING See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-095. Minimum Required 095. for Outdoor Loading, Repair, Maintenance, Storage or Work Areas; Surface - Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication Equipment) Refuse or Recycling See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-090. 090. PARKING AND LOADING General I See RMC 4-4-080 See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-080 19 ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 5357 VAW and RMC 10-10-13. 080 and RMC and RMC 10-10-13. 10-10-13. Direct arterial access to individual structures shall occur only when alternative access to local or collector streets or consolidated access with adjacent uses is not feasible. Required Location for All parking shall be NA NA Parking provided in the rear portion of the yard, with access taken from an alley, when available. Parking shall not be located in the front yard, nor in a side yard facing the street nor rear yard facing the street. Parking may be located off - site or subject to a joint parking agreement. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General NA A pedestrian Determined through connection shall site development be provided from plan review. a public entrance to the street, unless the Reviewing Official determines that the requirement would unduly endangerthe pedestrian. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-100. 100. LOADING DOCKS Location For permitted Not permitted on Determined through 20 law ATTACHMENT C ORDINANCE NO. 5357 manufacturing and the side of the lot site development fabrication uses, adjacent or plan review. parking, docking abutting to a and loading areas residential zone.3 for truck traffic shall be off-street and screened from view of abutting public streets. DUMPSTER/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-090. Refuse or Recycling 090. Areas CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 See RMC 4-3- See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. 050 and 4-3-090. and 4-3-090. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Design Guidelines See RMC 4-3-100 NA NA for Urban Center Design Overlay regulations applicable to residential buildings. 21 ATTACHMENT D V4W few ORDINANCE NO. 5357 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: a. Interpretation of Standards — Minimum and Maximum Number of Spaces: In determining parking requirements, when a single number of parking spaces is required by this Code, then that number of spaces is to be interpreted as the general number of parking spaces required, representing both the minimum and the maximum number of spaces to be provided for that land use. When a maximum and a minimum range of required parking is listed in this Code, the developer or occupant is required to provide at least the number of spaces listed as the minimum requirement, and may not provide more than the maximum listed in this Code. b. Multiple Uses: When a development falls under more than one category, the parking standards for the most specific category shall apply, unless specifically stated otherwise. c. Alternatives: i. Joint Parking Agreements: Approved joint use parking agreements and the establishment of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) may be used as described in subsections E3 and FI Oc(ii) of this Section to meet a portion of these parking requirements. (Amd. Ord. 4790, 9-13-1999) ii. Transportation Management Plans: A Transportation Management Plan (TAMP) guaranteeing the required reduction in vehicle trips may be substituted in part or in whole for the parking spaces required, subject to the approval of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department. The developer may seek the assistance of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department in formulating a Transportation Management Plan. The plan must be agreed upon by both the City and the developer through a binding contract with the City of Renton. At a minimum, the Transportation Management Plan will designate the number of trips to be reduced on a daily basis, the means by which the plan is to be accomplished, an evaluation procedure, and a contingency plan if the trip reduction goal cannot be met. If the Transportation Management Plan is unsuccessful, the developer is obligated to immediately provide additional measures at the direction of the Planning/Building/Public Works Department, which may include the requirement to provide full parking as required by City standards. d. Modification: The Planning/Building/Public Works Department may authorize a modification from either the minimum or maximum parking requirements for a specific development should conditions warrant as described in RMC 4-9-250D2. When seeking a modification from the minimum or maximum parking requirements, the developer or building occupant shall provide the Planning/Building/Public Works Department with written justification for the proposed modification. e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: 22 ATTACHMENT D .*.• ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Mixed occupancies: (2 or 3 different uses in The total requirements for off-street the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 or parking facilities shall be the sum of the more uses, see "shopping center" requirements for the several uses requirements) computed separately, unless the building is classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. Uses not specifically identified in this Planning/Building/Public Works Section: Department staff shall determine which of the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below RESIDENTIAL USES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Detached and semi -attached dwellings: A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Manufactured homes within a A minimum of 2 per manufactured home manufactured home park: site, plus a screened parking area shall be provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate residence: 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, UC- 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling N1 and UC-N2 Zones unit;1.6 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit;1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio formula may be granted by the Development Services Director allowing 1 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or less per unit provided adequate on -street parking is available in the vicinity of the 23 ATTACHMENT D *4W ORDINANCE NO. 5357 vo development. Attached dwellings within the RM-F Zone: 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed. Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling for low income or 1 for each 4 dwelling units elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income or I for every 4 dwelling units. elderly: Congregate Residences 1 per 4 sleeping rooms and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE AND EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: Drive -through retail or drive -through Stacking spaces: The drive -through service: facility shall be so located that sufficient on -site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of- way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 24 ATTACHMENT D -- - -00 ORDINANCE NO. 5357 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult day care (I and II): 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces within 100 feet of the main entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. Bed and breakfast houses: 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. Mortuaries or funeral homes: 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. Vehicle sales (large and small vehicles) 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is with outdoor retail sales areas: not a parking lot and does not have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: •A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping area is provided; They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and -Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. Vehicle service and repair (large and small 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. vehicles): Offices, medical and dental: 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. Offices, general: A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Eating and drinking establishments and 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. taverns: Eating and drinking establishment 1 per 75 square feet of net floor area. combination sit-down/drive-through restaurant: Retail sales and big -box retail sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big -box retail sales, which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per 25 ATTACHMENT D �%W In ORDINANCE NO. 5357 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. Services, on -site (except as specified A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of below): net floor area. Clothing or shoe repair shops, furniture, 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. appliance, hardware stores, household equipment: Uncovered commercial area, outdoor 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales nurseries: area in addition to any parking requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor sports arenas, 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and square feet of floor area of main entertainment clubs: auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is greater. Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance clubs, and skating 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses: 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Convalescent center, drive -through retail, These uses follow the standards applied drive -through service, hotels, mortuaries, outside the Center Downtown zone. indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other recreational uses. All commercial uses allowed in the CD A maximum of 1 space per 1,000 square 26 ATTACHMENT D ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Zone except for the uses listed above. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers (includes any type of business occupying a shopping center): INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie -down areas: Manufacturing and fabrication, laboratories, and assembly and/or packaging operations: Self service storage: Outdoor storage area: Warehouses and indoor storage buildings: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: feet of net floor area, with no minimum A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-NI and UC-N2 Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive -through retail or drive - through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie -down areas are to be utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.15 spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area (including warehouse space). 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. 1 oer 1.500 sauare feet of net floor area. 27 ATTACHMENT D *%W M ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seating capacity of the auditorium, see "outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor, plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community transition facilities: 1 per 3 beds, plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. Schools: Elementary and junior high: 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: public, parochial and 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 private: students enrolled. In addition, if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus Colleges and universities, arts and crafts 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 schools/studios, and trade or vocational students residing on campus, plus 1 schools: space for every 5 day students not residing on campus. In addition, if buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. 28 ATTACHMENT E - i ORDINANCE NO. 5357 7�21 Z 41 a IF Uri JIM ;. ! !,` 1 - 'J J j r Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Legend City Center Sign Boundary Strategic Planning r Alex Piety h AdminlTechnician Ad aJohns Planning reMnlcian ..�_.. City Center Sign Boundary _ Parcels° iebruary4, 2008 r,1 —' 500 t000 Fe et 1,7500 i�i�wame N.EorasFclS�r„jEm, t­rt, tide _,ndm erA�, 5— b—d-, ­d 29 ATTACHMENT F ORDINANCE NO. 5357 4. Type and number of permanent signs allowed: a. Residential/Churches/Schools: Residential occupancies, churches, and schools in the City Center are subject to the requirements of subsection E4 of this Section, Signs Permitted in All Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Zones. b. Nonresidential Uses: Nonresidential occupancies (excluding churches and schools) are subject to the following standards based upon sign category: SIGN TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR Y CATEGOR Freestan OR Ground OR Wall Y A ding Select only one of the following sign types: Number One One ground sign Each individual ground -level freestan per street frontage business may have one wall ding for each single sign for each business facade sign per occupancy fronting on a public street. In street building, multi- addition, in multiple building frontage occupancy complexes or for multi - for each building, or occupancy buildings each single multiple building ground -level tenant with an occupan complex. The exterior business facade may cy maximum number have one wall sign to building of signs is 2. identify individual tenant located spaces. on a corner lot, multi- occupan cy building , or multiple building complex . The maximu m number of signs is 2. Mix of An applicant for a business having more than one street frontage may 30 ATTACHMENT F "■"' ORDINANCE NO. 5357 .�. options for substitute an allowed Category A sign type for another Category A sign lots with type; however, the maximum number of signs shall not be exceeded. For multiple example, on a corner lot, an applicant may request one ground sign facing frontages one street frontage, and one freestanding sign facing the other street Multi- Multi -occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with 50,000 occupancy square feet of gross leasable floor area or greater, and with frontage on buildings or Rainier Avenue S., may choose to comply with either: (1)The above multiple Category A regulations; or building (2)Freestanding or ground signs and wall signs per the following complexes — standards: greater than (i)Freestanding or Ground Signs: Have only one sign for each street 50,000 frontage of any one of the following types: Freestanding, ground, or square feet combination. Each freestanding or ground sign shall not exceed an with area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage on frontage which the business occupies up to a maximum of 300 square Rainier Ave. feet; or if such sign is multi- faced, the maximum allowance shall not S. be more than 300 square feet. However, a maximum of one-half of the allowed square footage is allowed on each face. Businesses with less than 25 lineal front feet may have a sign of a maximum of 20 square feet per face. In addition, one freestanding sign is allowed for each street frontage of the complex. Each sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square foot for each linear foot of property frontage, not to exceed 150 square feet per sign face and a maximum of 300 square feet including all sign faces. (ii)Wall Signs: In addition to the above freestanding or ground signs, wall signs are permitted with a total copy area not exceeding 20% of the building facade to which it is applied. Roof signs are prohibited per subsection C 11 of this Section. Projecting signs are regulated per this subsection and subsection H5d of this Section. Buildings 40 Buildings 40 feet or greater in height may choose to comply with either: feet or (1)The above Category A regulations; or greater in (2)Freestanding or ground signs and wall signs per the following height standards. (i)Freestanding or Ground Signs: Have only one sign for each street frontage of any one of the following types: Freestanding, ground, or combination. Each freestanding or ground sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage which the business occupies up to a maximum of 300 square feet; or if such sign is multi- faced, the maximum allowance shall not be more than 300 square feet. However, a maximum of one-half of the allowed square footage is allowed on each face. (ii)Wall Signs: In addition to the above freestanding or ground signs, wall signs are permitted with a total copy area not exceeding 20% of the building facade to which it is applied. Roof signs are prohibited per subsection C 11 of this Section. Projecting signs are regulated per this subsection and subsection H5d of this Section. 31 ATTACHMENT F %W 2n ORDINANCE NO. 5357 SIGN CATEGOR Y TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR Projecti O Awning Sign, or Canopy Sign, or Marquee Sign, or Y B ng Sign R Traditional Marquee Sign Select only one of the following sign types allowed in addition to signs of Category A. Number Each Each individual ground -level business may have one individu sign for each business facade fronting on a public street. al In addition, in multiple building complexes or for multi- ground- occupancy buildings each ground -level tenant with an level exterior business facade may have one sign to identify business individual tenant spaces. may A series of awnings or canopies upon a single business have and located on a single street frontage are considered as one sign one awning or canopy. for each business facade fronting on a public street. In addition , in multiple building complex es or for multi- occupan cy building s each ground - level tenant with an exterior business 32 ATTACHMENT F v..W ORDINANCE NO. 5357 facade may have one sign to identify individu al tenant spaces. SIGN TYPE AND NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED CATEGOR Y CATEGOR Under AN Secondary Wall, AN If applicable, Multi- Y C: Awning D Projecting, or D Occupancy Building Sign, Allowed in / Under Awning Sign, or Multiple Building addition to Canopy Having No Complex Wall Sign signs of / Under Internal Categories A Marque Illumination and B: e Number One per One sign, having (1) ground- no internal feet above grade, measured level illumination, per to the bottom of the sign. business business facade per which does not public contain a Category entrance A or B sign; maximum of 2 secondary signs. 33 ATTACHMENT G *4w M ORDINANCE NO. 5357 5.a.FREESTANDING SIGNS SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4- 100K16, K17 and K18) (I )General: Each sign (4) 20 feet, (5) Setbacks shall be (7) Minimum 15 shall not exceed an measured to consistent with the foot clearance area greater than 1.5 the top of the Zoning Code. above traffic square feet for each sign or sign (6)Property with street aisles and lineal foot of street structure, frontage on Rainier driveways. frontage which the whichever is Avenue S.: The sign shall building or complex higher. be located along Rainier occupies up to a Avenue S. and set back a maximum of 25 minimum distance of 100 square feet per face; lineal feet from the right - the maximum of -way of S. Third Street. cumulative square This setback shall not footage of all faces of apply to multi -occupancy a sign is 50 square buildings or multiple feet. building complexes with 50,000 square feet gross (2)Property with leasable floor area or frontage on Rainier greater, having frontage Avenue S.: In lieu of on Rainier Avenue S. the sign area requirements of subsection (1) of this chart, each sign shall not exceed an area greater than 1.5 square feet for each lineal foot of street frontage which the building or complex occupies up to a maximum of 75 square feet per face; the maximum cumulative square footage of all faces of a sign is 150 square feet; provided, that the 34 ATTACHMENT G ORDINANCE NO. 5357 sign is located in accordance with subsection (6) of this chart. (3)Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with greater than 50,000 square feet gross leasable floor area, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.: Such uses may comply with the standards of subsections (1) or (2) of this chart, or with subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. Freestanding sign area may be transferred from within the City Center sign regulation boundaries to contiguously owned property outside of the City Center sign regulation boundaries. Only sign area may be transferred, not the number of allowed signs. Where transferred, the maximum size of the freestanding sign shall not exceed the limits of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. 5.b. GROUND SIGNS 35 ATTACHMENT G `" ORDINANCE NO. 5357 SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18 (1)General: Each (4) 5 feet if (5) Setbacks shall be sign shall not perpendicular to the consistent with the exceed an area right-of-way; 4 feet Zoning Code, and greater than 1.5 if the sign is not RMC 4-4-10OL1b. square feet for each placed (6) Property with lineal foot of street perpendicular to the street frontage on frontage which the right-of-way. Height Rainier Avenue S.: building or complex is measured to the The ground sign occupies up to a top of the sign or shall be located maximum of 25 sign structure, along Rainier square feet per face; whichever is higher. Avenue S. and the maximum setback a minimum cumulative square distance of 100 footage of all faces lineal feet from the of a sign is 50 right-of-way of S. square feet. Third Street. This (2)Property with setback shall not frontage on Rainier apply to multi - Avenue S.: In lieu occupancy buildings of the sign area or multiple building requirements of complexes with subsection (1) of 50,000 square feet this chart, each sign gross leasable floor shall not exceed an area or greater, area greater than 1.5 having frontage on square feet for each Rainier Avenue S. lineal foot of street frontage which the building or complex occupies up to a maximum of 75 square feet per face; the maximum cumulative square footage of all faces of a sign is 150 square feet; provided, that the sign is located in accordance with KL ATTACHMENT G ORDINANCE NO. 5357 subsection (6) of this chart. (3)Multi-occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with greater than 50,000 square feet gross leasable floor area, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.: Such uses may comply with the sign area standards of subsections (1) or (2) of this chart, or with the size standards of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. Ground sign area may be transferred from within the City Center sign regulation boundaries to contiguously owned property outside of the City Center sign regulation boundaries. Only sign area may be transferred, not the number of allowed signs. Where transferred, the maximum size of the ground sign shall not exceed the limits of subsection H4b of this Section, Type and Number of Permanent Signs Allowed. 37 ATTACHMENT G %W In ORDINANCE NO. 5357 5.c. WALL SIGNS SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) 1)General: Each (4) The wall sign (5) The sign shall be (9) When projecting sign shall not shall be placed on mounted on or over a public right - exceed an area the facade not more above the business of -way (maximum greater than 1.5 than 25 feet above facade to which it is 12 inches), a square feet for each the grade, measured associated. minimum of 8 feet lineal foot of to the top of the (6) The wall sign clearance above the business facade sign. Wall signs on shall be placed on a surface of the fronting a street, up multi -occupancy business facade sidewalk is required. to 100 square feet buildings or having street maximum. multiple building frontage; or, it shall (2) Multi -occupancy complexes with be placed on or buildings or 50,000 square feet above the business multiple building gross leasable floor entrance, if the complexes with area or greater, business has an 50,000 square feet having frontage on exterior facade gross leasable floor Rainier Avenue S. which does not face area or greater, or buildings 40 feet a street, and the having frontage on or greater in height business is located Rainier Avenue S: may be placed in a multi -tenant In lieu of subsection anywhere on the building or multiple (1), the sign area facade and the top building complex. standards of of the sign shall not (7) The thickness of subsection H4b of extend vertically that portion of a this Section, Type above the fascia of wall sign which and Number of the building. projects over a Permanent Signs public right-of-way Allowed, may be shall not exceed 12 met. inches. (3) Buildings 40 feet (8) Wall signs or greater in height: located more than In lieu of subsection above 25 feet above (1), the sign area grade, measured to standards of the top of the sign, subsection H4b of shall only contain this Section, Type the name and/or and Number of logo of the Permanent Signs business(es) or 38 ATTACHMENT G ORDINANCE NO. 5357 Allowed, may be development. -T met. 5.d. PROJECTING SIGNS SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18) (1) Unlit, externally (4) Shall not be (5) The sign shall be (10) When illuminated, or tube located more than placed on a business projecting over a illuminated: Such 25 feet above the facade having street public right-of-way, projecting signs are grade, measured to frontage; or, it shall a minimum of 8 feet allowed a maximum the top of the sign or be placed on or clearance above the of 12 square feet per sign structure, above the business surface of the face; the maximum whichever is higher. entrance, if the sidewalk is required. cumulative square business has an footage of all faces exterior facade of a sign is 24 which does not face square feet. a street, and the (2) Internally business is located illuminated: Such in a multi -tenant signs are allowed a building or multiple maximum of 6 building complex. square feet per face; (6) The sign shall be the maximum no more than 3 feet cumulative square tall. footage of all faces (7) A projecting of a sign is 12 sign may extend square feet. over the public (3) Combination of right-of-way by no illumination: The more than 4 feet maximum size of from the wall it is the combination mounted on. sign shall be 12 (8) The faces of a square feet per face; projecting sign shall the maximum be separated by a cumulative square maximum of 12 footage of all faces inches. of a combination (9) The sign shall be sign is 24 square mounted on or feet. Up to 50% above the business maximum of the facade to which it is combination sign, 6 associated. 39 ATTACHMENT G �w M ORDINANCE NO. 5357 square feet per face, may be internally illuminated. 5.e. AWNING SIGN, CANOPY SIGN, MARQUEE SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17, K18 and N3b) (1) Awning, canopy, None. (3) Sign copy shall (9) Sign structures or marquee sign: A only be located on shall be located a maximum of 50 the vertical faces of minimum of 8 feet square feet of copy the awning, canopy, above the surface of may appear on the or marquee. the sidewalk. Where vertical face area. (4) Maximum under awning, under (2) Traditional height/thickness of canopy, or under marquee sign: The awning/canopy with marquee signs are maximum copy area a sign: 10 feet. anticipated, the is 150 square feet (5) Maximum clearance should be per face; the height/thickness of increased to cumulative square marquee: in accommodate them footage of all faces accordance with the as necessary. of a sign is 300 adopted edition of square feet total. the Uniform Building Code. (6) Building canopy poles shall not be placed in a manner which interferes with pedestrian or wheelchair travel upon a sidewalk. (7) Awnings, building canopies, and marquees and the attached or associated signs may extend over the right-of-way according to the terms of the adopted Uniform Building Code. (8) The sign shall be ►o ATTACHMENT G *— ORDINANCE N0. 5357 IWWO mounted above the business facade to which it is associated. 5.f.UNDER AWNING SIGN, CANOPY SIGN, MARQUEE SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM LOCATION AND REQUIRED AREA HEIGHT OTHER CLEARANCES LIMITATIONS (Refer also to RMC 4-4-10OK 16, K 17, K18 and N3b) (1) 6 square feet. None (2) The sign shall (4) Minimum 8 feet not extend beyond above the surface of the awning, canopy, the sidewalk. or marquee to which it is attached. (3) The sign shall not be more than 12 inches thick. 5.g. SECONDARY SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18 (1) Secondary wall (3) Secondary wall (4) Secondary signs (8) When projecting or awning signs: or projecting signs shall not be located over a public right - Each sign shall not shall not be located on a business facade of -way, a minimum exceed an area more than 25 feet containing a of 8 feet clearance greater than one above the grade, Category A or B above the surface of square foot for each measured to the top sign, or another the entryway is lineal foot of of the sign or sign secondary sign. required. business facade, up structure, whichever (5) Secondary signs to maximum of 25 is higher. shall not be square feet. internally (2) Secondary illuminated. Such projecting signs: signs may be unlit, Maximum of 6 externally square feet. illuminated or have tube illumination. 41 ATTACHMENT G **W In ORDINANCE NO. 5357 (6) Maximum height or thickness of awning with a sign: 10 feet. (7) Awning signs: Sign copy shall be located on the vertical faces of the awning. 5.h. MULTI -OCCUPANCY OR MULTIPLE BUILDING COMPLEX SIGN SIZE, HEIGHT AND LOCATIONS ALLOWED FOR PERMANENT SIGNS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES BASED UPON SIGN TYPE: MAXIMUM SIGN AREA MAXIMUM HEIGHT LOCATION AND OTHER LIMITATIONS REQUIRED CLEARANCES (Refer also to RMC 4-4-100K16, K17 and K18 (1) Buildings less (3) Buildings less (5) Buildings less (8) When projecting than 40 feet in than 40 feet in than 40 feet in over a public right - height: The height: The wall height: The sign of -way, a minimum maximum square sign shall be placed shall be located on a of 8 feet clearance footage limitation is on the facade not business facade above the grade is 100 square feet. more than 25 feet which does not required. (2) Buildings 40 feet above the grade, contain any other in height or greater: measured to the top Category A or B The maximum of the sign. sign. square footage (4) Buildings 40 feet (6) Buildings 40 feet limitation is 100 in height or greater: in height or greater: square feet unless The wall sign may There are no the choice is made be placed anywhere restrictions on to comply with on the facade. facade placement. subsection H4b of (7) The sign shall, this Section, Type only contain the and Number of business name Signs Allowed for and/or logo of each Nonresidential development. Uses. 42 ATTACHMENT H *-- ORDINANCE NO. 5357 •..01 6. Letter Size Limitations for Permanent Signs for Nonresidential Uses Based Upon Distance from Right -of -Way: a. Maximum Letter Height: The maximum letter height of signs shall be as follows: DISTANC FREESTANDIN AWNING SIGN/CANOPY SIGN/ MULTI- E OF G, GROUND, MARQUEE SIGN OCCUPANC SIGN WALL, Y OR FROM PROJECTING, MULTIPLE RIGHT- TRADITIONAL BUILDING OF -WAY MARQUEE COMPLEX SIGN SIGN Within 50 24 inches 12 inches 6 inches feet: (applies to letters and logo) Between 50 36 inches 6 inches feet and 12 inches (applies to 100 feet: letters and logo) More than 48 inches 12 inches 6 inches 100 feet: (applies to letters and logo) b. Exemption from Letter Size Limits: The following properties are exempt from the maximum letter height requirements of subsection H6a of this Section: i. Multi -occupancy buildings or multiple building complexes with fifty thousand (50,000) square feet gross leasable floor area or greater, having frontage on Rainier Avenue S.; or ii. Properties with frontage on Rainier Avenue S.; or iii. Buildings exceeding forty feet (40') in height. 43 ..r Amends Ords: 4185, 4493, 4963, 4964, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 4975, 5027, 5100, 5153, 5159, 5190, 5191, 5286, 5304, ORDINANCE NO. 5356 5305 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 4, CITY WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 8, PERMITS — GENERAL AND APPEALS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS — SPECIFIC AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS); CHAPTER 4, ANIMAL LICENSES, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) AND CHAPTER 6, ANIMALS AND FOWL AT LARGE, OF TITLE VI (POLICE REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS. WHEREAS, the City recognizes that animal owners keep their animals for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, companionship, affection and protection; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to set standards that ensure the keeping of animals occurs in a humane and appropriate manner that benefits the animals and allows animals to coexist harmoniously with adjacent and abutting uses; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to be responsive to citizens requests for greater flexibility in the minimum lot sizes required to keep certain types of animals; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation and study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a second public hearing on January 28, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-170A, Land Use Review Fees of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to change the name of the "Hobby Kennel License" to "Additional Animals Permit", to amend the parenthetical note which reads "(one time fee)" to read "(annual fee)" and to amend the fee amount from $20.00 to $50.00. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-050A, Categories of Land Uses Established, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that Accessory Uses reads: ACCESSORY USES: Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot. Some accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses are determined by the Development Services Division on a case -by -case basis per RMC 4-2-050C4 and C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-06013, Zoning Use Table — Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations, Animals and Related Uses, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General 2 ,%V.. ..► ORDINANCE NO. 5356 Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to completely strike the rows associated with and the words: "Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (maximum of 2 large animals per acre), "Greater number of animals than allowed above", "Kennels, hobby", and "Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment". SECTION IV. Section 4-2-070, Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to completely strike all of the rows associated with and all instances of the words: "Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals per acre)", "Animal husbandry (maximum of 2 large animals per acre), "Greater number of animals than allowed above", "Kennels, hobby", and "Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment". SECTION V. Section 4-2-080, Conditions Associated With Zoning Use Tables, Subsection A, titled Subject to the Following Conditions, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike note 36 and note 51, fe numbef the r-emaining notes aeeof,jingly and, to amend note 37 to read as follows: 37. a. General Requirements: Subject to requirements of RMC 4-4-010, Standards for Accessory to Residential/Commercial Animal Keeping. Additional Animals require an Additional Animals Permit per RMC 4-9- 100. 3 n M ORDINANCE NO. 5356 b. IL Zone — Kennels: In the IL Zone, when operations are predominantly conducted out of doors rather than completely enclosed within an enclosed structure, an administrative conditional use permit is required. c. IM Zone — Kennels: Within the area south of I-405 and north of SW 16th Street only indoor kennels are permitted. SECTION VI. Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, the Chapter Guide statement of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: CHAPTER GUIDE: Chapter 4-4 contains regulations and standards governing site development of property City-wide, such as parking, landscaping, fencing, and others. This Chapter does not contain procedural information. Related permit processes (e.g., additional animals permit, parking modification, routine vegetation management permit, grading, excavation and mining permits, etc.) are located in chapters 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. SECTION VII. Section 4-4-010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 4-4-010 STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL KEEPING ACCESSORY TO RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL USES: A. PURPOSE AND INTENT: 11 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 Animal owners keep their animals for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to companionship, affection, and protection. The regulations in this section set standards intended to require that the keeping of animals occurs in a humane and appropriate manner that benefits the animals and allows animals to coexist harmoniously with adjacent and abutting uses. B. APPLICABILITY: The keeping of household pets and/or domestic animals up to the maximum number allowed in section 4-4-010 and/or section 4-9-100 Additional Animals Permit by an owner/tenant for the purpose of enjoyment is permitted outright as an accessory use to residential or commercial use subject to the requirements of this section and section 4-5-050A Accessory Use. Household pets and/or domestic animals must not become a nuisance (RMC 1-3-3) or create a public disturbance (RMC 8-7-3). The keeping of animals shall be consistent with the standards in this chapter. C. AUTHORITY: 1. Responsibility: Interpretation regarding responsibility will be determined administratively; responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of this Section shall be as follows: a. Animal Control Officer: All those matters related to care, maintenance, and individual licensing. b. Development Services Division: All those matters concerning land use and zoning. 0 M En ORDINANCE NO. 5356 D. NUMBER OF ANIMALS ALLOWED: 1. Household Pets. Three (3) household pets may be kept per single-family residence, residential unit, or commercial building. On single-family residential lots that are larger than 20,000 gross square feet, one additional household pet may be kept per additional 10,000 gross square feet in lot size. The keeping of four (4) or more dogs and/or cats shall always require obtainment of an Additional Animals Permit (RMC 4-9-100) or a Conditional Use permit for a Kennel (RMC 4-9-030). 2. Domestic Animals. Domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11- 010A, are allowed to be kept in residential zoning designations. All domestic animals must be kept outdoors and confined in a dedicated shelter, pen, and/or open -run area. Small lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11- 010A, may be kept in addition to household pets, medium lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11-010A, and/or large lot domestic animals, as defined in Subsection 4-11-010A. When the total number of any combination of medium lot domestic animals, large lot domestic animals, and/or household pets at the property is greater than four (4) total animals, an Additional Animals Permit (RMC 4-9-100) shall be required. The specified minimum lot sizes are absolute requirements; variances, waivers, and/or modifications (RMC 4-9-250) may not be granted. a. Two (2) large lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least one gross acre in size. On lots that are larger than one gross acre, one (1) X ORDINANCE NO. 5356 additional large lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 20,000 gross square feet in lot size. a. Two (2) medium lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least 12,500 gross square feet in size. On lots that are larger than 12,500 gross square feet, one (1) additional medium lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 7,500 gross square feet in lot size. c. Three (3) small lot domestic animals may be kept on lots that are at least 6,000 gross square feet in size. On lots that are larger than 6,000 gross square feet, one (1) additional small lot domestic animal may be kept per additional 2,000 gross square feet in lot size. E. KEEPING GREATER NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAN ALLOWED: 1. Greater numbers of animals than allowed in 4-4-OIOD may be allowed subject to an Additional Animals Permit (RMC 4-9-100). 2. Occasional breeders are permitted to keep a greater number of animals than allowed on a temporary basis, not to exceed 120 days when those animals are less than 120 days old. 3. Animal foster care providers shall be allowed to keep a greater number of household pets than permitted outright provided they obtain an Additional Animals Permit. F. HOME OCCUPATIONS: The keeping of household pets or domestic animals for the purposes of sale, boarding, or any for -profit venture in all residential and mixed -use zones requires 7 En cm ORDINANCE NO. 5356 a Home Occupation permit, RMC 4-9-090. Any owner/tenant who keeps household pets and/or domestic animals and sells any animal related product, made from or produced by their household pets and/or domestic animals, shall be required to obtain a Home Occupation permit, RMC 4-9-090. Keeping animals for commercial purposes that exceed the standards of a Home Occupation accessory use requires approval pursuant to RMC 4-2-060 Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations. G. GENERAL STANDARDS FOR KEEPING ANIMALS: 1. Shelter Location: Shelters, pens, and permanent/temporary kennel structures shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from any property line and in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location. Private barns and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line. Barns and stables may not be located in attached garages or carports. 2. Confinement: All animals shall be kept and maintained in a manner which confines their movement and activity to the premises of the owner/tenant. a. Dog -runs, open -run areas, and permanent/temporary kennel structures shall be surrounded by a fence of adequate height, located a minimum of ten feet (10') from any property line, and located in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location. ORDINANCE NO. 5356 Electric and barbed wire fences may be used, provided the conditions of RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, are met. b. On lots that are larger that one gross acre in size, dog -runs, open -run areas, and permanent/temporary kennel structures may be located closer than ten feet (10') to a property line if the dog -run, open -run area, and/or permanent/temporary kennel structure is no closer than one hundred feet (100') to any dwelling unit and the location is approved by Development Services. 3. Health and Safety: All animals shall be kept in such a manner so as not to create any objectionable noise, odor, annoyance, or become a public nuisance. Provision shall be made to ensure that animal food stored outdoors will not attract rodents, insects, or other animals. 4. Animal Waste and Food Waste: All shelter structures, confinement areas, and/or open -run areas shall be kept clean. Provision shall be made for the removal of animal waste and food waste so that the areas are kept free from infestation of insects, rodents, or disease, as well as to prevent obnoxious or foul odors. Animal waste shall be properly disposed of, and any accumulated animal waste must not be stored within the shelter setback area. Any storage of animal waste must not constitute a nuisance as defined in chapter 1-3 RMC. H. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR KENNELS AND STABLES: 1. Shelter and Structures: Shelter shall be provided for animals in clean structures which shall be kept structurally sound, maintained in good repair, 0 Ifte *44W ORDINANCE NO. 5356 contain the animals, and restrict entrance of other animals. All structures associated with kennels and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line and must be located in a rear yard. On lots that are larger than one gross acre in size, exercising, training, and/or riding areas may be located closer than fifty feet (50') from a property line if the exercising, training, and/or riding areas are no closer than one hundred feet (100') to any dwelling unit and the location is approved by Development Services. 2. Food and Bedding: Suitable food and bedding shall be provided and stored in facilities adequate to provide protection against infestation or contamination by insects or rodents. Refrigeration shall be provided for the protection of perishable foods. 3. Criteria for Indoor Kennel Facilities: Applicants for kennels must show that indoor facilities have a sufficient heating and cooling system to provide a moderate temperature throughout the year; a sufficient ventilation system to circulate the air; an adequate natural or artificial lighting system to allow inspection and cleaning at any time of the day and that interior wall and ceiling surfaces are constructed of materials which are resistant to the absorption of moisture and odors. 4. Criteria for Outdoor Kennel Facilities: Outdoor facilities will be constructed to provide shelter from the weather and associated elements while providing sufficient space for animal movement and exercise. Adequate ORDINANCE NO. 5356 drainage must be provided to prevent water buildup and subsequent damage and to facilitate waste removal. Adequate fences or retaining walls must be constructed to contain animals and prevent intrusion by others. I. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR BEEKEEPING: 1. Minimum Setback: Hives shall be located a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') from an interior lot line, with the hive(s) entrance(s) facing away from the nearest property line. Hives shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet (100') from public and/or private rights -of -way or access easements. 2. Maintenance Standards: a. Hives shall be maintained to avoid overpopulation and minimize swarming, for example by requeening regularly, so as not to become a nuisance. b. Hives shall be marked or identified to notify visitors. J. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMITS: Special review criteria to be considered by the Reviewing Official for Additional Animals Permits are included in RMC 4-9-100. K. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR KENNELS AND STABLES: For kennels, commercial equine boarding, riding schools, and stables the conditional use criteria of RMC 4-9-030 shall be applicable. L. PROHIBITED ANIMALS: Animals that are wild or dangerous are prohibited pursuant to RMC 6-6-12. M M ORDINANCE NO. 5356 M. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES: 1. Compliance with Current Code Regulations: If the keeping of animals does not comply with these regulations and is not classified as a nonconforming use, the owner shall have to comply with the Code regulations. 2. Fines: Violation of land use permits granted is subject to fines established in this Code. All other violations of police regulations shall be administered in accordance with Chapter 6-6 RMC, Animals and Fowl at Large. SECTION VIII. Section 4-8-080, Permit Classification, Subsection G, Land Use Permit Procedures of Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended so that the "Hobby Kennel License" in the Type II Land Use Permit section reads "Additional Animals Permit", and Section H, Review Processes Type II — Land Use Permits Administrative Review Process timeline, is amended so that "Hobby Kennel License" reads "Additional Animals Permit". SECTION IX. Section 4-8-120, Submittal Requirements — Specific to Application Type, Subsection C, Land Use Permit Submittal Requirements of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the entire column associated with and the words "Kennel License" and to amend the name "Kennel License, Kennel" to read "Additional Animals Permit" and place it in alphabetical order in the table. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 SECTION X. Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection A, Definitions, of Chapter 9 Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: A. DEFINITION: Any commercial use conducted entirely within a dwelling or garage and carried on by persons residing in that dwelling unit which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling as a residence. An accessory structure that provides shelter for domestic animals or household pets is allowed to be part of the business use when the household pets or domestic animals are a component of the commercial use. SECTION XI: Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection F, Application and Review Procedures, part 4 Qualification Standards, items h and in of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" are hereby amended to read: h. Outdoor Storage: The outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, products or equipment is prohibited. Domestic animals or household pets kept as an accessory use and utilized as a component of a home occupation are excluded from this provision. m. Accessory Structures: Existing garages with adequate access may be used for home occupations; provided, that the property still complies with the parking requirements of the zone. Other accessory structures, such as 13 En cm ORDINANCE NO. 5356 carports and tool sheds, shall not be used for any activities associated with the business other than storage. Such storage shall be completely enclosed and not be visible from outside the accessory structure. Accessory structures providing shelter for domestic animals or household pets that are a component of the home occupation are allowed. SECTION XII: Section 4-9-090, Home Occupations, Subsection G, Additional Requirements for Customer Visits or Deliveries, part 2 Inspection of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: 2. Inspection: The Zoning Administrator or designated staff may inspect the property prior to approval or renewal of the business license to determine if: a. the information in the application is correct, and b. the property can accommodate a home occupation without changing the residential character of the premises, and c. any domestic animals or household pets kept as a component of the home occupation are maintained in a humane and appropriate manner. SECTION XIII. Section 4-9-100, Hobby Kennel License Process of Chapter 9 Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read: 4-9-100 ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMIT PROCESS: A. PURPOSE: (Reserved) 14 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 B. APPLICABILITY: Additional Animals Permits are issued to an individual and held by that individual as long as they occupy the address where the keeping of additional animals has been approved and the animal use remains accessory. The permit is not transferable to a different individual or a different property. C. EXEMPTIONS: (Reserved) D. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY: The Development Services Division, when satisfied that all requirements for an Additional Animals Permit are met, shall approve the issuance of the Additional Animals Permit. The number of animals allowed with the Additional Animals Permit is at the discretion of the Reviewing Official and/or the inspecting Animal Control Officer, not to exceed a maximum of six (6) dogs and/or cats. If the Additional Animals Permit involves a use that also requires a Home Occupation Permit (RMC 4-9-090), the Development Services Division shall provide documentation to the Finance Department that the keeping of additional animals complies with the requirements of this Section. E. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND FEES: Fees shall be as listed in RMC 4-1-170, and Submittal Requirements shall be as listed in 4-8-120C. F. NOTIFICATION AND COMMENT PERIOD: 1. Notification: Public notice shall be accomplished consistent with RMC 4- 8-090, Public Notice Requirements. Property owners within three hundred 15 M M ORDINANCE NO. 5356 feet (300') of the applicant's property shall be notified of the application. The applicant is responsible for providing current mailing labels and postage to the Development Services Division. 2. Comment Period and Decision: The notice of application comment period shall expire prior to the issuance of a decision by the Development Services Division Director or designee. The Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed application. G. DECISION CRITERIA: The Development Services Division Director shall review requests for Additional Animals Permits for compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding neighborhood. In order to determine that the site and facility will be adequate and to ensure the humane and appropriate care of the animals, the Development Services Director may require that the property be inspected by an Animal Control Officer. Factors to be considered in determining compatibility and adequacy are: 1. The keeping of additional animals will not have an adverse effect on abutting or adjacent properties or cause a detriment to the community. 2. The past history of animal control complaints regarding animals kept by the applicant. 3. Adequate and appropriate facility and rear yard specifications/dimensions exist that ensure the health and safety of the animals. The facility for medium lot and large lot domestic animals must include a grassy or vegetated area. 16 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 4. The animal size, type, and characteristics of breed. 5. The manner in which the animal waste will be managed. 6. The zoning classification of the premises on which the keeping of additional animals is to occur. 7. If the application is for the keeping of additional large lot animals, the applicant shall provide a copy of an adopted farm management plan based on King County Conservation District's Farm Conservation and Practice Standards which shows that there is adequate pasturage to support a greater number of animals. 8. If the application is for an animal foster care provider, the applicant shall keep paperwork for all foster animals which states that the animals are foster animals from a sponsoring organization. Such paperwork shall be provided upon request to City officials. 9. Compliance with the requirements of RMC 4-4-010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals. H. CONDITIONS: The Development Services Division Director or designee, in reviewing an Additional Animals Permit application, may require soundproofing of structures as it deems necessary to ensure the compatibility of the proposal for additional animals with the surrounding neighborhood. Other conditions may be applied based upon the determination of the Director or designee that conditions are 17 En M ORDINANCE NO. 5356 warranted to meet the purpose and intent of applicable regulations and decision criteria. I. PERIOD OF VALIDITY, INDIVIDUAL PERMITS: An Additional Animals Permit shall be annually renewed and valid as long as the operator is in compliance with the City requirements and has not had the Additional Animals Permit and/or related home occupation license revoked or renewal refused. In addition, all animals that are required to be licensed shall be individually licensed according to the regulations found in chapter 5-4 RMC, Animal Licenses. Failure to renew animal licenses as required in RMC 5-4 shall trigger review and/or revocation of the Additional Animals Permit. J. VIOLATION AND PENALTIES: 1. Revocation of Additional Animals Permit: If, after conducting an investigation the Development Services Director finds that keeping of additional animals is in violation of the provisions of this Section and/or the terms and conditions subject thereto, he or she may revoke the Additional Animals Permit. 2. Revocation of Business License: Upon findings of violation, if the Additional Animals Permit holder also has a home occupation business license the Reviewing Official shall refer the findings to the City Finance and Information Services Director who may revoke the home occupation business license pursuant to RMC 5-5-3G, General Business License Penalties 18 ORDINANCE NO. 5 -A S6 3. License — Waiting Period Following Revocation or Refusal to Renew: For a period of one year after the date of revocation or refusal to renew, permits shall not be issued for additional animals to applicants who have previously had such permit revoked or renewal refused. In addition, the applicant must meet the requirements of this Section or any provisions of the animal control authority. 4. Violations of This Chapter and Penalties: Notwithstanding the revocation powers of the Finance and Information Services Director and the Development Services Director, and unless otherwise specified, violations of this Section are misdemeanors subject to RMC 1-3-1. K. APPEAL: The applicant or a citizen may appeal the decision of the Reviewing Official pursuant to RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-11-OIOA of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add certain definitions and alter certain definitions and place them in alphabetical order. Those definitions are to read: ADDITIONAL ANIMALS LICENSE: An annually renewed license issued by the Finance Department to individuals permitted to keep additional animals. ADDITIONAL ANIMALS PERMIT: A conditionally granted permit for the keeping of household pets and/or domestic animals, when they are accessory, at greater numbers than allowed outright. For dogs, cats, and/or combinations of 19 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 dogs and cats the maximum number allowable with this permit is six (6). Animals kept in small animal hospitals, clinics, pet shops, or grooming services are excluded from this definition. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: Animals that have been bred to be tame, are dependent on human intervention for food and shelter, and are kept continually at the premises of the owner. These animals are to include: large lot domestic animals, medium lot domestic animals, small lot domestic animals, and other animals as approved by the Development Services Director. Bees, peafowl, and roosters are excluded from this definition. ANIMAL FOSTER CARE PROVIDER: A homeowner and/or tenant who cares for an animal or animals not considered their household pet/pets or domestic animal/animals on a temporary basis that is not longer than 120 days per animal. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: The raising of domestic animals other than common household pets. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC — LARGE LOT: Animals that require at least one acre lot size; to include horses, ponies, donkeys, cows, llamas, goats, pigs, oxen, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC — MEDIUM LOT: Animal that require at least 12,500 gross square feet lot size; to include ducks, geese, sheep, miniature goats that are smaller than twenty-four inches (24") at the shoulder and/or not more than 150 20 ORDINANCE NO. 5356 pounds in weight, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. ANIMALS, DOMESTIC — SMALL LOT: Animals that require at least 6,000 gross square feet lot size; to include rabbits, chickens, pigeons, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. SECTION XV. Subsection 4-11-11OK of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to strike the definition of Kennel, Hobby. SECTION XVI. Subsection 4-11-1500 of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add two new definitions and place them in alphabetical order. The new definitions are to read: OCCASIONAL BREEDER: An owner/tenant with household pets and/or domestic animals that has a single litter no more frequently than one time every two years and keep the offspring no longer than 120 days. OPEN RUN AREA: An enclosed area that allows domestic animals and/or household pets to move about freely within the confines of the enclosure. Fencing such as residential fencing that is typically located along property lines and encloses residential yards is excluded from this definition. SECTION XVII. Subsection 4-I1-160P of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the 21 M cm ORDINANCE NO. 5356 City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended and the definition of Pet, Common Household is to read: PETS, HOUSEHOLD: Animals that are generally kept as part of a household and for the purpose of companionship. These animals are to include: dogs, cats, rabbits, caged indoor birds, small rodents, non -venomous reptiles and amphibians weighing less than ten pounds, and other of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Developments Services Director,. SECTION XVIII. Subsection 4-11-190S of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended and the definition of Stables, Commercial is to read: STABLES, COMMERCIAL: A land use on which large lot domestic animals are kept for sale or hire to the public. Breeding, boarding, or training of large lot domestic animals may also be conducted. SECTION XIX. There is hereby added a new Section 5-4-6 to Chapter 4 Animal Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" to read: 5-4-6 ADDITIONAL ANIMALS: The keeping of additional animals may be allowed pursuant to RMC 4-9- 100. Application shall be made to the Development Services Division. Upon approval of the issuance of an Additional Animals Permit by the Development Services Director, the Finance Director shall be authorized to issue a license to 22 ,-„ -..._ ORDINANCE NO. 5356 keep Additional Animals to the applicant. The Additional Animals license shall be renewed annually upon receipt of the $50.00 fee and provided Animal Control and/or the Development Services Division has not revoked the permit pursuant to RMC 4-9-100 I. The first year license fee shall be waived for those who receive an Additional Animals Permit. SECTION XX. Section 6-6-2, Taking up of Animals; Fee of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", parts B and C are hereby amended to read: B. LARGE LOT DOMESTIC ANIMAL REDEMPTION: Any horses, cattle, or similarly sized animals may be redeemed by the payment of the fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) plus any out of pocket expenses by the City for boarding and feeding such animal, which fee shall be not less than five dollars ($5.00) per day for the keeping and boarding of said animal. C. SMALL AND MEDIUM LOT DOMESTIC ANIMAL REDEMPTION: All small and medium lot domestic animals, not to include such animals as horses, cattle or similarly sized animals may be redeemed upon payment of a redemption fee in the sum of twenty dollars ($20.00) plus the additional sum of five dollars ($5.00) per day for the keeping of such animal. In the event any such animal is suffering from any serious injury or disease requiring treatment, then an additional fee for such treatment shall be imposed by the agency having the 23 M M ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 6 custody of such animal to cover the actual expenses of such treatment, including transportation and special services rendered to such animal. SECTION XXI. Section 6-6-3, Fowl at Large of Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington", is hereby amended to read: 6-6-3 FOWL AT LARGE: It shall be unlawful for any person to allow or permit any chicken, pigeon or other domestic fowl owned or in the custody or control of said person, to run at large in the City. The number of fowl permitted on a lot shall be consistent with RMC 4-4-010, Standards for Accessory to Residential/Commercial Animal Keeping. Violations of this Section shall constitute a civil infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250, not including costs. SECTION XXII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of February , 2008. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk 24 I.. ORDINANCE NO. 5356 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25thday of February , 2008. kjUv�� hk� Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 3/1/2008 (summary) ORD:1423:1 /11 /08:scr 25 Amends ORDS• 4963, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON 5133, 5286, ORDINANCE NO. 5355 5331, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT; CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS; CHAPTER 4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS - SPECIFIC; AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS); AND CHAPTER 1, GARBAGE, OF TITLE VIII (HEALTH AND SANITATION) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO COMPLETE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV AMENDMENTS MADE DURING DOCKET REVIEW. 4790, 4794 5100, 5124; 5137, 5191, 5304, 5306, 5332, 5357 WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to undertake docketed review of zoning text amendments; and WHEREAS, The City conducted review of housekeeping amendments and developed a work program to implement needed updates of development regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that specific regulations require housekeeping amendments that improve the clarity and consistency of the development standards; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that revisions are needed to the Title IV Development Standards to correct errors of a housekeeping nature; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-170A, Land Use Review Fees, is hereby amended to change the name "Conditional Approval Permit" to "Rebuild Approval Permit' as shown on Exhibit A, attached. ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 5 SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-0101), Zones Implementing Comprehensive Plan, is hereby amended to correct an error in the Residential Multi -family (RMF) Implementing Zones column, from "RM-V" to "RM-U" and "RM-I" to "RM-T," and to correct an error in the Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Implementing Zones column to add "Commercial Office CO" as shown in Exhibit B, attached. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-020D, RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4), is corrected to reflect references to the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone; applied to Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan land use designation on the Land Use Map. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-020L, Commercial Arterial Zone (CA), is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, 2 ... ORDINANCE NO. 5355 amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high -volume traffic corridors. Limited residential use may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts along mapped corridors designed to encourage concentrated commercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the corridor and visual interest. Designated business districts include: Automall, Sunset Boulevard, Northeast Fourth, Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue. The CA Zone is intended to implement the Commercial Corridor and Employment Area Valley Land Use Designations. SECTION V. Subsection 4-2-020N, Commercial Office Zone (CO), is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The Commercial Office Zone (CO) is established to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high - quality and amenity work environments. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley Land Use designation and the office policies of the Commercial Corridor Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions. Limited light industrial activities, which can effectively blend in with an office environment, are allowed, as are medical institutions and related uses. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 S SECTION VI. Subsection 4-2-020R, Heavy Industrial Zone (IH), is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Industrial Land Use Designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high - intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction, and heavy transportation. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley and Employment Area Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation. Uses in this zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations. Environmental impacts may be produced that affect off -site areas requiring isolation of the industrial activity from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. SECTION VII. Subsection 4-2-010E, Additional Restrictions on Land Use, is amended to correct the term "Urban Center Design Overlay (Areas "A", "B", and "C")", to read "Urban Design Regulation (Areas "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E")" as shown on Exhibit C, attached. SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-2-060D, Other Residential, Lodging, and Home Occupations, line 4 is corrected to add "Congregate residence" as an administrative conditional use as shown on Exhibit D, attached. SECTION IX. Subsection 4-2-080A, Subject to the Following Conditions, Note 8 is corrected to reflect the correct zone name. Note 25 is corrected to change the reference "4-2- 060J" to "4-2-060G", Note 39 is corrected to eliminate the reference to Center Institution and to reference the boundary of the Commercial Corridor designation adjacent to the Valley Medical M NOW ORDINANCE NO. 5355 `w Center, and Note 40 is corrected to change "Center Institution" to "Commercial Corridor" reading as follows. 8. Allowed only in the Residential Multi -Family suffix. Twenty four (24) hour on -site management required. The manager's unit is not subject to minimum density requirements. No estate, garage or other sales from any leasable spaces. No outdoor storage, including vehicle or trailer storage lots. Self service storage uses in this zone are subject to the following special development standards: Temporary customer moving van/truck parking, if provided, must be clearly marked with signage or paint. Side and rear setbacks subject to the Commercial Arterial Zone standards of RMC 4-2-120A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, in lieu of the RM-I development standards. 25. A preschool or day care center, when accessory to a public or community facility listed in RMC 4-2-060G, is considered a permitted use. 39. Requirements for uses not associated with a medical institution: Use must be located within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan land use designation bordered by S. 37th St., Talbot Rd, Carr Rd, . 891" Ave SE, and the Valley Freeway. 40. Permitted when located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. SECTION X. Subsection 4-2-080B, Employment Area Valley, is hereby corrected to correspond to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit E, attached. w NOW ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 5 SECTION XI. Subsection 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, Setbacks section, is corrected as shown on Exhibit F, attached, to read as follows: a) Minimum Front Setback In the R-8 and R-4 Zones, delete note 6 where it occurs modifying the alley access garage. In the R-8 zone add note 6 to reference the primary structure. In the R-4 zone add note 6 to reference the phrase "except for where small lot clusters are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply" b) Add Note 13 to reference the phrase "Minimum Rear Yard", in the R-4 zone. c) Correct the language for attached garages which access from the "front and side yard" along a street to "front or side yard" along a street, SECTION XII. Subsection 4-2-1101), Conditions Associated With Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, Note 6 and Note 13 are corrected to add the standard Minimum rear yard of twenty-five feet (25') and to read as follows: 6. A front yard setback of less than typically allowed is permitted if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than twenty feet (20') be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). 13. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10, 2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five (5) years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density — five (5) dwelling units per net acre. I 14.. ORDINANCE NO. 5355 Minimum lot size — seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Minimum lot width — sixty feet (60') for interior lots, seventy feet (70') for corner lots. Minimum lot depth — seventy feet (70'). Minimum front yard — fifteen feet (15') for the primary structure, twenty feet (20') for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10') if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of- way or alley. Minimum side yard along a street — fifteen feet (15'). Minimum side yard — five feet (5'). Minimum rear yard - twenty five feet (25'). SECTION XIII. Subsection 4-2-120D, Illustrations, is hereby deleted. SECTION XIV. Subsection 4-3-040131, Renton Automall District, is amended to correct the boundary of the Automall designation, to read as follows: APPLICABILITY: 1. Renton Automall District. a. Automall Area A: That area bounded by Grady Way S. on the north, Rainier Avenue S. (SR-167) on the east, I-405 on the south, and Seneca Avenue S. on the west; and 7 *40r ORDINANCE NO. 5355 *40 That area bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, and the alley midway between S.W. Grady and SW 12th Street, on the south. b. Automall Area B: That area along the south side of S.W. Grady defined by the alley between S.W. Grady Way and S.W. 12th Street on the north, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the south side of S.W. Grady Way west of Raymond Avenue S. between S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue S. on the east, a north/south line approximately four hundred feet (400') west of Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way west of Lind Avenue S. bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the south, Oakesdale Avenue S.W. on the west, S.W. loth Street on the north, and Lind Avenue S.W. on the east; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way between Lind Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue S. on the east. Beginning at a point approximately four hundred feet (400') north of S.W. Grady Way along the east side of Lind Avenue S.W. on the west, then east for a distance of approximately three hundred twenty five feet (325'), then south to a point approximately one hundred eighty feet (180') north of S.W. Grady Way, then east from this point parallel to S.W. Grady Way to a point approximately ninety feet (90') west of Rainier Avenue S., 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5355 then north from this point approximately sixty feet (60'), then west approximately fifty feet (50'), and then north approximately two hundred fifteen feet (215') and then east approximately one hundred sixty feet (160') to Rainier Avenue S. on the east; That area north of South 7th Street and west of Hardie Avenue generally described as the area beginning at the northwest corner of South 7th Street and Hardie Avenue S. and then proceeding west approximately four hundred twenty five feet (425'), then north approximately four hundred fifty feet (450') to the southern edge of the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, then east along the railroad right-of-way approximately two hundred thirty five feet (235') to Hardie Avenue and then south along Hardie Avenue to the beginning point; That area north of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west, the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way on the north, and Rainier Avenue on the east; That area north of South 7th Street between Rainier Avenue S. on the west, a line approximately one hundred ninety feet (190') north of and parallel to South 7th Street on the north, and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east; The triangular area on the south side of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west and Rainier Avenue on the east; %W ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 5 ter+' The larger area north of S. Grady Way between Rainier Avenue on the west and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east between South 7th Street on the north and S. Grady Way on the south; That area north of S. Grady Way between Shattuck Avenue S. on the west, the northern edge of the former railroad right-of-way approximately one hundred fifty feet (150') north of S. Grady Way, and Talbot Road/Smithers Avenue S. on the east; That area along the south side of S. Grady Way between SR- 167/Rainier Avenue S. on the west and a north/south line approximately one thousand six hundred thirty feet (1,630') east of SR-167 on the east, S. Grady Way on the north, and on the south, west along S. Renton Village Place approximately one hundred seventy five feet (175') to the 1998 zoning boundary between the CA Zone and the CO Zone on the south; and That area along the south side of S. Grady Way east of Talbot Road bounded by Talbot Road on the west, S. Grady Way on the northwest, Renton City Hall on the north/northeast, Benson Road S. on the east/southeast, and the I-405 right-of-way on the south. 2. N.E. Sunset Boulevard Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040H) along NE Sunset Blvd. from east of Duvall Ave. NE to west of Union Ave. NE. 10 `*o. ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 5 3. Northeast Fourth Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040I) along NE 3rd and 4th Streets between Queen Ave. NE on the west and Field Ave. NE on the east. 4. Rainier Ave. Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040J) north of South 2nd Street on the north and the Houser railroad trestle on the south to the Renton Automall District. (Amd. Ord. 4839, 5-8-2000) 5. Puget Drive Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040K) along Benson Road South and Puget Drive South that is south of Interstate 405 and north of the intersection of Puget Drive South and Benson Road South. (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) SECTION XV. Subsection 4-3-040G, Maps of Overlay Automall Districts, is amended to correct the boundary Map for the Automall as shown on Exhibit G. SECTION XVI. Subsection 4-3-040D, Development Standards for Uses located within the Renton Automall - Areas A and B, Automall Improvement Plan Compliance, is corrected change the resolution reference number to read as follows: All development shall JAII development shall coordinate with the Automall (coordinate with the Automall AUTOMALL Improvement Plan adopted by Improvement Plan adopted by IMPROVEMENT Resolution No. 3457. The plan Resolution No. 3457. The plan PLAN COMPLIANCE addresses potential street vacations, right-of-way addresses potential street ons, right-of-way improvements, area gateways, jimprovements, area gateways, signage, landscaping, signage, landscaping, ORDINANCE NO. 5355 circulation, and shared access. circulation, and shared access. SECTION XVII. Subsection 4-3-050Q4, Streams and Lakes, is amended to correct the Streams and Lakes Map to reflect the reclassification of a Class 4 stream at 104`" Ave SE and S. 32°d Place, King County Parcel 32923059010, and the reclassification of an unmapped Class 4 stream at Honey Creek View Estates, as shown on Exhibit H. SECTION XVIII. Subsection 4-3-100A2 regarding design standards and guidelines specific to District "A", is corrected to reference zoning names for areas within the Urban Center - Downtown and amended to read as follows: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for portions of the Urban Center - Downtown zoned Center Downtown and Residential Multi -Family Urban Center. This Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 5 5 attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed uses with high -density residential living supported by multi -modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. SECTION XIX. Subsection 4-3-100B4, Urban Design District, is amended to show the correct name of the Urban Design District Map as shown in Exhibit I, attached. SECTION XX. Subsection 4-3-10013, Building Roof Lines, is corrected to re- number section a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A', `C' and `D' as follows: i. Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection I5f of this Section): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ii. Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed from ground level. iii. Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. iv. Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. SECTION XXI. Subsection 4-4-070E4, Plants, is corrected to read: 13 %W ORDINANCE NO. 5355 _VW 4. Plants: all plants specified shall be adapted to the site (sun exposure, cold hardiness, moisture requirements, soil type, soil pH, etc) in addition: a. All plant material shall meet the most recent American Standards for Nursery plant Stock (ANSI Z60.1-2004). SECTION XXII. Subsection 4-4-070D3, Residential Rear/Sideyard/Landscaping along Streets, line 6 is corrected to read "right of way". D. GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 3. Residential Rear/Side Yard/Landscaping Along Streets: When rear or side yards are along property lines abutting a street, there shall be a minimum five-foot (5') planting area in the public right-of-way. This will necessitate setting any future fencing back from the edge of the right-of-way so that the landscaping is visible from the street. Landscaping is required prior to occupancy. Maintenance of such areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). The maintenance requirement may necessitate provision of a gate in the fence to access the planting area. SECTION XXIII. Subsection 4-4-080E1b, Attached Dwellings Greater Than Three (3) Units, is corrected to clarify the parking requirement for 3 or more units and is amended to read as follows: 1. On -Site Parking Required: Required parking as specified herein shall be provided upon property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the specified parking is located or upon leased parking. Off-street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified: 14 `� ORDINANCE NO. 5355 a. Detached, Semi -Attached and Two (2) Attached Dwellings: On the same lot with the building they are required to serve. b. Attached Dwellings Three (3) or More Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided, the provisions of subsection E2 (Off -Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. SECTION XXIV. Subsection 4-4-080F10e, Number of Required Spaces, is corrected to add parking for existing legal detached dwellings in the downtown core as shown on Exhibit J, attached. SECTION XXV. Subsection 4-9-180F1b, Line 3 is changed to correctly spell "policies" to read as follows: b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION XXVI. Section 4-11-020, Definitions B, is amended to move the reference to "Big -Box Retail: See Retail, Big -Box" to occur alphabetically proceeding "Binding Site Plan." SECTION XXVII. Section 4-11-180, Definitions R, is amended to correct the definition of "Retail, Big Box" as follows: RETAIL, BIG -BOX: An indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high parking to building area ratio. Big -box retail buildings are typically single -story structures, but with a mass that stands more than thirty (30') feet tall. Big -box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and 15 1%W ORDINANCE NO. 5355 *40 outlet stores. This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses. SECTION XXVIIL Section 4-11-070, Definitions G, is amended to remove the term "grid -like street pattern" and Section 4-11-190, Definitions S, is amended to add "street grid pattern, modified". STREET GRID PATTERN, MODIFIED): A street system based upon a traditional grid pattern; however, offset intersections, loop roads, as well as angled or curved road segments may also be utilized on a limited basis. The block pattern is characterized by regular (i.e., rectangular or trapezoidal) blocks STREET GRID PATTERN, TRADITIONAL: A system of platting, or of street design, that features parallel and perpendicular streets and intersections of streets at right angles that form short blocks. SECTION XXIX. Subsection 8-1-4L, Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts in Business Areas, is corrected to remove a discontinued zone name and is amended to read as follows: L. It shall be unlawful for any person accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste in the Center Downtown Zone, Center Neighborhood Zone, Commercial Arterial Zone, or Center Village Zone as set forth in RMC 4-2-020, whose location requires the placing of garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys for collection, to place garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys earlier than 5:00 p.m. It shall also be unlawful for any person who owns, leases or rents any garbage can or unit, recycling bins or yard waste carts in the zones referenced 16 ORDINANCE NO. 5355 above to fail to remove their garbage, recycling and yard waste containers from sidewalks or alleys by 9:30 a.m. following collection of the garbage, recyclables or yard waste, except that if collection has not occurred by the City's collection contractor, then the garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be immediately removed following collection. SECTION XXX. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 25th day of February 2008. .4• Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 25th day of February , 2008. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 3/1/2008 (summary) ORD:1424:1 / 18/08: scr Denis Law, Mayor 17 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 5355` 4-1-170 LAND USE REVIEW FEES: A. APPLICATION TYPE: FEE AMOUNT: Annexation Expense for postage Annexation by 60% Direct Petition and 50/50$2,500.00 Petition Method Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, $75.00 Administrative Decision, or Environmental Decision Binding Site Plan $1,000.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,000.00 Conditional Use Permit:Hearing Examiner $2,000.00$1,000.00 Review Administrative Review Environmental Impact Statement/Draft and 100% of costs of coordination, review Final and appealsl 1When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determines that the EIS shall be prepared, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in preparing the EIS. The ERC shall advise the applicant(s) of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. The ERC may determine that the City will contract direct►y ith a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement of the City and applicant after a call for proposals. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the ERC shall refund any fees collected under this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid. The City may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this Title relating to the applicant's proposal. The City shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this Title, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by chapter 42.17 RCW. Environmental Checklist: Less than $400.00 $100,000.00 project value $100,000.00 or more project value $1,000.00 Environmental review/sensitive lands or $1,000.00 lands covered by water, except minor residential additions or modifications Fence Permit (special) $100.00 Grading and Filling Permit $2,000.00 Hobby Kennel License (one time fee) $20.00 Lot Line Adjustment $450.00 Manufactured/Mobile Home Park: Tentative $500.00 Page 1 EXHIBIT A "W ORDINANCE NO. 5355 Preliminary $2,000.00 Final $1,000.00 Open Space Classification Request $30.00 Plats: Short Plat $1,000.00 Preliminary Plat $2,000.00 Final Plat $1,000.00 Planned Urban Development: Preliminary Plan $2,000.00 Final Plan $1,000.00 Rebuild Approval Permit: Hearing Examiner Review $500.00 Administrative Review $250.00 Rezone: Less than 10 acres $2,000.00 10 to 20 acres $3,000.00 More than 20 acres $4,000.00 Routine Vegetation Management Permit $75.00 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Under $100,000.00 value $500.00 $100,000.00 or more value $1,000.00 Site Development Plan (Site Plan or Master Plan): $2,000.00 Hearing Examiner Review $1,000.00 Administrative Review Special Permit $2,000.00 Temporary Permit $100.00 Temporary Permit Sign Deposit refundable $25.00 Variance — Administrative $100.00 Variance — Planning/Building/Public Works $500.00 Administrator or Hearing Examiner Giver $100.00 (Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5008, 4-28-2003; Ord. 5028, 11-24- 2003; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5169, 12-5-05) Page 2 EXHIBIT B err► ORDINANCE NO. 5355 140 D ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are implemented by certain zones: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ZONES DESIGNATION Residential Low Density (RLD) Resource Conservation (RC) Residential —1 DU/AC (R-1) Residential — 4 DU/AC (R-4) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Single Family (RS) Residential — 8 DU/AC (R-8) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential —10 DU/AC (R-10) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential —14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi -Family (RM) Residential Multi -Family (RM-U, RM-T, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Center Downtown (CD) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) Commercial Office (CO) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) Urban Center -North 2 (UC-N2) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Center Village (CV) Residential Multi -Family Zones (RM-F, RM-T, RM- U) Center Village (CV) Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial (EAI) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Employment Area Valley (EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) (Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) Page 1 EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE NO. 5355 law E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE: TYPE OF LAND USE ZONING MAP SYMBOL RESTRICTION utomall Restrictions Dot Pattern Public Use Designation "PI, PE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION REFERENCE OR CODE SECTION NO. Airport -Compatible Land Use Restrictions RMC 4-3-020 Aquifer Protection Area RMC 4-3-050 utomall Improvement District RMC 4-3-040 Downtown Core Area RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080C Downtown Pedestrian District RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080D Northeast Fourth Street Business District RMC 4-3-040 "P" Suffix Procedures RMC 4-3-080 Planned Unit Development RMC 4-9-150 Rainier Avenue Business District RMC 4-3-040 Restrictive Covenants See Property Title Report Center Village Residential Bonus District RMC 4-3-095 Sunset Blvd. Business District RMC 4-3-040 Urban Design Regulation (Areas "A," "B," "C," "D," and "E") RMC 4-3-100 (Ord. 1472, 12-18-1953; Ord. 3101, 1-19-1977; Ord. 4302, 12-17-1990; Ord. 4519, 5-15- 1995; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1- 2004) Page 1 1 N Z M C O D Q Q 00 U m cr 0) Z T Z i� 00 U U ti ` Q Qa Q= z 0 W f7 � o ca U Zv Q n U E — C 0 0 ¢ U @ E O O N QU M 0- MMMMUCO 4 2a 2Qcl Q o� U Q CD � � 0) IX V Q = Y 9 W 2 = c O c O vv a �,L� la.a¢a o� U ) U) U Z O a. c cn U Q ;- Co c D 2 c U UIX a Q Q* o cu o Ma_ cn Z Of U Q @ c O C O g LO 'V O 0:a_ Q Q D 2 O Q a. c O Cc Z Q c 0� Z IL a2a E c O X (6 �� 4 a 2QQ O) W 2 (6 2 O c �- IZQ 0- a: �) 2 ZQ'Z z 00 O o (6 J�aof a ILSQ o m > a H ZOO a V a. a.2Q a O Q LU Cl) T 0 (0O E Cl) 2 a. 2 Q= N !L 4 t` a --] co ��°C Z i O O -0 U Q N m J 0 W Vj W= O CO O N N U Z C 4_ 11 t � f� c N C N -p:0 c N O "-"O O c C N m d "- N Z Z t N Cl) E Z a _ y y O W E t 0 U 0 N 2� O m@ Y 0 E N w ~ O U= c E .O L Z) OQQUU O O C7CD=cl� O 0 C L Or- �O LO 0�O O-p N 'O i O CDN � O N O i OM c7 It L aMO Orn� o � N O ' L T N `- Q O • -O N C 000Ln � O N a O Oro 0 O 0) 4 N p ' O p O COTOO CO O U-) ti N a c r O LO QoOON 0)Un0LO 0 0 -0 - N O 4O—o I , C) N O ti Cl O ' ti NO N �0 'O N L- �- L�O O a0 iYi ,v 6jtiON ICON - �'t A-O i N-O no O Oj O tiOO)ON tio� ' v CO t` LO O 00N 0) 't M O - i 7 -6 't No N Q co M N O C C\l - ' -pN i N L�O— O r 04 04 000 0 � I'NLO In a) m n3 a EXHIBIT E � ORDINANCE NO. 5355 B EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY: (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) Page 1 EXHIBIT F *%r ORDINANCE NO. 53 4-2-100 ZONING STANDARDS TABLES: 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures RC R-1 R-4 R-8 SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard 30 ft.6 30 ft.6 30 ft. 6, 12, 13 except for 15 ft. for small lot clusters 10 primary where R-8 standards structure. shall apply. 20 ft. for Unit with Alley Access attached Garage: The front garages yard setback of the accessed from primary structure may front or side be reduced to 20 ft. if yard street. all parking is provided in the rear yard of the Unit with Alley lot with access from a Access Garage: public right-of-way or The front yard alley. setback of the primary structure may be reduced to 10 ft. if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. Minimum Side Yard Along 30 ft.7 20 ft.7 20 ft. 12,13 15 ft. for the a Street 15 ft. is allowed in primary 20 10 small lot clusters. structure and ft. for attached garages which access from the front or side yard along a street. Minimum Side Yard 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined ft. 12,13 is 5 ft. allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard. 5 ft. is allowed in small lot clusters. 10 Minimum Rear Yard 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 13 20 ft. 20 ft. is allowed in small lot clusters. 10 Clear Vision Area In no case shall In no case shall a In no case shall a In no case shall Printed on 2/29/2008 Page 1 EXHIBIT F '40W ORDINANCE NO. 53�' a structure over structure over 42 structure over 42 in. in a structure over 42 in. in height in. in height intrude height intrude into the 42 in. in height intrude into the into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear vision area intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision vision area defined defined in RMC 4-11- 20 ft. clear area defined in in RMC 4-11-030. 030. vision area RMC 4-11-030. defined in RMC 4-11-030. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the landscaped street property street property line. street property line, setback from line. the street property line. Printed on 2/29/2008 Page 2 � E 0 � � � E M- **awe V. . .. ....... ............... Economic Development, Legend Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Streams Classification TYPE 1 - Class 1 Alex Pietsch, Administrator 2- Class 2 A. Johnson, Planning Technician 3 -Class 3 4 - Class 4 a Streams and Lakes Der -ember 4, 2007 N 0 1,800 3,600 7,200 Feet ku 1:60,000 EXHIBIT J ..r ORDINANCE NO. 535aow 4-4-08OF PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS: USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES RESIDENTIAL USES IN DOWNTOWN CORE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income elderly: 1 for every 3 dwelling units. Detached dwellings (existing legal): 2 per unit (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) Printed on 2(29(2008 Page 1 February 25, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes ,,,e Page 59 Resolution #3932 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Development Services: Benson interlocal agreement with King County to authorize King County to assist the Hill Communities Annexation City of Renton in processing projects, permits, and applications for property in Vested Permits, King County the Benson Hill Communities Annexation area, which are vested under King County's rules and regulations prior to the annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3933 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an AJLS: Renton Pool, Renton interlocal agreement between the City of Renton and Renton School District School District #403 relating to financial support for the Renton Pool at Lindbergh High School. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 3/3/2008 for second and final reading: Legal: Criminal Trespass & An ordinance was read amending Chapter 18, Penal Code, of Title VI (Police Menacing Regulations) of City Code by repealing Sections 10, Criminal Trespass, and 12, Menacing. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/3/2008. CARRIED. Development Services: Benson An ordinance was read adopting, for the purposes of processing vested permits Hill Communities Annexation in Renton's Benson Hill Communities Annexation area, and to the extent that Vested Permits, King County they apply, the King County codes, regulations, and fees. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 3/3/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5352 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, six feet wide and Vacation: Queen Ave NE, approximately 293 feet in length, of Queen Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (VAC- Newfourth, VAC-07-003 07-003; petitioner Steve Beck, Newfourth, LLC). MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5353 An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, approximately 60 Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, feet in width and 100 feet in length, of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St. TEAM Properties, VAC-07- (VAC-07-002; petitioner Brian Allen, TEAM Properties, LLC). MOVED BY 002 BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5354 An ordinance was read setting the threshold and tax rates in accordance with Annexation: Benson Hill RCW 82.14.415 with respect to the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. Communities, State Funding MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5355 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Planning: Development Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Housekeeping Amendments Standards; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title �y IV (Development Regulations); and Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health �t and Sanitation) of City Code to complete housekeeping amendments to Title IV i ebruary 25, 2008 ..+ Renton City Council Minutes aw Page 60 Ordinance #5356 Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Animal Regulations Ordinance #5357 Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Downtown Core NEW BUSINESS Citizen Comment: Beck - Property Purchase, SE Petrovitsky Rd & 135th Ave SE amendments made during docket review. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); Chapter 4, Animal Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations); and Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding the keeping of animals. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; and Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend regulations in effect for downtown Renton, including removing the Downtown Core Area designation, amending the boundary of the Downtown Pedestrian District, amending the commercial zoning designations, amending the parking regulations for commercial businesses, and amending the City Center District sign regulations. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Councilmember Parker reported receipt of a letter from Steven A. Beck, Manager, Nikolick/Beck, Inc. (Renton), regarding a 33-acre property he wants to sell to the City that is located in the Cascade Vista and Fairwood area in the vicinity of SE Petrovitsky Rd. and 135th Ave. SE. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. Policy: Bilingual City Notices MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE TOPIC OF A POLICY REGARDING BILINGUAL CITY NOTICES TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Solid Waste: Clean Sweep MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER A Program BRIEFING ON THE UPCOMING CLEAN SWEEP RENTON EVENT, SPECIFICALLY ON ANY ANTICIPATED ISSUES REGARDING THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION, TO THE UTILITIES COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Toebe - Red At the request of Councilmember Taylor, a letter was read from Martin Douglas Light School Zone Photo Toebe (Renton) expressing his support for the traffic enforcement cameras for Enforcement Program red light and speeding installed at certain intersections, and suggesting the installation of more cameras around school areas. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THIS CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Responding to Diane Paholke's (Renton) question regarding the repeal of City Citizen Comment: Paholke - Code sections pertaining to criminal trespass and menacing, Assistant City Criminal Trespass & Menacing Attorney Fontes explained that Renton still has a criminal trespass ordinance because the City has adopted the State law by reference. She assured that enforcement of the law remains the same. February 25, 2008 New Renton City Council Minutes V Page 58 Municipal Court: Judicial Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Specialist Hire at Step E concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the hiring of a Judicial Specialist at Grade 08, Step E, with a start date of 3/3/2008. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Committee regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Planning: Development Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a Regulations (Title IV) Docket public hearing on 3/10/2008 to consider the following two docket items: 1) Review �i'_ Helipad Use in the R-8 Zone; and 2) Amendments to the Commercial Office Residential Zone. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the revised policies of the Human Services: Housing Housing Repair Assistance Program. Revisions include: Repair Assistance Program 1) Annual expenditure limits will be based on the three-tier qualifying income Policies criteria for the program's clients, and the ten-year expenditure limit will be raised to $10,000 for all clients, regardless of income; 2) Services will not be provided until a year after the home is purchased; and 3) The health and safety repairs that the program provides will be more clearly defined. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL CONCUR 1N THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committee regarding the Airport leasing policies. The policies were last amended in 2002. Airport: Leasing Policy Since that time, there have been changes in the tenancies and needs at the Airport, as well as the vision for the Airport. Further, the Council will be considering an Airport Layout Plan as based on the revised Airport development policies. The leasing policies need to be consistent with those documents. Recommendations for changes included the creation of a lease application form, developing a new process to analyze a prospective lessee's financial capacity, creating a new appeal process, and reformatting the document to improve readability. The leasing policies have undergone two separate legal reviews for suggestions and the City Attorney's office has approved the document. After consideration of these proposed changes, the Committee recommended that Council approve the Airport leasing policy amendments. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3931 A resolution was read terminating the declaration of a local emergency declared Public Safety: Declaration of on 12/3/2008 by Resolution 3921. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY Local Emergency Termination TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED ,ft,,""will APPROVED BY CiTV COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, COMMITTEE Date _COMMITTEE REPORT February 25 2008 Title IV Docket (Referred 5/14/07 The Planning, and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on March :10, 2008 for the following two docket items: 1) Helipad Use in the R-8 Zone, and 2) Amendments to the Commercial Office Residential (COR) Zone. 6ng ar er,. Chair Rich Zwicker, V Chair Greg Ta , Member cc: Alex Pietsch Rebecca Lind Erica Conkling Docket Group #2 Helipad and COR.doc\ Rev 01108 bh February 11, 2008 Now Renton City Council Minutes ..e Page 47 Resolution #3930 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Utility: Upper Springbrook design agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Upper Creek Restoration, US Army Springbrook Creek Restoration project. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED Corps of Engineers BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 2/25/2008 for second and final reading: Vacation: Queen Ave NE, An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, six feet wide and Newfourth, VAC-07-003 approximately 293 feet in length, of Queen Ave. NE, south of NE 4th St. (VAC- 07-003; petitioner Steve Beck, Newfourth, LLC). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Vacation: Whitworth Ave S, An ordinance was read vacating a portion of right-of-way, approximately 60 TEAM Properties, VAC-07- feet in width and 100 feet in length, of Whitworth Ave. S., south of S. 4th St. 002 (VAC-07-002; petitioner Brian Allen, TEAM Properties, LLC). MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Annexation: Benson Hill An ordinance was read setting the threshold and tax rates in accordance with Communities, State Funding RCW 82.14.415 with respect to the Benson Hill Communities Annexation. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Housekeeping Amendments T W An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 3, Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); and Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health and Sanitation) of City Code to complete housekeeping amendments to Title IV amendments made during docket review. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR ND AND FINAL 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development n ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement; Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Animal Regulations Development Standards; Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); Chapter 4, Animal Licenses, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations); and Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl at Large, of Title VI (Police Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding the keeping of animals. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4-2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) Docket, �� Standards; and Chapter 4-4, Citywide Property Development Standards, of Title Downtown Core ! IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend regulations in effect for Downtown Renton, including removing the boundary of the Downtown Core District, amending the boundary of the City Center Sign District, amending the boundary of the Downtown Pedestrian District, and amending the parking Iregulations for commercial businesses. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 2/25/2008. CARRIED. February 11, 2008 i= Renton City Council Minutes mw Page 46 UNFINISHED BUSINESS Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance Committee Claim Vouchers 268639 - 269146 and two wire transfers totaling Finance: Vouchers $6,701,920.06; and approval of 163 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 692 direct deposits totaling $2,301,601.64. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: Cedar Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending River Natural Zone Boundary concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve an agreement with PACE Survey, PACE Engineers Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $79,500 to perform a property boundary survey of parcels comprising the Cedar River Natural Zone, set property corners or recover existing comers, identify boundary encroachments onto City property, and produce a record of survey to be filed with the King County Recorder. The Committee also recommended authorizing the use of 2007 funds in the amount of $40,000 from 316.000000.020.5940.0076.63.000001. Funds were previously identified for this project and are to be carried forward in a future budget amendment. Plannine & Development Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review --Pi 1, The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the survey services agreement. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following three zoning text amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission: 1) Docket Item 06-01, Housekeeping Group I; 2) Docket Item 06- 10, Household Pets and Keeping of Animals Regulations; and 3) Docket Item 06-29, Downtown Code Text Amendments. The Committee further recommended that the three ordinances regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 47 for ordinances.) Utilities Committee Utilities Committee Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending Utility: Upper Springbrook concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the agreement with the Creek Restoration, US Army U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE) to share in the cost and design to Corps of Engineers permit the Upper Springbrook Creek Restoration project. The terms of the agreement require USACE to fund 75 percent ($286,950) of the total design cost of $382,600, with the City contributing the remaining 25 percent local match ($95,650). The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 47 for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3929 Plat: Magnussen, NE 2nd St, FP-07-129 A resolution was read approving the Magnussen Final Plat; approximately 8.37 acres located in the vicinity of NE 2nd St., between Duvall Ave. NE and Field Ave. NE. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. ANPROVI-:E) By PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CRYCOUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT lute February 11, 2008 Title IV Development Regulations Docket (May 14, 2007 The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve,the following three zoning text amendments: -Docket Item 671, Housekeeping Group I, Docket Item 6-10, Household Pets and Keeping of Animals Regulations, and Docket Item 06-29, Downtown Code Text Amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission. The Committee further recommends that these three �, ordinances arded to the City Council for first reading. King, ar er, Chair Rich Zwicker, Vice Ch Greg or, Member cc: Jay Go vington- Alqx Pietsclt Gregg Zimmerman 4, 2008 **01 Renton City Council Minutes *010, Page 35 Lind indicated that due to some potential flooding in the area, the Utility Division recommends the use of King County's 2005 Surface Water Design Manual, Level 2, for future development. Ms. Lind noted the receipt of a letter from Sabrina Petterson, Regional Manager for Sherron Associates, Inc. (Bellevue), requesting that the Fairwood Landing Apartments located at 14121 SE 177th St. be included in the annexation boundary. Public comment was invited. Linda Sartnurak (King County), speaking on behalf of many of the property owners in the annexation area, indicated that they do not want to be a part of the proposed Fairwood Incorporation, but rather part of the City of Renton. She encouraged Council to include the Fairwood Landing Apartments property in the annexation boundary, and accept the annexation petition. Linda Petersen (King County) said although she does not reside within the annexation area, she hoped to also be annexed to Renton in the future. Russ Radke (King County) voiced his support for the annexation. Stating that although he does not reside within the annexation area, he regularly patronizes the businesses that are requesting annexation. Gerald Edlund (King County), noting that he is within the proposed Fairwood Incorporation area, indicated his preference for being annexed to Renton. J. Paul Blake (King County) encouraged Council to accept the Administration's recommendation regarding the annexation. Raymond A. Breeden, Sr. (King County) expressed his appreciation to the City for its support of the Wonderland Estates Mobile Home Park (located on Maple Valley Hwy.), noting that the King County Housing Authority purchased the property. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL: ACCEPT THE 10% NOTICE OF INTENT PETITION FOR THE RED MILL ANNEXATION, AUTHORIZE CIRCULATION OF THE 60% DIRECT PETITION TO ANNEX AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE BENSON HILL COMMUNITIES ANNEXATION ON 3/1/2008 SPECIFYING THAT SIGNERS AGREE TO SUPPORT FUTURE ZONING CONSISTENT WITH RENTON'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND AMEND THE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE THE 10.12-ACRE FAIRWOOD LANDING APARTMENTS PROPERTY. CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in Planning: Development accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to Regulations (Title IV) Docket consider revisions to the following City Code Title IV (Development Review Regulations) docket items: Housekeeping Amendments Group I, Animal 7_1.�_ ! Regulations, and Downtown Code Amendments. Planning Manager Lind indicated that the proposed housekeeping amendments are corrections needed to update zone names, correct errors in cross-references and spelling, and correct errors in notes and tables. She invited Assistant Planner Mathias to review the proposed changes to the animal regulations. February 4, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes %..r Page 36 Ms. Mathias stated that revisions include making the keeping of animals an accessory use, adding definitions, changing the household pet definition to be more specific about allowable animals, and allowing the keeping of four pets on lots that are 30,000 square feet. Additionally, the definitions of small, medium, and large domestic animals have been revised so that they are defined by the lot size required to keep the animals. Furthermore, revisions include changing the Hobby Kennel license to an Additional Animals Permit, amending the maximum number of cats and dogs allowed with the license to six, clarifying the factors considered for the allowance of additional animals, and instituting a revocation policy and an annual renewal. Moving on to the downtown code amendments, Senior Planner Conkling explained that the proposed revisions simplify the complex set of regulations in effect for the downtown area. The proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies for the downtown that call for urban -style development and parking, and that promote a high -quality physical and visual environment. Ms. Conkling reviewed the revisions, which include: eliminating the Downtown Core Overlay and extending the development standards from the overlay into the entire Center Downtown zone; expanding the Downtown Pedestrian District Overlay; amending the City Center sign regulation boundary to be consistent with the Urban Center Design Overlay District A regulations; and simplifying parking requirements for the downtown area. Public comment was invited. Rich Wagner (Renton) commented on the progression of the downtown code regulations over the years, noting that the original goal was to build in incentives to rebuild the downtown core. He voiced his agreement with the statement, "If the City continues to permit suburban style infill, the downtown core will never convert into a true urban center...," found in the downtown area docket summary. Mr. Wagner indicated that he is an architect, and a project he is working on will benefit from the changes to the property setbacks. There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. AUDIENCE COMMENT Dave McCammon (King County) stated that he resides in the Benson Hill Citizen Comment: McCammon Communities Annexation area that will become part of Renton next month, and - Benson Hill Communities he complimented the City on its zoning of the area. Mr. McCammon further Annexation Zoning, Fire stated that the City's annexation -related contract with Fire District #40 will District #40 benefit both the district and Renton's Fire and Emergency Services Department. Citizen Comment: Guild- Nanette Guild -Taylor (Renton) expressed her concerns regarding the almost Taylor - Graphic and Obscene daily public exhibition of graphic and obscene images displayed at the corner of Images Displayed at Talbot Rd Talbot Rd. S. and S. 43rd St. She described the distress these images cause for S & S 43rd St many citizens, especially children, and stated her support for passionate and active citizens who can voice opinions and discuss views in respectful ways. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER AN ADDITIONAL TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. Ms. Guild -Taylor suggested adoption of an ordinance restricting the display of graphic and obscene images in public view, or adoption of an ordinance restricting the size of the images, or requiring the displayers of the images to create a warning system. Y 2007 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING February 4, 2008 1) Summary Docket 2006 Housekeeping Amendments: Group I These proposed amendments are corrections needed to update zone names, correct errors in cross- references, spelling, and errors in notes and tables. There are no policy content changes. 2) Keeping Animals Regulations • Current City code allows the keeping of a maximum of three household pets regardless of lot size. The proposal amends the number of allowable household pets so that on lots larger than 20,000 square feet, one additional household pet per additional 10,000 square feet in additional lot size is allowed. The definition of household pets is also proposed to be amended however, the amendment is to clarify, not to expand the animals allowed. • The current standards for the keeping of domestic animals require a one -acre lot size minimum regardless of the type of animal. Proposed changes would allow animals to be kept on smaller lots and the definitions of domestic animals would be amended, so that they are defined by the minimum lot size needed to keep the animals rather than by the size of the animal. The changes would allow two medium lot domestic animals on lots that are at least 12,500 gross square feet in size and one additional medium lot domestic animal would be allowed per additional 7,500 gross square feet in lot size. Three small lot domestic animals would be allowed on lots that are at least 6,000 gross square feet in size and one additional small lot domestic animal would be allowed per additional 2,000 gross square feet in lot size. These proposed new minimum lot size standards are absolute requirements to keep the specified animals, variances and/or modifications will not be allowed. • Proposed changes would combine the existing general requirements for the keeping of animals with the requirements for Hobby Kennels. The requirements for Hobby Kennels are more stringent than the requirements for the keeping all animals. Requirements that are to become standard for all keeping of animals that were previously only required with a Hobby Kennel are: locating shelter in the rear yard, provision for removal of animal food wastes, and prevention of obnoxious or foul odors. • Also, the proposed changes change the name of "Hobby Kennel License" to "Additional Animals Permit". The applicability of the Permit would be expanded from exclusively dogs/cats to include additional household pets and domestic animals to be kept with the Permit subject to conditions. The criteria that are to be considered to determine the compatibility and suitability of the property for keeping additional animals are clarified, including: an inspection of the property by Animal Control if requested by Development Services, consideration of applicants past history with complaints regarding keeping animals, and provision of a grassy/vegetated area for domestic animals. The maximum number of dogs/cats allowable with the Permit to would be lowered to six. • Other changes are procedural and housekeeping text changes to correspond to the aforementioned changes and in other code sections as applicable. 3) Downtown Code Amendments The City has a number of different regulatory boundaries and overlay districts that affect Renton's Downtown. These include: Center Downtown zone, Downtown Core Overlay District, Pedestrian District Overlay, City Center sign regulation boundary, and the Urban Design District W. Each of these districts has a unique boundary creating an uneven application of regulations, which is difficult to administer, potentially unfair to citizens and developers, and interferes with the implementation of Comprehensive Plan land use policies. Ec000micDmeiopmryn'^ i_ P ok Center Downtown New Pedestrian Iv tIM,grnoods and c=sew GD Zone. Design A & New Pedestrian Strategic Planning District Boundaries pCDZ-9-- „mo The proposed changes include: • Eliminate the Downtown Core Overlay District. Regulations now in place for this overlay district now would be extended to the entire Center Downtown zone. This will allow slightly more intensive development regulations in some areas such as zero set backs or full building coverage. • Parking regulations would be amendmed to allow a parking exemption for commercial businesses in the Center Downtown zone. This means that businesses would not be required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces. • Expand the Downtown Pedestrian District. The effect of this change is that certain uses are limited on the ground floor along the street frontage of a building, such as: parking, retirement homes, light manufacturing, or residences. • Amend the City Center sign boundary to be the same as the Urban Design District `A' boundary. The map on the following page shows the proposed changes. z � m r I I i r j , G —1 i Q m a i Lj s -,Yd PJ S 46h St i I a I ! C I l l I � y � I � � s St '--�»fi---�---------&7tPr6t-----�1 �SYV.7th 4.�`.. W c w 4. 0� Economic Development, Proposed Changes to Downtown Code Neighborhoods and Legend « strategic Planning Parcels Alex Pi et oh, AA ministrato r -- AArianaJohron, Planning Technician i Distrid A+City Center Sign Boundary January 15, WC8 ® CD Zone (v,& old Dov ntov,,n Core regulations) 0 250 5w 1,0ce Feet Pedestrian District 1:7.570 ti.r• vow, r City of Renton City Council Public Hearing g �' � � Docket Items: Housekeeping Group 1, Animals, and Downtown Code February 4, 2008 Housekeeping Amendments . The proposed amendments are corrections needed to: — Update zone names — Correct errors in cross-references, notes, and/or tables — Correct spelling Animals - Background • Docket and Council request to respond to citizen requests for more flexibility in the animal regulations. • Request from Animal Control to provide more clarity and ensure enforceability. Housekeeping Amendments Group I Docket Item 06-01 Animals Code Amendments Docket Item 06-10 Animals Amendments • Amend code so that keeping animals is an accessory use. • Write new definitions for areas of concern of animal control officers. • Animal foster care provider • Occasional breeder 1 R n Animals Amendments Household pets: — Amend definition to be more specific about allowable animals. • To include dogs, cats, rabbits, caged indoor birds, small rodents, non -venomous reptiles and amphibians weighing less than ten pounds, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. — Allow the keeping of four pets on lots that are 30,000 s.f. - (one additional for each 10,000 s.f) Animals Amendments Domestic animals (cont.) — Medium lot animals: require at least 12,500 s.f. • To include ducks, geese, sheep, miniature goats that are smaller than twenty-four inches (24") at the shoulder and/or not more than 150 pounds in weight, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. • May keep two (one additional per 7,500 s.f) Animals Amendments Hobby Kennel License — Change the Hobby Kennel license to an "Additional Animals Permit". — Amend the maximum number of cats/dogs allowed with the license to six. — Clarify the factors considered for the allowance of additional animals. • Including an inspection by Animal Control if requested by Development Services. — Institute a revocation policy and an annual renewal. Animals Amendments Amend code so keeping domestic animals is based on the size of lot necessary to sufficiently keep the animals. — Large lot animals: require at least one acre • To include include horses, ponies, donkeys, cows, goats, llamas, oxen, pigs, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director • May keep two - (one additional per 20,000 s.f.) Animals Amendments . Domestic Animals (cont.) — Small lot animals: require at least 6,000 s.f. • To include chickens, pigeons, rabbits, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. • May keep three — (one additional per 2,000 s.f) (roosters and peafowl are not allowed) Downtown Code Amendments Docket Item 06-29 2 ,,,. �.._ �:. ��'f � i � ��''''� } � �'� � I-�4 __ 4, fir" -Yi �,. e�?�- N,_ h ri r 4-aR'S,� f � w� ��(Y � � E �t l � h 4x'� ��.. 5. fs$aa,e �T � N � 0 ce. 3 0 3 0 0 c� .L 0 c m .a 4a W. 'a a W N 0 0. 0 L. a ' / 3 0 0 cl 0 $ / \ \ I 0 _?U_bit C, 4-eaf1Ili Zj 4 12,00b Summary Docket 2006 Housekeepinz Amendments: Group 1, January 2008 These proposed amendments are corrections needed to update zone names, correct errors in cross- references, spelling, and errors in notes and tables. There are no policy content changes. 1. 4-1-170A Conditional Approval Permit, delete references in fee schedule. Add Rebuilt Approval Permit (new name) (Exhibit A) 2. 4-2-010D Residential Multi -Family, change reference RM-V to RM-U and add CO as an implementing zone in the UC-D add Residential Manufactured Home Park in RDL Comprehensive Plan designations (Exhibit B) 3. 4-2-020D Correct references to Residential Low Density and delete Residential Low Density 4du/ac overlay 4. 4-2-020L Add reference to Employment Area Valley 5. 4-2-020N Add reference to Employment Area Valley and Commercial Corridor 6. 4-2-020 R, Add references to Employment Area Industrial 7. 4-2-OIOE Correct Urban Center Design Overlay term (Exhibit C) 8. 4-2-060 D. Congregate Residence, add to RM zone as Administrative Conditional Use, and amend Home Occupation to Administrative Conditional Use, correct in 4-2-070H (Exhibit D) 9. 4-2-080A Note 8 corrected to read Residential Multi -family 1. Note 25 correct reference to 4-2-060G 2. Note 39 correct Commercial Corridor description 3. Note 40 correct Commercial Corridor reference 10. 4-2-080B, map boundaries of Employment Area - Valley (EAV) no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit E) 11. 4-2-110 A, Correct language from 20 feet for attached garages which access from the front and side yard along a street. Change to "or" side yard along a street. Correct location of note 6. Add note 13 in the R-4 zone (Exhibit F) 12. 4-2-110D Correct note 6 clarify front setback language Correct note 13 to add minimum rear yard standard 13. 4-2-120D, Center Suburban - delete illustration. 14. 4-2-120F, check heading has the same heading as 4-2-120 C 15.4-3-040B1 Correct boundary description of Automall Improvement Plan err' �r 16. 4-3-040G Correct Automall Map (Exhibit G ). 17.4-3-040D. Automall Improvement Plan, change resolution number to 3457 from 3162 18.4-3-050QH Amend Streams and Lakes Map to incorporate 2 Class 4 streams (Exhibit H) 19. 4-3-100A2 Correct references to zoning names in the Urban Design Regulations 20. 4-3-100B4 Correct name on Urban Design District map (Exhibit I) 21. 4-3-100I, correct format and numbering issues 22.4-4-070H 4 Landscaping, change reference to ANSI Z60.1-2004 23. 4-4-070D3 line 6, change "right or way" to "right-of-way" 24. 4-4-EIB correct parking requirement for attached dwellings 3 or more units 25. 4-4-08OF correct parking for existing legal detached dwellings (Exhibit H) 26. 4-9-170Fb, change "polices" to "policies" (spelling error) 27. 4-11-020 Definitions Big Box Retail, out of order, clean up language 28. 4-11-070 Definitions Grid -like Street Pattern, clean up language change term to street grid pattern modified 29. 8-1-41, Correct reference to Center Suburban Zone replace with Commercial Arterial Zone and Center Village Zone. CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, CORRECTING CHAPTER 4-1 ADMINISTRATION, CHAPTER 4-2 LAND USE DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 4-9 PERMITS, AND 4-11 DEFINITIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO COMPLETE HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE IV AMENDMENTS MADE DURING DOCKET REVIEW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Renton, pursuant to the Washington State Growth Management Act, has been required to undertake docketed review of zoning text amendments pursuant to WAC XXXXXX and, WHEREAS, The City conducted review of housekeeping amendments and developed a work program to implement needed updates of development regulations WHEREAS, the City Council has duly determined after due consideration of the testimony and evidence before it that specific regulations require housekeeping amendments that improve the clarity and consistency of the development standards, and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that revisions are needed to the Title IV Development Standards to correct errors of a housekeeping nature. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-1-170A Land Use Review Fees is hereby amended to change the name "Conditional Approval Permit" to "Rebuild Approval Permit' as shown on Exhibit A, attached. 1 ORDINANCE NO. SECTION II. Section 4-2-OIOD Land Use Districts, Zones Implementing Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to correct an error in the Residential Multi -family (RMF) Implementing Zones column, from "RM-V" to "RM-U" and "RM-I" to "RM-T," and to correct an error in the Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Implementing Zones column to add "Commercial Office CO" as shown in Exhibit B, attached. SECTION III. Section 4-2-020D RESIDENTIAL-4 DU/ACRE (R-4) is corrected to reflect references to the Residential Low Density Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation and paragraph one is amended to read as follows: The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban utilities and containing amenity open spaces. It is intended to implement the Residential Low Density Single Family Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-4 Dwelling Units Per Acre Zone (R-4) will allow a maximum density of four (4) dwelling units per net acre. The R-4 designation serves as a transition between rural designation zones and higher density residential zones. It is intended as an intermediate lower density residential zone; applied to Residential Low Density Single Family (RLD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation on the Land Use Map SECTION IV. Section 4-2-020L Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, Commercial Arterial Zone is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph one of the Purpose is amended to read as follows: The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA F] ORDINANCE NO. Zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high - volume traffic corridors. Limited residential use may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts along mapped corridors designed to encourage concentrated commercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the corridor and visual interest. Designated business districts include: Automall, Sunset Boulevard, Northeast Fourth, Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue. The CA Zone is intended to implement the Commercial Corridor and Employment Area Valley Land Use Designations. tions. SECTION V. Section 4-2-02ON Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, Commercial Office Zone is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Valley Land Use Designation and paragraph one of the Purpose is amended to read as follows: The Commercial Office Zone (CO) is established to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering high -quality and amenity work environments. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley Land Use designation and the office policies of the Cenider-Commercial Corridor Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions. Limited light industrial activities, which can effectively blend in with an office environment, are allowed, as are medical institutions and related uses. SECTION VI. Section 4-2-02OR Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, Heavy Industrial Zone is hereby corrected to incorporate references to the Employment Area Industrial Land Use Designation and paragraph one of the Purpose is amended to read as follows: '1rrl' ORDINANCE NO. *40 The purpose of the Heavy Industrial Zone (IH) is to provide areas for high -intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction, and heavy transportation. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Valley and. Employment Area Industrial Comprehensive Plan designation. Uses in this zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations. Environmental impacts may be produced that affect off -site areas requiring isolation of the industrial activity from more sensitive land uses. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses permitted within the district are also allowed. SECTION VII. Section 4-2-OIOE Land Use Districts "Additional Restrictions on Land Use" is amended to correct the term "Urban Center Design Overlay (Areas "A", `B", and "C")", to read "Urban Design Regulation (Areas "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E")" as shown on Exhibit C, attached. SECTION VIII. Section 4-2-060D Zoning Use Table - Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations, Other Residential, Lodging, and Home Occupations line 4 is corrected to add "Congregate residence" as an administrative conditional use as shown on Exhibit D, attached. SECTION IX. Section 4-2-080A Note 8 is corrected to reflect the correct zone name. Note 25 is corrected to change the reference "4-2-060J" to "4-2-060G", Note 39 is corrected to eliminate the reference to Center Institution and to reference the boundary of the Commercial Corridor designation adjacent to the Valley Medical Center, and Note 40 is corrected to change "Center Institution" to "Commercial Corridor" reading as follows. Allowed only in the Residential Multi -Family I1-suffix. Twenty four (24) hour on -site management required. The manager's unit is not subject to minimum density requirements. No estate, garage or other sales from any leasable spaces. 4 ORDINANCE NO. No outdoor storage, including vehicle or trailer storage lots. Self service storage uses in this zone are subject to the following special development standards: Temporary customer moving van/truck parking, if provided, must be clearly marked with signage or paint. Side and rear setbacks subject to the Commercial Arterial Zone standards of RMC 4-2-120A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, in lieu of the RM-I development standards. 25. A preschool or day care center, when accessory to a public or community facility listed in RMC 4-2-0"060G, is considered a permitted use. 39. Requirements for uses not associated with a medical institution: Use must be located within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan land use designation bordered by S. 37`h St., Talbot Rd, Carr Rd, . 89"' Ave SE, and the Valley Freeway. 40. Permitted when located within the Gente . Lnstit„fie (C4)Commercial Corridor LCC) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. SECTION X. Section 4-2-080B Employment Area Valley, is hereby corrected to correspond to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map as shown in Exhibit E, attached. SECTION XI. Section 4-2-110A Development Standards for Residential Single Family Zoning Designations, Setbacks section, is corrected as shown on Exhibit F, attached, to read as follows: a) Minimum Front Setback In the R-8 and R-4 Zones, delete note 6 where it occurs modifying the alley access garage. In the R-8 zone add note 6 to reference the primary structure. In the R-4 zone add note 6 to reference the phrase "except for where small lot clusters are allowed, R-8 standards shall apply" VW ORDINANCE NO. *00 b) Add Note 13 to reference the phrase "Minimum Rear Yard", in the R-4 zone. c) Correct the language for attached garages which access from the "front and side yard" along a street to "front or side yard" along a street, SECTION XII. Section 4-2-110D Conditions Associated With Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, Note 13 is corrected to add the standard Minimum rear yard of twenty-five feet (25') and to read as follows: 1.3. For properties vested with a complete plat application prior to November 10, 2004, and for the Mosier II, Maplewood East and Anthone, the following standards apply. Vested plats must be developed within five (5) years of preliminary plat approval and/or annexation. Maximum density — five (5) dwelling units per net acre. Minimum lot size — seven thousand two hundred (7,200) sq. ft. Minimum lot width — sixty feet (60') for interior lots, seventy feet (70') for corner lots. Minimum lot depth — seventy feet (70'). Minimum front yard — fifteen feet (15') for the primary structure, twenty feet (20') for an attached or detached garage. For a unit with alley access garage, the front yard setback for the primary structure may be reduced to ten feet (10') if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley. Minimum side yard along a street — fifteen feet (15'). Minimum side yard — five feet (5'). Minimum rear yard - twenty five feet (25'). Note 6 is corrected to read as follows 6. A front yard setback of less than twenty feet (20L t iTj allyis allowed is pernlitted if equal to or greater than the average of the front yard setback of the existing, abutting on ORDINANCE NO. primary structures; however, in no case shall a minimum setback of less than twenty feet (20') be allowed for garages which access from the front yard street(s). SECTION XIII. Section 4-2-120D Illustrations for Suburban Center and Neighborhood Center is hereby deleted. SECTION XIV. Section 4-3-040B 1 Commercial Corridor Business Designations, Applicability, Automall, is amended to correct the boundary of the Automall designation, to read as follows: APPLICABILITY: 1. Renton Automall District. a. Automall Area A: That area bounded by Grady Way S. on the north, Rainier Avenue S. (SR-167) on the east, I-405 on the south, and Seneca Avenue S. on the west; and That area bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, and the alley midway between S.W. Grady and SW 12th Street, on the south. b. Automall Area B: That area along the south side of S.W. Grady defined by the alley between S.W. Grady Way and S.W. 12th Street on the north, Seneca Avenue S.W. on the east, Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the south side of S.W. Grady Way west of Raymond Avenue S. between S.W. Grady Way on the north, Raymond Avenue S. on the east, a north/south line approximately four hundred feet (400') 7 *` ORDINANCE NO. east -west of Raymond Avenue S.W. on the west, and I-405 on the south; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way west of Lind Avenue S. bounded by S.W. Grady Way on the south, Oakesdale Avenue S.W. on the west, S.W. 1Oth Street on the north, and Lind Avenue S.W. on the east; That area along the north side of S.W. Grady Way between Lind Avenue to the west and Rainier Avenue S. on the east. Beginning at a point approximately four hundred feet (400') north of S.W. Grady Way along the east side of Lind Avenue S.W. on the west, then east for a distance of approximately three hundred twenty five feet (325'), then south to a point approximately one hundred eighty feet (180') north of S.W. Grady Way, then east from this point parallel to S.W. Grady Way to a point approximately ninety feet (90') west of Rainier Avenue S., then north from this point approximately sixty feet (60'), then west approximately fifty feet (50'), and then north approximately two hundred fifteen feet (215') and then east approximately one hundred sixty feet (160') to Rainier Avenue S. on the east; That area north of South 7th Street and west of Hardie Avenue generally described as the area beginning at the northwest corner of South 7th Street and Hardie Avenue S. and then proceeding west approximately four hundred twenty five feet (425'), then north approximately four hundred fifty feet (450') to the southern edge of the �3 ORDINANCE NO. Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, then east along the railroad right-of-way approximately two hundred thirty five feet (235') to Hardie Avenue and then south along Hardie Avenue to the beginning point; That area north of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west, the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way on the north, and Rainier Avenue on the east; That area north of South 7th Street between Rainier Avenue S. on the west, a line approximately one hundred ninety feet (190') north of and parallel to South 7th Street on the north, and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east; The triangular area on the south side of South 7th Street between Hardie Avenue on the west and Rainier Avenue on the east; The larger area north of S. Grady Way between Rainier Avenue on the west and Shattuck Avenue S. on the east between South 7th Street on the north and S. Grady Way on the south; That area north of S. Grady Way between Shattuck Avenue S. on the west, the northern edge of the former railroad right-of-way approximately one hundred fifty feet (150') north of S. Grady Way, and Talbot Road/Smithers Avenue S. on the east; That area along the south side of S. Grady Way between SR- 167/Rainier Avenue S. on the west and a north/south line approximately one thousand six hundred thirty feet (1,630') east of SR-167 on the east, S. Grady Way on the north, and on the southwest along S. Renton E 1%0 ORDINANCE NO. Village Place approximately one hundred seventy five feet (175') to the . 1998 zoning boundary between the CA Zone and the CO Zone on the south; and That area along the south side of S. Grady Way east of Talbot Road bounded by Talbot Road on the west, S. Grady Way on the northwest, Renton City Hall on the north/northeast, Benson Road S. on the east/southeast, and the I-405 right-of-way on the south. 2. N.E. Sunset Boulevard Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040H) along NE Sunset Blvd. from east of Duvall Ave. NE to west of Union Ave. NE. 3. Northeast Fourth Business District: That area (RMC 4-3-040I) along NE 3rd and 4th Streets between Queen Ave. NE on the west and Field Ave. NE on the east. 4. Rainier Ave. Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040J) north of South 2nd Street on the north and the Houser railroad trestle on the south to the Renton Automall District. (Amd. Ord. 4839, 5-8-2000) 5. Puget Drive Business District: The area (RMC 4-3-040K) along Benson Road South and Puget Drive South that is south of Interstate 405 and north of the intersection of Puget Drive South and Benson Road South. (Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) SECTION XV Section 4-3-04OG is amended to correct the boundary Map for the Automall as shown on Exhibit G. 10 No "`e ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XVI. Section 4-3-040D Development Standards for Uses located within the Renton Automall - Areas A and B, Automall Improvement Plan Compliance is corrected change the resolution reference number to read as follows: AUTOMALL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE development shall IAII development shall coordinate with the Automall (coordinate with the Automall Improvement Plan adopted by jImprovernent Plan adopted by Resolution No. 3152. 3457-The plan addresses potential street vacations, right-of-way ion No. 3182. 3457 The addresses potential street , right-of-way improvements, area gateways, jimprovements, area gateways, signage, landscaping, circulation, and shared access. signage, landscaping, circulation, and shared access. SECTION XVII. Section 4-3-050Q4 is amended to correct the Streams and lakes Map to reflect the reclassification of a Class 4 stream at 104th Ave SE and S. 32°a Place, King County Parcel 32923059010, and the reclassification of an unmapped Class 4 stream at Honey Creek View Estates, as shown on Exhibit H. SECTION XVIII. Section 4-3-100A2 Urban Design Regulations, Purpose, is corrected to reference zoning names for areas within the Urban Center - Downtown and amended to read as follows: The purpose of this Section is to: 1. Establish design review regulations in accordance with policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan in order to: 11 �Mrr' ORDINANCE NO. a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' (the T'ewnt&,A Core) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Taman Center- Aew iportions of the Urban Center - Downtown zoned Center Downtown and Residential Multi -Family Urban Center. This Vision is of a downtown that will continue to develop into an efficient and attractive urban city. The Vision of the Downtown Core is of mixed uses with high - density residential living supported by multi -modal transit opportunities. Redevelopment will be based on the pattern and scale of established streets and buildings. SECTION XIX. Section 4-3-100B4 Applicability, Urban Design District, is amended to show the correct name of the Urban Design District Map as shown in Exhibit I, attached. SECTION XX. Section 4-3-100I3 Urban Design Regulations, Building Architectural Design, Building Roof Lines is corrected to re -number section a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A', 'C' and 'D' as follows: i. Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection I5f of this Section): i.O Extended parapets; ii-.� Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii:U Projected cornices; 12 . `400, ORDINANCE NO. i�� Pitched or sloped roofs. (a)ii. Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the structure when viewed from ground level. (b)iii. Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. (e)iv. Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. SECTION XXI. Section 4-4-070E4H Specific Landscape Requirements, Plants is corrected to read: 4. Plants: all plants specified shall be adapted to the site (sun exposure, cold hardiness, moisture requirements, soil type, soil pH, etc) in addition: a. All plant material shall meet the most recent American Asseeiation. of Nufser-)q:nen-Standards for Nnursery plant Stocksoc-t (ANSI 2-6OZ60.1-2004) SECTION XXII. Section 4-4-070D3 Landscaping, General Landscape Requirements, Residential Rear/Sideyard/Landscaping along Streets: line 6 is corrected to read "right of way" D. GENERAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: 3. Residential Rear/Side Yard/Landscaping Along Streets: When rear or side yards are along property lines abutting a street, there shall be a minimum five-foot (5') planting area in the public right-of-way. This will necessitate setting any future fencing back from the edge of the right-erof--way so that 13 *00 ORDINANCE NO. the landscaping is visible from the street. Landscaping is required prior to occupancy. Maintenance of such areas shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). The maintenance requirement may necessitate provision of a gate in the fence to access the planting area. SECTION XXIII. Section 4-4-E1B LOCATION OF REQUIRED PARKING, On Site Parking Required, Attached Dwellings is corrected to clarify the parking requirement for 3 or more units and is amended to read as follows: 1. On -Site Parking Required: Required parking as specified herein shall be provided upon property in the same ownership as the property upon which the building or use requiring the specified parking is located or upon leased parking. Off street parking facilities shall be located as hereinafter specified: a. Detached, Semi -Attached and Two (2) Attached Dwellings: On the same lot with the building they are required to serve. b. Attached Dwellings Greater- "T ha Three (3) or More Units: May be on contiguous lot with the building they are required to serve; provided, the provisions of subsection E2 (Off -Site Parking) of this Section are complied with. SECTION XXIV. Section 4-4-08OF Parking Loading and Driveway Regulations, Number of Required Spaces, is corrected to add parking for existing legal detached dwellings in the downtown core as shown on Exhibit J, attached. SECTION XXV. Section 4-9-170Fb. Line 3 is changed to correctly spell "policies" to read as follows: b. The property is potentially classified for the proposed zone being requested pursuant to the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 14 %low r.r ORDINANCE NO. SECTION XXVI. Section 4-11-020 Definitions B, is amended to move the reference to "Big -Box Retail: See Retail, Big -Box" to occur alphabetically proceeding `Binding Site Plan." SECTION XXVII. Section 4-11-180 Definitions R is amended to correct the definition of "Retail, Big Box" as follows: RETAIL, BIG -BOX: An indoor retail or wholesale user ..,h eeeupi esin a building no less than seventy five thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor areal and typically requires a high parking to building area ratios. Big -box retail buildings are typically single -story structures, but with a mass that stands more than thirty (30') feet tall. Big -box retai.11wholesale sales can. include, but are not limited to, membership warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and outlet stores. This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses. SECTION XXVIII. Section 4-11-070 Definitions G is amended to remove the term "grid -like street pattern" and Section 4-11-190 Definitions S is amended to add "street grid pattern, modified". GRID T Tug STREET GRID PATTERN-, MODIFIED fo FT XTB E r R1D): A street system based upon a traditional standard grid pattern; however, offset intersections, loop roads, and eul- de- saes - as well as angled or curved road segments may also be utilized on a limited basis. The block pattern is characterized by regular (i.e., rectangular or trapezoidal) blocks STREET GRID PATTERN, TRADITIONAL: A system of platting, or of street design, that features parallel and perpendicular streets and intersections of streets at right angles that form short blocks. SECTION XXIX. Section 8-1-4L Unlawful Storage, Deposit, Disposal, Scavenging, And 15 ORDINANCE NO. Hauling Of Solid Waste, Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts in Business Areas is corrected to remove a discontinued zone name and is amended to read as follows: L. It shall be unlawful for any person accumulating garbage, recyclables, and yard waste in the Center Downtown Zone, Center Neighborhood Zone Gentef Suburban Ze , Commercial Arterial Zone or Center Village Zone as set forth in RMC 4-2-020, whose location requires the placing of garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys for collection, to place garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts on sidewalks or alleys earlier than 5:00 p.m. It shall also be unlawful for any person who owns, leases or rents any garbage can or unit, recycling bins or yard waste carts in the zones referenced above to fail to remove their garbage, recycling and yard waste containers from sidewalks or alleys by 9:30 a.m. following collection of the garbage, recyclables or yard waste, except that if collection has not occurred by the City's collection contractor, then the garbage cans or units, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be immediately removed following collection. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 52008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 11: 16 ,, W ORDINANCE NO. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Denis Law, Mayor 17 "4✓ `""' EXHIBIT A 4-1-170 LAND USE REVIEW FEES: A. APPLICATION TYPE: FEE AMOUNT: Annexation Expense for postage Annexation by 60% Direct Petition and 50/50 $2,500.00 Petition Method Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, $75.00 Administrative Decision, or Environmental Decision Binding Site Plan $1,000.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,000.00 Conditional Use Permit:Hearing Examiner $2,000.00$1,000.00 Review Administrative Review Environmental Impact Statement/Draft and 100% of costs of coordination, review Final and appealsl 1 When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determines that the EIS shall be prepared, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in preparing he EIS. The ERC shall advise the applicant(s) of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. The ERC may determine that the City will contract directly ith a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be elected by mutual agreement of the City and applicant after a call for proposals. If proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the ERC shall refund any fees collected under this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid. The City may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this Title relating to the applicant's proposal. The City shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this Title, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by chapter 2.17 RCW. Environmental Checklist: Less than $400.00 $100,000.00 project value $100,000.00 or more project value $1,000.00 Environmental review/sensitive lands or $1,000.00 lands covered by water, except minor residential additions or modifications Fence Permit (special) $100.00 Grading and Filling Permit $2,000.00 Hobby Kennel License (one time fee) $20.00 Lot Line Adjustment $450.00 Manufactured/Mobile Home Park: Page 1 EXHIBIT A Tentative $500.00 Preliminary $2,000.00 Final $1,000.00 Open Space Classification Request $30.00 Plats: Short Plat $1,000.00 Preliminary Plat $2,000.00 Final Plat $1,000.00 Planned Urban Development: Preliminary Plan $2,000.00 Final Plan $1,000.00 Re __.eari..ri. -IF,xam.i.nec._Revie..w._. $5.Q.0..QQ. Administrative Review 2 Rezone: Less than 10 acres $2,000.00 10 to 20 acres $3,000.00 More than 20 acres $4,000.00 Routine Vegetation Management Permit $75.00 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Under $100,000.00 value $500.00 $100,000.00 or more value $1,000.00 Site Development Plan (Site Plan or Master Plan): $2,000.00 Hearing Examiner Review $1,000.00 Administrative Review Special Permit $2,000.00 Temporary Permit $100.00 Temporary Permit Sign Deposit refundable $25.00 Variance — Administrative $100.00 Variance —Plan n ing/Bu ild ing/Pu bl ic Works $500.00 Administrator or Hearing Examiner Waiver $100.00 (Ord. 4648, 1-6-1997; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5008, 4-28-2003; Ord. 5028, 11-24- 2003; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5169, 12-5-05) Page 2 h,r, e EXHIBIT B D ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Desi nations are implemented by certain zones: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPLEMENTING ZONES DESIGNATION Residential Low Density (RLD) Resource Conservation (RC) Residential —1 DU/AC (R-1) Residential — 4 DU/AC (R-4) Residential Manufactured Home P rk RMH Residential Single Family (RS) Residential — 8 DU/AC (R-8) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density (RMD) Residential —10 DU/AC (R-10) Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential —14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi -Family (RM) Residential Multi -Family (RM-V-U, RM-fT, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC-D) Center Downtown (CD) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) Comm-arC .a.I.....Offi.ce.....G...O. Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center -North 1 (UC-N1) Urban Center -North 2 (UC-N2) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) Center Village (CV) Residential Multi -Family Zones (RM-F, RM-T, RM- U) Center Village (CV) Residential —14 DU/AC (R-14) Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial (EAI) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Employment Area Valley (EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA) Commercial Office (CO) Light Industrial (IL) Medium Industrial (IM) Heavy Industrial (IH) Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) ommercial Neighborhood (CN) (Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) Page 1 EXHIBIT C E ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON LAND USE: PE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION ZONING MAP SYMBOL utomall Restrictions Dot Pattern Public Use Designation lop,, PE OF LAND USE RESTRICTION REFERENCE OR CODE SECTION NO. Airport -Compatible Land Use Restrictions RMC 4-3-020 Aquifer Protection Area RMC 4-3-050 utomall Improvement District RMC 4-3-040 Downtown Core Area RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080C Downtown Pedestrian District RMC 4-2-070L and 4-2-080D Northeast Fourth Street Business District RMC 4-3-040 "P" Suffix Procedures RMC 4-3-080 Planned Unit Development RMC 4-9-150 Rainier Avenue Business District RMC 4-3-040 Restrictive Covenants See Property Title Report Center Village Residential Bonus District RMC 4-3-095 Sunset Blvd. Business District RMC 4-3-040 Urban GenteFDesign Oveday-R._qul_ation (Areas "A," "B," an-d-"C," "D," and "E") RMC 4-3-100 (Ord. 1472, 12-18-1953; Ord. 3101, 1-19-1977; Ord. 4302, 12-17-1990; Ord. 4519, 5-15- 1995; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5100, 11-1- 2004) Page 1 e § @ k a /00 co «2 �7 � 0) 2k /% / /CL §� §k � c m 2 � C 2 FnS / //� ($ �o o $ > 2§ 2� c � / CL $ r n�Cdco n3n N i « 5\ e° �© a II<a 3$ ® Ja D �9 w© I I/ / � 0> k �\ 20 ® v� c I Ia/I 7 77 3 \ ' o $2 E \ 0 6Q) / k // f A2 2 \? m } j2 \o a 2 IIkI \ ) o � » < II/ ) / E I II<< � § o \ 0 kk 2&2 I/ II/ f± m 0¥2 /§ 1 } 0 q�K I �I� f \ k CL 0 < zJ0 a II< CD CT w � ■-0 co 0 [ A ��= I II<I I 4 c 0 �ko it I } o<I « < & § 0 = 7 27 a) 2 k� A? E ( t W6i§k )) \\ (D \ §w§5°2/ 0$ca) CL \ §7®-==27 z w2 g@$®2 / �$ �- N 22\}cr.. 0E 0 G 0 - $ c CL o : 0 a o ° E E § okJv3�d�fl 6 \G\ 0/O 0) C $\9 b0N N3& kC co CkU) COO �0\ Lh E— C:) $/72 /\0 O&/ k�\ $$/ &/6 \06\ k0k /\\ 0ob�k %f\� $$44 &7p Off/ r,:C)C-4\ cq /&/� OQ�\ �IoN $oN 04 0 //-a �0 #/\_ \b0� 00?d\ $$\® 4.�/ qoCy) � %Ck\ ¥ #q \\�\ 0rC� \\\ � / _ EXHIBIT E �w} ii -'i77 i .............. 4,. �. ._ m .. _ _ s %. .S _ — r. _ _.� —............. (Ord. 4722, 5-11-1998; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002) Page 2 EXHIBIT F 4-2-100 ZONING STANDARDS TABLES: d-9-11 nA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures RC R-1 R4 R-8 SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard 30 ft.6 30 ft.6 30 ft .-B-12, 13 except 15 ft. 6--for where small lot primary clusters 10 are structure.20 ft. allowed, R-8 for attached standards shall apply. garages Unit with Alley Access accessed from Garage: The front front or side yard setback of the yard street. primary structure may Unit with Alley be reduced to 20 ft. if Access Garage: all parking is provided The front yard in the rear yard of the setback of the lot with access from a primary public right-of-way or structure may alley.6 be reduced to 10 ft. if all parking is provided in the rear yard of the lot with access from a public right-of-way or alley.6 Minimum Side Yard Along 30 ft.' 20 ft.' 20 ft.12,13 except 15 ft.7 for the a Street where small lot primary clusters 10 are structure and 20 allowed, 15 ft. is ft. for attached allowed. garages which access from the front aR4-Qr side yard along a street. Minimum Side Yard 25 ft. 15 ft. 15 combined ft.12,13 5 ft. is allowed with a minimum of 5 ft. for any side yard, except where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 5 ft. Minimum Rear Yard 35 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. !a 20 ft. Where small lot clusters 10 are allowed, 20 ft. Clear Vision Area On no case shall In no case shall a I In no case shall a In no case shall Page 1 EXHIBIT F a structure over structure over 42 structure over 42 in. in a structure over 42 in. in height in. in height intrude height intrude into the 42 in. in height intrude into the into the 20 ft. clear 20 ft. clear vision area intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision vision area defined defined in RMC 4-11- 20 ft. clear area defined in in RMC 4-11-030. 030. vision area RMC 4-11-030. defined in RMC 4-11-030. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the setback from the landscaped street property street property line. street property line. setback from line. the street property line. Page 2 £XIJIBIT G &t y« � R < C � CO < CD f k _ � , f ) k \ u \ @ [ \ / �\ 2 2 [ \\ / � ( � \\ ( � \ \ § }\\ 2 2 E �] 2 f Cƒe \ > o E ] f } /�� \\) [ £ a ) a �\ \ 2 U x\ ƒ� o �- w k } a f EXHIBIT H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Me reer lslaiO cs -4 % I -A t R -L�4mm,4 f IF— Xii�wr Lake Economic Development, Legend Neighborhoods and Streams Classification Strategic Planning TYPE — 1 - I Alex Pietsch, Administrator 2s: A. Johnson, Planning Technician —2-Cas 2 3 - Class 3 6, d v -I i it I R PI, ter i - ) 2 J t G: C.1 z n "c! -3. 4-Class 4 ed Nc� 'warr-.n. es c: an v -s":� t�',rg nut lv,. <z' <V Streams and Lakes December 4, 2007 N 0 1,800 3,600 7,200 IV Feet 1:60,000 I Design OvArIav E EXHIBIT J 4-4-08OF PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS: USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES RESIDENTIAL USES IN DOWNTOWN CORE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income elderly: 1 for every 3 dwelling units. Detached dwellings(existing le al per unit (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007) Printed on 01/10/2008 Page 1 NOW ��y o ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ',1= %) PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 14, 2007 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket File 06-10 — Household Pets and Keeping Animals DESCRIPTION: As part of this years docket work program, City code regarding the keeping of animals is being reviewed. Residents have expressed a desire to keep animals like chickens and pigeons on their property. The categorization of animals as a zoning use is also being considered. Staff surveyed other cities in the region in order to evaluate Renton's standards in the keeping of animals. RECOMMENDATION: • Amend the definition and revise some standards in City code regarding household pets and so that the keeping of animals is an accessory use. Amend the definitions of small, medium, and large domestic animals so that they are defined by the lot size required to keep the animals. • Amend City code to allow the keeping of small lot domestic animals on lots that are at least 6,000 square feet, medium lot domestic animals on lots that are at least 12,500 square feet, and large lot domestic animals on lots that are at least one acre in size. • Change the Hobby Kennel license to an Additional Animals Permit, amend the maximum number of cats/dogs allowed with the license to six (6), clarify the factors considered by which the additional animals may be kept, and institute a revocation policy. BACKGROUND: The keeping of animals in general and as pets is important to many residents of the City. The current code has precluded some residents from legally keeping animals that they wished to keep because they did not have a one acre sized lot. The City would like to be responsive to residents hAednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc M RM Ray Giometti Page 2 of 8 November 14, 2007 concerns, anticipate future needs and desires regarding the keeping of animals, and ensure the keeping of animals does not cause detriment to neighboring properties. Staff presented issues and asked for feedback from the Planning Commission on September 26 and October 10, 2007. Staff has also had two meetings with animal control officers, on August 28 and October 23, 2007. The second meeting with animal control also included members of the Development Services department. The recommendations that are presented represent a balance of residents' requests, what Development Services and Animal Control regard as being reasonable and enforceable, and what Long Range Planning regards as being solid policy. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. What should City policy be regarding the keeping of animals? 2. What number of animals should be allowed, and should there be a greater number allowed for residents with larger lots? ANALYSIS: Currently, the City of Renton code regarding animals places the keeping of animals in the zoning use table. Types of keeping of animals are defined and allowed in specified zones. For example, the keeping of three household pets are allowed in all zones. The keeping of animals like chickens, goats, etc. is defined as animal husbandry. The animal husbandry animals are grouped by size, and the keeping of them is only allowed in certain residential zones. Any animal husbandry is only allowed on parcels that are at least one acre in size. Code allows twenty small animals, four medium animals, and two large animals. Those animals defined in the current code as Large Animals included are: horses, ponies, cows, llamas, oxen, buffalo, and deer; Medium Animals are: sheep and pigs; and Small Animals are: chickens, ducks, and geese. If the ratios of the number of animals allowed in animal husbandry on one acre are calculated down they present a base from which a revised standard may be implemented. The keeping of large animals on lots smaller than one acre was not considered to be healthy for the animals or compatible with neighboring properties. Calculations for medium animals showed application of the same standard would allow one animal to be kept on lots that were 11,000 square feet. The application of the standards for small animals would allow one animal on lots smaller than 2,500 square feet. The City recently amended the standards for large animals to allow large animals per one acre because those animals tend to be companion animals. This same logic follows with small and medium animals; it would be inappropriate to apply these calculations down to what would allow one animal. Therefore, the recommendations are to allow two and three animals with larger minimum lot size requirements. Staff conducted a survey of other cities in Puget Sound to evaluate their policies regarding the keeping of animals (attachment A). The information gathered included how many dogs and cats can be kept, if birds like chickens and pigeons are allowed and the associated standards, and any other notable policies. The regulations of fourteen local cities and King County were examined. In general, it appears that with the regulations as they currently exist, the City of Renton is in the middle of the spectrum. There are some cities that are more liberal with their policies and others h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc Ray Giometti ,Page 3 of 8 November 14, 2007 that are more restrictive. For example, King County, SeaTac, Shoreline, and Woodinville are more liberal with household pets and make a distinction between indoor and outdoor animals and allow citizens to keep as many indoor animals as they wish. More restrictive measures are things such as Bellingham's requirement for a much greater distance between accessory animal buildings being required to be at least 50 feet from the property line. RECOMMENDATIONS: Amended Definitions: With the feedback and insight provided, staff is recommending that the City implement an amended definition of household pets. Also, to revise the definition of small, medium, and large domestic animals so that they are defined as animals that require a certain lot size rather necessarily the size of the animal. The proposed definitions are below: Accessory Uses: Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot. Some accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses are determined by the Development Services Division on a case -by -case basis per RMC 4-2-050C4 and C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses. Household Pets: Animals that are generally kept as a part of a household and for the purpose of companionship. These animals are to include: dogs, cats, rabbits, caged indoor birds, small rodents, non- venomous reptiles and amphibians weighing less than ten pounds, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. Small Lot Domestic Animals: Animals that require at least 6,000 gross square feet lot size; to include chickens, pigeons, rabbits, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. Medium Lot Domestic Animals: Animals that require at least 12,500 gross square feet lot size; to include, ducks, geese, sheep, miniature goats that are smaller than twenty- four inches (24") at the shoulder and/or not more than 150 pounds in weight, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. Large Lot Domestic Animals: Animals that require at least one acre lot size; to include horses, ponies, donkeys, cows, goats, llamas, oxen, pigs, and other animals of similar size and characteristics as approved by the Development Services Director. hAednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc M CM Ray Giometti Page 4 of 8 November 14, 2007 Commercial Stables: A land use on which large lot domestic animals are kept for sale or hire to the public. Breeding, boarding, or training of large lot domestic animals may also be conducted. The animals that are included in these lot size groupings are all grouped by the lot size that animal control stated is a reasonable minimum for those animals, not necessarily by the size of the animal. For example, pigs were previously defined as a medium animal because of their size. With the new method of classifying animals by the size lot that is needed to adequately care for the animal, pigs are placed in the large lot domestic animal group because they require a substantial amount of land. New Definitions: With the feedback and specific requests from animal control, staff is also recommending that the City implement new definitions regarding animals. These new proposed definitions are below: Additional Animals Permit: A conditionally granted permit for the keeping of household pets and/or domestic animals at greater numbers than allowed outright. For dogs, cats, and/or combinations of dogs and cats the maximum number allowable with this permit is six (6). Animals kept in small animal hospitals, clinics, pet shops, or grooming services are excluded from this definition. Domestic Animals: Animals that have been bred to be tame, are dependent on human intervention for food and shelter, and are kept continually at the premises of the owner. These animals include: large lot domestic animals, medium lot domestic animals, and small lot domestic animals, and other animals as approved by the Development Services Director. Bees, peafowl, and roosters are excluded from this definition Animal Foster Care Provider: A homeowner and/or tenant who cares for an animal or animals not considered their household pet/pets on a temporary basis that is not longer than 120 days per animal. Occasional Breeder: An owner/tenant with household pets that has a single litter no more frequently than one time every two years and keep the offspring no longer than 120 days. Number of Animals Allowed It is recommended that the number of household pets allowed be three. When lots are larger than 20,000 square feet, one additional household animal per 10,000 square feet in additional lot size would be allowed to be kept. With a slightly revised definition of household pets and a possibility for escalation in allowable numbers when people have larger lots, there is a greater amount of flexibility to citizens in the type of animals they keep, but it does not dramatically change the existing regulations and allowances. This change would allow greater flexibility for those who have the capacity in their lot size to keep additional animals without impacts to h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc Ray Giometti ,Page 5 of 8 November 14, 2007 neighbors who live in the area. The requirement to obtain a Hobby Kennel license (revised to Additional Animals Permit) when keeping four to six dogs and/or cats, or combinations of dogs and cats, would remain in place regardless of lot size. In regards to small lot, medium lot, and large lot domestic animals it is recommended that the following standards be applied: • Small lot domestic animals — 3 allowed on lots that larger than 6,000 square feet and 1 additional small lot animal allowed per 2,000 square feet in additional lot size. • Medium lot domestic animals — 2 allowed on lots that are larger than 12,500 square feet and 1 additional medium lot animal allowed per 7,500 square feet in additional lot size. • Large lot domestic animals — 2 allowed on lots that are larger than one acre and 1 additional large lot animal allowed per 20,000 square feet in additional lot size. Additional Animals Permit Current City code has a Hobby Kennel License that is used when people wish to keep 4 or more dogs and/or cats subject to certain criteria. It is recommended this set of criteria and process be expanded to allow for the keeping of greater numbers of animals other than just dogs and cats. Citizens would be allowed outright to keep animals in the numbers as explained previously, but when they wished to keep a greater number they would be required to apply for an Additional Animals Permit. The factors considered in the application that were in place for hobby kennels has been modified to reflect the keeping of animals other than dogs and cats. Some new factors have been added to reflect concerns that neighbors may have as pointed out by animal control and development services. The proposed factors are as follows: 1. The keeping of additional animals will not have an adverse effect on abutting or adjacent properties or cause a detriment to the community. 2. Past history of animal control complaints regarding animals kept by the applicant. 3. Facility and rear yard specifications/dimensions that ensures the health and safety of the animals and confines the animals to the owners property. The facility for medium lot and large lot domestic animals must include a grassy or vegetated area. 4. Animal size, type, and characteristics of breed. 5. Manner in which the animal waste will be managed. 6. The zoning classification of the premises on which the keeping of additional animals is to occur. 7. If the application is for the keeping of additional large lot animals, a copy of an adopted farm management plan that is based on King County Conservation District's Farm Conservation and Practice Standards and shows that there is adequate pasturage to support a greater number of animals shall be provided. 8. Compliance with the requirements of RMC 4-4-010, Standards and Review Criteria for Keeping Animals. h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animalAissue paper.doc M Ray Giometti Page 6 of 8 November 14, 2007 If Development Services deems it prudent, an Animal Control officer shall inspect the property of the applicant in order to ensure the humane and appropriate care of the animals. Ultimately, the number of animals allowed with an Additional Animals Permit is at the discretion of the Reviewing Official and/or the Animal Control Officer. Other changes in the code regarding the Additional Animals Permit include the applicability of the license. The Permit also institutes a revocation policy. The Additional Animals Permit can only be held by an individual and only at the address that the permit was approved for. If a person moves from the address approved, but keeps their animals they would be required to apply again in order to ensure that their new location and facility is suitable to keep additional animals. Finally, a revocation clause is instituted so that a person can have their Additional Animals Permit revoked if an investigation finds that the provisions of the section are not upheld. Keeping Animals Regulations Household pets and domestic animals are almost always kept in a fashion that makes them an accessory use to either residential or commercial land use. For example, a person keeps a cat in their apartment or a bookstore keeps a cat in the store. The apartment or bookstore is the primary use and the cat is accessory. The first sentence of the definition of accessory uses opens with the statement that accessory uses are, "Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use". The next part of the first sentence is proposed to be amended to clarify that accessory uses are only associated with the lot where the principal use occurs, so that it reads, "and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot". Circumstances that make the keeping of animals a primary use are generally when a person engages in a for profit endeavor, such as boarding or stables. There are proposed changes to the code to clarify when keeping animals is accessory and when it is not. The definition of household pets are kept as a part of a household, other proposed code changes include amending subpart b and c of the keeping of animals section to read: B. Applicability: The keeping of household pets and/or domestic animals up to the maximum number allowed in section 4-4-010 and/or section 4-9-100 Additional Animals Permit by an owner/tenant for the purpose of enjoyment is permitted outright as an accessory use to residential or commercial use subject to the requirements of this section and section 4-5-050A Accessory Use. The keeping of such animals in a manner consistent with the standards in this chapter shall not constitute a nuisance or public disturbance in accordance with RMC 1-3-3 and RMC 8-7-3. F. Home Occupations: The keeping of household pets or domestic animals for the purposes of sale, boarding, or any for -profit venture in all residential and mixed use zones requires a Home Occupation permit. Any owner/tenant who keeps household pets and/or domestic animals and sells any animal related product made from or produced by their household pets and/or domestic animals shall be required to obtain a Home Occupation permit. Keeping animals for commercial purposes that exceed the h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc Ray Giometti .Page 7 of 8 November 14, 2007 standards of a Home Occupation accessory use requires approval pursuant to RMC 4-2- 060 Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations. Finally, staff recommends combining the general requirements for the keeping of animals and the additional requirements for hobby kennels. This change helps address potential concerns with allowing small and medium lot animals to be kept on lots that are smaller than one acre. Provisions such as a requirement for animal to be properly managed and food waste being removed regularly so as to keep the area free from rodents and insects and to prevent foul odors. The general requirements as proposed would include: 1. Shelter Location: Shelters, pens, and permanent or temporary kennel structures shall be located a minimum of ten feet (10') from any property line and in the rear yard unless the Development Services Division, based upon information provided by an owner/tenant, determines that a side yard would be a better location for the shelter, pen, and/or kennel. a. Barns and Stables: Private barns and stables shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line. Barns and stables may not be located in attached garages or carports. All structures, corrals, feeding, exercising, training, riding or other facilities associated with commercial horse and pony boarding, riding stables, and schools shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') from any property line. 2. Confinement: All animals shall be kept and maintained in a manner that confines their movement and activity to the premises of the owner/tenant. 3. Health and Safety: All animals shall be kept in such a manner so as not to create any objectionable noise, odor, or otherwise cause to annoy or become a public nuisance to the health, safety or general welfare of any person. Provision shall be made to ensure that animal food stored outdoors will not attract rodents or insects. 4. Animal Waste and Food Waste: All shelter structures, confinement areas, and/or open -run areas shall be kept clean. Animal waste shall be properly disposed of, and any accumulated animal waste must not be stored within the shelter setback area. Any storage of animal waste must not constitute a nuisance as defined in chapter 11-33 RMC. Provision shall be made for the removal of animal and food wastes so that the confinement area and shelter are kept free from infestation of insects, rodents, or disease, as well as to prevent obnoxious or foul odors. 5. Fencing: All open -run areas shall be surrounded by a fence of a minimum height specified by Animal Control and/or Development Services and located a minimum of ten feet (10') from any property lines. Electric and barbed wire fences may be used to confine animals provided the conditions of RMC 4-4-040, Fences and Hedges, are met. a. Open -run areas for dogs shall be surrounded by a fence that measures at minimum six feet (6') in height. b. On lots that are larger that one gross acre in size, open -run areas may be located closer than ten feet (10') to a property line if the open -run fence area is no closer than one hundred feet (100') to any dwelling unit and the location is approved by Development Services. hAednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animaMissue paper.doc E5 Ray Giometti Page 8 of 8 November 14, 2007 Other Code Changes Staff recommends code changes to the Home Occupation section to allow for certain outdoor storage and accessory structures when they are used for the keeping of animals that are used as a component of the home occupation. For example, a household that keeps four dogs for breeding would be allowed to have an outdoor kennel area for the dogs as an allowable part of the home occupation. All other recommended changes are to amend the use tables to strike instances when household pets and domestic animals are cited as a land use. These uses will be regulated as an accessory use in all zones so it is not necessary to list the activity on the land use charts. Also, to amend references throughout Title IV where "Hobby Kennel License" is used so that it reads "Additional Animals Permit" and instances where animals are referred to as Large, Medium, and/or Small Domestic so that they read Large, Medium and/or Small Lot Domestic. Appeals Available The Hobby Kennel License is a Type II land use permit and the revision of the title to Additional Animals Permit will not change the land use permit type. As a Type II land use permit the Additional Animals Permit will have available: an open record appeal to the Hearing Examiner, a closed record appeal to City Council, and judicial appeal. h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2007\06-10 animals\issue paper.doc ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT ISSUE: How can the City simplify the regulations in effect for the downtown area? RECOMMENDATION: • Eliminate the Downtown Core overlay and extend the development standards from the overlay into entire Center Downtown (CD) zone • Amend the City Center sign regulation boundary to be consistent with the District `A' Urban Center Design regulations • Expand the Downtown Pedestrian District overlay • Simplify parking requirements for downtown BACKGROUND: Properties within the CD zoning designation are subject to a complex set of rules and regulations for development. Within the CD zone there are multiple overlays that affect zoning and development regulation: CD zone regulations, Downtown Core Overlay, Pedestrian District Overlay, City Center Sign Regulations, and Urban Design Regulations (District `A'). Each layer of regulations covers a different geographical area. This patchwork of regulations is difficult to implement and enforce and gives rise to questions of fairness. Urban Center- Downtown policies in the Comprehensive Plan identify the need to plan for these different districts of Renton's downtown. It is important to review existing regulations in attempt to create a comprehensive set of regulations to effectively regulate downtown development according to adopted policy and Council direction. CD Zoning and Development Regulations- This is the base zone in which the Downtown Core and Pedestrian District Overlays are applied. The land area currently mapped in the CD zone is Downtown Core Overlay- This overlay provides more urban development standards and regulations within the CD zone. Affected standards include: lot coverage, minimum front yard, minimum side yard along a street, minimum required on -site landscaping width along a street front, and required parking location. The Downtown Core standards should be extended throughout the CD zone, to create uniformity and fairness. -I- Parking- Parking requirements in RMC 4-4-080 are also regulated by criteria based on location within or outside the downtown core and use. In general, all uses in the Downtown Core are subject to a parking standard of one space per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Several uses are exempted from this standard, and revert to the parking requirements set for outside the Downtown Core. The reasoning behind this complex system is not readily apparent. Additionally, there are gaps in the parking regulations where a standard is specified for uses outside of the Downtown Core, but not within the Core for residential uses such as congregate residences, detached dwellings, and bed and breakfast houses. (Bed and breakfast houses present an additional problem because they are listed as "residential uses" in the parking regulations, but are listed as "service" uses on the use tables in RMC Chapter 4-2.) Simplification of the parking code is necessary. Pedestrian District Overlay- This overlay limits the uses allowed on the ground floor of buildings within the CD zone. It is administered through use table notes 3 and 16 and prohibits the following uses (if on the ground floor): adult family home, congregate residences, retirement residences, group homes (all categories), family day care, convalescent centers, parking garages, laboratories (research and development), light manufacturing, and attached dwellings. The Planning Commission recommends expanding this Pedestrian District Overlay. ------- Downtown Core Area Pedestrian Designation Development and Parking Standards Differences Within and Outside the Downtown Core Within Outside of Downtown Core Downtown Core Development Standards Lot Coverage None 65% of lot area, or 75% if parking is within a structured garage Minimum Front Yard None 10 feet for the first 25 feet of height, and 15 feet for anything over 25 feet high Minimum Side Yard on a Street None 10 feet for the first 25 feet of height, and 15 feet for anything over 25 feet high Minimum On -site Landscaping None 10 feet Width Along the Street Frontage Required parking location If abutting an alley- parking must be in the rear with alley access -2- Parking Standards Within Downtown Outside of Downtown Core Core Bed and Breakfast houses 1 per room, not allowed in the required setback Congregate Residences 1 per sleeping room, 1 for the proprietor and 1 for every 4 employees Banks 1 space per 1,000 Minimum is .4 per 1,000 square feet square feet net floor net floor area and Maximum is .5 per area 1,000 square feet net floor area Daycare, Adult Daycare 1 space per 1,000 1 per employee and 2 loading spaces square feet net floor within 100 feet for every 25 clients area Motels 1 space per 1,000 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 square feet net floor employees area Medical/Dental Office 1 space per 1,000 .5 per 100 square feet net floor area square feet net floor area General Office 1 space per 1,000 Minimum 3 per 1,000 square feet net square feet net floor floor area, Maximum 4.5 per 1,000 area square feet net floor area Eating and Drinking 1 space per 1,000 1 per 100 square feet net floor area Establishments and Taverns square feet net floor area Retail Sales 1 space per 1,000 Maximum .4 per 100 square feet net square feet net floor floor area area On Site Services, except: 1 space per 1,000 Maximum .4 per 100 square feet net square feet net floor floor area clothing, shoes sales and repair, area .2 per 100 square feet net floor area furniture, hardware, household equipment, and uncovered commercial areas .05 per 100 square feet retail sales area, plus the amount required for the building Detached dwellings Minimum 2 per unit, tandem parking allowed. Maximum 4 vehicles on the lot unless in an enclosed building. Attached dwellings 1 per unit 1.8 per 3 bedroom unit or larger 1.6 per 2 bedroom unit or larger 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio unit Attached dwellings for low 1 per three units (Not specified- reverts to attached income or elderly dwelling standard above?) -3- n cm City Center Sign Regulations- Much of the sign code is administered with a dual standard based on location inside or outside the "City Center." The "City Center" designation includes a much larger area than the CD zone, but does not include the entire CD zone. There are many problems with the existing sign code. Plans are also underway for a downtown way -finding program. Any sign code changes should be coordinated with this program to ensure consistency between the plans that are underway and any future sign code changes. As a result, reworking of the sign code is a very large task best assigned its own work program. However, amendment of the "City Center" boundary to be coterminous with the Urban Center Design District `A' boundary would provide an interim solution. 3. Mop of CITY CENTER SIGN REGULATION BOUNDARIES: Sign Regulation Boundary Urban Design Regulations- The entire CD zone is within the same Urban Design Regulation district (District `A'). There is no difference in standards based on location within the Downtown Core Overlay or the Pedestrian District Overlay. It is not necessary to review this section of code, unless there is serious consideration of integrating standards from elsewhere in the code to the Design Regulations for topics such as District `A' does provide a useful boundary that can be used in other places in the code for the implementation of special regulations for the downtown area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: Review of the proposed changes highlights several key policy issues for further consideration. One of the biggest changes proposed is to eliminate the distinction between lands inside and outside of the Downtown Core within the CD zone. At the current time, there are two different standards for development; the standards within the downtown core area demand a compact, urban form and the standards outside the core allow for a more suburban form of development. This is accomplished by different standards for parking, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. The Renton Comprehensive Plan clearly favors urban scale and urban form for the Center Downtown. Objective LU-NN, and supporting policies LU-211 and LU-214 direct the City to create a downtown that is consistent with the centers criteria in the Countywide Planning Policies and thus provides for urban form and capacity, as well as efficient land use. Policy LU-214 specifically notes that even in areas where the market is not ready to support urban style development, the City should plan for infill that will eventually achieve this form. If the City continues to permit suburban style infill, the downtown core will never convert into a true urban center, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies. As a result, Comprehensive Plan policies support changes to make the downtown area more urban in form and function. Related to the issue of urban development is the issue of parking. Urban areas provide few opportunities for surface parking for individual buildings or sites. Instead, parking tends to be clustered and structured, with very few surface parking stalls, and some on -street parking. Comprehensive Plan Objective LU-SS for the Urban Center Downtown calls for efficient parking, with policies LU-235, LU-236, and LU-238 calling for structured parking, joint parking arrangements, and a variety of alternatives to on -site parking arrangements. Reduced parking requirements would be consistent with this set of policies. Many of the proposed changes will expand the current downtown core regulations to the entire CD zone, thus eliminating the need for a special downtown core designation. However, most of the regulations that apply "within the downtown core" read as "none." Development regulations typically restrict the building envelope of the site, specifying limits on height, lot coverage, or setbacks. In the CD zone, those types of limits should be discouraged because they prevent the efficient utilization of the land, which is a key component of a successful urban environment. However, some standards are needed to ensure the development of a safe and pleasant environment. Urban Center- Downtown Objectives LU-VV and LU-WW and related policies direct the City to ensure high visual and physical quality in the CD zone. Likewise, the Community Design Element specifically identifies policies for creating attractive streetscapes, landscaping, signage and lighting. These policies should direct the development standards for the CD zone, which may include developing some new standards to ensure a high quality urban environment. CONCLUSION: Changes to improve the development regulations affect the downtown would be an improvement over the status quo: permitting would be more efficient, regulations would encourage urban form and efficiency throughout the CD zone, and the changes would support adopted policies in the Comprehensive Plan. - 5 - 2w-'Cc C c 0 C7 ZQzL °� ou:n `�s.? c c Wp?� g C O aa� v O °_u° ppn.cU C t E.c vL L O cp .^ tom• ii rF.� O Q t7 3 N •d c3 =U °— C T C •-- •._�+ ,[.�J] p GL U ^c� r_ t C U (x ;C p 0. C'n C O• WZovnv eo ��G]Ya O .= 0U o c06�U 4-o� FOWOF'W�`^.'9ai 0 o0 Uaoo c c y cQ•� c� UUZW .T.N �'� V E>cl cNF, O aF C O QU.yL z .Z N { %: W d 4 iU i '4yo ON � b�l o'A aclo ��� C�s A Q+ ai cl ct +�-' i—I O O, cn -aa = +� cn OOG� 3cn w .P.4 o awn P.M N O 0 y cl o crj .p Vx1A N� CA.- Con;� pF" �Uw N ;1I bA 1�1 a p cJ .a bA U � O Clv) w bA C m Oto r Cl - O� r" o -.u,3 r-o a� as 0 aad a�U cz o �H 3 H w M. t0b-r,We 1 &r utt .genda Item No r RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING ' c PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) 5. CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE:j "zo 0 PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 Name: �gr� 5 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: cf,51c) City Zip Code Topic: 2 Name: 6 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 3 Name: 7 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 4 Name: 8 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) (Continued from Reverse Side - Page 2) 1 RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 9 Name: 13 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 10 Name: 14 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 11 Name: 15 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 12 Name: 16 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: -r- CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 4th day of February, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - Title IV Docket Items: 1) Housekeeping Amendments Group I 2) Animals Regulations 3) Center downtown Code Amendments All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Account No. 50640 N o-h ce s lri �v ctirc� �oR �r► i/as/aoo7. (2) MN rn cn O c rn cD m N N y N C ^ ^ O L N N gL il-co LO N O O aco 00 N Q 0) < y o`E E > C c UX1' O O N it (D J; U) U) N u') c 0 C O 0 O C > a L d 0 E C y Z H Page 1 of 1 law Michele Neumann - Feb 4th Hearing From: Erika Conkling To: Neumann, Michele Date: 1/25/2008 10:31 AM Subject: Feb 4th Hearing CC: Lind, Rebecca; Subia, Judith Attachments: 06-29 Party of Record List.xls Michelle - Sometime next week I plan on sending you a handout for the Hearing we are having on February 4th on amendments to the Downtown Code. We have a couple parties of record on this issue that should probably get notice of the hearing. I have included them on the list below. I figured you would probably need these prior to the deadline for the handout. Erika Conkling, Senior Planner City of Renton Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 voice: (425) 430-6578 fax: (425) 430- 7300 email: ecorikling;aici.renton.wa.us file: //C:ADocuments and Settings\MNeumann\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4799BA7D... 1/25/2008 `ow m CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 4th day of February, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - Title IV Docket Items: 1) Housekeeping Amendments Group I 2) Animals Regulations 3) Center downtown Code Amendments All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Wednesday, January 23, 2008 Account No. 50640 14, 2008 .sole Renton City Council Minutes *,e Page 14 CAG: 06-069, Rainier Ave S, Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an amendment to Hardie Ave SW & SW 27th CAG-06-069, agreement with Sound Transit, to formalize revised commitments St/Strander Blvd Funding, relative to the Rainier/Hardie Ave. Arterial Improvement Project and the Union Sound Transit Pacific Railroad Relocation Project. Council concur. Vacation: Queen Ave NE, Technical Services Division reported receipt of appraisal performed for the Newfourth, VAC-07-003 vacation of portion of Queen Ave. NE (formerly 128th Ave. SE), south of NE 4th St., and requested Council accept the appraisal and set compensation at $7,000 for the right-of-way. (VAC-07-003; petitioner Newfourth, LLC) Council concur. Utility: West Coast Technical Services Division recommended acceptance of a quitclaim deed from Preliminary Plat, Quitclaim The Kenny for additional Hoquiam Ave. NE right-of-way related to the West Deed, Hoquiam Ave NE Coast Preliminary Plat (PP-04-149) due to an error in King County's records. Council concur. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning & DeveloDment Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review p 4 MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing for 2/4/2008 on the following three items within the Title IV docket: 1) Housekeeping Amendments Group I 2) Animal Regulations 3) Center Downtown Code Amendments The Title IV docket referral will remain in Committee for further consideration. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Finance: Vouchers Claim Vouchers 267234 - 268245 and seven wire transfers totaling $8,941,297.21; and approval of 258 Payroll Vouchers, two wire transfers, and 1,359 direct deposits totaling $4,416,247.72. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3925 A resolution was read approving the Cassidy Cove Final Plat; approximately Plat: Cassidy Cove, NE 4th St, 68.05 acres located in the vicinity of NE 4th St. and Monroe Ave. NE. FP-07-115 MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3926 A resolution was read approving the Barbee Mill Final Plat; approximately 22 Plat: Barbee Mill, Lake WA acres located in the vicinity of Lake Washington Blvd. N., N. 40th Pl., Williams Blvd N, FP-07-109 Ave. N., and N. 42nd Pl. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: �� ° T COUNCIL NCIL Date �-�y aoo8 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE REPORT January, 14, 2008 City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket (Referred May 14, 2007) May 14, 2007 ***Vl Renton City Council Minutes -*a**, Page 170 in City government but do not have the time to do the work needed to be elected to Council. Noting that competition is healthy, he pointed out that the more that people are involved, the better it is for the City. Citizen Comment: Payson - Sandy Payson, Senior Vice President of Advertising of King County Official Newspaper Publications, Ltd. dba Renton Reporter, 600 Washington Ave. S., Kent, 98032, requested review of the Administration's recommendation to designate The Seattle Times as the City's official newspaper. Mr. Payson indicated that the Renton Reporter has two purposes: to provide a backwards and forwards forum for the community voice and to be an economic bulletin board. He pointed out that in Renton, the Renton Reporter's circulation and the coverage is greater than The Seattle Times'. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmembers, items 8.b. and 8.f. were removed for separate consideration. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of May 7, 2007. Council concur. 5/7/2007 Development Services: Code Development Services Division requested authorization to fill the new Code Compliance Inspector Hire at Compliance Inspector position at Step E of the salary schedule. Council concur. Step E Annexation: New Life - Aqua Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Barn, Maple Valley Hwy submitted a 10% Notice of Intent to Annex petition for the proposed New Life - Aqua Bam Annexation, and recommended a public meeting be set on 6/4/2007 to consider the petition; 285 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. Planning: Development Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department Regulations (Title IV) 2006 requested approval to initiate the annual 2006 Title IV (Development Docket Review-y4 1 Regulations) docket review. Refer to Planning and Development Committee and Planning Commission. Human Resources: Lead Parks Human Resources and Risk Management Department recommended approval of Maintenance Worker Position the Lead Parks Maintenance Worker position at Grade 16, Step A; monthly salary of $3,971 - $4,834. Council concur. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEMS 8.b. and 8.f. FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. CARRIED. Separate Consideration City Clerk recommended approval to award the bid designating The Seattle Item 8.b. Times as the City's official newspaper. City Clerk: Official Newspaper Council President Pro Tem Law indicated that he has a number of questions regarding this item, including the lower bid amount from the Renton Reporter and the circulation figures. He noted that the City relies on the Renton Reporter to publish City news on a regular basis, and the publication of City ordinances not only fulfills a legal requirement but also provides a public service. Mr. Law further noted that residents will be forced to subscribe to The Seattle Times if they want to read the City's legal notices, while the Renton Reporter is free. MOVED BY LAW, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL REFER ITEM 8.b. TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. CARRIED. Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board. Staff Contact. Subject: C_,: OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA,.w4LL 1152 Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Rebecca Lind (ext. 6588) 2006 Title IV Docket Report Exhibits: • Issue Paper • 2006 Title IV Docket Summary • Private Applications: 0 06-15: Lee Ibsen, Lee's Towing, Towing uses in IM, IL, and CA zones • 06-17: John Cowan, Amend density and/or lot size in the Residential Single Family designation to allow R-6 zoning • 06-46: David Halinen, Revise Net Density definition to exempt protected slopes created by previous development For Agenda of: May 14, 2007 Agenda Status Consent .............. Public Hearing. Correspondence. Ordinance ............. Resolution ............ Old Business... New Business... Study Sessions...... Information......... Recommended Action: Approvals: Refer to the Planning and Development Committee and Legal Dept......... Planning Commission. Finance Dept...... Other ............... Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required... Transfer/Amendment....... Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated......... Total Project Budget N/A City Share Total Project.. X SUMMARY OF ACTION: Begin the 2006 docket review for the private applications, Mr. Ibsen, File 06-15, and Mr. Cowan, File 06-17, during the 2007 work program and the City generated applications shown on the Docket Summary document with a recommendation of review during the 2007 work program to the Planning Commission and the Planning and Development Committee. Hold private application from Mr. Halmen, File 06-46, to the 2008 work program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Initiate the annual Title IV Docket review. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Agenda Bill.doc 00, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 30, 2007 TO: Toni Nelson, Council President Members of the Renton City Council VIA: Kathy Keolker, Mayor FROM: Alex Pietsch, Administrator STAFF CONTACT: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2006 Title IV Docket Issue: Should the 2006 Title IV Docket be approved? Recommendation: Refer the 2006 Docket to the Planning Commission and Planning and Development Committee with the priorities as shown in the Docket Summary. Background RCW 36.70A.470 provides that when a deficiency in a Comprehensive Plan or Development Regulation is identified during project review, a jurisdiction is required to "docket" the item for consideration during an annual review process. This section of state law also requires jurisdictions to include a procedure in Development Regulations for any interested person including citizens, applicants, and staff to suggest plan or Development Regulation amendments. The City of Renton codified this process in RMC 4-9-025, Title IV Development Regulation Revision Process. This section sets forth the process for review of the annual "docket" and requires a summary report with recommendations about a schedule and/or consent to begin work on proposed items by May 1 each year. Staff has compiled a series of amendments to Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code (Development Regulations) that includes oversights made in previous Title IV updates, implements administrative determinations, and initiates several new policy/code review projects. The compiled list of amendments includes 30 housekeeping amendments that have no policy or substantive content, 27 proposed amendments that have minor policy implications or make a non -policy substantive change, and 19 amendments that involve a larger policy based work program. This work program includes only three applications h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2006 docket issue paper.doc Toni Nelson Page 2 of 2 April 30, 2007 from private parties, and City staff initiated the remainder. The private applications are all in the minor policy category. The private applications include a request to consider allowing a towing business in additional zones (06-15: Lee), a request to create an R-6 zone in the City (06-17: Cowan), and a request to exempt man-made slopes from net density calculations (06-46: Halinen). It is recommended that the housekeeping and small policy issues be reviewed and the private application from Lee (06-15) and Cowan (06-17) be reviewed in 2007. The private application from Halinen (06-46) is recommended to be reviewed in 2008. Of the major policy work programs, the landscaping and street tree issues were the top priority for the Development Services Division and it is recommended that these issues be prioritized for review in 2007. The other items recommended for review in 2007 include topics started in prior years but set aside in deference to other issues. Several of the large work program items will need to be held for additional review and development with the Development Services Division prior to initiation of work. Street tree requirements Review in 2007 Landscaping Review in 2007 Eliminate Class 5 Streams Review in 2007 Site Plan Review in IH zone Review in 2007 Assisted Living Review in 2007 Parking in Downtown Core Review parking location in 2007 Undergrounding Review impacts on infill in 2007 hold remainder to 2008 Cottage Housing Review in 2007 (already drafted for Highlands) Design Review for single-family Develop work program for 2008 Design guidelines other zones Develop work program for 2008 Efficiency revisions of land use Develop work program for 2008 Review UCN code Develop work program for 2008 Grading Ordinance Hold to 2008 unless additional staffing is available Street Standards Hold to 2008 unless additional staffing is available Downtown Sign Code Develop work program for 2008 Low Impact/Green Building Review in 2007 Accessory Dwelling Units Develop work program for 2008 Consider using lots size not Defer until major Title IV re -write work is started density h:\ednsp\title iv\docket\2006 docket issue paper.doc City of Renton 2006 Title IV Docket Summary April 30, 2007 Docket One: Housekeenin2 File Source Docketed Item Correction Required Policy Rationale 06- Staff , Housekeeping Housekeeping, see list None. Authorized under 01 EDNSP/ amendments to Title IV. below for specific items RCW 36.70A.470 PBPW This item is a series of amendments that correct inconsistencies or errors in the existing zoning text. This work item has no policy implications 006- Jill Ding, Stream Reclassification, The determination was This amendment 02 PBPW Honey Creek View made by Development implements the Estates Preliminary Plat, Services that this Environment Element Unmapped unmapped stream Policies by updating the requires designation as stream classification map a Class 4 stream 06- Jill Ding, Stream Reclassification, The determination was This amendment 03 PBPW 104th Ave SE and S 32°d made by Development implements the Pl, King County Parcel Services that this Environment Element #32923059010 unmapped stream Policies by updating the requires designation as stream classification map a Class 4 stream 06- Staff, Revise Net Density Detention/retention Review in 2007 04 EDNSP definition to exclude facilities currently are surface water counted toward density detention/retention on a site, but are facilities excluded from the buildable lands methodology 06- Staff, Submittal Requirements Submittal requirements Review in 2007 05 EDNSP for Comprehensive Plan reflect project level Amendments review requirements rather than information needed by the Planning Commission 06- Staff, Amend the purpose The CA,1H, and CO Review in 2007 06 PBPW statement of the zones are mapped in Commercial Arterial and two land use Commercial Office and designations so Industrial - Heavy zones appropriate language to reference the needs to be added to the Employment Area Valley purpose statements to land use as well as the reflect the policy Commercial Corridor guidance of the Employment Area Employment Area designations. Valley and Corridor Commercial land use. H:AEDNSP\Title tV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc *AW List of Housekeeping Amendments, 06-01 1. 4-2-110A, move footnote 6 in R-8 and R-4 zones so that the footnote applies to the "primary structure" rather than "the unit with an alley access garage" 2. 4-11-060 Definitions Floor Area, Gross and Net, correct picture labeled "gross" - current picture depicts "net" 3. 4-8-100H 2a, Numbering 4. 4-1-170A Conditional Approval Permit, delete references in fee schedule. Add Rebuilt Approval Permit (new name) 5. 4-2-010D Residential Multi -Family, change reference RM-V to RM-U 6. 4-2-020R, delete references to COR 3 as the designation is discontinued 7. 4-2-060 Congregate Residence, add to RM zone as Administrative Conditional Use, consistent with the specific use table in 4-2-070 8. 4-2-060L Note 40, change reference "Center Institution" to "Commercial Corridor" 9. 4-2-080A Note 25, check reference to 4-2-060J, should be 4-2-06OG 10. 4-2-080B, map boundaries of Employment Area - Valley (EAV) no longer consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map 11. 4-2-110A, omission of code language permitting construction on pre-existing legal lots 12. Table P-2-74, add note - need rear setback standard added 25 feet 13. Illustration 4-2-110E, narrative needs correction 14. Illustration 4-2-120D, Center Suburban - delete or re -label 15. 4-2-101D Zones Implementing the Comprehensive Plan, amend to add CO as an implementing zone in the UC-D Comprehensive Plan designation 16. 4-2-120F, check heading has the same heading as 4-2-120 C 17. 4-3-040E Automall Improvement Plan, change resolution number to 3457 from 3162 18. 4-3-100I, format and numbering issues 19. 4-4-070H 4 Landscaping, change reference to ANSI Z60.1-2004 20. 4-4-070D3 line 6, change "right or way" to "right-of-way" 21. 4-2-110 A, change language from 20 feet for attached garages which access from the front and side yard along a street. Change to "or" side yard along a street. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc 22. 4-9-170Fb, change "polices" to "policies" (spelling error) 23. 4-10-070, reference to 4-4-01OK should be L (check this section for consistency to new animals code change ordinance) 24. 4-11-020 Definitions Big Box Retail, out of order, clean up language 25. 4-11-040 Definitions Illustration of Net Density, correct illustration 26. 4-11-070 Definitions Illustration of floor area, correct label (says gross should be net) 27. 4-11-070 Definitions Grid -like Street Pattern, clean up language should the term be street pattern modified? Check usage for consistency. 28. 4-2-060D Lodging Home Occupation Should be Administrative Conditional Use, correct in 4-2-070H 29. Drive through business in Downtown Core Standard for queuing should not be in the parking spaces required table 30. Amend Urban Design Regulations to correct references to District A as applying only to the Downtown Core Docket Two: Items with Minor Policy Issues and/or Minor But Substantive Content Changes File Source Docketed`Iem ` "'oyssie •. ,. Policy Rationale/ '. Recommendation 06- Staff, Review minimum density Inconsistent with the Review in 2007 07 EDNSP in COR zone, five Comprehensive Plan dwelling units per net Purpose and Intent of acre intense urban scale develo ment 06- Andrea 4-2-060N Manufacturing Conflict Review in 2007 08 Petzel, and fabrication light not Allowed in 4-2-070M PBPW permitted in CD zone as Hearing Examiner Conditional Use. Determine which is correct 06- Jill Ding/ Revise Code Section 4-8- What are the Review in 2007 09 Laureen 120A, B, and C. appropriate submittal Nicolay, Submittal requirements to requirements for a PBPW require a stream stream mitigation plan? mitigation plan 06- Jennifer Revise Code Section 4-2- Should pets be a "use" Review in 2007 10 Henning, 060B Zoning Use Table within zones or be PBPW and 4-4-01OD Standards allowed as an accessory for Review and Keeping to residential uses? of Animals to remove Should other small "Pets, common animals be considered household" as a use type pets or farm animals? and clarify whether H:\EDNSP\Title 1V\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc M M File rce �Docketel#erncysue ' ;'olietal �' Recommendation ducks, geese, chickens rooster, pigeons, and bunnies are pets or farm animals 06- Planning & Review the height How should height be Review in 2007 11 Development regulations for single regulated in Renton Committee family residential zoning Development designations to eliminate Standards? the requirement for It is recommended that stories and use structure policy be reviewed and height that a code amendment be processed in 2007. 06- Elizabeth Amendments to 4-9-030J. Review of clarity of Review clarity of language 12 Higgins/ Special decision criteria language. Review of and density issues only in Laureen for stand alone residential intent for when 2007. Policy was Nicolay, uses in the NE 4`h, Sunset, conditional use is established with a recent PBPW or Puget Business required and when CA code amendment to Districts stand alone residential only allow stand alone can be allowed. residential in specific areas Review how density is by a Conditional Use calculated when a Permit project has both mixed use and stand alone residential 06- Planning Add a requirement to all Should the City require Review in 2007 13 Commission zones stipulating that use of existing alleys in alleys shall be used for all zones? access where pre-existing alleys exist 06- Jennifer Restriction on produce Current code appears to Review in 2007 14 Henning, stands and farmers prohibit produce stands PBPW markets in all zones and farmers markets in all zones. The Development Services Division made a determination in 2004 to allow this use in the CA, CN, CV, and CD zones. This amendment would codify that determination, and allow review of the broader issue of where mobile vendors/produce stands/farmers markets are appropriate. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc Filc Sau>�ceocktied I#em Policy Issue PalieyRatloaaalel Recommendation 06- Lee Ibsen, Allow towing use in IM, Where in the City Review in 2007 15 Lee's IL, and CA zones subject should towing services Towing to conditions be allowed? Current Service code only allows towing services in the IH zone and the IM zone with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use 06- Laureen Amend 4-2-070J to Check consistency and Review in 2007 16 Nicolay, correct Note 22 and meaning of note PBPW separate fast food relating to lot size and restriction from size use requirements and restrictions in other zones the fast food establishments. 06- John Cowan Amend density and/or lot Does the City want R-6 The Residential Single 17 size provisions in the as an allowed zone in Family designation has a Residential Single Family the Residential Single density range of four to designation to allow R-6 Family (RS) eight dwelling units per zoning designation? The RS acre. designation allows only An R-6 zone could be R-8 zoning. Consider created consistent with the adding R-6 zoning to use district, but would achieve higher quality require additional policy of life. work which could not be done until 2008 06- Elizabeth 4-2-11F Development Eliminate internal Review in 2007 18 Higgins, Standards Residential conflict PBPW Zoning Designations. Development Standards for R-10 exemption for pervious areas to be landscaped 06- Elizabeth 4-2-110F, 70 percent Conflicts with 50 Review in 2007 19 Higgins, coverage of lot by percent standard in PBPW structure Comprehensive Plan Policy LU-174. Which standard is desired? 06- Rebecca Amend out of city sewer Does the City want to Review in 2007 20 Lind, statutes to reference use the Comprehensive EDNSP prezoning Plan or prezoning to issue out of city sewer service availabilities? 06- Neil Watts, Eliminate Class 5 Eliminate this class of Review in 2007 21 PBPW Streams from code stream from the code and re lace it with an H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc OWA CM File`: `Source ` Docketed Iien� PQI><c� Issue 3r lC'alic� Rahlaldl I�eco`mmelift, Ioan , exemption for road side ditches. Correct procedural issues with reclassification of streams (currently requires inclusion on the docket) 06- Laureen Review indoor recreation Where does the City Review in 2007 22 Nicolay, use want to allow indoor PBPW recreation? Current Use Table only allows indoor recreation in the R-4 06- Staff, Parking requirement for What is the desired Review in 2007 23 PBPW retail sales, parking requirement for telecommunications, telecommunications, facilities, and churches facilities, churches, and for retail sales? Current language could be interpreted to eliminate parking requirement for retail sales in 4-4-080F. There is no standard for telecommunications. 06- Staff, Minimum density What is the appropriate Review in 2007 24 PBPW requirement in the CD minimum density in the zone CD zone and how does it effect conversion of existing structures to lower density uses? 06- Staff, Curb cut widths in What is the desired Review in 2007 25 PBPW residential zones curb cut width in residential zones? 06- Laureen Review attached How do we allow and Review in 2007 26 Nicolay, dwelling, townhouse, and classify "attached PBPW semi -attached dwelling units" vs. townhouses? definitions and notations in all zones for consistency 06- Staff, Legal non -conforming Review of conditional Review in 2007 27 PBPW use relief through approval permit Conditional Approval criteria. Permit Change reference to "Rebuild Approval Permit" 06- Staff, Assisted Definitions of Use Review in 2007 H:\EDNSP\Title W\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc File Source Docketed Item . Po°I>tc� Issue Polic�:Ratonale°° Reco mendation 28 EDNSP Living/Retirement Residence 06- Staff, Parking in Downtown Parking Exempt Area Review in 2007 29 EDNSP Core repealed five years ago. Parking location standards in Downtown Core 06- Staff, Lot area definition What is desired Review in 2007 30 PBPW definition? 06- Elizabeth Outdoor Storage as an Eliminate inconsistency Review in 2007 31 Higgins, accessory use in the PBPW purpose statement of the IL zone. 06- Mark Santos- Amend 4-1-210 B, This fee waiver sunsets Review in 2007 32 Johnson, Owner -Occupied October 1, 2007. EDNSP Housing Incentive Council will be asked to consider whether to extend this program 06- Rebecca Amend 4-9-025, Title 4 A better definition of a Review in 2007 33 Lind, Development Regulation "docket" item and a EDNSP Revision Process "major imperative code amendment" is needed. In addition, process requirements including City Clerk notification will be reviewed 06- Staff, Review of zoning auto Should auto sales only Review in 2007 34 EDNSP dealers in the CA zone be in the designated Automall and EAV? H.\PDNSP\Title Ml)ocketQ006 Docket Summary Table.doc M cm Docket Three: Major Policy Issue/Work Program Fife Sburceocketec�3Item lAbi anted'o1 s t�a Pohc ;.Issue E. . 06- Neil Watts, Street Tree Requirements This work program Review in 2007 35 PBPW overlaps with the landscape work program described in the next item 06- Neil Watts, Landscaping and long Landscape issues were Review in 2007 36 PBPW term maintenance partially addressed at the end of 2004. Most landscaping requirements are generated through site plan and preliminary plat review and conditions. This proposed work program would provide a comprehensive review oflandscape requirements. See list below for specific items 06- Staff, Yard definitions, lot What are desired yard Review in 2007. 37 PBPW/ width, lot averaging, and definitions, width Correspondence was EDNSP setbacks from a street or standards, and width received on this issue from Staff, easement for a corner lot averaging rules? Mr. Marc Rousso although PBPW When should "pipestem" a formal application was Pipestem lot and lots be allowed, and not filed. driveway easement should a "pipestem" be standards allowed to be frontage for an additional lot? 06- Neil Watts, Design Review for Single Discuss with Development 38 PBPW Family Homes Services for work program development and prioritization 06- Neil Watts, Expanded Design Current code results in Discuss with Development 39 PBPW Guidelines for other uses some confusion in Services for work program interpretation and development and understanding by staff prioritization and customers. Different standards exist for separate areas of the city. The purpose of the work program would be to simplify the code while retaining its value in requiring quality designed projects f- AMNSPM le [VOocket12006 Docket Summary Table.doc ale Source Doc d+cyoae Po�crissue" 06- Neil Watts, Efficiency revisions of In order to have staff Discuss with Development 40 PBPW land use review processes time with existing Services for work program resources to implement development and improved design prioritization guidelines and new design review standards, process revisions are suggested to eliminate processes which provide limited or no value for creating quality projects. 1. Change mitigation fees to impact fees 2. Complete new surface water manual 3. Raise SEPA thresholds 4. Eliminate SEPA for residential projects 5. Review and revise conditional uses, move applicable Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit to Administrative Conditional Use Permit and Administrative Conditional User Permit to permitted uses 6. Eliminate Hearing Examiner hearings without public attendance - use administrative process • site plans • short plats • preliminary plats 06- Neil Watts, Review and simplify Given lessons learned Discuss with Development 41 PBPW UCN codes including from the Landing project Services for work program connection to conceptual revisit this code and development and Tans improve it rioritization 06- Jill Ding, Amendment to 4-2-120E Should a modification Review in 2007 42 PBPW Development Standards procedure be allowed for for Commercial Zoning setback modification Designations Maximum through the site plan setback requirements review process? H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket�2006 Docket Summary Table.doc M M File Source DaRcketed item Recn_ U# at4t��i01 E 06- Neil Watts, Undergrounding This code is outdated Address the infill issue in 43 PBPW Ordinance and does not provide 2007, but hold the clear guidance on remainder until 2008 project requirements especially for infill projects 06- Neil Watts, Grading Ordinance Overhaul needed to Hold to 2008 unless there 44 PBPW Revisions clarify intent, is additional staffing requirements and procedures for grading a rovals 06- Neil Watts, Street standards Determine what types of Work started several years 45 PBPW Revisions street standards are ago but not completed. appropriate for Renton Hold to 2008 unless there today is additional staffing 06- David Revise Net Density Net development density Review in 2008 46 Halinen Definition to exempt currently requires protected slopes created protected slopes to be by previous development removed from the net developable area. Should the City modify this definition to allow "man-made" slopes to count toward density? 06- Staff, Remove the allowance Do we want single Review in 2008 47 EDNSP for single family uses in family uses to continue the CD zone (sunset in the Center Downtown December 31, 1999) zone? Code inconsistency 06- Staff, Walls with fences and Policy review of Review in 2008 48 PBPW hedges regulations in rear whether the lack of setbacks of interior lots 4- regulation is an 4-040D oversight. 06- Neil Watts, Consider using minimum Eliminate direct use of Requires major 49 PBPW lot size only for single density in code structure amendment to policy family zones eliminating the complex structure of the residential density calculations and sections of the related explanations Comprehensive Plan. Defer until major Title IV re -write work is started K\FDNSP\Title FV\Docket12006 Docket Summary Table.doc CM File Source Docketed Item Recommeiadf�on end , Poiicy,l2atioriale Plic' °Issue 06- Neil Watts, Require Site Plan Review The exemption was Review in 2007 50 PBPW for IH zone codified at the request of PACCAR and Boeing. Site plan provides the mechanism for dealing with parking, circulations, and landsca ing 06- Staff, Downtown Sign Code Followup on Discuss with Development 51 EDNSP Revision Services for work program development and prioritization 06- Staff, Cottage Housing Work was started on a Review in 2007 52 EDNSP draft code during the Highlands work but removed from the package that went forward to Council 06- Staff, Low Impact Work was started in Discuss with Development 53 EDNSP Development and Green prior years but didn't Services for work program Building develop beyond the development and research stage. prioritization Demonstration projects in King County and Seattle provide useful examples 06- Staff, Accessory Dwelling Promised to Council Discuss with Development 54 EDNSP Units last year but not Services for work program completed development and prioritization 06- Staff, Commercial Use CPA for the Rivera Review in 2007 55 EDNSP Requirements in the R-14 property in 2006 zone suggested amending the R-14 zone language for commercial use 07- Staff, Review appeal fees Is the current appeal fee Review in 2007 06- EDNSP of $75 still sufficient? 56 H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc M ZM List 1: Landscape Work Program Decisions Needing to be Made to Direct Long -Term Work Program • What are the City's goals for maintaining, expanding, or slowing the loss of its existing tree canopy? • Does the City want to establish a tree bank, where developers pay into a fund in lieu of tree retention, with the funds being used by the City to plant and maintain tree canopy elsewhere? • What is an acceptable system of regulating maintenance of required landscaping and retained trees? • What is an acceptable penalty for removal or for failure to maintain required landscaping and retained trees? • What level of review should the City provide for tree retention and landscape plans? Which staff are best qualified to perform this review (and from which department)? At which point in the application (and pre -application) process will review take place? • What is a reasonable method of tracking, inspecting, and enforcing tree retention and landscaping plans? • How much flexibility should be built into the standards for landscaping and tree retention, in terms of negotiation, modifications, and/or variances? • What policies and types of regulations should there be for the preservation, planting and removal of street trees? Technical Information to be Collected for Long -Term Program • Standards and approved species list of drought tolerant plants. • Standards and approved species list of trees and plants for different types of landscaping. • Standards and approved species list of trees to plant along right-of-ways that will minimize street and sidewalk problems. • List of nuisance species, and standards for their retention, replacement, and removal. • List of native species and standards for retention, replacement. • Explanation of optimal conditions for tree retention, such as minimum stand size, quality of other natural vegetation, buffer requirements, etc. • Inventory trees and canopy coverage in the City and PAA and determine if there is adequate diversity in age or species. • Determination of most effective methods for protection of trees during construction, including protection from grade changes, impervious surfaces, materials storage, and general root protection/drip line protection, etc. Long -Term Work Program • Complete overhaul of the following sections of code 4-4-070 Landscaping and 4-4-130 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting. This may include: a major reorganization of the existing structure of these sections, fixing imprecise language throughout, fix or provide references to other pertinent sections of code, and move some standards to other sections of the code, etc. • Landscaping related changes that are needed for 4-4-070: create maintenance standards, update the purpose section to reflect current goals, increase the size of required landscaping strips for rear or side yards along streets in residential areas, set landscape standards, set street tree requirements and standards, require landscaped areas around all sides of a parking lot that abut a residential use, set standards for perennial plantings, change the applicability of the code to apply to all land development permits and all use permits, revise the irrigation system requirements to act as standards, ensure that trees are B:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc required on private streets as well as public streets, require landscape installation prior to the approval of the final plat, include standards for the installation and use of hardscape, and set landscaping standards for pipestem lots (many cul-de-sac lots fall under this definition). • Tree Retention related changes needed for 4-4-130 include establishing minimum standards for tree retention, definition of protected tree, establishing a replacement program and replacement standards for the tree retention that falls below the minimum, remove terminology pertaining to developed, undeveloped, and partially developed lots, restrict the allowable minor tree cutting activities, re -write protection standards for retained trees during construction activities, add enforceable provisions to the violations and penalties for removal, review the exemption for tree removal for solar access, and include regulations to prevent tree topping. • Regulate the planting, removal, and preservation of street trees in accordance with City goals and Comprehensive Plan policies. • Clarification of SEPA requirements and when review is required as part of the review of the tree retention plan. • Address how tree retention and landscape requirements work together to achieve the City's and Comprehensive Plan goals for tree canopy. • Require landscape plans and tree retention plans to be created by a qualified professional and define what qualifies as a qualified professional. • Alter subdivision requirements to ensure that tree retention and landscaping requirements are addressed and provided for adequatecy in the subdivision regulations and remove any current loopholes that are preventing this from being done now. Change submittal requirements at 4-8-120 for preliminary and final plats to include necessary plans for landscaping and tree retention. • Require Homeowners Associations to be set up prior to final plat approval. Set standards to ensure the HOA will be required to assume responsibility for landscape maintenance. • Rework street standards in 4-6-060 to better allow for the landscaping strip between the sidewalk and the street. • Revise the allowed modification in 4-6-060 R3a, which allows street widths to be narrowed to 42 feet (from 50 feet) and thus leaves no place for street trees. • Rework submittal requirements and the definitions pertaining to the following permits in 4-8-120: Routine Vegetation Management Permits, Colored Display Maps, Conceptual Landscaping Plan, Detailed Landscaping Plan, Map of Existing Site Conditions, Parking Lot Coverage Landscaping Analysis, Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Plan, Report on Design Criteria for Modification, Short Plat (final and preliminary), Plat (final and preliminary), Site Plan, Commercial, Industrial, and Multifamily, and Site Plan - Shoreline. Ensure that landscaping (detailed and conceptual) and tree retention plans are included as requirements for all land development and use permits. Add lines and definitions for Irrigation System Plan, • Revise 4-9-195 Routine Vegetation Management Permits to provide consistency with tree retention requirements and terminology. • Revise 4-9-151 Weeds, to better regulate noxious weeds and overgrown plant materials city wide, which would require some minimal level of maintenance of vegetation and landscaping. Specific changes include strengthening standards for private property, establishing standards for property in or along the public right-of-way, and providing clarifying language throughout. • Review the following Definitions in 4-11-200: Tree H:IEDNSP\TiSe MDocketQO06 Docket Summary Table.doc CM CM • Require vegetated buffers on all sides of major developments and not just between zones on the development standards tables at 4-2-110. Eliminate requirement to landscape between the same type of use in 4-2-120B, consistent with existing written policy. • Establish consistent and enforceable standards for performance surety devices for landscaping and tree retention plans. • Revise landscaping standards for parking in 4-4-080 F7 to ensure consistency with landscape standards in 4-4-070. • Establish standards for landscaping stormwater facilities in 4-4-070D. Follow-up Measures • Develop a community education and awareness program geared toward maintenance and retention of trees. • Provide an incentive for participation in a Plant Salvage program, where developers allow people to collect vegetation for use in their yards that is slated for removal. • Prepare customer friendly handouts explaining the landscaping and tree retention codes H:TDNSPMtIe IV\Docket\2006 Docket Summary Table.doc CITY CODE TEXT REVISION ,,,JCESS Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning CITY CODE TEXT REVISIONS City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-6588 APPLICANT: Lee Ibsen (see attached) ADDRESS: E-MAIL: PHONE: FAX #: A process has been created to allow you to suggest changes or identify deficiencies in the City's Development Regulations. Please complete the following information. If additional pages are needed, please attach. Code to be revised: Section Explain what you propose to change: Explain why you are requesting this change: (OVER) Title of Section Q:/WEB/PW/DEVSERV/FORMS/PLANNING/coderevision.doc 07/18/f003 n CJ Neil Watts, 4209 N. E. Sunset Blvd., #5 Renton, WA 98059 (425) 255-5545 Office (425) 255-5581 Fax 0EVELOPMEN I SERVICES CITY OF RENTON AUG I i 2g06 My name is Lee Ibsen and I am the owner of Lee's Towing Service L.L.C.. My Company has been in business since 1999, however my family has been in the industry since 1946. My grandfather, Gerald Ibsen started Ibsen Towing in early 1946 in Bellevue and the company has thrived ever since. Over the years we have seen many changes in our industry, however many companies seem to stay in the dark ages as far as the impounding and storage of vehicles are concerned. I am requesting some text revisions to the city code as far as allowing towing companies to operate in a clean and presentable manner. However this process is very lengthy and I fear my company would have to move or close before it could be completed. I am requesting these changes first and for most because I do not want to move or close my business. When I started my company I worked from my home in an unincorporated area just east of the Renton Highlands. As my company grew, the vast majority of my business came from Renton, as such I advertised as being in Renton and acquired a city business license. My company grew fairly rapidly and I earned a reputation in Renton so the only logical thing to do was to find a facility in the city. As I started to explore my options in Renton I found there were very few for my type of business. The properties that were available were much too large and expensive, and the property owners also were unwilling to divide up the property into affordable sizes. After running into this issue I went to see the zoning offices for the cities of Renton, Kent, Issaquah, Bellevue, Kirkland, and New Castle and found that Renton and Kent were very different from the other cities in that Renton and Kent required tow operations to be located on heavy industrial property. However Bellevue and Kirkland said they required tow operations to be on land zoned automotive / Wherehouse and automotive / retail and also included IM-IH-IL as options. Issaquah told us we could go just about any where in their city as long as we gave them a business / development proposal. Newcastle said any where commercial / wherehouse. I found these responses a little disappointing as the city I want to be in seems to have no room for my type of operation, and seems to be out of step with other Eastside Communities. I love operating in Renton, I like the people and the promising growth and redevelopment the city has made in recent years. I do not want to stunt that growth but would rather be a part of it. I feel that my proposal would not only help me but also help Renton as a whole. Maybe if other tow operators see what I'm doing and or not doing, maybe they will follow suit. Tow Trucks are very visible and we travel all over the county, for that matter the state and proudly displayed on the side of our trucks is our city of origin. So in essence I feel we sort of represent our city. Shouldn't we have pride in our equipment and drivers? All I would like is to have a chance to show the towing and recovery industry that the sixties are gone. It's time to change with the times and move out of the dark ages and into the 2 1 " century. Other cities on the Eastside have already made changes and have been benefiting from it and I would like to bring these changes to Renton. Attached to this letter is the text revisions I propose, or I would like to at least obtain a temporary variance under the proposed conditions. I would also like to thank you for reading my letter and hope you have a wonderful summer. Thank you. Sincerely,,, -fee Ibsen Owner Lee's Towing Service, LLC City Code Text Revision Proposal Tow in lots must be located on heavy industrial property and conform to RCW 46.55. Tow in lots / impound facilities will be allowed in areas zoned IM-IL-CA only if the following requirements are met. Without exception. Vehicle storage must be contained in side of a building and on a sealed concrete floor completely out of public view. No storage of vehicles may be permitted out side for any reason. Property must be kept clean with no debris around building. No heavy duty (class C) towing or tow trucks will be permitted on the premises No trucks to exceed 26,000 gross vehicle weight. The following safety and environmental steps will be taken and enforced in addition to city, state and federal requirements with out exceptions. Fire extinguishers will be mounted in plain view in a conspicuous manner and be kept in good condition, up to specifications set forth by Renton City Fire Officials and are to be placed in locations current with city of Renton fire code. Emergency spill absorbent will be kept on hand inside the facility easily accessible. All used absorbent will be contained and removed by only a state authorized disposer of hazardous materials, further more records of such disposal will be kept on hand by tow operator. Any and all floor drains in side the facility will be sealed to prevent contaminants from entering the sewage system. If drains are not to be sealed they must flow into approved oil / water separation system and or a fluid storage tank pursuant with all city, state and federal requirements. A fluid spill of any size must be cleaned and or contained immediately with out exception. All other storage requirements will be met pursuant to the Washington State patrol and under RCW 46.55. The facility will be inspected by the Washington State Patrol and the city of Renton and must be approved by both agencies. 0 A record of such inspection will be kept with the patrol as well as the city and be posted prominently in the office of tow operation. Y y Kathy Keolker, Mayor Lee Ibsen Lee's Towing Service 4200 NE Sunset Blvd, # 5 Renton, WA 98059 August 21, 2006 CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator SUBJECT: Code Changes Requested to Allow Towing Operations Dear Mr. Ibsen, I received your letter (date stamped August 1 lth) in which you request changes to the Renton Municipal Code regarding zones where towing companies can legally operate. Specifically, you have asked that towing companies be allowed to operate in areas zoned other than industrial, subject to certain standards. A copy of the requested changes accompanied your letter. You note that other cities such as Bellevue, Kirkland, Issaquah and Newcastle allow towing operations to locate on land zoned for automotive warehouse, automotive retail, and commercial warehouse. You also request a temporary variance that would allow you to commence operation of a towing company in a zone where it is not currently allowed. The City's Zoning Use Table contained in Renton Municipal Code Section 4-2-060J shows that a tow truck operation/auto impound yard is permitted in the IH (Industrial Heavy) zone, and is allowed only with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use permit in portions of the IM (Industrial Medium) zone. Tow truck operations are not allowed in other zones in the City of Renton. The process for changing the City Code requires the submission of a completed form to the Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning Department. A copy of this form is enclosed for your use. You may wish to attach your proposed code language and submit the package to Rebecca Lind, Strategic Planning Manager. You have also requested a temporary Variance that would allow you to operate while the Code changes are being considered. Unfortunately, there is no variance for "use". Neither would a Temporary Use Permit be appropriate. When a temporary use permit is granted, it can allow certain uses subject to modified development standards. This permit is intended for temporary events such as carnivals, or mobile food vendors, not for a towing operation. Therefore, your only relief from the regulations would be through a change in the Zoning Code. I encourage you to consider locatin our towin o eration in areas as allowed per the IM and IH zones. Please feel free to contact 430-7294 if you have questions regarding a particular site. Sincerely, (�,� � 41�� Jennifer Toth Henning, AICP Current Planning Manager cc: Neil Watts, Development Services Director �--� Rebecca Lind, Strategic Planning Manager R 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 1 t E V�T 1T O N AHEAD OF THE CURVE This paper contains 50% receded material. 30% nost consumer CITY CODE TEXT REVISION Pk sweESS 1400' Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning CITY CODE TEXT REVISION City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning DEC 0 6 2006 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425430-6588 BUILDING DIVISION APPLICANT: PHONE: ���- 226 ADDRESS: n / ✓)' E-MAIL: ��T C FAX M A process has been created to allow you to suggest changes or identify deficiencies in the City's Development Regulations. Please complete the following information. If additional pages are needed, please attach. Code to be revised: Section Title of Section Explain what you propose to change: h11"1,2z, G A�NTO,,v S , �-_rirL���T X _ zouoz-w D. ra, /9�y® 12-g 1�5v® AG:s .yo7- /3/�r�') Explain why you are requesting this change: 9 zZ)12i '09,*�01 .Q, (OVER) Czyv roc � /N )etvx ' 5t/y/ Sti C )z5e t,�r w zc L�, I,� -E z Q:/WEB/PW/DEVSERV/FORMS/PLANNING/coderevision.doc 07/18/g003 W CITY CODE TEXT REVISION P}ESS ING a i F nomic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Plonrt aq,vf_Y CODE TEXT REVISIONS_ City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-6588 APPLICANT: PHONE: ADDRESS: � ell s- f,- Uc_ v M E-MAIL: A process has been created to allow you to suggest changes or identify deficiencies in the City's Development Regulations. Please complete the following information. If additional pages are needed, please attach. Code to be revised: Section Title of Section k \ r( Explain what you propose to change:\Lo%�c c '.- ,; ; 4 "c.�C� Explain why you are requesting this change:�- (OVER) Q:/WEB/PW/DEVSERV/FORMS/PLANNING/coderevision.doc 07/18/g003 December 8, 2008 pftw Renton City Council Minutes °° Page 415 Transportation (Aviation) Transportation (Aviation) Committee Chair Corman presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the contract Transportation: Maintenance amendment with Parametrix, Inc. in the amount of $163,350 for design and Dredging & Shoreline engineering services to dredge the Seaplane Base and authorize the Mayor Mitigation, Parametrix City Clerk to sign the contract with Parametrix, Inc. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES RESOLUTION #3988 A resolution was read adopting the City of Renton Emergency Management Fire: Emergency Management Plan. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL Plan ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: ORDINANCE #5431 An ordinance was read providing for the 2008 year-end budget amendments in a Budget: 2008 Year -End net amount of $10,509,056. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY Amendments BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #5432 Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review, Mobile Food Vendors f 1f { An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration Enforcement; Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); and Chapter 20, Peddler's License, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, amending the regulations regarding farmers markets, mobile food vendors, temporary merchant vendors; and peddler's licenses; adding a definition for farmers market and mobile food vending unit, and amending the definition of retail sales, outdoor. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #5433 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Fee Schedule, of Title V (Finance Airport: Fuel Flowage Fee and Business Regulations), of City Code, by adding a new Section 8, entitled Increase "Airport Fuel Flowage Fees." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #5434 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties CED: 2008 Comprehensive within the City of Renton (Lake Washington Blvd.) from Industrial Heavy (IH) Plan Amendments to Urban Center North Two (UC-N2) zoning, File No. LUA-08-104 (CPA 2008-M-01). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. ORDINANCE 45435 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties CED: 2008 Comprehensive within the City of Renton (Lake Washington Blvd.) from Commercial Plan Amendments Neighborhood (CN) to Urban Center North Two (UC-N2) zoning, File No. LUA-08-104 (CPA 2008-M-01). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. Amends ORDs : 4752, 4963 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5432 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION ENFORCEMENT; CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 8, PERMITS — GENERAL AND APPEALS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS — SPECIFIC; CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS); AND CHAPTER 20, PEDDLER'S LICENSE, OF TITLE V (FINANCE AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," AMENDING THE REGULATIONS REGARDING FARMERS MARKETS, MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, TEMPORARY MERCHANT VENDORS; AND PEDDLER'S LICENSES; ADDING A DEFINITION FOR FARMERS MARKET AND MOBILE FOOD VENDING UNIT, AND AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF RETAIL SALES, OUTDOOR. WHEREAS, farmers markets and produce stands are not outright allowed in the City of Renton in any zone; and WHEREAS, the City only allows farmers markets and produce stands through the definition for retail sales, outdoor in the Center Village, Commercial Arterial, Center Downtown, Industrial Light, Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones; and WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Code has an inconsistency with regard to farmers markets and produce stands due to RMC 4-2-080A.15 which limits the type of outdoor retail sales allowed and farmers markets and produce stands are not listed as allowed uses; and WHEREAS, Washington State Statute RCW 36.71.090 states that agricultural and farmers produce are exempt from licensing requirements; and WHEREAS, the City allows temporary merchant vendors through peddlers license requirements in RMC Title V, Section 20 and limits the zones where they may be utilized, which are inconsistent with existing zones; and ORDINANCE NO. 5432 WHEREAS, the City seeks to eliminate existing inconsistencies and allow farmers markets in the CD zone whose purpose statement is compatible with permitting farmers markets subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to define mobile food vending unit and change the land use permitting to a temporary use process for mobile food vending within the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV and CD zones; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to provide exemptions for city sponsored events, functions and produce stands; and WHEREAS, this matter was dully referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on June 2, 2008 having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition to the proposed zoning text amendments; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-1-170, Land Use Review Fees, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add "Temporary Use Permit: Mobile Food Vendors" as an application type category with a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) fee amount as shown in Exhibit A. 2 '~ ORDINANCE NO. 5432 SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-080A, Subject to the Following Conditions, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that note 15 reads as follows: 15. Use is limited to building, hardware, and garden. Except in the CD Zone, size restrictions apply per RMC 4-2-120B and farmers markets are permitted. SECTION III. Subsection 4-8-080H, Review Processes, of Chapter 8, Permits — General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," the section entitled "Type I — Land Use Permits" is hereby amended to add "Temporary Use Permit: Mobile Food Vendor" to the list as shown in Exhibit B. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-9-240B, Applicability, of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended by adding a new subsection, to read as follows: 2. City Sponsored Events: The following uses are exempt from permit requirements — city sponsored community fairs, festivals, or events, subject to the approval of the Mayor's office. SECTION V. Note 5 of subsection 4-9-240C, Uses Which May Be Permitted, of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5432 5. Mobile food vendors: Vendors shall comply with all standards established by the Seattle -King County Health Department. In addition in the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV and CD zones, mobile food vendors are a permitted use but no licensed vending unit shall remain at the permitted location between 12:00 a.m. (midnight) and 5:00 a.m. on a daily basis except for a special event where a unit is allowed at the same location for up to 72 hours. For all other zones, a temporary use permit is required. SECTION VI. Subsection 4-11-060, Definitions F, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add a new definition to read as follows: FARMERS MARKET: A public market at which farmers and often other vendors sell agricultural produce, which includes the sale of flowers directly to consumers. SECTION VII. Subsection 4-11-130, Definitions M, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add a new definition for "Mobile Food Vending Unit," to read as follows: MOBILE FOOD VENDING UNIT: A use involving sale of retail food or beverages to the public from any vehicle, cart or wagon that is designed to be readily movable. A Mobile Food Vending Unit includes pushcarts, mobile kitchens, hot dog carts, pretzel wagons, or similar uses. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 5432 .. SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-11-180, Definitions R, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the definition of "Retail Sales, Outdoor," reads as follows: RETAIL SALES, OUTDOOR: The display and sale of products and services primarily outside of a building or structure, including but not limited to garden supplies, tires and motor oil, farmers' markets, manufactured homes, burial monuments, building and landscape materials, and lumber yards. This definition excludes adult retail uses, or vehicle sales. SECTION IX. Subsection 5-20-313.8, of Chapter 20, Peddler's License, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read as follows: 8. All sales to occur on a parcel of land must be upon property zoned CA and the following must accompany the application: a. Signature of the property owner authorizing use of parcel; b. A site plan showing the location of the sales area, the nearest driveway and the nearest fire hydrant; and SECTION X. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty (30) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 8th day of December Bonnie Walton, City Clerk 11: 61 ORDINANCE NO. 5432 �wr% APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 8th day of December , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: r. . cx ?W- Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 12/13/2008 (summary) ORD. 1488 :11 /25/08: scr 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5432 4-1-170 LAND USE REVIEW FEES: A. APPLICATION TYPE: FEE AMOUNT: Additional Animals Permit (annual fee) $50.00 Annexation Expense for postage Annexation by 60% Direct Petition and 50/50 Petition Method $2,500.00 Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Decision, Administrative Decision, or $75.00 Environmental Decision Binding Site Plan $1,000.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,000.00 Conditional Use Permit: $2,000.00 Hearing Examiner Review $1,000.00 Administrative Review Environmental Impact Statement/Draft and Final 100% of costs of coordination, review and appeals' 'When the City is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) determines that the EIS shall be prepared, the City may charge and collect a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred by the City in preparing the EIS. The ERC shall advise the applicant(s) of the projected costs for the EIS prior to actual preparation; the applicant shall post bond or otherwise ensure payment of such costs. The ERC may determine that the City will contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a portion of the EIS, and may bill such costs and expenses directly to the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual agreement of the City and applicant after a call for proposals. If a proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the ERC shall refund any fees collected under this subsection which remain after incurred costs are paid. The City may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this Title relating to the applicant's proposal. The City shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a consulted agency. The City may charge any person for copies of any document prepared under this Title, and for mailing the document, in a manner provided by chapter 42.17 RCW. Environmental Checklist: $400.00 Less than $100,000.00 project value $100,000.00 or more project value $1,000.00 Environmental review/sensitive lands or lands covered by water, except $1,000.00 minor residential additions or modifications Fence Permit (special) $100.00 Grading and Filling Permit $2,000.00 Lot Line Adjustment $450.00 Manufactured/Mobile Home Park: $500.00 Tentative $2,000.00 Preliminary $1,000.00 Final Open Space Classification Request $30.00 Plats: $1,000.00 Short Plat $2,000.00 Preliminary Plat $1,000.00 Final Plat Planned Urban Development: $2,000.00 Preliminary Plan $1,000.00 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 5432 Final Plan Rebuild Approval Permit: $500.00 Hearing Examiner Review $250.00 Administrative Review Rezone: $2,000.00 Less than 10 acres $3,000.00 10 to 20 acres $4,000.00 More than 20 acres Routine Vegetation Management Permit $75.00 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: $500.00 Under $100,000.00 value $1,000.00 $100,000.00 or more value Site Development Plan (Site Plan or Master Plan): $2,000.00 Hearing Examiner Review $1,000.00 Administrative Review Special Permit $2,000.00 Temporary Permit $100.00 Temporary Use Permit: Mobile Food Vendors $25.00 Temporary Permit Sign Deposit (refundable) $25.00 Variance — Administrative $100.00 Variance — Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or Hearing $500.00 Examiner Waiver $100.00 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 5432 RMC 4-8-080H Type I — Land Use Permits A 1p icatbn SubrT f[[al" I lrta•ninAknn nt Gnmpla-Fn=.Rc Type I — Land Use Permits Administrative Review Process 5-att H. i,iew 1 J'l eia y.x n- a x (-'itY Staff D-cisiz)n% -'ant -,-iarc:a ArpaaI N arrxi 14 day;x Type I — Staff Review without Public Notice: • Building and Grading Permits (SEPA exempt) or SEPA/Land Use Permit process completed • Business Licenses for Home Occupations without customer visits/deliveries • Deferrals • Lot Line Adjustments • Minor Adjustments (less than 10%) to a previously approved Site Plan • Modifications (administratively approved) of Various Code Standards • Routine Vegetation Management Permits (SEPA exempt) • Shoreline Exemptions • Temporary Use Permit: Mobile Food Vendor • Waivers • Other SEPA Exempt Activities/Actions APearl EXHIBIT B December 1, 2008 _ Renton City Council Minutes -, Page 404 The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced for second and final reading and adoption: CED: Graffiti Control An ordinance was read amending Title VI (Police Regulations), of City Code, by adding a new Chapter 29, titled Graffiti Control, relating to prohibition and removal of graffiti. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. ORDINANCE #5429 An ordinance was read amending Title VI (Police Regulations), of City Code, CED: Graffiti Control by adding a new Chapter 29, titled Graffiti Control, relating to prohibition and removal of graffiti. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 12/8/2008 for second and final reading: Budget: 2008 Year -End An ordinance was read providing for the 2008 year-end budget amendments in a Amendments net amount of $10,509,056. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/8/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review, Mobile Food Vendors f At An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Administration Enforcement; Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 8, Permits - General and Appeals; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations); and Chapter 20, Peddler's License, of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, amending the regulations regarding farmers markets, mobile food vendors, temporary merchant vendors; and peddler's licenses; adding a definition for farmers market and mobile food vending unit, and amending the definition of retail sales, outdoor. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/8/2008. CARRIED. Airport: Fuel Flowage Fee An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Fee Schedule, of Title V (Finance Increase and Business Regulations), of City Code, by adding a new section 8, entitled "Airport Fuel Flowage Fees." MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/8/2008. CARRIED. CED: 2008 Comprehensive An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties Plan Amendments within the City of Renton (Lake Washington Blvd.) from Industrial Heavy (IH) to Urban Center North Two (UC-N2) zoning, File No. LUA-08-104 (CPA 2008-M-01). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/8/2008. CARRIED. CED: 2008 Comprehensive An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties Plan Amendments within the City of Renton (Lake Washington Blvd.) from Commercial Neighborhood (CN) to Urban Center North Two (UC-N2) zoning, File No. LUA-08-104 (CPA 2008-M-01). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 12/8/2008. CARRIED. December 1, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes ",, Page 402 Finance Committee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Finance: Identity Theft concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the Identity Theft Prevention Prevention Program, FACTA Program to comply with the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003 (FACTA) Red Flag requirements. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Community Services: Fire Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Station # 11 Station Upgrades, concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve a contract with Wagner Wagner Architects Architects in the amount of $30,000 for design services for upgrades and repairs at Fire Station #11. Funds are available from Fund 316 Major Maintenance Operational Buildings. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and Cites be authorized to sign the contract. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Finance: Vouchers Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending approval of Claim Vouchers 278424 - 278743 and one wire transfer totaling $3,047,359.73; and approval of 119 Payroll Vouchers, one wire transfer, and 793 direct deposits totaling $2,651,203.68. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Develonment Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review, Mobile Food Vendors P� Planning and Development Chair Parker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the docket item "Mobile Food Vendors" and asks that an ordinance be prepared for first reading. Proposed changes to the City Code include a stricter regulation of time allowances for vending in zones where the use is allowed, having the use go through a Temporary Use Permit process, creating a quicker process for approval, and establishing a definition for "mobile food vending unit." MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 404 for ordinance.) Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report recommending CED: Graffiti Control concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the adoption of the Graffiti Control ordinance, by amending Title VI (Police Regulations), of City Code, and adding a new chapter, Chapter 29. The Graffiti Control ordinance is intended to help prevent the spread of graffiti vandalism and provide additional enforcement tools to protect public and private property from acts of graffiti vandalism and defacement. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL AMEND THE COMMITTEE REPORT TO READ "FOR FIRST AND SECOND READING." CARRIED. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT AS AMENDED. CARRIED. (See page 404 for ordinance.) Committee on Committees Council President-elect Corman presented a report recommending the following Council: 2009 Committee Council Committee chairmanships and Committee assignments for Council for Assignments 2009. Finance Committee: Don Persson, Chair; Greg Taylor, Vice -Chair; King Parker, member. Public Safety Committee: Greg Taylor, Chair; Don Persson, Vice -Chair; Marcie Palmer, member. APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date 9008' December 1, 2008 Title IV 2006 Docket Review (6/14/20.07) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the docket item "Mobile Food Vendors" and asks that an ordinance be prepared for first reading. Proposed changes to the City code include a stricter regulation of time allowances for vending in zones where the use is allowed, having the use go through a Temporary Use Permit process, creating a quicker process for approval, and establishing a definition for a "mobile food vending unit" f, King Parker, Chair �J i.- Rich Zwicker, Vic Chair J� Greg Tay r, Member cc: Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Chip Vincent, CED Planning Director �� ��� �� � CD C7 a� °��goo—CD0 CD -r- O Q fD CD ¢ �. CD n Uq z CD 46q CD o �z coo cn CD c� CD CD k �° o va te, CD 0 UOQ '� N .. ° N I n`C� O �p'� cr CA CD CD CD o M-W o Wq CD ID 0n C � X '* p C cD CZ. cD 1+ o a�� ��p'�CD L� eft p �. I�r• �CCDD CD CD CD O� O CD jd O iDuq CD o 's CD c"`D O can' pj CD O CAD n n CD CD CD CD CD qQ CD (D CD CD-� •d . p p C3 CD N tro z3 'C C cn Q O CD OC� CD �.. CD CD CD C on Vol,, z = D ' Q\ C n-a CTON �ryo aoa° a° ^av�o cD5 c^0•aaCo)o�o yaa pG�Nr? cw�n w4a�ry co ° w4ary a —Ca°. coa,-amQ .poxvoaa°i 't<`ND �`o'oo •�rya. '°8 _a�r7yryco oaa °o n I nv m>o po i7'�C�CHly1nZ o O p0coo o R,ao5 — :ao,- —C�oO a�°C<0o��ow�o o ao .N � � °~NF >i►yCr-1 (yy7. .o ° a a z\ xCD cnn cc n ?ry z\a n co t-J0.N a CDo �•Ctln°r10 ^.�o °rs �-n� a o Ao°ry ary < o cn " n>aaa o AoD Cln E :;°O o ? o cnbcm 0,A a ry a, Oy�y�y ��s•$ a �•�ry _ og �o as $:w 2.o Cr1 ti0. Cy[7t=7 ' � ay 2 = 00 ZOO 2 co �QN c� P �Z vfD a' zt:i „ 7.i o °, aa, ry V 1 w a O, w• C ... CD's w Q. w co O 0 C. C. N a oav 0 n w `° Q �^y S ° m rn a to va p mn= c ?m y, �C7 .con 5 ^:c000 coo nsi 7 a c a a co p �n F7 nA caw ZZZ a cu n� e a S.5 ^ao 0 7 a Klj ono a° w .°3 ao.0 o 0r. 0 Cg C� " o'Sca ;°a CD c5'° ° c ° a_o a o v,o o Ocn vo _ °y ? m -n co ? a co co ., co n o co < ao -n f a -n a . rn a v oc .n a Z o Q^n w r rnb y r7a o a a��w n zaa ow o q �_^. o.< �n N =T� aw m =oCD oo fD wc�i < w cSc coo a q3�v nn a q3� ry CA < R OS a c<o C Lam' '. ? o ry .5 o 0 0� a� O m n cno J G C ti •wp N O O O ,rye ry 7 O p° trq w 0. -- °° o a ' k =; ° p: 7 E '. m ;< `= a p a y �yc.� < �° ? C; K•f c<o °, ry p.po. CD 0, ,w,cn .O Cry^ ry �.y a by ...w O V] w ;3 a o c co v�cn� N n ��w 6�R °A 0 c o 0 �.c`sw �' w n a no w c^co tnos ?: o tn� �o, a. �' �n�bc�o o ° °c `<P; cryo %�a C o a. �' >oaov fD Oho CD Z o 0. o Cho Joao o C]o° °aao a o&� 0 Joao o nRR o ° t_o°o ° no¢•° N%r1C)%'�D o < 3 c;na a o o r� a n0 ry "CrJo� 3 C7 ❑ co a a o CsyoC�ry $ motj o" ory'F' ���e�<c0�o000.��7ec°opQozoo. °�o �' waap<oZ000�O3�!�pTZ000 000 � n q CD ` 0 � n�oo °° .C, CD O w w a �o Cnw g x» a ry C o B O ry O rya c(�n q t=1tt-��yy-n^^a w N o•a v a g a o v c cc p w N c a rn, w v, ry a wry, C7A �a 0 3 f7 p rn CD (D a R ry S ry wa o ^O�oc.•x� co�ory�CD p�N b "oao �B�a�c7"' �rywcNo�a�� N� 70 , c °-_ ^� .a o °o w o o a 0 == �s� °= �o ov(°(� a-7 0 o a o 3 n 0 a S n i1. ^' . rn P. ». QO `», A• O. N 0.`< ry .», CD N bQ M -n 5 o o 00 .», CL September 8, 2008 10aw Renton City Council Minutes •wr Page 285 RESOLUTION 3965 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Airport: Navigational Aids Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration to Maintenance, FAA maintain the existing navigational aids at the Renton Municipal Airport. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. RESOLUTION 3966 Airport: Runway 16/34 Resurfacing Project, FAA Grant A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and Cites to execute the Federal Aviation Administration's Federal Grant Application and Grant Assurances and accept the Federal Aviation Administration grant funding for resurfacing of Runway 16/34 at the Renton Municipal Airport. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 9/15/2008 for second and final reading: Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Standards; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket Review `, of City Code to amend the regulations regarding Towing Operations/Auto � ,�, Impoundment Yards; and to add definitions for Tow Truck and Tow Truck Operations. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/15/2008. CARRIED. Public Works: Surface Water An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by reclassifying one Operations Positions Maintenance Services Worker III position to a Maintenance Services Worker I Reclassification, Budget position, and reclassifying one Maintenance Services Worker III position to a Amend Lead Maintenance Services Worker positioning the Maintenance Services Division Surface Water Operations budget. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/15/2008. CARRIED. City Clerk: Cable An ordinance was read amending Chapter 17, Cable Communications Systems, Communications Systems of Title V (Finance and Business Regulations) of City Code to amend the Amendments definition of "Gross Revenue" and the regulations regarding the granting of franchises and technical standards. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/15/2008. CARRIED. Franchise: Comcast Cable An ordinance was read amending Ordinance No. 4412 granting to TCI Seattle, Television Extension Inc., a franchise to operate a cable communication system within the City of Renton. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/15/2008. CARRIED. Utility: Surface Water An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by increasing the Facilities FEMA Grant, appropriations in the Surface Water Utility Fund (Fund 427) revenue account Budget Amend and expenditure accounts in the amount of $337,132 with funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Emergency Management Division, and the State of Washington, for the rehabilitation of the Elliott Spawning Channel and Maplewood Sedimentation Pond Maintenance project. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 9/15/2008. CARRIED. July �12008 Renton City Council Minutes %Now Page 244 RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3958 A resolution was read updating the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Transportation: 2009-2014 TIP Program 2009-2014. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3959 A resolution was read approving the action of the State of Washington CED: Puget Sound Blood Economic Development Finance Authority (WEFDA) and the issuance of non - Center, WEFDA Actions recourse revenue bonds to finance an economic development facility for Puget Sound Blood Center, and providing for other matters properly relating thereto. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3960 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Transportation: Logan Ave N agreement with the State of Washington Department of Transportation Bike Lane & Channelization, regarding construction management services for the Logan Ave. N. Bike Lane WSDOT and Channelization project. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5402 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5, Business Licenses, of Title V Finance: Business License (Finance and Business Regulations), of City Code, by revising the time period Fees & Revocation Revisions for collection of business license fees, accrued penalties and revocation of licenses. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5403 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of City Code, to amend use Regulations (Title IV) Docket_ regulations in the Residential 8 (R-8) zone to allow helipads as accessory to a Review use with specific conditions. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED P YZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL FALL.imary ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5404 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5, Building & Fire Prevention Fire: 2006 International Fire Standards, and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations), Code Adoption of City Code, to adopt the 2006 International Fire Code, and to amend the definitions of medical institutions and vehicle fueling stations. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:56 p.m. 1t��K�•c � �• LUGZ�� Bonnie 1. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Jason Seth July 21, 2008 244 >, � � 'b w N y w - .� w rn bA OA O N U 'O T❑❑f _� � U N Tom-, U ti O ai U �_ ° E C° O N 'O C° O p � O C ° ^' n. U N •� N cQ 7 ,D � 3 7 � ❑ ,C .0 ... ..+ .. � O C � .E .b C id cC .O G' •D_ � E V O E N O C N U � ••' �z o.? cv-, c cs•�' ° ° WO d- wwo° �U n-° w� C❑ md°o Avoca ° ° Uz ° c c ov �Nw c � ° c o r`n �v ° °: c To o ^ � a>z � o �.� o� � = 0 2 r zZWawo ���0 �� Ub��?�No�Ui _C? ° ro `o-CYo"o 3�°0 Z0:-"°U �_n °a�>>d UaNE is Qb' u.S 0a�v� U>L O a p�jzU�p❑ O yC C3 O a�d�7�>cOgb °�x�a�a� ? CG z x.z�- id 'Z'UU ❑ V cCa >. ca �..0 C vUi E 0 "' C CYO C 0. z UU,- N.C, CU.V �F.OE❑ W�o4v�ca �' o,C°w. �oV v>cvai° c 0O0.�1U?c z, v>vOyco�� oz r� >��°_a3ozw°"wFO� aw E°ooc�Qnn�WU� o� ° cl �Q dti� - ° nrOv o a�oo >"WA��srzt F3�w�c- n u �zm ca�o�4 E. Nooco �xyv w sN °'o Ua�� c d>.° v o a o C� �C�g �a FO �� O c ° o ow3 0 � O G °A �� ° ° �'� O C °�`''c oUa°'' a�i'^ � a��i ° �a�:�w•�' �� oRc03. py .0 bOc Syan.C' . 7'DU°oai w•pCaCji c�i �N Z�N= CA ca.N V l 3dLO—V t.C- xw emu" o J--J w cUN >WU 27.ZW UacaxIN $W 3N owo7NO�-1 iLp ^� OoONpo J w m� • % U �4p �N� 4 ^Oar O awn �°-� � > � '�� o. •° i�l�bN �� i 3 � P.� a.� � 3 3 a o3 cl � a) CISo¢'�o Q °Oo 0 3 an .mow 03 cl O ii1 O ct p r..1 cn �O 3 � ci O p U .-Qn 4-4 Irl cd" O Cl, V - � bA U p Q��bnp ;Q�a� sue• Uc�a1 o�ya,a�a�� u oN to It ct m bna95.0 �H o U;4 M a July 1/ , 2008 Renton City Council Minutes 242 stated that the Renton Stage 2 and the SR 515 projects are ready to start, to include new north and southbound lanes from SR 167 to SR 169 and a new interchange at Talbot Rd. S. Continuing, Ms. Trussler reported that the I-405 Wilburton Tunnel removal project addresses congestion in and out of Bellevue. She stated that the Wilburton Tunnel will be demolished, and that I-405 south of downtown Bellevue will be closed to southbound traffic the weekends of August 8, August 15, and August 22, from 11 p.m. Friday through 5 a.m. Monday. Ms. Trussler reviewed various detour routes and advised commuters to plan two additional hours for trips through Bellevue. In conclusion, she emphasized that safety is a top priority and asked that everyone be patient during the busy construction season. Responding to Council inquiries, Ms. Trussler confirmed that the tunnel was too dense to be imploded and that northbound traffic on I-405 would not be affected. AUDIENCE COMMENT Hallie Sword (Renton) expressed concern for children living in the Valley View Citizen Comment: Sword - Mobile Home Park if they were to be relocated. She remarked that the park Valley View Mobile Home may be sold by the owner and suggested ways of saving the park, including Park purchase by the City. Citizen Comment: Galster - Pegi Galster (Renton) read a prepared statement outlining various reasons for Title IV Docket, Helipads :)pposing the proposed ordinance regarding helipads in the R-8 zones. Citizen Comment: Rosling - Joame Rosling (Renton) read a prepared statement expressing opposition to the Title IV Docket, Helipads roposed ordinance regarding helipads in the R-8 zones. Citizen Comment: Conner - Charlie Conner (Renton) thanked City officials and staff for their hard work on Title IV Docket, Helipads the proposed ordinance on helipads in the R-8 zones. He noted that other local jurisdictions allow the use of helicopters in residential zones. Citizen Comment: Kapetan - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Rosling - Title IV Docket, Helipads Victoria Kapetan (Renton) read statements from residents who had signed a petition in opposition to the proposed ordinance regarding helipads in the R-8 zones. She noted that many residents are disappointed that the ordinance may be adopted. Tom Rosling (Renton) stated that he was surprised that the City did not change its position regarding the ordinance after reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe's concerns. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. At the request of Councilmember Persson, Item 7.g. was removed for separate consideration. CAG: 08-095, Maplewood City Clerk submitted bid opening on 7/9/2008 for CAG-08-095, Maplewood Creek Sediment Basin 2008 Creek Sediment Basin 2008 Cleaning and Maintenance Project, fourteen bids; Cleaning & Maintenance, The engineer's estimate $85,320.84; and submitted staff recommendation to award Phoinix Corporation the contract to low bidder, The Phoinix Corporation, in the amount of $74,947.1 1. Council concur. City Clerk: Quarterly Contract City Clerk submitted quarterly contract list for period 4/1/2008 to 6/30/2008 List, 4/1/2008 to 6/30/2008 and expiration report for contracts expiring between 7/1/2008 and 12/31/2008. Information. CED: Puget Sound Blood Community and Economic Development Department recommended adoption of Center, WEDFA Actions a resolution approving the actions of the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (WEDFA) regarding the Puget Sound Blood Center. Council concur. (See page 244 for resolution.) 242 bA N z x wz � O O t z� U 00 3� � O 0-4 � A cG z ate¢ Wac a �-,�c�cnL'o cc°?�c e aE o7NU F c o cw �� OZoy a d s.ia o Cto o o o c -+wcSo c o v cop ° o o c n Z Q O w o U L m- TL a! .c w>' .a y cn.L .� 'D pv ° o u- a •8 '� TnoO ° Q c o=cG o � ZUF ZU onWa cs ��_ E zUsb ^ v `soo' �Sr 3 ° aQU EU ? cv y'cU� OC]EO = c Z'o E c° oa E v ocb�oZ o cra-o a b �o ° o oaaN m�°VL� Ow�a a o"0.C.CN o 0 F 2' v: a� u i.c y o C cn x, 7 u" s u a> c 7 2 "W A °pz ° °c a�A ° b o °- b oN cG �g 5 UOWocn> �co� a�0o�°u���°co�E-o�c�N�ua ^v 'ro �g W S. Loo `n �n ,> u a c� � tiOb a F� o uo ° :c c °'E:E °s6 u u^ �t d E cs T�� 4� Oca o °N c E� b ❑ ti > c ❑ >c ° bw °• b c> w o, Q b .. v ca o w .°u d <d v: u cq w, U E z �- 3QHo`�3 a� �w 3Gi�?a o w.=w �v zc� _ Noes G "'4 p p'1' 1 QJ O �C Ln CA.- O Ci] v c� '' 11111�\\S� 3.--Caa =3:U v �" C�CA cC N U N C" -- cC .r p N O 3 �-C m CA ova CA >,o .n Z b N � � C)14-1 v cl o o cl cl ° o O y o N in, Nct O z bA Cl.ct �in 64 N' U +� U °� N O O G� cd bA O b-b4 �" G4 f �c •-� �" Q .L Q r. sue. bq� �=- �. � � �pZ :0q.•oa;0 l�°'"��' M a�� S QUO MtoC).�L)m�Ho;H 3 h aa� �a CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5401 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," TO ADD REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REQUIRED LOCATION FOR PARKING FOR PROPERTIES THAT ABUT AN ALLEY IN THE RESIDENTIAL-8 (R-8) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. WHEREAS, the City transportation system has a developed network of alleys; and WHEREAS, alley access is the preferred street pattern for development in the City; and WHEREAS, the Residential-10 (R-10), Residential-14 (R-14), and Residential Multifamily Traditional (RMT) Zones have parking and loading development standards for properties that abut alleys with specific requirements on the location of parking and access to parking from the alley; and WHEREAS, Residential-8 (R-8) zoned properties that abut alleys do not have parking and loading development standards; and WHEREAS, more on -street parking, fewer curb cuts, safer pedestrian environments, and parking areas located in the rear or side yards of residences are characteristics of areas with abutting alleys in the R-8 zone; and WHEREAS, by creating parking and loading development standards in the R-8 zone, established neighborhood qualities and characteristics will be maintained or enhanced; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and this matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and the zoning 1 ` ORDINANCE NO. 5401 text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 28, 2008, having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support or in opposition; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 472-110A, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) Zoning Standards Tables, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add a new section "Parking and Loading," as shown on Attachment A. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of July , 2008. � 4- Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of July , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor 2 � ORDINANCE NO. 5401 Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 7/19/2008 (summary) ORD.1489:6/25/08: scr 3 cm ORDINANCE NO. 5401 M Attachment A 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) RC R-1 R-4 R-8 PARKING AND LOADING For lots abutting an alley with paved and/or crushed rock surfacing: All parking areas and/or attached or detached garages may not occur in front of the building Required Location for and/or in the area Parking between the front lot line and the front building line; parking areas and garages must occur at the rear or side of the property, and vehicular access shall be taken from the alley. L` A Amends ORDs: 5061, 5192 5249, CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5400 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," BY MODIFYING THE DESIGNATED RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREAS, IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF HOUSE BILL 1910, INCORPORATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND MODIFYING PROJECT ELIGIBILITY AND FEES. WHEREAS, on December 22, 2003, the Renton City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5061 (codified in RMC 4-1-220) to establish a limited property tax exemption to encourage multi -family housing development in designated residential targeted areas; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 4-1-220, Property Tax Exemption for Multi - Family Housing in Residential Targeted Areas, have been useful in helping to encourage increased residential opportunities and stimulate new construction of multi -family housing in residential targeted areas; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to modify the residential targeted areas for future multi -family housing projects eligible for the property tax exemption; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature passed House Bill 1910 in 2007 amending Chapter 84.14 RCW relating to the multi -family housing property tax exemption; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to amend RMC 4-220 to implement the changes from House Bill 1910 and revise the project eligibility and fees; and WHEREAS, the Renton City Council desires to incorporate affordable housing into the property tax exemption program and establish the designated residential targeted areas as areas targeted for low-income housing serving households at or below eighty percent (80%) of the median income; and 1 t ORDINANCE NO. 5400 *40 WHEREAS, on June 23, 2008, the Renton City Council conducted a public hearing and considered all testimony; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Section 4-1-220, Property Tax Exemption for Multi -Family Housing in Residential Targeted Areas, of Chapter 1, Administration and Enforcement, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby entirely amended to read as follows: 4-1-220 PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING IN RESIDENTIAL TARGETED AREAS: A. PURPOSE: As provided for in chapter 84.14 RCW, the purpose of this Section is to provide limited, eight (8), ten (10), or twelve (12) year exemptions from ad valorem property taxation for qualified new multi -family housing located in designated residential targeted areas. B. DEFINITIONS: In construing the provisions of this Section, the following definitions shall be applied: 1. "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Renton Department of Community and Economic Development, or any other City office, department or agency that shall succeed to its functions with respect to this Section, or his or her authorized designee. 2. "Affordable housing" means residential housing that is rented by a low income household whose monthly housing costs, including rent and utilities 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 other than telephone, do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the household's monthly income. For the purposes of housing intended for owner occupancy, "affordable housing" means residential housing that is within the means of and purchased by low or moderate income households. 3. "Household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together. 4. "Low income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is at or below eighty percent (80%) of the median income, as further defined in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii)(a) below. 5. "Median income" means the median family income adjusted for family size for King County, as reported by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In the event that HUD no longer publishes median income figures for King County, the City may use or determine such other method as it may choose to determine the King County median income, adjusted for household size. 6. "Mixed -use" means a multi -family housing residential project with at least one (1) other non-residential use in one (1) or more multi -family housing buildings in the project, such as retail, office, entertainment, schools, conference centers or a use approved in writing by the (CED) Administrator. The purpose of the mixed -use requirement is to implement the intent of the land use district, maximize the efficient use of land, support transit use, and encourage the development of well-balanced, attractive, convenient, and 3 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 vibrant urban residential neighborhoods. The additional use excludes any accessory functions related to the residential use. Unless otherwise modified or waived in writing by the Administrator, the non-residential mixed -use shall occupy at a minimum the ground floor along the street frontage with a depth of at least thirty feet (30') for any building in the project. 7. "Moderate income household" means a single person, family, or unrelated persons living together whose adjusted income is at or below one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the median income, as further defined in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii)(b) below. 8. "Multi -family housing" means one or more new buildings designed for permanent residential occupancy, each with four (4) or more dwelling units. 9. "Permanent residential occupancy" means multi -family housing that provides either owner occupancy or rental accommodation on a nontransient basis. This definition includes rental accommodation that is leased for a period of at least one (1) month but excludes, for example, hotels and motels that predominantly offer rental accommodation on a daily or weekly basis. C. TAX EXEMPTION: 1. Duration of Exemption: The value of improvements qualifying under RMC 4-1-220D is exempt from ad valorem property taxation as follows: a. For properties for which applications are submitted before July 22, 2007, the value is exempt for ten (10) successive years beginning January 1 of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of the final certificate of tax exemption; and F. *WW ORDINANCE NO. 5400 b. For properties for which applications are submitted on or after July 22, 2007, the value is exempt: i. For eight (8) successive years beginning January 1 st of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of the final certificate of tax exemption; or ii. For twelve (12) successive years beginning January 1st of the year immediately following the calendar year of issuance of the final certificate of tax exemption, if the property otherwise qualifies for the exemption and the applicant/owner rents or sells at least twenty percent (20%) of the multi -family housing units as affordable housing to low and moderate income households as further defined in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii)(a) and (C)(1)(b)(ii)(b) below. (a) For rental projects, at least twenty percent (20%) of the multi- family housing units in the project must be rented throughout the duration of the twelve (12)-year exemption period as affordable housing to low income households at eighty percent (80%) or less of median income. (b) For ownership projects, at least twenty percent (20%) of the multi -family housing units in the project must be sold as affordable housing to low or moderate income households at one hundred twenty percent (120%) or less of median income. c. The owner may use any combination of studio, one (I) -bedroom, two (2)-bedroom, and/or three (3)-bedroom units to comply with the minimum 5 fir+ ORDINANCE NO. 5400 *40 twenty percent (20%) requirement in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii)(a) and (C)(1)(b)(ii)(b) above. d. If, in calculating the minimum twenty percent (20%) of the multi- family housing units in the project for affordable housing in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii), the number contains a fraction, then the minimum number of multi -family housing units for affordable housing shall be rounded up to the next whole number. e. When the project includes more than one building with multi -family housing units, all of the affordable housing units required in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii) may not be located in the same building. 2. Limits on Exemption: The exemption does not apply to the value of land or to the value of nonhousing-related improvements not qualifying under RMC 4-1-220D, nor does the exemption apply to increases in assessed valuation of land and nonqualifying improvements. This Section also does not apply to increases in assessed valuation made by the county assessor on nonqualifying portions of building and value of land, nor to increases made by lawful order of a county board of equalization, the Department of Revenue, or a county, to a class of property throughout the county or specific area of the county to achieve the uniformity of assessment or appraisal required by law. D. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY: To qualify for exemption from property taxation under this Section, the project must satisfy all of the following requirements: ORDINANCENO. 5400 1. Location: The property must be located in one of the designated "residential targeted areas" listed below in subsection (D)(1)(a) or (D)(1)(b) of this Section which are targeted for low-income housing serving households at or below eighty percent (80%) of the median income. If a part of any legal lot is within a residential targeted area, then the entire lot shall be deemed to lie within the residential targeted area. a. Highlands: Within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in one of the following: the Center Village (CV) zone, the Residential Multi -Family (RM-F) zone, or the Residential 14 Dwelling Units/Acre (R- 14) zone; or b. Downtown: In the Center Downtown (CD) zone, Residential Multi - Family Urban Center (RM-U) zone, or Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone. 2. Size and Structure: a. If the project is located in the Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) zone or within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in either the Residential Multi -Family (RM-F) zone or the Residential 14 Dwelling Units/Acre (R-14) zone, the project must (i) consist of a minimum total of ten (10) new dwelling units of multi -family housing, and (ii) be located within a new residential structure(s) or a new mixed -use development as allowed by the RMC for the specific zone. At least fifty percent (50%) of the space within the project shall be intended for permanent residential occupancy. 7 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 b. If the project is located in the Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM-U) zone, the Center Downtown (CD) zone or is within the Center Village Comprehensive Plan designation and in the Center Village (CV) zone, the project must (i) consist of a minimum total of thirty (30) new dwelling units of multi -family housing and (ii) be located in a new mixed - use development, unless otherwise waived by the Administrator. If the Administrator waives the mixed -use development requirement, the multi- family housing must be located in a new residential structure(s). At least fifty percent (50%) of the space within the project shall be intended for permanent residential occupancy. 3. Exception for Existing Residential Structure: In the case of an existing occupied residential structure that is proposed for demolition and redevelopment as new multi -family housing, the project must provide as a minimum number of dwelling units in the new multi -family housing project, the greater of: a. Replace the existing number of dwelling units and, unless the existing residential rental structure was vacant for twelve (12) months or more prior to demolition, provide for a minimum of four (4) additional dwelling units in the new multi -family housing project; or b. Provide the number of dwelling units otherwise required in subsection (D)(2) of this section. 4. Completion Deadline: The project must be completed within three (3) years from the date of approval of the contract by the City Council as 8 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 -"w provided in RMC 4-1-220F2 or by any extended deadline granted by the Administrator as provided in RMC 4-1-220I. E. APPLICATION PROCEDURE: 1. Form: The owner of property applying for exemption under this Section shall submit an application to the Administrator on a form established by the Administrator. The owner shall verify the correctness of the information contained in the application by his/her signature and affirmation made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington. The application shall contain such information as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful, which at a minimum shall include: a. A completed City application form, including information setting forth the grounds for tax exemption and whether the owner elects to rent or sell at least twenty percent (20%) of the multi -family housing units as affordable housing to low and moderate income households to qualify for the twelve (12)-year exemption defined in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii) above; b. A brief written description of the project, and schematic site and floor plans of the multi -family dwelling units and the structure(s) in which they are proposed to be located; c. Floor and site plans of the proposed project, which plans may be revised by the owner provided such revisions are made and presented to the Administrator prior to the City's final action on the exemption application; 0 *40 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 d. A statement from the owner acknowledging the potential tax liability when the property ceases to be eligible for exemption under this Section. 2. Fee: At the time of initial application under this Section, the owner shall pay to the City an initial application fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). 3. Deadline: The application shall be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permit for the project. The Administrator shall approve or deny an exemption application within ninety (90) days of receipt of a complete application. F. APPLICATION APPROVAL: 1. Approval: The Administrator may approve an application if he or she finds that: a. The owner has complied with all of the requirements of this Section, including but not limited to the project eligibility requirements contained in RMC 4-1-220D and the application requirements contained in RMC 4- 1-220E; and b. The proposed project is or will be, at the time of completion, in conformance with all approved plans, and all applicable requirements of the Renton Municipal Code or other applicable requirements or regulations in effect at the time the application is approved. 2. Contract Required: If the application is approved, the owner shall enter into a contract with the City, approved by the City Council, regarding the terms and conditions of the project under this Section. 10 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 3. Issuance of Conditional Certificate: Following Council approval of the contract, the Administrator shall issue a conditional certificate of acceptance of tax exemption. The conditional certificate shall expire three (3) years from the date of Council approval of the contract unless an extension is granted as provided in RMC 4-1-220I. G. APPLICATION DENIAL: 1. Denial: The Administrator shall deny an application if the criteria in RMC 4-1-220F 1 are not met. The Administrator shall state in writing the reasons for the denial and send notice of denial to the owner's last known address within ten (10) days of the denial. 2. Appeal: An owner may appeal a denial of a tax exemption application to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of notice of the denial. The appeal before the City Council shall be based upon the record before the Administrator, and the Administrator's decision will be upheld unless the owner can show that there is no substantial evidence on the record to support the Administrator's decision. The City Council's decision on appeal is final. H. AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT: An owner may request an amendment(s) to the contract by submitting a request in writing to the Administrator, together with a fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00), at any time within three (3) years of the date of the approval of the contract as provided for in RMC 4-1-220G2. The date for expiration of the 11 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 conditional certificate shall not be extended by contract amendment unless all the conditions for extension set forth in RMC 4-1-220I are met. I. EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATE: 1. Application: The conditional certificate may be extended by the Administrator for a period not to exceed twenty four (24) consecutive months. The owner shall submit a written request stating the grounds for the extension together with a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). 2. Approval: The Administrator may grant an extension if the Administrator finds that: a. The anticipated failure to complete construction within the required time period is due to circumstances beyond the control of the owner; b. The owner has been acting, and could reasonably be expected to continue to act, in good faith and with due diligence; and c. All the conditions of the original contract between the owner and the City will be satisfied upon completion of the project. 3. Denial — Appeal: If an extension is denied, the Administrator shall state in writing the reason for denial and shall send notice to the owner's last known address within ten (10) calendar days of the denial. An owner may appeal the denial of an extension to the Hearing Examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the provisions of RMC 4-8-110E. The owner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court according to the procedures 12 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 w contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within thirty (30) days of notification by the City to the owner of the decision. J. FINAL CERTIFICATE: 1. Application: Upon completion of the construction as provided in the contract between the owner and the City, and upon issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy, or a permanent certificate of occupancy if no temporary certificate is issued, the owner may request a final certificate of tax exemption. The owner shall pay a fee of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and file with the Administrator such information as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful to evaluate eligibility for the final certificate, which shall at a minimum include: a. A statement of expenditures made with respect to each multi -family housing unit and the total expenditures made with respect to the entire property; b. A description of the completed work and a statement of qualification for the exemption; c. The total monthly rent or total sale amount of each multi -family housing unit rented or sold to date; d. The income of each renter household to date at the time of initial occupancy and the income of each initial purchaser of owner -occupied multi -family housing units to date at the time of purchase; 13 *00 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 e. If applicable, a statement that the project meets the affordable housing requirements in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii) above, along with the number, type, and specific multi -family housing units rented or sold to date, as applicable, to meet the affordable housing requirements; f. Any additional information requested by the City pursuant to meeting any reporting requirements under RCW 84.14; and. g. A statement that the work was completed within the required three (3) year period or any approved extension. 2. Determination: Within thirty (30) days of receipt of all materials required for a final certificate, the Administrator shall determine whether the completed work is consistent with the contract between the City and owner, whether all or a portion of the completed work is qualified for exemption under this Section and, if so, which specific improvements satisfy the requirements of this Section. 3. Filing with County Assessor: For projects that comply with the requirements of RMC 4-1-220J 1, the City shall file a final certificate of tax exemption with the county assessor within ten (10) days of the expiration of the thirty (30) day period provided in the prior subsection. 4. Recording: The Administrator is authorized to cause to be recorded, at the owner's expense, in the real property records of the King County Department of Records and Elections, the contract with the City required under RMC 4-1- 220F2, as amended under RMC 4-1-220H, if applicable, and/or such other document(s) as will identify such terms and conditions of eligibility for 14 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 "'` exemption under this Section as the Administrator deems appropriate for recording. 5. Denial: The Administrator shall notify the owner in writing that the City will not file a final certificate if: (a) the Administrator determines that the project was not completed within the required three (3) year period or any approved extension, or was not completed in accordance with the contract between the owner and the City and the requirements of this Section, or the owner's property is otherwise not qualified for the limited exemption under this Section; or (b) the owner and Administrator cannot come to an agreement on the allocation of the value of the improvements allocated to the exempt portion of the project. 6. Appeal: The owner may appeal the Administrator's decision to the Hearing Examiner by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after issuance of the notice of the denial. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the provisions for appeal contained in RMC 4-8-110E. The owner may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court according to the procedures contained in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.090(6), within thirty (30) days of notification by the City to the owner of the decision. K. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION AND REPORT: Within thirty (30) days after the first anniversary of the date the City issued the final certificate of tax exemption and each year thereafter for the duration of the 15 �00 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 tax exemption period, the property owner shall file an annual report with the Administrator. Failure to submit the annual report may result in cancellation of the tax exemption. The certification shall contain such information as required by RCW 84.14 and as the Administrator may deem necessary or useful, and shall at a minimum include the following information: 1. A statement of occupancy and vacancy of the multi -family dwelling units during the twelve months ending with the anniversary date; 2. A certification that the property has not changed use and, if applicable, that the property has been in compliance with the affordable housing requirements as described in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii) above since the date the City issued the final certificate of tax exemption and that the project continues to be in compliance with the contract with the City and the requirements of this Section; 3. A description of any improvements or changes to the property made after the City issued the final certificate of tax exemption; 4. The total monthly rent of each multi -family housing unit rented or the total sale amount of each multi -family housing unit sold to an initial purchaser during the twelve months ending with the anniversary date; 5. The income of each renter household at the time of initial occupancy and the income of each initial purchaser of owner -occupied multi -family housing units at the time of purchase during the twelve months ending with the anniversary date; 16 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 6. If applicable, a breakdown of the number, type, and specific multi -family housing units rented or sold during the twelve months ending with the anniversary date, as applicable, to meet the affordable housing requirements in subsection (C)(1)(b)(ii) above; and 7. Any additional information requested by the City pursuant to meeting any reporting requirements under RCW 84.14. L. CANCELLATION OF TAX EXEMPTION: 1. Cancellation: If at any time the Administrator determines that: (a) the property no longer complies with the terms of the contract or with the requirements of this Section; (b) the use of the property is changed or will be changed to a use that is other than residential; (c) the project violates applicable zoning requirements, land use regulations or building code requirements; or (d) the property for any reason no longer qualifies for the tax exemption, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to State law. Upon determining that a tax exemption shall be canceled, the Administrator shall notify the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. 2. Appeal: The property owner may appeal the determination by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk, within thirty (30) days after issuance of the decision by the Administrator, specifying the factual and legal basis for the appeal. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner shall follow the procedures set forth in RMC 4-8-110E. At the appeal hearing, all affected parties may be heard and all competent evidence received. The Hearing 17 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 Examiner shall affirm, modify, or repeal the decision to cancel the exemption based on the evidence received. The Hearing Examiner shall give substantial weight to the Administrator's decision to cancel the exemption, and the burden of proof and the burden of overcoming the weight accorded to the Administrator's decision shall be upon the appellant. An aggrieved party may appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the King County Superior Court in accordance with the procedures in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598, as provided in RCW 84.14.110(2), within thirty (30) days after issuance of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. 3. Change of Use: If the owner intends to convert the multi -family housing to another use, the owner must notify the Administrator and the County assessor within sixty (60) days of the change in use. Upon such change in use, the tax exemption shall be canceled and additional taxes, interest and penalties imposed pursuant to State law. M. SUNSET OF EXEMPTION FOR APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATES: The City shall not accept new applications for conditional certificates as provided in RMC 4-1-220E after December 31, 2009, unless extended by City Council action. Incomplete applications for conditional certificates as of December 31, 2009, shall be returned to owners. Notwithstanding the above, the City shall process (1) pending complete applications for a conditional certificate as of December 31, 2009, and (2) applications for an extension of the conditional certificate and/or a final certificate received after December 31, 2009, as provided 18 ORDINANCE NO. 5400 in this Section under RMC 4-1-220D through 4-1-220J. RMC 4-1-220C and 4-1- 220J through 4-1-220L shall continue to apply to all properties that have been or are issued a final certificate of tax exemption under this Section until expiration, termination or cancellation of the tax exemption. SECTION II. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after its publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 14th day of July , 2008. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 14th day of July 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Ap ed as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 7/19/2008 (summary) ORD. 1487:6/25/08: scr 19 July 14, 2008 *Ave Renton City Council Minutes %M** Page 235 235 Finance: Business License Fee Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending & Revocation Revisions concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve changes to the business license fee reporting period as follows: 1. Business license fees are due one month following the last day of the reporting period. 2. A business license shall expire on the last day of the following month of its reporting period. 3. Any payment not made before one month following the due dates shall be cause for automatic revocation of the business license. 4. Failure to pay the license fee within one day after the day on which it is due shall render the business enterprise subject to monetary penalty. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first and second reading. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See later this page for ordinance.) Finance: Vouchers MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS PRESENTED AT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3956 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a Fire: Injury Prevention contract with King County regarding reimbursement to Renton Fire and Programs Mini -Grant, King Emergency Services Department for injury prevention programs and efforts. County MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3957 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and Ci1y Clerk to enter into the CAG: 91-083, Boundary 2008 amendment to the 1991 boundary agreement with Soos Creek Water and Agreement, Soos Creek Water Sewer District relating to the minor service area boundary adjustment and to & Sewer District allow the district to connect a small portion of lots to the City's service area. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 7/21/2008 for second and final reading: Finance: Business License An ordinance was read amending Chapter 5, Business Licenses, of City Code, Fees & Revocation Revisions by revising the time period for collection of business license fees, accrued penalties and revocation of licenses. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 7/21/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations), of City Code, to amend use regulations in the Residential 8 (R-8) zone to allow helipads as accessory to a primary use with a conditional use permit. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 7/21/2008. CARRIED. 235 July 14, 2008 *%W Renton City Council Minutes ...e Page 232 Citizen Comment: Rosling - Joanie Rosling (Renton) read from a prepared statement regarding her Title IV Docket, Helipads opposition to the proposed ordinance. She also read an excerpt from a report from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe that recommended restricting the placement of helipads. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TWO MORE MINUTES FOR HER COMMENTS. CARRIED. Continuing, Ms. Rosling commented that the Hearing Examiner's decision stated that adopting the ordinance would be capricious and arbitrary. Citizen Comment: Ritwalo - Randy Ritwalo (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance and opined Title IV Docket, Helipads that the helicopter noise is not a nuisance to residents or wildlife. Citizen Comment: Kapetan - Victoria Kapetan (Renton) played an audio recording of helicopter noises while Title IV Docket, Helipads addressing Council. She expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance and inquired about permitting, safety, and insurance requirements regarding aircraft in residential neighborhoods. Citizen Comment: Winter - Roger Winter (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance and opined Title IV Docket, Helipads that the helicopter noise is not a nuisance to residents or wildlife. Citizen Comment: Pritchard - Marc Pritchard (Renton) spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance and stated Title IV Docket, Helipads that he believes the aircraft is operated in a safe manner and the City and FAA will be monitoring. He noted that neighborhood landscape services are routinely louder than Mr. Conner's helicopter. Citizen Comment: Spouse - Peter Spouse (Renton) expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stated Title IV Docket, Helipads that the noise is minimal. He also opined that the aircraft has been operated in a safe manner and only across the water. Citizen Comment: Fix - Monica Fix (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance. She stated that Title IV Docket, Helipads she sells aircraft and is very conscious of safety. She believes the aircraft has always been operated in a safe manner, and suggested the some of the recorded noise played earlier may not be from a helicopter. Citizen Comment: Porter - Steve Porter (Renton) expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stated Title IV Docket, Helipads that he is a property rights advocate. He suggested that residents in the neighborhood could be mistaking news helicopters for Mr. Conner's aircraft. Citizen Comment: Boswell - Kirby Boswell (Renton) inquired about restricting helicopter models to reduce Title IV Docket, Helipads noise: He also asked if landings and approaches are required to be conducted over water only. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING HELIPADS IN THE R-8 ZONES. CARRIED. Planning & Development lanning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Committee recommending that the proposed zoning text amendment be modified to allow Planning: Title IV helipads as a permitted accessory use in the R-8 zone, subject to the following (Development Regulations) conditions: Docket Review 1. There shall be only one aircraft use per single family residence. 2_ The use shall be limited to properties abutting Lake Washington with a minimum lake frontage of 75 feet as measured at the ordinary high water mark. 3. The weight of the aircraft in use on the site shall not exceed 6,000 pounds. 232 July 14, 2008 1*400, Renton City Council Minutes ...e Page 233 The helipad shall be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), documented with a letter stating "no objection" or "no objection if certain conditions are met" for the establishment of the helipad site as the result of an FAA Aeronautical Study. If the FAA approval states "no objection if certain conditions are met," the property owner shall maintain documentation that the conditions have been met and shall obtain the proper permits or approvals to meet those conditions, if required by federal, state, or local regulation. Under no circumstances shall a helipad be permitted if the result of the FAA Aeronautical Study is "objectionable." 5. The helipad shall be approved by the FAA for arrivals and departures from the water side only. 6. Arrival or departure of the aircraft shall occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. except in the case of emergency. A flight log shall be kept to document the time of all flights arriving or departing from the helipad. 7. Documentation of compliance with the above conditions shall be provided to the City by the property owner, at the property owner's expense, at the City's request. The Committee recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. In addition, the Committee recommends that the existing allowed helipad use in the IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR, and UC-N2 zones be referred to the Title IV Docket for review and possible amendments.* Councilmember Parker stated that the size of the aircraft is restricted to reduce noise, the allowed flight times coincide with the City's noise ordinance, and other types of aircraft are allowed without restriction. *MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 235 for ordinance.) RECESS MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. CARRIED. TIME: 8:33 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:39 p.m.; roll was called; all Councilmembers present except Corman previously excused. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of July 7, 2008. Council concur. July 7, 2008 CAG: 08-090, White Fence City Clerk submitted bid opening on 7/1/2008 for CAG-08-090, White Fence Ranch Sanitary Sewer Ranch Sanitary Sewer Extension, fifteen bids; engineer's estimate Extension, Shoreline $1,303,826.39; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to Construction low bidder, Shoreline Construction, Inc., in the amount of $1,071,007.84. Council concur. CAG: 08-089, Renton City Clerk submitted bid opening on 7/2/2008 for CAG-08-089, Renton Highlands 565 Zone Water Highlands 565 Zone Water Main Improvements, five bids; engineer's estimate Main Improvements, Buno $1,763,352.95; and submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to Construction low bidder, Buno Construction, LLC, in the amount of $983,263.39. Council concur. 233 PLAT'O NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMrTTEE COMMITTEE REPORT July 14, 2008 City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket (May 14, 2007 & January 1.4, 2008) APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Date ry LV 82_Or On Docket Item 07-15, Helipad Zoning Text, the Committee recommends that the proposed zoning text amendment be modified to allow helipads as a permitted accessory use in the R-8 zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be only one aircraft use per single family residence. 2. The use shall be limited to properties abutting Lake Washington with a minimum lake frontage of 75 ft. as measured at the ordinary high watermark. 3. The weight of the aircraft in use on the site shall not exceed 6,000 pounds. 4. The helipad shall be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), documented with a letter stating "no objection" or "no objection if certain conditions are met" for the establishment of the helipad site as the result of an FAA Aeronautical Study. If the FAA approval states "no objection if certain conditions are met," the property owner shall maintain documentation that the conditions have been met and shall obtain the proper permits or approvals to meet those conditions, if required by federal, state, or local regulation. Under no circumstances shall a helipad be permitted if the result of the FAA Aeronautical Study is "objectionable." 5. The helipad shall be approved by the FAA for arrivals and departures from the water side only. 6. Arrival or departure of the aircraft shall occur between the hours of 7.00 a.m. and 10 p.m. except in case of emergency. A flight log shall be kept to document the time of all flights arriving or. departing from the helipad. 7. Documentation of compliance with the above conditions shall be provided to the City by the property owner, at the property owner's expense, at the City's request. The Committee recommends that the''ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. t Ina e C mittee recommends that the existing allowed helipad use in the IL, IM, IH, CA, CO, COR an C- 2 zone e eferred to the Title IV Docket for review and possible amendments. WEA Rich Zwicker, r Greg Tay or, Member cc: '*iagteR- Alex Pietsch Gregg Zimmerman July 14, 2008 +*,,,.- Renton City Council Minutes NOW, Page 231 Mr. Hahn stated that the total expenditure for the 2009-2014 TIP is $107,347,869, of which $52,514,306 is funded and $54,833,563 is unfunded. He noted that the Transportation (Aviation) Committee requested an additional $50,000 for the maintenance of alleyways. In conclusion, he reviewed the various funding sources, options for unfunded needs, the impact of rising fuel costs, and the installation of cameras at intersections to improve safety and traffic flow. Public comment was invited. Arland "Buzz" Johnson (Renton) opined that there should be bus lanes entrances and exits to freeways and asked for bus route improvements within the City. Mr. Hahn responded by reviewing various mass transit projects that Renton supports. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: • Come visit the Renton Farmers Market every Tuesday through September 16 from 3 to 7 p.m. in the Downtown Piazza Park. The 2008 market has a wide array of 50 vendors and has enjoyed record -setting crowds. This week's featured Chef Demonstration is from Greenfresh Market, and there will also be a Kids Talent Show. Also, a big thank you to the market vendors who have shown their community spirit by donating 500 pounds of food to the Salvation Army Food Bank. • The Honey Creek Ridge Homeowners' Association will hold their annual picnic on Wednesday, July 16, from 5:30 to 8 p.m., located off of Olympia Ave. NE and NE 21st St. The LaCrosse Homeowners' Association will hold their annual neighborhood picnic on Thursday, July 17, from 6 to 8 p.m., located at NE 36th St. and Monterey Ct. NE. AUDIENCE COMMENT Charlie Conner (Renton) read a prepared statement responding to concerns from Citizen Comment: Conner - citizens opposed to a proposed ordinance regarding helipads as an accessory use Title IV Docket, Helipads with a conditional use permit in the Residential 8 (R-8) zone. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER C� TWO MORE MINUTES FOR HIS COMMENTS. CARRIED. Citizen Comment: Airis - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Young - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Shure - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Johnson - Bus Stops Citizen Comment: Simpson - Title IV Docket, Helipads Sheila Airis (Renton) opined that Mr. Conner had broken laws and regulations by flying and maintaining a helicopter at his residence. She submitted signatures via the City Clerk of residents opposing the proposed ordinance. Gary Young (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance and commented that the infrequent helicopter noise is less than that heard from boats and seaplanes. Chuck Shure (Renton) requested that flights be restricted to civil daylight hours or from 7 to 10 p.m., whichever is more restrictive. He also suggested that aircraft be insured at a minimum of $10 million for risk management purposes. Arland "Buzz" Johnson (Renton) displayed a map of downtown bus stops and requested that another stop be located closer to the Renton library. Anne Simpson (Renton) read from a prepared statement regarding Mr. Conner's qualifications, certifications and safety record. She also stated that there would be more noise over the Kennydale area if the airport was used, and that the FAA supports the helipad. 231 14, 2008 *ftw Renton City Council Minutes N%NW Page 232 Citizen Comment: Rosling - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Ritwalo - Title IV Docket, Helipads Joanie Rosling (Renton) read from a prepared statement regarding her opposition to the proposed ordinance. She also read an excerpt from a report from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe that recommended restricting the placement of helipads. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ALLOW THE SPEAKER TWO MORE MINUTES FOR HER COMMENTS. CARRIED. Continuing, Ms. Rosling commented that the Hearing Examiner's decision stated that adopting the ordinance would be capricious and arbitrary. Randy Ritwalo (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance and opined that the helicopter noise is not a nuisance to residents or wildlife. Citizen Comment: Kapetan - Victoria Kapetan (Renton) played an audio recording of helicopter noises while Title IV Docket, Helipads addressing Council. She expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance and inquired about permitting, safety, and insurance requirements regarding aircraft in residential neighborhoods. Citizen Comment: Winter - Roger Winter (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance and opined Title IV Docket, Helipads that the helicopter noise is not a nuisance to residents or wildlife. Citizen Comment: Pritchard - Marc Pritchard (Renton) spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance and stated Title IV Docket, Helipads that he believes the aircraft is operated in a safe manner and the City and FAA will be monitoring. He noted that neighborhood landscape services are routinely louder than Mr. Conner's helicopter. Citizen Comment: Spouse - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Fix - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Porter - Title IV Docket, Helipads Citizen Comment: Boswell - Title IV Docket, Helipads Planninn & Development Committee Planning: Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket Review Peter Spouse (Renton) expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stated that the noise is minimal. He also opined that the aircraft has been operated in a safe manner and only across the water. Monica Fix (Renton) voiced support for the proposed ordinance. She stated that she sells aircraft and is very conscious of safety. She believes the aircraft has always been operated in a safe manner, and suggested the some of the recorded noise played earlier may not be from a helicopter. Steve Porter (Renton) expressed support for the proposed ordinance and stated that he is a property rights advocate. He suggested that residents in the neighborhood could be mistaking news helicopters for Mr. Conner's aircraft. Kirby Boswell (Renton) inquired about restricting helicopter models to reduce noise, He also asked if landings and approaches are required to be conducted over water only. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL SUSPEND THE RULES AND ADVANCE TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT REGARDING HELIPADS IN THE R-8 ZONES. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending that the proposed zoning text amendment be modified to allow helipads as a permitted accessory use in the R-8 zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. There shall be only one aircraft use per single family residence. The use shall be limited to properties abutting Lake Washington with a minimum lake frontage of 75 feet as measured at the ordinary high water mark. 3. The weight of the aircraft in use on the site shall not exceed 6,000 pounds. 232 7, 2008 sumve Renton City Council Minutes Page 225 Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) Docket Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code, to add Review regulations regarding the required location for parking for properties that abut an alley in the Residential 8 (R-8) single family residential zoning designation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 7/14/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advancement to second and final reading: Annexation: Liberty, 156th An ordinance was read annexing approximately 193 acres, generally located Ave SE & SE 144th St east of 152nd Ave. SE, if extended, and south of SE 136th St., with approximately 27 acres north of SE 136th St.; Liberty Annexation. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADVANCE THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED. Ordinance #5398 Following second and final reading of the above referenced ordinance, it was Annexation: Liberty, 156th MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT Ave SE & SE 144th St THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5399 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by adding the position of Budget: New Administrative Human Resources Administrative Assistant to the 2008 Budget index of Assistant Position, Human positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL Resources ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Council President Palmer reported that volunteers are needed to help cut out Community Services: "Once patterns and sew costumes for the teen musical, "Once Upon a Mattress," Upon a Mattress" Teen opening at Carco Theatre on July 25. Musical AUDIENCE COMMENT Dave McCammon (Renton) thanked City officials and staff for notifying Citizen Comment: McCammon citizens in newly annexed areas about the fireworks ban. - Fireworks Ban ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERS SON, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:29 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Jason Seth July 7, 2008 June 23, 2008 `0, Renton City Council Minutes ..i Page 215 Planning: Development Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Regulations (Title IV) Docket recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the Review following docket items as recommended by the Planning Commission: Alleys in the R-8 zone. Proposed changes include implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the abutting alley.