Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA06-128, R,ECF City of Renton Highlands Sub-Area Rezonejoh �c� '' _RMD to RSF;: ',tt,',aa El,fea. m • 7: E • I 7:� 11 �y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND STRATEGIC V �4 * ♦ PLANNING DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 10, 2007 TO: Fii 06-128 FROM: R b Lind, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Changed Language- Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package In September 2006, the City of Renton issued a package of proposed Land Use and Zoning Changes for the Highlands. This package of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments was submitted with an Environmental Checklist dated September 26, 2006. After this package was reviewed by the Highlands Area Citizen's Zoning Task Force, the proposal was amended and a revised Environmental Checklist issued, dated November 3, 2006. Based on this revised checklist, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance on November 13, 2006. Staff is recommending three technical revisions to the Task Force proposal, none of which are substantial enough to trigger additional Environmental Review: • Office and conference uses are limited for parcels taking primary access from, or abutting Edmonds Avenue NE. This proposed staff change was incorporated into proposal covered by the revised Environmental Checklist of November 3, 2006. This proposed change limits some of the larger commercial uses on these properties, which abut a proposed R-14 area, and could add a significant amount of traffic at the Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12`„ Street intersection, which is already considered to be at a failing level of service. • Keep the property in the Harrington "tail" between NE 9,h Street and NE 7th Street in the proposed Residential Multi -Family zoning, but change the underlying land use designation from Residential Multi -Family to Center Village. This change ensures consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, which prohibits Residential Multi -Family land use designation if it bi-sects a lower intensity zone. Since the zoning remains the same as in the Task Force proposal, there is rib change to the impacts calculated in the Impacts Spreadsheet. Center Village land use designation would allow this property to be rezoned to a higher intensity land use with Hearing Examiner approval, but any such proposal for rezone would undergo its own Environmental Review at the time of application. • Alter the proposed language requiring retail use in the Center Village zone along NE Sunset Boulevard, so that residential only uses are allowed west of Harrington. This proposed change primarily affects the Sunset Terrace property h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\environmental\taskforce sepa\file memo (lua06-128).doc LUA 06-128 Page 2 of 2 May 10, 2007 owned by the Renton Housing Authority. Sunset Terrace has been in Residential only use since the 1940's and there is a very steep grade change along Sunset Boulevard between Harrington Avenue NE and Edmonds Avenue NE. It is highly unlikely that commercial development on this site would be able to utilize the Sunset frontage. Commercial development would still be allowed, but would not be required. In calculating the impacts of the proposed land use and zoning changes a set of development assumptions were made for each proposed zoning change based on a standard methodology, utilizing buildable lands data whenever possible. There was never any parcel by parcel analysis. For the proposed Center Village zone, the net acreage of all property proposed as Center Village was split between residential uses and commercial uses. This assumed that some land would develop as wholly residential, some would develop as wholly commercial, and some would develop as mixed residential and commercial uses. The mixed use assumption, it is heavily weighted toward residential development. Even with the proposed language change, the same assumptions would be used to calculate likely impacts of the Center Village zone. Since none of the proposed changes would alter the assumptions used to calculate future environmental impacts, it is unnecessary to submit this information to the Environmental Review Committee for reconsideration. h:\ednsp\comp plan\sub area plans\highlands\environmental\taskforce sepa\file memo (lua06-128).doe 4) April 2, 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-128, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the February 27, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, February 27, 2007, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Examiner's Yellow file containing the original appeal letter and site information. Exhibit No. 2: By Reference, the City's Yellow File Exhibit No. 3: Aerial Photograph of the Highlands Exhibit No. 4: parking stalls — Photograph of Park & Ride (135 full Exhibit No. 5: Seattle Times Article dated 2/1/2001 Exhibit No. 6: Page. Infrastructure Development, Extract Exhibit No. 7: 12/28/2006 Photograph of Linda's view dated Exhibit No. 8: Document from Appeal with incorrect zoning designations Exhibit No. 9: Zoning Ma current Exhibit No. 10: Page 6 of the Appeal Exhibit No. 11: Final Impact Spreadsheet Highlands Taskforce Proposal Exhibit No. 12: Task Force Proposed Land Use Map Parties Present: Mark Barber Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 2 Linda Perrine began by showing a map of the area and approximately where she lives. She owns and lives in her duplex for 13 years. She was here to express her stern objection to the issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance to the Highlands Sub -Area Rezone proposal. This Determination was issued in error on several different levels. The determination cannot be non -significant when it imposes significant adverse and probably changes in character and impervious surfaces, this proposal will result in significant adverse changes to the character and intensity of buildings including width and height of buildings in the Highlands. Currently the areas consist mostly of duplexes with sizeable yards and neighborhood restaurants and small shopping stores. This zoning proposal would change this area to a probably increase of 60-80 unit apartment buildings up to 50-feet high right next to one story duplexes. The 5-story building directly behind her, which is more than probable to be built, it is owned by the Renton Housing Authority, will completely block her view of the horizon and the City of Renton. It will block the sun to her yard and home, interrupt the airflow and make her feel like she is living in a canyon between tall buildings. It is stated that the impervious surface of 75% will not change and therefore needs no EIS review. This is grossly inaccurate, She currently lives in a vegetation rich neighborhood with impervious surface ratio more like 40% rather than 75%. At 40% the EIS needs to consider what they are at currently, the change from 40% to 75% is significant. Environmental issues need to be considered, what will happen to the aquifer beneath them, will the quality of water be damaged, will the ground water temperature be changed, what about the discharges of water into Lake Washington. Another significant and adverse impact is the increase in traffic congestion and the increase in time to transverse the area in the Highlands. It appears that the only change required would be a turning lane on 12" and Edmonds. The planned increase in residents is said to be 4,000 people. She takes the bus every day from the Park and Ride next to McKnight Middle School into Seattle. (Showed a picture of the Park and Ride — almost every parking space of the 135 slots is full) There are no other Park and Ride's in the area. A full and proper EIS to investigate the needs and changes required for additional Park and Ride areas. Issuing a Determination of Non -Significance is unacceptable in the face of these facts and the added traffic congestion must be weighed carefully. The environmental checklist submitted, not only minimizes every impact that the rezoning could effect, but skips some of the required checklist points. The checklist needs to include noise, types, traffic congestion, construction, short and long-term noises. Nothing about noise was submitted in the paperwork. The checklist must include ground, surface water runoff and discharge, where does it go, where and how will it be collected and the domestic and commercial sewer status. An EIS would address these issues. The check list must include aesthetics, what views will be altered or obstructed, almost every house on this hill has some sort of view which will no longer exist with a 5-story building. Light and glare should be included, these tall complexes will block light and give glare to smaller less imposing duplex dwellers. Will the project displace existing recreation areas, this was left off the plan completely. Transportation was not addressed. The claim submitted by the City of Renton does not contain any reasonable alternatives. There is a conflict of interest in the issuance of non -significance, the SEPA regulations say in WAC 197-11-926, when possible, agency people when carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal. Segregation of these duties is not being adhered to, the same agency that prepared the proposal is signing off on the non -significance of it. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 3 Not only are the reports flawed and incomplete they did not take up the full responsibility of the lead agency to bear every evidence of consideration and full disclosure, they simply had one of their own signing off to it with a determination of non -significance. Rebecca Lind, Long Range Planning Manager, upon questioning by Mr. Barber stated that the analysis done by the City was adequate for the contemplated proposed zoning change and proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan. The proposal is what is called a non -project action, it does not involve a land use permit for construction or creation of any entitlement to land use under the various processes of the City. It is an action that is limited to a change in the zoning, it does set the stage for certain development and that is why it is considered a project under SEPA but it is a non -project action. There are two categories of review, the environmental checklist has a separate section for non -project actions. The level of review is different from a project action that is processed as part of a land use entitlement, such as a site plan review or a preliminary plat. If a property were rezoned under a proposal, a person would be able to build something with more density. It can set the stage for the ability of someone to come in, build a 5-story view blocking building. The analysis compares the existing zoning to a proposed future zoning, it does not compare the existing development on the land, currently this area is zoned quite differently, some are in the CV zone, it already has a 50-foot height limit, and the ability, in certain areas to go to 60 dwelling units per acre. The higher density zoning is already in place and the property owners are already entitled to those dimensions and configurations. The SEPA review occurs in two stages when development actually occurs, there is an additional SEPA review and that review is site specific and looks at the issues listed on the environmental checklist in greater detail pertinent to that particular site and it does look at the change on the land that occurs from current condition to Proposed development under the zoning that is in place at that time. Ms. Lind further stated that in the appeal documents there is a parcel map (Exhibit 8) one section indicates that the zoning is CV and it actually is R-14. The analysis was started with an assumption of significantly more units, traffic, height, and coverage than exists at the present time on the land. The zoning in place currently would allow any property owner to come in and make a proposal for a development of the type that is allowed under the current zoning, that development would have its own SEPA review, they would be able to come in and file application for those greater heights, coverage, density and traffic in all cases. CV allows up to 60 dwelling unit per acre at the current time, R-10 allows up to 10 dwelling units per acre, RMF allows up to 20 dwelling units per acre. There are various criteria within different zones. As part of the Environmental Review and attached to the checklist, the City prepared a matrix that looked at the proposed zoning, the existing zoning and the task force zoning. The matrix looks at the acreage in each area of each zone, the net acreage that could be developed based on the methodology that is used for buildable land's analysis, a density factor is applies to the net acreage and then evaluate the number of dwelling units or commercial retail/office space that could be generated by that zoning. All the zones were evaluated. Three separate analyses were completed as part of the environmental review. The existing zoning was allocated as Zoning 1, the proposed staff recommendation would have been Zoning 2, and the City Council convened a task force of residents and property owners in the area, which modified the staff zoning proposal, Zoning 3. The environmental checklist was revised (see strike out version of the checklist) showing the changes that were made. The Environmental Review Committee took their action on the task force zoning proposal. There was a different distribution of the gross acreage between the various zones, a different net acreage calculation, which Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 4 resulted in comparable numbers for the number of units being created, amount of retail space being created, estimated population, estimated school students generated, and the required acreage for neighborhood parks and the estimated trip ends. The conclusions are listed at the bottom of the chart. The new zoning would create some additional entitlement, in this case in several of the zones they are evaluating what they are and what those zones would allow to be built compared with the old zones and what they would allow to be built. In the column "Gross Acreage" under existing zoning the area is calculated for each zone as adopted by the City Council. One hundred percent build out is never achieved in any situation, that is standard methodology that is used for all growth projections, including the entire comprehensive plan growth target analysis. A separate traffic analysis was submitted to the review committee and considered by them, Erika Conkling will present the conclusions of that analysis. The task force was formed by the City Council prior to completion of the public review process on the comprehensive plan amendments and the zoning proposal. The Council has not acted on the zoning, that is still pending before the planning and development committee waiting for the results of this SEPA appeal. The task force met about eleven times. The taskforce was given a blank map or the area and they drew the zones that they supported onto the map, they worked together to consolidate those maps down to a couple different alternatives. The final recommendation allowed slightly more growth than the original staff proposal. The final recommendations were used to revise the checklist to reanalyze significant changes that had occurred. The appellant's property is proposed for a small down zone, currently she has Residential multi -family zoning that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. Under the proposed zoning, that property would be classified in the R-14 zone, which allows a bonus up to 18 dwelling units per acre. It also allows the existing duplex to be retained as a conforming use. There is no zoning change as yet, it is only proposed. Erika Conkling, Sr. Planner, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Department, upon questioning by Mr. Barber, Ms. Conkling stated that she would be referring to the Matrix (Exhibit 11) she would be talking about the last couple categories at the end, specifically to trip generation. Taking the assumptions that Ms. Lind spoke about and applying the trip generation standards from the Standard Manual for Trip Generation, and came up with numbers for trip generation. All numbers on the matrix are applied from the net acreage standard. There is a gross number for trip generation and vehicle trip ends, which is the unit of analysis that is used to compare proposals in traffic studies. Under the existing zoning traffic generation is not calculated on what is currently happening in a neighborhood, but what would happen if the traffic were built out to its maximum potential. It would be expected, if this neighborhood were built out to its maximum there would be 28,644 generated trip vehicle ends. R-10 zoning would generate approximately 4900 trips, RMF approximately 2800 trips, CV housing would generate approximately 9200 trips, CV commercial approximately 11,600 trips which generates a total of 28,644 trips. Once the base number is established, it is compared to a build out scenario in both the City proposed zoning and the task force proposed zoning. Applying the zoning assumptions of the City proposed zoning there is a total of 38,980 vehicle trip ends in this study area. At the very bottom of the matrix there is a total number of trips at 39,211 just slightly above what the City initially proposed, which breaks down to 1500 trips generated by R-10, 5400 for R-14, 1100 for RMF, 8300 for housing uses of mixed -use portion of CV zone, 2600 from commercial portion of mixed use CV and just under 14,000 for the retail portion of mixed use CV. When those two numbers are compared, the task force proposal is what was presented to the ERC and the determination was issued on that specific number. Comparing those two sets of numbers, the difference between the 28,644 trips and the 39,211 trips is 10,567. At this time the staff has endorsed the task force recommendation. The vehicle ends has to do with the number of trips in a single day, 24-hours, not talking about peak hours. N Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 5 The checklist discloses that there would be a probable increase in traffic of 10,567 trips. Transportation Engineering Northwest did a traffic analysis dated April 16, 2006 and they presented a higher increase in density in the area and their report showed a much worse case scenario. They proposed an increase in vehicle trip ends of 28,772 and then analyzed what the traffic impacts would be to the Highlands area. The traffic analysis does analyze the existing levels of service in the area, which is how it was discovered that the intersection at 121` and Edmonds is currently at a failing level of service. Using Exhibit 8, she further explained how the lot coverage and zoning would be changed. The brown areas show current zoning of Residential -Multi -Family with a lot coverage of 65%, that is proposed to be changed to CV zoning which would allow 75% lot coverage, however, if a parking structure is built, the lot coverage could remain at 65%. The areas that are not shown in color are areas that show no proposed changes in the existing zoning. There are urban design guidelines that are used in other parts of the City mostly in the downtown and central downtown neighborhoods, in this proposal those guidelines have been slightly modified, there are two design districts, one for the CV areas and the residential districts with multi -family and R-14 zoning. The purpose of those design districts is to create regulations and guidelines is to regulate the scale and intensity of buildings that may represent an increase over what is currently on the ground. The design regulations are specifically intended to provide ease and comfort, a standard by which development occurs so that it has a more minimal impact on the neighborhood and surrounding neighbors. Design guidelines would be put in place upon the approval of the regulations, they would come into play when new development is proposed. Existing development would not have to comply with the new design guidelines, but when a building or land use permit was requested, they would be expected to comply with all design regulations at that time. There are specific design districts, which are included in the file materials. The design guidelines apply to all development in the Center Village Land Use designation. Looking at the Task Force Proposed Land Use Map, the area along Harrington is outlined in orange, the task force proposed Residential Multi -Family zoning for this section, staff concurs, however, staff will be asking City Council'to extend that area into the Center Village. This would not necessitate a zone change because Center Village includes Residential Multi -Family zoning. The traffic analysis that we use is at the level of full build out. Would the increase in traffic lead to failure in service? At the time when projects are actually proposed there is a project specific SEPA analysis, which includes filling out the same checklist and having to account for the actual number of trips that will be generated from a specific project. That analysis would be applied to the same standards of looking at whether or not it would create failing intersections, traffic flow problems and then mitigation would be proposed on a site specific basis at the project level of review. The surface water and regulations do not change dependent upon the zone. The environmental checklist did disclose that there would be a temporary increase in construction noises. It is a changing neighborhood, there is likely to be construction noises with or without the proposal. When people come in to make a proposal, they are required to fill out a checklist and disclose specific accounting of the construction noises transportation impacts, increase of light in the area, recreation and many other variables that could occur during construction. They have made a good faith effort to disclose any anticipated future impacts, future changes and some of the ways they have prepared for those future changes by mitigation fees and design guidelines that would provide some relief from future impacts. Ms. Lind stated that several discussions took place as to how they could attain higher density without increasing the lost coverage which is important for surface water and other environmental concerns is that the existing zoning is underutilized. Right now, even though the density is lower, the height in the CV zone is the same. It Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 6 would be possible to build a 50-foot high building at the lower density and have larger units. The building footprints do not change, the units get smaller. Bob Gevers, 900 Kirkland Avenue NE, Renton 98056 stated that he would like to have some clarification regarding traffic, whether or not Harrington Square which is presently being planned to be built, was this project included in the studies done for this project today? The Examiner stated that we are not dealing with specific projects at this hearing, but with a global change to large area of the City. Ms. Lind stated that the Harrington Square project which is located at the southeast bottom of the land use area that is before the Examiner today. That project is currently zoned Center Village and the project is vested under the current Center Village zoning, permits would be issued under that zoning. Nothing being reviewed today would change anything with the Harrington Square project. Ms. Perrine stated that she has case law showing projects versus not project actions and what they require, she would like to send that information which shows the type of information that still needs to be fully disclosed on non -project actions. The Examiner stated that he would keep the record open for one week in order to receive the information from Ms. Perrine and an additional week for Mr. Barber to respond to any of that information. Ms. Perrine continued that at McKnight School they indicated that they had portables and they were at full capacity. Regarding the task force, she knows one person that came to her stating that they owned two duplex's in the area, he is wanting to build out, that was his intention on the task force to build out, he does not live in the area, but does own property there. It seems that the task force was not totally made up of people living in the area. The arguments talked about today are not based on current infrastructure, it's if they were fully built out, not the case, they are not fully built out, and it isfalse logic to gauge everything on that fact. They are a neighborhood of green bushes, trees, there is no way a one-story duplex is going to look good next to a 5-story building no matter how pretty they try to make it. Mr. Barber gave a closing statement asking that the City be upheld. The required disclosures have been made in this case along with analysis on traffic, light, noise and other issues. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 11:20 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Linda C. Perrine, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. :0 Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 7 2. The Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package deals with an approximately 132-acre area of the City of Renton familiarly called the Highlands Subarea. It is an irregularly shaped parcel roughly defined by NE 20th on the north, Monroe Avenue NE on the east, NE 7th Street on the south and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. There are irregular projections of these boundaries in some locations beyond these main street demarcations. 3. City staff originally reviewed the Highlands Subarea and made certain recommendations for the area including changes to zoning, changes to zoning boundaries and text amendments that would implement changes to standards such as number of dwelling units per acre, height, bulk and lot area coverage and design guidelines that would implement architectural features of new development. 4. A Task Force was convened by the City Council to work on alternatives to the recommendations of city staff on the potential zoning and text amendments. It suggested modifications to the staff proposal. Staff concurred with the Highlands Task Force recommendations. The information and comparative analysis for both the Task Force recommendations and staffs recommendations were available and reviewed by the ERC according to the City. The ERC had the information on the comparison and used that information. It issued a Determination of Non -Significance after reviewing the comparative information. 5. Both of the recommendations, staffs and the task force's, would increase the permitted density in some locations and reduce it in other locations. The land area covered by the recommendations were the same but there were different acreage distributions into the various zones. The analysis was based on R-14 (Multiple Family; 14 dwelling units/acre), R-8 (Detached Single Family; 8 dwelling units/acre), RMF (Residential Multiple Family) and CV (Center Village; permits mixed use, retail and residential uses). 6. For its analyses, the City compared the existing zoning (not the existing uses) with proposed zoning. The existing zoning reflects what types of housing, what types of housing density and what types of retail and/or commercial uses are potentially able to be developed within the subarea. The City determined that the existing uses, housing, density and retail/commercial that currently exist, do not provide a basis for comparison to proposed new zoning for the area. 7. The City provided a matrix that compared the existing zoning, the staffs proposed zoning and the zoning proposed by the Task Force. There were two approaches, one based on density factor the other floor area ratio. The reviews estimated population, number of dwelling units, number of students, retail space, park (recreational) requirements and trip ends (traffic). Again, the reviews analyzed current zoning districts built -out to their potential (not existing development patterns) and the two recommendations for changing those zoning districts. 8. The current CV Zone has a height limit of 50 feet. It allows a density to 60 dwelling units per acre. R- 10 Zoning is generally 10 dwelling units per acre but additional density can be permitted. The RMF Zone permits a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. 9. The current zoning does not permit new R-8 single-family detached housing. The staff proposal would allow approximately 108 such housing units. No new single family detached would occur under the Task Force proposal. There is a mix of other housing types under existing, staff and task force proposals. Under the staff proposal there would be approximately 717 new units and the task force proposal would generate approximately 745 new units. 10. Population estimates were also made for the three scenarios. Current, a population of approximately 4,109, staff approximately 5,401 and the task force approximately 5,450. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 8 11. The square footage available for retail use is currently approximately 285,718 square feet. Under the staff proposal there would be approximately 412,426 square feet of retail and under the Task Force proposal approximately 406,751 square feet. 12. The student population that the current zoning could generate is approximately 970 students overall. The staff proposal would generate approximately 1,275 students while the Task Force recommendation would generate approximately 1,283 students. 13. The City estimated daily trips (traffic counts) and used Vehicle Trip Ends as the unit of analysis, This is the number of trips over 24 hours. The current zoning was estimated to have 28,644 "Vehicle Trip Ends". The staff proposal would generate approximately 38,980 trip ends while the Task Force proposal would generate approximately 39,211 trip ends. The difference would be an additional, approximately 10,000 trip ends for full build out under both new recommendations. 14. Intersection functions were analyzed using standard transportation factors. With the exception of the intersection of Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street, there were no failing intersections (they function adequately) and none of those intersections would violate standards. The Levels of Service (LOS) would remain acceptable. Edmonds and NE 12th currently fail and would continue to do so under either of the changes proposed. 15. The Task Force did not consider changes to the Comprehensive Plan but only the Zoning permitted under the plan. They met eleven times and made recommendations on Zoning and what are termed "text amendments." Text amendments would set zoning uses, density standards, bulk standards, design regulations and factors like that. It was noted that there are currently no "Design Guidelines." The new proposals would contain design guidelines such as modulation and articulation intended to break up the apparent bulk of buildings. The current R-14 Zone does not have any lot coverage standards while the text amendments propose a 65% lot coverage. The Task Force drew the zones themselves, then grouped and consolidated them to craft the final recommendation. The SEPA checklist was then revised to reflect these recommendations. 16. The ERC had information on height, lot coverage and acreage and staff notes it was all discussed and disclosed. 17. Specifically in regards to the appellant's property, the zoning could be changed to R-14 from RMF. Staff noted that this would be a downzone dropping density from 20 dwelling units per acre to 14 units per acre with a potential bonus density up to 18 units per acre. The proposal would allow the current duplex units (two attached units) to be retained as legal conforming uses. Current uses could be remodeled, renovated and altered and remain legal conforming uses. 18. It was noted that projects proposed under the new zoning would go through project specific analysis environmental analysis as well as permit specific analysis as they are submitted and that the current non - project action status of this subarea proposal would not change that. 19. The proposals are still before the City Council. Which awaits this environmental review before taking up the recommendations. They could alter the recommendations or reject them. 20. The City emphasized that the proposed amendments did not significantly alter the overall density or traffic projections of the current zoning for the area. The City intended to differentiate existing or current uses from the underlying or current zoning for the areas. In other words, according to the City Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 9 the proposed amendments would not significantly change the uses that are currently permitted in the subarea. So while the area may not currently reflect higher densities permitted (and incumbent traffic, people, hustle and bustle and larger bulk of buildings), many of the properties covered by the proposed changes already could be developed larger, taller and denser. In that light, the City argues, the changes are modest and do not represent a significant change and, therefore, do not have a significant impact on the quality of the environment. 21. A second appeal that was also filed in a timely manner by Brad Nicholson was withdrawn prior to the hearing. CONCLUSIONS: The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. 2. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is'elearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. 3. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. 4. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence, An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 10 Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). 6. Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). 7. It is clear that the appellant has sincere concerns about potential changes to her neighborhood and community and not only the impacts on her property. But sincere beliefs or concerns do not necessarily meet the standard of proof necessary to overcome the decision of the responsible official. The issue is that the proposed changes must be compared to what is currently permitted and not what currently exists. The differences between PROPOSED and PERMITTED become the basis for the determination of whether the proposed changes will have more than a significant impact on the quality of the environment. This office understands that the appellant is looking at the current community and the changes, if they occur, appear substantial. But the current zoning permits a similar substantial change in the community but current property owners have not utilized the current zoning. In the current matter, the scope of the proposed changes is wide. The changes cover approximately 130 acres of property. But the analysis appears to show that the changes over what is now permitted would be modest. While staff makes the case that map changes themselves do not significantly affect the quality of the environment and that subsequent development proposals would receive environmental review that does not quite reach the issue. It is true that mere map changes do not have significant impacts on the quality of the environment. But map changes are the beginning of change, the framework or basis for development that can have profound changes and segregating the map changes from the potential development that could occur under the vested zoning could lead to piecemealing. So the reviewing official must decide if the map changes might themselves have or lead to significant environmental impacts. 9. Map changes do not immediately approve a specific project or proposal. The immediate implementation of map change does not increase population, traffic or introduce larger or taller buildings. They are considered NON -PROJECT ACTIONS. It is easy to argue that they create no immediate significant environmental impacts. But, of course, they generally set the stage or are a preliminary to more significant change and could be considered a precursor to increased (or in down - zoning, decreased) population and traffic. In the instant case, it is not so much the zoning map and text changes which almost always have modest impacts since they do not approve any physical changes but that there is no significant impact from the existing map's permitted uses to the proposed uses. 10. As with any development or redevelopment, there is no question that there will be changes in the neighborhood. The subarea will eventually be redeveloped. But the map changes and ultimate build out reflecting those changes do not necessarily rise to the level mandated by SEPA for the preparation of an EIS. The proposed changes will not significantly alter the character of the community that could be developed under existing regulations. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning already slated the area for urban densities. The increase in population between 1,292 and 1,341 residents, the increase in students, between 305 and 312 students, the increase in housing units, between 717 and 745 units will be spread out over 131 acres. Even the increase in traffic by between 10,336 and 10,567 trip ends (over 24 hours) or approximately one-third more trips will not impair the functioning of streets or intersections other than possibly to exacerbate the existing problems at Edmonds and 12th. i Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 11 11. So while the appellant has legitimate concerns the evidence does not provide a basis for altering the ERC's decision. The proposed zoning and zoning text amendments will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. The changes will permanently add more people. It will add more traffic but traffic that the analysis shows can be handled without appreciably increasing commute times, overloading roads or increasing conflicts. It will not have more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. It will have impacts similar to what could exist under current zoning. 12. While there will be a series of impacts they do not add up in a quantifiable manner to the type of impacts or long term precedents that result in more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment. 13. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. There was a review of proposed changes weighed against current zoning. On balance it appears that the decision was reasonable. For those reasons it would be inappropriate to overturn the decision of the ERC. The Determination of Non - Significance will be affirmed. 14. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 2nd day of April 2007, FRED J. KA N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 2nd day of April 2007 to the parties of record: Marls Barber Linda Perrine Assistant City Attorney 1157 Glennwood Avenue NE City of Renton Renton, WA 98056 Kayren Kittrick Rebecca Lind Development Services Long Range Planning Manager City of Renton City of Renton Subhashni Kumar George Rusk 2102 NE 23`d Street 1401 Edmonds Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Marie Engeland Elena Koleva 2914 NE 6 h Street 2901 NE 16' Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Erica Conkling Sr. Planner, Economic Dev City of Renton Bob Gevers 900 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Patrick Powers 1523 Index Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Howard Baldridge 1526 Jefferson Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 12 John Visser 19404 102"d Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Brad Nicholson 2811 Dayton Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Glenda Johnson 1216 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Bill Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 Pamela Curley 1225 Kirkland Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Inez Somerville Petersen 3306 Lake Washington Blvd, Ste. 3 Renton, WA 98056-1978 TRANSMITTED THIS 2"d day of April 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Terry Persson PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 Mr. and Mrs. E Rasmussen 1300 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writine on or before 5:00 p.m., April 16, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writinu on or before 5:00 p.m., April 16, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by Cily Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package Appeal LUA-06-126, R, ECF April 2, 2007 Page 13 The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council, March 15, 2007 City Of Renton Development Services 1655 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Request to be a party of record �v�toY of SVWO0 tirsG c MAR V-W Etv I would like to be a party of record on any project in the "Highlands Subarea." I identify the area in several -ways in case it is not clear what area I'm talking about. This Highlands subarea was recently reviewed upon by the Highland's Task force. The area is also. outlined in the attached map and is also been referred to in the past as the area connected with the Highland Land Use & Zonirig Package, 'LUA-06-128, ECF. Please let me know if I need to clarify this request in order to be a party of record on these projects. Thank you Linda Perrine It 57 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 (206) 628-5990 day phone lk\ w FEE) on no fill WE! AN A& I I orw I 9w CITY OF RENTON LIAR 0 5 2007 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE Fred Kaufman ,1 `�p rt;,f Hearing Examiner `f City of Renton 4CI- d ae1111Pr 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance for the Highland Land Use & Zoning Package, LUA-06-128, ECF Dear Mr. Kaufman I thank you for allowing me to submit further information which I hope will convince you that the issuance of determination of non -significance was erroneous. I wanted to itemize why the determination was wrongly issued, 1) The rezoning will cause probable significant adverse impacts. A) The character and intensity of buildings will change dramatically. B) The scenic views of those who currently live in this area will be severely impacted. In some cases they view will be completely victimized. C) The air movement and light from the sun will decrease for those people living in the current structures, duplexes and lower apartment buildings. D) The ratio of impervious surface ratio will increase dramatically from its current condition. The city is using false logic by not comparing the current state of that to which they are rezoning to. I'd say it is capricious cvcn. After all, didn't they study the traffic as it is now? Why not use that logic here too? E) Considerations and full disclosure should be made regarding our Aquifer, which will be impacted. F) Surface Water Management, of which most Highland's residents are not currently served, by the City's own admission, must be evaluated. G) Transportation needs will change. Now is the time to evaluate this. What about the park and rides? They are running out of room already. H) Pollution due to added traffic congestion and decreased air flow. It is already considered to be too high. cc " (L �V A WY Page I of 5 2) The submitted EIS checklist was not filled out fully, completely and in good faith. Even the Frequently Asked Question's sheet of the State Environmental Policy Act proves that an EIS is necessary in this case. I have included that FAQ for your review. A) Since this non -project action is not categorically exempt, and EIS must be completed. WAG 197-11-305 B) On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Question: Is an environmental review necessary for a jurisdiction that is updating an existing comprehensive plan to satisfy GMA7 Answer: Yes, updating an existing comprehensive plan is an action that requires environmental review under SEPA. The type of review required will vary depending on whether an EIS was prepared for the existing plan, how recently the EIS was prepared and how extensive the revision will be. As a general rule, the environmental review should address any probable significant adverse impacts that will result form the revised plan that were not analyzed when the existing plan was adopted" My point is: Nothing was analyzed when the existing zoning plan was adopted and this rezoning proposal definitely qualifies for a full EIS evaluation. These are rules straight from the book! C) Critical items of the checklist were not completed 1) Noise 2) Social -economic issues 3) Transportation 4) Light and Glare 5) Ground 6) Aesthetics to the current infrastructure (yes the buildings they are planning may be pretty but do they fit in to the current area. We are residential houses and duplexes with some apartment buildings here and there. Not an area that has high density, five story buildings) Page 2 of 5 3) Cumulative impacts must be considered now not on a project by project basis. Please also note that the City has other proposals submitted that may impact each other making cumulative impacts, i.e.: Harrington Square project which is in this same area, the Landing project is going to affect our area. The traffic will clog up my area more than in currently is. The rules of SEPA clearing dictate that these must be considered in the big picture which is now. A) On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Question: How and when are cumulative impacts evaluated? Answer: SEPA requires agencies to address cumulative impacts. This can be difficult if each project is evaluated individually in isolation from other related proposals. With comprehensive planning under GMA, cities and counties are able to look at the "big picture," evaluate cumulative impacts of development, and determine appropriate mitigation measures to apply to individual, future proposals. Agencies also have a responsibility to look at cumulative impacts within project EISs. The EIS should look at how the impacts of the proposal will contribute towards the total impact of development in the region over time. I found the following case law that also supports cumulative impacts: Impacts may be "significant" on either a relative or absolute basis. Settle, Washington State Environmental Policy Act at 94 (ed. I996)• Actions may relatively affect the environment because of the production of adverse environmental impacts which were not produced by existing activities in the area. An action may absolutely significantly affect the environment because of the cumulative effects of the action together with other existing activities. Id. Generally, an EIS is necessary wherever a more than moderate effect on the environment is a reasonable probability. Norway Hill Preserve. and Protec. Assn v. King Cy. Coun., 67 Wn.2d 267, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). And: In determining an impact's significance, the responsible official must take into account the fact the same proposal may have a significant adverse impact in one location but not in another; that several marginal impacts when considered together may result in a significant adverse impact. WAC 197-11-330(3) B) The non -project action requires a fully detailed EIS. On page 9 of the FAQ about SEPA (Attachment 1). Page 3 of 5 Question: How much review is required at the planning stage for project impacts? Answer: Lead agencies are responsible for considering the probable significant adverse impacts of planning actions such as the adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. If the plans or regulations proposed would allow activities to occur that are likely to have significant adverse impacts, those impacts must be address in the environmental review of the planning action. The more detailed the review at the planning phase, the less review that is needed at the project stage. My point here is: The adoption of a comprehensive plan is what we are doing with the rezoning and this FAQ can't be any clearer that an EIS must be done whether it is a project or a non -project action. 4) Conflict of interest: I am concerned about the apparent conflict of interest resulting from the dual roles of the lead agency. I'd like to refer to case law here as well as a snippet of the WAC code: The SEPA regulations say in WAC 197-11-926 "when possible, agency people carrying out SEPA procedures should be different from agency people making the proposal." In the Case of Trapanier v. Everett, 64 Wn.App. 380 (1992). Because Kenneth Stone both authored the SEPA Checklist and issued the DNS, WSDOT failed to meet even the most minimum separation .of functions. WSDOT's SEPA determination should be withdrawn, the lead agency status should be assumed by another jurisdiction. 5) The Highland's Task force that was put together for a broad spectrum of public opinion. You might have wondered why I did not get involved. Well, I was all ready to put my application in to be on the task force when I was told I would have to be available on weekday mornings from 9 to l 1 am. This means that only those who are retired or work for themselves could attend. The criteria required to be on the task force excluded people who work week day jobs for an honest living. As a result the Task force proposal is not a broad spectrum of public opinion 6) The checklist asks on line item number 8. "Will any structures be demolished?" and line item 9 asks: "Prososed mitigation of controlling housing impacts?" It is the RHA's stand to demolosh the exisiting RHA units on Harrinton and Sunset and rebuild. Why isent the EIS addmitting that? I recevied an email from a task member who also holds a prominent position on the RHA (Attachment #2 email from Mark Gropper) where he is telling me that grading will need to be done to build undergound parking (the EIS submitted says no grading will be done) also, a park will likely be built right next to me. But we have a park one block away so why would we have two parks within two blocks? Here is the answer. Because one of the parks will be re -zoned to commercial and demolished. Then a park will Page 4 of 5 be built right next to me. The EIS submitted does not declare any recreation will be moved and they must declare that. In summary, I ask that you see through the smoke and mirrors presentation that the lead agency would like you to buy into. The arguments that the planning commission has raised where they say they don't need a full EIS are false but they must be popular misconceptions because the Department of Ecology created a sheet specifically to answer those issues. I hope that you will direct them to act in good faith, just as the Department of Ecology wants them to. Please know that there are real people living in the Highland's who deserve a full EIS before a total revitalization is enacted with the rezoning package. Thank you for the obvious attention that you are giving this matter. It matters a great deal to me, my family and especially my father who also oymk and lives on my same block. Linda Perrine 1157 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Page 5 of 5 SEPA FAQ Page 1 of 11 Access ,Washington., 041001 P419 cwvomnarll W4b tin. Atiac,l�Mlj.* I Frequently Asked Questions About SEPA • General uestions . CatewAuLExemotions • Threshol. ..... on Process . l�p,,,,_of�.�,stlna Dpcumen� Deternlinatiorl gf No sf i an • Envlronmental Impact Statement (EIS) + Substantive Agthorlty • A�e_a {.s + Nonoroiect Review Note: These frequently asked questions are also found as Appendix A of the SEPA Handbook. You may wish to check the 5EP.A 1lJw=D_oX for more detail related to your question. General Questions Q: What is SEPA? A: SEPA Is the abbreviation or acronym for the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW. Enacted in 1971, It provides the framework for agencies to consider the environmental consequences of a proposal before taking action. It also gives agencies the ability to condition or deny a proposal due to Identified likely significant adverse impacts. The Act Is implemented through the SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAG, Q: When is SEPA environmental review required? A: Environmental review Is required for any proposal which involves a government "actlon," as defined in the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-704), and is not categorically exempt (WAC 197-11-800 through 890). Project actions involve an agency decision on a specific project, such as a construction project or timber harvest. Nonproject actions Involve decisions on policies, plans, or programs, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or a six -year road plan. Q: Who is responsible for doing SEPA environmental review? A: One agency is Identified as the "lead agency" under the SEPA Rules WAC 197-11-924 to 936, and Is responsible for conducting the environmental review for a proposal and documenting that review In the appropriate SEPA documents (DNS, DS/EI5, adoption, addendum). Two or more agencies may share lead agency status by agreement, but a single environmental analysis would be conducted and all SEPA documentation is Issued jointly. Q: When is phased review appropriate? A: Phased review is appropriate when the sequence Is from a broad review to narrower, more specific review. For example, review of site selection and general development Issues, and subsequent review on specific design Impacts when more Information Is available on the specific development. A planned unit development might be phased with the first phase evaluating the entire development In general terms and later phases evaluating specific construction. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htrn 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ _ Page 2 of 11 Q: What are "elements of the environment"? A: The elements of the environment, as used in SEPA, are listed In WAC 197-11-444, and include both the natural environment (earth, air, water, plants and animals, energy and natural resources) and the built environment (environmental health, land and shoreline use, transportation, public services and utilities). Categorical Exemptions Q: What Is a "categorical exemption'? A: A categorical exemption Is a type of government action that Is specifically designated as being exempt from SEPA compliance because It Is unlikely to have a significant adverse environmental Impact. The categorical exemptions are found in Part Nine of the SEPA Rules, and In RCW 43.21C.035, .037, and .0384. Q: What types of proposals are categorically exempt? A: Certain proposals are exempt because they are of the size or type to be unlikely to cause a significant adverse environmental impact. Examples Include minor new construction, such as, four dwelling units or less, commercial buildings with 4,000 square feet or less, and minor road and street Improvements. Other exemptions Include enforcement and Inspection activities, issuing business licenses, storm/water/sewer lines eight inches or less, etc. Some proposals are exempt by statute, regardless of environmental impact. Q: What are "flexible thresholds"? A: The SEPA Rules allow the counties and cities to raise the exemption levels to the maximum specified in the SEPA Rules. These flexible threshold levels allow the counties and cities to determine what level of exemption Is appropriate for their jurisdiction. For example, 20 dwelling units in a large city would not have the same impact as they would in a rural community. So the large city may set the exemption at the maximum level of 20 units, and the rural community may set it at the minimum level at 4 units. Q: When do categorical exemptions not apply? A: Some exemptions contain conditions under which they do not apply, such as projects undertaken wholly or partly on lands covered by water; projects requiring a license to discharge to the air or water; or projects requiring a rezone. A city or county may also eliminate some exemptions if the project Is located within a designated critical area. WAC 197-11-305 outlines further instances where an exempt action must be reviewed under SEPA. Q: If a county or city has raised the categorical exemption level for minor new construction activities, or eliminated some of the categorical exemptions In critical areas, do these decisions apply when a state agency or special district is lead agency (for example, the state Department of Transportation, a port district, or school district)? A: Yes, before deciding if a proposal is categorically exempt, state agencies and special districts should consult with the city or county with jurisdiction to determine the exemption level for that area, or whether an exemption has been eliminated within a particular critical area. Q: When are annexations exempt? Are annexations to a district exempt? A: The 1994 Legislature specifically exempted annexations to cities or towns [RCW 43.21C.222], although the adoption of zoning pursuant to the annexation Is not exempt. Annexations to districts are specifically identified as agency actions [WAC 197-11-704(2) (b)(Iv)] and are not exempt. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 -SEPA FAQ Page 3 of I I Q: When would it be appropriate to use the emergency exemption? A: Emergency exemptions apply to actions that must be undertaken Immediately or within a time too short to allow full compliance with SEPA to: (1) Avoid an Imminent threat to public health or safety, (2) Prevent an Imminent danger to public or private property, or (3) Prevent an imminent threat of serious environmental degradation. Q. Can an emergency exemption be used for part of a project and SEPA review be required for other parts of the project? A: If portions of the project meet the definition of emergency, those portions can be done Immediately without SEPA environmental review. Other portions may require SEPA review. For example, If a marina collapses In a storm, cleanup may need to occur immediately to prevent a threat to the pubiie or the environment. This would probably be considered an emergency exemption. However, the additional reconstruction/repair that can be done over a longer period of time would require SEPA review. +' retur��ji4�Qf 0�qe Lead Agency Q: What is the difference between lead agency, responsible official, and decision - maker? A: The lead agency Is the agency responsible for all procedural aspects of SEPA compliance. The responsible official represents the lead agency and Is responsible for the documentation and the content of the environmental analysis. Decislon-makers may be either staff members or elected officials who are responsible for taking an agency action, such as issuing a license, or adopting a plan or ordinance. Q: Can a special district, such as a school district or port district, be SEPA lead agency? A: The SEPA Rules define a local agency as "...any political subdivision, regional governmental unit, district, municipal or public corporation..." (WAC 197-1I-792). If an agency Is proposing a project or nonproject action, that agency is lead agency under SEPA. Therefore, a school district would be lead agency for school construction, a port would be lead agency for a port comprehensive plan; State Parks and Recreation would be lead agency for development or remodeling of a state park. A special district or state agency may also be lead agency if a proposal requires a license from the district or state agency, but does not require a license from the county or city. For example, if the only permit required for an asphalt batch plant Is a notice of construction from the local air authority, then the local air authority Is SEPA lead agency. Q: Which agency Is SEPA lead agency when an agency is proposing a project that is located within the jurisdiction of another agency? For example, If the city is proposing a project on a site within the county, or State parks and Recreation is proposing a project within an Incorporated city. A: The agency proposing the project is lead agency under the SEPA Rules, although lead agency status may be transferred by agency agreement. Q: Which agency Is lead agency for a private proposal? A: When a license is required from a city or county, the city or county will usually be lead agency for the project. There are some exceptions for larger proposals where a state agency Is designated as lead agency (see WAC 197-11-938 for criteria). If the city or county does not have a license to issue for the proposal, another agency with a permit to issue will be lead agency, such as a health district, local air authority, or a state agency. htip://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SPA FAQ Page 4 of 11 Q: Can two or more agencies share lead agency status? A. Yes, any number of agencies may agree to share lead agency status, with one agency designated as "nominal lead agency." The agencies should develop an agreement that defines the duties and responsibilities of each agency, how to deal with differing opinions, etc. Q: Who resolves lead agency disputes? A: The Department of Ecology may be petitioned by the proponent or any agency with jurisdiction to resolve disputes over who Is lead agency for a proposal [WAC 197-11-946]. .�tn to too of gg Threshold Determinatlon Process Q, What is the "threshold determination" process? A: The threshold determination process Is the process used to evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposal and determine whether the proposal is likely to have any "significant adverse environmental impact." This determination is made by the lead agency and Is documented in either a determination of nonsignificance (I)NS), or a determination of significance (DS) and subsequent preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Q, What is a "significant" adverse environmental impact? A: WAC 197-11-794 defines "significant" as "a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality." What Is considered significant will vary from one site to another, and from one jurisdiction to another, both because of the conditions surrounding the proposal at a particular location, and because of the judgement of the responsible official. Q: Is an environmental Impact statement required if the local development regulations or other local, state, or federal regulations mitigate all significant Impacts? A: No, if all significant Impacts have been or will be mitigated to a nonsignificant level through the requirements In local, state, or federal regulations, or with the use of SEPA substantive authority, an EIS is not required. Q: If mitigation Is required by the local development regulations or other local, state, or federal regulations, do these mitigation measurers need to be included in the DNS? A: No, but the lead agency may choose to Include information on mitigation required by local, state, or federal regulations with the DNS or in the checklist so that reviewers are aware of the conditions that will be placed on the final proposal. Q: Can studies be required as a mitigating condition on a DNS? A: Court cases have allowed the use of future studies as a mitigating condition. However, agencies are encouraged to obtain the necessary studies to Identify probable impacts before a threshold determination Is issued. This allows appropriate mitigation to be added to the permit before any construction activities occur. -A turn to to 12 of page Use of Existing Documents Q. Can Information in existing environmental documents be used for a new or amended proposal? http://www.ecy.wa.goes/programs/sca/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 5of11 A: Yes, there are several ways that information in existing documents can be used: 1) adoption, 2) Incorporation by reference, 3) addendum, or 4) supplemental EIS. Using existing Information reduces duplication and delays caused by conducting duplicate studies and analysis. A new threshold determination is required for a new proposal, except those qualifying as planned actions. Agencies may adopt all or part of existing documents to support a new threshold determination, or the Information may be "Incorporated by reference." A revised proposal generally does not require a new threshold determination, so adoption of the original document would not be required for the revised proposal. An addendum may be used for either a new or revised proposal, if the analysis In the existing document (DNS or EIS) addresses all likely significant adverse impacts. The addendum would explain the differences between the original and the current proposal, and other minor new Information. For a new proposal, the addendum would be Issued with the adoption notice and new threshold determination. For the revised proposal, the addendum can be Issued alone. A supplemental environmental impact statement Is prepared if the new or amended proposal has likely significant adverse Impacts that have not been analyzed In an existing EIS. The supplemental EIS A= to the analysis In an existing EIS without needing to duplicate It. (See Section 2.7 of the handbook for additional Information on using existing documents.) Q: Can an agency prepare an addendum to a DNS? If so, what is the format? Are public notice and distribution requited? A: Yes, an addendum to a DNS can be prepared. There Is no set format for an addendum to a DNS, and public notice and dlstributlon are encouraged but are not required, Q: If a project has been reviewed under SEPA but new Information indicates supplemental review is needed for a portion of the project, can construction of the unaffected portion of the project proceed? For example, an EIS was done on site selection and building construction, but it is discovered that the utility line extensions will impact a wetland area. The lead agency determines a supplemental EIS is needed for the utility line extensions, but no further review of the building construction is needed. A: The SEPA Rules state that no action that would foreclose options shall be taken until SEPA has been completed. In the example, the project should not be allowed to move forward until the supplemental EIS is complete, since denial of the utility extension would stop the project. +_L burn UL4"Epagr Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Q: What is a "DNS"? A: A DNS or "determination of nonsignificance" documents the responsible officials decision that a proposal is not likely to have significant adverse environmental Impacts. Q: Does a DNS always have a public comment period? A: No, there are five criteria to determine whether a comment period is required; (1) another agency with jurisdiction; (2) non-exempt demolition activities; (3) non-exempt grade and fill permits; (4) a mitigated DNS issued under WAC 197-11-350(2) or 350(3), or a DNS Issued after a determination of significance is withdrawn [WAC 197.11-360(4)3; and (5) an action under the Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW [WAC 197-11-340 (2)(a)]. If a comment period Is required, the lead agency must give public notice and circulate the DNS and checklist as specified in WAC 197-11-340(2). If a comment period is not required, no public notice or distribution is required. Q: What is the difference between a DNS and mitigated DNS? http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 'SEPA FAQ Page 6 of 11 A: A mitigated DNS is a DNS that contains mitigation or conditions that reduce likely significant adverse environmental impact(s) to a nonsignificant level. A mitigated DNS requires a comment period (unless the optional DNS process has been used). Q: What is the "optional DNS" process? A: The optional DNS process allows a GMA city or county, when they are also the SEPA lead agency for a proposal, to use the comment period on the notice of application (NOA) to obtain comments on environmental Issues. The NOA must state that the optional DNS process Is being used and that this may be the publics only opportunity to comment. All mitigation conditions being considered must also be identified. After the end of the NOA comment period, the lead agency may Issue the DNS without a second comment period. Q: What is the Issue date of a DNS? A: The issue date Is the day the DNS Is sent to the Department of Ecology and is made publicly available. The 14-day comment period starts from the date of Issuance. Q: How does the responsible official handle comments an a DNS? A: The responsible official must consider all timely comments received on a DNS and may retain (no documentation needed), modify (reissue with changes), or withdraw a DNS, Formal response to commenters is not required, but may be done at the discretion of the lead agency. Q: Is the lead agency required to distribute comments received during the comment period on a DNS? If not, how will another agency with jurisdiction consider the comments prior to malting a decision? A: The lead agency is not required to distribute comments received on a DNS. Since the comments are part of the public record, agencies with jurisdiction (or anyone else) may request a copy. +.�1.[i1_t4�4o aF gsi9� Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Q: What is an EIS? A: An environmental impact statement must be prepared when the lead agency determines a proposal Is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. The EIS provides an Impartial discussion of significant environmental Impacts, reasonable alternatives, and mltlgation measures that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts. The lead agency will Issue a draft EIS is Issued with a 30-day comment period to allow other agencies, tribes, and the public to comment on the environmental analysis and conclusions. The lead agency will use these comments to finalize the environmental analysis and Issue a final EIS. Q: When is an environmental impact statement required? A: An EIS Is required for any proposal that Is likely to have a significant adverse environmental Impact that mitigation has not been for that would reduce the impact to a nonsignificant level. The applicant and lead agency may work together to revise the proposal's impacts or identify mitigation measures that would allow the lead agency to Issue a determination of nonsignificance. Q; What Is "scoping" A: If the lead agency Issues a determination of significance, the first step in the process Is to determine the "scope" of the EIS ---those issues and alternatives that need to be evaluated. The scoping process allows the public and other agencies to comment on the scope of the EIS and assist the lead agency In Identifying Issues and concerns. The lead agency can either use a standard scoping notice with a written comment period, or they can use expanded scoping that might include public meetings, surveys, and other methods to Involve the public In the scoping process. http:/Iwww.ccy.wa.goy/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htrn 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 7 of I I Q: What documentation is needed after the close of the comment perlod on a scoping notice? A: A determination of the scope of the EIS may be requested by the proponent after the close of the comment period. No other documentation Is required by SEPA, although agencies may choose to Issue a scoping document to agencies, commentors, or concerned citizens giving Information on the comments received and the issues or alternatives that will be addressed in the EIS. Q: Are there page limits for an EIS? A- Yes, the teA of an EIS shall not exceed 75 pages, except for proposals of unusual scope or complexity, which shall not exceed 150 pages [WAC 197-11-425(4)]. If appendices and background material exceed 25 pages and together the entire EIS would exceed 100 pages, they must be bound In a separate volume. Q: Must the EIS include an alternative besides the proposed action and no -action alternative? A, The EIS must evaluate reasonable alternatives that could feasibly attain the proposal's objective, and are within a jurisdictional agency's authority to control. The lead agency may determine that there are no reasonable alternatives, and may then evaluate only the proposed action and the no-actlon alternative. Q: Does the final EIS Include all of the Information in the draft EIS? A: Yes, In most cases. The draft EIS Is exactly that —a draft. The final EIS may be significantly different from the draft because the lead agency revises the EIS based on comments and new information learned. The final EIS also includes all comments received on the draft EIS, and the lead agency's responses. If no significant comments are received, the lead agency may choose to simply Issue a new fact sheet (which may also Include an addendum) to be attached to the draft document. (See section 3.5 final EIS, or WAC 197- 11-560 for specific requirements.) Q: Does the EIS have to include the addresses of eommentors and the agencies and citizens on the distribution list? A. The SEPA Rules require the inclusion of a "distribution list" and that the commentors' names shall be included, but does not mention the need for addresses. Q: Does Ecology maintain a list of consultants that prepare environmental Impact statements? A: No. v retum to top of Dane Substantive Authority Q: What Is SEPA substantive authority? A: It Is the regulatory authority granted to all state and local agencies under SEPA to condition or deny a proposal to mitigate environmental Impacts Identified in a SEPA document. To use SEPA substantive authority, the agency must have adopted agency SEPA policies. Q: Are the mitigation measures identified In the SEPA document (DNS or EIS) mandatory? A: Not necessarily. Mitigation conditions required with use of SEPA substantive authority must be Included as conditions on a permit, license, or approval, before becoming mandatory or enforceable. Mandatory mltigatlon required under other local, state, or federal laws may also be Included on the DNS by the lead agency for the information of reviewers. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 8 of 11 return to-tpp_of page Appeals Q: Are there any opportunities to appeal SEPA documents or the use of SEPA substantive authority? A: The lead agency has the option of allowing an administrative appeal and may allow an appeal of either procedural issues or substantive decisions, or both. If the administrative appeal process has been exhausted or is not available, a judicial appeal that Is heard by the court can be pursued. (See Appeals Chapter In the SEPA Handbook ) Q: What is an "underlying governmental action"? A: The underlying governmental action [WAC 197-11-704 and 799] Is the action that must be taken by an agency to authorize a proposal. Actions include the issuing of a permit or license, the approval of funding, the adoption of a plan, ordinance, or rule, or other actions defined In WAC 197-11-704. Q: Is an agency required to have a SEPA administrative appeal process? A: No, each agency must decide whether or not to offer an administrative appeal. If an administrative appeal process is offered, the agency must identify the type of appeal that will be allowed (procedural Issues, substantive decisions, or both; including appeal of a non -elected official's substantive decision). (See RCW 43.21C.060, .075 and WAC 197-11- 680) Q: Can an applicant appeal an agency's decision to require mitigation measures? A: Yes, if the agency does not offer an administrative appeal on the substantive use of SEPA, the applicant may file a Judicial appeal of the mitigation. Q: What Is the appeal process when a state agency is SEPA lead agency and the county or city has a permit to issue? A: Procedural issues (process and content of the environmental review) would be appealable to the state agency if the agency offers a procedural administrative appeal. Appeals of the local agency's use or non-use of SEPA substantive authority to condition or deny the proposal may be filed with the local agency if they offer an appeal of substantive Issues. (When administrative appeals are exhausted or not available, judicial appeals may be flied.) Q: What is a "notice of action"? A: A notice of action Is the document used to Iimlt the time a SEPA appeal can be flied when the underlying government action has no set appeal limitations. The form Is located In WAC 197-11-990. Procedures for using a notice of action are found In RCW 43.21C.080. Q. What is the "action" referred to in part 2 of the notice of action (WAC 197-11- 990)? A: It is the underlying government action for the proposal, such as the adoption of a comprehensive plan, ordinance, or rezone; or the Issuing of a permit or approval. It Is I1Qt the Issuance of a SEPA document. Q: If a notice of action (RCW 43.21C.080) Is filed for the first permit decision, can future permit decisions be challenged? if so, are there any limits on what can be challenged (for example, compliance with SEPA procedural steps, or use of SEPA substantive authority, or both)? A. Future procedural appeals will not be allowed, but future appeals of the use of SEPA substantive authority in respect to future permit decisions may be permitted. +return to top of oaog http://www.ecy.wa.gov/prograins/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/512007 SEPA FAQ Page 9 of ] 1 Nonproject Review Q: what Is a nonproject action? A. A nonproject action is defined as a decision on policies, plans, or programs. This Includes adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, regulations that contain standards controlling use or modification of the environment, highway plans, etc. (see WAC 197-11-704). Q: Now does SEPA review fit Into the planning process? A: Environmental review of a proposal should be incorporated into the entire planning process. Documentation of this review should be issued with the draft planning document; either as a combined document or as separate documents Issued together, Q; When should a county or city begin environmental review in the GMA planning process? A; Adopting Interim regulations, county -wide planning policies, comprehensive plans, and development regulations are all government actions that require environmental review under SEPA. The lead agency must determine what type of environmental review is appropriate at each stage of GMA planning. An EIS should be prepared when a planning action will have probable significant adverse environmental Impacts. Q: Is environmental review necessary for a jurisdiction that is updating an existing comprehensive plan to satisfy GMA? A: Yes, updating an existing comprehensive plan is an action that requires environmental review under SEPA. The type of environmental review required will vary depending on whether an EIS was prepared for the existing plan, how recently the EIS was prepared, and how extensive the revisions will be. As a general rule, the environmental review should address any probable significant adverse Impacts that will result from the revised plan that were not analyzed when the existing plan was adopted. Q: Is environmental review required for a public participation plan developed under GMA? A. No, the adoption of resolutions or ordinances relating solely to governmental procedures are exempt from SEPA review, A public participation plan, In most cases, will be solely procedurai and should be exempt from environmental review. Q: How and when are cumulative impacts evaluated? A: SEPA requires agencies to address cumulative Impacts. This can be difficult If each project Is evaluated Individually in isolation from other related proposals. With comprehensive planning under GMA, titles and counties are able to look at the "big picture," evaluate cumulative impacts of development, and determine appropriate mitigation measures to apply to Individual, future proposals. Agencies also have a responsibility to look at cumulative impacts within project EISs. The EIS should look at how the impacts of the proposal will contribute towards the total Impact of development In the region over time. (Proponents are only responsible for mitigation of the portion attributable to their own proposal, though voluntary mitigation beyond that level Is allowed [WAC 197- Q: How much review is required at the planning stage for project impacts? A: Lead agencies are responsible for considering the probable significant adverse Impacts of planning actions such as the adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. If the plans or regulations proposed would allow activities to occur that are likely to have significant adverse Impacts, those Impacts must be addressed In the environmental review of the planning action. The more detailed the review at the planning phase, the less review that is needed at the project stage. Q: Is integration of SEPA and GMA just combining documents? http://www,ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page 10 of 11 A: No, the Intent of SEPA/GMA Integration Is to ensure that environmental considerations Inform decision -making at every GMA step from early policy development through project permit review. Combining processes and procedures like SEPA scoping and GMA visioning, documenting existing conditions under SEPA and conducting Inventories of land use, housing, transportation and other capital facilities under GMA, or coordinating SEPA and GMA requirements for notice and comment periods, facilitate this substantive integration. Combining documents is optional. Q: How are GMA and SEPA documents combined? A: Comprehensive or subarea plans and EISs are the documents most often combined. A community's unique planning circumstances and timing requirements will Influence how this Is accomplished. There are a number of options to integrating the GMA and SEPA documents, including preparing the draft plan prior to preparing the draft EIS, and issuing them together with a combined comment period. The most seamless option Is to document how environmental values were considered at the time each plan choice (goal, policy, program, strategy, designation, etc.) was formulated and decided. The draft plan and draft EIS are written together and are Indistinguishable. Perhaps the simplest and most efficient method of presentation is to weave brief discussions about environmental Impacts and alternatives Into the plan narrative wherever choices are declared In the plan. Other methods Include summarizing environmental Issues In each plan element or In a stand-alone environmental chapter. When the GMA document Is integrated with the draft EIS, the final plan can be adopted when the final EIS Is Issued without waiting the standard 7 days. The final EIS must be Issued at least 7 days prior to adopting the final plan If the SEPA and GMA documents are issued separately. Q: Must a nonproject EIS on a GMA plan or subarea plan follow a specific format? A. The only requirements are that the document begin with a fact sheet and contain an environmental summary [WAC 197-11-235(4) and (5)]. An agency may choose whatever format they feel would best present the alternatives and environmental analysis [WAC 197- 11-430(2) and 442). Separate sections on affected environment, significant Impacts, and mitigation measures are not required in integrated documents as long as this information is summarized and supported in the record [WAC 197-11-235(2)(b)]. The rules for Integrated documents stress that format should be dictated by attention to the quality, scope, and level of detail of the information and analysis [WAC 197-11-235(1)]. Q: What Is an "alternative" when preparing an EIS for a comprehensive plan? How is the no action alternative defined? A: A range of alternatives should be evaluated, exploring the different land use options, including different urban growth area boundaries, characteristics and densities of development, etc. The no -action alternative far a comprehensive plan Is generally defined as no change in existing regulation —zoning, development regulations, critical area ordinances, etc. (or the lack thereof) would be unchanged. The environmental Impacts of predicted growth under this "no -action" scenario Is then compared to that of the other altematives. Q: What Is the timing of a final EIS when Integrated with a comprehensive plan? A: When the Integrated document contains the final EIS and the plan, the Issuance of the final EIS and the adoption of the GMA document may occur together (no 7- day waiting period) [WAC 197-11-230(5)]. Q: Is additional environmental review required when the final action Is different from the alternatives analyzed In an EIS? A: If the final approved proposal falls within the range of alternatives analyzed in the EIS and all likely significant adverse Impacts have been evaluated, additional review would not be required. For example, one of the EIS alternatives evaluates the impacts of four urban centers and another alternative evaluates the Impacts of six urban centers. If the agency selects five urban centers as the preferred altemative, It is possible that the Impacts would http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 SEPA FAQ Page II of11 have been Covered by the range of alternatives In the EIS. +_lgWLa to tgp o pag@ .Go the SEPA,jandbook for more dgtalled information For questions or comments Concerning SEPA, please e-mail the SEPA Unit or call (360) 407-6922. Return to the SEPA homeaaa8, This page was last updated on January 26, 2005 hq'//www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/faq.htm 3/5/2007 #2L A letter from a concern Rento._ .tizen regarding Zoning Page 'of $ _.. `Cft1,0..i.��'wwgMR++ut�awr,Ipe.,"NCMM1/f/�"YY.n13v:fcaw-"1.:;:.. Thank you for your thoughtful input Ms. Pemne. .4 e The Glenwood access idea for the 2.02 acre `Edmonds' site is linked to a single family detached housing concept commissioned by RHA and drawn by Mithun in 2004. With the potential change in zoning, it will be important for RHA to consider a building design with underground 3. parking enteringlexiting from the street level of Edmonds Avenue Northeast. The Glenwood parcel could then be available for an open space "park" in accordance with applicable design guidelines. Many of our families live in and enjoy the neighborhood. RHA remains committed to sustaining and improving the housing and amenities here. Thank you for your insight. Mark Gropper Deputy Executive Director Renton Housing Authority PO Box 2316, 2900 NE 1 Oth St. Renton WA 98056-0316 Phone 425-226-1850 x. 223 Fax 425-271-8319 From: Perrine, Linda [mal Ito: 1perrine@wkg.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:35 AM To: mouserkm@gmall.com; angelsandel*aol.com; BNFKNLDN@aol.00m; mlln@colinwalker.org; howardmeomber@hotmall.com; tenadous tic@msn.com; SWEISS@remedystaff.com; Mark R. Gropper; steve@starfiresports.com; jdhawton@yahoo.com; City Council President Randy Conran; DLaw@d.renton.wa>us; Tnelson@ci.rentonma.us; Dpersson@ci.renton.wa.us; MPalmer@d.renton,wa.us; kkeolker@ci,renton.wa-us Cc: Perrine, Linda; stevenIstout@hotmail.com Subjects A letter from a concern Renton citizen regarding Zoning To all email addressed City of Renton Council Officials and the Citizen Task Force focused on the Renton Highlands rezoning: 1 would like to put In writing and on the record my opposition regarding the CV zoning between Glenwood Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE in Renton Highlands. I want.to dearly state and show you why I oppose this CV zoning. Please see below on the parcel map to locate the red type because the big parcel lot is being considered for CV zoning. The smaller parcel had a duplex on it and a house was on the bigger lot (very residential structures) . These were tom down and the 2 parcels purchased by the Renton Housing Authority. I was provided a CAD drawing of the plans that the RHA planned to build on this site and use the Glenwood street as their entrance and exit into the development they plan to build. It is inappropriate to for this building plan to happen and I'd like to explain why. I ask that you take note that Glenwood Ave is very residential in nature. A11 of the surrounding parcels on Glenwood Ave are duplexes. Many housing families with young children. Below in one picture, you can see how Glenwood Ave is narrow and curved and children tend to play in the street and would be caught unaware of cars traveling fast. The traffic for 100 units (possibly more), would not only change but destroy the current quiet residential street that my father, several families and I live on. 3/5/2007 Date: Nov 27, 2006 TO: Mr. Fred Kaufman CITY OF RENTON Hearing Examiner City of Renton NOV 2 7 2006 1055 South Grady Way, 7th Floor RECEIVED Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CC: Letter only to City Council President Randy Corman ouncilme bers Briere, Clawson, Law, Persson, Palmer, Nelson Subject: APPEAL of -DNS Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package LUA-06-128, ECF Reference: 2006 Comp Plan Amendments #2006-M-0 and #2006-T-2 Dear Mr. Kaufman: In accordance with City Code 4-8-110E, I am submitting a written Appeal to the ERC's DNS of Oct 23, 2006, transmitted to the Citizens via a letter dated Nov 9, 2006, signed by Principal Planner Rebecca Lind. This Appeal applies to LUA-06-128, ECF, Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package. See Exhibit A. I am a member of the Highlands Community Association; and I am a property owner at 1155 GLENNWOOD AVE NE, Renton Highlands, where I reside. I have attended the many public meetings and hearings_ regarding Highlands Redevelopment_which. __ occurred from fall 2005 through fall 2006. 