* Councilmember Parker reported that Committee members toured City alleys and commented that it was an exciting and educational opportunity for them. *MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report recommending Fire: 2006 International Fire concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed Fire Code with Code Adoption local amendments and adoption of the related ordinance for the purpose of bringing the City into line with nine Eastside Zone I Fire Marshal jurisdictions and Zone 3 Fire Marshals. The committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be prepared for reading and adoption. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3953 A resolution was read authorizing application for funding assistance for a Community Services: Ron Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP) project to the Recreation Regis Park, Washington and Conservation Office (RCO) as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW, Wildlife Recreation Program Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands (Ron Regis Grant Park, Phase II Capital Improvement Project). MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 7/7/2008 for second and final reading: Budget: New Administrative An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by adding the position of Assistant Position, Human Human Resources Administrative Assistant to the 2008 Budget index of Resources positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 7/7/2008. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: ORDINANCE #5392 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Regulations (Title IV) 2006 of City Code to amend the regulations regarding fast food restaurants and office Docket Review and conference uses; and adding a definition of fast food restaurant and amending the definition of drive-in/drive-through retail or service. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. w �✓.• M T eD 'C C �• On CQ T W "O C v, M T N TJ C 5" b ,� .�_..0 N am= L a� OC en c .. c ate'•= 3 Q b° c c °= o aov c.n uvi c c u a, c c •O �• •u a C '+-• -i0 C b4 d Q' O a� p .s~02e C O N1 e.�j N O KIn p a0 b r d U n C �• C'O V7 �'C.. O C O�� �.• N T'C y C C .' C b 1I'� T� C� •� C C O r O: O d d 3 � 0. d 'C'U Q V pn�am y.n ZU OLaQm�y3 Q t Tii C j� -a U O L a o WL. •pn �0 O >. C .L U" ODN T C L •� U ., onr ooz ar; o•GF °°Z aC c y ens g,z m^� G y.� E g o o �Q�N hp�Ua v'E �a ° `Z ° u u 3� u � c �~ •?w z 3 v �.Z. u o > .� ??��rzr � o •> 3.= � 'oonz•. � o y >,.-..� Q b 7 N 9 C C L d� C O i �9 G J C [� C r GG C O N C C O •d t�C T'.." Ul kC q yti�o o,ct�oo°..Oieo"-g>.•cebccav0''S2•�>c�'y°° aivd3aitOE too O tJ T oo v> p C U .fl OC U i O C u �...O , a � L O C v 'b y �K. U d O �p ..0 E ce T y L O pu V tv'. E �. E u�aui cv m Eai`°aui cxh�5 E W c� y Q ci o oW o 2 Q d € oW o u` dw a `� c�i�°vwi� mV WU >u.lzU -a dN aW 3 ��_L,— . cw 3 �_cn: ow 3— c W .-°V a o Cu`i •r LC C G > M OC .„CC �O � -� OCO .�y ZO �t G u RO�V gce O Z L E 2- , .� CC w�U z >yo �AC �a K o V E E ry O u o OviOV CuUno� �T wed E W? vc cw c O �Q� 5L OV zUE u OU-c m> O o u c o zU wu y: .op z _ N Z U• d C �y W y r 011 q `\ w¢ U E o W eo.c� :: 2 �" c e �° o °' W N°> c 3 c U Ws o o `V �ii / ZZ E c U Ct/JF: c� an2 ooV ry �. v Noo _ , — //�� 11 l� / Y u v O d cw c �'W -A s c•�g"l. �� c J \DES ��� 2/ OCR "a zoc� U dGsh$Qos �R°A 5.E FEz a v ow 3 o 13 r� u-0 3 uev w Z „ „ ; oocmuoOoco $ °u> 3E;-oq °v>Q0.i =LCD a ? b o 9 c nrzcz K° d o Env, u orpG c c o S i p H UOw c aQ0 c °j'c oV °c' G u•° m� Oc o y0 OA >•S j i' �%► O j W i .� O bb a: O oc'nicc�m•c o z S- O .0 • C 'b O rx •� s 03�° .�o I Z O u O ) U on tn a�G O a C a) � U � o CIL, C � `n cn 94 ,O C 1 cd X n O v PSI G v, CO C C V C Q� C Vi a) 1d • OU � � } U O cC C cdcl 0C ;7.4fl�,, 3�4;an0a,4 �-03`'-'00Cd �b CAb > u oW °' �, y y c ana�qU H o �. V z ej :9—i 00 O 0 00 N d ti 0 0 b a� a cd T c 0 a C O b w b c� U a� 4.1 y (U -5o 00 000 o cS cl o, a) H53 00 V 09 c� o 0 cd ,O �o � M > ti y 0 L O � o � 3 cl ;> b cd �En t-. O r Amends ORDs: 4963, 5100 5286 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5392 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS AND OFFICE AND CONFERENCE USES; AND ADDING A DEFINITION OF FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF DRIVE- IN/DRIVE-THROUGH RETAIL OR SERVICE. WHEREAS, the City only allows stand-alone fast food restaurants through eating and drinking establishments in the Center Village, Commercial Arterial, Center Downtown, Urban Center North, Industrial Light, Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones; and WHEREAS, the Renton Municipal Code has an inconsistency with regard to fast food restaurants due to the definition for eating and drinking establishments prohibiting fast food and the definition for fast food being classified as an eating and drinking establishment; and WHEREAS, the language in note 22 of RMC 4-2-080A references three separate conditions which are applied in the Commercial Neighborhood, Center Village and Commercial Arterial zones; with each condition not applicable in all the three zones, making clarity a concern; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to eliminate inconsistencies and allow stand-alone fast food restaurants in zones whose purpose statements are compatible with the use subject to conditions; . •1 WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation, study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said ORDINANCE NO. 5392 zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 28, 2008, having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Subsection 4-2-060I, the Retail section of the Zoning Use Table, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that a new row is inserted and the phrase "Fast Food Restaurants" is added alphabetically as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-060I, the Retail section of the Zoning Use Table, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby further amended to specify the applicable notes and conditions by zone as follows: "P38" in the IL zone, "P112" in the CV zone, "P22" in the CA zone, "P113" in the CD zone and "P81" in the UC-NI zone. Other portions of the table are to remain the same, as shown in Attachment A, unless further amended in Section III below. SECTION III. Subsection 4-2-060H, the Office and Conference section of the Zoning Use Table, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that in the rows titled "Medical and Dental 2 r 1%wo� ORDINANCE NO. 5392 �.► Offices", "Offices, general", and "Veterinary offices/clinics", "P22" is replaced with "P112" in the column associated with the CV zone. Other portions of the table are to remain the same, as shown in Attachment A, except as amended in Sections I and II, above. SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-080A, Subject to the Following Conditions, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that note 22, reads: 22. Size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. SECTION V. Subsection 4-2-080A, Subject to the Following Conditions, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended by adding new notes 112 and 113, to read as follows: 112. In the CV Zone, no office and conference uses are allowed for parcels fronting, or taking primary access from Edmonds Avenue NE; and fast food restaurants are prohibited from accommodating drive — throughs. 113. Fast Food restaurants are prohibited from accommodating drive — throughs. SECTION VI. Section 4-11-040, Definitions D, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the definition for Drive-In/Drive-Through Retail or Service reads as follows: DRIVE-IN/DRIVE-THROUGH RETAIL OR SERVICE: A business or a portion of a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged either by the 3 CM ORDINANCE NO. 5392 �j design of physical facilities or by service and/or packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the business, while seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to drive-in services at fast-food restaurants, espresso stands, and banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes. SECTION VII. Section 4-11-060, Definitions F, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the definition for Fast Food Restaurant reads as follows: FAST FOOD RESTAURANT: A restaurant occupying a detached structure, identified by a name brand that offers a standard menu, typical business operation logo, advertising franchise ownership or affiliation, and a corporate architectural prototype building. Franchise fast food typically caters to a market area larger than one neighborhood and is auto oriented. It may include drive through service. This definition excludes espresso stands. SECTION VIII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 9 -4,r j day of ,7unp )2008. 6ft4y,t J. L2a.&42�� Bonnie Walton, City Clerk 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5392 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 23rdday of June , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 6/28/2008 (summary) ORD,1478:6/9/08:scr EM ORDINANCE NO. 5392 66 Z O Q Z W 0 CD Z_ Z O N Z_ 0 w O J J Q U) w U) D w J m ¢ H w U) C� Z z O N 0 0 N v to z V N N M U o ¢ co v Ln a rn G- d I 0 p Z Q U r Q� co z pZ a a a a a= a a � W O a = a p O 00 M N v ZU a a. a_ a a a = a s p M U co s- In Z O NU a. a. a. a a ¢N�a= aaQ Q M ti U N N M 0 CO N _ 7 N J Q > N L' w �U a a a a s aaQ O Z N o Ln Q= 00 a 00 a M a 00 a M a N I¢ It CL O CL a_ _ a. a. 00 00 M 00 M N d' O D z MMM c M It ti U C M amO c') M IL a a a. M a¢ a CL = a. a_ a. a 2 Q Oa.Q- (L r M M M_ Z � O W 0- _ p 2 FL _ Z z 00 Na _ _ � Q CL z W p a = w U w CL a = U 4 Z w E o� � C W m w LL Z V U cc x O m C Q Q U =� rn ; w ai aa) — w coo y N Z Q C U C @ O U r r Can O N W y C O O co > C O C C u uj N N U 0) U U c�a m J .m c>> N a� co is Z_ LL N U vi N c 'C N x 0 c •� t0 m 0 LL U U vOi h c N U O U Z O W N O N U_ N Z W .- 'p •� m N .@ N .� N N N p = co) 2 10 1 > I- ¢ I o0 o w LL O = O = W m f>0 �- N I >1 N > June 23, 2008 14ft- Renton City Council Minutes ...r Page 215 Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review Q� Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following docket items as recommended by the Planning Commission: Alleys in the R-8 zone. Proposed changes include implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the abutting alley.* Councilmember Parker reported that Committee members toured City alleys and commented that it was an exciting and educational opportunity for them. *MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report recommending Fire: 2006 International Fire concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the proposed Fire Code with Code Adoption local amendments and adoption of the related ordinance for the purpose of bringing the City into line with nine Eastside Zone I Fire Marshal jurisdictions and Zone 3 Fire Marshals. The committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be prepared for reading and adoption. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3953 A resolution was read authorizing application for funding assistance for a Community Services: Ron Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP) project to the Recreation Regis Park, Washington and Conservation Office (RCO) as provided in Chapter 79A.15 RCW, Wildlife Recreation Program Acquisition of Habitat Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Lands (Ron Regis Grant Park, Phase II Capital Improvement Project). MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 7/7/2008 for second and final reading: Budget: New Administrative An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by adding the position of Assistant Position, Human Human Resources Administrative Assistant to the 2008 Budget index of Resources positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 7/7/2008. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: ORDINANCE #5392 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Regulations (Title IV) 2006 of City Code to amend the regulations regarding fast food restaurants and office Docket Review and conference uses; and adding a definition of fast food restaurant and amending the definition of drive-in/drive-through retail or service. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED. -- APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date 6-�S-,Rood COMMITTEE REPORT June 23, 2008 Title IV Docket Review (Referred 5/14/2007) The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following docket items as recommended by the Planning Commission: Alleys in the R-8 Zone. Proposed changes include implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley. New, development would be required to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular access to the parking areas through the Ab tting alley. K' er, air Rich Zwicker, Vice Nair Greg Tayeor, Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch June 16, 2008 1 , Renton City Council Minutes .. Page 202 Responding to an inquiry by Councilmember Briere, Community and Economic Development Administrator Pietsch stated that produce sales are specifically exempted from local zoning by the State legislature, cannot be regulated at the local level, and are allowed throughout the City. *MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Law's appointment Appointment: Knickerbocker, of Jennifer Knickerbocker to the Advisory Commission on Diversity to fill an Advisory Commission on unexpired term expiring on 12/31/2009 (position previously held by Erica Diversity Rehberg).* Councilmember Briere introduced Ms. Knickerbocker, who was present in the audience, noted her impressive resume, and remarked that all Advisory Commission on Diversity positions are filled. Mayor Law thanked Ms. Knickerbocker for her willingness to serve on the commission. *MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3951 A resolution was read adopting the 2009-2014 City of Renton Business Plan. AJLS: City of Renton Business MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Plan, 2009-2014 THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3952 A resolution was read ratifying an amendment to the Countywide Planning Planning: 2007 Buildable Policies to adopt the 2007 Buildable Lands report. MOVED BY PARKER, Lands Amendment, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Countywide Planning Policies READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 6/23/2008 for second and final reading: Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Standards; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket Review of City Code to amend the regulations regarding fast food restaurants and office and conference uses; and adding a definition of fast food restaurant and amending the definition of drive-in/drive-through retail or service. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. Rezone: Hudson Annexation An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Property, R-10 to CN (formerly the Hudson Annexation area) within the City of Renton from Residential Ten Dwelling Units per acre (R-10) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. Rezone: Hudson Annexation An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Property, R-10 to R-14 (formerly the Hudson Annexation area) within the City of Renton from Residential Ten Dwelling Units per acre (R-10) to Residential Fourteen Dwelling Units per acre (R-14). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. June 16, 2008 Nb-W Renton City Council Minutes -fts" Page 201 Planning: Restrictive Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report Covenants Removal, Althoff, recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to authorize the NE Sunset Blvd removal of restrictive covenants that were required as a condition to rezone the subject property in 1986 from Residence 3 (R-3) to Office Park (O-P). The covenants required: 1. Zoning of the subject site will revert from O-P back to R-3 if specific development plans in the form of a building permit application, or other land use permit representing an intention to utilize the O-P zoning, such as an application for site plan review or conditional use permit, is not submitted within two (2) years of final approval on this zoning action. 2. The existing homes on the subject site are not to be utilized for any commercial endeavor. The covenants are no longer relevant as they have either been satisfied or have been supplanted by subsequent rezoning of the property. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve File #06-14 Itinerant Vendors addressing the farmers markets, and temporary merchant vendor portions of this docket item with modifications from the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment will make the following changes: Farmers Markets • Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone • Add a definition for farmers markets Temporary Merchant Vendors • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers license requirements (Title V) • Revise Title V to reflect amended zones • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City sponsored events and produce stands • Revise the definition of outdoor retail sales to remove "produce stands" from the definition The Committee recommended that allowing farmers markets in other areas of the City be reviewed through the current Business District Overlay work program. The Committee also recommended that an ordinance addressing amendments for farmers market in the CD zone and temporary merchant vendors be forwarded to City Council for first reading. The Committee further recommended that the issue of mobile food vendors remain in Committee for additional research and discussion relating to the nature of these types of uses and restrictions imposed by adjacent jurisdictions. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* June 16, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes 14 Page 202 Responding to an inquiry by Councilmember Briere, Community and Economic Development Administrator Pietsch stated that produce sales are specifically exempted from local zoning by the State legislature, cannot be regulated at the local level, and are allowed throughout the City. *MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve Mayor Law's appointment Appointment: Knickerbocker, of Jennifer Knickerbocker to the Advisory Commission on Diversity to fill an Advisory Commission on unexpired term expiring on 12/31/2009 (position previously held by Erica Diversity Rehberg).* Councilmember Briere introduced Ms. Knickerbocker, who was present in the audience, noted her impressive resume, and remarked that all Advisory Commission on Diversity positions are filled. Mayor Law thanked Ms. Knickerbocker for her willingness to serve on the commission. *MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3951 A resolution was read adopting the 2009-2014 City of Renton Business Plan. AJLS: City of Renton Business MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL ADOPT Plan, 2009-2014 THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3952 A resolution was read ratifying an amendment to the Countywide Planning Planning: 2007 Buildable Policies to adopt the 2007 Buildable Lands report. MOVED BY PARKER, Lands Amendment, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS Countywide Planning Policies READ. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 6/23/2008 for second and final reading: Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Standards; and Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) Docket Review of City Code to amend the regulations regarding fast food restaurants and office and conference uses; and adding a definition of fast food restaurant and amending the definition of drive-in/drive-through retail or service. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. Rezone: Hudson Annexation An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Property, R-10 to CN (formerly the Hudson Annexation area) within the City of Renton from Residential Ten Dwelling Units per acre (R-10) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. Rezone: Hudson Annexation An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain property Property, R-10 to R-14 (formerly the Hudson Annexation area) within the City of Renton from Residential Ten Dwelling Units per acre (R-10) to Residential Fourteen Dwelling Units per acre (R-14). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/23/2008. CARRIED. PLANMNG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMVITTEE APPROVED BY COMMITTEE REPORT CITY COUNCIL Date d-141-A00F Title IV 2006 Docket Review (6/14/2007). The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approveFile #06-14 Itinerant Vendors addressing the farmers markets, and temporary merchant vendor portions of this docket item with modifications from the recommendations made by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment would make the following changes: Farmers Markets • Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone • Add a definition for farmers markets Temporary Merchant Vendors • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers license requirements (Title V) • Revise Title Vtoreflectamendedzones • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City sponsored events and produce stands • Revise the definition of outdoor retail -sales to remove "produce stands" from the definition The Committee further recommends that allowing farmers markets in other areas of the City be reviewed thorugh the current Busineas District 6verlay work program. The Committee recommends that an ordi'narrce addressing amendments for farmers market in the CD zone and temporary merchant vendors be forwarded to City Council, for first reading._ The Committee furtherrecommends th at `the is ueof,,mobile food vendors remainin Committee for additional research and discussion relating to the nature of these types of uses and restrictions mposed-by adjadten' ' dictions. Kin er, Chair t Ric wicker; Vi `e Chair Greg Ta or, Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch wr CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Amends ORD's 4963, 5027, 5080, 5100, 5124, 5132, 5190, 5191, 5201, 5241. 5286, 5331, 5356.,, 5369, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS; CHAPTER 4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; CHAPTER 9, PERMITS — SPECIFIC; AND CHAPTER 11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING ASSISTED LIVING AND TO DELETE THE DUPLICATIVE USE TABLES FOR EACH ZONE IN SECTION 4-2-070. WHEREAS, the City does not have a definition for assisted living; and WHEREAS, the City desires to define assisted living as a land use and ensure appropriate development regulations regarding assisted living facilities; and WHEREAS, in light of the definition for assisted living, the definition for convalescent centers needs to be amended to provide clarity; and WHEREAS, the tables indicating allowed uses by individual zone are redundant and the City seeks to reduce redundancy in Title IV; and WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Planning Commission for investigation and study, and said matter having been duly considered by the Planning Commission, and said zoning text amendment request being in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on March 24, 2008, and having duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties having been heard appearing in support thereof or in opposition thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: n ORDINANCE NO. 5387 M SECTION I. Subsection 4-2-060D, Other Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations, of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the words "Retirement residences" are stricken and replaced in alphabetical order with "Assisted living," but all letters and numbers associated with the zones in which the use is allowed are retained and applied to "Assisted living", as shown in Attachment A. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-060D, Other Residential, Lodging and Home Occupations, of the Zoning Use Table of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to permit assisted living in the R-14 zone. Other portions of the table are to remain the same, as shown in Attachment A. SECTION III. Section 4-2-070, subsection A through subsection S, of the Zoning Use Tables of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," are hereby deleted. Section 4-2-070 shall be marked "Reserved". SECTION IV. Subsection 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add an assisted living bonus associated with Maximum Housing Density section in the R-1 zone to read as shown in Attachment B. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. PA ORDINANCE NO. 5387 SECTION V. Subsection 4-2-11OF, Development Standards Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures), of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add an assisted living bonus in the Maximum Housing Density section of the R-10, R-14, and RM zones, as shown in Attachment C. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION VI. Subsection 4-2-120A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add an assisted living bonus in the Maximum Net Residential Density section of the CN, CV, and CA zones, as shown in Attachment D. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION VII. Subsection 4-2-120B, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add an assisted living bonus in the Maximum Net Residential Density of the CD and COR zones, as shown in Attachment E. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION VIII. Subsection 4-2-120E, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to add an assisted living bonus in the Maximum 3 �w ,4r ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Net Residential Density of the UC-NI and UC-N2 zones, as shown in Attachment F. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION IX. The table in subsection 4-4-08OF 10 e, Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that in the Residential Uses Outside of the Center Downtown Zone category a new row is added titled "Assisted living" in the Use column. In the same new row, the column associated with Number of Parking Spaces Required is amended to read: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Also, this section is amended to add a new row titled "Assisted living" in the Residential Uses in the Center Downtown Zone category, so that the column associated with Number of Required Spaces reads: 1 parking space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. These changes are shown in Attachment G. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION X. Subsection 4-4-100E 5 i, Special Requirements for Specified Uses in the Commercial Office (CO), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) Zones within One Hundred Feet (100') of a Lot Zoned RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, and RM, of Chapter 4, City -Wide Property Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the 11 ORDINANCE NO. 5387 .� City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the words "retirement residences" is replaced with the words "assisted living." SECTION XI. Subsection 4-9-065B, Applicability, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to read: The density bonus review procedure and review criteria are applicable to applicants who request bonuses in the zones which specifically authorize density bonuses in chapter 4-2 RMC. This Section of chapter 4-9 RMC contains density .. bonus procedures and review criteria for the residential uses in the R-14 and RM- U zones, as well as, assisted living in all zones where it is permitted. SECTION XII. Subsection 4-9-065D, Bonus Allowances and Review Criteria, of Chapter 9, Permits — Specific, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add a new column titled "Assisted Living" and to add new text in the associated rows to read as shown in Attachment H. Other portions of the table are to remain the same. SECTION XIII. Section 4-11-010, Definitions A, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to add a new definition to read: ASSISTED LIVING: A facility where residents live in private units and receive assistance with limited aspects of personal care, such as: taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Meals are provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. Staff is on duty 24-hours per day to ensure the welfare and safety of 5 M ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 8 7 M residents. This definition does not include: convalescent centers, congregate residences, boarding and lodging houses, adult family homes, and group homes I and II. SECTION XIV. Section 4-11-030, Definitions C, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that the definition for Convalescent Centers reads: CONVALESCENT CENTER: A facility licensed by the State for patients who are recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses. Facilities provide 24-hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activities. This definition does not include adult family homes, assisted living, group homes II, medical institutions, and/or secure community transition facilities. SECTION XV. Section 4-11-040, Definitions D, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that in the definition for Dwelling, Attached, the words "retirement residences" is replaced with the words "assisted living". Also, to add a new definition lettered F in the "Dwelling, Multi -Family" definitions, to read: 0 ORDINANCE NO. 5387 .� F. Assisted Living: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units where residents receive assistance with personal care. Dwelling units include a full kitchen (sink, oven or range, and refrigerator) or a kitchenette, a bathroom, a living area, and may include a call system. On the premises, facilities shall include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. SECTION XVI. Section 4-11-130, Definitions M, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended so that in the definition for Medical Institutions, the words "retirement residences" is replaced with the words "assisted living." SECTION XVIL Section 4-11-180, Definitions R, of Chapter 11, Definitions, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington," is hereby amended to strike the definition for Retirement Residence. SECTION XVIII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five (5) days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 9th day of June 2008. Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk 7 n n ORDINANCE NO. 5387 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 9thday of June , 2008. Denis Law, Mayor Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 6/14/2008 (summary) ORD.1472: 5/ 19/08 : scr ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Z 0 Q z (D U) w 0 (D z z 0 N Z_ M w O J J Q w U) Z) w J m Q f- w U) (D Z Z O N 0 0 N 4 N cf) ? U � o U Q U Q Z O Z z U � a ¢ Q O U a Q o Q Q co 0 O z E O o J a- 0- d = C S Q Q U 2 S CD Q W U a D- a a d U O U Z U co U Q Q = — U Q Q' c/) Q 0 Z ct)Q a a S z �r 0� Q [L Z:U Z Q a O O Q Z N w Z z Q n. O a Q ° Q Q= Q o J o = Q 0 0 r a_ S d S CO U Q Q Z 0 O Q �5 W Q Z 0 O L) o Q C Q U Q J J < Q fN/1 O W(n 0 fn LU W x W = J Ur Z NN � W fn LLJQ W x 0 'C .� 3 Z U 0 '� 0 J O Q O W �G U N c v ` co c U ai E L O C� O (o o a`�i E s O C� E O n a`�i E r O C� o cu c O S Attachment A ,%W NW ORDINANCE NO. 5887 Attachment B . § ) 0 b @ = 7 % � 6 a k � a E e E % \ 9 _ d o f m 2 O < 2 k 2 o ° « (D E w 2 2 § 2 � 4) � 2 2 2 @ 0 # % N @ 0 0 9 0 � 2 k 7 �—■ p p __ E =.k e o % o® O 0 E/ (OD U a)� a � _ U) 2ƒ ) GtpE-oG4 7 0 2 ® = a)._ -EE ° � 7 n 3E» o m E 2 g m_ Q o m■ � § 2 C ® w � E m 00 00 m 7 Z)ƒ E 2/ E 2 �Cl) O g LL 0 (n ) 0 :Dr � «� 3ui O 22 ƒ% �ƒ %5 � et 2« . UJ ■ O m \ [ 0 7 = 7 >: ���tk ��� a� c o 2ƒIn �X:0 r.. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Attachment C 4-2-11 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) I I R-10 I R-14 I RM I Minimum Housing Density ,13 Maximum Housing Density DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) For parcels over 1/2 gross acre: 4 units per net acre for any subdivision or development.4,13 Minimum density requirements shall not apply to: a) the renovation or conversion of an existing structure, or b) the subdivision, and/or development of a legal lot 1/2 gross acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995. For developments or subdivisions including attached or semi - attached dwellings: 10 dwelling units per net acre.4 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum densit ma be allowed For any subdivision, and/or development:'" "U" suffix:10 25 units per net acre. "T" suffix:" 14 units per net acre. "F" suffix: 10 units per net acre. Minimum density requirements shall not apply to the renovation or conversion of an existing structure. For any subdivision and/or development:` "U" suffix: 75 units per net acre.1 - 24 "T" suffix: 35 units per net acre." "F" suffix: 20 units per net y y acre. subject to conditions of 4-9- Assisted living bonus: Assisted living bonus: 1.,r 065. 1.5 times the maximum times the maximum density density may be allowed may be allowed subject to subject to conditions of 4-9- conditions of 4-9-065. 065. 10 units per net acre."" Minimum density requirements shall not apply to the renovation of an existing structure. For developments or subdivisions: 14 dwelling units per net acre, except that density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review.4 Affordable housing bonus: Up to 30 dwelling units per acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes ai or below 50% of the area median income. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Attachment D 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN JCV ICA DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum None 20 dwelling units per net None, except in the NE Net acre. Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Residential Sunset Business Districts Density (see maps in RMC 4-3- 040): 10 dwelling units per net acre. Maximum 4 dwelling units per 80 dwelling units per net 20 dwelling units per net Net structure. acre. acre. Assisted living Residential Assisted living bonus: Assisted living bonus: bonus: 1.5 times the Density9 1.5 times the maximum 1.5 times the maximum maximum density may be density may be allowed density may be allowed allowed subject to subject to conditions of 4- subject to conditions of 4-9- conditions of 4-9-065. 9-065. 065. 60 dwelling units per acre within the NE Fourth, Puget, Rainier, and Sunset Business Districts for buildings with mixed commercial and residential use in the same building. The 60 dwelling units per acre only applies to the parcel and/or parcels that contain the mixed -use building. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of 4-9-065. See maps in RMC 4-3-040. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 -owl Attachment E 4-2-120B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CD 1CO ICOR DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum Net 25 dwelling units per NA Where a development Residential net acre.9 involves a mix of uses then Density The minimum density minimum residential density requirements shall not shall be 16 dwelling units per apply to the subdivision net acre.9,25 and/or development of When proposed development a legal lot 1/2 acre or does not involve a mix of less in size as of March uses, then minimum 1, 1995. residential density shall be 5 dwelling units per net acre.9 25 The same area used for commercial and office development can also be used to calculate residential density. Where commercial and/or office areas are utilized in the calculation of density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. Maximum Net 100 dwelling units per NA 50 dwelling units per net acre. Residential net acre.9 Assisted living bonus: 1.5 Density Density may be times the maximum density increased to 150 may be allowed subject to dwelling units per net conditions of 4-9-065. acre subject to Administrative The same area used for Conditional Use commercial and office approval. development can also be Assisted living used to calculate residential bonus: 1.5 times the density. Where commercial maximum density may and/or office areas are be allowed subject to utilized in the calculation of conditions of 4-9-065. density, the City may require restrictive covenants to ensure the maximum density is not exceeded should the property be subdivided or in another manner made available for separate lease or conveyance. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Attachment F 4-2-120 E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS UC-N1 UC-N2 DENSITY (Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre) Minimum Net 20 dwelling units per net acre except for 20 dwelling units per net acre except for Residential mixed use development. mixed use development. Density Maximum Net 85 dwelling units per net acre.4 South of North 8th Street: 150 Residential Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the dwelling units per net acre.4 Density maximum density may be allowed subject Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the to conditions of 4-9-065. maximum density may be allowed When ground -floor commercial uses are subject to conditions of 4-9-065. incorporated into the structure, density for North of North 8th Street: 250 flats may be increased up to 150 dwelling dwelling units per net acre. units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed maximum density may be allowed subject subject to conditions of 4-9-065. to conditions of 4-9-065. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 Attachment G 4-4-08OF PARKING LOT DESIGN STANDARDS 10. Number of Parking Spaces Required: e. Parking Spaces Required Based on Land Use: Modification of these minimum or maximum standards requires written approval from the Planning/Building/Public Works Department (see RMC 4-9-250). USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: Mixed occupancies: (2 or 3 different uses in The total requirements for off-street parking the same building or sharing a lot. For 4 or facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for more uses, see "shopping center" the several uses computed separately, unless the requirements) building is classified as a "shopping center" as defined in RMC 4-11-190. Uses not specifically identified in this Planning/Building/Public Works Department staff Section: shall determine which of the below uses is most similar based upon staff experience with various uses and information provided by the applicant. The amount of required parking for uses not listed above shall be the same as for the most similar use listed below RESIDENTIAL USES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Detached and semi -attached dwellings: A minimum of 2 per dwelling unit. Tandem parking is allowed. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Manufactured homes within a A minimum of 2 per manufactured home site, plus a manufactured home park: screened parking area shall be provided for boats, campers, travel trailers and related devices at a ratio of 1 screened space per 10 units. A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building. Congregate residence: 1 per sleeping room and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Assisted Living: 1 space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, COR, 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling unit; 1.6 per 2 UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones bedroom dwelling unit; 1.2 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. RM-T Zone Exemption: An exemption to the standard parking ratio formula may be granted by the Development Services Director allowing 1 parking space per dwelling unit for developments of less than 5 dwelling units with 2 bedrooms or less per unit provided adequate on - street parking is available in the vicinity of the development. Attached dwellings within the RM-F Zone: 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. `*we ORDINANCE NO. 5387 %W Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed. Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or 2.25 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. Attached dwelling for low income or 1 for each 4 dwelling units elderly: RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income or 1 for every 4 dwelling units. elderly: Congregate Residences: 1 per 4 sleeping rooms and 1 for the proprietor, plus 1 additional space for each 4 persons employed on the premises. Assisted Living: 1 space per residential unit of assisted living, plus dedicated parking spaces for facility fleet vehicles. Detached Dwellings (existing legal) 2 per unit Ord. 5355 COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE AND EXCEPT SHOPPING CENTERS: Drive -through retail or drive -through Stacking spaces: The drive -through facility shall service: be so located that sufficient on -site vehicle stacking space is provided for the handling of motor vehicles using such facility during peak business hours. Typically 5 stacking spaces per window are required unless otherwise determined by the Development Services Director. Stacking spaces cannot obstruct required parking spaces or ingress/egress within the site or extend into the public right-of-way. Banks: A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area except when part of a shopping center. Convalescent centers: 1 for every 2 employees plus 1 for every 3 beds. Day care centers, adult day care (I and II): 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces within 100 feet of the main entrance for every 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. Bed and breakfast houses: 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. Mortuaries or funeral homes: 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of assembly rooms. Vehicle sales (large and small vehicles) 1 per 5,000 square feet. The sales area is not a with outdoor retail sales areas: parking lot and does not have to comply with dimensional requirements, landscaping or the bulk storage section requirements for setbacks and screening. Any arrangement of motor vehicles is allowed as long as: -A minimum 5 feet perimeter landscaping area is provided; ORDINANCE NO. 5387 They are not displayed in required landscape areas; and Adequate fire access is provided per Fire Department approval. Vehicle service and repair (large and small 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. vehicles): Offices, medical and dental: 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. Offices, general: A minimum of 3 per 1,000 feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Eating and drinking establishments and 1 per 100 square feet of net floor area. taverns: Eating and drinking establishment 1 per 75 square feet of net floor area. combination sit-down/drive-through restaurant: Retail sales and big -box retail sales: A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area, except big -box retail sales, which is allowed a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. Services, on -site (except as specified A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor below): area. Clothing or shoe repair shops, furniture, 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. appliance, hardware stores, household equipment: Uncovered commercial area, outdoor 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales area in nurseries: addition to any parking requirements for buildings. Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor sports arenas, 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 square feet of auditoriums, stadiums, movie floor area of main auditorium or of principal place of theaters, and entertainment clubs: assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is greater. Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance halls, dance clubs, and 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. skating rinks: Golf driving ranges: 1 per driving station. Marinas: 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3 slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. Miniature golf courses: 1 per hole. Other recreational: 1 per occupant based upon 50% of the maximum occupant load as established by the adopted Building and Fire Codes of the City of Renton. Travel trailers: 1 per trailer site. COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CENTER DOWNTOWN ZONE: Convalescent center, drive -through retail, These uses follow the standards applied outside the drive -through service, hotels, mortuaries, Center Downtown zone. indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, movie theaters, entertainment clubs, bowling alleys, dance halls, dance clubs, and other recreational uses. All commercial uses allowed in the CD A maximum of 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net Zone except for the uses listed above. floor area, with no minimum requirement. SHOPPING CENTERS: Shopping centers (includes any type of A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor gn ORDINANCE NO. 5387 EM business occupying a shopping center): area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC-N 1 and UC-N2 Zones, a maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted unless structured parking is provided, in which case 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area is permitted. Drive -through retail or drive -through service uses must comply with the stacking space provisions listed above INDUSTRIAL/STORAGE ACTIVITIES: Airplane hangars, tie -down areas: Parking is not required. Hangar space or tie -down areas are to be utilized for necessary parking. Parking for offices associated with hangars is 1 per 200 square feet. Manufacturing and fabrication, A minimum of 0.1 per 100 square feet of net floor laboratories, and assembly and/or area and a maximum of 0.15 spaces per 100 packaging operations: square feet of net floor area (including warehouse space). Self service storage: 1 per 3,500 square feet of net floor area. Maximum of three moving van/truck spaces in addition to required parking for self service storage uses in the RM-F Zone. Outdoor storage area: 0.05 per 100 square feet of area. Warehouses and indoor storage 1 per 1,500 square feet of net floor area. buildings: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC ACTIVITIES: Religious institutions: 1 for every 5 seats in the main auditorium, however, in no case shall there be less than 10 spaces. For all existing institutions enlarging the seating capacity of their auditoriums, 1 additional parking space shall be provided for every 5 additional seats provided by the new construction. For all institutions making structural alterations or additions that do not increase the seating capacity of the auditorium, see "outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs." Medical institutions: 1 for every 3 beds, plus 1 per staff doctor, plus 1 for every 3 employees. Cultural facilities: 4 per 100 square feet. Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community transition facilities: 1 per 3 beds, plus 1 per staff member, plus 1 per employee. Schools: Elementary and junior high: 1 per employee. In addition, if buses for the transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. Senior high schools: public, parochial 1 per employee plus 1 space for every 10 students ORDINANCE NO. 5387 and private: enrolled. In addition, if buses for the private transportation of children are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus Colleges and universities, arts and 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students residing crafts schools/studios, and trade or on campus, plus 1 space for every 5 day students vocational schools: not residing on campus. In addition, if buses for transportation of students are kept at the school, 1 off-street parking space shall be provided for each bus of a size sufficient to park each bus. ORDINANCE NO. 5387 vwr Attachment H 4-9-065 DENSITY BONUS REVIEW: D. BONUS ALLOWANCES AND REVIEW CRITERIA: The following table lists the conditions under which additional density or alternative bulk standards may be achieved: ASSISTED LIVING Density and Unit Size The bonus provisions are intended to allow assisted living to develop with Bonus — Purpose: higher densities, but with a building footprint and scale of building that would be expected for other multi -family structures in the applicable zone. It is expected that the density bonus will be achieved with no variances to the development regulations of the applicable zone. Maximum Additional The units in a project that are for assisted living are allowed to develop at 1.5 Units Per Acre: times the maximum density of the zone the project is in. In the R-1 and R-10 zones the maximum density for assisted living shall be 18 units/net acre. Maximum Allowable Projects that include both assisted living and independent living may only Bonus Dwelling Unit apply the density bonus ratio to the units that are built as assisted living units. Mix/Arrangement: Bonus Criteria: Assisted living units must be designated for people who are at least 55 years of age. The definitions of Assisted Living in RMC 4-11-010 and Dwelling Multi - Family, Assisted Living in RMC 4-11-040 must be met. General Provisions: NA June 9, 2008 **A,✓ Renton City Council Minutes ..., Page 194 The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5384 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget to appropriate and transfer Budget: 2008 Amendment, from Fund 502 to Fund 317 for Burnett Linear Park Phase II project expenses in Burnett Linear Park Phase II the total amount of $60,000. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY Project BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5385 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by appropriating $95,000 Budget: 2008 Amendment, from the 2008 Solid Waste Utility Fund (403) for the 2008 Solid Waste Clean Clean Sweep Program Sweep account. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5386 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by increasing the General Budget: 2008 Amendment, fund budget for Public Works Administration (Fund 000/015) by $14,823 in Principal Financial & order to increase the authorization of the Public Works Principal Financial and Administrative Analyst, Administrative Analyst position from .75 FTE to 1.0 FTE and decrease the Maintenance Shops Secretary Street Fund Budget (Fund 003/019) by $16,920 in order to reduce the authorization of a Maintenance Shops Secretary I position from 1.0 FTE to .50 FTE. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5387 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 9, Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions; of Title IV (Development Assisted Living Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding assisted living and to delete the duplicative use tables for each zone in Section 4-2-070. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS Responding to Councilmember Corman's inquiry about the running horses Community Services: sculpture at Burnett Linear Park, Councilmember Persson remarked that the Burnett Linear Park Sculpture sculpture is being cleaned and repainted at Renton Technical College and will be returned to the park when completed. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 8:05 p.m. TnAa Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk Recorder: Jason Seth June 9, 2008 Amends ORDs: 4963, 5132 CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 5 3 s 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO. 4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON," TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS REGARDING HEIGHT OF PUBLIC WATER UTILITY FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL-1, RESIDENTIAL-4 AND RESIDENTIAL-8 ZONES. WHEREAS, the City of Renton has adopted regulations for height of structures within the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones within the City; and WHEREAS, the current standard height for public utility facilities is treated the same as the height standard for other structures in these zones; and and WHEREAS, the allowed height is a maximum of 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the height needed for typical public water utility facilities exceeds 30 feet; WHEREAS, variances were historically requested to allow construction of facilities needed to provide needed public water supply; and WHEREAS, the City Hearing Examiner has found that the variance tool is not appropriate in certain instances due to required findings based on the physical constraints of the property rather than characteristics of the use; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that revisions are needed to height standards for public water utility facilities to insure that reasonable water service can be provided; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1 L ORDINANCE NO. 5383 In 0 SECTION I. Note 9 of subsection 4-2-1 IOD, Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations, of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 9. Public facilities are allowed the following height bonus: a. Water towers/reservoirs are permitted up to a maximum height of one hundred and seventy-five feet (175') to the highest point of the reservoir. b. Water treatment facilities and pump stations are allowed up to fifty (50') subject to site plan review. The reviewing official may modify setback standards to increase setbacks as part of the site plan review approval. c. Public utility facilities exceeding 50 feet in height shall be treated with public art consistent with RMC 4-9-160. Such public art shall be eligible for 1 % for art funding and shall be reviewed by the Renton Municipal Arts Commission d. Structures on Public Suffix (P) properties are permitted an additional fifteen feet (15') in height above that otherwise permitted in the zone if "pitched roofs," as defined herein, are used for at least sixty percent (60%) or more of the roof surface of both primary and accessory structures. In addition, the height of a publicly owned structure may be increased as follows: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5383 ... i. When abutting a public street, one additional foot of height for each additional one and one-half feet (1-1/2') of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum street setback required; or ii. When abutting a common property line, one additional foot of height for each additional two feet (T) of perimeter building setback beyond the minimum required along a common property line. SECTION II. Subsection 4-2-110A, Development Standards for Single Family Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures) table is hereby amended to add language to the Building Standards sections of the table, row titled "Maximum Building Height and Number of Stories" creating an exemption for public water system facilities subject to foot note #9 and amend the row titled "Maximum Building Coverage" to allow the reviewing official to modify the building coverage allowance in the R-1, R-4, and R-8 zones, as shown on Exhibit A. SECTION III. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and thirty days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2nd day of ,June , 2008. Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2nd day of June , 2008. "M- 4e Denis Law, Mayor 3 SW ORDINANCE NO. 5383 SNO Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: 6/7/2008 (summary) ORD.1468:4/28/08:scr M ORDINANCE NO.g, -� R EXHIBIT A 4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures RC R-1 R-4 R-8 BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 2 stories and 30 ft. 2 stories and 30 ft. for 2 stories and 30 and Number of Stories, ft. standard roof. ft. except for uses having a 2 stories and 35 ft. for "Public Suffix" (P) roofs having a pitch designation and public greater than 3/12. waters stem facilities Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4- Wireless Communication 140G. 140G. 140G. Facilities Maximum Building Lots 5 acres or 35%. For public Lots greater than Lots 5,000 sq. Coverage more: 2%. An utility facilities the 5,000 sq. ft.: 35% or ft. or greater: (Including primary and additional 5% of reviewing official 2,500 sq. ft., 35% or 2,500 accessory buildings) the total area may modify the whichever is greater. sq. ft., may be used for building coverage Lots 5,000 sq. ft. or whichever is agricultural allowance less:50%. greater. buildings. For public utility Lots less than Lots 10,000 sq. facilities the reviewing 5,000 sq. ft.: ft. to 5 acres: official may modify the 50%. 15%. On lots building coverage For public utility greater than 1 allowance facilities the acre, an reviewing additional 5% of official may the total area modify the may be used for building agricultural coverage buildings. allowance Lots 10,000 sq. ft. or less: 35%. Vertical Facade All dwelling units shall Modulation provide vertical facade modulation at least every twenty horizontal feet (20'), including front, side and rear facades when visible from a street. June 2, 2008 *AW Renton City Council Minutes Page 182 Ordinance #5383 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Regulations (Title IV) Docket regulations regarding height of public water utility facilities in R-1 (Residential Review, Utility Height - one dwelling unit per acre), R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre), and R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre) zones. MOVED BY T)k PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL RECESS AND ADJOURNMENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO DISCUSS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH NO OFFICIAL ACTION TO BE TAKEN AND THAT THE COUNCIL MEETING BE ADJOURNED WHEN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS ADJOURNED. CARRIED. Time: 8:09 p.m. Executive session was conducted. There was no action taken. The executive session and the Council meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. a-?L4 / Michele Neumann, Deputy City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann June 2, 2008 June 2, 2008 `°"` Renton City Council Minutes *✓ Page 181 contract. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Public Safety Committee Public Safety Committee Chair Taylor presented a report regarding the 2006 Fire: 2006 International Fire International Fire Code adoption with local amendments. The Committee Code Adoption recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the proposed changes with local amendments, and to adopt the related ordinance for the purpose of bringing the City into line with nine Eastside Zone I Fire Marshal jurisdictions and Zone 3 Fire Marshals. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be prepared for reading and adoption. MOVED BY TAYLOR, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the ORDINANCES Council meeting of 6/9/2008 for second and final reading: Zoning: Annual Update of An ordinance was read adopting the 2008 amendments to the zoning Zoning Book & Wall Map classification of properties located within the City of Renton. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/9/2008. CARRIED. Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget to appropriate and transfer Burnett Linear Park Phase II from Fund 502 to Fund 317 for Burnett Linear Park Phase II project expenses in Project the total amount of $60,000. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/9/2008. CARRIED. Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by appropriating $95,000 Clean Sweep Program from the 2008 Solid Waste Utility Fund (403) for the 2008 Solid Waste Clean Sweep account. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/9/2008. CARRIED. Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by increasing the General Principal Financial & fund budget for Public Works Administration (Fund 0001015) by $14,823 in Administrative Analyst, order to increase the authorization of the Public Works Principal Financial and Maintenance Shops Secretary Administrative Analyst position from .75 FTE to 1.0 FTE and decrease the Street Fund budget (Fund 003/019) by $16,920 in order to reduce the authorization of a Maintenance Shops Secretary I position from 1.0 FTE to .50 FTE. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/9/2008. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket, Assisted Living An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards; Chapter 4, Citywide Property Development Standards; Chapter 9, Permits - Specific; and Chapter 11, Definitions; of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding assisted living and to delete the duplicative use tables for each zone in Section 4-2-070. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/9/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: 0 RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting June 2, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS TERRI BRIERS; RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE LAWRENCE J. WARREN, City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; THARA JOHNSON, Associate Planner; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; PR.EETI SHRIDHAR, Communications Director; FIRE CHIEF/EMERGENCY SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR I. DAVID DANIELS and DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT VAN HORNE, Fire Department; COMMANDER KATIE MCCLINCY, Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Terry Davis, Director of Government Affairs and Franchising for Comcast City Clerk: Broadcast Digital Southeast Puget Sound Office, reported on the digital television transition that Television Transition will occur on 2/17/2009. He explained that the federal government is requiring broadcast television stations to switch the over -the -air signal from analog to digital. Resident's analog television sets receiving free television using an antenna will not work after 2/17/2009. PUBLIC HEARING -Planning: evelopment Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review Mr. Davis stated that residents who are currently using analog televisions have the following options: 1) keep the existing analog television set and purchase a television converter box; 2) connect to cable, satellite or other pay service; or 3) purchase a television with a digital tuner. He pointed out that analog television set owners can obtain coupons that can be applied toward the cost of a television converter box. Mr. Davis indicated that information about the conversion and the coupons can be obtained online at www.dtv.gov and by calling 1-888-388-2009. Responding to Council inquiries, Mr. Davis said households can obtain up to two coupons, each worth $40, and a coupon is not needed to purchase a converter box. He confirmed that cable subscribers are not required at this time to switch to digital cable. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to consider amendments to the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket item regarding mobile vendors, including: Farmers Markets, Mobile Food Vendors, and Temporary Merchant Vendors. Associate Planner Johnson reported that farmers markets and produce stands are currently permitted through the definition for "retail sales, outdoor." The recommended amendments include: allowing farmers markets only in the CD (Center Downtown) zone, providing an exemption for produce stands, and adding a definition for farmers market. Regarding mobile food vendors, Ms. Johnson stated that the vendors are currently allowed with a business license. She reported that she visited the three mobile food vendors conducting business within the City to inform them of the June 2, 2008 V.r Renton CityCouncil Minutes 4w*#' Page 177 proposed amendments, which are as follows: restricting vendors in all zones, allowing vendors on a case -by -case basis through the temporary use permit process, providing exemptions for City -sponsored events or functions, and adding a definition for mobile food vendors. ' Turning to temporary merchant vendors, Ms. Johnson explained that the vendors are currently allowed through the peddler's licensing requirements in City Code Title V (Business). The proposal revises Title V to reflect new zones. In conclusion, she indicated that the next step is for the Planning and Development Committee to make its recommendation on the matter. Responding to Councilmember Briere's comments, Ms. Johnson confirmed that temporary vendors that sell flowers during the holidays are also required to obtain a peddler's license, which includes a background check, and a business license. The vendors will have to locate in the CA (Commercial Arterial) zone. She also confirmed that unless it was a part of a City -sponsored function, vendors would be unable to sell art in a park. Councilmember Persson noted that one reason for the background check is to prevent pedophiles from receiving a peddler's license. Noting that farmers markets will be restricted to the CD zone, Councilmember Parker pointed out that in the future, a farmers market may be wanted in the Benson Hill or Highlands areas. He also questioned whether mobile food vendors are really mobile, as they tend to stay in one place. Councilmember Taylor inquired as to how other cities regulate mobile food vendors. He expressed support for the encouragement of the free enterprise system, especially in this diverse community, in a way that does not take away from community appeal. Public comment was invited. There being none, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. APPEAL Councilmember Parker announced that the Committee of the Whole heard the Committee of the Whole appeal regarding the T-Mobile conditional use permit this evening, and the Appeal: Monopole Conditional Committee will present its report at the next Council meeting (6/9/2008). Use Permit, T-Mobile, CU-07- 065 ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: Beginning June 3, the 2008 Senior Stage Review will air on Renton Cable Channel 21. Streets: Duvall Ave NE Public Works Administrator Zimmerman reported on the temporary closure of Closure, Road Improvements Duvall Ave. NE between NE Sunset Blvd. (SR-900) and SE 95th Way. Project Originally scheduled to begin on June 2, he indicated that the road will be closed beginning on June 5. Mr. Zimmerman explained that the delay is due to the contractor having to wait for State approval of the required stormwater pollution prevention plan. Stating that the road will remain closed through approximately July 2009, he reviewed the detour routes and noted that Union Ave. NE is not a designated truck route. Councilmember Parker pointed out that the temporary full closure of Duvall Ave. NE saves the taxpayers money and shortens the time of the project. He stressed the importance of continuous communication to the public regarding Y 2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING June 2, 2008 FARMERS MARKETS, MOBILE FOOD VENDORS & TEMPORARY MERCHANT VENDORS The City of Renton currently permits farmers markets and produce stands through the definition for outdoor retail sales. The zoning tables allow outdoor retail sales in the Center Downtown (CD), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Village (CV), Industrial Light (IL), Industrial Medium (IM), and Industrial Heavy (IH) zones. Notes 15 and 30 reference the type of outdoor retail sales allowed in these zones, and farmers markets and produce stands are not included; therefore, there is a discrepancy between the definition of retail sales, outdoor and the uses allowed under this category. There were concerns with permitting mobile food vendors, pushcarts or temporary merchant vendors in any zone within the City, particularly commercial zones. Review of Washington State Statutes indicates that agricultural and farmers produce are exempt from licensing requirements and that no city or county may impose licensing requirements which restrict or prohibit such uses. Additionally, a review of current licensing requirements in Title V of the Renton Municipal Code indicates that peddlers are permitted subject to obtaining a business license. In order to solve the current discrepancy between the definition of retail sales, outdoor and uses restricted through notes 15 and 30; the definition for retail sales, outdoor would need to be modified so that the reference to produce stands are removed. This is because produce stands and other agricultural and farm produce are exempt from licensing requirements and therefore land use code through state mandated statutes. Also, another change which is required is a revision to note 15 which restricts the location of farmers markets in all zones, to allow for farmers markets only in the CD zone. Other changes include providing for exemptions such as City sponsored events and/or functions or for mobile vendors approved on a case by case basis through a temporary use permit process. RECOMMENDATION: • Restriction on mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones • Allow for mobile food vendors on a case by case basis through the Temporary use permit process • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City sponsored events and produce stands • Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers license requirements (Title V) • Revise Title V to reflect amended zones City of Renton City Council Public Hearing Docket Items: Farmers Markets, Mobile Food Vendors & Temporary Merchant Vendors June 2, 2008 Background Request to correct an inconsistency in the RMC relating to farmers markets, produce stands, mobile food vendors & temporary merchant vendors. ■ Currently, farmers markets & produce stands are permitted through the definition for "retail sales, outdoor" ■ Notes 15 & 30 restrict farmers markets & produce stands ■ Mobile Food Vendors: allowed as Temporary Use Permit. ■ Temporary Merchant Vendors: allowed through Peddlers Licenses — Title V, Ch, 20. Recommendation (cont.) ■ Mobile Food Vendors ■ Currently allowed with a business license ■ Restrict vendors in all zones ■ Mobile food vendors would be allowed through a TUP ■ Exemptions for city sponsored events or functions ■ Add definition for mobile food vendors — "vendor selling food or beverages from vehicle — taco wagons, pushcart,, a milar uses" Docket Item 06-14 Farmers Markets, Mobile Food Vendors & Temporary Merchant Vendors Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends the following changes: ■ Farmers Markets & Produce Stands ■ Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone ■ Provide an exemption for produce stands (Exempt under RCW) ■ Add definition for farmers markets — 'public market where vendors sell a ricultural & arm produce" �} r r Recommendation (cont.) ■ Temporary Merchant Vendors ■ Currently allowed with a peddlers license ■ Revise Title V to reflect new zones ■ Temporary Merchant Vendors defined as peddler — "person that sells personal property or services — art & craft vendors" Next Steps for This Docket Group Planning and Development Committee Recommendation City Council Direction/ Action Public Record The following materials are entered into the public record ■ Farmers Markets, Mobile Food Vendors & Temporary Merchant Vendors ■ Planning Commission Recommendation April 23,2008 ■ Issue Paper April 9, 2008 A ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ++ PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 24, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Farmers Market, Produce Stands, Mobile Food Vendors, and Temporary Merchant Vendors Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on March 12 and April 23, 2008, to review the helipad zoning code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on April 23, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY MILLER, SECONDED BY CHEN to accept the Staff s Recommendation as presented. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED. For: Michael Chen, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Robert Bonner, Yong Lee, Ed Prince Signed X44 41001� Ray iometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/bL[Siness/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper, dated March 12, 2008 • Staff Presentation, dated March 12, 2008 • Issue Paper, dated April 9, 2008 • Staff Presentation, dated April 23, 2008 y COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 17�11 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: April 9, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Thara Johnson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-14 Zoning Districts permitting farmers markets, produce stands, mobile food vendors and temporary merchant vendors ISSUES: Should all commercial and industrial zones permit farmers markets as a by -right use? What about mobile vendors? Should they be allowed in certain zones or regulated through a temporary use permit? How do we classify mobile food vendors vs. vendors with regular merchandise? RECOMMENDATION: • Restriction on mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones • Exemptions for City sponsored functions and produce sales. • Revise note 15 to allow farmers markets in the CD zone. • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to requirements for peddler licensing requirements in Title V and revise Title V to reflect amended zones. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of Renton permits outdoor retail sales in six (6) zones; Center Downtown (CD), Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Industrial Light (IL), Industrial Medium (IM), and Industrial Heavy (IH) zoning districts. However, within the zoning use tables (4-2-060 and 4-2-070), notes 15 and 30 restrict the type of outdoor retail sales permitted in the CD, CV, CA zoning districts and IL, IM and IH zones respectively. Note 15 restricts the type of outdoor retail sales to "building, hardware and garden" uses in the CD, CV, and CA zoning districts. Note 30 limits the type of outdoor retail sales to "sale of mobile or manufactured homes, building/ hardware/ garden materials, lumberyards, and monuments/ tombstones/ gravestones " in the IL, IM, and IH zoning districts. The definition of outdoor retail sales reads "the display and sale of products and services primarily outside of a building or structure, including but not limited to garden supplies, tires and motor oil, produce sales, farmers' markets, manufactured homes, burial monuments, building and landscape materials, and lumber yards. This definition excludes adult retail uses, or vehicle sales." The definition of retail sales, outdoor appears to be in conflict with what is actually permitted within the zoning tables, since notes 15 and 30 preclude the uses of farmers markets and produce sales within the permitted zones. Administrative Interpretations/Policy Decisions Due to the inherent conflict between the definition of "retail, outdoor sales" and the restricted types of uses permitted under the zoning tables, the Development Services Division made an interpretation/policy decision regarding retail, outdoor sales in November 2004. The policy decision determined, at that time, that retail, outdoor sales facilities should be considered allowed uses in at least a few of the City's commercial zones. Based on a review of the purposes and intent of the CA, CD, and CV zoning districts, the Development Services Division determined that farmers markets, and produce/flower stands would be a compatible use with the original intent of the Renton City Council in creating these districts. The provision of temporary uses within the City's code allows for uses that are temporary in nature to be permitted in any zoning district. Also, the temporary use permit process does allow mobile food vendors in zones not normally permitting them. However, the process for Temporary Use Permits is fairly stringent in terms of length of time and requirements for processing. Also, given the nature of the users in the case of produce vendors, flower stands and/or farmers markets which are typically temporary or seasonal in nature, the requirements for a temporary use permit may be considered burdensome and excessive. Additionally, the Development Services Division interpreted the code with respect to temporary uses as only being applicable to uses that would not be regularly permitted in a respective zoning district. However, the uses of farmers markets, produce stands, and similar uses are by -right uses in the CA, CD, CV, IL, IM, and 1H zoning districts, based on the November 2004 determination and therefore, a Temporary Use Permit application would not be the appropriate process to pursue. Currently, the Development Services Division processes such uses through a Site Plan Review process, with the requirement that the applicant obtain a business license and approval from King County Department of Health. Additionally, issues of compatibility with the primary use, parking, and circulation are explored as part of the Site Plan Review process. Issue Discussion The Renton Municipal Code allows for uses associated with vendors, i.e. farmer's markets, produce, and other vendors, to be permitted in the CA, CD, CV, IL, IM, and IH zones. After discussion at the March 12, 2008 Commission meeting, the proposal was re- evaluated based on feedback received at the meeting. There were concerns with permitting mobile food vendors, pushcarts or temporary merchant vendors in any zone within the City, particularly commercial zones. Also, there was a concern that allowing farmers markets in all zones would cause unfair competition to the City sponsored farmer's market. A review of current licensing requirements in Title V of the Renton Municipal Code indicates that peddlers are permitted subject to obtaining a business license. A peddler is defined as: "A. All persons, both principals and agents, as well as employers and employees, who shall sell, offer for or expose for sale, or who shall trade, deal or traffic in any personal property or services in the City by going from house to house or from place to place or by indiscriminately approaching individuals. " B. Sales by sample or for future delivery, and executory contracts of sale by solicitors or peddlers are embraced within the proceeding subsection; provided, however, that this Chapter is not applicable to any salesperson or canvasser who solicits trade from wholesale or retail dealers within the City. C. Any person, both principals and agents, as well as employers and employees, who, while selling or offering for sale any goods, wares, merchandise or anything of value, stands in a doorway or any unenclosed vacant lot, parcel of land or in any other place not used by such person as a permanent place of business. " Title V, Chapter 20 of the Renton Municipal Code restricts locations of peddler's licenses to the CB and RB zones. However, since these zones no longer exist, this section will need to be modified so that current zones are referenced. The CB zone was an old zone that existed and has since been converted to the CA zone. However, old zoning maps from 1998, which was the year when the peddler's licensing requirements was brought into effect; do not reflect an RB zone, therefore, it is staff s opinion that the reference to the RB zone is a typo. Staff s suggestion is that the section of this code be revised to permit peddler's licenses in CA zones. Review of Washington State Statutes (RCW 36.71.090) reveals that agricultural and farmers produce are exempt from licensing requirements and that no city or county may impose license requirements or prohibit such uses through an ordinance. The statute also permits certain temporary food establishments which sell products from a list of "retail - eligible species" which are limited to "commercially harvested salmon, crab, and sturgeon" may only be required to obtain a retail license or "endorsement" and prohibits cities and counties from passing ordinances which impose additional restrictions or requirements. There are certain categories of mobile food vendors and temporary merchant vendors that provide an invaluable service. Some vendors are associated with City sponsored functions such as Renton River Days. Other uses include mobile blood donation services, mobile pet grooming facilities, girl -scout cookies, and other similar uses. These would be uses which either fall under the parameters of non-profit or charitable 1%W N40 organizations that are exempt under Title V or require a peddler's license and would not require any land use entitlement. Additionally, uses such as produce stands are also exempt under Title V, which complies with state statute. Another issue of discussion at the Commission related to comparisons between adjacent jurisdictions and a review of requirements for these areas. Based on a review of regulations in the cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Issaquah, and Kirkland, it appears that all these jurisdictions permit the location of temporary merchant vendors and mobile food vendors in specific zones, primarily in the downtown districts. Each of the cities apply a different term such as "temporary use permit", "special event license", "temporary use", however, the procedure to obtain these entitlements is similar to obtaining a peddler's license within the City of Renton. An option may be to permit farmers markets only in the CD zone, with exemptions from permitting requirements for all City sponsored events. The exemption would be referenced in the RMC 4-9-240 which speaks to temporary use permits and exempts certain uses from this process. Also, mobile food vendors would be restricted in all zones. However, RMC 4-9-240 permits mobile food vendors in zones not normally permitting them, and since the intent is to not permit them in any zone, they could be permitted through the Temporary Use Permit process on a case -by -case basis. Staff visited three mobile food vendors, all of which were taco wagons. One was located adjacent to Cafe Donuts on Rainier Ave and S 3`d PI, which is zoned CA, the other was located at the AMPM on Rainier Ave, which is also zoned CA, and the third is located at the VietWah Asian Market, which is zoned CV. However, to date, mobile food vendors have been permitted in any zone based on the policy interpretation in 2004 and not based on the peddler's licensing requirements, whose definition, although not specific does not appear to include food but "personal property or services". Therefore, these existing businesses would not be permitted to operate under the proposed modifications, unless a Temporary Use Permit was obtained or came under the umbrella of a City sponsored function or event. Another inconsistency exists with regard to note 81, which references "pushcarts and kiosks" and allows them in the UC-N 1 and UC-N2 zones. Typically, this note would need to be amended to remove this language in order to be consistent with the intent of this proposal, part of which is to restrict mobile food vendors. However, a development agreement is in place with Boeing which vested all existing development standards at the time it went into effect, on December 10, 2003. Since the existing development standards are vested, reference to any revised language would not be applicable; therefore, staff suggests no changes to note 81. The definition for outdoor retail sales would also need to be modified so that the reference to produce stands are removed; since produce stands and other agricultural and farm produce are exempt from licensing requirements and therefore land use code through state mandated statutes. Also, another change which is required is a revision to note 15 which would restrict the location of farmers markets in the CD zone and the reference to size restrictions is currently incorrect, the reference is to 4-2-120A and should be 4-2-120B. Uses such as espresso stands, although not unique are prevalent in the City and are by right uses in zoning districts where "eating and drinking establishments" are permitted. The definition for eating and drinking establishments reads "A retail establishment selling food and/or drink for consumption on the premises or for take-out, including accessory on -site food preparation. This definition includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, cafes, microbrew establishments, and espresso stands. This definition excludes taverns; fast food; entertainment clubs; dance clubs; and/or dance halls". The issue of identifying locations or zones for mobile vendors similar to other jurisdictions such as Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, or Issaquah which would promote vitality in the downtown areas may be a matter for discussion through the Community Planning Initiative. Definitions for Farmers Markets and Mobile Food Vendors Currently, the Renton Municipal Code does not have a definition for either farmers markets or mobile food vendors, although both these uses are restricted and referenced in the code. Therefore, suggested language includes: Farmers Market: A public market at which farmers and often other vendors sell agricultural produce, which includes the sale of flowers directly to consumers. Mobile Food Vendor: A person who sells retail food or beverages, to the public from any vehicle, which is designed to be readily movable and located within the boundaries of the City. Mobile food vendors include pushcarts, mobile kitchens, hot dog carts, pretzel wagons, or similar uses. Foods are limited to prepackaged food unless the unit is equipped and approved to handle food preparation. Any unit that requires direct hand contact with the food shall have a hand washing sink and comply with King County Health Department requirements. Revised Definitions Currently, the definition for outdoor retail sales references "farmers markets and produce stands", however, if produce stands are exempt from licensing or code requirements, then they should be removed from the definition. The following change to the definition is proposed: "the display and sale of products and services primarily outside of a building or structure, including but not limited to garden supplies, tires and motor oilpreduee sales, farmers' markets, manufactured homes, burial monuments, building and landscape materials, and lumber yards. This definition excludes adult retail uses, or vehicle sales." COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies for the CN, CV, CA, IL, IM, and IH zoning districts. There are a number of Comprehensive Plan policies associated with these six (6) zoning districts, policies LU-CCC, LU-DDD, LU-WWW, M CM LU-YYY, and LU-ZZZ. The policies encourage a diverse range of commercial and industrial activities, which would be enhanced by altering technical issues in the code and aligning the development code with the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: The proposed revision includes restricting mobile food vendors in all zones, permitting temporary merchant vendors subject to peddler's license requirements and farmer's markets in the CD zone. The proposed change amends existing discrepancy between existing code and general practice, and therefore will further the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan policies and make for consistent development regulations. ti v >T•O N cQ ti N N 1114, q i 'O — C T� N ll ^J s a a S oC d a ac a"� o o'� °3 os » o b c3 �_ Z a Z�U W ss c v� o a ° F sOC7'7.; 48`T'ob�pyc cv oa o >E E°ppc3o�tsaca�o [z.ay�aacUo.o�av bs 4 A c C �wzW oo-, v y- o �L E v UFOODU�U�.° LE y v E u>v a w�L °2s c Ey '� c uoao�ovcca Edon n cE c�� oq o'^_TC ac FWUNcs�°_LUVaEN,ov°v °� vCF�'CccE�U���7 OaF E E _ v — z O 5-c E G Z� o•� oUo,N >� d a` d d cd � o o�,�aQ v n.0 _ Cj= � S x 00 O � ° � O b4 � c3 rX O O C � � x� N � a '-.W CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 2nd day of June, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Zoning code amendments regarding mobile vendors (2006 Title IV Docket item): • Restrict mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones • Allow for mobile food vendors on a case by case basis through the Temporary Use permit process • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City sponsored events and produce stands • Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers license requirements (Title V) • Revise Title V to reflect amended zones All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Written comments submitted to the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing will be entered into the public hearing record. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Saturday, May 24, 2008 Account No. 50640 May 19, 2008 err Renton City Council Minutes ..✓ Page 170 The mobile vendor work program would amend the zoning code to make the following changes: • Restrict mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones. • Allow for mobile food vendors on a case -by -case basis through the temporary use permit process. • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City -sponsored events and produce stands. • Allow farmers markets only in the CD (Center Downtown) zone. • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers' license requirements (City Code Title V). • Revise City Code Title V to reflect amended zones. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilmember Briere expressed interest in also finding out how neighboring communities deal with mobile food vendors. Councilmember Parker indicated that the matter will remain in Committee for further review. *MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3949 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary total closure of Duvall Ave. Streets: Duvall Ave NE NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd. to SE 95th Way, from Closure, Road Improvements 6/2/2008 through 7/1/2009. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY Project TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review, Utility Height y The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 6/2/2008 for second and final reading: An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding height of public water utility facilities in R-1 (Residential - one dwelling unit per acre), R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre), and R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre) zones. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/2/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5382 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by allocating contract Budget: 2008 Amendment, payments from Fire District #40 to Fund 501, Equipment Rental, and Mechanic Assistant Position authorizing the addition of a Mechanic Assistant position; and adding a position for a Street Maintenance Manager to the 2008 Budget index of positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:47 p.m. Bonnie 1. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann; May 19, 2008 May 19, 2008 1%0111 Renton City Council Minutes .,.,r Page 169 Planning: Removal of Planning Division recommended approval to remove restrictive covenants Restrictive Covenants, Althoff, imposed in 1986 (R-85-092) on the Anton Althoff property located at 4409 NE NE Sunset Blvd Sunset Blvd., as the covenants are outdated and in conflict with City land use . goals. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Police: Renton Transit Center Police Department recommended approval to continue the Visitor Information VIDA Program, Dotson and Downtown Assistance (VIDA) program at the Renton Transit Center, and Security Services approval of the related contract in the amount of $65,258 with Dotson Security Services, Inc. to provide the security and ambassador services. Council concur. Streets: Duvall Ave NE Transportation Systems Division recommended approval to revise the dates of Closure, Road Improvements the temporary closure of Duvall Ave. NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Project Sunset Blvd. to SE 95th Way, to 6/2/2008 through 7/l/2009. Council concur. (See page 170 for resolution.) SAD: White Fence Ranch Utility Systems Division requested authorization to establish the White Fence Sanitary Sewer Ranch Sanitary Sewer Special Assessment District in the estimated amount of $1,300,556.39 to ensure that projects costs are equitably distributed to those who benefit. Refer to Utilities Committee. CAG: 07-155, Monroe Ave Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-07-155, Monroe Ave. NE Storm NE Storm System Overflow, System Overflow; and requested approval of the project, authorization for final Cornerstone Earth Work pay estimate in the amount of $2,828.73, commencement of 60-day lien period, and release of retained amount of $3,465.86 to Cornerstone Earth Work, Inc., contractor, if all required releases are obtained. Council concur. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY PERSSON, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning & Development Committee Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review Va Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) 2006 docket review. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following docket items as recommended by the Planning Commission: Fast Food and Towing. Fast Food. Proposed changes include allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-throughs in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones, and to allow stand-alone fast food with drive-throughs only in the Employment Area Valley in the Light Industrial zone. Definitions are revised for fast food restaurants and drive-in/drive-through retail/service. Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards. Proposed changes include: 1) A new definition for towing operations; 2) In the Light Industrial zone, allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building; 3) In the Commercial Arterial zone, allow as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops and if the tow truck is garaged. In both zones, tow vehicles will be limited to Class A, B, and E. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be prepared for reading and adoption. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning and Development Committee Chair Parker presented a report regarding the City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) 2006 docket review. The Committee recommended concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing on 6/2/2008 to consider the mobile vendor docket item. May 19, 2008 1#4.r Renton City Council Minutes *Amof Page 170 The mobile vendor work program would amend the zoning code to make the following changes: • Restrict mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones. • Allow for mobile food vendors on a case -by -case basis through the temporary use permit process. • Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for City -sponsored events and produce stands. • Allow farmers markets only in the CD (Center Downtown) zone. • Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers' license requirements (City Code Title V). • Revise City Code Title V to reflect amended zones. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT.* Councilmember Briere expressed interest in also finding out how neighboring communities deal with mobile food vendors. Councilmember Parker indicated that the matter will remain in Committee for further review. *MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3949 A resolution was read authorizing the temporary total closure of Duvall Ave. Streets: Duvall Ave NE NE/Coal Creek Parkway SE, from NE Sunset Blvd. to SE 95th Way, from Closure, Road Improvements 6/2/2008 through 7/1/2009. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY Project TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 6/2/2008 for second and final reading: Planning: Development An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Regulations (Title IV) Docket Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Review, Utility Height regulations regarding height of public water utility facilities in R-1 (Residential - one dwelling unit per acre), R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per acre), and R-8 (Residential - eight dwelling units per acre) zones. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 6/2/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5382 An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by allocating contract Budget: 2008 Amendment, payments from Fire District #40 to Fund 501, Equipment Rental, and Mechanic Assistant Position authorizing the addition of a Mechanic Assistant position; and adding a position for a Street Maintenance Manager to the 2008 Budget index of positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:47 p.m. Bonnie I. Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann; May 19, 2008 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Dat@ fQ '2 00 COMMITTEE REPORT May 19, 2008 Title IV 2006 Docket Review 14/2007 The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the following docket items as recommended by the Planning Commission: Fast Food and Towing. Fast Food: Proposed changes include: allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-thrus in the Center Village and Center, Downtown zones and to allow stand-alone fast food with drive thrus only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone. Definitions are revised for fast food restaurants and drive-in/drive-through retail/service. Towing_ Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards: Proposed changes include: 1. A new definition for towing operations. 2. In the Industrial Light zone allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building., -3. In the Commercial Arterial zone allow as a shared use with auto .repair/auto body shops and if the tow truck is garaged. In both zones tow vehicles will be limited to Class A, 8, and E. The Committee further recommends that an ordinance regarding this matter be prepared for reading and adoption. / r King Parker, Chair Rich Zwicker, Vic hair ------------ Greg or, Member cc: Rebecca Lmd Alex Pietsch APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Date s M OWO 8 COMMITTEE REPORT May 19, 2008 Title TV 2006 Docket Review 5 /14/2007 The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to set a public hearing June 2, 2008 for the Mobile Vendor docket item. The Mobile Vendor work program would amend the zoning code to make the following changes. ■ Restrict mobile food vendors and pushcarts in all zones ■ Allow for mobile food vendors on a case by case basis through the Temporary use permit process ■ Provide exemptions from permitting requirements for city sponsored events and produce stands ■ Allow farmers markets only in the CD zone ■ Allow temporary merchant vendors subject to peddlers license requirements (Title V) ■ Revise Title V to reflect amended zones, - Chair -� Rich Zwicker, Vie Chair Gre ylor, Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch May 12, 2008 'ftvRenton City Council Minutes Page 162 CAG: 08-039, Community Finance Committee Chair Persson presented a report recommending Center Gym Floor concurrence in the staff recommendation to award the contract for the Renton Replacement, Greater Seattle Community Center Gym Floor Replacement Project to the sole bidder, Greater Floors Seattle Floors, in the amount of $154,498.78. The Committee further recommended that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the contract. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3948 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an Public Works: Cooperative interlocal cooperative purchasing agreement with King County Metro. Purchasing Agreement, King MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE County Metro RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 5/19/2008 for second and final reading: Budget: 2008 Amendment, An ordinance was read amending the 2008 Budget by allocating contract Mechanic Assistant Position payments from Fire District #40 to Fund 501, Equipment Rental, and authorizing the addition of a Mechanic Assistant position; and adding a position for a Street Maintenance Manager to the 2008 Budget index of positions. MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/19/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5381 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Planning: Development Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the Regulations (Title IV) Docket regulations regarding wireless facilities. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED Review (Monopole I Wireless BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL Facilities) 7 CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY PERSSON, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADJOURN. CARRIED. Time: 7:56 p.m. &n4tti.J. &)a16,,.' Bonnie L Walton, CMC, City Clerk Recorder: Michele Neumann May 12, 2008 May 5, 2008 11"W Renton City Council Minutes . e 153 Resolution #3946 A resolution was read authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Airport: Runway 15/33 Federal Aviation Administration's federal grant application and grant assurances Resurfacing Phase II Design, and accept the grant to fund Phase II of the design and engineering portion of FAA Grant the Runway 15/33 Resurfacing project. MOVED BY CORMAN, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. Resolution #3947 A resolution was read adopting amendments to the Park Rules and Regulations. Community Services: Park MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL ADOPT THE Rules & Regulations Changes RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. The following ordinance was presented for first reading and referred to the Council meeting of 5/12/2008 for second and final reading: Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) Docket Review (Monopole I & Wireless Facilities) 7 t'! An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of City Code to amend the regulations regarding wireless facilities. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 5/12/2008. CARRIED. The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and adoption: Ordinance #5373 An ordinance was read annexing approximately 374 acres of property generally Annexation: New Life - Aqua located immediately south of the Renton Maple Valley Hwy. and immediately Barn, Maple Valley Hwy east of the Cedar River at approximately 136th Ave. SE; New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5374 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: New Life - Aqua 3.062 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Barn, CA Zoning (3.062 zoning to CA (Commercial Arterial) zoning; CPA 2007-M-03; New Life - Aqua Acres) Barn Annexation. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5375 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification for approximately Annexation: New Life - Aqua 109.35 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Barn, RC Zoning (109.35 zoning to RC (Resource Conservation) zoning; CPA 2007-M-03; New Life - Acres) Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5376 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Annexation: New Life - Aqua 26.79 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Barn, RMH Zoning (26.79 zoning to RMH (Residential Manufactured Home) zoning; CPA 2007-M-03; Acres) New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. Ordinance #5377 An ordinance was read establishing the zoning classification of approximately Annexation: New Life - Aqua 95.20 acres of property annexed within the City of Renton from King County Barn, R-4 Zoning (95.20 zoning to R-4 (Residential - four dwelling units per net acre) zoning; CPA Acres) 2007-M-03; New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED. May 5, 2008 *%w Renton City Council Minutes 1"W1 Page 152 SAD: Highlands Water Main Utilities Committee Chair Zwicker presented a report recommending Improvements concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the preliminary Special Assessment District (SAD) for the Highlands Water Main Improvements project, and to direct staff to proceed with the establishment of the final SAD upon completion of the construction of the project. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Planning & Development I Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Zwicker presented a report Committee recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the Planning: Development proposed amendments to the Monopole I in residential zones and housekeeping Regulations (Title IV) Docket amendments to wireless regulations in all zones (City Code Title IV, Review Development Regulations, Docket Item 08-01). The amendment will allow Monopole I structures on a one-half acre lot with an administrative conditional use permit provided that they meet a one hundred foot setback from residential, and create some additional flexibility within the City Code to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner conditional use permit. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. The housekeeping amendments would provide non - substantive language corrections, and cross-references. The Committee further recommended that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (Seepage 153 for ordinance.) Community Services Community Services Committee Chair Briere presented a report recommending Committee concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the revised Park Rules and Community Services: Park Regulations. The revisions include the following: 1) the Community Services Rules & Regulations Changes Administrator is authorized to grant permission for certain special events or activities, rather than the Park Board, in order to improve customer service to the public; 2) domestic animals are restricted at the Maplewood Golf Course; 3) similar sections in the rules are combined to eliminate repetition and/or confusion; 4) the sections entitled "Conduct" and "Lost Property" are moved from Article C, Civil Violations, to Article B, Criminal Violations, and an "Additional Violations" section is added to Article B; 5) the penalties sections refers to City Code instead of stating the specific penalties; 6) references to the "Park Board" are corrected to "Parks Commission"; and 7) other formatting and minor language revisions are made as necessary, and to be in accordance with City Code. The Committee further recommended that the resolution regarding this matter be presented for reading and adoption. MOVED BY BRIERS, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. (See page 153 for resolution.) RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolutions were presented for reading and adoption: ORDINANCES Resolution #3945 A resolution was read authorizing signatures for depositories and electronic Finance: Signatures for fund transfers on behalf of and in the name of the City of Renton. MOVED BY Banking Transactions PERSSON, SECONDED BY BRIERS, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED. APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Datee 5 S-v2008 May 5, 2008 Text Amendment for Monopole I in Residential Zones and Housekeeping Amendments to Wireless Regulations in all Zones March 24, 2008 The Planning and Development Committee recommends concurrence in the staff recommendation to approve the proposed amendments to the Monopole I in Residential Zones and housekeeping amendments to wireless regulations in all zones. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance be presented for first reading. The amendment will allow Monopole I structures on a one half acre lot with an Administrative Conditional Use Permit provided that they meet a one hundred feet (100') setback from residential, and create some additional flexibility within the code to allow a lesser setback with a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. In the public right-of-way, Monopole I would only be allowed on designated arterial roads. Housekeeping amendments would provide non substantive language corrections, and cross-references. The Committee further recommends that the ordinance regarding this matter be presented for first reading. King Parker, Chair Rich Zwicker, `, e'Chair ti Greg Ta r, Member cc: Rebecca Lind Alex Pietsch 4 us RENTON CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting April 28, 2008 Council Chambers Monday, 7 p.m. MINUTES Renton City Hall CALL TO ORDER Mayor Denis Law called the meeting of the Renton City Council to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL OF MARCIE PALMER, Council President; DON PERSSON; KING PARKER; COUNCILMEMBERS RICH ZWICKER; GREG TAYLOR; RANDY CORMAN. MOVED BY PALMER, SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL EXCUSE ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TERRI BRIERS. CARRIED. CITY STAFF IN DENIS LAW, Mayor; JAY COVINGTON, Chief Administrative Officer; ATTENDANCE ZANETTA FONTES, Assistant City Attorney; BONNIE WALTON, City Clerk; GREGG ZIMMERMAN, Public Works Administrator; ALEX PIETSCH, Community and Economic Development Administrator; REBECCA LIND, Planning Manager; TERRY HIGASHIYAMA, Community Services Administrator; TIM LAWLESS, Housing Repair Coordinator; MARTY WINE, Assistant CAO; DEPUTY CHIEF MARK PETERSON, Fire Department; DEPUTY CHIEF TIM TROXEL, Police Department. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Housing Repair Coordinator Lawless introduced Mark Fehr, Community Human Services: Housing Reinvestment Officer and Assistant Vice President with First Savings Bank Repair Assistance Program, Northwest, and reported that for the past eleven years, the bank has been First Savings Bank Northwest supporting the Housing Repair Assistance Program by providing matching Grant funds to help pay for services. To date, the amount of support totals $185,000. PUBLIC HEARING Planning: Development Regulations (Title IV) 2006 Docket Review IPA Mr. Lawless explained that the purpose of the program is to help low-income, disabled, and older adults maintain their homes to be safe and healthy places to live. The services provided enable the recipients to maintain independent lifestyles and increase the amount of time they are able to stay in their homes. Mr. Fehr was presented with an award in honor of the bank's continued support of the Housing Repair Assistance Program. Councilmember Corman noted the importance of the safety improvements that are provided by this program. This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to consider amendments to the following City Code Title IV (Development Regulations) docket items: Alleys, Fast Food, and Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards. Starting with the amendments concerning fast food, Planning Manager Lind pointed out the existing inaccuracy and inconsistency with the "fast food" and "eating and drinking establishments" definitions, and the need to revise Note 22 associated with the zoning use tables. She stated that the proposal includes: adding "fast food restaurants" as a new category under "Retail" in the zoning table; allowing stand-alone fast food with drive-throughs in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone; allowing fast food with drive-throughs only in the Employment Area Valley in the Light Industrial (IL) zone; revising definitions for "fast food" and "drive-in/drive-through retail or service"; and prohibiting drive-throughs in the Center Downtown and Center Village zones. Turning to the amendments regarding alleys, Ms. Lind explained that the R-8 (eight dwelling units per acre) zone does not have development standards requiring properties that abut an alley to use the alley for vehicular access to all April 28„ 2008 Renton City Council Minutes woo Page 137 parking areas. The recommended amendments include implementing standards for properties that abut public alleys in the R-8 zone with a paved and/or crushed rock surface, whereas vehicular access will be taken from the alley, and all parking areas and garages will be in the rear or side yards. Ms. Lind noted that the added development standards will maintain or improve established neighborhood characteristics. Moving on to the amendments pertaining to towing operations/auto impoundment yards, Ms. Lind stated that towing and auto impoundment is only allowed in the Heavy Industrial and Medium Industrial zones. She pointed out the difficulty in finding available land in these zones suitable for this type of use, and noted that towing is a necessary service. Ms. Lind reported that the proposed changes include: permitting towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IL zone when tow trucks and impounded vehicles are kept in a building; implementing a new definition for "towing operations" that omits the element of auto impoundment; permitting towing operations in the CA zone when the use is shared with an auto body or auto repair shop and when tow trucks are kept in a building when not in use; and allowing Class A, B, and E tow vehicles in both the IL and CA zones. Correspondence was read from Angela Laulainen (Renton) supporting the alley amendments. She stated that the amendments will help maintain the pedestrian - friendly nature of the North Renton neighborhood, maintain the character of the neighborhood, and encourage developers to design homes with landscaped front yards. Correspondence was read from Jason Scott (Renton) expressing concern regarding crime and alley safety in the North Renton Neighborhood. He recommended that the alley amendments only be considered as part of a comprehensive plan to address the most pressing issues in the neighborhood: blight, crime, and problem landlords. Public comment was invited. Ray Giometti (Renton) voiced support for the alley amendments as proposed, pointing out that single-family houses will be built that fit into neighborhoods as they look now. Stating that although these amendments are especially suitable for north and south Renton, he noted the possibility of separating the Highlands area and other parts of the City from the downtown area. George Daniels (Renton) disagreed with the alley amendments, pointing out that currently, about 50 percent of the houses have off -the -street vehicular access. He encouraged the City to review the long-term ramifications, noting that alley maintenance will increase as traffic on the alleys increase. Additionally, Mr. Daniels expressed concerns regarding the negative effect on the use of backyards and the current encroachment of buildings into the alleys. Nora Schultz (Renton) expressed her support for the alley amendments. She indicated that vehicular access from alleys makes sense in north and south Renton, as it is uniform and more visually appealing. Howard McOmber (Renton) noted the lack of maintenance of alleys in the Highlands area. He stated his preference for more flexibility regarding vehicular access to homes in the Highlands area, suggesting that the Hearing Examiner make the determinations concerning access on a case by case basis. April 28, 2008 Renton City Council Minutes tiur✓ Page 138 } There being no further public comment, it was MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. Councilmember Parker noted that these items will remain in Planning and Development Committee for further review. ADMINISTRATIVE Chief Administrative Officer Covington reviewed a written administrative REPORT report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2008 and beyond. Items noted included: The public is invited to an open house to kick-off the beginning of the Shoreline Master Program update on April 30 at City Hall. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 4/21/2008. Council concur. 4/21 /2008 Appeal: Blueberry Haven City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the Short Plat, Gordley, SHP-07- Blueberry Haven Short Plat application (SHP-07-131) by Richard and Lauralee 131 Gordley, represented by Dickson Steinacker LLP, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. (See page 141 for action on related correspondence.) Court Case: Shane Watson & Court Case filed on behalf of Shane Watson and Lauren Watson by Sheffield & Lauren Watson, CRT-08-004 Associates who seek compensation for injury and permanent disability sustained by Shane Watson on 2/10/2005 while working as a subcontractor on the Maplewood Water Treatment Facility and Golf Course Improvements construction project. Refer to City Attorney and Insurance Services. Annexation: New Life - Aqua Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of Barn, Maple Valley Hwy the New Life - Aqua Barn Annexation; 374 acres located in the vicinity of Maple Valley Hwy. Council concur. (See page 140 for ordinances.) Community Services: Park Community Services Department recommended approval of the revisions to the Rules & Regulations Changes Park Rules and Regulations. Refer to Community Services Committee. Police: Lateral Police Officers Police Department recommended approval of the starting compensation for two Hire at Step D specific Lateral Police Officers at Step D of the salary range. Council concur. Finance: Utility Bill Public Works Department recommended approval of the request to waive the Adjustment, Community past due water bill in the amount of $16,307.72 for the water meter at Liberty Services Department Park. Refer to Finance Committee. Budget: 2008 Amendment, Public Works Department recommended approval to amend the 2008 Budget Mechanic Assistant Position for Fund 501, Equipment Rental, in the amount of $37,077 to fund a Mechanic Assistant position, and approval to add the previously approved Street Maintenance Manager position to the 2008 Budget index of positions. Approval was also sought to hire a Mechanic Assistant, grade a09, effective 7/1/2008. Refer to Finance Committee. Transportation: Ripley Lane Transportation Systems Division requested approval of an agreement in the Shoulder Improvements, King amount of $19,700 with King County for providing shoulder improvements County along Ripley Lane. Council concur. (See page 139 for resolution.) Transportation: May Creek Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an agreement in the Bridge at NE 31 st St amount of $63,797 with Parametrix, Inc. for the May Creek Bridge at NE 31 st Replacement, Parametrix St. Replacement project. Council concur. A Now 2008 DOCKET PUBLIC HEARING April 28, 2008 1. FAST FOOD CODE AMENDMENT The City of Renton currently permits fast food through "eating and drinking establishments" in the Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Downtown (CD), Urban Center North Zones (UC-NI and UC-N2), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones. However, there is a technical discrepancy in the Renton Municipal Code with regard to fast food restaurants since the definition for eating and drinking establishments prohibits fast food. Also, the language in note 22 consists of three different topics, all of which are referenced in the CN, CV, and CA zones and therefore, clarity of the note is an issue. Restricting the drive -through component for fast food in the CV and CD zones, only permitting stand-alone fast food with a drive -through in the CA zone, and limiting location of fast food in the IL zone to Employment Area Valley would further the intent of these zones. The purpose statements of the CV and CD zones encourage pedestrian friendly environment, therefore restricting drive-throughs further this intent. Additionally, revision of the development regulations to include "fast food restaurants" as a retail use within the zoning table and amending note 22 so it relates only to the pertinent zoning districts which have restrictions on building size limitations attempts to simplify existing code. RECOMMENDATION: • Add "Fast Food Restaurant" as a new category under "Retail" • Prohibit drive-throughs from stand-alone fast food restaurants in the CD and CV zones • Limit the location of fast food restaurants with drive-throughs to the Employment Area Valley in the IL zone • Permit fast food restaurants with drive-throughs in the CA zone • Revise the definition for fast food restaurants so that the inconsistency in the code is clarified. This includes not classifying a fast food restaurant as an eating and drinking establishment. • The current definition for drive-in/drive-through retail/service calls out the specific use rather than the drive-in/drive-through element such as fast food restaurants and espresso stands versus fast food windows or espresso windows. Therefore, this definition is being revised so that the drive-in services are being referenced rather than the use such as "fast-food windows, espresso windows, banks and pharmacies." 2. ALLEYS CODE AMENDMENT Residential zones R-10, R-14, RM-U, and RM-T have development standards where abutting alleys are to be used for the location of parking, garages, and access. The R-8 zone does not. The majority of public alleys located in the R-8 zone are in the Highlands, Kennydale, North Renton, and Renton Hill areas. Many properties with alley access have developed with parking and garages accessed from the rear of a lot via an alley, with the exception of the Highlands. This style of development has created unique neighborhood elements as compared with more suburban style development. These characteristics include more on -street parking, less curb cuts across continuous sidewalks and paths, garages located to the back or side of homes, and safer, more pedestrian oriented streets. Currently, new projects in the R-8 zone can compromise these characteristics as current development standards allow the placement of driveways between a home and street. There are a variety of alley surfaces: grass, crushed rock, pavement, or a mix. Adding parking and access standards will maintain or improve neighborhood character, maintain safe pedestrian environments, keep valued on-streetarking spaces, and utrliz6 the City's entire transportation network. RECOMMENDATION: Implement parking and vehicular access standards for properties in the R-8 zone that abut an alley with paved and/or crushed rock surfacing • Access standards would require vehicular entry and exit to the site's parking areas and garages through the use of an abutting alleyway • Parking standards would require parking areas and attached and detached garages to be located in the rear or side yard of a property and not allowed between a front lot line and front building line 3. TOWING OPERATIONS/AUTO IMPOUNDMENT YARDS CODE AMENDMENT Currently, in the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Heavy Industrial (IH) and Medium Industrial (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. A docket request was made to allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Light Industrial (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the III and IM zones, subject to some conditions such as containment inside a building and not allowing heavy-duty tow trucks. The IL zone purpose statement allows for low intensity activities such as storage when it occurs in a building. The condition of keeping the operations and impoundment functions of towing within a building meets this purpose statement. The CA zone purpose statement emphasizes the intention to encourage a pedestrian environment and retail and service businesses. The business districts allow a maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and encourage a strong emphasis on pedestrians. Separating the two uses of towing operations/auto impoundment yard and allowing the towing operations function when it is shared with another auto related use successfully emphasizes the services aspect of towing while not deterring from a pedestrian environment. RECOMMENDATION: • Write a new definition for "towing operations", omitting the element of auto impoundment • Permit towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the Industrial Light (IL) zone when: ■ tow vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and • the vehicles that have been towed are kept in a building, and ■ towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use Allow the towing operations function as an administrative conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone when the use is: ■ shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, and ■ towing vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and ■ towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use i s City of Renton City Council Public Hearing Docket Items: Fast Food, Alleys. and Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards April 28, 2008 Docket Item 06-14 Fast food & Note 22 Background Recommendation Request to correct an inconsistence in the RMC , relatint to Last food restaurants &note 22. The I I uuvine Commission and staff recommend the 1`611m6no changes: Currenll�, fast food restaurants are permitted through ` in - Add Id,t food as a new catcgon in the zoning table • ('V_ ('A. CD. IL. 1M, It 1. UC-N t & UC-N2 zones Allox% stand-alone fast food in the CA Wixh ilricc—thrnn,h sci�mc ' Dcltnitlo❑ of prohibit last food. whereas fast food is defined as an Allovv in II_ zones only in Valley • Aillh d... e - throuO, se—c, Note 22 is referenced in the CV. CN and CA zone Revise dclinitions for "Fast food' and `drive/in drive -through • Sizc restrictions CV.CN_ CA retail or service" • Past food in CN No ofO x and contcrence CV 13cconics 2 noles n �; r Recoln>nendation (coat.) No chive - through in CD & CV zones UCN - I Zone (keep existing) Size requirements for all fast food pads • S1inimum of �,U00 sq fi. or • Inenrp r�tcd �+ithin a sh' ppinc ceNcr l'hesc proposed changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Flcment, Goals t# 9 & lU Background Request to require properties in the Residential-8 (R-8) /one that abut an alley to use the alley for vehicular access to all palkirnt) areas. (hher City Residcniiil /ones have these requirements. Concern c\pressed is that current standards can compromise neighborhood characteristics. a",;, . MA *rr=- 1 f }, 4"N. Renton streets Docket Item 06-13 Alleys Recommendation The Planning Commission and stall' recommend the follovying changes: hnpicmcnt standards for properties that abut public alleys in the R-8 7o11C 14'lll7 a paved and/or e'IUShed rock surface. Vehicular access to he taken fiom the allcN. Requuc all parking ar as and patages to he prov ided in the tear or side Ward. a Kenuvdale alleys Recommendation (coat.) Adding development standards wilt maintain or improve established a neighborhood characteristics. Rcmon Hdl lias This recommendation complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Conununib Design Klement Goals and Policy CD-13 Background Request to allova towing operations auto impoundment yards in the industrial Light (11.) zone and the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. 'X ]left the operation occurs cntircl} in a buildin_ When tow trucks are light and medium duh_'trucks Iowinglauto impoundment is currently onl} allowed in the Industrial 11caNN tmd Industrial Medium zones. Concern: DIttlCllt to find available land in these zone,. lowing is a necessary service that the City wishes to ttccutnntodatc. Docket Item 06-15 Toeing Operations/ Auto Impoundment Yards Recommendation The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following charw�cs: Pennit Towing Operations/Auto hnpoundment Yards in the 11. zone when: - Tow trucks and impounded vehicles are kept in a building implement a new definition for 'Towing Operations" Remove the auto impoundment yard function Places an emphasis on the service aspect in the more pedestrian oriented business districts and CA zone. Recommendation Permit toning operations in the CA zone when_ The use is shared with ❑n auto hod\, shop or an auto repair shop Tuw IrUCkS are kept in a building when not in use p Nllow univ Class A. B- and 1'.towr \,chicle,, in both the 11, and CA zone,,. These proposed changes comph with the Comprehensive Plan. Land I Ise l dement Goal �9. the Goal and the Purpose Statement for the Commercial designation Next Steps for This Docket Group Planning and Development Committee i Recommendation City Council Action Public Record The ii)llotring materials are entered into the public record Past Food • Plan iaii Con i....mn Rccmnnx:udation Dlnrch 26. 2008 I'm" ('aper March �c_ 'OoS Alkcs • Plannuin (,omm......... R.,,) cndalion March ^_6_'_008 • Issu^ Paper March 2o_ :UOS To\\ 111,, • I'Iunnlna Commission Rceomme,,darron March 12,2008 • Issue Paper let+niarc �7_ and March 12.2008 From: "Laulainen, Angela" <ALaulainen@lwsd.org> To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 4/28/2008 4:39:30 PM Subject: Public Hearing regarding use of Alleys Dear Council Members: WF-A , / - �, V I I MR I am writing to make a comment regarding the Public Hearing to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - 2006 Title IV Docket Items: Alleys - Implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley; and locating parking and/or garages in new development in the side or rear yards with vehicular access through the abutting alley I support the amendment to require new development to make use of the alleys instead of placing garages and driveways on the street. I would like to keep our neighborhood pedestrian friendly and this amendment would help to maintain the character of the neighborhood by encouraging developers to design homes with predominantly landscaped or grass covered front yards as opposed to predominantly driveways. I do not want to see the yards disappear when this happens and have our neighborhood become mostly asphalt. Please approve this amendment. Thank you. Sincerely, Angela Laulainen 314 Garden AVE N Renton, WA 98057 From: "Jason Scott" <jasondscott@gmail.com> To: <Council@ci.renton.wa.us> Date: 4/28/2008 5:57:10 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Alleys - Public Hearing Dear Councilmembers: I am writing in response to the proposed Alleys Code Amendment to Title IV of the City Code. My wife and I own a home on Garden Avenue North in the North Renton neighborhood. In the three years we have lived in the neighborhood, we, and many of our neighbors, have become increasingly frustrated with the blight and crime in our beloved neighborhood. In large part, the blight and crime is a direct result of the acts and omissions of a few derelict landlords. We have dilapidated, boarded -up buildings that are eyesores and whose only useful purposes are to serve as attractive nuisances and safe houses for criminal activity. We have landlords renting single-family homes to multiple families, creating population densities that our neighborhood is not equipped to handle. We have other landlords who know their rental units are being used as drug houses, yet allow such activity to continue unfettered. know this has little to do with the amendment before you tonight that would ban garages in front of homes, but that is exactly my point. I feel like the City's priorities need to be refocused to first address the most pressing issues facing North Renton and other similar neighborhoods. I am not opposed, per se, to the proposed Alley Amendment. I appreciate the fact that it was proposed with the intent of improving the pedestrian -friendliness of the neighborhood and preserving the character of the neighborhood. On the other hand, we are a long way from having safe enough alleys in our neighborhood where I would want my wife parking in our alley at night. Whatever one thinks of the Alley Amendment, it is best to consider such an amendment only as part of a comprehensive plan to address the most pressing issues facing our neighborhood. Trying to preserve the character of the neighborhood when part of that "character" is seen by many neighbors as blight and crime is premature. I hope that the Council will consider working with North Renton and other neighborhoods on a comprehensive plan to deal with blight, crime, and problem landlords as well as issues such as the one before the Council concerning parking in alleys. Sincerely, Jason Scott 235 Garden Avenue N. (425) 896-4439 On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Julia Medzegian < CM , Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us> wrote: > Dear Jason, > Per Councilmember Zwicker's request, I am copying you with Monday's > Council Agenda. Please note that the Public Hearing regarding this matter > is on the agenda. If you cannot make the meeting and would like to comment > via email, please send your comments to Council@ci.renton.wa.us. Those > comments will be forwarded to each councilmember individually and included > in the public record. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. > Sincerely, > Julia Medzegian > City Council Liaison > 425.430.6501 > jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us > >>> "Rich Zwicker" <richzwicker@msn.com> 4/22/2008 6:14 AM >>> > Julia, please add Jason Scott to the interested party list for the alley > issue. Thank you!! > ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Jason Scott <jasondscott@gmail.com> > *To:* Rich Zwicker <richardzwicker@msn.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 6:15 PM > *Subject:* Re: Alleys - Public Hearing > Rich, > Thanks for keeping us informed. > As far as this proposed code change goes, do you know what the reasons are > for prohibiting garages/driveways in the front of homes? I'm having a hard > time thinking of what the benefit of such a change would be to the > neighborhood, and, anecdotally, it seems like a lot of break-ins occur in > alley garages. > Any info you can forward on the arguments for and against the proposed > code change is greatly appreciated. > Thanks, > Jason Scott > 235 Garden Avenue North > Renton, WA 98057 > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Rich Zwicker <richardzwicker@msn.com> > wrote: > > I wanted to let my North Renton neighbors know that a public hearing has > > been set for April 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm at the Renton City Council meeting > > regarding a code change that will implement new parking and loading > > standards for properties abutting allies. New development would be required > > to locate parking and/or garages in the side or rear yards with vehicular > > access to the parking areas through the abutting alley. > > In other words, no new houses with garages and driveways in the > > front --only alley access. This directly impacts North Renton. > > The Council is seeking input from all sides --both for and against --as it > > considers this code change. We really want to know what the neighborhoods > > think about this. > > Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!! > > - Rich. CC: "Julia Medzegian" <Jmedzegian@ci.renton.wa.us> !'j,� IV f �—T T�� 1 ��j Agenda Item No.: I -1 f, J-r , �/0 T -Tkl#�RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET (Page 1) CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTEDORTO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE DATE: 2$ IwOV PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 1 Name: q�y G to MCC 5 Name: Address: 3 Z3� l v t�lf !,� . Address: City ICe�Ot� Zip Code oi0'%bS7 Topic: j4tCe S City Zip Code Topic: 2 Name:i %�f�`Jli% S 6 Name: Address:y7`5- �9i�`L1Q�✓' ��irj Address: City,iy Zip Code Topic: �Cf-� City Zip Code Topic: 3 Name: �j� (� 7 Name: Address: 15',"Ljo �� , _� �e,� s 14J bd-'(Z Address: City �e�, ,,� Zip Code �S`T Topic:-LLC'YS City Zip Code Topic: 4 Name:_ l)r c�� M(Q [A 6 v- 8 Name: s Address: 0150yi lmp/hhi pl�- Address: City A,01 Zip Code �� �w Topic: 1 P y City Zip Code Topic: (CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE) ,%W 1"/ (Continued from Reverse Side - Page 2) RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit 9 Name: 13 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 10 Name: 14 Name: _ Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 11 Name: 15 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: 12 Name: 16 Name: Address: Address: City Zip Code Topic: City Zip Code Topic: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 27, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-15 Towing ISSUE: Should the City allow towing operations to occur in zones other than the Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones? BACKGROUND: In the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Industrial Heavy (IH) and Industrial Medium (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. In August 2006, Mr. Lee Isben owner of Lee's Towing Service L.L.C. requested that the City allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the IH and IM zones. Mr. Isben also suggested some specific conditions for approval of such land use in those zones. The suggested conditions that apply to zoning code are: • Vehicle storage must be contained inside a building. There are to be no exceptions to this requirement. • No heavy-duty (Class C) tow trucks and/or trucks that exceed 26,000 gross vehicle weight will be permitted on the premises. According to the Washington State Department of Licensing there are six classifications of tow trucks, those are: • Class A — Trucks that are capable of towing and recovery of passenger cars, pickup trucks, small trailers, or equivalent vehicles. • Class B — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of medium size trucks, trailers, motor homes, or equivalent vehicles. • Class C — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of large trucks, trailers, buses, motor homes, or similar vehicles. • Class D — Trucks that are equipped for and primarily used as "wheel lift" trucks. • Class E — Trucks designed and intended to transport vehicles entirely on a truck bed. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page I of 4 En • Class S — Tow or recovery trucks that cannot meet the requirements of Class "A", "B", "C", "D", or "E" and are not eligible for waiver per WAC 204-9 1 A- 070(4). Mr. Isben also made several other suggestions that include conditions such as keeping the property clean, following safety and environmental measures without exception, and requiring inspection by the Washington State Patrol and City of Renton. Many of these suggested conditions are items that would be required in either City of Renton code or the Revised Code of Washington. For example, an inspection of facilities and tow trucks by Washington State Patrol is an annual requirement under RCW 46.55.040. Currently, City code only permits towing services/impound yards outright in the IH zone. In the IM zone they are allowed as a hearing examiner conditional use and are excluded in the area south of Interstate 405 and north of Southwest 161" Street. As shown in the maps below the locations of these two zones are primarily in the valley area and near the urban center. It is difficult to identify in the maps included below, but the parcel sizes in the IH zone are very large (typically approximately 5 acres) and the parcels in the IM zone are also large (typically approximately 2 acres). There are a few smaller parcels located north of Grady Way and west of Oaksdale Avenue SW (typically approximately.62 acres), of these smaller parcels most are occupied with a use or owned by a public entity. This was one of the issues cited by Mr. Isben as a difficulty in properly locating a towing operation. He stated that the properties that were available in a zoning designation that allows towing were large and therefore expensive. Further, he stated that the property owners of the large parcels were unwilling to subdivide their property into smaller sizes that would then be lower priced. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 2 of 4 ISSUE DISCUSSION: In order to evaluate Mr. Ibsen's request to allow towing operations in the IL and CA zone staff referred to the purpose statements for the two zones. The purpose statement for the IL zone reads: "The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone (IL) is to provide areas for low - intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution, storage, and technical schools. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Industrial, Employment Area Valley, and Commercial Corridor designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Uses allowed in this zone are generally contained within buildings. Material and/or equipment used in production are not stored outside. Activities in this zone do not generate external emissions such as smoke, odor, noise, vibrations, or other nuisances outside the building. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses in the zone are also allowed. " With the condition that the vehicles being kept by the tow operation are kept entirely within a building, a tow operation would meet the purpose of the IL zone. It is recommended that tow operations/auto impoundment be allowed in the IL zone when it is located within a building and subject to other limitations. The purpose statement for the CA zone reads: "The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high -volume traffic corridors. Limited residential uses may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts along mapped corridors with development standards designed to encourage concentrated commercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the corridor, and visual interest. Designated business districts include: Automall, Sunset Boulevard, Northeast Fourth, Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue. The CA Zone is intended to implement the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. " In the CA zone a large-scale building that stores automobiles is not indoor or outdoor retail sales, but does provide a service. However, this zone also seeks to encourage residential use and pedestrian activity particularly in the business districts. In fact, the business districts allow a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units/acre in mixed use developments with height limit of 50 feet. It is likely that an indoor tow operation/impoundment yard would be a single story building. Business districts are intended to evolve into concentrated urban forms. The puropose of the regulations for the Business districts is: To "guide the redevelopment of strip commercial urban forms into more concentrated urban forms, provide for design guidelines for residential development within the district, enhance the pedestrian environment, make the commercial environment more attractive, improve the City's tax base, and result in a more successful business district. " H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 3 of 4 The business districts are located in gateway and highly commercial areas of the City and are prominent nodes of activity for their surrounding neighborhoods and seek to encourage pedestrian activity. A towing facility is not a business type that pedestrians would engage in linked activities to and from, nor one that people would want to live next to. A linked activity for a pedestrian would be when a person parks in one spot and visits multiple stores or services without moving their vehicle. A person may go to a tow yard to retrieve their vehicle as a pedestrian, but are unlikely to have traveled to their destination for the purpose of visiting other services or shops. However, the zone does intend to allow services and towing is a service. In order to encourage linked visits and emphasize the service aspect of towing rather than the storing of vehicles, it may be reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment when it is an accessory use to another auto related use, such as vehicle repair shops. A large building that has only a single use of storing vehicles would likely lack features that make it an appealing building to walk by. A building that stored a limited number of vehicles would have less impact on the pedestrian environment. Accessory uses are defined as: "Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and typically located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use. Some accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses are determined by the Development Services Division on a case -by -case basis per RMC 4-2-05OC4 and C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses. " So, it may be reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone when it is accessory to a body shop or vehicle service and repair primary use. Additionally, the number of stored vehicles would be limited to a specified number, the tow vehicles would be required to be garaged, and other limitations. Additionally, in order to continue to encourage the gateway function, pedestrian focus, and mixed -use high density residential development of the business districts it may be appropriate to only allow towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone outside the business districts and other prominent gateway locations in the CA zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The allowance of a service operation such as towing services/auto impoundment complies with the purpose statement for the commercial corridor designation, which is implemented with both the CA zone and the IL zone. Objective LU-DDD reads in part: "The Commercial land use designation should include: businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger community. However, the same objective also states that the designation should include: `projects that may be highly visible from principal arterial, uses that are dependent upon or benefiting from high -volume traffic, and uses that provide significant employment. " To achieve a balance of this objective it will be important to place limitations on the towing services/auto impoundment businesses. CONCLUSION: Staff is looking forward to discussion and input from the Planning Commission on this matter prior to making recommendations. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper.doc Page 4 of 4 PaRa ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC ' ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 12, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Angie Mathias, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-15 Towing ISSUE: Should the City allow towing operations to occur in zones other than the Industrial Heavy and Industrial Medium zones? RECOMMENDATION: ■ Permit towing operations/auto impound yards in the Industrial Light (IL) zone when: - tow vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and - the vehicles that have been towed are kept in a building, and - towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use. ■ Allow the towing operations function as an administrative conditional use in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone when the use is: - shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, and - towing vehicles are limited to Class A, B, and E, and - towing vehicles are housed in a building when not in use. ■ Implement a new definition for towing operations. BACKGROUND: In the City of Renton towing services are linked as a land use with auto impoundment yard and are only allowed in the Industrial Heavy (IH) and Industrial Medium (IM) zones. Due to this, smaller scale tow operations have found it difficult to conduct business in the City. In August 2006, Mr. Lee Isben owner of Lee's Towing Service L.L.C. requested that the City allow towing operations/impound facilities as a land use in the Industrial Light (IL) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zones in addition to the IH and IM zones. Mr. Isben also suggested some specific conditions for approval of such land use in those zones. The suggested conditions that apply to zoning code are: • Vehicle storage must be contained inside a building. There are to be no exceptions to this requirement. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 1 of 5 a NOW e • No heavy-duty (Class C) tow trucks and/or trucks that exceed 26,000 gross vehicle weight will be permitted on the premises. According to the Washington State Department of Licensing there are six classifications of tow trucks, those are: • Class A — Trucks that are capable of towing and recovery of passenger cars, pickup trucks, small trailers, or equivalent vehicles. • Class B — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of medium size trucks, trailers, motor homes, or equivalent vehicles. • Class C — Trucks that are capable of towing and/or recovery of large trucks, trailers, buses, motor homes, or similar vehicles. • Class D — Trucks that are equipped for and primarily used as "wheel lift" trucks. • Class E — Trucks designed and intended to transport vehicles entirely on a truck bed. • Class S — Tow or recovery trucks that cannot meet the requirements of Class "A", "B", "C", "D", or "E" and are not eligible for waiver per WAC 204-91 A- 070(4). Mr. Isben also made several other suggestions that include conditions such as keeping the property clean, following safety and environmental measures without exception, and requiring inspection by the Washington State Patrol and City of Renton. Many of these suggested conditions are items that would be required in either City of Renton code or the Revised Code of Washington. For example, an inspection of facilities and tow trucks by Washington State Patrol is an annual requirement under RCW 46.55.040. Currently, City code only permits towing services/impound yards outright in the IH zone. In the IM zone they are allowed as a hearing examiner conditional use and are excluded in the area south of Interstate 405 and north of Southwest 161h Street. As shown in the maps below the locations of these two zones are primarily in the valley area and near the urban center. It is difficult to identify in the maps included below, but the parcel sizes in the IH zone are very large (typically approximately 5 acres) and the parcels in the IM zone are also large (typically approximately 2 acres). There are a few smaller parcels located north of Grady Way and west of Oaksdale Avenue SW (typically approximately.62 acres), of these smaller parcels most are occupied with a use or owned by a public entity. This was one of the issues cited by Mr. Isben as a difficulty in properly locating a towing operation. He stated that the properties that were available in a zoning designation that allows towing were large and therefore expensive. Further, he stated that the property owners of the large parcels were unwilling to subdivide their property into smaller sizes that would then be lower priced. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 2 of 5 ..`.Jr t�'3uha k{ ro �4 � f ISSUE DISCUSSION: In order to evaluate Mr. Ibsen's request to allow towing operations in the IL and CA zone staff referred to the purpose statements for the two zones. The purpose statement for the IL zone reads: "The purpose of the Light Industrial Zone (IL) is to provide areas for low - intensity manufacturing, industrial services, distribution, storage, and technical schools. It is intended to implement the Employment Area Industrial, Employment Area Valley, and Commercial Corridor designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Uses allowed in this zone are generally contained within buildings. Material and/or equipment used in production are not stored outside. Activities in this zone do not generate external emissions such as smoke, odor, noise, vibrations, or other nuisances outside the building. Compatible uses that directly serve the needs of other uses in the zone are also allowed. " With the condition that the vehicles being kept by the tow operation are kept entirely within a building, a tow operation would meet the purpose of the IL zone. It is recommended that tow operations/auto impoundment be allowed in the IL zone when it is located within a building and subject to other limitations. The purpose statement for the CA zone reads: H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 3 of 5 ..r e "The purpose of the Commercial Arterial Zone (CA) is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA Zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services along high -volume traffic corridors. Limited residential uses may be integrated into the zone if there are permanent physical connections to commercial uses. The zone includes five designated business districts along mapped corridors with development standards designed to encourage concentrated commercial activity, a focal point of pedestrian activity along the corridor, and visual interest. Designated business districts include: Automall, Sunset Boulevard, Northeast Fourth, Puget Drive, and Rainier Avenue. The CA Zone is intended to implement the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. " In the CA zone a large-scale building that stores automobiles is not indoor or outdoor retail sales, but does provide a service. However, this zone also seeks to encourage residential use and pedestrian activity particularly in the business districts. In fact, the business districts allow a maximum residential density of 60 dwelling units/acre in mixed use developments with height limit of 50 feet. It is likely that an indoor tow operation/impoundment yard would be a single story building. Business districts are intended to evolve into concentrated urban forms. The puropose of the regulations for the Business districts is: To "guide the redevelopment of strip commercial urban forms into more concentrated urban forms, provide for design guidelines for residential development within the district, enhance the pedestrian environment, make the commercial environment more attractive, improve the City's tax base, and result in a more successful business district. " The business districts are located in gateway and highly commercial areas of the City and are prominent nodes of activity for their surrounding neighborhoods and seek to encourage pedestrian activity. A towing facility is not a business type that pedestrians would engage in linked activities to and from, nor one that people would want to live next to. A linked activity for a pedestrian would be when a person parks in one spot and visits multiple stores or services without moving their vehicle. A person may go to a tow yard to retrieve their vehicle as a pedestrian, but are unlikely to have traveled to their destination for the purpose of visiting other services or shops. However, the CA zone does intend to allow services and towing is a service. In order to emphasize the service aspect of towing while balancing the pedestrian focus of the CA zone and business districts it is recommended that only the towing operation function be allowed in the CA zone. In order to encourage linked visits and emphasize the service aspect of towing rather than the storing of vehicles, it is reasonable to allow towing operations/auto impoundment when it is shared with another auto related use, such as vehicle repair shops. Staff has two recommendation options regarding towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the CA zone. In both options towing operations/auto impoundment yards would be allowed in the CA zone when the use is shared with an auto repair or auto body shop, tow trucks would be limited to Class A, B, and E, and tow trucks would be required to be kept indoors. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 4 of 5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The allowance of a service operation such as towing services/auto impoundment complies with the purpose statement for the commercial corridor designation, which is implemented with both the CA zone and the IL zone. Objective LU-DDD reads in part: "The Commercial land use designation should include: businesses that provide necessary or desirable goods and services to the larger community. However, the same objective also states that the designation should include: `projects that may be highly visible from principal arterial, uses that are dependent upon or benefiting from high -volume traffic, and uses that provide significant employment. " To achieve a balance of this objective it will be important to place limitations on the towing services/auto impoundment businesses. CONCLUSION: Currently, the City only allows towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IH and IM zones. By allowing towing operations/auto impoundment yards in the IL zone when they are contained within a building it meets the purpose statement for the IL zone and would create many more options for business locations for tow operators. It is recommended that this use in the IL zone be permitted for Class A, B, and E tow vehicles. However, the locations of the IL zone are somewhat limited and are not throughout the City. The CA zone has is a zone that is widely located in many different areas of the City. The CA purpose statement allows for provision of service functions. However, it also seeks to encourage pedestrian activity, especially in the Business Districts. The recommendation of allowing the towing function only and when it is a shared use emphasizes the service aspect of towing while not impacting the pedestrian environment. APPEALS AVAILABLE: Development regulation text amendments referred to the Planning Commission are a Type X land use. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. H:AEDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-15 Towing\Issue Paper #2.doc Page 5 of 5 y DEPARTMENT OF COM;,UNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ��R, M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 12, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Towing Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on February 27 and March 12, 2008, to review the towing code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 12, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY BONNER to accept the Staff s Recommendation to allow towing in the CA zone. Commission added an Administrative Conditional Use Permit to the recommendation. FIVE FOR, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Robert Bonner, Casey Bui, Michael Chen, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Absent: Yong Lee RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY BONNER to accept the Staffs Recommendation on permitting towing in the IL zone. FOUR FOR, ONE AGAINST, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Casey Bui, Michael Chen, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Against: Robert Bonner Absent: Yong Lee Signed 1?44 A�� Ray ometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper, dated February 27, 2008 • Staff Presentation, dated February 27, 2008 • Issue Paper, dated March 12, 2008 • Staff Presentation, dated March 12, 2008 h:\ednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2008\towing.doc ��y COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ��""� ���� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: Ray Giometti, Planning Commission Chair Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Thara Johnson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Docket- 06-16 - Fast Food and Note 22 ISSUES: Should fast food be permitted as a stand alone retail use in commercial zoning districts? If permitted as a by -right use, are there some zoning districts which should be excluded from this allowance? Revise the reference to size requirements in the Center Village zone which do not apply? RECOMMENDATION: Revise zoning use tables (4-2-060 and 4-2-070) and note 22 (4-2-080) to provide for fast food and restrict locations of drive-throughs in the following zones: • Center Village (CV) (Restriction of drive -through) • Commercial Arterial (CA) • Center Downtown (CD) (Restriction of drive -through) • Urban Center North 1 (UC-NI) (Restriction on size) • Light Industrial (IL) (Restricted to locations within the EAV) Revise existing definitions for "drive-in drive -through retail or service" and "fast food". Revise note 22 to reference size restrictions; add new notes for proposed restrictions on fast food restaurants and relocate restrictions for office and conference uses in the CV zoning district as a separate note. BACKGROUND: Currently, the City of Renton permits fast food establishments as an accessory use in several zoning districts; Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Downtown (CD), Urban Center North Zones (UC-NI and UC-N2), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM) and Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning districts. However, fast food restaurants are not permitted, which is a technical discrepancy in the code since it is classified as an "eating and drinking establishment", whereas the definition for "eating and drinking establishments" excludes fast food. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper # 2.doc The definition for "eating and drinking establishments" reads "a retail establishment selling food and/or drink for consumption on the premises or for take-out, including accessory on -site food preparation. This definition includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, cafes, microbrew establishments, and espresso stands. This definition excludes taverns; fast food; entertainment clubs; dance clubs; and/or dance halls". The drive through component for fast food restaurants is permitted through "drive-in/ drive -through retail", and the definition reads "A business or a portion of a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged either by the design of physical facilities or by service and/or packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the business, while seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to fast-food restaurants, espresso stands, and drive-in services at banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes". However, CN, CV, CA, CD, UC-N1, UC-N2, IL, IM, and IH only permit drive-in/ drive -through retail services as an accessory use, which is defined as "uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use and typically located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use". Therefore, fast food restaurants with a drive -through are not permitted except when incidental to a principal use, therefore typically as part of a larger commercial or industrial development. Another issue relates to the fact that note 22 has three separate topics. Additionally, the three zoning districts which reference this note are the CN, CV and CA zoning districts. The note reads "size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. In the CN Zone, fast food establishments are prohibited. In the CV Zone, no office and conference uses are allowed for parcels fronting, or taking primary access from, Edmonds Avenue NE." The first part of the note references size restrictions in the CN, CV and CA zoning districts. However, the CV has no specific size restrictions, therefore this portion of note 22 does not relate to the CV zoning district. The second portion of the note restricts the location of fast food restaurants in the CN zoning district. However, as previously reflected, fast food restaurants are not permitted except as an accessory use, with the additional restriction of not being allowed to locate in the CN zoning district. Also, since part of this docket item relates to evaluating fast food establishments and including them as a separate retail use, this portion of the note could be removed since the zoning table would list the zoning districts where the use could be permitted. The last part of the note only pertains to the CV zone and not either the CN or CA zoning district, as it references the restriction of office and conference uses that have primary access from Edmonds Ave., in the CV zoning district. Therefore, this portion of the note should be separated from the first portion which references size restrictions and only relates to CN and CA zoning districts; whereas the last section only relates to the CV zoning district. Adding "fast food establishments" as an individual retail use within the zoning table would imply that an evaluation of which zoning districts should permit these establishments as by -right uses. Currently, the IL, IM and IH zoning districts only permit fast food restaurants as an accessory use, similar to the CV, CA, CD, UC-NI and UC-N2 districts. Note 22, currently restricts fast food related uses from being located in the CN zoning district and drive-in/ drive through retail uses are not permitted in the residential H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper # 2.doc WSW zoning districts and also the CO and COR districts as they do not comply with the purpose of these districts. Feedback from the Commission - The Planning Commission outlined several concerns with the proposal of allowing for stand alone fast food retail as a permitted use in the CV, CA, CD, UC-NI and UC-N2 zones. One of the major concerns dealt with the incidental use of drive-throughs that are largely predominant in a majority of franchise fast food restaurants, on a national level. This occurrence promotes auto oriented uses and therefore does not meet the intent of enhancing opportunities for pedestrian friendly areas in the CV and CD zones. Therefore, after exploring some alternatives to solve the current discrepancy between note 22 and the definitions for "drive-in/ drive -through retail/ service" and "fast food restaurant", one option may be to restrict permitting fast food restaurants through the use of notes. A consideration may be to permit stand-alone fast food restaurants as a permitted use in the CD and CV zones with a restriction that no associated drive-throughs may be permitted. Additionally, fast food would not be permitted in the CN, UC-N2, IM or IH zones. Fast Food restaurants would be permitted in the IL zone would with a restriction on all fast uses to be located within the Employment Area Valley and in the UC-NI zone would be restricted through note 81. This would require that "no stand- alone structures smaller than five thousand (5,000) square feet, except for pushcarts/kiosks, unless architecturally and functionally integrated into a shopping center or mixed use development" and thereby ensure that a future fast food restaurant would be integrated into an existing larger development, if there was space available or ensure that the minimum size is achieved. Essentially, the only zone where fast food would be permitted as a stand-alone use with an associated drive through would be in the CA zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: These changes comply with the Comprehensive Plan policies for the CN, CV, CA, UC-NI, UC-N2, IL, IM and IH zoning districts. There are a number of Comprehensive Plan policies associated with these eight (8) zoning districts, policies LU-YY, LU-ZZ, LU-CCC, LU-DDD, LU-WWW, LU-YYY and LU-ZZZ. The policies encourage a diverse range of commercial and industrial activities; and revising existing development regulations to pursue the intent of permitting certain retail uses such as "fast food restaurants" as a by -right use, rather than merely as an accessory use, promote the intent of compliance with the comprehensive plan. CONCLUSION: Revision of the development regulations to include "fast food restaurants" as a retail use within the zoning table as well as amending note 22 so it relates only to the pertinent zoning districts which have restrictions on building size limitations attempts to simplify existing code. Also, revising note 22 to relocate the portion of the note which only applies to office and conference uses in the CV zoning district as a distinct note 111, serves the purpose of removing references that do not apply in their entirety. Additionally, restricting elements of fast food retail that are not compatible with the intent of the CD and CV zones such as drive-throughs serve to enhance the underlying zones while increasing opportunities for compatible retail. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-16 Fast Food\Issue paper # 2.doc � m 2 O Q 2 O � W ❑ O 2 2 O N 2 a W � O � � « m W U) M W -1 � « F- W U) � O 2 2 O N 0 w 9 C� 4 m q & iƒ r g=� <=2 r E « E q 2/ zV- / / § / / M 2 & & & < p I O U) L / I I I j I CL CL � O o Cl) 04 � o 2 Q == I J E I E E S /\ o I= I ILC I I =/< « $ Q % O » 9 00 / 2 - \ r \ Q Q Q = E I E &_< 2 I< c E& E E \ Cl) 7 < E o \ _ E � � w S E } } / < < < I < _ / = § r E = Cl) / � \ / / c / c I _ _ _ = r = r a < 'T o Cl)} } E § 7 / a- I IL§ E a- n Z 2 $/ ® 2 Q% O d 7/ E _ E _ & _ < IL = E _ _ _ m 04 ƒ CN ƒ a i ^ 7 / q I m 2 � � ? I I o � w E I c CD E I 2 9 q E I 2 w _ c A E _ cn LU w o ° z t w / \ w coLL z « S E 0 k \ \ \ LU c a 3 \ / ( \ \ \ \ m J § § \ S m £ / » _ _ = ° 3 = 7 ° z z o S E \ k ƒ k_ 2 \ / \ \ \ 2 L 2 \ \ / § \ / 5 5 \ @ o c Z w 0 f \ S k W g f§ J/// N§// q z 3 § \ $ < / w / $ ƒ ƒ ƒ / $ \ Cl) UN / ? / g / 2 J E E< a.y U / E / O \ c 2 I=_< E E i 0- 0 I § / / E LO \ q- / Q I _ / _ / _ / Cl)w w U E = E < Cl) ? \ \ / _ « o r c a. j j\ ƒ j/ } / a-/ \ U UI a- a- E E E 2 � § m 04 Q 2 q- co / } _ I// = I§ _ E E E Ln n } § j / \ } _ 2 q E _ Ln a / } / / ƒ } / \ _ a- _ _ E r / i c } ƒ o = } / / I / n / < E _ < I } m / 3 < I z / E < < w w < < p p > > k k / b \ a o ¢ O E ƒ \ c LLI ® c , E = R = R 2 — \ ® 2 ( \ \ § \ m — _ § e } 6 � \ k k / k = w ® 2@± c ° LU ƒ «� c a =6 = � 6 6 g \f 2 o _ u = u c u » ; = < o e � 5 2 = ° e— _ _ / 7 7 % _ ° / \ > * @ = g o = g = / o g = _ � _ / w / S > 3 \ ( ) � \ \ 3 E/ /g § } 0 \ / § 7 \ d t( \¥ 2\ S\\ m§ 7\ f c<< O= u 0§ c 0 x u = s e= S E�_& 2 R E/ e 3 e 40 - •. ATTACHMENT 4-2-070J CENTER VILLAGE (CV) Uses allowed in the CV Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P #73 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) P #73 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Congregate residence P Group homes II for 6 or less P Group homes II for 7 or more P Home occupations AC #6 Retirement residences P SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities _ Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Medical and dental offices p 'r- .� ATTACHMENT 2 Offices, general Veterinary offices/clinics Conference center H RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC #28 Eating and drinking establishments P Fast Food Restaurants Retail sales P Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs AD Dance halls AD Movie theaters AD Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existing P Recreation facilities, indoor new P SERVICES Services, General Hotel P Motel P On -site services P Drive-in/drive-through service AC #28 Day Care Services Adult day care I P Adult day care II P Day care centers P Family day care JAC SERVICES (Continued) Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P Park and ride, shared -use P #106 Park and ride, dedicated P #106 '� ATTACHMENT 2 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, small AD #2 Taxi stand P Transit centers P STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing AD Laboratories: research, development and testing H Solid Waste/Recycling _ Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Electrical power generation and cogeneration H #66 Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large IH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H #48 Macro facility antennas P #44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures on private property H #44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD #44 Monopole II support structures H #48 Parabolic antennas — Large H #44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 *.- I.. ATTACHMENT 2 4-2-070K COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA) Uses allowed in the CA Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels, hobby AC #37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Semi -attached dwelling AD #18 Attached dwelling AD #18 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Group homes I H Group homes II for 7 or more H Home occupations AC #6 SCHOOLS _ K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 Other higher education institution P Schools/studios, arts and crafts P Trade or vocational school 1H PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices IAD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (Continued) City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H 1"W ATTACHMENT 2 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P #38 Medical and dental offices P Offices, general P Veterinary offices/clinics P RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Big -box retail P #72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and drinking establishments P Fast Food Restaurants Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #68 Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns P #20 Vehicle sales, large P #41 Vehicle sales, small P #20 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P #43 Card room P #52 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs P #20 Dance halls P #20 Gaming/gambling facilities, not -for -profit H #20 Movie theaters P #20 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor P #20 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, outdoor AD #20 Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P Recreation facilities, outdoor H #20 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P #20 Motel P #20 Off -site services P #38 On -site services P #69 Drive-in/drive-through service AC Vehicle rental, small P #20 Day Care Services Adult day care I P #22 Adult day care 11 P #22 NOW ATTACHMENT 2 Day care centers P #22 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops H #31 Car washes P #22 Express transportation services AD #20 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P #20 Parking, surface, commercial or public P #20 Park and ride, shared -use P #109 Park and ride, dedicated P #105 Transit centers H #20 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, small P Air Transportation Uses Helipads, accessory to primary use H #20 STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 Outdoor storage P #64 Self-service storage H #26 Vehicle storage AD #38 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing P #20 Laboratories: research, development and testing P #20 INDUSTRIAL (Continued) Manufacturing and fabrication, light H #20 Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station and processing center P #38 Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H Electrical power generation and cogeneration H #66 Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES ATTACHMENT 2 Lattice towers support structures AD #47 Macro facility antennas P #44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures on private property P #44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P #44 Monopole II support structures AD #47 Parabolic antennas — Large P #44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction IP P #10 Temporary uses #53 4-2-070L CENTER DOWNTOWN (CD) Uses allowed in the CD Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels, hobby AC #37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Detached dwelling (existing legal) P Attached dwelling P #16 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P #3 Congregate residence P #3 Group homes I H #3 Group homes 11 for 6 or less P #3 Group homes 11 for 7 or more H #3 Home occupations AC #6 Retirement residences P #3 ATTACHMENT 2 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) ........ . H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 Other higher education institution P Schools/studios, arts and crafts P PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (Continued) Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P Medical and dental offices P Offices, general P Veterinary offices/clinics P RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC #28 Eating and drinking establishments P Fast t IRcod, Reslaurarts �.... Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P #43 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs H Dance halls IH ATTACHMENT 2 Movie theaters P Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor P Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory P Bed and breakfast house, professional P Hotel P SERVICES (Continued) On -site services P Drive-in/drive-through service AC #70 Day Care Services Adult day care I P Adult day care II P Day care centers P Family day care AC #3 Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P #3 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P #3 Parking garage, surface, commercial or public T P #3 Park and ride, shared -use P #107 Park and ride, dedicated P #107 Taxi stand _ AD Transit centers P STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Commercial laundries, existing P #4 Laboratories: light manufacturing P #3 Laboratories: research, development and testing AD #3 Manufacturing and fabrication, light H #3 Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H ATTACHMENT 2 Electrical power generation and cogeneration H #66 Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures H #48 Macro facility antennas P #44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures on private property AD #46 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way AD #46 Monopole II support structures H #48 Parabolic antennas — Large AD #46 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES _ Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE Model homes in an approved residential development: one model home on an existing lot P #53 Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 4-2-0700 INDUSTRIAL LIGHT (IL) Uses allowed in the IL Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extraction/recovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Kennels P #37 Kennels, hobby AC #37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Caretaker's residence AC SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #9 K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P #9 Other higher education institution P #38 ... ATTACHMENT 2 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P Trade or vocational school P PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference center P #38 Medical and dental offices P #38 Offices, general P #13 OFFICE AND CONFERENCE (Continued) Veterinary offices/clinics P #38 RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Big -box retail P #72 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC Eating and drinking establishments P Food Rest lCiran's Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #34 Retail sales, outdoor P #30 Vehicle sales, large P Vehicle sales, small P ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P #43 Card room P #52 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs P #38 Dance halls P #38 .r. ATTACHMENT 2 Gaming/gambling facilities, not -for -profit H #38 Movie theaters P #38 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor P #38 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, outdoor P Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P #38 Recreation facilities, outdoor P #32 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P #38 Motel P #38 Off -site services P #38 On -site services P #38 Drive-in/drive-through service AC #62 Vehicle rental, small P SERVICES (Continued) Vehicle and equipment rental, large P #38 Day Care Services Adult day care I P #55 Adult day care II AD Day care centers P #54 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Medical institutions H #56 VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P #31 Car washes P Express transportation services AD Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P #31 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P Parking, surface, commercial or public P #38 Park and ride, shared -use P Park and ride, dedicated P #105 Transit centers H #38 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, large AD Vehicle service and repair, small P Air Transportation Uses Helipads, accessory to primary use H STORAGE Hazardous material, storage, on -site or off -site, including treatment H #24 ATTACHMENT 2 Indoor storage P Outdoor storage P #57 Self-service storage P #58 Warehousing P INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General _ Assembly and/or packaging operations P Commercial laundries, existing P #38 Commercial laundries, new P #38 Construction/contractor's office P #14 Laboratories: light manufacturing P #38 Laboratories: research, development and testing P #31 INDUSTRIAL (Continued) Manufacturing and fabrication, light P Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection station and processing center P #14 Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H #38 Electrical power generation and cogeneration H #66 Utilities, small P Utilities, medium AD Utilities, large H WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures AD #47 Macro facility antennas P #44 Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas P #44 Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P #49 Monopole I support structures on private property P #44 Monopole I support structures on public right-of-way P #44 Monopole II support structures AD #47 Parabolic antennas — Large P #44 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE _ Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 ATTACHMENT 2 4-2-07OR URBAN CENTER NORTH 1 (UC-N1) Uses allowed in the UC-N1 Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P #74 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Caretaker's residence AC Home occupations AC Retirement residences P #75 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution (public or private) H #76 Other higher education institution P Trade or vocational school H #77 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new P OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Religious institutions H Service and social organizations H #78 Public Facilities City government offices AD City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P Medical and dental offices P Offices, general P Veterinary offices/clinics P #78 RETAIL Big -box retail P #79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC #78 Eating and drinking establishments P #81 S 3st Food Restaurants p Frt i low, -7 ATTACHMENT 2 Horticultural nurseries H J Retail sales P #82 Taverns P #82 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities AD Movie theaters P #83 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, indoor H #84 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, outdoor P #84 Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor P #78 SERVICES Services, General Hotel P On -site services P #78 Drive-in/drive-through service AC #78 Day Care Services Adult day care I P #78 Adult day care II P #78 Day care centers P #78 Family day care home AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers AD #85 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P Park and ride, shared -use P #107 Park and ride, dedicated P #107 Transit centers P INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Assembly and/or packaging operations P #86 Laboratories: light manufacturing P Laboratories: research, development and testing P Manufacturing and fabrication, light P Manufacturing, airplane P Manufacturing, airplane, accessory functions AC UTILITIES Utilities, small IP Utilities, medium JAD ,,w ATTACHMENT 2 Utilities, large JH WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Macro facility antennas H Micro facility antennas P Mini facility antennas AD Minor modifications to existing wireless communication facilities P GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, where not otherwise listed in the Use Table AC TEMPORARY USE Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P #10 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #53 .� ... ATTACHMENT 3 4-2-080 CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING USE TABLES: A. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 22. Size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. k. 38. Only allowed in the Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designation. See EAV Map in RMC 4-2-080B. 81. No stand-alone structures smaller than five thousand (5,000) square feet, except for pushcarts/kiosks, unless architecturally and functionally integrated into a shopping center or mixed use development. I ; 1. all ihc€ (A .� ois i ' f i7 oi, ice alld coldt:'reric", Ilse , a: "' r.iiiovk'�"d 661, i ., . : ..t ::'i f €akji,n: ?riiiia,,^v access 1'roin. l (Atnoi� � EI` ",",Id i"d? ii ?2 .v'" a3"(lZil et. C:€.?taititL3� i111 _' drive t lrmC '.Jls, 2. 1I1 l.ilC D an, is `••- law, ATTACHMENT 4 4-11-040 DEFINITIONS D: Drive-In/Drive-Through Retail Or Service: A business or a portion of a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged either by the design of physical facilities or by service and/or packaging procedures, to carry on business in the off-street parking or paved area accessory to the business, while seated in a motor vehicle. In some instances, customers may need to get out of the vehicle to obtain the product or service. This definition shall include but not be limited to d_ri e, ' ii s i•v'ces a� fast-food i���,"a„"..n, i;:-I espresso sw)itl, w i iido� ii3d €Irk W Iii ser; iees at banks and pharmacies. This definition excludes vehicle service and repair, vehicle fueling stations, and car washes. 4-11-060 DEFINITIONS F: Fast Food Restaurant: An occupying a detached structure, identified by a name brand that offers a standard menu, typical business operation logo, advertising franchise ownership or affiliation, and a corporate architectural prototype building. Franchise fast food typically caters to a market area larger than one neighborhood and is auto oriented. It may include drive through service. This definition excludes espresso stands. CM Lon DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Fast Food and Footnote 22 Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on March 12 and 26, 2008, to review the fast food and footnote 22 code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 26, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY MILLER to accept the Staff s Recommendation as presented with the exclusion of Note 81 referencing pushcarts/kiosks. THREE FOR, ONE ABSTAIN, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Yong Lee, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Against: None Abstain: Michael Chen Absent: Robert Bonner Signed 94 411v� Ray ometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper, dated March 12, 2008 • Staff Presentation, dated March 12, 2008 • Issue Paper, dated March 26, 2008, with Attachments 1 through 4 • Staff Presentation, dated March 26, 2008 h:\ednsp\planning commVecommendations\2008\fast food.doc a-aoo NOW DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 26, 2008 TO: King Parker, Committee Chair Members of the Planning and Development Committee FROM: Renton Planning Commission SUBJECT: Alleys in the R-8 Zone Code Amendment The Renton Planning Commission met on February 13 and March 26, 2008, to review the alleys in the R-8 zone code amendment. The Commission deliberated on this issue on March 26, 2008, and recommends approval of the standards to the Planning and Development Committee. RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOVED BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY MILLER to accept the Staff s Recommendation as presented. FOUR FOR, ONE ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED. For: Michael Chen, Yong Lee, Brad Miller, Nancy Osborn Against: None Abstain: None Absent: Robert Bonner Signed A4 A;Folu� Ray iometti, Chair Renton Planning Commission Documents Considered as part of the Planning Commission Review: These documents can also be found online at http://www.rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=2778 • Issue Paper, as part of February 13, 2008 Packet, with Attachment A • Staff Presentation, dated February 13, 2008 • Issue Paper, as part of March 26, 2008 Packet, with Attachment A • Staff Presentation, dated March 26, 2008 h:\ednsp\planning comm\recommendations\2008\alleys.doc DOCKET ITEM 06-13 Alleys and Residential-8 (R-8) Zones March 26, 2008 ISSUE: Should new development in R-8 zones that abut an alley be required to have vehicular access to all parking from the alley and be required to locate all parking areas and attached or detached garages behind the front building line? RECOMMENDATION: Add vehicular and parking access development standards to the R-8 zone, for properties that abut a paved or gravel alley that would require: • Vehicular access to all parking areas and attached or detached garages through the alley, and • All parking areas and attached or detached garages to be located at the side or rear of the property; not located in front of the building and/or in the area between the front lot line and the front building line. BACKGROUND: Other residential zones in the City have development standards with specific language for new development projects that abut an alley right-of-way, where alleys are to be used for vehicular access to parking and parking areas are not allowed between a street and building front. This is not true for the R-8 zone. Compromising neighborhood character Without these development standards in the R-8 zone, established neighborhood character and quality is compromised where vehicles can access parking areas and garages through the use of driveways. Although the Comprehensive Plan does not speak specifically to single lot development, the type of project that would most likely occur in a R-8 zone, it sets a preference for the style of new development in established residential neighborhoods. Policy CD-13 of the Community Design Element states that new projects should draw on elements of existing development to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas in placement of structures and location of entries. This policy applies to the location of parking areas and garages in areas with alleys as these properties have historically located parking areas and garages in the rear or side yards and used the alley as the access route to individual residences. Currently, new projects can change the character of residential areas with alleys by allowing the placement of vehicles, garages, and driveways between a home and street which reduces safety levels for pedestrians and the amount of on -street parking spaces. Location of alleys in the R-8 zone Staff has reviewed original plats, maps, and available data at the City to locate alley right-of- ways in the Residential-8 (R-8) zone. The Highlands, Kennydale, North Renton, and Renton Hill neighborhoods have functioning alleys as part of their street networks. There are also other alleys in the City. This recommendation speaks to alleys that are one of two access points to a property rather than alleys that are the only access point to a property. Developed and undeveloped alley right-of-ways It is important to note that not all alley right-of-ways have been improved. Alleys in R-8 zones have different surfaces like grass, gravel, and asphalt or a mixture. For example, in North Renton H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Issue Paper 2—Alleys and R-8 zones_V l.doc P. 1 _0W all alleys are paved but in the Highlands area there are grass, gravel, and paved alley ways. Gravel and paved alley surfaces provide a sufficient surface for vehicle access. Code language examples for recommendation Other residential zones as well as Urban Overlay Districts have established parking and loading development standards for areas with alleys, providing exemplary language to evaluate as part of this process. Examples state that 1) all parking shall be provided in the rear yard when alley access is available, 2) that all parking shall be provided in the rear portion of the yard, and access shall be taken from the alley, and 3) no surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line and that parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. Location Examples I and 2 have language where all parking is to be provided in the rear year when alley access is available. As found in the neighborhoods with alleys, there are properties with parking areas or garages in side yards, so it would be consistent with neighborhood character to allow the location of parking areas or attached and detached garages in the side or rear yards. It would not be consistent to allow any parking area or attached and detached garages to be located between the residential street and the front of a residence, including the side yard. Access Examples 2 and 3 require that parking areas and garages be accessed from alleys when available. This language would be consistent with the R-8 areas with alleys. As mentioned previously, current development standards allow access to properties with abutting alleys to have drive access from the street rather than the alley which compromises established neighborhood character, allowing for a reduction in on -street parking, an increase in curb cuts and the crossing of vehicles through pedestrian paths and sidewalks. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: A zoning code amendment establishing development standards that require all parking to be provided in rear or side yards and vehicular access to be taken from the alley would not conflict with goals, objectives, and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSION: Adding development regulations will maintain or improve established neighborhood character, maintain safe pedestrian environments, keep valued on -street parking spaces, and utilize the City's entire transportation network. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Issue Paper 2 Alleys and R-8 zones VI.doc P. 2 100° Attachment A: Referenced Comprehensive Plan Policy in the Community Design Element Policy CD-13: Infill development should be reflective of the existing character of established neighborhoods even when designed using different architectural styles, and /or responding to more urban setbacks, height or lot requirements. Infill development should draw on elements of existing development such as placement of structures, vegetation, and location of entries and walkways, to reflect the site planning and scale of existing areas. H:\EDNSP\Title IV\Docket\2007\06-13 Alleys and the R-8 zone\Attachment A_Issue Paper 2.doc .r April 15, 2008 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 15th day of April, 2008, at the hour of 4:30 p.m your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, Notice of Public Hearing to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code — 2006 Title IV Docket Items: Alleys — Implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley; and locating parking and/or garages in new development in the side or rear yards with vehicular access through the abutting alley; Fast Food — Allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-thrus in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones; allowing stand-alone fast food with drive-thrus only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone; and revising related definitions; Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards — Adding a new definition for towing operations; allowing towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building in the Industrial Light zone; allowing as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops in the Commercial Arterial zone, if the tow truck is garaged; and limiting to Class A, B and E tow vehicles in both zones. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 15th day of April, 2008. Ja n A. Seth N tary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 28th day of April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code - 2006 Title IV Docket Items: • Alleys - Implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley; and locating parking and/or garages in new development in the side or rear yards with vehicular access through the abutting alley; • Fast Food - Allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-thrus in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones; allowing stand-alone fast food with drive-thrus only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone; and revising related definitions; • Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards - Adding a new definition for towing operations; allowing towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building in the Industrial Light zone; allowing as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops in the Commercial Arterial zone, if the tow truck is garaged; and limiting to Class A, B and E tow vehicles in both zones. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Saturday, April 19, 2008 Account No. 50640 4/15/2008 - Notice sent to three Parties of Record per attached labels. J. Seth cc: Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager Stephanie Godby 2100 Lake Washington Blvd N. #C 105 Renton, WA 98056 Lee Isben 16911 SE 144t' St. Renton, WA 98059 Joshua Peery 623 Shelton Ave. NE Renton, WA 98056 CITY OF RENTON NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RENTON CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 28th day of April, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057, to consider the following: Amendments to Renton Municipal Code — 2006 Title IV Docket Items: • Alleys — Implementing parking and loading standards for properties abutting an existing paved and/or crushed rock alley; and locating parking and/or garages in new development in the side or rear yards with vehicular access through the abutting alley; • Fast Food — Allowing fast food as a stand-alone use, but with no drive-thrus in the Center Village and Center Downtown zones; allowing stand-alone fast food with drive-thrus only in the Employment Area Valley in the Industrial Light zone; and revising related definitions; • Towing Operations/Auto Impoundment Yards — Adding a new definition for towing operations; allowing towing operations/auto impoundment yards within a building in the Industrial Light zone; allowing as a shared use with auto repair/auto body shops in the Commercial Arterial zone, if the tow truck is garaged; and limiting to Class A, B and E tow vehicles in both zones. All interested parties are invited to attend the hearing and present written or oral comments regarding the proposal. Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. For information, call 425-430-6510. Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Published Renton Reporter Saturday, April 19, 2008 Account No. 50640