1 have spoken over the course of these meetings and public hearings, always in support of reasonable growth aiid reasonable government in order to preserve my quality of life and property values. Those of us who live in the Highlands Subarea realize that many residences need maintenance, but we realize that the City has also failed the neighborhood miserably by not maintaining sidewalks, streets, storm drains, and alleys ... and by not dealing with crime effectively. While it is necessary to have new zoning and land use regulations for the Highlands Subarea, the process should have been handled in a way that afforded "due process" so the City could legally notify the People of hearings, so People could attend, if they wanted, and so People could speak if they wished. AND in its proper sequence, the ERC should have been evaluated the same set of zoning and land use requirements as the People. This did not happen. Couple these events with the ERC's "traditional" cursory Environmental Checklist and DNS, and I believe you have a flawed process which can only result in a flawed DNS. 2 - PROPER.NQTICE of.PUBLIC HEARING The last meeting I attended was on Nov 13, 2006, which was a public hearing on the entire package of 2006 Comp Plan Amendments, but who knew? Exhibit B is a copy of the Public Notice. It states: "2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments, concurrent rezonings, zoning text amendments, and development agreement for the former Aqua Barn site." • Exhibit C is a copy of the Agenda for Nov 13, 2006, using the same run-on wording. • Exhibit D is a handout from the Public Hearing listing the 2006 Comp Plan Amendments, and this is the first_ hint that the meeting covers much more than the Aqua Barn site. • Exhibit E is a copy of the City Council -Minutes for Nov 13, 2006. It shows that the hearing covered the entire package of Comp Plan Amendments, not just a hearing on the Aqua Barn. I previously emphasized "but: who knew?" because I mean just that: Who knew? • The wording on the Public Notice (Exhibit B) was vague, leading people to believe the public hearing was about the Aqua Barn. • The wording on the Agenda (Exhibit C) was the same and likewise vague. • Not until a Citizen had picked up the handout (Exhibit D) on 2006 Comp an Amendments on the table at the City Council meetingon the night of Nov 13th, would that Citizen realize that ALL 2006 Comp Plan Amendments were the subject of the public hearing. • The full list of Comp Plan Amendments included in the Nov IS h hearing is further documented by the City Council Minutes'of Nov 13, 2006 (Exhibit E). But that came well after the actual hearing. - - Why does this matter? Firstly, many more people would have been at that Public Hearing on Nov 13, 2006, had they known it was not lust about the Aqua Barn. I make this statement based on the large numbers of Citizens who attempted (and I use the word "attempted" on purpose) to attend the Planning Commission public hearing of Sep 20th on the 2006 Comp Plan Amendment package --all of them! The same numbers of Citizens and even more may have attended the Nov 13rh hearing had they known about it. Secondly, the Exhibit B Notice was too vague to inform anyone about proposed changes to be discussed . The same holds true for the Exhibit C Agenda which was also distributed outside City Hall. Thirdly, on Nov 13Eh, Inez Somerville Petersen brought to the attention of Mayor Koelker, chairman, and city council members that the City must provide notice of public hearings that are "reasonably calculated under all circumstances to apprise affected parties of the pending action and afford them an oonortunity to present their ob'e�y ctions " 3 She also asked that the public .hearing_be_continued to alLow{for ro er- notice and public participation. Mayor Koelker, chairman, took no notice of her statements and proceeded with the public hearing. These are important facts which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. Exhibits A-D and the video record of the Nov 13th Council meeting/public hearing document these comments. The video record is available from the Renton City Clerk. "COURTESY" HEARING — To compound the legal status of the Nov 13th public hearing, Exhibit D interjects the --- term "Courtesy Hearing" as applicable to that hearing. -Please note that the Exhibit B -- Public Notice does not indicate Nov 13, 2006, as a courtesy hearing, nor does the Exhibit C Agenda. What is a courtesy hearing under the Law? Putting myself in Mayor Koelker's place, I'd imagine it is a "word play" meant to convince Citizens that a valid public hearing process had occurred, that the environmental impacts had been lawfuliv reviewed by the ERC with a DNS issuec Oct 23"a, and now on Nov 13th, a courtesy hearing was being held to incorporate "loose ends." But the "word play" does not represent reality. The "loose ends" involved incorporating recommendations of the Highlands Task Force, and this altered the zoning and land use originally recommended by the Staff. This is verified by Exhibit D. Thus, the hearing of Nov 13th is not just about a failure to give proper notice to all affected parties, it also involves the ERC basing a DNS on a pre -Oct 23 set of zoning _ ---- _ specifications,-_ -Staff„ ,..,-ouncii_h_ad.moved onto a post -Nov --- -- and.land usewhile the and 13 set of zoning and land use specifications. How legal is that? These are important facts which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. Certainly you will agree that it is imperative that the City conduct its public hearings using the same zoning and land use criteria as the ERC uses to conduct its environmental review. How can.any resulting DNS have legal force if the Staff and Council envision one set of zoning and land use requirements while the ERC reviews another? PROCESS FLAWED FROM BEGINNING - Sep 20tt' Hearing Exhibit D makes reference to the Planning Commission Hearing of Sep 20, 2006. This hearing was a "due process" failure of the worst kind. Yet it would appear by Exhibit D that Mayor Koelker attempted to pass the hearing of Sep 20th as "the hearing," and the public hearing of Nov 13th as just a "courtesy hearing." Neither legally qualified as a valid public hearing. -- 4 — The Sep 20t" public hearing covered ALL 2006 Comp Plan Amendments and was so well attended that people were crammed in everywhere and spilled out into the hall toward the elevators. The Chairman Pro Tem Jimmy Cho made no arrangements for overflow seating, and many people left before the hearing began because they had no where to sit inside the Council Chambers and no way to hear or sit in the hallway. Chairman Pro Tem Cho then stated that due to the high attendance, Citizens could speak no more than 3 minutes total on ALL 13 Comp Plan Amendments. At that announcement, many more people left, knowing they would not have time to say what they wanted to say, even if they restricted comments to one Comp Plan Amendment. All those Who drove to City Hall on Sep 20th for the Planning Cbmmission public hearing omthe 2006 Comp Plan Amendments should have a reasonable expectation of being able to sit during the hearing, to hear the comments made during the hearing, and to make whatever reasonable objections they had. This did not occur. This Planning Commission public hearing, as conducted, was a total "denial of due process" and it made the results of that public hearing invalid. These are important points which you cannot ignore and still be true to your professional code. If the public hearing process is flawed, then the results of that process are also flawed. Thusany review by the ERC based on such flawed data produces more flawed data, and determinations based on flawed _data should be invalid. - RCW 36.70A.210 requires 'orderly development." RCW 36.70A.020(11) requires Citizen participation and coordination. That is not what I have described on the previous pages of this Appeal. iMPACT OF RHA ON NEIGHBORHOOD After the Nov 13th public hearing where I spoke, I resent -my comments on Nov 22" d in an email to Mayor Koelker and city council members, outlining again the impact that CV zoning has on me. The points I make are points that the ERC should have considered. Traffic is a part of the Checklist, feasibility of ingress/egress points is part of the Checklist, location of on and off street parking is part of the Checklist. A smooth transition from one zone to another is part of the Checklist. What happened to the practical application of proposed zoning? To all email addressed City of Renton Council Officials and the Citizen Task Force focused on the Renton Highlands rezoning: I would like to put in writing and on the record my opposition regarding the CV zoning between Glennwood Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE in Renton Highlands. I want to clearly state and show you why I oppose this CV zoning. — 5 -- Please see belowon the parcel map to locate the red type because the big parcel lot is _ being considered for CV zoning. The smaller parcel had 'a duplex on it and a house was on the bigger lot (very residential structures) . These were tom down and the 2 parcels purchased by the Renton Housing Authority. I was provided a CAD drawing of the plans that the RHA planned to build on this site and use the Glennwood street as their entrance and exit into the development they plan to build. It is inappropriate to for this building plan to happen and I'd like to explain why. I ask that you take note that Glenwood Ave is very residential in nature. All of the surrounding parcels on Glennwood Ave are duplexes. Many housing families with young children. Below in one picture, you can see how Glennwood Ave is narrow and curved and children tend to play in the street and would be caught unaware of cars traveling fast. The traffic for 100 units (possibly more), would not only change but destroy the current quiet residential' street that -my -father, several families and I live on. Also, please take in consideration the fact that developments don't allow enough spaces for parking. They put signs in their driveways that say "resident parking only" others will be towed. Well... where do visitors park? What if you have more than 2 cars per household? There is no room on my street for this overflow. Look what happens to the street right next to the apartments where this sign is (see below picture of 12th St). Luckily NE 12th St. is large enough to hold some of this overflow. But keep in mind that you have people parking and crossing the street anywhere to get to and from their cars. They are not walking to the comer to use the cross walk to get to their apartment or car. A Renton Housing Authority planning employee (the person I'd rather keep unnamed) told me that the side of the property facing Edmonds is too steep to put the entrance on. In addition, this would take away from their net acreage to develop on. This was in the CAD drawing, I did not just make this up. Please see picture below to prove the steep incline making the entrance unfeasible from Edmonds Ave. I would like to close my email by asking that you carefully look at what this CV will do to my neighborhood. This is the rezoning issue I have been against from the very beginning when the rezoning initiative began:--I-bought this duplex in a residential area 13 years - ago and have lived there as long. My father has owned his for 15 years and we would like it to stay residential. Please take a look at the very last picture and see what I have done to my duplex to make it a great place to live. ATTACHMENTS follow. ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This is the plot map showing my property and the land purchased by RHA for a high density subsidized project with the entrance off Glennwood Parcel Mae and Data r 30= ���`� 122T8Qi3s Z :1Zr I 118r4: c^r-UiA )or . r �M►!Aa •�ti l�Ci 41%� •�� �•��� � •`fit ,�q�����QQ��jj.y�j� f #� 092220 - 7 - ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This_is how wide Glennwood..is. Two_cars_can.bare y-pass_each_other. And this is the ingress/egress street for the planned RHA high density apartment? ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: Below is what happens when there is not enough parking in a high density apartment complex like that which the RHA plans. - 8 - ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: This shows how steep Edmonds Ave NE is; it is a poor choice for an entranc— e`fo ffi-e-Iiigh density RHA planned apartment complex, and the entrance would be too close to the intersection on Sunset anyway. ATTACHMENT to EMAIL: The lot next to me is {Manned as the entrance to the RHA new high density apartment complex, but you can see from this picture and one on the previous page that the street is not wide enough to safely accommodate heavy traffic and on -street parking. ATTACi --END of EMAIL-- Itial. As far as I knew prior to Oct 23rd, the RHA was going to build its high density subsidized housing apartments on the lot as shown in the graphic on Page 6 with an unworkable entrance off my street with extreme environmental impacts. Did the ERC weigh in on any resulting environmental impacts? No. And an entrance off Edmonds was likewise overlooked by the ERC in its environmental review. That alternate entrance has just as many environmental impacts due to steep slopes on Edmonds and its proximity to the main intersection on Sunset. Did'the ERC weigh in on these impacts? No. Now, through the Highlands task force chairman, I have heard that the lot next to me will not be an entrance to the planned high density RHA subsidized housing project after all. Instead it will be a park. Did the ERC consider impacts of this? No. And through the Highlands task force chairman again, I also heard the City will be installing huge lights to deter drug activity. Did the ERC consider impacts from this? No. So not only will I have drug activity next to me, just as documented at the park down the street, IT also have bright lights with which to contend. A neighbor near me cannot install huge lights with brightness that invades my privacy, it is against Renton City. Code. So how can the City do this to me? Did the ERC consider this impact? No. And I stress again that the ERC used pre -Oct 23rd zoning and land use req_uirements,__ while the Staff is using a different baseline, one that involves subsidized housing near two streets which cannot accommodate such high traffic usage and/or one that creates a park which will be a magnet for drug activity. These are environmental impacts not considered by the ERC, a* as evidenced in the package of materials mailed_by Rebecca Lind with her Nov 9 2006 letter on behalf of the ERC. NON PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW and HIGH DENSITY ZONING I am not learned in laws governing environmental impacts; I'm just one of many residents of the Highlands Subarea trying to preserve my quality of life. have the common -sense -that God gave me, and I can read the -first few -pages of the package Rebecca Lind sent with her letter of Nov 9tn and immediately a BIG question arises: What is a "non --project environmental review"? Is that another semantics game like Mayor Koelker's use of "courtesy hearing" for Nov 13tn . Rebecca Lind has stated many times that the Highlands Subarea has a density of 4$ du/ac NOW. Yet the ERC has rendered a DNS regarding changing a low density neighborhood which is currently 4-6 du/ac to a high density neighborhood with densities as high as 75-80 du/ac over most of the Subarea. And I'm to believe there are no environmental impacts from this? This is ridiculous. Where's the proof? TRANSPORTATION Just read the ERC's report on TRANSPORTATION on Page 3 of 3, "Environmental Review Committee Staff Report" where impacts are mentioned but then dismissed because there is adequate capacity. How absurd! We who live in the neighborhood know how bad_ the traffig is now. The ERC's DNS is based in part on a traffic study which determines thadithe current capacity can handle three times the current traffic. That is ridiculous. Again, I cannot comprehend the increased trips as not causing an environmental impact, not when I consider the current traffic situation. This traffic study tells the City what it wants to hear, that 745 additional.dwelling units and an additional 10,567 trips over and above what we have now will cause no environmental impact. And I am also to believe that the area could handle an additional 28,772 trips. The current number of trips is not mentioned. The conclusion that such increases in traffic cause no environmental impact is a fiction. We citizens who live in the neighborhood know that such increases in traffic will make Sunset Blvd and surrounding neighborhood streets a nightmare. A traffic study that defies common sense does not meet the burden of proof. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and NIA NON PROJECT ITEM I take exception to all ERC determinations which reference "N/A" and "non project item." The ERC provided no valid proof that the following areas had no environmental impact or were truly "not applicable" or a "non project item." The ERC has the burden of proof. • EARTH • AIR 0 WATER • PLANTS_- • ANIMALS • ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES • ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • LAND AND SHORELINE • HOUSING • AESTHETICS • LIGHT AND GLARE • RECREATION • HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION • TRANSPORTATION • PUBLIC SERVICES • UTILITIES POINTS of DISAGREEMENT The City Council recently adopted a Highlands Moratorium BEFORE a public hearing ��— was held on that Moratorium (hearing scheduled for Dec 2006). This is a manipulation of the planning process to suit City development plans. And the same has occurred with the ERC's DNS of Oct 23, 2006. As I stated previously, RCW 36.70A.210 requires "orderly development." RCW 36.70A.020(11) requires Citizen participation and coordination. That is not what I have described in this Appeal. - I do not believe that the City can -show that it has complied with the rule and intent of the Law, or with processes that are typical and customary for a proposal of the scope and scale of Highlands Zoning and Land Use, LUA-06-128 and its accompanying 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Essentially the same high densities are proposed under LUA-06-128 as were proposed under LUA-06-030. Calling environmental elements "not applicable" or "non project" is a play on words and a convenient interpretation of Law to. avoid an EIS. A DNS on a proposed upzone of this magnitude requires proof. I do not believe the ERC provided any proof that Highlands Zoning and Land Use are insignificant in scope and scale. - 12 To justify the ERC's DNS on LUA-06-128, a comprehensive Environmental Impact Study should have been undertaken. 1. The City has not held a valid public hearing process leading up to an environmental review by the ERC. 2. The ERC in turn has not adequately identified and addressed Environmental Impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with LUA-06-128. The "transportation impact" was identified but then downplayed by unbelievably asserting that the neighborhood had capacity for three times the current traffic. 3. With regard to Environmental Impacts, the ERC's Documentation and Due Diligence are- inadequate to satisfy what is typical and -customary for review. 4. The-ERC's DNS is being applied to avoid an Environment -Impact Study (EIS) and the time and cost associated with both an EIS, as well as the resulting remediation that may be required in order (this would cause a major schedule delay). - 5. The City has not provided a valid Public Comment process to adequately address Highlands zoning and land use proposals. 'And I refer to the public hearings of Sep 20t" and Nov 13t'. 6. The Ordinance on tonight's Agenda (Exhibit F) for first reading covers Highlands zoning and land use requirements which were not part of the zoning and land use requirements reviewed by the ERC. Perhaps this explains the use of the term "courtesy hearing" and "non project." 7. And more specifically, no public hearings were held to specifically address Environmental Impacts and concerns. CLOSING COMMENTS I hope that the Council Members reading this Appeal will consider what they have done to their Constituency by not requiring an EIS as a Council Majority and forcing Citizens to do their work for them through the Appeal process. I certify that I d livered this APPEAL to the City Clerk of the City of Renton prior to the dea ne of 5 , on Mon, November 27, 2006. Li da Perrine 1155 GLENNWOOD AVE NE Renton, WA 98056 Exhibit A = Rebecca Lind's letter of Nov 9, 2006 Exhibit B = Public Notice Exhibit C = Agenda, City Council, Nov 13, 2006 Exhibit D = Handout from Nov 13, 2006, "courtesy" hearing Exhibit E = Minutes, City Council, Nov 13, 2006 Exhibit F = City Council Agenda for Nov 27, 2006 PLANNING/BUILDING/ ti �= PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT `Z� M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 3, 2006 TO: Rebecca Lind FROM: Jennifer Henning, x7286 SUBJECT: Development Services Comments on Draft Ordinance Establishing the R-14 Zone in the Highlands and Implementing the CV Comprehensive Plan Designation On page 3, "garden -style apartments" are prohibited. What specifically are "garden -style apartments" and how do they differ from a "stacked flat"? We may want to use this opportunity to eliminate this confusing term from our regulations. If not, please revise the name to something more readily understood and provide a distinct definition for the apartment types we intend to prohibit. It may be that this is more a standards issue than a use issue. Alternately, you could drop the use prohibition and address the problem instead via restrictions within the R-14 Development Standards. On page S, changes are proposed in this ordinance regarding new subsections 136 & 7 that are also proposed in the other ordinance regarding R-10 zoning in the Highlands. A small numbering change to this Section was proposed in our memo on the R-10 ordinance. To avoid unintended consequences, please make changes in only one ordinance and ensure the ordinances go forward for adoption in the intended order. On Attachment C, we recommend that instead of showing the full table, you create text that instructs the codifier to make the necessary changes. This will help avoid the typographical errors that result in conflicts between the individual zone tables and the large zoning table. • On page 6 of Attachment B, footnote 108 is added to "park and ride, shared -use" in the CV zone, but the wording of the footnote is difficult to understand. It states: "Permitted on existing parking required as accessory parking for a nonresidential use." Please revise the footnote for clarity. On page 1 of Attachment D, the added text "Conversion, re -development or subdivision of legal lots in existence as of January 1, 2007 require the removal of all existing residential structures" is important enough to necessitate its own development standard category heading. It should not be lumped in under the • heading of either "Minimum Density" or "Maximum Density". Suggested heading for this major code change is: "Removal of Existing Structures Required". On page 1 of Attachment D, the terms "conversion" and "re -development" are used but not defined. The term "development," however, is defined very broadly by our current Code. Without specific definitions, we are not able to consistently implement new restrictions. For example, if someone were to want to construct an addition, would that be considered "re -development"? If so, would that make the addition impossible? As currently worded, a sign replacement could be construed to require design review because it would qualify as "development" under the current definition. Please further refine the terminology and/or definitions to firm up the applicability. • On page 7 of Attachment D, considering the changes being made to the R-14 zone and its geographic applicability, do we still want to limit commercial uses to 1- story within the expanded area of the zone? On page 8 of Attachment D, there is a new requirement for design review under the "Project Size Limitations" heading for R-14 uses in the CV Comprehensive Plan Designation. There should be separate headings in the R-14 for uses within the Design District and uses outside of the Design District. Please clarify the existing section headings as follows: "Residential uses outside the CV Comprehensive Plan Designation:" and "Commercial or Civic uses outside the CV Comprehensive Plan Designation:" and for the new heading: "All uses within the CV Comprehensive Plan Designation:". • On page 10 of Attachment D, there should be separate subheadings in the R-14 category "Landscaping, General" for both residential uses within the Design District and residential uses outside of the Design District. Please use the same headings as within "Project Size Limitations" (see above comment). Unlike the R-10 and RM Zones, the R-14 Zone does not require all setback areas to be landscaped. Is this the intent? • On page 12 of Attachment D, what is the purpose behind adding "density" to the R-14 exceptions? The purpose of this entire section is solely to allow construction of a single family dwelling on a substandard lot. Because the addition of the word "density" would likely eliminate the ability to construct a house, the changes proposed make it essentially meaningless. If you don't wish to allow construction of single family residences on legal lots in the R-14 Zone, as we do in many other zones, please instead delete this entire section. • On page 4 of Attachment F, much of the new Standards Table text is duplicating the language found in the Design District regulations. In order to avoid repetition, simply reference the Design District regulations instead (like we do in the CA Zone). • On page 8 of Attachment F, "shared parking" is required but not defined. Please further clarify the intent of this section. Section 4-4-080E3 of the parking code addresses "joint use parking" (not shared parking). Also; even if shared parking is the same as joint use parking, there is some confusion regarding the requirement for joint use parking in a mixed use development because the Code states that joint use parking may only be permitted for uses with dissimilar peak -hour demands. What if the mixed uses within a development have similar peak -hour demands as required by 4-4-080, and shared parking is mandatory under the revisions to the R14 Zone? Please simplify or, preferably, omit this requirement. If omitted, we would be able to analyze parking for R14 mixed use developments under the same standards as mixed use developments in all other zones. Changing the parking requirements on a zone -by -zone basis is making our code even more complex and creating further implementation problems for Development Services. On page 2 of Attachment G, the word "and" between "UC-N2" and "Zones" is incorrectly placed. • In general, we recommend that a more descriptive term be substituted for the planning -term "subarea" for the Comprehensive Plan amendments as well as the zoning text amendments. Some suggested alternatives are "Highlands Neighborhood", "Highlands District", or "Highlands Center". Please see similar comments in our memo on proposed changes to the R-10 Zone. BRAD NICHOLSON February 23, 2007 HAND DELIVERED Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 RE: Withdrawal of SEPA Appeal Mr. Hearing Examiner, 2811 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 brad,427{g hotmai I so m (425) 995-0658 CITY OF RENTON FEB 2 3 2007 EIED CITY CLERKS OFFICE ea'^d G ehae /f t( I am .informing you that I am withdrawing my appeal of the Highlands SEPA determination that is scheduled for a hearing on February 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before your office. The scheduled hearing, as you realize, was pertaining to the file LUA-06-128 and its associated DNS. With this letter you will know that I won't be at the hearing because the appeal is hereby withdrawn. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused but you may note that there might be another appellant, as you indicated there is one. Brad Nicholson a brad nicholson Page 1 212312007 Mimi on won �l- I �� Al■IMIll. w •111FeIaIf612sZ9IOY.Irz: STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative of the King County Journal a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to -its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Public Notice was published on November 13, 2006. The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $23 . od on r `01llti11111!/��� gal Advertising Representative, King County Jotir` al �. - C �, rnmbZ *- of Subscribed and sworn to me this 13 day of November; 2006. fog •, p B5Cantelon Ql Notary Public for the State of Washington, .Residitigi n Kent, Washington PO Number: V4 !!!U l �i y` 1X/ .40 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMI''TEE RENTON,WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Determination of Non -Significance for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code - Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package LUA06-128, ECF Location: Highlands Subarea located both north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE. This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: L Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up7 changes. 2. Zoning Code 'Text Amend- ments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regu- lations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street to the CV land use designation; More the parcels fronting Harr- ington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the parcels south of NE 12th Street and east of Monroe Avenue NE to RMF land use designation. Please see attached maps. C Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street, a collection of parcels in the vicinity of Glenwood Ave NE and west of Harrington Avenue NE, north of Sunset Blvd in R-14; That places the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street and the parcels west of Kirkland Ave NE between NE 13th Street and NE 16th Street in the RMF zone: that places the Renton Housing Authority's Houser Terrace and Evergreen Terrace properties, the Sir Cedric Condominiums, a row of parcels near Glenwood and NE 9th Street, and row of parcels with frontage on Edmonds Ave NE between NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street, a row of parcels fronting NE 12th Street between Harrington Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE, the Renton Housing Authority's Sunset Terrace property, and a collection of parcels southeast of the intersection of NE 12th Street and Harrington Ave NE in the CV zone. Please see attached maps. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM an November 27. 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Exam- iner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. Published in the King County Journal November 13, 2006. #862158 e I i NOTKE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION j ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION i PROJECT NAME: H14hlsnde Land Use i Zoning Package PROJECT NUMBER LUA04120, ECF j LOCATION: Highlands Suba"a Iocand both north and south of HE Burnet Boulevard between I EdmcndsAve NO and Monme Ave HE i DESCRIPTION: Thisnrvorood aetotr khcNhdea four dllletrrhf actletu %eland m Vw aatlng see lard hue ph,w for the Mgipis de subarea: 1. Campnhamlw Plan Text Amendments that twnaw A-10 n an bnpinpetdng zww of tee Cy land we dwigrwdon and "plan t with R-ta, ntnaw stntogy 316.3. a few hhor,shrbanrNw •Gprh+ip" change@. 2, Z mng CO" Text Amn,dmsrrts Including: amending R-14 to be an Implemrdng s oI the CV land use designation, annwW fie uses allowed In the CV zone, amendmp notes Tar the aonkhg uno table, anmKft the dewPapawd reguWans Far the il•14 ecow •nrehning On dralopowm reg,ra5ans for tlw CV sans, tamoving tw Comer VQlaps Beaus DisUS-. r. Nam "Wr pWgem Farall paR.1s Ina Caner "tope Land Use deahpwtan aarendtrhg an PanI i MWA.M*0214 smerdatg On alto for R.14 bwxw, revising the name of to Urban Comm Design Review Paaket and ranting deRnIffow 0. Canq@hanulw plan Map am mini ors %tat move tee RM0 area north of N510th sfrwtho the CV lend uoe tMslpiutbn; Move tee fwmh frontln8 Harrington Ave HE tntwaon HE Tth Street and I t stile SUM& end the preate south of NO 12% street and oeet ofMa"ee Avenue NEto ee RMF land two des%ft0 n Pbs" see @%ached maps, 4. zwft M@p annordnnnis that plaoa'arast of to 111-10 poperq' north of NS IM aw"L a cagecton et prowls in.Ow p, oicb1 of Chumved A" NS rid west of He bW- Arerwr Ili north W Rarwel Blvd In R-14; That phKes du pro 6; *Thong Hanfngmn Ave NE betwesn HE V& Shea! and HE IM Ibaet and the patrols w W of 10ridend Ave HE LoMwn NO 13th %beet and HE IM Street In the RMF @any tut places the Raman tlausbhg Autlrodhrs Hearer Tarraw and evergrow Terrsea proportw, the Sir Cedria CondomiMums, a raw of poroele near 01@nvi od and HE nth Street, and row of proala whh frontage an Edmonds Aft NS bstwsea HE Sand Blvd and NO 12tt SbvK a raw of parceis 0ondng NO 12th Sb W betwesth ltanrkhgton Ave NE end Emtw,de Are NE, the Rana@" Maus" AudwW* auroet 7etneo propwa, and a eataetatt of praala aoutlheaal d tea lante"eFtott Of NE ISth 6peet and Narrirtglen Aw TIE kh tw CY eerh., PY@so on atwhad map. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the snrfwlmenitl ddwftdmrWn must be food In wrttl on of befora 5:00 PM on Now -- bw 27, a" Appwh must be Mod in 0111Mg together with the required $79.00 awtic"on fee ertm: Hearing Examiner,.CRy M Rw kx, 1056 South Orety Way, Renton, WA 11805a. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton MurMpal Code Seaton 4I.110.B. Additional Informston regaNing tea appeal proceea may be oblahlad ham the Rw t a City Clerks OfHge, (M) 43"510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT ! SERVICES DMSION AT (425) 430.7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION . aria , ; CERTIFICATION . I, WH1�— , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby �e described property on DATE: 11. pq. 203 SIGNED: ATTEST. Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in AC_ on the day of �411 QM!2 mot MY ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package PROJECT NUMBER: LUA08-128, ECF LOCATION: Highlands Subarea located both north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE DESCRIPTION: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an Implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an Implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirement&, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitlons. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Straetto the CV land use designation; Move the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the parcels south of NE 12th Street and east of Monroe Avenue NE to RMF land use designation. Please see attached maps, 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street, a collection of parcels In the vicinity of Glenwood Ave NE and west of Harrington Avenue NE, north of Sunset Blvd In R-14; That places the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street and the parcels west of Kirkland Ave NE between NE 13th Street and NE 16th Street In the RMF zone; that places the Renton Housing Authority's Houser Terrace and Evergreen Terrace properties, the Sir Cedric Condominiums, a row of parcels near Glenwood and NE 9th Street, and row of parcels with frontage on Edmonds Ave NE between NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street, a row of parcels fronting NE 12th Street between Harrington Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE, the Renton Housing Authority's Sunset Terrace property, and a collection of parcels southeast of the intersection of NE 12th Street and Harrington Ave NE in the CV zone. Please see attached maps. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 6:00 PM on November 27, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $76.00 application fee with: HearingExaminer, City of Renton, 1066 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98065. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clark's Office, (426) 430-6510. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. Highlands Subarea 2; �...,�.".......�, ®&=' Highlands Subarea •�� i .a"..z... . ieoo moo{ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION : - - Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 9, 2006 CIT' -"OF REN.TQN' : Plannino4ilding/PublicWorks' Department Gregg•Zimmerman P.E., Adininistrator City of Renton 1055.S Grady Way Renton, VITA 98055 SUBJECT: Highlands Land Use'&Zoning Package ; LUX-06-128, ECF This ietter'is written on behalf of the -Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and. is to inform you that they' have completed, their review. of -the environriiental impacts of the above -referenced project. The Committee, on November,'6,1006;'decided that your project will be- issued' a 'Determination of Non - Significance. The "City ,of Renton ERC has determined that it does, not have- a, probable significant adverse impact on. the�environment. AnIEnvironmental' Impact Statement (EIS) is, not required under.RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). "This decision was made by the' ERC,under,,the authority''of Section 4-64•.Renton'Municipal Code, after review of a completed environmental checklist and`.other informatiori,'on.file-witfi-the lead agency. This information is available to -the public'on request. Appeals of the environmental 'determination -must be -filed; En- writing, on, 6f,�,b6fore 5:00 . PM. on November 27, 2006. Appeals,`must,tie fled in writing aogeti,er wiih'the required $75.00 application fee, " with: Hearing Examiner, Cit`y',,6f, Renton, 1055 South. Grady<<Way,•�Rent66;=,;WA,98055. Appeals to the, Examiner are governed by! City,of,Renton Municipal�`;Code Section•4=8-1.10':B: i,A' dditional information regarding the appeal process may be�6bta ned frorti the Ftentdn City Clerk's OfF6e,,(425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determinationis, appealed, a public hearing date,will,be set and,all parties notified. If.. ' you.have any questions or.desire; clarification of the above, please call.me`at°(425) 430-6578. For the Environmental -Review Committee, Rebe' ca Lind ; Principal Planner cc:.- Subhashn! Kumar,,,George Rusk, Patrick Powers, Marie Engeland; Elena,Koleva, Howard Baldridge, John Visse-r, Bill Grover, Terry. Persson; Brad'Nichalson,. Pamela Curley, Edwin& Patricia Rasmussen, Glenda Johnson, ` Inez Somerville Petersen"f0arties of Record : 1055,South Grady Way - Renton;, Washington' g8055 a` E ,lr T J �I'': [1 AHEAD OF -THE ,CUiRVL ® Thiag: 4Wtontains50%mvjvi ledma6ml,30%post,consurw,' - CITY -OF RENTON - DETERMINATION.OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATIONNUMBER: LUA06-128,.ECF APPLICANT: City of Renton ; PROJECT NAME: Highlands Land Use and -Zoning -Package DESCRIPTION. OF, PROPOSAL: •This;non-projecfactlon includes four different action's related to the, • zoning and land use plans for the Highlands, Subarea:. ; 1'. Comprehensive. Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designatiomand replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3; a few'non-substantive "clean-up" changes. i " Zoning Code7ei xt Amendments including: -amending R-14•to be an jmplementing zone of -the CV lan&use.- designMion,:amen d the uses -allowed in the CV zone, amending -notes for the zoning dse•table, amending the. development regulations for the R'A4'zone, amending the development' regulations for the CV zone; removing.: ,the Center Village`, Bonus District, enaciind,.designs regulations for all panels in, a .Center. Village. Land Use-'- 'designation,. amending the parking requirements„amending,the• criteria for'R-14 bonus,,revising the name of the''Urban Center Design Review PackeL;,and revising deft t+�ons,y' _ 3:: Comprehensive: Plan Map amendments, that move the,3RMD a ea, orih of NE "16"' Streetfo. the CV land .use ' designation;: Move the parcels�frontirig Harrington,Ave NE�betwoen NE7 'Street and NE 9t' Street; and the". 'parcels south- of NE 12"' Street and, east of;Monroe Avenue* . to"RMl= land use designation. Please see,. attached maps: I.i A 4. Zaning;Map amendments:�that place�mosi�ofilie:R=�D.property northiof NE .3treet, a.collection of parcels 4,• ,, «. in"the vicinity of Glenwood•Ave'NE and - of Harnngt 'n", venue�NE; north of Sunset`Blvd in'R-14, ' That places:the parcels fronting;Harrington Avd.NE°between,,}NE 7, ,,Street and�NE 9, Street 'and the parcels, west'.- .' of Kirkland "Ave NE between NE'13' Street arid, NE`"16'=Street fin_ the.RMF zane;, that places the Renton a.,... Housing:Authodty's. Houser xTerrace' ": d Evergreen Terrace; properties; the,Sir'Cedric Condominiums,. a row - ` of parcels near. Glenwood andrNE.9�" Street,.:and row.of"parcels with. rontage'on.Edmonds Ave NE'between �, , NE 8unset,61vd and NE 12 Street;ta row of;parcels frohtIhg.NEA2 - Street between Harrington Ave NE and", Edmonds Ave -NE, the Renton Housing "A«uthority's' Sunset•- Terrace property; and .a collection of parcels southeast of. the intersection of NE :120 Street and Harrington Ave NE in .the- CV,zone. Please see attached. maps. �,, „ , Appeals of the environmental deterffi nafloh,must be filed In writing on or.before 5:00 PM on.November 27; 2006.. Appeals must be.fiied'in writing togethermith the'required $75.00-'applic6tion fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South- Grady Way,- Renton, WA' 98055'. Appeals to the Examiner -are governed by:.City of Renton Municipal Code. -Section 4-8-1'10.B. Additional, information -regarding. the appeal process may be'obta... from `the Renton' City Clerk's Offce; (425) 430-6510. : PUBLICATION DATE:' .',November 13, 2006 DATE -OF.DECIS[ON: - November 6; 2006 SIGNATURES: Gregg i r i s ra or Dat I. David Dani ,:Fire Chief Date Plannin B ildi g/Public Works . Fire'Depart ent Le[ate Aerryrri igashlyaa,:Administra or . ; =''D a '= ' Alex;f ietsbh, Administrator Date m .Comunity Services:' y , EDNSP c' - _ ,:5 •' 'Y" 'e'iy�` :tY` i-,.�tr r :P�'' t5''i.�. . , '� Fr f • . ' i . "t•r,. q3-Y,,7�:t"!'`tie •.;#2: 1'T • �#. �S'r;-=iS-. - � • , a. ilk . rtMHR, ., Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 9.2006 Washington State Department of. Ecology Environmental Review Section PO box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 CIT" OF RENTON Planning/Bgilding/PAlicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Subject: Environmental Determinations ; Transmitted herewith is a -copy of'the Environmental•Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on, -November 6, 2006: .DETERMINATI=OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT NAME: Highlands Land Use & Zoning -Package ' -PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-128, ICF . . LOCATION:. Hlghlands,Subarea located both:north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between..Edmonds Ave'NE and Monroe Ave NE DESCRIPTION: :.This non-projecYactiorfincludes four different act€ons related to the zoning andaand use plans for the,Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive ,Plan Text Amendments that remove R=10 as. an lmplementing;zone of the CV ;land -use designation and• replace itr with` R-14, remove, strategy' 319.3, a few non substantive "clean-uprr changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments-. Including: amending -R-14 to be an Implementing zone of 'ilia CV: land use designation,. amend.the,.uses allowed in the CV zone; amending note's,for the zoning. use. table, amending the :development regulations for the' R-14 -zone, amending the -development regulations for the ; CV zone; removing .the Center .Village Bonus District,'. enacting design regulations for all."parcels In a''Center Village Land "Use ,designation,' amending -the parking requlrements, amending the. criteria.for R-14.bonus;'reAsing the name of the Urban Center Design Review.Packetj.and revising definitions.' 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendmeirts:_that move the ROD area north:of NE-.16th Streetto the,CV land. use designation; Move the parcels 'fronting Harrington Ave,NE between NE 7th -Street and NE 9th Street, and the parcels ,.south of NE-12th ; Street'and east of Monroe Avenue '.NE -to RMF land use designation.- Please see attached maps. 4.. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the. R-10 property north of NE 12th Street, a collection.of'parcels in the vicinity�of 'Glenwood'Ave NE and west"of Harrington Avenge NE, north of Sunset' Blvd In R-14; That .places : the parcels fronting, Harrington Ave NE between. NE'7th. Street. and',NE 9th Street; . and 'the parcels west of Kirkland:,Ave..NE between NE 13th'. i' Street and NE -16th Street' in.<the' RMF zone; `that places. the . enton Housing'.Authority's Houser•'Terrace .an een . Terrace properties, .the Sir Cedric Coridomlriiums, 'a"row'of 1055 South +Grady Way _'-'Renton,, Washington 98055 ; . E lr TO': -N' - - AHEAD OF THE CiIRVE ®.TFlspapercontains 50% recycled material, 30%post consumer ; •-Environmental-Determinatior a_UA06'128, ECF JPage 2 of 2 parcels near Glenwood and NE 9th Street,".and row of parcels . i with frontage ,on Edmonds Ave -NE' between " NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street; a row of parce' 1116nting NE 12th Street betwe'en,Harr€ngton'Ave.NE and l=dmonds Ave'NE, the Renton Housing Authority's Sunset Terrace property, and a collection of parcels southeast of the,lntersdetion: of NE;1.2th Street and - Harrington NE in the CV zone:.Please see'attached maps. " Appeals of the'environmental determination must be f€led in writing on ar before '5:00 PM on. November'r 27, 2006. Appeals, must be filed in writing together with the "required '$75.00 application fee with: Hearing .Examiner,` City of Renton, 1055 South'Grady Way, Renton,, WA. 98055,.. Appeals to the Examiner are "governbd `byzfCity oRenton Municipal "Code Section 4-8-110:B.:,., Additional information' regarding the appeal'process'maybe obtained'froin the Renton ,City.Clerk's.Office; (425) 430-6510. ::""If you"have questions, please.call at (425) 430-6578: For".the Environrriental Review, Committee`'°;..;yl' ''►(./'I///%/j/'//�f�+� ///� G J J/1� ///�Jy///// _• ''�, SK..- .," . JM.fi r ��p t r'll �V ///y/%y�)//J����l R� f� r• - r wFxiE,.. r'k?;< 1 Rebecca Lind Prihcipal Planner cc: King County Wastewater.ti6btrment:Divisiori WDFW V� Stewart Reinhold- ' .��.� :' � Q MAP David F. s.< .s a d Dietzrr�an',° Depakm6rit of Natural Resources,, INSDOT, Northwest Rigion Duwamish Tribal:Offce •>, - Karen Walter; #ist erie6',aiileshoot Indian.Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert;-M66kles661: Cultural'Resources-Program US Army Carp. of Engineer:st, ' �,,.v_ N�; '• .. R. .. -Stephanie Kramer; Office of -.Archaeology 9'Hist6ric;Preservatiori Enclosure STAFF REPORT City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE Project Name Applicant File Number Project Manager Project Description November 6, 2006 Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package- with information on the Highlands Taskforce Proposal included City of Renton LUA06-128, ECF Erika Conkling This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Streetto the CV land use designation; Move the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the parcels south of NE 12 h Street and east of Monroe Avenue NE to RMF land use designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street, a collection of parcels in the vicinity of Glenwood Ave NE and west of Harrington Avenue NE, north of Sunset Blvd in R-14; That places the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 71h Street and NE 9th Street and the parcels west of Kirkland Ave NE between NE 13th Street and NE 16th Street in the RMF zone; that places the Renton Housing Authority's Houser Terrace and Evergreen Terrace properties, the Sir Cedric Condominiums, a row of parcels near Glenwood and NE 9th Street, and row of parcels with frontage on Edmonds Ave NE between NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Street, a row of parcels fronting NE 12"' Street between Harrington Ave NE and Edmonds Ave NE, the Renton Housing Authority's Sunset Terrace property, and a collection of parcels southeast of the intersection of NE 12th Street and Harrington Ave NE In the CV zone. Please see attached maps. Project Location Map ERCReport-taskforcezoning.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department ronmental Review Committee Staff Report Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments LUA-06-121,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 13, 1006 Page 2 of 3 Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area SITE MAP Highlands Study Area NIA NIA st a Highlands Subareas 0 low 2000 TAURN Pr MW ChW9K CPA LW4 uss ---- "A- see.ew�an.wr.ra�+xWw,wa w.y�rr.rs m ar I- 120M x w ....a,,. p MW � a..rir B. RECOMMENDATION Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf NIA Total Building Area gsf NIA n 5 D Hl�S]]hlands Subareas ---4.. o laaa moo TuTc Fans F.opasd PAZO M GV �..w+� c«r.rsw,T�..aenq�.aasrgynr.y ® ws 1 : 12M u.wr.a.w.. C3 aw Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE X I Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. None required for this non -project action. ERC Report- task force zoning.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department ,onmenlal Review Committee StaffReport Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments' LUA-06.121,ECF REPORTAND DECISION OF OCTO&ER 23, 2006 Page 3 of 3 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non -project environmental review addresses only those Impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. TRANSPORTATION Impacts: This propososal results in an increase in density within the affected area. The Impact Analysis spreadsheet shows that the estimated increase in 745 dwelling units and 121,033 square feet of retail space over the capacity allowed by the current zoning. This additional residential and commercial capacity would generate an additional 10,567 vehicle trip ends in this area. A transportation analysis was conducted by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC in April, 2006. This report analyzed a much more intensive land use proposal for the same area. This transportation analysis reports that even with an additional 28,772 additional vehicle trip ends in this area, which is almost three times the amount of impact generated by the proposed action, there would be adequate capacity on the existing road system without significant level of service reduction. All intersections would operate at a LOS C or better, with the exception of the intersection of NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE, which is currently operating at LOS F. , With or without the proposal, new development would be required -to pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee as required by the Renton'Municipal Code. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated Into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant X Copies of all Review Comments are contained In the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed In writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 13, 2006. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC Report- task force zoning.doc CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-8, PERMITS- GENERAL AND APPEALS, AND CHAPTER 4-11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY CHANGING THE ZONING REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE CENTER VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL-14 (R-14) ZONE AND CENTER VILLAGE (CV) ZONE, AND ENACTING DESIGN REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the Vision for the Center Village calls for the modification of the existing, low -density suburban land use pattern; and WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Strategy 319.1 requires the evaluation of commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village Land Use Designation to ensure better implementation of the Center Village policies; and WHEREAS, Strategy 319.1 calls for the replacement of existing zoning that does not implement the Center Village Vision; and WHEREAS, the R-10 zone does not implement the Center Village vision for medium to high density residential development; and and WHEREAS, the Center Village zone includes uses that are incompatible with high density housing; WHEREAS, the Center Village Land Use policies promote high standards of design, pedestrian orientation, development of alleys, and the clustering of commercial and civic uses; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element promotes the provision of affordable housing for all income groups; and; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 of 56 SECTION I. Section 4-2-010.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 to read as shown on Attachment `A'. SECTION H. Section 4-2-020.H 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: H. RESDIENTIAL-I4 DUTACRE (R-14): The purpose of the Residential-14 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-14) is to encourage development, and redevelopment, of new -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. It is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density or the Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan designations. Densities range from eight l0 to fourteen (14) units per net acre with opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre. Structure size is intended to be Iimited in terms of bulls and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be eembined ,its, residential develop ent allowed when they support the purpose of the designation. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose established in the Residential Medium Density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG through LU-II, Policies LU- 157 through LU-181,or the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC,,Policies LU- 317 through LU-332, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 56 SECTION M. Section 4-2-020.I 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: I RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (RM): 1. Purpose: The Residential Multi -Family Zone (RM) is established to implement the multi- family policies of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The RM Zone provides suitable environments for multi -family dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support a multi -family environment. 2. Classifications: The density allowed under this zone will be identified by the suffix that is applied. This zone will normally be applied with one of three (3) suffixes: a. "F" (Multi -Family): The RM-F suffix allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multi -family districts with compatible projects and other multi -family development. It is intended to implement the Multi -Family or Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Density ranges from ten (10) to twenty (20) du/acre. Interpretation of uses and project review in this suffix shall. be based on the purpose statement objectives and policy direction established in the Residential Multi -Family land use designation, Objectives LU-JJ through LU-LL, Policies LU-182 through LU-192, or the Center Village Land Use designation, Objectives LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through LU-332. b. "T" (Traditional): The RM-T suffix occurs in areas where compact, traditional residential neighborhood development already exists, or in Comprehensive Plan designations where traditional residential neighborhoods are planned in the future. It is intended to implement the Urban Center — Downtown designation or Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan desi *nation in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Density ranges from fourteen (14) to thirty five (35) du/acre. Page 3 of 56 C. "U" (Urban Center): The RM-U suffix provides for high -density, urban -scale, multi -family residential development that supports the downtown and allows for alternative transportation mode choices. Development standards promote a pedestrian -scale environment and amenities. Density ranges from twenty five (25) to seventy five (75) du/acre. This zone, combined with the CD and RM- T Zones, is intended to implement the Urban Center — Downtown Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation or Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. Interpretation of uses and project review in suffix RM-U and RM-T shall be based on the purpose statement objectives and policies of the Urban Center — Downtown land use designation, Objectives LU-00 through LU-XX, Policies LU-216 through LU-264, or the Center Village Land Use designation. Obiectives. LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through LU-332 and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. (Amd. Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002) SECTION V. Section 4-2-020.K 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: K CENTER VILLAGE ZONE (CV): 1. Purpose: The purpose of the Center Village Zone (CV) is to provide an opportunity for concentrated mixed -use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban rather than suburban development standards that supports transit -oriented development and pedestrian activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high -density residential development, and discourage garden -style, multi -family development. The Center- Ar,,,.,ge Res4de,.,tW B,,nus Dis ; t stippei4s supffief- residential pnajeets that eemplement eefnmeFeial uses, provide gi-e�ffld Aeof suffeundi"g SiRgle 41ifflily and multi family neighbor -hoods. Page 4 of 56 2. Scale and Character: The Center Village Zone (CV) is intended to provide suitable environments for district -scaled retail and commercial development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose statement, objectives and policy direction established in the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC, Policies LU-317 through LU-332, Residential Medium -Density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG through LU-II, Policies LU-157 through LU-181, or the Residential Multi -Family land use designation, Objectives LU-JJ through LU-LL, Policies LU-182 through LU- 1.92, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION VI. Section 4-2-060 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 on Attachment `B'. SECTION VII. Section 4-2-07OG 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 on Attachment'C'. SECTION VIH. Section 4-2-070J 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 on Attachment 'D'. SECTION IX. Section 4-2-080A.22 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title N (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 22. Size restrictions apply per use in RMC 4-2-120A. In the CN Zone, fast food establishments are prohibited. In the Center Village Zone, no office and conference uses are allowed for parcels fronting,_ or_taking-primary access from. -Edmonds Avenue NE. Page 5 of 56 SECTION X. Section 4-2-080A.33 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: 33. , laundr-a net day lm s .,duit day eaf & .r.t Non-residential uses are permitted only in e e fie withan if intended to serve residential development in the R-14 Zone. Project size limitations of RMC 4-2- 110F apply. A preschool or day care center, when accessory to public or community facilities listed in RMC 4-2-060J, is considered a permitted use and not a conditional use. Additional Restrictions within the CV Land Use Designation: Retail uses eatin >/drinkin r establishments, and on -site service _uses are prohibited in R-14 areas within the Center Village Land Use Desigmation unless they are accessory to a School, Park, or Entertainment and Recreational Use as allowed in RMC 4-2-060E, F, and J. SECTION XI. Section 4-2-080A.73 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: 73. Within the Center Village Zone, residentialBenusD09+-iet"r-esidential-only uses" are limited to townhouse de�,elepmefft in the ffflige of seven (7) to twenty (20) dwelling units per- net . Garden style apartments are prohibited. , and first floor eammer-eial uses, have a maximum density ef eighty (80) dwelling units per net aei;e. PFqjeets GerAer- Vikge Residen6a! Bonus Di"et. Agaehed dwel4ing unit d"opments in the range of ten. (10) te twen�y (20) dwell ing units per- net aer-e may only be tem%h Ground floor commercial develo ment at a minimum depth of 30 feet and a minimum width of 75% of the length of the building is required for all residential projects -on parcels abutting Sunset Boulevard NE._ Parcels _west of Harrington Avenue NE and east of Edmonds Ave NE may cluster the required commercial development as long as there is commercial development greater or equal to 75% of the sum of the ground floor areas of all the buildings roposed-for the site. Page 6 of 56 SECTION XII. Section 4-2-110F 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 on Attachment `E'. SECTION XIH- Section 4-2-110G 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 on Attachment `F. SECTION XIV. Section 4-2-120A 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 on Attachment `G'. SECTION XV. Section 4-3-095 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 deleted in its entirety. SECTION XVI. Section 4-3-100 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 to read as follows: A PURPOSE: 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. Page 7 of 56 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' (the Downtown Core) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — Downtown. 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. 3. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'B' (the South Renton Neighborhood) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City's South Renton Neighborhood Plan. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan, for a residential area located within the Urban Center — Downtown, maintains the existing, traditional grid street plan and respects the scale of the neighborhood, while providing new housing at urban densities. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan supports a residential area that is positioned to capitalize on the employment and retail opportunities increasingly available in the Downtown Core. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big -box retail" as defined in RMC 4- 11-180, Definitions. G. Create desitm_standards and guidelines specific to the Center Village commercial core (District `D') that ensure design quality of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation. Uses within this district include business and professional offices, services,_ retail, restaurants, recreational businesses, mixed -use commercial and residential buildings, and multi -family residential. This ortion of the Center Village is intended to Rrovide a vital business district serving the local neighborhood and beyond 7. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the residential portion of the Center Villa e (District `E'_)_that _ensure design quality of structure and site development that implements the City o Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation. A vM ie of housing options allows economic and lifes le diversi in the Center Village, with-desigg regulation to tie the range of styles and types together, 8. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. In the Ur -ban Center. Design Over -lay are ,Set specific minimum standards and guidelines that may apply to all districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', ,'B', e -'C', `D', or `E'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) B APPLICABILITY: 1. This Section shall apply to all development in the Urban Center — Downtown and Urban Center — North. For the purposes of the design regulations, the Center Downtown is District'A', South Renton is District 'B', and the Urban Center — North is District 'C.' Districts A through C are depicted on the Urban Center Design Overlay District Map, shown in subsection B4 of this Section. Page 8 of 56 2. This Section shall also apply to big -box retail use where allowed in the Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones, except when those zones are located in the Employment Area — Valley south of Interstate 405. Big -box retail uses within these zones, except in the Employment Area — Valley, must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center -- North (District 'C'). 3. Where conflicts may be construed between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail. i rstsna+ ..ate+�ait� ate, ^v�r^td �«•t:r�:-�+:rrt' �"�,'�'�'�` «+ �wxr� 4. LJrianCenterI3esign Overlay.Dstrictilviap, 5. This section shall annly to all development in the Center V illaae Land Use Desitmation as shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. For the purposes of the DesignRegulations, areas within the Center Village Land Use Designation zoned Center Village CV shall cam rise .District "D". Areas within the Center Villaae Land Use Desianation zoned Residential Multi -family (RMF) and Residential-14 (R-14). area shall be in District "E". (Amd. Ord..4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) C EXEMPTIONS: The design regulations shall not apply to: 1. Interior Remodels: Interior remodels of existing buildings or structures provided the alterations do not modify the building facade. 2. Aircraft Manufacturing: Structures related to the existing use of aircraft manufacturing in District 'C'. (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) D ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to design regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the D4feeterOfficial will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) E SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high -density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights -of -way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. Page 9 of 56 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and 'B': Maintain existing grid street pattern b. Minimum Standards for Districts'C' and `D': Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. ii. Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation; Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and=-W, and `D': 1. Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ii. _ The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian only cou ard. b. Minimum Standards for District ' C': i. Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located Page 10 of 56 adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. iv. Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7b). V. If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). C. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). d. Guideline Applicable to Districts `C' and `D": ii Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts `A' and-,'B1, ID',and `E': gntmnee : i_A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Sueb entr-anees be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. ii. Multiple_b_uildings on the same site shall Riovide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. iii. Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iv. Secondary access (not fronting on a stream shall have weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1 /21 wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access, V. ... _Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges,jacent_lots, abutting s intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Page 11 of 56 b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. On pedestrian -oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. ii. On non -pedestrian -oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent, visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 100E7d). iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. V. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. C. Guidelines Applicable to-" Districts 'A',_4B', and 'C': i. Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. ii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iii. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. iv. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. V. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian - oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. de. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and'D': i. For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. ii. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. Page 12 of 56 iii. Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District W. ef. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, or similar feature. €g. Guideline Applicable to District'C': For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and `D': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: i. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; ii. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; iii. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'B' and 1E1: i. Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (a4LL Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or Page 13 of 56 Niii. Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or (e)iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. ii. in aFeas with elder -style, steeply pitehed, single fiamily hemes, similai- r-oef styles afe eneouraged te a.. o o_mere C. Minimum Standards for District `Cl- i. For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North (between North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long established, existing neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high -volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1 OOE7e). ii. Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 44-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. iii. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self -closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). iv. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. V. If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet (T) wide, shall be located on three (3) sides of such facility. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Page 14 of 56 a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and `D': i. Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection E7g of this Section). ii. Gateway elements -shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection E7h of this Section). iii. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: (a) Public art; (b) Monuments; (c) Special landscape treatment; (d) Open space/plaza; (e) Identifying building form; (f) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; (g) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); (h) Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). 7. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian -oriented facades (see subsection E2b(i) of this Section). Page 15 of 56 Pedestrian -oriented facade Property line Pedestrian-0riartted facades: Primary, building entry must be facing thestreet i transparent window area or window 7?` display along 75% ofp a ground floor the between he' ht of 2 to B feet above the ground weather protection at bast 4 % feet wide along at least 75% of the facade 9 Ix' b. Street -level residential (see subsection E2b(iv) of this Section). rivacy mining i units Trees C. Buildings without pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection E2b(v) of this Section). Page 16 of 56 Combination of evergreen and Building deciduous shrubs and trees —,. Raised planter d. Building entries (see subsection E3b(iii) of this Section). e. Service elements located to minimize the impact on the pedestrian environment (see subsection E5a(i) of this Section). Page 17 of 56 DUMPSI LOCATE REAR 01 SITE f. Service enclosure (see subsection M(iii) of this Section). ^oof enclosure keep birds out vV{ ILA ULU Flan g. Distinguishable building form appropriate for gateway locations (see subsection E6a(i) of this Section). Page 18 of 56 .e II li �. III YI II{IIIILIIIILPIpial rr rr INI rr rr 11 11 .. rr Turret M m Elevation Comer accentuating roof line ii E °� N I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII::,I;ii;�; -� —�■■■ — --- ■■■■ M1M.-' I 1!lkkll'I Note: Ensure that building does not block viewing triangle at intersections 7-1- Bay window IIIIIII1111111111R11Ililii r Elevation Plan h. Gateway landscaping, open space, pedestrian amenities and signage that identifies the commercial area (see subsection E6a(ii) of this Section). Page 19 of 56 (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' ad-'B', and 'D11: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. b. Minimum Standards for District'Cl: On dBesignated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street, parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 4-4-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface Parking Lots: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500') maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200% unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection 175a of this Section). C. Minimum Standards for District 'El: i. No surface parking shall be located between a buildingand nd the front property_ line or the building and side branertY line on the street side of a corner lot. Page 20 of 56 ii. Parking shall be located off an alley if an alley is present. ed.- Guideline Applicable to Ail -Districts `A',113%'C', and `D': In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. De. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. ii. When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A'-a*d,'C', and `D': i. Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection F5b of this Section). ii. All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 44-080F7, Landscape Requirements). b. Guidelines Applicable to All -Districts `A','C', and ID': i. Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on -site buffering from visual impacts. ii. Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. iii. Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent. To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for District'C' and `D': Page 21 of 56 Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground -floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection F5c of this Section). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. ii. Parking Structures Fronting Nan -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least six feet (6) from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection F5d of this Section). b, Minimum Standards for District `M i. Parking structures shall provide space for ground -floor commercial uses along street -frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection la5c of this Section). ii, Theentirefacade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Page 22 of 56 Iii Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid.a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration,_ subsection F5d of this Section . C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' a*d-, 'C% and `D': i. Parv:,,,,-gar-age eat„ies should not dominate the s.Wzeetse pe-.Parkina Garage entries shauld be des led and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. If possible, locate the parkin en away fi-om the primM street to either the side or rear of the building, ii. Parking garae entries should not dominate the streetsca e. iii. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. iii-iv Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. i�vv. Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. vi. Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and'E': i. Attached personal parking garages at -grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two (2) cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. ii. Multiple -user parking garages at -grade should be enclosed or screened from view through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. i-tiii. Personal parking garages should be individualized whenever possible with separate entries and architectural detailing in character with the lower density district. iv. Large multi-user parking garages are discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. Page 23 of 56 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'B' and `E': Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts .'A' and `D': i. Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. ii. Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on -site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. d. Guidelines Applicable to Area'B' and 'El: i. Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. ii. Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways. 5. Illustrations. a. Parking and vehicular access in District'C' (see subsection F1b(iii) of this Section). Page 24 of 56 b. Parking lots are accessed by a system of local access "streets' Parking lots are sited towards the interior of the block to the extent posslbie —\ Parking lots are configured to allow future Infill development — No parking lots or driveways adjacent to a pedestrian -oriented street Parallel parking on local access "streets' Minimize access points from High Visibility :- Streets Mid -block connections enhance access and provide a good framework for future infill development Parking garage entrance designed to minimize Impact - on pedestrian environment Parking lot lighting (see subsection F2a(i) of this Section). Page 25 of 56 DO THIS DON'T DO THIS C. Parking structure fronting on pedestrian -oriented street with pedestrian -oriented uses and facades along the ground floor (see subsection FU(i)(a) of this Section). a I ' jr Nq � i t Parking garage on second floor Ground floor commercial space with pedestrian -oriented fac6de d. Parking structure designed to enhance streetscape (see subsection FU(ii)(c) of this Section). Page 26 of 56 Articulation of facade compo to reduce scal and add visua interest Decorative tre structure for vi Raised plantir bed adjacent 1 sidewalk (Ord. 5029,11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) G PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Villa 7e by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi - modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'C' and `D': i. Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet (150') apart (see illustration, subsection G4a of this Section). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' a*d; ' C' and `D': Page 27 of 56 i. Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection Gob of this Section). ii. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. iii. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection G4c of this Section). iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users, Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred (100) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least twelve feet (12') in width. The walkway shall include an eight foot (8') minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection G4d of this Section). (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A ten to twelve foot (10' — 12') pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four (4) abreast, or two (2) couples passing one another. An eight foot (8') pathway will accommodate three (3) individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller five to six foot (5' — 6') pathway will accommodate two (2) individuals. V. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety, Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i, Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. ii. Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. iii. Decorative tlPences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. C. Guidelines Applicable to District T1 Only: i. Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection G4e of this Section). Page 28 of 56 ii. Between buildings of up to and including two (2) stories in height, through -block connections should be at least sic feet (6) in width. iii. Between buildings three (3) stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least twelve feet (12') in width. iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one -quarter (0.25) mile apart. V. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen feet (14) in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per sixt�, (60)1hir 30 lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly. accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. a. Minimum Standards for District-'Cl: i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4-112') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. b. Minimum Standards for District `D': i. Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies -or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet 4'/z' wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of fifteen feet L5') above the gn ound elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above_ground level. ii. Site furniture Provided in public spaces shall be inade of durable vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block-12edestrian access to public Spaces or building entrances. C. Minimum Standards for District 'E' only: Page 29 of 56 i. Site furniture provided in 12ublic spaces shall be made of durable vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can -be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. ii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces_ or building entrances. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts "C'. `D'and 'E': i. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. ii. Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. iii. Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection G4f of this Section). 4. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian walkways within parking lots (see subsection Gla(H) of this Section). Page 30 of 56 OFA b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (see subsection G2a(i) of this Section). Page 31 of 56 b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (see subsection G2a(i) of this Section). Page 31 of 56 Pathways along building �• :. ,! facades are at least 12' wide, and Includes street trees --,_? Parking lot pathway Mid -block pathway connects uses and d `" ;�`.. • ;,'� •-'-` � �K activity centersy �' 'f•_ . • '4..?,• -Q tip, (.tea �� ,• ,x. ti, r it 11''�I4, aA`•� Pedestrian -oriented street with wide sidewalks, and street trees .'' Sidewalk along ' high visibility street Major local access "streets" are designed with sidewalks — on at least one side Interior pathways that link storefronts, parking areas, — and residential uses C. Parking lot pedestrian interior walkway (see subsection G2a(iii) of this Section). Page 32 of 56 d. Sidewalks along retail building facade (see subsection GU(iv)(a) of this Section). Street trees and/or pedestrian street lamps every 30' Weather e. Through -block pedestrian connections (see subsection G2c of this Section). Page 33 of 56 f. d Pedestrian Corridor �0a�e�t 1f Ptop,o+�+a� m Pedestrian Corridor m Pedestrian amenities incorporated into development (see subsection G3b(iii) of this Section). Recessed entry Seasonal landscaping Transparent windows Weather protection lesbian dented space Seating areas ses and street eatures used to define lestrian area Varied vement iestrian xiented signage (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) H LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in Page 34 of 56 sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). ii. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. iii. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection H3a of this Section). iv. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. V. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and non -vegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. vi. Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscaping Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection H3b of this Section). Standards for planting shall be as follows; (a) Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b) Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least twelve inches (12") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (Y) and four feet (4'). (c) Groundcover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. (d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three (3) years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e) Surface parking with more than fourteen (14) stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Page 35 of 56 Total Number of SpacesMinimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six (6) parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35`). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five (5) per one hundred (100) square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least sixteen inches (16") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (5) Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant groundcover so as to provide ninety percent (90%) coverage within three (3) years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than fifty feet (50') from a landscape area. vii. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. viii, Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. b. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. iii. Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. iv. Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. V. Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Page 36 of 56 vi. Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. . vii. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'B' and 'E': Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. ii. Decorative walls and fencing are encouraged when architecturally integrated into the project. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street comers. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A', aad-'C' and and 'DI: i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iv. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall -not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection H3c of this Section). Page 37 of 56 V. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. vi. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. vii. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection 113d of this Section) according to the following formula: 1 % of the Iot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space viii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On -site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet (Y) of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. ix. The following features are encouraged_in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection 113e of this Section) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. X. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Page 38 of 56 xi. The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. b. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and `F..': Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty (150) square feet per unit of which one hundred (100) square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. C. , Minimum Standards for District 'C': The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' ,and-'C' and ID': i. Common space areas in mixed -use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. ii. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. iii. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. e. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': Developments located at street intersection corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection H3f of this Section). 3. IIlustrations. a. Street tree installed with tree grate (see subsection Hla(iii) of this Section). Page 39 of 56 b. Parking lot landscaped buffer (see subsection Hla(vi) of this Section). One tree per 30 lineal feet Parking, service, or storage areas L_ .. 10, Landscepi' 9 Buffer C. Visible and accessible common area featuring landscaping and other amenities (see subsection H2a(iv) of this Section). d. Pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building (see subsection H2a(vii) of this Section). Page 40 of 56 e. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components and pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection H2a(ix) of this Section). f. Building setbacks increased at street corners along pedestrian -oriented streets to encourage provisions for pedestrian -oriented spaces (see subsection Me of this Section). (Ord. 5029,11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Page 41 of 56 'll� .1tF,j.;tF..1`•II(it1I,d`''1� • Comer building. a V! Comer entry E'' with increased setback Pedestrian -oriented ,space I BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a buildings that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and `D': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). b. Minimum Standard for Districts 'B' and `E': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet (20'). C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection I5a of this Section). ii. All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; Page 42 of 56 (d) Roofline features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director. iii. Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection I5b of this Section): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be forty feet (40'). (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen feet (I5'). (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet (6) or not less than two tenths (0.2) multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' a-W-i B', `D', and `E'; i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A B' and `E'': Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (T) in depth and four feet (4') in width. f. Guidelines Applicable to Districts A' and ID''B'-: i. Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (T) deep, sixteen feet (16) in height, and eight feet (8') in width. ii. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the intent of this Section is met. g. Guidelines Applicable to District'C': i. Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Style: Buildings should be urban in character. iii. Buildings greater than one hundred and sixty feet (160') in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature Page 43 of 56 such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection I5c of this Section). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wail (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet (6) in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet (15% and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection I5d of this Section): (a) A planting bed at least five feet (Y) in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. V. Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: Page 44 of 56 (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty percent (50%). (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. b, Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' a*-:'C' and ID': i. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection I5e of this Section): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; Page 45 of 56 (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E.': Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A' aid-1'C1, and 'D': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection 15f of this Section): i. Extended parapets; ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii. Projected cornices; iv. Pitched or sloped roofs. (a) 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) Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4- 095E, Roof -Top Equipment. (c) 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. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'BI and 'E': i. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ii. Roof colors should be dark. Page 46 of 56 C. Guidelines Applicable to District 'Cl: Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. a. Minimum Standards for all Districts: i. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. b. Minimum Standards for Districts'A' a-d-,-'C', and `D': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. C. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: L Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in -place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4) above. d. Guideline Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. 5. Illustrations. a. Building modulation and articulation (see subsection IIc(i) of this Section). Page 47 of 56 Page 48 of 56 H W WW Z_ O "'a Z W C LU L7 Q 0 N W NZ_ W J Ww t9 More than 160' Facade is too long 160' or less Meets guideline I I Meets guideline d. Acceptable blank wall treatments (see subsection I2a(ii) of this Section). Trellis with vines or other plants Min. 5' bed ar cover; within e. Building facade features (see subsection I26(i) of this Section). Page 49 of 56 r 4''-6' mink. , � E io RECESS OVERHANG CANOPY I , TRELLIS PORTICO PORCH f. Preferred roof forms (see subsection I3a of this Section). (Ord. 5029,11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7- 2005) Feature elements projecting Extended parapets r cornices J SIGNAGE: Page 50 of 56 Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts `C' and `D': a. Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. C. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection J3a of this Section): i. Pole signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. d. In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. e. Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5') above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (groundcover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. f. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts = C' and 'D': a. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. b. Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. C. Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. 3. Illustrations. a. Acceptable and unacceptable signs (see subsection Re of this Section). Page 51 of 56 Typical "can signs" are not acceptable rBACkt ���� Plastic or-J Sheet translucent metal sheet box Internally lit letters or graphics are acceptable �— Only the individual letters are lit (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) K LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' anti-,_'C' an,__ d `D': a. Lighting shall conform to on -site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. b. Lighting shall be provided on -site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off -site. C. Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'C' and ID?: a. Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. b. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. (Ord, 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: Page 52 of 56 1. The Difeet^r- of toe Peyelepme ' ��Reviewing Official men shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I,1, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; C. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections Eta and E3a of this Section are Iimited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or C. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) M VARIANCE: (Reserved). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) N APPEALS: For appeals of administrative decisions made pursuant to the design regulations, see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. (Ord. 4821, 12-20-1999; Amd. Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) SECTION XVII. Section 4-4-080F.10e 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'. Page 53 of 56 SECTION XVIIL Section 4-7-17OF of Chapter R, 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: F. PIPESTEM LOTS ALLOWED: Pipestem lots may be permitted for new plats to achieve the_ minimum density densities wed -within the Zoning Code when there is no other feasible alternative to achieving the pefmi minimum density. 1. Minimum Lot Size and Pipestem Width and Length: The pipestern shall not exceed one hundred fifty feet (150') in length and not be less than twenty feet (20') in width. The portion of the lot narrower than eighty percent (80%) of the minimum permitted width shall not be used for lot area calculations nor for measurement of required front yard setbacks. Land area included in private access easements shall not be included in lot area calculations. (Amd. Ord. 4751, 11-16-1998; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003) 2. Shared Access Requirements: Abutting pipestem lots shall have a shared private access driveway. A restrictive covenant will be required on both parcels for maintenance of the pipestem driveway. Walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. (Amd.Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) SECTION XIX. Section 4-8-120D.21 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 to revise the following definition: Urban Genter-Design Aver -lay 3i trietlte ulations Review Packet: A set of submission materials required for projects ;n the r,,a-.a Gentef Design Over4e), ^;subject to the Urban Desi rit, i Regulations in RMC 4- 3-100: Page 54 of 56 a. Site plan, land use review; b. Elevations, architectural; c. Floor plans, general; d. Narrative outlining how the applicant's proposal addresses the City's Urban Design Over -lay Regulations. SECTION XX. Section 4-9-065D 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 as shown in Attachment `I' SECTION XXI. The definition of "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" in Section 4- 11-010 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 read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eighty percent (80%) 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. SECTION XXII. The definition of "DWELLING, MULTI -FAMILY" in Section 4-11-040 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 read as follows: DWELLING, MULTI-FAMII.Y: Dwelling, Attached: A one -family dwelling attached to one or more one -family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home H as defined herein. A. Flat: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units which are attached at one or more common roofs, walls, or floors. Typically, the unit's habitable area is provided on a single level. Unit entrances may or may not be provided from a common corridor. Page 55 of 56 B. Townhouse: A one -family, ground -related dwelling attached to one or more such units in which each unit has its own exterior, ground -level access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common walls. T ypieally Townhouse the units are multi -story. C. Carriage House: One or more accessory dwelling units attached to a garage. The garage attached to the carriage house typically contains vehicle and/or storage for people living in another building as well as occupants of the carriage house. D. Penthouse: A single dwelling unit located at or near the top of a building containing other, non- residential uses. E. Garden Style Apartment: A dwelling unit that is one of several stacked vertically, 4equen4y-with exterior stairways and/or exterior corridors and surface parking. Parking is usually at g..ade *4 not structured erand_may_include-w4h detached carports or garages. Buildings and building entries are oriented toward internal drive aisles and/or parking lots and not street frontage. have aeeess ffem intefna4 drive aisles an&or pafking lots. Th building tisually ttWas its ba0k tO the fTent yafd. There is typically no formal building entry area connected to a public sidewalk and a public street. Site planning may incorporate structures developed at low landscaped setbacks. SECTION XXIII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2006. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2006. Approved as to form: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Page 56 of 56 ATTACHMENT A D ZONES IMPLEMENTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Designations are im lemented 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 (R4) Residential Single Family (RS) Residential — 8 DU/AC (R- )Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density Residential —10 DU/AC (R- (RMD) 10)Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH)Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi -Family (RM) Residential Multi -Family (RM-V, RM-1, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC- Center Downtown D) (CD)Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM- U)Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center -North 1 (UC- N1)Urban Center -North 2 (UC- N2) Commercial/Office/ Residential ommercial/Office/ Residential (COR) (COR} enter Village (CV) G-(R- Residential Multi -Family Zones (RM-F, RM-T, RM-U)1 Center Village (CV) Residential- 14 DU/AC R-14 Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commercial Office (CO)Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial Light Industrial (IL)Medium (EAI) Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial (IH) Employment Area Valley (EAV) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commerclal Office (CO)Light Industrial (IL)Medium Industrial (IM)Heavy Industrial (IH)Resource Conservation (RC) Commercial Neighborhood (CN)Commercial Neighborhood (CN) ATTACHMENT B 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE — USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-$ RM I R- I R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD 1. CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 A. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agriculture P P Natural resource H H H H H H H H H H59 H H H H H H H extraction/recovery B. ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 acre) Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 per acre) Animal husbandry (maximum of 'I large P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 animal per acre) Greater number of animals H36 Has H36 H36 Has than allowed above Beekeeping P35 P35 P35 P35 Kennels AD3 P37 P37 P37 Kennels, hobby AC3 AM AC3 AC3 AC37 AC3 AC AC3 AC3 AC3 AC3 AC37 AC37 AC3 AC3 AC37 7 7 7 7 7 37 7 7 7 7 7 7 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC establishment Stables, commercial AD3 AD3 7 7 C. RESIDENTIAL P19 Detached dwelling P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Detached dwelling (existing P P P Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUST IALI COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM H I R- 10 R- 14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO R UC- N1 UC-N2 legal) Semi -attached dwelling P19 P19 Attached dwellings P50 P50 Pig P18 P73 P18 P16 P19 P74 P87 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) p P P73 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total per building (existing legal) P P P P P P C. RESIDENTIAL (Continued) Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes P19 Manufactured homes, . designated Pig P19 Pig P19 Pis P19 Mobile homes Pig (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003) D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit AD7 Adult family home P P P P P P P P P P3 Caretaker's residence AG AC AC AC - AC AC AC AC Congregate residence AD P P3 Group homes I - H H3 Group homes II for 6 or less P P P P P19 P P P P P3 P Group homes II for 7 or more P H H H H H H H P H H3 AD Home occupations AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 A6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC AC Retirement residences H H AD P P P3 P39 P P75 P88 E. SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 I H9 Hs H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H76 H89 Page 2of10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL_ COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 (public or private) K-t 2 educational institution (public or private), P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 existing Other higher education institution P38 P38 P38 P P P P21 P H88 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P P38 P38 P22 P P P Trade or vocational school Prp H H H77 F. PARKS Parks, neighborhood P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parks, regionallcommunity, P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P existing Parks, regionallcommunity, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P P new G. OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Religious institutions H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Service and social H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H12 H21 H78 H90 organizations Public Facilities City government offices AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P AD AD AD90 City government facilities H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Jails, existing municipal - Secure community H71 H71 transition facilities Other government offices --LEE and facilities H I H H T H HFH H H H N H H H H90 Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 IRMIR-JR-1 H 10 14 I RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO R UC- N1 UC-N2 H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P38 P38 P38 H P38 P P I P21 P P91 Medical and dental offices P42 P38 P38 P38 AD17 P22 P P P P P P92 Offices, general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 P22 P P 11 P P P P93 Veterinary offices/clinics P P42 P38 I P38 I P38 P P P38 P P78 1. RETAIL Adult retail use I P43 P43 P43 I P43 P43 P43 P43 Big -box retail P P P - P20 P72 P79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC AC AC AC AC28 AC AC2 8 AC7 8 AC80 Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 H33 P42 P P P P22 P22 P P P12 P27 P81 P94 Horticultural nurseries, existing H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H Horticultural nurseries, new H Retail sales H331 I AD P34 I P34 P34 P60 P2-2 P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales, outdoor I P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales, large P P P P41 Vehicle sales, small P P P P20 (Amd. Ord. 5001, 2-10-2003) J. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Card room I I P52 P52 P52 P52 Cultural facilities H H H H H H H H AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD90 Dance clubs P38 P38 P38 A= P20 H P38 H Dance halls P38 P38 P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Page 4of10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM 1 IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 Gaminglgambling facilities, not -for -profit H38 H29 H38 H2O H38 Movie theaters P38 P38 P38 PAD P20 P P12 P83 P94 Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition P38 P38 P38 P20 P H84 H96 halls, indoor Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition P P38 P38 °'02 H84 H96 halls, outdoor Recreation Golf courses (existing) P P P P P Golf courses, new H P H H H H Marinas • P P21 H97 creational facilities, ndoor, existing P33 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P65 P21 P78 P94 [Recreationalfacilities,H ndoor, new H33 P Recreational facilities, P33 P32 P32 P32 H2O H38 outdoor K. SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P accessory Bed and breakfast house, professional AD AD AD5 AD P Hotel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 P P38 P P P98 Motel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 Off -site services P42 P38 P38 P38 P38 On -site services H33 P42 P38 P38 P38 P63 P22 P69 P P54 P21 P78 P99 K. SERVICES (Continued) Drive-in/drive-through I I I AC6 I AC6 I AC6 AC JAC281 AC AC7 I AC6 AC61LAC7service 2 2 2 0 1 Vehicle rental, small P I P I P I AD P20 Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL I COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM H R- 10 R- 14 RM 1 IL IM IH 1 CN CV 1 CA CD CO CO R UC- N1 UC-N2 Vehicle and equipment rental, large Pas Pz9 P29 Day Care Services dolt day care I AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC P55 P55 P55 P22 P22 P22 P P P P78 P100 dult day care II H H H H H H H33 H AD AD H P22 P2-2 P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 P54 P54 P54 P22 P22 P22 P P P21 P78 P100 Family day care home AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H H H H H P22 H JP3P39 AD A5 AD101 Medical institutions H H H H H H H H H56 H56 H56 H H H P40 H H H93 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P-22 P22 Express transportation services AD P ABA AD2 0 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P P P P22 P20 P3 P P P P102 Parking, surface, commercial or public P38 P36 P38 P P20 P3 AD Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride, shared- use P108 P108 P108 P108 P810 P108 P P P P108 P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P :Taxi stand P AD AD Tow truck operation/auto impoundment yard H59 P Transit centers H38 H38 H38 I P I H2O P I H381 I P P103 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued) Page 6of10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV 1 CA CD CO CO 1 UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R Ni Truck terminals P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, P P P AD11 P P P38 existing legal 1 0 Vehicle service and repair, large AD P P Vehicle service and P P P AD2 RAD P repair, small ? Wrecking yard, auto H59 H 'r Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P Airplane manufacturing, accessory functions AC AC Airplane sales and repair P Helipads, accessory to H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 primary use Helipads, commercial H H97 Municipal airports H M. STORAGE Hazardous material storage, on -site or off - site, including H24 H24 H24 treatment Indoor storage P P I P ACii AC11 Ai 1 AC' Al 1 AC11 Outdoor storage P57 P57 P57 A064 P64 Self-service storage P8 P58 P59 P H26 H2& H26 Vehicle storage AD3 8 Warehousing P P P N. INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General ,jAssembly and/or P I P I P I I I I I I I P86 P104 Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 packaging operations Commercial laundries, P38 P38 P38 P4 existing Commercial laundries, P38 P38 Pie new Constructionlcontractor' P14 P P s office N. INDUSTRIAL (CONTINUED) Laboratories: light P3$ P38 P38 AD P20 P3 AD5 P P104 manufacturing 4 Laboratories: research, development and P31 P P H P20 AD3 AD H P P104 testing Manufacturing and H59 P67 P23 fabrication, heavy Manufacturing and P67 P67 P23 fabrication, medium Manufacturing and P P P P fabrication, light Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection and P14 P38 P38 P38 processing center Recycling collection P P P P P P P P P station Sewage disposal and H59 H treatment plants Waste recycling and H59 P transfer facilities O. UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay H H H H H H H H H38 H29 H38 H H H H H H towers Electrical power H H66 H66 H66 I- H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 T generation and I I I I I 1 1.1 , Page 8 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 cogeneration Utilities, small P P P P P P P33 P P P P P P P P P P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD Utilities, large H H H H N I H I H H H N H H H I H H H H H H P. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support H4a AD4 AD4 AN H4s H4a AD47 H48 AD4 H48 structures 7 7 7 7 Macro facility antennas AN AN AN AN AD46 AN AD P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H 6 6 s 6 6 46 Micro facility antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P AD AD Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P facilities Monopole I support H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD4 P44 P44 P444 AD46 P44 P44 AD4 P44 AD46 structures 6 6 Monopole II support AN AD4 AN AN structuresFT-1 H48 7 7 7 H48 H48 AD47 H48 7 H48 Q. GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC where not otherwise listed in Use Tattle R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development: one P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 model home on an existing lot Sales/marketing trailers, on -site P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P10 P10 Temporary or P10 P10 P10 IP Pi0 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 Pi0 P10 P10 P10 P10 PiD P10 P10 Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 I R-4 R-8 RM R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD I CO CO UC- UC-N2 H 10 14 R N1 manufactured buildings used for construction Temporary uses P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 I P53 P53 P53 P53 Blank --Not Allowed Permitted provided condition can be met AD=Administrative Conditional Use AC=Accessory Use P=Permitted Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Condition(s) Uses may be further restricted by: RMC 4-3-020, Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted in the Automall Improvement District; RMC 3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-090. Shoreline Master Program Regulations (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4786, 7-12-1999; Ord. 4802. 10-25-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000: Ord. 4840, 5- 8-2000; Ord. 4857, 8-21-2000; Ord. 4915. 8-27-2001; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5027, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5080, 6-14-2004; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT C 4-2-07OG RESIDENTIAL-14 DU/AC (R-14) Uses allowed in the R-14 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 P #19 Semi -attached dwelling P #19 Attached dwelling P #50 Many actured Haines Manufactured homes, designated P #19 OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Adult family home P Group homes lI for 6 or less P Grou2 homes 11 for 7 or more H Home occupations AC #6 SCHOOLS K-12 educational institution_(public orprivate)H #9 K-12 educational institution(public or private), existing P #9 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, re ional/communit , new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H Religious institutions H Service and social or ozations H Public Facilities City government offices City government facilities H Other government offices and facilities H RETAIL Eating and drinking establishments H #33 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales H 933 ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Cultural facilities H ATTACHMENT C Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existin x P #33 Recreation facilities, indoor new H #33 Recreation facilities, outdoor P 433 SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessoryAD On -site services H 433 DgE Care Services Adult da care I AC Adult day care 11 H #33 Da care centers H #33 Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers H Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Park and ride, shared -use =P #108 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 H #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 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 ATTACHMENT D 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 Keels, hGbby AG #37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P73 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) P73 P 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 #s K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P#s Schoolslstudios, arts and crafts P #22 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regionallcommunity, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Ger�ateFy H Religious institutions H USES: TYPE: USES: TYPE: 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 #22 Offices, general P #22 Veterinary offices/clinics P #22 Conference Center 4-1 RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC #28 Eating and drinking establishments P #22 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #22 Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment R443 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs AD #22 Dance halls AD #22 Movie Theatres AD Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existin P #22 Recreation facilities, _indoor new _P SERVICES Services, General Hotel P #22 Motel P #22 On -site services P #22 Drive-in/drive-through service Ac #2a Day Care Services Adult day care I P #22 Adult day care II P #22 Day care centers P #22 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D USES: TYPE: USES: TYPE: Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P #22 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES CaF y0a;s ies R #22 AD-#22 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P #22 Parking, surface, commercial or public R Park and ride, shared use P #108 Park and rides, dedicated P #106 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, small PAD #2 Taxi Stand P -Transit Centers -P STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 9atdee storage AD #t64 H8 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing AD #22 Laboratories: Research, Development H — and Testing Solid WastelRecycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H USES: TYPE: 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 USES: TYPE: 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 P #44 Monopole II support structures H #48 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter RMC 4-11, 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 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT E 4-2-11 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures R-10 I R-14 RM DENSITY Net Den ity in Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Minimum Housing For parcels over 112 gross 8-10 units per net acre. 4,13 For any subdivision, and/or Density 4 13 acre: 4 units per net acre for density requirements shall not apply tom-4the development: 4,13Minimum any subdivision or structure—er-b� renovation f an existing, "U" suffix: 10 25 units per development. 4,13the IGF Minimum density net acre. requirements shall not apply "T" suffix: 10 14 units per to: a) the renovation or net acre. conversion of an existing structure, or b) the subdivision, "F" suffix: 10 units per net and/or development of a legal acre. lot 1/2 gross acre or less in size Minimum density as of March 1, 1995. requirements shall not apply to the renovation or conversion of an existing structure. Maximum Housing For developments or For developments or subdivisions: 14 dwelling units For any subdivision and/or Density subdivisions including per net acre, except that density of up to 18 dwelling development:4 attached or semi -attached units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in "U" suffix: 75 units per net dwellings: 10 dwelling units RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. 4 acre. 10, 24 per net acre. 4 Affordable housing bonus: up to 30 dwelling units per �T.. suffix: 35 units per net acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two acre.l0 acres in size if 50% or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with "F" suffix: 20 units per net incomes at or below 50% of the Average Median acre. Income. PLATS OR SHADOW PLATS General Uses shall be developed on a All Uses: NA "legal lot." For the purposes of Uses may be developed on either: a) properties which this subsection, "legal lot" are platted through the subdivision process; or b) means: properties which are to remain unplatted. • a lot created through the For properties which are to remain un latted, the Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT E subdivision process, or • created through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards. If title is created through another mechanism other than a subdivision, the development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and, if applicable, phasing or land reserve plan.18 Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and, if applicable, phasing or land reserve plan. For purposes of this zone, "lot" shall mean legal platted lot and/or equivalent shadow platted land area.18 Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. DWELLING UNIT MIX General Existing development: None A minimum of 50% to a maximum of 100% of permitted NA required. units shall consist of detached, semi -attached or up to 3 For parcels which are a consecutively attached townhouses. Up to 4 townhouse maximum size of 112 acre as units may be consecutively attached if provisions of of the effective date hereof RM-9-Density C 4065, Di Bonus Review, are met.- A (March 1,1995): None maximum of 50% of the permitted units in a proect may required. consist of: Full subdivisions and/or development on parcels greater than 112 acre, excluding short plats: A minimum of 50% to a maximum of 100% of detached or semi - attached dwelling units. A minimum of one detached or semi -attached dwelling unit must be provided for each attached dwelling unit (e.g., townhouse or flat) created • 4 to 6 consecutively attached townhouses; • Flats; • Townhouses/flats in one structure. Provided that buildings shall not exceed 6 dwelling units per structure, except as provided in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. Page 2 of 12 ATTACHMENT E within a proposed development. A maximum of 4 units may be consecutively attached.4 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT General Only 1 residential building (e.g., 1 residential structure and associated accessory NA detached dwelling, semi- buildings for that structure shall be permitted per lot, attached dwelling, townhouse, except for residential buildings legally existing at the flat, etc.) with a maximum of 4 date of adoption of this Section. 4 residential units and associated accessory structures for that building shall be permitted on a legal lot except for residential buildings legally existing at the effective date hereof. For the purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" means a lot created through the subdivision process, or through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards (e.g., condominium). 4 LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size Density requirements shall take Density requirements shall take precedence over the None for lots created after precedence over the following following minimum lot size standards. July 11, 1993 minimum lot size standards. Residential Uses: For parcels which exceed 112 acre in size: Detached or semi -attached units: 3;GW 5.000 sq. ft. Detached and semi -attached Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: dwelling units: 3,000 sq. ft. Attached exterior/end unit: 2,500 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Attached interior/middle unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Attached townhouse Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively dwelling units: 2,000 sq. ft. Attached; Flats; Townhouse/Flat Combinations: per dwelling unit. 2 flats: 5,000 sq, ft, per Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Page 3 of 12 ATTACHMENT E i structure. 3 flats: 7,500 sq. ft. per structure. 4 flats: 10,000 sq. ft. per structure. For parcels that are 112 acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995: No minimum lot size requirement when they are subsequently subdivided. Density requirements shall apply. Minimum Lot Detached or semi -attached Width for lots dwellings: created after July Interior lots: 30 ft. 11, 1993 Comer lots: 40 ft. Townhouses: 20 ft.19 Flats: 50 ft. LOT DIMENSIONS (Continued Attached interiorlmiddle townhouse unit or flats: 1,800 sq. ft. Commercial or Civic Uses: None. Residential Uses: Detached or semi -attached: 30 ft. Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 25 ft. Attached interior/middle townhouse unit: 20 ft. Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached; Flats; Townhouse/Flat Combinations: Attached exterior/interior townhouse unit: 20 ft. Flats: 50 ft. "T" suffix: 14 ft. All other suffixes: 50 ft. Minimum Lot 55 ft.19 Residential Uses: 65 ft. Depth for lots Detached or semi -attached: 50 ft. created after July Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: 11, 1993 Attached exteriorlinterior townhouse unit: 45 ft. Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached; Flats; Townhouse/Flat Combinations: Attached exterior/interior townhouse unit: 40 ft. Flats: 35 ft. SETBACKS$ Page 4 of 12 UKjU4li M L#:i i A Minimum Front Along streets existing as of Residential Uses: "U" suffix: 5 ft.1,2 Yard March 1, 1995: 20 ft. 9,20 Detached and semi -attached units with parking "T" suffix: 5 ft. Along streets created after access provided from the front: 4-9-10ft. for the March 1,1995: 10 ft. for the primarystructure and 20 ft. for attached or detached "F" suffix: 20 ft. garage unit.20 primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages which access from the front yard street(s). 20 Detached and semi -attached units with parking access provided from the rear via street or alley: 10 ft.,_ ..RIeSS the 1 t Gr+ .,t:.,..,,.,ta4 to a PFOPeFty zoned RG, R 1 R 4 CZ_8 or Rj() then cethorL me -At he IF, ft 20 Attached units, and their accessory structures with parking provided from the front: 20-10 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for attached or detached garage unit.20 Attached units and their accessory structures with parking provided from the rear via street or alley: 10 ft•. r R-4r R Ar R Rr nr R 10, must he 15 ft 20 setbaGk ust Commercial or Civic Uses: 10 ft. - except when abutting15 or adjacent14 to residential development then 15 ft.20 Minimum Side 10 ft_ for a primary structure, Residential Uses: "U" and "T" suffixes and Yard Along a and 20 ft. for attached garages 10 ft. for a primary structure, and 18 ft. for attached on all previously existing Street which access from the side 20 garages which access from the side yard street.20 platted lots which are 50 ft. yard street 20 or less in width: 10 ft. All other suffixes with lots over 50 ft. in width: 20 ft. SETBACKS$ Continued Minimum Side Detached dwellings: 5 ft. 3,20 Residential Uses: "T" suffix - Attached' Units: Yard Semi -Attached and Attached Detached and semi -attached primary structures: 5 A minimum of 3 ft. for the unattached side(s) the Units: 5 ft. for the unattached ft.20 structure. 0 ft. for the side(s) of the structure. 0 ft. for Attached townhouses, flats over 3 units and their attached side(s). Page 5 of 12 ATTACHMENT E ,tf the attached side(s).20 accessory structures: 5 ft. on both sides. 10 ft. when Standard Minimum the lot is adjacent14 to a lower intensity residentially Setbacks for all other Abutting RC, R-1, R-4 or R- zoned property.20 suffixes: Minimum setbacks 8:15 25 ft. interior side yard Ya for side yards: 22 setback for all structures Attached accessory structures: None required.20 containing 3 or more attached Lot width: less than ore equal q dwelling units on a lot.20 Commercial or Civic Uses: to 50 ft. - Yard setback: 5 ft. None -except when abutting 15 or adjacent14 to Lot width: 50.1 to 60 ft. - Yard setback: 6 ft. residential development - 15 ft.20 Lot width: 60.1 to 70 ft. - Yard setback: 7 ft. Lot width: 70.1 to 80 ft. - Yard setback: 8 ft. Lot width: 80.1 to 90 ft. - Yard setback: 9 ft. Lot width 90.1 to 100 ft. - Yard setback: 10 ft. Lot width 100.1 to 110 ft. - Yard setback: 11 ft. Lot width: 110.1 } ft. - Yard setback: 12 ft. Additional Setbacks for Structures Greater than 2 Stories: The entire structure shall be set back an additional 1 ft. for each story in excess of 2 up to a maximum cumulative setback of 20 ft. Special side yard setback for lots abutting Single Family Residential Zones RC, R-1, R4, R-8, and R- 10:15 25 ft. along the abutting side(s) of the property. SETBACKS$ Continued Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT E Minimum Rear Unit with Attached Street Residential Uses with Street Access Garage: 15 ft.20 "U" suffix: 5 ft.,1,2 unless Yard Access Garage: 15 ft. Residential Uses with Attached Alley Access lot abuts an RC, R-1, R-4, R- However, if the lot abuts a lot Garage: 3 ft. provided that the garage must be setback 8, or R-10 zone, then 25 ft. zoned R-1, R-4, or R-t3, a "T" suffix: 5 ft. a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of 25 fit. setback shall be required back -out room, counting alley surface. If there is of all attached dwelling units.20 F„ suffix: 15 ft. occupiable space above an attached garage with alley, Unit with Attached Alley access, the minimum setback for the occupiable space Access Garage: 3 ft. provided shall be the same as the minimum setback for the unit that the garage must be set With attached alley access garag..20 back a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of Commercial or Civic Uses: None - except when back -out room, counting alley abutting15 or adjacent14 to residential development surface. If there is occupiable then 15 ft.20 space above an attached garage with alley access, the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall be the same as the minimum setback for the unit with attached alley access garage.20 Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- over 42 in. in height intrude the 20 ft. clear vision area 030. into the 20 ft. clear vision defined in RMC 4-11-030. area defined in RMC 4-11- 030. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped setback from 10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property line. 10 ft_ landscaped setback Fronta a Setback the street property line. from the street property line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum Number 2 stories and 30 ft. in height. Residential Uses: "U" suffix: 50 ft./5 stories. of Stories and 2 stories and 30 ft. See RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus "T" suffix: 35 ft./3 stories. Maximum Building Review. Height, except for "F" suffix: 35 ft./3 Public uses having a Commercial Uses: stories.5,6 "Public Suffix" (P) 1 story and 20 ft. designation.7,21 Civic Uses: 2 stories. Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT E Maximum Height See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. for Wireless Communication Facilities Building Location NA Residential Uses: NA Dwellings shall be arranged in a manner which creates a neighborhood environment. Residential units and any associated commercial development within an overall development shall be connected through organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places, pedestrian linkage and amenity features: Front facades of structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing: a landscaped pedestrian connection; and - an entry feature facing the front yard. Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100. BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Building Design NA Residential Uses: "U" suffix:. Architectural design shall incorporate: Modulation of vertical and a) Variation in vertical and horizontal modulation of horizontal facades is structural facades and roof lines among individual required at a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units (e.g., angular design, ft. at an interval of a modulation, multiple roof planes), and b) private entry minimum offset of 40 ft. on features which are designed to provide individual each building face. ground -floor connection to the outside for detached, "U" and "T" suffixes: semi -attached, and townhouse units. See RMC 4-3-100 for Urban Commercial or Civic Uses: Structures shall be: Center Design Overlay a) Designed to serve as a focal point for the residential Regulations. community; and b) compatible with architectural character and site features of surrounding residential development and characteristics; and c) designed to include a common motif or theme; and d) pedestrian oriented through such measures as: pedestrian Page 8 of 12 El ATTACHMENT E walkways, pedestrian amenities and improvements which support a variety of modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle racks). Uses in the Center Villacte Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100. BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Project Size NA Civic Uses: NA Limitations The maximum lot area dedicated for civic uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, except that by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit civic uses may be allowed to be a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. for all uses4 Commercial Uses: The maximum area dedicated for all commercial uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable portion of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area 4 Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100. Maximum Building NA Up to 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses: NA Length Building length shall not exceed 85 ft., unless otherwise granted per RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. Over 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses, Flats; Townhouses/Flats in One Structure: Shall not exceed 115 ft. in length, unless otherwise granted per RMC 4-9- 065, Density Bonus Review. Maximum Building Detached or semi -attached 50%• "U" suffix: 75%. Coverage units: 70%. "T" suffix: 75%. Flats or townhouses: 50%. "F" suffix: 35%. A maximum coverage of 45% may be obtained through the Hearin Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT E Examiner site development plan review process. BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Maximum Detached or semi -attached NA "U" and'7 suffixes: 85%_ Impervious units: 75%. All other suffixes: 75%. Surface Area Flats or townhouses: 60%. LANDSCAPING General Setback areas shall be Residential Uses: Setback areas shall be landscaped, excluding The entire front setback, excluding driveways and an landscaped, unless driveways and walkways entry walkway, shall be landscaped, otherwise determined except for detached, semi- attached, or 2 attached Commercial or Civic Uses: through the site development plan review residential units. Lots abutting public streets shall be improved with a process.23 minimum 10 ft. wide landscaping strip. 16 For RM-U, the landscape Lots abutting15 residential property(ies) zoned RC, R-1, requirement does not apply R-4, R-8, R-10 or R-14 shall be improved along the in the Downtown Core (see common boundary with a minimum 15 ft. wide RMC 4-2-080C), or if landscaped setback and a sight -obscuring solid barrier setbacks are reduced.1 wall.17 If abutting 15 a lot zoned RC, Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan land R-1, R-4, R-8, or R-10, then Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in a 15 ft. landscape strip shall RMC 4-3-100. be required along the abutting portions of the lot.17 SCREENING Surface Mounted See-RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. or Roof Top Equipment, or Outdoor Storage Recyclables and See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090, Refuse DUMPSTERIRECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Minimum Size and FSeeRMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. Location Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT E Requirements PARKING_ AND LOADING General See RMC 4-4-080, See RMC 4-4-080. All suffixes: See RMC 4-4- Commercial/Civic: Parking areas abutting residential 080. development shall be screened with a solid barrier fence and/or landscaping. Required Location For any unit, required parking For any unit, required parking shall be provided in the "U" and "T" suffixes: rear yard area when alley access is available. When for Parking shall be provided in the rear For lots abutting an alley: alley access is not available, parking shall be located in yard area when alley access all parking shall be provided the rear yard, side yard or underground, unless it is is available. For flats, when in the rear portion of the determined through the modification process for site alley access is not available, yard, and access shall be development plan exempt proposals or the site parking should be located in taken from the alley. development plan review process for non-exempt the rear yard, side yard or For lots not abutting an underground, unless it is proposals, that front access under building parking alley: no portion of covered determined through the (ground level -of a residential structure) should be or uncovered parking shall modification process for site permitted. be located between the development plan exempt primary structure and the proposals or the site development plan review uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land front property line. Parking Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in process for non-exempt structures shall be recessed RMC 4-3-100.NA proposals. that parking may from the front facade of the be allowed in the front yard or ry structure a minimum primary that under building parking of 2 (ground level of a residential "F" suffixes: Surface structure) should be permitted. parking is permitted in the side and rear yard areas only. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- 090. 090. SPECIAL DESIGN STANDARDS General Street Patters: Uses in_the _Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Properties abutting 15 a less Use Designation;_ See_ Urban Design Regulations in Nonmeandering street intense residential zone may RMC 4-3-100.NA patterns and the provision of be required to incorporate Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT E EXCEPTIONS Pre -Existing Legal Lots alleys (confined to side yard or rear yard frontages) shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted within this zone; provided, that this does not cause the need for lots with front and rear street frontages or dead-end streets. Cul-de-sacs shall be allowed when required to provide public access to lots where a through street cannot be provided or where topography or sensitive areas necessitate them. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of a single family dwelling and its accessory buildings or the existence of a single family dwelling or two attached dwellings, existing as of March 1, 1995, on a pre- existing legal lot provided that all setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of a single family dwelling and its accessory buildings on a pre-existing legal lot provided that all density. -Setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. special design standards (e.g., additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site development plan review process. Properties abutting 15 a designated "focal center," as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, may be required to provide special design features similar to those listed above through the site development plan review process. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of attached dwellings having no more than two units in the structure, and its accessory buildings on a pre-existing legal lot; provided, that all setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4788, 7-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4985, 10-14- 2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Page 12of12 ATTACHMENT F 4-2-110G DEVELO FOR 2 ZONING DESIGNATIONS R-10 R-14 RM MAXIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE _ General 2 structures, up to a maximum of 720 sq. ft. for each 1 per residential unit. The lot coverage of the building, or 1 structure up to a maximum of 1,000 sq. Maximum of 400 sq. ft. primary residential ft. and less than the floor structure along with all The total floor area of all accessory buildings shall area of the principal unit. accessory buildings not be greater than the floor area of the residential shall not exceed the uses. The lot coverage of the primary residential The lot coverage of the primary residential structure structure along with all along with all accessory buildings shall not exceed accessory buildings the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. shall not exceed the Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in maximum lot coverage conjunction with a primary residential use. of this Zoning District. LOCATION General HEIGHT NA Maximum Number of Stories 1 story and 15 ft. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary use. Garages and carports shall only have access from the alley when lots abut an alley. When lots do not abut an alley, garages and carports shall be located in the rear yard or side yard and set back from the front of the primary structure by a minimum 15 ft. maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary use. "U" suffixes: Garages and carports shall only have access from the alley when lots abut an alley. When lots do not abut an alley, garages and carports shall be located in the rear yard or side yard. 25 ft. except in the RM- Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Detached12 Accessory Structures) and Maximum Building U District where the Height2l maximum height shall be determined through the site plan review rocess. SETBACKS8 Minimum Front Yard Not allowed within the required front yards or side Not allowed within the Not allowed within the yards along streets. required front yards or required front yards or side yards along streets. side yards along streets. Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. unless located between the rear of the house Side Yard: None 3 ft. unless located and the rear property line, then 0 ft. side yard is required. between the rear of the allowed. Garages, carports and parking areas must house and the rear be set back from the rear property line a sufficient property line, then 0 ft. distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out side yard is allowed. room, either on -site or counting improved alley Garages, carports and surface or other improved right-of-way surface.11 parking areas must be set back from the rear property line a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on -site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface.11 Minimum Rear Yard 3 ft. unless located between the rear of the house 3 ft. unless located 3 ft. unless located and the rear property line, then 0 ft. rear yard is between the rear of the between the rear of the allowed. Garages, carports and parking areas must house and the rear house and the rear be set back from the rear property line a sufficient property line, then 0 ft. property line, then 0 ft. distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out rear yard is allowed. rear yard is allowed. room, either on -site or counting improved alley Garages and carports Garages, carports and surface or other improved right-of-way surface.11 must provide a minimum parking areas must be of 24 ft, of back -out set back from the rear room, either on -site or property lines a Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Detached12 Accessory Structures) Special Setbacks for Animal See RMC 4-4-010. Husbandry Related Structures counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface. NA sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on -site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface.22 NA Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height In no case shall a In no case shall a intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in structure over 42 in. in structure over 42 in. in RMC 4-11-030. height intrude into the height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- defined in RMC 4-11- 030. 030. CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. See RMC 4-3-050 and See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. 4-3-090. (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4788, 7-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003) Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT G 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN L CV CA LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for 5,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. None, except: 1,200 sq. ft. in lots created after Nov. the Sunset, NE Fourth, and 10, 2004 Puget Business Districts. See maps in RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Lot None None None Width/Depth for lots created after Nov.10, 2004 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage 65% of total lot area 65% of total lot area or 65% of total lot area or 75% if for Buildings or 75% if parking is 75% if parking is parking is provided within the provided within the provided within building or within an on -site building or within an theunderground or parking garage. on -site parking under building or within garage. an on -site parking. garage. DENSITY Net DensiPF in Dwelling Units per Net Acre Minimum Net Residential None 4-0-20 dwelling units None, except in the Sunset, Density-9 per net acre. NE Fourth, and Puget Business Districts (see maps in RMC 4-3-040): 10 dwelling units per net acre. Maximum Net 4 dwelling units per 80 dwelling units per 20 dwelling units per net Residential Density9 structure_ net acre. acre, except within the Sunset, NE Fourth, and Puget Business Districts, it 20 dwelling units pe shall be 60 dwelling units per net aGFeA;eRteF Village acre for development with Residential Bonus mixed commercial and Bis#fist residential use in the same Page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA building. See maps in RMC 095, up to 80 dwelling be nrnnted fnr PFOV*S*GR Of-; a. " minimum 4-3-040. on the fiFSt flOOF Of the primary S#UG ure, and l3. Parking Anginrzad within thA first flQQF Of hO pFl.. i Come. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard" 10 ft. The minimum 10 ft. The minimum 10 ft. The minimum setback setback may be setback may be may be reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft. through through the site plan through the site plan the site plan development review process development review development review provided blank walls are not process provided process provided blank located within the reduced blank walls are not walls are not located setback. located within the within the reduced reduced setback. setback. Maximum Front Yard18 15 ft. 15 15 ft. 15 None, except 15 ft. in the Rainier Avenue, Sunset, NE Fourth and Puget Business Districts. See maps and standards in RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Side Yard 10 ft. The minimum 110 ft. The minimum 110ft. The minimum setback Page 2 of 9 1 ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA Along a Street18 setback may be setback may be may be reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft. through through the site plan through the site plan the site plan development review process development review development review provided blank walls are not process provided process provided blank located within the reduced blank walls are not walls are not located setback. located within the within the reduced reduced setback. setback. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped 10 ft. landscaped setback Frontage Setback setback from the setback from the from the property line. ro er# line. property line. Minimum Rear Yard" None, except 15 ft. ff None, except 15 ft. if None, except 15 ft. if lot lot abuts or is adjacent lot abuts or is adjacent abuts or is adjacent to a to a residential zone, to a residential zone, residential zone, RC, R-1, R- RC, R-1, R4, R-8, R- RC, R-1, R4, R-8, R- 4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. 10, R-14, or RM-F. 10, R-14, or RM-F. Minimum Side Yard" None, except 15 ft. if None, except 15 ft. if None, except 15 ft. if lot lot abuts or is lot abuts or is abuts or is adjacent to a adjacent to a adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, residential zone, RC, residential zone, RC, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM- R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R- F. R-14, or RM-F. 14, or RM-F. Clear Vision Area In no case shall a In no case shall a In no case shall a structure structure over 42 in. in structure over 42 in. in over 42 in. in height intrude height intrude into the height intrude into the into the 20 ft. clear vision 20 ft. Gear vision area 20 ft. dear vision area area defined in RMC 4-11- defined in RMC 4-11- defined in RMC 4-11- 030. 030. 1030. BUILDING LIMITATIONS Maximum Gross Floor 5,000 gross sq. ft. The None None, except: Area of Any Single maximum size shall a. In the NE Fourth Commercial Use on a not be exceeded Business District: 65,000 Site exce t bv conditional Page 3 of 9 n' ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA use permit.2,9 These gross sq. ft. restrictions do not b. In the Puget and apply to residential Sunset Business Districts: uses subject to net 35,000 sq. ft. density limitations. Restrictions do not apply to uses subject to net density limitations and grocery stores (see maps in RMC 4-3-040). Maximum Gross Floor 3,000 gross sq. ft. 21 None None, except: Area of Any Single Office The maximum size a. In the NE Fourth Use on a Site2, 9 shall not be exceeded Business District: 65,000 except by conditional gross sq. ft. use permit.2,9 These b. . In the Puget and restrictions do not Sunset Business Districts: apply to residential 35,000 sq. ft. uses, which are subject to net density The total gross square limitations. footage of these uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the site.2,9 These restrictions do not apply to residential uses, which are subject to net density limitations. (See maps in RMC 4-3-040.) Building Orientation and All commercial uses NASee Urban Design NA except in the Puget, in RMC 4- Location shall have their Sunset and NE Fourth _Regulations 3-100. primary entrance and Business Districts. See RMC shop display window Commercial and Civic 4-3-040 for standards. oriented toward the Uses_ shall street frontage. _provide ent features on all Page 4 of 9 i ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA side of a building facing a public right of way or parking lot. Residential only uses shall be oriented to a public or private street developed to the required standards in RMC 4-6-060. LANDSCAPING Minimum On -site 10 ft., except where 10 ft., except where 10 ft., except where reduced Landscape Width reduced through the reduced through the through the site plan Required Along the site plan development site plan development development review process. Street Frontage review process. review process. There are additional landscaping standards for pedestrian connections in the Puget, Sunset, and NE' Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040. Minimum On -site Landscape Width Along 15 ft. wide sight- obscuring landscape 15 ft. wide landscape buffer is required3 15 ft. wide sight -obscuring landscape strip.3,5 the Street Frontage Required When a Lot is Adjacent8 to Property Zoned Residential, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM strip.3,5 If the street is a designated principal arterial,l non -sight- g obscuring landscaping shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official through through the site plan development review Process. If the street is a designated principal g arterial,l non -sight - obscuring landscaping 9 p� g shall be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing Official through the site plan development review process. There are additional Reviewing Official landscaping standards for through the site plan Page 5of9 ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA development review pedestrian connections in the process. Puget, Sunset, and NE Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Landscape 15 ft. wide landscaped 15 ft. wide landscaped 15 ft. wide landscaped visual Width Required When a visual barrier visual barrier barrier consistent with the Commercial Lot is consistent with the consistent with the definitions in RMC 4-11-120. Abutting? to Property definition in RMC 4- definition in RMC 4-11- A 10 ft. sight -obscuring Zoned Residential, RC, 11-120. A 10 ft. sight- 120. A 10 ft. sight- landscape strip may be R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, obscuring landscape obscuring landscape allowed through the site plan or RM strip may be allowed strip may be allowed development review process. through the site plan through the site plan There are additional development review development review landscaping standards for process.3,4 process.3,4 pedestrian connections in the Puget, Sunset, and NE Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040.3,4 HEIGHT Maximum Building 35 ft. In no case shall 50 ft. except when 50 ft., except 35 ft. for Height,14,16 except for height exceed the residential use only buildings Public uses with a limits specified in 8, RMH R 10 o-1" n in the Sunset and NE Fourth "Public Suffix" (P) RMC 4-3-020. RM I=, theFi "DSO ft. Business Districts. See maps designation20 if a minimum of 50% of in RMC 4-3-040.Heights may the ground floor of the exceed the maximum height building is commercial with a Conditional Use use. Permit.16 In no case shall height exceed the limits specified in RMC 4-3-020. Maximum Height for ISee RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN - CV CA Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING Outdoor, Loading, See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. Repair, Maintenance, Work, or Storage Areas; Surface -Mounted Utility and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication E ui men! Refuse or Rec clables See RMC 4-4-090_ ISee RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. PARKING General See RMC 10-10-13 See RMC 10-10-13 See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC and RMC 44-080. and RMC 44-080, 44-080. For the NE Fourth, Sunset, Puget, and Rainier Avenue Business Districts, see RMC 4-3-040. Required Location for NA Residential Uses: NA Parkina Re uired parking shall be located underground or under building on the first floor of the residential structure or in an attached or detached structure. An additional parking may not be located between the building andpublic street unless located within a structured Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT G L DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN I CV I CA parking is required in comaliance with RMC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General A pedestrian See Urban Design A pedestrian connection shall connection shall be Regulations in RMC 4- be provided from a public 3-100. provided from a public entrance to the street, in entrance to the street, A pedestrian order to provide direct, clear in order to provide connection shall be and separate pedestrian direct, Gear and provided from a public walks from sidewalks to separate pedestrian entrance to the street, building entries and internally walks from sidewalks in order to provide from buildings to abutting to building entries and direct, clear and retail properties. There are internally from separate pedestrian additional standards for the buildings to abutting walks from sidewalks Rainier Avenue, NE Fourth, retail properties. to building entries and Sunset, and Puget Business internally from Districts. See RMC 4-3-040 buildings to abutting for maps and standards. retail properties. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. ISee RMC 4-4-100. ISee RMC 4-4-100. There are Page 8of9 ATTACHMENT G DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA additional standards for the Rainier Avenue Business District at RMC 4-3-040. LOADING DOCKS Location within Site See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4-080.Shall not 080.Shall not be 080.Shall not be be permitted on the side of permitted on the side permitted on the side of the lot adjacent to or abutting of the lot adjacent to the lot adjacent to or a residential zone, RC, R-1, or abutting a abutting a residential R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM. residential zone, RC, zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R- 3 R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, 8, R-10, R-14, or RM. 3 R-14, or RM. 3 DUMPSTERIRECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. Refuse or Recycling Areas CRITICAL AREAS General See RMC 4-3-050. See RMC 4-3-050. See RMC 4-3-050. DESIGN GUIDELINES General NA See Urban Design NA Regulations in RMC 4- 3-100. (Ord. 4773, 3=22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13- 2002; Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT H 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 USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES GENERAL: Mixed occupancies: The total requirements for off-street (2 or 3 different uses in the same building parking facilities shall be the sum of the or sharing a lot. For 4 or more uses, see requirements for the several uses computed "shopping center" requirements) 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.OU,TSWE Q.F.,;. , ,I. ,'ST,¢, jow Detached and semi -attached dwellings: A minimum oft 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. Bed and breakfast houses: 1 per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. 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. ATTACHMENT H Attached dwellings in CD, RM-U, RM- 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling T, UC-N1, UC-N2 and Zones and G unit; 1.6 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.2 Zones— 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. (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004) Attached dwellings within the RM-F 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces Zone: are not provided; and/or2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. (Amd. Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 12er dwelling unit is allowed.. Attached dwellings within all other 1.75 per dwelling unit where tandem zones: 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 1 for each 4 dwelling units. elderl : Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income 1 for every 3 dwelling units. .elderl : �.. . UMMERCV N iC`TaI 1"T"TES OUTS .; "4F TH OWNTOWN'�G4 ..eti l�l "S'[L.,7Np�stSipEea# Lp4 31LL}i�{;iy(i4iLr@'+S 11AlI.11I111Ii.i�lliLalN XCEI%, SHQP'P.ING.,CENiT!ERS.R 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 b ATTACHMENT H 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 1 for each employee and 2 loading spaces 11): within 100 feet of the main entrance for eve 25 clients of the program. Hotels and motels: 1 per guest room plus 2 for every 3 employees. 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 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. small 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 ATTACHMENT H Services, on -site (except as specified below): Clothing or shoe repair shops, furniture, appliance, hardware stores, household Uncovered commercial area, outdoor nurseries: Recreational and entertainment uses: Outdoor and indoor sports arenas, auditoriums, stadiums, movie theaters, and entertainment clubs: Dance halls, dance clubs, and skating rinks: Golf driving ranges: Marinas: _Miniature golf courses: Other recreational: 100 square feet of net floor area if shared and/or structured parking is provided. A maximum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of net floor area. 0.2 per 100 square feet of net floor area. 0.05 per 100 square feet of retail sales area in addition to any parking requirements for buildings. 1 for every 4 fixed seats or 1 per 100 square feet of floor area of main auditorium or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is 5 per alley. 1 per 40 square feet of net floor area. 1 per driving station 2 per 3 slips. For private marina associated with a residential complex, then 1 per 3. slips. Also 1 loading area per 25 slips. 1 per hole. 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: 11 per trailer site. All uses allowed in the CD Zone except for the following uses: 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 (includes any type of 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. Excepted uses follow the standards applied outside the Downtown Core. A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of ATTACHMENT H business occupying a shopping center): net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC- N1 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. aNDUSTRIALISTORAGE, ACTICVITIES 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 Iaboratories, and assembly and/or net floor area and a maximum of 0.15 packaging operations: spaces per 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: UBLICI UASI-,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 eveKy 3 em io ees. Cultural facilities: 1 4 per 100 square feet. ATTACHMENT H 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 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 crafts 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students schools/studios, and trade or vocational residing on campus, plus 1 space for every schools: 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. (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, b-28-2004) ATTACHMENT I D. BONUS ALLOWANCES AND REVIEW CRTIERIA: The following table lists the conditions under which additional density or alternative bulk standards may be achieved: R-14 Zone RM-U Zone COR 1 COR 2 Density and The bonus provisions are intended to allow The bonus NA NA Unit Size greater flexibility in the implementation of provisions are Bonus- the purpose of the R-14 designation. intended to allow Purpose: Bonus criteria encourage provision of greater densities aggregated open space and rear access within the portion parking in an effort to simulate provision of of the RM-U zone higher amenity neighborhoods and project located within the designs which address methods of reducing Urban Center the size and bulk of structures. Applicants Design Overlay and wishing such bonuses must demonstrate north of South 2nd that the same or better results will occur as Street for those a result of creative design solutions that development would occur with uses developed under proposals that standard criteria. provide high quality design and amenities. Maximum I to 4 additional dwelling units per net Up to 25 dwelling Up to 5 Up to 2 dwelling units per Additional acre. Densities of greater than 18 units per units per net acre. additional acre for compliance with each Units Per net acre are prohibited. Densities of greater dwelling units provision listed below may be Acre: than 100 dwelling per acre may allowed; provided there is a units per net acre be allowed; balance of height, bulk and are prohibited. provided there density established addressing is a balance of the following public benefits: height, bulk (i) Provision of and density continuous established pedestrian access through a floor to the shoreline area ration consistent with system and/or requirements of the a master plan Shoreline Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT I to be decided Management Act at the time of and fitting a site plan circulation pattern review. within the site, (ii) Provision of an additional 25' setback from the shoreline beyond that required by the Shoreline Management Act, (iii) Establishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline, (iv) Water Related Uses. If the applicant wishes to reach these bonus objectives in a different system, a system of floor area rations may be established for the property to be determined at the time of site plan review as approved by Council, (v) Daylighting of piped streams. Page 2 of 6 /:rM%[haul ►! Maximum Dwelling units permitted per structure may NA NA NA Allowable be increased as follows: Bonus (i) Dwellings Limited to 3 Dwelling Unit Attached: A maximum of 4 Mix/ units per structure, with a Arrangement: maximum structure length of 100 feet. (ii) Dwellings Limited to 6 Attached: A maximum of S units per structure with a maximum structural height of 35 feet, or 3 stories and a maximum structural length of 115 feet. Bonus Bonuses may be achieved independently or Development NA NA Criteria: in combination. To qualify for one or both projects within the bonuses the applicant shall provide either: applicable area that (i) Alley and/or rear access and meet both the parking for 50% of detached, "minimum semi attached, or townhouse requirements" and units (parcels abutting an at leas one existing alley are required to "guideline" in each take alley access and shall not of the following qualify for the bonus based four categories" upon this provision), or • Building (ii) Civic uses such as a community Siting and meeting hall, senior center, Design; recreation center, or other • Parking, similar uses as determined by Access, and the Zoning Administrator, or Circulation; (iii) A minimum of 5% of the net • Landscapin developable area of the project g/Recreatio in aggregated common open n/Common Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT I space. Common open space Space; and areas may be used for any of the • Building following purposes Architectura (playgrounds, picnic 1 Design shelters/facilities and Applying to Area equipment, village "A" of the Urban greens/squares, trails, corridors Center Design or natural). Structures such as Overlay District kiosks, benches, fountains and located in RMC 4- maintenance equipment storage 3-100 shall be facilities are permitted; . permitted a provided, that they serve and/or maximum density promote the use of the open of 100 dwelling space. To qualify as common units per net acre. open space, an area must meet each of the following conditions: • Function as a focal point for the development, • Have a maximum slope of 10% • Have a minimum width of 25', except for trails or corridors, • Be located outside the right- of-way, • Be improved with landscaping in public areas, and • Be maintained by the homeowners association if the property is subdivided, or by the management Page 4of6 ATTACHMENT I organization as applied to the property if the property is not subdivided. (iv) Provision of a minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre (fractional results shall be rounded up to the next whole number). In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate a minimum of 3 features described below: (i) Architectural design which incorporates enhanced building entry features (e.g., varied design materials, arbors and/or trellises, cocheres, gabled roofs). (ii) Active common recreation amenities such as picnic facilities, gazebos, sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/Jacuzzi. (iii) Enhanced ground plane textures or colors (e.g., stamped patterned concrete, cobblestone, or brick at all building entries, courtyards, trails or sidewalks). (iv) Building or structures incorporating bonus units shall have no more than 75% of the garages on a single fagade. (v) Surface parking lots containing nor more than 6 parking stalls Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT I separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. (vi) Site design incorporating a package of at least 3 amenitites which enhance neighborhood character, such as coordinated lighting (street or building), mailbox details, address and signage details, and street trees as approved by the Reviewing Official. General NA NA Where Where included, affordable Provisions: included, units must beet the provisions affordable of the Housing EIement of the units must Comprehensive Plan. For meet the COR 2, if a significant public provisions of benefit above City Code the Housing requirements can be provided Element of the for a portion of the property Comprehensiv which may be contaminated, a e Plan. transfer of density may be allowed for other portions of the site. Page 6 of 6 M CENTERS Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the employment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub -areas: Urban Center- Downtown (220 acres) and the Urban Center -North (310 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment, regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing. The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting Renton to Newcastle-te and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban mixed -use projects with a pedestrian --oriented development pattern. Objective LU-MM: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: 1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity; 2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees; 3) Boundaries should occur along public rights -of -way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and 4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or shopping centers. Policy LU-196. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: 1) A nucleus of existing multi -use development; 2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 3) Center locations should be located on major transit and. transportation routes; 4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU-197. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances: 1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or 2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-198. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers over time. Policy LU-199. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the Urban Center in districts designated for residential use. Policy LU-200. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed -use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers. Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed -use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Policy LU-202. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed -use development in a manner that preserves privacy and quiet for residents. Policy LU-203. Modify existing commercial and residential uses that are adjacent to or within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscape, signage, and site plan as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-204. Consolidate signage for mixed -use development. Policy LU-205. Identify major natural features and support development of new focal points that define the Center and are visually distinctive. Policy LU-206. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-207. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to create focal points. Policy LU-208. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Policy LU-209. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed -use developments to minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. Policy LU-210. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed -use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian —oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high -density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village dDesignation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 4&14 (R-4-914)), Center Village (CV), and the Residential Multi -family zones (RMF, RM-U, RM-T). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re -zone with the vision for a Center Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub -area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Rede,,4epni Subarea Plan is expected to occur ever -within a 2 — S- year period fi-om the 2004 GMA update. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Desig ationdesignation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed -use structures and projects. Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center Villay,e. Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible due to site configuration, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Discourage -Pparking lots between structures and street rights -of- way shall not be permitted. Policy LU-324. Use alley access where alleys currently exist. Encourage designation of new alleys in redevelopment projects. Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, an4-parking, and circulation components of new development projects. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-327. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub -regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Centers. Policy LU-329. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-330. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi -family development. Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses. City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT. - MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425,430-6581 APPLICANT (If'other than owner) NAME: Rebecca Lind COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6588 CONTACT PERSON NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98058 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package PROJECTIADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: The proposal affects the Highlands Subarea located both north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE. KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): See Attached List for affected PIDs. EXISTING LAND USE(S):Residential, Commercial, Recreational, Community Uses PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Same as existing. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: (RMD) Residential Medium Density, (CV) Center Village in Renton's Comprehensive Plan PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): same -ate RMD. CV Residential Multifami! RMF EXISTING ZONING: R-10, RMF, CV PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): g R-i4, CV. RMF SITE AREA (in square feet): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE if applicable): Ma PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): rVa NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n/a Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planninglmasterapp.doc 11 /03166 PRUjECT INFORMATION (contin NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): n/a PROJECT VALUE: n/a IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): n/a ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE _ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. _ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. WETLANDS s . ff. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal descri Lion on se crate sheet with the following Information included SITUATE IN THE OF SECTION , TOWNSHIP_, RANGE , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Checklist 4. _Zoning Text Amendment 2. Rezone 5. 3. Comprehensive„ Plan Amendment . Staff will calculate applicable fees and ostage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Names) Rebecca Lind , declare that I am (please check one) _ _, the current owner of the property involved In this application or ' CX the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the Instrument. Bebacca Lind (Signature of Owner/Representative) 4��- ZZ (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 11/03/06 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South'Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-4304231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This, environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer.these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for honproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. HAEDNSP\ComD Plan\Sub Area Plans\Hiahlands\EnVironmentallSEPA Checklist- T skforce Zoning.db A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Highlands Zoning and Land Use Package (Fall 2006) Highlands Taskfarce 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall, a Floor 1055 South Grad Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Phone: (425) 430-6588 4. Date checklist prepared: September 21, 2006 amended November 3, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N/A non project action Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A non -project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Transportation Engineering North West LLC, "City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Land Use Concept El Transportation Analysis" April 17, 2006. and City Staff, "Highlands . Final Impacts Spreadsheet Highlands Taskforce Proposal. Both documents are attached. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. HAr.QNSP1Comn P1anlSub Area Planslllighlands\EnvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce Zoning.dac No. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council must give approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zoning proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use.plans for. the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area ' north of NE 16th Street; the to the CV land use designation; MeWn the-arEn designation. Move the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE use designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street, -a collection of parcels in the vicinity of Glenwood Ave NE and west of Harrin ton Avenue NE north of Sunset Blvd in R-14; —S&9et se , street �. , That laces the i2arcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7`" Street and NE 91h Street and the parcels west of Kirkland Ave NE between NE 13`h Street and NE 16` Street in the RMF zone; that Authority's Sunset Terrace property, and a collection of parcels southeast of the intersection of NE 12' Street and Harrington Ave NE in the CV zone. Please see attached maps.. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if H:TDNSP1Coim PlanlSub Area Plans\HiphhlandslEnvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 3 .r.�e2 rR1C.RMT?. M-111 !PiL.,M....* f■7M!GSINNY.M11 MA OMWAWN11laLlrsr.TJl1, ■ ■ r reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is within the Highlands Subarea. The Highlands Subarea can be loosely defined as the area in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard that is South of NE 21st Street, North of NE 6th Street, East of NE Camas Ave (if extended) and west of NE Olympia Ave (if extended). Please see attached maps for specific location information. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A. Non project action. The Highlands is generally 11at, with typically gentle changes in elevation. There are some steep slopes in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) N/A Non project action. The steepest slope is between 25-40% C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. N/A non -project action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A Non project action. The steep slopes area near Edmonds and Sunset is also listed as a moderate landslide hazard. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A non -project action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? l- AEMNSMomp PlanlSub Area Planslliishlands\E nvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 4 N/A non project action. Adopting these changes will not create impervious surfaces. There is no significant change between the proposed regulations and the existing regulations in regards to the percentage of allowed lot coverage. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A non -project action. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A non -project action. b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, . generally describe. N/A non project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A non project action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater,, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If'appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. N/A. Non -project action. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A non -project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A non -project action. I-I:IEDNSPIConm PlanlSub Area PianslFIi�,,IilindsTl,hvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 5 Zoning 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A non -project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A non -project action 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A non -project action b. Ground Water: I} Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A non -project action. These _regulations would create the potential for additional population in the Highlands Subarea. This population would require domestic water from the City of Renton water system, which relies on wells drawing from a local aquifer. Compared to the potential population under existing conditions, the future potential population that may result from the approval of the proposal would represent an increase of approximately 1292 people. This increase in population is well within the planned growth targets for the City of Renton. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; Industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A non project action C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. N/A non -project action. In the existing condition, the majority of the Highlands was developed without any formal stormwater system. Future development would have to comply with City of Renton stormwater regulations. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action. I-I:\EDNSPICoMp PlanlSub Area Ptansli-I.iL]ilandslL:nvironmentall.SEPA Checklist- Taskforce 6 7on1� . m`c'"'+ Reg r1..., #A7.,..;....S C) 1Draft d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. Future development would have to comply with City of Renton stormwater regulations. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A non -project action. This proposal is intended to result in redevelopment of this neighborhood. With redevelopment of individual parcels, vegetation may be removed and cleared prior to building. Such actions would be subject to City of Renton development regulations at the time of application. C. List threatened or endangered -species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A non -project action. The proposal enacts design guidelines for the Highlands which require a higher standard of landscaping than under the existing regulations. This is likely to result In'more vegetation in the area. 5. ANIMALS Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds. eron ea le son they Mammals: eer bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. H:\EDNSPICoinp PlanlSub Area PlaFnslIighlandslrnvironmentallSFPA Checklist- Taskforce % Zonint?.doc C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A non -project action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A non -project action. Future development in this area is the intended result of this proposal. Various types of energy including all of the types listed above, are likely to be used in the heating of future residential, commercial, and recreational development in this area. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A non project action. The design regulations implemented by this proposal would require a greater amount of vegetation than is required under the current regulations. The presence of trees and other vegetation to shade buildings naturally cools them and could result in some measure of energy conservation. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. N/A non project action. kq Me GUFTeRf GGn&iGn, Many Of the Aq-849.pfial bu gs in the and- as -hest 6WOR r-edeVe1GPM9Rt Of the prapeFfy on which they sit. Removal would be subjeGt to a ati 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. I- I:TiQNSP1Cojnp_PIanlSub Area PlanslF-IiglilandslFnvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce Zoning.doC b Fea Pien.qti[4igi,iand.;tiDeyelo...men Reg Dfflrt,.,Z,,ningu , 4 rfa ft N/A non -project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A non project action. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A non -project action. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site, N/A non -project action. If the proposal is effective in promoting redevelopment there may be an increase in temporary construction noises. There are likely to be construction noises in the neighborhood with, or without the proposal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. Site specific development projects will be subject to City development regulations in effect at the time of application. a. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A non project action. The current use of the Highlands is for residential, commercial, community, and recreational uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. N/A non -project action. C. Describe any structures on the site. N/A non project action. There are a variety of structures in the Highlands including residential, accessory, commercial, community and civic structures. Some of the structures, primarily residential structures, are in dilapidated condition. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 1-I:TMMPICom PlanlSub Area Plansll-Ii hlandslT;nvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce g Zoning.doc�mi N/A non project action. Although this is a non project action, the change in regulations will likely result in the demolition of residential structures in the Highlands beeause-4t as part of the redevelopment. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/a non project action. The Highlands area is characterized by R-10, RMF, and CV zoning. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Renton Residential Medium Density and Center Village g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A non -project action. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. N/A. Non project action. There are limited areas of steep slopes and moderate potential landslide hazard. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a non -project action. The change in capacity as a result of this proposal could create a population of approximately b885-54�eople in the Highlands, an increase of approximately 42S2-1341people over the current potential population. If we assume one employee per 250 square feet of commercial space, the future employee count of the area would be approximately 4648-1627 people, an increase of approximately W7--484 workers over the current potential conditions. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A non project action. This project would not displace anyone. Current property owners would be able to stay in their existing homes for as long as they wished and improve or remodel their homes as desired. Redevelopment would occur as owners redeveloped their properties or sold them to those who wished to redevelop them. The increased capacity in the proposed zoning regulations will allow approximately an additional74$-745 housing units and 426;7 W121,033 square feet of commercial development. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A non project action H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area_PlanslHigh[andsF,nvironmentallSEP.A .Checklist- Taskforce 10 Lonin ),€ doc Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan and the City of Renton Business Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments and zoning text amendments are intended to make implementation of the Comprehensive Plan easier. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This is a non -project action. The proposal would likely result in approximately 2443-3028 units, or 74$-745 more than provided under the current zoning of the area. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A non -project action. This action would likely result in the creation of more units than under the current regulations. However, some of the existing units are likely to be removed and replaced. Although there are provisions and incentives to provide affordable housing, as redevelopment occurs, it is likely that units that are now serving as (unsecured) affordable housing will be replaced with more expensive housing. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. Incentives for the creation of affordable housing are included in the development regulations to achieve a bonus in the R-14 zone. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. N/A non -project action. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A non -project action. There is a proposed increase in the standard for building height in the CV zone. The existing standard is to only allow building that are 50 ft. in height. The proposed standard would allow buildings with ground floor commercial development in the CV zone to be as tall as 60 ft. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. The proposed design regulations require stricter regulations regard the aesthetic finished of buildings than under the current regulations. I-I:II DNSPI om PIanlSub Area Planslll.i btands\EnvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 11 Zonin 7t doc . 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A non -project action. There will likely be additional dwelling units and commercial development potential created by the proposed regulations. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends additional street lighting for the area. This may result in more light in the area. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A non -project action. Individual proposal will be reviewed on a project basis under the development regulations in effect at the time of application. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A non -project action d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A non project action. The design guidelines regulate lighting to reduce negative impacts. There are no regulations in effect for this area at the present time. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non -project action. The project is in the vicinity of the North Highlands Community Center and the Highlands Community Center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A non -project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A non -project action. There is an incentive for creating community spaces and public open space in order to receive a bonus in the R-14 zone. Future development would be required to pay Renton's Parks Mitigation Fee. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. H:\EQNSP\QqMPIan\Sub PIanlSub Area PlanslliighlandslI:nvironnientallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 12 Zonin N/A non project action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A non -project action Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A non project action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a non project proposal. The area is served by NE Sunset Boulevard, a major arterial, and Edmonds Ave NE a principal arterial. There is an extensive network of streets, which includes a network of currently un-utilized alleys. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? N/A Non project action. The Highlands is served by multiple transit lines, including routes 105, 240, 908, and 909. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N/A non -project action. The future number of parking spaces in this area will be determined on a project specific basis. In some areas, where alleys exist, access will be required to be taken from the alley for new development projects. This could possibly result in additional on -street parking in some areas. If, as suggested in the transportation analysis, bike lanes are added to some roadways, this may limit some on street parking in those areas. Addition of bike lanes to this area is equally likely to be implemented with or without the proposal. Parking regulations determine the number of off street parking spaces required for each project. The regulations will remain the same for most types of development. For attached dwelling units in the CV zone, the proposed regulations impose an maximum limit for parking per unit at 1.75 spaces per unit. This would apply to the development of new projects in the CV zone and would only limit the number of future spaces, not necessarily existing spaces. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? N/A non -project action. Future development must comply with Renton's Development Regulations. The traffic impact analysis suggests a number of street improvements be HNEQNSMo Plan\Sub Area Plansll;-Ii hlands\rnvironmentallSFPA Checklist- Taskforce 13 Zonini.doc : made to the Highlands subarea. The improvements include a westbound right turn lane and southbound left turn lane for the intersection at NE 12'h St at Edmonds Avenue, improved sidewalks, promotion of transportation alternatives through possible implementation of bicycle lane, better definition of on -street parking areas, and additional street lighting. These improvements are suggested for implementation with or without the proposal. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A Non project action. This project is likely to result in approximately ,37,85439, 212 trips per day, this represents an increase in approximately 45-33610,567 trips over the amount projected under full implementation of the existing zoning. Peak volumes are likely to occur at the same time as existing peaks- AM and PM "rush hour". In the attached transportation analysis, the author analyzed the impacts of approximately 28, 772 additional daily trips and found that there was adequate capacity on the existing road system without significant level of service reduction. All intersections would operate at LOS C or better except for the intersection at NE 12th Street and Edmonds Ave NE. This intersection is currently operating at LOS F. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. Transportation impacts will be addressed through City of Renton development regulations at the time of project specific application. Currently, there are several projects that could improve the street network and transportation system in the Highlands including adding turn lanes to the intersection of NE le Street and Edmonds Avenue NE, improving sidewalks, adding bicycle lanes and/or other facilities for non - motorized transportation, better definition of on -street parking areas, and enhanced street Lighting. Such improvements are equally likely to occur with or without the proposal. However, some improvements, such as sidewalk and street lighting improvements may be somewhat more likely as redevelopment occurs under the proposal. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action. The proposal could result in an increased capacity in the area of approximately 7- 745 units, or approximately 4242-1341 people, over the current zoning and land use designations. This increase is likely to increase the need for additional public services. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. H:\EDNSP1Cornp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslEnvironnientallSEPA Checklist- Taskforce 14 Znnin ..doc N/A non project action 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities available at the site. efectrici natural gas ate refuse service elephon anitary sewe septic system, othe . N/A non -project action b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A non -project action. This will be reviewed on a project specific basis and City of Renton development regulations will be applied. The City of Renton is in the process of completing water and sewer upgrades in the vicinity of the proposal that will be used to accommodate any future development. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Rebecca Lind for City of Renton D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is unlikely that the proposal would have any affect on the above environmental issues. There will be a likely increase in population and in the number of dwelling units and amount of commercial floor space in this area. All future development will have to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. It is hoped that future demolition of structures suspected to have lead based paints, asbestos, and other hazardous materials would ultimately result in less future risk from those toxic substances. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlands\Environnienta11SEPA Checklist- Taskforce 15 Zonin .doc : 11C Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: New development would be required to comply with the City's development regulations, including the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? There would be no affect on plants, animals, fish, or marine life as a direct consequence of this non -project, prezoning proposal. There may be some displacement of existing vegetation to clear lots for future development, which is likely to occur under the both the present conditions and the proposal. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None at this non -project level. Development of additional dwelling units must comply with City of Renton regulations and with Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. Development that occurs as a result of the proposal will be reviewed for these impacts on a project specific basis. This will include application of design regulations, which require higher landscaping standards, and may increase the amount of vegetation In the area. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed non -project action will not deplete energy or natural resources. Future project level development may impact energy or natural resources slightly, based on the likelihood of additional dwelling units and commercial floor area, but will not deplete them. Development is likely to occur with or without the proposal. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed at this non -project action stage. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? This proposal would likely not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. At such time that additional dwelling units are developed, they will be subject to City of Renton critical area regulations and development standards that are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A. H:IEDNSP1Coinp PlanlSub Area P1anslHighlandslEnvironmentallSEPA Checklist- Tasktorce 16 zonin >� doc . 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposal results in any change of capacity of approximately 7- 745 dwelling units and approximately 126, 7129.033 square feet of commercial floor area. This would result in an intensification over the current land. use. Intensification is likely to occur in this area without the proposal, up to the maximum capacity allowed by the current regulations. The proposal is compatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan, which designates the majority of this area as a Center Village. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendments result in a more consistent application of land use policy over areas that are similarly situated. The entire project is consistent with the City of Renton Business Plan Goals. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Under the proposal, regulations would require that new development conform to more stringent site development and aesthetic standards than under the current regulations. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal increases the number of potential vehicle trip ends by approximately 10;33 M.56 daily trips over the capacity allowed under the current zoning. Additional population is also likely to make increased demand far public services. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The transportation analysis shows that there would be adequate capacity for even an additional 28,772 daily trips in the Highlands subarea, without significant reductions in Levels of Service. The analysis makes suggestions for improving the transportation network in the Highlands, but these items are needed whether or not the proposal is adopted. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information Is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: Rebecca Lind for City of Renton Date: 11:TMNSP\Comp Plan\Sub Area P1ans1l3ighlandslEnvironnlentallSl�I'A Checklist- Tasktorce 17 Zonint�.dnc Rnw w"Cq SFr Wgmd Ho*ffl s Tmkrorm PMP05 1 PROPOSED ZONING Land use typo Gross Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FARI Units Retail S . Ft Estimated population factor 1.8 Estimated Elementary Pupils .276/unit} Estimated Middle School Pupils .079/unit Estimated High School Pupils .070/unit Total Estimated Pupils Required Acreage of Neighborhood Parks (75 sq ft. perperson) Estimated Trip Ends {per unit or per 1,000 square ft Trip Generation In Vehicle Trip ends R-14 40.88 32.70 14.00 457.86 n/a 824.14 126.37 36.17 32.05 194.59 1.42 10.71 4903.64 R-8 22.55 18.04 6.00 108.24 n1a 194.83 29.87 8.55 7.58 46.00 0.34 10.71 1159.25 RMF 18.05 14.44 14.00 202.16 n/a 363.89 55.80 15.97 14.15 85.92 0.63 6.63 1340.32 CV- Multifamily 24.92 19.94 64.00 1275.90 n/a 2296.63 352.15 100.80 89.31 542.26 3.95 6.63 8459.24 CV- Fluxed Use Housing 18.69 14.95 64.00 956.93 n/a 1722.47 264.11 75.60 66.98 406.69 2.97 6.63 6344.43 CV- Mixeduse Commerd 6.22 4.98 0.30 n/a 65026.37 n/a• rda n1a n/a n/a n1a 40.67 2644.62 CV -Mixed Use Retail 33.23 26.58 0.30 n/a 347399.71 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40A7 14128.75 Totals Prosed 164.54 131.63 3001.09 412426.08 5401.96 828.30 237.09 210.08 1275.46 9.30 38980.25 EXISTING ZONING Land use type Gross Acreage Net Acreanei Density/ FAR Units Retail S . Ft Estimated population factor 1.8) Estimated Elementary Pupils (.2761unit Estimated Middle School Pupils .079/unit} Estimated High School Pupils .070/unit Total Estimated Pupils Required Acreage of Neighborhood Parks (75 sq ft I perperson) Estimated Trip Ends (per unit or per 1,000 I square ft Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip ends R-10 72.22 57.78 8.00 462.21 n1a 831.97 127.57 36.51 32.35 196.44 1.43 10.71 4950.25 RMF 37.66 30.13 14.00 421.79 nfa 759.23 116.41 33.32 29.53 179.26 1.31 6.63 2796.48 CV -Housing 27.33 21.86 64.00 1399.30 n/a 2518.73 386.21 110.54 97.95 594.70 4.34 6.63 9277.33 CV-Retail/Commercial 27.33 21.86 0.30 n1a 285718.75 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n1a 40.67 11620.18 Totals Existing_164.54 131.63 2283.30 285718.75 4109.93 630.19 180.38 159.83 970.40 7.08 28644.24 TASKFORCE ZONING Land Use jyp2 Gross Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FAR Units Retail S . Ft Estimated population Ifactor 1.8) Estimated Elementary Pupils (.276/unit Estimated Middle School Pupils .079/unit Estimated High School Pupils .070/unit Total Estimated Pupils Required Acreage of Neighborhood Parks (75 sq fL perperson) Estimated Trip Ends (per unit or per 1,000 square ft Trip Generation In Vehicle Trip ends R-10 22.55 18.041 8.00 144.32 n/a 259.78 39.83 11.40 10.10 61.34 0.45 10.71 1545.67 R-14 45.18 36-141 14.00 506.02 n/a 910.83 139.66 39.98 35.421 215.06 1.57 10.71 5419.43 RMF 14.90 11.92 14.00 166.88 n1a 300.38 46.06 13.18 11.68 70.92 0.52 6.63 1106.41 CV- Mulfifamil 24.57 19.66 64.00 1258.14 n1a 2264.65 347.25 99.39 88.07 534.71 3.90 6.63 8341.45 CV- Mixed Use Housing_18.43 14.74 64.00 943.60 n1a 1698.49 260.43 74.54 66.05 401.03 2.92 6.63 6256.09 CV- Mixeduse Commerci 6.14 4.91 0.30 1.47 64223.99 2.65 n/a n/a n1a n1a rUa 40.67 2611.99 CV -Mixed Use Retail 32.76 26.21 0.30 7.86 342527.96 14.15 n/a n/a n1a n/a n/a 40.67 13930.61 164.54 131.63 302829 406751.95 5450,93 833.23 238.50 211.33 1283.06 9.36 39211.66 Units Retail S . Ft Est Po Est ES Est MS Est HS Total Est Pu ils Est VTEs _ - :- �fetChange : Cr 0 29 38 25 06 033$ 0t Ne , '1=1033.20 1Taseru fa 0-0567.4t Alt ." i G f Renton Department of Planning / Building/ lic Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: lamaCOMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128, R ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOB OB APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGE Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & ZoningPackage PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren i ° SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area WORK ORDER NO: 77662 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an imalementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Tent Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removin,9 the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property In the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the corner of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portioportio^parcel near HouserTenace from R-10 to RMF. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary tmmf Aesthetics LightlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public services HistorkXultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet nip We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or 16-1`l Aa Date STAFF REPORT A. BACKGROUND City of Renton Department of Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ERC MEETING DATE October 23, 2006 Project Name Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package Applicant City of Renton File Number LUA06-128, ECF Project Manager Erika Conkling Project Description This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements; amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 70h Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE V Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the corner of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. Project Location Map ERCRepomdoc { CAPACITY ANALYSIS: This change would allow an increase of 4 dwelling units per acre to the base density and a potential bonus density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre in all areas of the CV currently zoned R-10. This change in capacity is estimated to allow an additional I96 units compared to redevelopment under the existing R-10 zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The implementing zoning with the CV needs to require uses, densities, and development standards that implement the following adopted Comprehensive Plan policies. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village (CV) is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed -use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high -density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. CVs typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop CVs, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the CV Designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the CV Designation using multiple zoning designations including R-10, CV, and RMF. Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the CV and replace zoning designations or rezone with the vision for a CV designation. Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub -area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Redevelopment Plan is expected to occur over a 2 — 5- year period. Strategy 319.3. Areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned RMF are to remain in residential use. The area north of 12`h St. currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from 10 to 80 dwelling units per acre in the CV Designation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed -use structures and projects. Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center. Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Discourage parking lots between structures and street rights -of- way. H:18DNSP\Comp P1an\Amendments120%U006 Text Amendments12006-T-02 Highlands\Highlands Text Amendment 2006 Issue Paper.doc 0 City of Renton EDNSP Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments LUA-06-121,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTiOBER 23, 2006 Page 1 of 3 Project Location Exist. Bldg. Area gsf Site Area SITE MAP Highlands Sub -area NIA NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area gsf NIA Total Building Area gsf NIA Q 9rn Highlands Subarea =� �w rI Highlands Subarea mR;`w ri zft c4mPWWdift Pun MM1* Mfh G7�rIN 0 1000 2000 SWI A-7df6>Ip =RMb INNZ ft 0 1000 2000 wyr.i�a�tiy 1 : 12000 1 ® �� 1 : 12000 _ — ©frrramtia ---....._6ii—r—....._m—t—r ate: ne Mao r �rrasro rrr B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. X I Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Period Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. I followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES None required for this non -project action. ERC Report.doc City of Renton EDNSP Department A--ronmental Review Committee Stag" Report Highlands R40 Zoning Text Amendments r LUA-0b-121,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF OCTOBER 23, 2006 �^ Page 3 of 3 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following non project environmental review addresses only those Impacts that are not adequately addressed under exlsting development standards and environmental regulations. 1. TRANSPORTATION Impacts: This propososal results in an increase in density within the affected area. The Impact Analysis spreadsheet shows that the estimated increase in 718 dwelling units and 126,707 square feet of retail space over the capacity allowed by the current zoning. This additional residential and commercial capacity would generate an additional 10,336 vehicle trip ends in this area. A transportation analysis was conducted by Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC in April, 2006. This report analyzed a much more intensive land use proposal for the same area. This transportation analysis reports that even with an additional 28,772 additional vehicle trip ends in this area, which is almost three times the amount of impact generated by the proposed action, there would be adequate capacity on the existing road system without significant level of service reduction. Ail intersections would operate at a LOS C or better, with the exception of the intersection of NE 121h Street and Edmonds Avenue NE, which is currently operating at LOS F. With or without the proposal, new development would be required to pay a Transportation Mitigation Fee as required by the Renton Municipal Code. E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been Incorporated Into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Notes to Applicant X Copies of all Review Comments are contained In the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, November 13, 2006. Appeals must be fled in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8.110. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. ERC Report.doc AMENDED RECOMMENDATION September 20, 2006 AMENDMENT 2006 M- 6 CITY OF RENTON HIGHLANDS CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION MAP AMENDMENTS DESCRIPTION: This application proposes that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations in the Highlands Study Area should be revised in several locations. • Area A on hearin notice South of Sunset to NE 90' This area is now in the Center Village with Residential Multi -Family (RM-F) zoning. The proposal is to remove this area from the Center Village (CV) and designate it RM-F Land Use with RM-F zoning. • Area B(bullet 1 on hearing notice) North of NE_16`h St. to approximately NE 20th St. This area is currently designated Residential Medium Density (RM-D) with R-10 zoning. The proposal is to add the area to the CV Designation. This area is currently designated RM-D with R-10 zoning. The proposal is to added this area to the CV Designation with proposed R-14 zoning. • Area C(bullet 2 : South of NE 8`'' St. and east of Harrin on This area currently has RM-D Land Use with R-10 zoning. The amendment will review whether it should be changed to a Residential Single Family (RS-F) Designation with R-8 zoning. • Area C ( bullet 1): West of Monroe Ave between NE 12'h and Sunset Blvd. This area is currently designated RM-D with R-10 zoning. The amendment will evaluate whether this area should be RS-F with R-8 zoning. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Recommendation: Area A Change the Comprehensive Plan Map to remove this area from the CV zone, designate it RM-F and retain the multi -family zoning. Area B The original recommendation was to amend the Comprehensive Plan to add these areas into the CV zone, but to retain the R-10 zoning. This recommendation is now revised to request that the Commission recommend concurrent re -zoning to R-14. The revised recommendation will require an additional public hearing at the City Council to process concurrent re -zoning to R-14 zoning. Area C The original recommendation was to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change these areas from RM-D to RS-F, but to retain the R-10 zoning for a later zoning action. This recommendation is now revised to request that the Commission recommend concurrent re- r •Y H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anUmendments1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study Area\Highlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue paper.doc zoning to R-8. The revised recommendation will require an additional public hearing at the City Council to process concurrent re -zoning to R-8 zoning. ANALYSIS: Area A This area is developed with garden style multi -family structures that will likely not redevelopment into the pedestrian oriented urban scale development envisioned in the CV. Policy LU-331 prohibits garden style apartments. Policy LU-328 calls for compact urban redevelopment, while Policy LU-323 calls for parking structures. LU-317 calls for mapping the CV Designation to areas that are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. After review of the structures and development patterns in this area, staff concluded that the redevelopment pattern was likely more consistent with the RM-F policies. The CV and RM-F Policies are included in Attachment 1. Area B The CV Land Use designation envisions compact urban development that is pedestrian oriented and promotes an intensive form of urban mixed use development. The properties in Area B are now designated RM-D with R-10 zoning, but these area areas that are candidate locations for higher density mixed use development as envisioned in Policy LU-317. The CV and RM-D Policies are included in Attachment 1. The area North of NE 16`h St. to approximately NE 20'h St. is developed with duplex properties on large lots, the HiIlcrest School, and the Renton Housing Authority properties. • The area fronting on Harrington Ave. south of NE 9`h St. to two parcels south of NE 6`h St. is developed with duplex through fourplex properties that would need the additional density incentive to stimulate redevelopment. Area C These are developed with single-family uses and redevelopment meeting the objective of the RM-D Designation is unlikely. The area west of Monroe Ave between NE 12'h and Sunset Blvd. has covenants on many parcels prohibiting further subdivision at greater densities. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Area A This area is built out with multifamily development and has minor if any additional capacity. Zoning would Area B The area north of NE 16"' St. to approximately NE 20`h St. would potentially have a capacity increase of 88 units with the CV Land Use designation and R-14 zoning. The area fronting on Harrington Ave. south of NE 9`h St. to two parcels south of NE 61h St. would potentially have a capacity increase of 43 units or 83,000 SF of commercial assuming CV rather than R-14 zoning. H:LEDNSP\Comp P1anUmendments1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study Area\Highlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue paper.doc Area C This area is built out with single-family forms of development and has minor if any additional capacity. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE: The proposed Comprehensive Plan Map amendments satisfy the following findings in Title IV 4-9-020. Area A Finding #3. Amending the Comprehensive Plan from CV to RM-F eliminates conflicts within the existing zoning of RM-F and the CV Comprehensive Plan designation. Area B Finding #1. The map amendment changing from RM-F Density to CV supports the Vision adopted in the CV Designation. Properties in Area B have lot configurations and existing low development densities that will allow redevelopment to occur consistent with the CV. Area C Finding #2. The map amendment changing from RM-F Density to RM-S meets the Goal 2 of the adopted Business Plan "Promote Neighborhood Revitalization." ZONING CONCURRENCY: Additional review and hearing on zoning concurrency will be required. Properties redesignated into the Center Village will require R-14 zoning; Properties redesignated Single Family residential will require R-8 zoning ATTACHMENT 1 CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village (CV) is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed -use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high -density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop CVs, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the CV Designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. Policy LU-322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center. H:IEDNSPIComp P1an\Amendments1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study Area\Highlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue paper.doc Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. Discourage parking lots between structures and street rights -of -way. Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within CVs than with land uses outside the Center. Policy LU-330. Residential development within CVs is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development, with structured parking. Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi -family development. Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses. RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Residential Multi -Family (RM-F) Land Use Designation is intended to encourage a range of multi -family living environments that provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. The RM-F designation is implemented by RM-F zoning. Objective LU-JJ: Encourage the development of infill parcels with quality projects in existing multi- family districts. Policy LU-182. RM-F designations should be in areas of the City where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. Policy LU-183. Land within the RM-F designation areas should be used to meet multi -family housing needs, without expanding the area boundaries, until land capacity in this designation is used, RM-F designations have the highest priority for development or redevelopment with multi -family uses. Policy LU-184. Expansion of the RM-F designation is limited to properties meeting the following criteria: 1) Properties under consideration should take access from a principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector. Direct access should not be through a less intense land use designation area. 2) Properties under consideration must abut an existing RM-F Land Use Designation on at least two (2) sides and be on the same side of the principal arterial, minor arterial, or collector serving it. 3) Any such expansion of the RM-F land use designation should not bisect or truncate another contiguous land use district. RESIDENTL ,L MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: The Residential Medium Density (RMD) designation is intended to create the opportunity for neighborhoods that offer a variety of lot sizes, housing, and ownership options. H:IEDNSP1Comp Plan\Atnendmcnts1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study AreaWighlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue paper.doc RMD neighborhoods should include a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single-family and multi -family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill development, encourage use of transit service, and promote the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Objective LU-GG: Designate land for RMD where access, topography, and adjacent land uses create conditions appropriate for a variety of unit types designed to incorporate features from both single- family and multi -family developments, and to support cost-efficient housing, infill development, transit service, and the efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Lands in the Residential Single Family (RS-F) Designation are intended to be used for quality residential detached development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. It is intended that larger subdivision, infill development, and rehabilitation of existing housing be carefully designed to enhance and improve the quality of single-family living environments. Policies in this section are to be considered together with the policies in the Regional Growth, Residential Growth Strategy section of the Land Use Element, the Community Design Element, and the Housing Element. Policies are implemented with R-8 zoning. Objective LU-FF: Encourage re -investment and rehabilitation of existing housing, and development of new residential plats resulting in quality neighborhoods that: 1) Are planned at urban densities and implement Growth Management targets. 2) Promote expansion and use of public transportation. 3) Make more efficient use of urban services and infrastructure. Policy LU-147. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per net acre in RS-F neighborhoods. Policy LU-148. A minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet should be allowed on in -fill parcels of less than one acre (43,560 sq. ft.) in RS-F designations. Allow a reduction in lot size to 4,500 square feet on parcels greater than one acre to create an incentive for aggregation of land. The minimum lot size is not intended to set the standard for density in the designation, but to provide flexibility in subdivision/plat design and facilitate development within the allowed density range. Policy LU-149. Lot size should exclude private sidewalks, easements, private road, and driveway easements, except alley easements. Policy LU-150. Required setbacks should exclude public or private legal access areas, established through or to a lot, and parking areas. Policy LU-151. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2) stories in single-family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-152. Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing, and sufficient area for maintenance activities. H:IEDNSPIComp PlanlAmendments1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study ArealHighlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue papandoc Policy LU-153. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Small projects composed of single parcels and/or multiple parcels of insufficient size to provide such connections, should include future street stubs. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. Policy LU-154. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project designs incorporating street locations, lot configurations, and building envelopes that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. H:IEDNSP\Comp P1anlAmendments1200612006 Map Amendments12006-M-06 Highlands Study Ama\Highlands Map Amendment 2006 Issue paper.doe AMENDMENT #2006-T-2: CITY OF RENTON DESCRIPTION: Text Amendments to update the Land Use Element to reflect changes in the Center Village (CV) Policies. ISSUE SUMMARY: 1. Amended Policy LU-318 to delete Residential 10, 10 dwelling units per acre (R- 10) as an implementing zone and add Residential 14, 14 dwelling units per acre (R-14) as an implementing zone in the CV and clarify that the Residential Medium Density (RMD) zone with suffixes can implement the CV zone. 2. Amend Strategy 319.2 to reference a sub -area plan rather than a redevelopment plan. 3. Amend Strategy 319.3 to delete a statement that areas east of Edmonds and north of Sunset currently zoned Residential Multi -Family (R E) are to remain in residential use and the area north of 12d' St. currently zoned R-10 is to remain in residential use. RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approval of the text amendments as drafted is recommended. Recommend that the City Council hold an additional public hearing on concurrent zoning map amendments from R-10 to R-14 within the CV Land Use designation, and the City proposed zoning text amendments to the R-14 zone. ANALYSIS: Issue 1 Deletion of the R-10 zone and the addition of the R-14 zone as an implementing zone in the CV Land Use Designation. This text amendment establishes the R-14 zone as an implementing zoning within the CV zoning designation. The R-14 zone is an existing adopted zone in the Renton Municipal code and it is presently only applied within the RMD Land Use Designation. The R-10 zone is currently applied both within the CV and the RMD Land Use Designations. The R-10 zone and the existing R-14 zone have different densities, development standards, and allowed uses. The issue before the Commission is whether the R-14 zone is an appropriate implementing zone for the CV, and whether the Commission can support the City Council holding an additional public hearing on the concurrent re -zoning of properties currently zoned R-10 as part of the overall 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal. As a result of public involvement about future land use and zoning in the Highlands Sub - Area, the City Council directed staff to revise the prior zoning proposal, the Center Village Residential (CVR) zone, proposed to implement the CV land use designation. The City has now formally withdrawn the prior zoning proposal. The City Council has determined that the current R-10 zone does not provide needed opportunities for property owners to redevelop their property consistent with the Center Village Land Use designation, and that it does not implement the CV. The adopted Comprehensive Plan calls for review and adoption of new zoning for the Center Village. The City Council has directed staff to prepare amendments to H:IEDNSP\Comp Plan\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendments12006-T-02 HighlandMighlands Text Amendment 2006 Issue Paper.doc allow the more flexible R-14 zone in the Highlands, rather than the new higher density zone that the Commission reviewed over the last several months. However, the R-14 zone is not currently an allowed implementing zone in the CV Land Use designation. For the Council to consider using the R-14 zone, the City must first amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow R- 14 to become an implementing zone. That is the action before the Planning Commission at the present time. The City Council has also directed city staff to draft amendments to the current R-14 zone to more efficiently implement the CV land use vision and urban forms. The revisions to the R- 14 zone text and the actual rezoning of property from R-10 to R-14 are not before the Commission at this public hearing tonight, and will be reviewed by the City Council in separate actions with an additional public hearing. If the R-14 zoning text amendments now under review were not adopted by the City Council, then the existing R-14 zoning would be applied in this area upon rezoning. The major difference between the two zones is summarized in the Table 1. Table I R-10 and R-14 Zoning Comparison R-10 zone Current R-14 zone Proposed Revisions to R- 14 zone discussed with the City Council. (Not yet available for review and subject to additional public hearing.) Density Minimum 4 du.ac Minimum 10 du/ac Minimum 7 du/ac Maximum 10 du/ac Maximum 14 du/ac Maximum 14 du.ac No bonus Bonus 18 du/ac for alley Bonus 18 du/ac bonus access, open space and requirement still under design features. review. Affordable housing will be added. Use Single -Family Single Family Detached Single Family Detached Detached Attached Units up to 3 Attached Units up to 3 Duplex attached, up to 4 units attached, up to 4 units with Multi -family up to 4 with bonus. bonus. dwelling units Flats or Apartments up to 6 Flats or Apartments up to 6 units in one building units in one building allowed, allowed, up to 8 with up to 8 with bonus. bonus. KMNSMomp P1anlAmendments1200612006 Text Amendmcnts12006-T-02 HighlandMighiands Text Amendment 2006 Issue Paper.doc Policy LU-324. Use alley access where alleys currently exist. Encourage designation of new alleys in redevelopment projects. Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, and parking and circulation components of new development projects. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-327. Encourage uses in CVs that serve a sub -regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within CVs than with land uses outside the Center. Policy LU-329. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-330. Residential development within CVs is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development, with structured parking. Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi -family development. Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses. The purpose of the R-10 zone demonstrates that the R-10 zone is a lower density and lower intensity residential zone that does not support the land use policies in the CV. Density is 4 to 10 dwelling units per acre, and the emphasis is on maintaining the single-family character of the neighborhood. Purpose Statement Residential-10 DU/ACRE (R-10) Zoning: The Residential-10 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-10) is established for medium -density residential development that will provide a mix of residential styles including detached dwellings or semi -attached dwellings on small lots, attached townhouses, and small-scale attached flats. Development promoted in the zone is intended to increase opportunities for detached and semi - attached single-family dwellings as a percent of the housing stock, as well as allow some small-scale attached housing choices and to create high -quality infill development that increases density while maintaining the single-family character of the existing neighborhood. Allowable base densities range from four (4) to ten (10) dwelling units per net acre. The zone serves as a transition to higher density multi -family zones. The purpose of the R-14 zone, in contrast,shows that this zoning provides the density and flexibility to implement the CV. Density and intensity are higher, a wider range of townhouse and multifamily development is allowed, but the structure size is regulated to achieve a quality neighborhood with a mix of detached, townhouse, and attached units. HAMNSI'Tomp Plan\Amendments1200612006 Text Amendmenls12006-T-02 Highlands"Shlands Text Amendment 2006 Issue Paper.dce Purpose Statement Residential-] 4 DU/ACRE (R-14) Zoning: The purpose of the Residential-14 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-14) is to encourage development of new 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. Densities range from eight (8) to fourteen (14) units per net acre with opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be combined with residential development when they support the purpose of the designation. Issue 2 Reference to Redevelopment Plan rather an Sub -Area Plan This amendment eliminates a reference to a Highlands redevelopment plan. The City Council has determined not to pursue a Highlands Redevelopment Plan at this time. The reference is changed to a "Sub -Area Plan" which is a planning policy document. Issue 3 Strategy 319.3 This amendment proposes to eliminate the restriction on non residential uses north of 12th St. and east of Edmonds. Both the R-14 Zone and the CV zone provide the opportunity for mixed use developments that could include non-residential uses. In addition, the existing Fire Station and library are non-residential uses and both are located north of 12'h Street. The proposed amendments meet the findings required for Comprehensive Plan amendments in Title IV Section 4-9-020 in that it supports the adopted vision of the Comprehensive Plan (Proposal 1), it supports the adopted Council Business Plan Goal #2 of promoting Neighborhood Revitalization (Proposal 1 and 3), and amends the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate new policy directives of the City Council (Proposals 1, 2, and 3). ZONING CONCURRENCY: Concurrent rezoning will be required in the portions of the Highlands study area with current R-10 zoning to provide. Additional analysis and public hearing notification will be required for that action. CONCLUSION: Approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendments is recommended to provide better implementation and consistency with the overall Comprehensive Plan Vision as adopted by the City Council. HAMNSMomp PIan\Amendments120060006 Text Amendments12006-T-02 HighlandsUghlands Text Amendment 2006 Issue Paper,doc PARTIES OF RECORD HIGHLANDS ZONING AND LAND USE LUA06-128, ECF, R, CPA Subhashni Kumar 2102 NE 23rd Street Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Marie Engeland 2914 NE 6th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-1392 (party of record) John Visser 19404 102nd Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055-6338 (party of record) George Rusk 1401 Edmonds Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-4849 (party of record) Elena Koleva 2901 NE 16th Street Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 226-7153 (party of record) Bill Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Patrick Powers 1523 Index Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 235-1106 (party of record) Howard Baldridge 1526 Jefferson Avenue NE Renton, WA 96056 tel: (425) 255-9555 (party of record) Updated: 10/12/06 (Page 1 of 1) CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 2nd day of October, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance document, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: ' C;"'r_a+aids ;i: �.,n'� ...,: i hf "ti rf 7 �. - S, I -AN m, .r �. Name: , = � 'j k ' k` 1 °'�. " - %q �z :',,,* IZe' reset�tiri at,' ,fir,41 f ,' Agencies See Attached Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of S STATE OF WASHINGTON } SS COUNTY OF KING } I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act fob purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: t a - k a- -- p Lp Notary (Print): My appointment expires: s 01 ARy gel, i Notary Public in and the Sated shiogton 's ACj a; \q- � v I Pwje tr�Nam Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package �,ProNumber LUA06-128, R, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology " WDFW - Stewart Reinbold " Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. " Environmental Review.Section Go Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 31901601" Ave SE 39015 —172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region " Duwamish Tribal Office ` Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program " Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers ` KC Wastewater Treatment Division ' Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation" Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST. MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olm la, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor " Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr, Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72"d Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note. If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. " Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template - affidavit of service by mailing HARRINGTON SQUARE ASSOCIATE HERITAGE GROVE ASSOC LTD BRICKSHIRE MANOR APTS C/O REIS GROUP C/O HERITAGE CORPORATION C/O JOHNSON SCOTT L 1020 108TH AVE NE #215 12011 NE 1ST ST #201 5164 150TH PL SE - BELLEVUE WA 98004 BELLEVUE WA 98005 BELLEVUE WA 98006 GREATER HILANDS LTD PTNRSHP ELDER EDITH C FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR C/O MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP C/O PORTMANN KAREN OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR PO BOX 53290 21322 96TH AVE S 300 SW 7TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98015 KENT WA 98031 RENTON WA 98055 DeMastus Sandel Hawton Brett& Jennifer McOmber Howard 1137 Harrington Ave NE 1308 Harrington Ave NE 475 Olympia Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 Petersen Inez STERLINGTON K W Kappenman Brett 3306 Lake Washington Blvd N #3 PATTON Gp0 BOX 2186 1004 SW 4th PI Renton, WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 Renton, WA 98057 RUFFALO SAM & HAZEL Gaunt -Smith Shirley KING COUNTY ntm THOMAS JAMES W & SHIRLEY Gau -S 6it Pi 500 KC ADMIN BLDG 15439 SE JONES RD Renton 98059 500 4TH AVE , RENTON WA 98058 SEATTLE WA 98104 BAUTISTA GERONIMO A FREEMAN JEFFREY R+ELEANOR H FIELD DAVID W BAUTISTA ENRIQUETA S C/O WEST -FREEMAN PROP FIELD KATRINA A 8911 INVERNESS CT NE 1810 15TH AVE SUITE C 25014 89TH AVE E SEATTLE WA 98115 SEATTLE WA 98122 GRAHAM WA 98338 RICHARDS EUGENE M+CATHERINE MCMILIAN SHERRY OBERMEIT RICHARD 1402 22ND NE #440 KELLY SANDRA 28707 13TH AVE S AUBURN WA 98002 37307 ENCHANTED PKWY S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 ANDERSON TROY M & DEBBIE 'A KIMBALL MARK D - SKYWIRE PROPERTIES LLC 227 BELLEVUE WAY NE PMB 154 10900 NE 4TH #2300 227 BELLEVUE WAY #PMB-154 BELLEVUE WA 98004 BELLEVUE WA 98004 BELLEVUE WA 98004 TAT ANNIE H UNSDERFER BRIAN+GLORIA RAMI DAO EMILIE 1027 108TH AVE SE 1100 106TH AVE NE #802 PO BOX 40462 BELLEVUE WA 98004 BELLEVUE WA 98004 BELLEVUE WA 98005 SUNSET PLAZA SHOPPING TR HARRIS-VUKOV SILVIA DENISE JAFFE STEVEN L+SANDRA L C/O R J HALLISEY CO INC 5641 PLEASURE POINT LN SE 4575 SOMERSET PL SE 12835 BEL-RED RD SUITE 140 BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98005 JOHNSON SCOTT+BARBARA REBHUHN NIKOLAUS K VUKOV S J 5164 150TH PL SE 15070 SE 44TH ST 5641 PLEASURE PT BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98006 WILBER GEORGE F & MARY L RAVENSCRAFT JAY O+JILL M SMITH JEANETTE 12123 SE 46TH PL 16812 NE 11TH PL 15714 SE 25TH ST BELLEVUE WA 98006 BELLEVUE WA 98008 BELLEVUE wa 98008 PUGET SOUND ENERGY/ELEC '• YOUNG VALERIE S K 7TH DAY ADVENTISTRENTON 03445-064 611 NW 3RD ST PO BOX 1237 20015 BOTHELL WAY SE BELLEVUE WA 98009 BELLEVUE WA 98009 BOTHELL WA 98012 GRETER HIGHLANDS LTD PRTSHP TISHA LLC SPENCER CONSTRUCTION INC C/O MORRIS PIHA MGMT GROUP 20705 35TH DR SE 29455 10TH AVE SW P 0 BOX 53290 BOTHELL WA 98021 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023 BELLEVUE WA 98015 FAWCETT GREG+SABRA AGNEW TERENCE J+SANDRA H CW HOLDINGS LLC P 0 BOX 402 1551 HILLSIDE DR SE PO BOX 1433 FALL CITY WA 98024 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 GRAY MICHAEL D+MEGAN K MILLER RICKIE J+DEBRA K MOORE KIRK+LINDA 4360 190TH AVE SE 16637 ISSAQUAH HOBART RD SE 1901 HARRINGTON CIR NE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 RENTON WA 98027 POON WUNCHOW FRANK ROSE GARDEN APARTMENTS LLC ZULAS DIANE J 5360 COL DE VARS PL NW 15445 256TH AVE SE 4238 189TH AVE SE ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 ISSAQUAH WA 98027 CAPPERAULD VICTORIA L GUR TOWN HOME LLC MALESIS ENTERPRISES 28046 121ST AVE SE 24323 119TH AVE SE 12865 SE 223RD PL KENT WA 98030 KENT WA 98030 KENT WA 98031 THUERINGER DARVIN G GREENLUND JAMES R FLOTH KEVIN 9601 S 248TH ST PO BOX 4261 24700 214TH AVE SE KENT WA 98031 KENT WA 98032 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 HARRIS JOAN JOHNSON BRADLEY H+ JOHNSON OSTER KAREN G PO 80X 1023 JAMES V 26306 SE 192 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 PO BOX 157 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE INC CROTHAMEL FREDERICK W FLETCHER JONATHAN M 21333 SE 277TH PL 3R+CROTHAMEL CHERIE A 2500 81ST AVE SE # 104 MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038 2951 74TH AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 FLETCHER KATE FLETCHER KATIE G LAI DAVID W+LAI CHRISTINA Y 4263 E MERCER WAY 4711 84TH AVE SE 8933 SE 54TH ST MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 PACECCA ROCCO PACECCA VINCENZO A TRI C & L LTD PTSHP 3870 80TH AVE SE 3870 80TH AVE SE 5444 E MERCER WAY MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 YANG STEVEN C+SOPHIA ZAG LLC 30NES 3EANNE BOYCE 6660 E MERCER WAY 9010 SE 40TH ST 24124 135TH AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 KENT WA 98042 MCLAUGHLIN PROPERTIES LLC THORESEN ALAN W CARTER DEAN E 13620 SE 251ST ST 17805 SE 259TH ST 42918 SE CEDAR FALLS WAY KENT WA 98042 COVINGTON WA 98042 NORTH BEND WA 98045 LAMBERT KATHRYN L+DARYL M LONEY BRUCE & 3AYNE MLP BESAW FAMILY LP 11215 161ST CT NE 16920 NE 100TH ST 15907 NE 65TH ST REDMOND WA 98052 REDMOND WA 98052 REDMOND WA 98052 MOORE DUNCAN DAVID PUREWAL BALBIR S FERRELLI DANIEL 3+HELEN 3 2306 184TH AVE NE 10905 167TH AVE NE 10115 214TH AVE NE REDMOND WA 98052 REDMOND WA 98052 REDMOND WA 98053 A & D QUALITY CONSTRUCTION ABRAHAMSON NORMAN R ALLEN GOLMA 220 SW SUNSET BLVD #E-202 3408 NE 17TH ST 3406 NE 11TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 ARNSON DANNY 0 BALES 3 L BURGESS MYRTLE V 3324 NE 11TH ST 2721 NE 5TH PL 1011 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 BURROWS DAVID W+SUSAN T CALHOUN FRED E CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH 1620 ROLLING HILLS AVE S 3323 NE 11TH PL 1032 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 DANKE WINFRIED A J+KIMBERLY ESKENAZI MORREY FRANK JOSEPH P 2616 NE 19TH ST 951 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 802 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 HARRIS ROBERT R HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY CHURCH HOKARI TIMOTHY J 1425 EDMONDS AVE NE ATiN R W RALSTON 2732 NE 24TH ST RENTON WA 98055 3031 NE 10TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 JOHNSON MARK D+PAULA Y KAASTAD LARRIE D KOHLRUS FRANK F 3300 NE 11TH ST 1115 PIERCE AVE NE 3301 NE 11TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 KRISHNAN PALGHAT V LE PETER K MCELIECE RAYMOND K 1048 LYNNWOOD AVE NE PHAM MARTHA T 2701 NE 20TH RENTON WA 98055 712 GRANT AVE S RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 MOLINA MARCO ANTONIO+URIAS NAIDU KUSHAL NASSET JEFFREY J MARIA 3135 NE 19TH PL 2719 NE 7TH 603 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 NELSON GARY G+ALISA A NOVINSKI C R OKINO WAYNE M& JOYCE L 3516 NE 14TH ST 2019 HARRINGTON PL NE 2814 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 PASCALE GLORIA V PETERSON DWIGHT PETERSON LAVERN 2032 HARRINGTON PL NE 3009 NE 9TH 607 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 t PIEDAD PEDRO B+FLORIDA D PILLON HELEN B POWERS PATRICK H 2311 SE 21ST ST 1054 KIRKLAND AVE NE 1523 INDEX AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 PRICE PROPERTY LLC REARDON STEPHEN K REED LYLE GLENN 1201 MONSTER RD SW #320 1028 KIRKLAND AVE NE 3401 NE 11TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RIBBLE DOUGLAS J RICHTER WENDELIN SANDAHL HARVEY L 2825 NE 21ST ST 2608 N E 18TH ST 836 JEFFERSON AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SCHREVEN WILLIAM+MARY SIENKIEWICZ WLADYSLAW STAHLECKER ALICE MAE 1324 MONROE AVE NE 1401 KIRKLAND AVE NE 1419 INDEX AVE N E RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 THOME PAULA THOMPSON WARREN I & REBECCA THUERINGER DARVIN G 3400 NE 11TH ST 577 HARRINGTON NE 405 WILLIAMS AVE N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 VEITCH DONALD VISSER ]AN H WIDELL JOHN RICHARD 836 INDEX CT NE 19404 102ND AVE SE 2733 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 WILSON L D WRIGHT PERRY W ZUHKLE MR & MRS 1301 PIERCE PL NE 2625 NE 19TH ST .1215 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 SHANE MICHAEL C+DELLA M AARON JOSEPH T ADAMS LESLIE E & IRIS A 513 CEDAR AVE S 3507 NE SUNSET BLVD 1209 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98055 3046 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 AHMED MYRTICE M ALANO STEFAN E ALDEN TODD ALLEN 632 INDEX AN NE 2724 NE 6TH PL 1308 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ALDER REBECCA ALLEN DEBORAH L ALTMYER BRETT N 3112 NE 14TH ST 2905 NE 5TH PL 2819 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ANDERSON ROBERT PESTER A ANDERSON ROSE MARIE ARREOLA MARTHA 3312 NE 11TH PL 807 INDEX CT NE 3325 NE 17TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BAACK CHARIS L BABCOCK JEANETTE 0 BAILEY LOLA M+BAILEY LOLA M PO BOX 2798 1210 PIERCE PL NE 2911 NE 116TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BALACY CINDY T BALDRIDGE HOWARD L BARTH DUANNE F 1633 MONROE AVE NE 1526 JEFFERSON AVE NE 3533 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BARTLEY EDGAR D BATES RANDALL S+MIGDALIA C BEACH RONALD .3501 NE 11TH AVE PL 2625 NE 22ND 1333 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BECHTOLD EDWARD ]+BABETTE Z 2408 NE 9TH PL RENTON WA 98056 BENBOE CLINTON J+BARRETT,CH 1041 LYNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BETANCOURT HECTOR+MARIA DEL 1034 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BRAND MITCHELL ALAN 1029 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BROWN MARGUERITE 1309 MONROE NE RENTON WA 98056 BURGESS RONALD G & DORIS A 2908 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 CALHOUNJERRY 2008 & 2004 HARRINGTON CIR RENTON WA 98056 CARY KARAN E 2009 HARRINGTON CIRC NE RENTON WA 98056 BECKLEY E L 3517 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98056 BENITEZ RUBEN ORTEGA+SOCORRO B MONTES 1309 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 BLACK KARYL J 513 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BRANDALICK REBECCA 3 915 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BRUNETTE EVELYN M +LEONARD ET AL 1717 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BUSTAMANTE JOSE M+SHANNON E 1601 NEWPORT AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 CALLAHAN P 3708 NE LOTH ST RENTON WA 98056 CASTILLO SERGIO COVARRUBIAS 1170 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 BECKLEY PHILLIP+HEIDI 806 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 BERGMAN CLAUDETTE C 2208 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BOWSER SYLVIA 3414 NE 11TH PL RENTON WA 98056 BRISCO MELVIN L+SLIGH DIONNE 3305 NE 11TH ST RENTON WA 98056 BUENBRAZO RODERICK 1907 KIRKLAND PL NE RENTON WA 98056 CALDWELL MICHELLE H+JOEL K 634 GLENNWOOD CT NE RENTON WA 98056 CAMARENA JOSE MEZA+MARIA DE LA TORRE 3317NE12THST RENTON WA 98056 CASTRO JOSE M 2017 HARRINGTON CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 CHANEY GREGORY A+MADELINE W CHEUNG KARSON+SANDY B VUONG CHHUM DAYNA P 832 INDEX CT NE 1159 GLENNWOOD AVE NE 3132 NE 19TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CHRISTENSEN RONNY CHRISTIE KATHY L CICCANTI ANTHONY D+ELIZABET 625 INDEX AVE 1325 PIERCE PL NE 2012 KIRKLAND PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 COLE LETTY E COLLODI FLORIO+PATRICIA A CONDIT GRAHAM A 1073 HARRINGTON AVE NE 3709 JONES AVE NE 3137 NE 20TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CONRAD KEVIN COOK -VAN VELZEN DOROTHY CORCORAN HEIDI+DAMES+KAREN 1427 INDEX AVE NE PO BOX 2545 3509 MONTERERY CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NEW CASTLE WA 98056 CORMAN CATHERINE L CRANE LORI M CREPEAU DONALD K 2216 HARRINGTON PL NE 3134 NE 19TH PL 2733 NE 24TH RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CROTHAMEL FREDICK CRUZ GONZALO CUIZON SUZETTE 1408 INDEX AVE N #1410 1207 DAYTON AVE NE 2200 HARRINGTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 CURLEY PAMELA ANNE CURRY SEAN E+CARMELA V SNID DALPAY PROPERTIES L L C 1225 KIRKLAND AVE NE 2306 NE 13TH PL PO BOX 2436 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DALRYMPLE LENNICE A DANIELSON LESTER I DEHART ROBERT D & JOANNE M 1209 JEFFERSON AVE NE 2204 NE 24TH ST 3011 NE 9TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DELANO-ANTOINE JULIE DEOSKEY ANITA DESHAW ERIC 920 KIRKLAND AVE NE PO BOX 2962 955 EDMONDS AVE NE #201 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DICKINSON HERBERT M DINH GAM+TUNG+PHAM HONG DO CHUONG A 950 EDMONDS AVE NE 516 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1945 KIRKLAND PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DO LAN K DONG ANNE77E K DOUANGPHACHANH KHEMPHONE 1925 KIRKLAND PL NE 3325 NE 17TH PL 1913 KIRKLAND PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DRON ANDREY+DRON FEDORA DU NGOC K DUNCAN KELLY J 840 INDEX CT NE 3136 NE 20TH PL 1919 KIRKLAND PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 DUNTON DALE C & BARBARA ELIZABETH PLACE HOMEOWNERS ENGELAND MARIE 1 3104 NE LOTH ST ASSN 2914 NE 6TH ST RENTON WA 98056 2412 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 EVANS HAYES JR EVANS RALPH M FABROA OSCAR B+ELISA O 2805 NE STH ST 3306 NE 11TH PL 1070 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FABROA OSCAR+ELISA FAULKNER RODNEY + KELLY FAULTNER PAUL+JENNIFER 1060 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 2915 NE 6TH ST 1208 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FENG WEI FIELDS TOMMY M+BRENNA M FIFE TRACY J+COYLE KIMBERLY 1401 MONROE AVE NE 2611 NE SUNSET BLVD 1017 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FINCH SCOTT + SAVITHA FLEMING THOMAS+SUSAN FOMIN ANDREW C+MARCY J 6457 LK WA BLVD SE 801 INDEX CT NE 1111 PIERCE AVE NE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FRANZ JULIA BISBEE FREED ALFRED B+ SONG Y FRIENDLY FUELS INC 1721 HARRINGTON AVE NE 2511 NE 9TH PL 1190 SUNSET BLVD NE STE F RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 FRY WILLIAM L+BEVERLY S HEN GABRIEL MICAHEL RAPHAEL GAMUNDI GUILLERMO 3306 NE 11TH ST 3324 NE 11TH PL 939 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GARDNER MICHAEL GATCHALIAN DELFIN E+DAISY W GAVIN DANIEL G 1619 NEWPORT AVE NE 2403 NE 11TH CT 2601 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GEBREMDHIN SOLOMAN GELASHVILI TSIURI+GEORGE GELINAS DANIEL R+JENNIFER M 3317 11TH PL NE 1518 JEFFERSON AVE NE 2821 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GEPNER ERIC P GIBBONS NONA M GILLETTE KIMBERLEY D 645 GLENWOOD CT NE PO BOX 2767 1324 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GIRIAS MICHAEL J+DORIS H GLEASON DENNIS M GOH KIM E 1112 OLYMPIA AVE NE 842 JEFFERSON NE 2524 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GOLOVKO ALEKSANDR GOMEZ LUCIO+GRACIELATAMAYO GORMLEY OWEN C 1627 MONROE AVE 919 EDMONDS AVE NE 2820 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GOZZIP PAUL SR + ANELITA GRAVES JEFFREY S+STACY H GREEN PATRICIA A 1154 EDMONDS PL NE 2004 GREENWOOD AVE NE 1218 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GREISING GERI N+PAUL L GROVER RAYMOND L+GROVER GUARINO ANTHONY+MICHELLE 2010 KIRKLAND PL NE DOROTHY E 1429 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 3308 NE 17TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GUILLEN HENRY GUSTMAN WALLY H GUTIERREZ ELISEO+TINA M PO BOX 3284 1719 INDEX AVE NE 3130 NE 20TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 GWILYM THOMAS E HAC ENTERPRISE LLC HACKMAN MYRON L+CAROL ANN 933 EDMONDS AVE NE 11100 EDMONDS AVE NE 1333 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HALL LEROY J HANSARD JOSEPH D HANSEN FRASER R 3332 NE 17TH 3142 NE 20TH PL 3412 NE 11TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HARDY ROBERT E+MARY A HARRIS JOHN F & LINDA L HAYWOOD ERIC & JIE 1065 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 1115 N 35TH ST 4008 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N #3 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 . HEDRICK RICHARD C JR HERNANDEZ MIGUEL A+CRUZ HERNDON KMIBERLY 2009 HARRINGTON AVE NE HERNANDEZ MELQUTADEZ 1616 NEWPORT AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 1159 PIERCE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HICKS BARBARA+HICKS NOAH HIGASHI ALAN K HILL JON RUSSELL+ROCHELLE S .671 HARRINGTON AVE NE 930 EDMONDS AVE NE 924 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HINKLE GEORGE C HIRAMATSU RICHARD K+VIRGINI HOBBS SHANNEN M 2802 NE 23RD PL 2805 NE 23RD PL 2326 NE LOTH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HODGE MARGARET L HOFF LINTON HOGLANDER SONIA M 1074 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 551 INDEX AVE NE 1639 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 HONG LAM HOTTELL PAUL R+YOEUM IM HOUSING AUTHORITY 3500 NE 11TH PL 3141 NE 19TH PL CITY OF RENTON RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 P 0 BOX 2316 RENTON WA 98056 HUMPHRIES SCOTT W HUNT GEORGE R IMPETT VICTORIA ANN 634 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1911 HARRINGTON CIRC NE 2809 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 INA R SPARKS FAMILY LLC IWEH EMMANUEL E JACOBS SCOTT E+MARY LEE 1633 HARRINGTON AVE NE 3511 NE IITH PL WHITEHURST- RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 1161 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 JARAMILLO LARRY ET AL JENKINS ALEXANDER JENSEN IRIS A 845 JEFFERSON AVE NE 2300 NE 12TH ST 508 HARRINGTON AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 JOHNSON CHRISTOPHER D JOHNSON DONALD L &TRISTIE L JOHNSON GLENDA L 2412 NE 13TH St 951 FERNDALE CIR 1216 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 JOHNSON KAY F REVOCABLE LIV JONES JOHN JONES STEVEN I+JANINE J 912 KIRKLAND AVE NE 2914 NE 8TH PL 1216 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 JONES TROY+JANA KAIRES KATHLEEN S+INGELSBY KARINEN KENNETH 547 INDEX PL NE 3311 NE 11TH PL 2705 NE 6TH PL SEATTLE WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KEARNEY DOUGLAS A KEESECKER WILLIAM T KELLEY JEANETTE B 2712 NE 5TH PL 2124 HARRINGTON PL NE 512 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KESSACK JAMES A JR KHALSA JAGJIT SINGH KHIMMIXAY SYLVIA 1308 DAYTON AVE NE & TARVINDO 1815 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2817 NE 16TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KIM SUNNY A+HUANG ZUTAO KINDLE VERLA L KIRKLIN EUGENE M+JACKI L 851 JEFFERSON AVE NE 3419 NE 12TH ST 2826 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KNIGHT LENA B LIVING TRUST KOLEVA ELENA KRANMICZ HELENA T 1022 KIRKLAND AVE NE 2901 NE 16TH ST 3318 NE 11TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 KUPFERER KANON L LACY JAMES H JR LALANGAN IRENEO V+SUSAN M 2016 HARRINGTON PL NE 3508 NE 11TH PL 1150 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LAM DAN MARN HONG LAM TRANG LAMBERT CRAIG J 2807 NE 21ST ST 3133 NE 19TH PL 821 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LDK CONSTRUCTION INC LEE KEVIN K+ANDREA C LEE TAE S+KIM HAE JIN PO BOX 2764 2746 NE 24TH ST 2406 NE 11TH CT RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LELAND PAUL LEMAY JEANINE L LESTER ETHEL E 1205 N 27TH PL 1160 OLYMPIA AVE NE 2022 HARRINGTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LEWIS BONNIE J LEWIS DESI D LEWISON CHRISTIAN L+ANNA J 1520 HARRINGTON AVE N E 2408 NE 13TH ST 1222 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LIEVERO LAURA A LIU JUN LIV LY 1203 N 38TH ST 1634 MONROE AVE NE 2813 NE 21ST ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LONEY BRUCE A+JAYNE R LONG MELANIE J+CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ CHAD M 1520 INDEX AVE NE 839 JEFFERSON AVE NE 1300 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LOTTO MYRTLE LOWRY MICHAEL E+MARY H LUKOWSKI DAVID G+JACKIE L 1023 LYNNWOOD NE 3326 PARK N 1164 CAMAS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LUTES JOHN LY NGHIEP P LY VINH PHI 3318 NE 11TH PL 916 EDMONDS AVE NE 1066 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 LY VY LONG+NGA THI NGUYEN MA KENNETH M MARSHALEK JOSHUA 857 JEFFERSON AVE NE 1400 MONROE AVE NE 569 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MARTINEZ GILBERTO+ANDRES MASCHO MARVIN M+DIANA L MATHIESON FLORENCE B 920 FERNDALE CIR NE 1053 LYNNWOOD AVE NE PO BOX 2025 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MAXWELL KATHERINE L MAYFIELD NIVEA PRIETO MAYI DIEUDONNE+BIBIANE 2709 NE 6TH PL MAYFIELD STEPHEN RUSSELL JR 2432 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 2428 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MCCONAGHY SHAWN R MCCREADY KRAIG A+SHELLEY R MCGARY GREG+SHANNA GARNETT 929 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 626 INDEX AVE NE 3332 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MCINTOSH MICHAEL D MCLEAN JOSEPH S MCMURDIE JOSHUA D+JESSICA E 2419 NE 14TH ST 2310 NE 13TH PL 1616 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MCPHERSON DOROTHEY R MCRAE JAMES H+CHRISTINA K MEDRANO BALTAZAR 1140 GLENWOOD AVE NE 509 INDEX AVE NE 947 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MERSAI TEIZI METZ MICHAEL D+BRENDA R METZ RAY A & VIRGIE L 2404 NE LOTH PL 1312 DAYTON AVE NE 2808 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MILLER DANIEL L+JULIA KLEPI MIMS KATHLEEN MITCHELL MARK+SANDRA J 3140 NE 19TH PL PO BOX 3072 2817 NE 23RD PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MIYAHARA KEITH T MONAGHAN TIMOTHY J+LENNA A MONTAGUE ROBERT G+CHERYL S 3408 NE 11TH PL 2701 NE 22ND ST 820 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MOORE PATRICIA D MOSQUEDA RICARDO D MULHALL ROBERT J JR 1901 NE KIRKLAND PL 1162 EDMONDS PL NE 833 JEFFERSON NE KIRKLAND WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 MURPH FRANCES M MURRAY MITCHELL D NASS IVAN L+BEATRICE 1053 SHELTON AVE NE 2813 NE 23RD PL 960 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NELSON ROALD E NESSELRODT RALPH C SR NEVIDOMY SOTIA & VLADIMIR 839 KIRKLAND AVE NE PO BOX 3059 1628 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NGO LE GIA+VU ANH XUAN THI NGUYEN DAVE S NGUYEN HUYEN THU T+TRINH 640 INDEX AVE NE 1422 JEFFERSON AVE NE 1924 HARRINGTON CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN KHANH Q & HANH H VO NGUYEN LIEN H NGUYEN LUYEN V 1082 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 2018 HARRINGTON PL SE 923 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NGUYEN MAI T NGUYEN MINH CHAU PHUC+DANG NICHOLSON SAROLE 1615 MONROE AVE NE 2609 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 667 INDEX PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NICULESCU OFELIA NIEVAARD TRAVIS DANIEL+CRUZ NOLAND ROBERT L & LEROY M 1923 HARRINGTON CIR NE MARIA LESLEE B 1016 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 2716 NE 5TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NOMURA DENNIS M NONG VICTOR V NORIEGA JOSE ANTONIO 2725 NE 24TH ST 929 EDMONDS AVE NE 1544 INDEX AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 NOY LOI+BUNMA DUON NOYOLA DIGNA A OBRIEN DONALD E+MARYLYNN E 3324 NE SUNSET BLVD 2912 NE 5TH PL 3327 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 OLIVER ]AN L OLSEN REBECCA A OSBORN FAMILY REVOCABLE LIVING 2420 NE 9TH PL 1304 DAYTON AVE NE TRUST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 3501 NE 12TH STRENTON WA 98056 OSSENKOP DENNIS G PARKER NICHOLAS R PARRA FILBERTO ESPARZA 3316 N E 12TH ST 1209 DAYTON PL NE 2709 NE 22ND ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PATRICK VICKI K PATTEN JOHN CALVIN R PATULOT SILVINO P 1813 HARRINGTON AVE NE 2640 NE 20TH ST 2436 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PAULUS GERALD J & EUNICE B PEACOCK RUBY L PEARSON GERALDINE G 1617 JONES AVE NE 3504 NE 11TH PL 2006 GLENWOOD NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PENA BERNARDO P PENALOZA WILLIAM PEREZ JOSE+FABIOLA HERNANDEZ 837 INDEX CT NE 2823 NE 8TH ST 2415 NE 11TH CT RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PERFECT BRANDI D+MICHAEL J PERRINE LINDA C PERSSON TERRY G+BILLIE C 2913 NE 5TH PL 1155 GLENWOOD AVE NE 2821 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PETERSON JOHN S PETERSON VERLA J PETROV ANATOLY 1007 N 36TH 3305 NE 11TH PL 1069 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PHAM CHUNG PHUOC PHILIO TIM E+HEIDI C PHIPPS PATRICIA J 1931 KIRKLAND PL NE 3324 17TH ST 1213 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 POLLEY L R POTTER DAVID EPAULETTE L POWERS DORIS JEAN 1058 KIRKLAND AVE N E 2104 DAYTON AVE NE 2806 NE 7TH RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 POZA EDGAR B+ELBA DE PRAY SHIRLEY PRIDDLE MATTHEW+JENNIFER 841 INDEX CT NE 908 KIRKLAND NE 1204 DAYTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 PURGANAN ISMAEL G+ADORACION 1837 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RASMUSSEN PATRICIA A+EDWIN FRANKLIN 1300 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 REYNOLDS RAY H 925 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RICHE JOAN Y 2920 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 ROOSE LILIANE M 2533 NE 19TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RUSH RACHEL D 651 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SADO MASAMI 1143 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SALAVEA MALU+BERNADETTE PO BOX 2694 RENTON WA 98056 QUINTOR RAFAEL SANCHEZ+DOSE 2020 HARRINGTON PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RAY DELORES L 2606 NE 9TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RHODEN FERN M 1155 PIERCE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ROBERTSON LAURIE C 646 GLENNWOOD CT NE RENTON WA 98056 ROOTVIK DARRYL E 2524 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RUSK GEORGE H+AUDRA M 1401 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SAETEUN CHEO 926 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SALAZAR JORGE A GUERRERO+CA 1409 KIRKLAND AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 QUIROZ PEDRO G+MARI DENIZ 3317 NE 17TH ST RENTON WA 98056 REED KEVIN+REBECCA 1170 EDMONDS PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RICE CLAY A 2316 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 ROOMES DAVID M 964 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 ROSS SIMON & YULIYA 904 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RUSSO PAUL A+CATHERINE I 1217 JEFFERSON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 SAID MOHAMMED+MEKOYET,BERIT 2822 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SAN NARA 3131 NE 20TH PL RENTON WA 98056 SARGENT JOHN+DINSMORE SASIN BOGDAN SATHER BARBARA MARTHAJEAN MARTI 1061 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 3112 NE 10TH ST 845 INDEX CT NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SAUER PETER H+GEORGIA L SAVORGINO ROGER E SCAPPINI RICHARD I & TERRE 2624 NE 20TH ST 2739 NE 24TH ST 2400 NE 12TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SCHLEGELMILCH DANIEL+SUMEI SCHULZ ROY S+LUCINDA ] SCHWARTZ FRANCIS M 3143 NE 20TH PL 2617 NE 19TH ST 1066 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SEBESEBIE ALMAZ SECREST ROBERT G+VIRGINIA SEELEY FRANK S+SEELEY DOROTHY 2525 NE 18TH ST 3106 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N W RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 935 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 SHARPSTEEN W C SINAMBAN RICARDO+ LEON ETTE SINCLAIR PATRICE S+MARK A 1075 LYNNWOOD AVE NE 2430 NE 12TH ST 1216 DAYTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SINDAYEN ESTER SMITH DAVID L SMITH DONALD E+SMITH ANDREW T 1212 DAYTON AVE NE 675 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1718 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SMITH JAMES F SMITH KEEWANDA LEE SMITH PEGGY M 2713 NE 6TH PL 640 GLENNWOOD CT NE 2609 NE 20TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SMITH RICHARD ]+CHERI MAGER SORENSON RODNEY H $T SOTO LEONEL 1007 EDMONDS AVE NE 2800 NE 12TH 1078 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SPANN NORMAN + MARLENE SPERRY DAVID ST MATTHEW LUTHERAN CHURCH 2717 NE 22ND ST 2415 NE 14TH ST 1700 EDMONDS AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ST PETER MARK P STACHOWIAK JENNIFER A STANLEY D BRUCE+NANCY ANN 1135 HARRINGTON AVE NE 2641 NE 20TH ST 2711 NE 7TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 STAPLETON TIMOTHY MICHAEL STATKUS ROBERT S STEVENSON MARLENE A 824 INDEX CT NE 1408 DAYTON CT NE 2902 NE 8TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 STEWART DANIEL R STILES JOHN C+MARGARET E SUBLETT RESIDENCE 576 HARRINGTON AVE NE 1158 EDMONDS PL NE 1110 OLYMPIA AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SULKY PAULETTA J SUNSET PROPERTY LLC SVIDENKO VLADIMIR+ELVIRA 2815 NE 8TH ST 3241 SUNSET BLVD 955 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SWENNING JAMES H SWENSEN SHAWN SYRBU VYACHESLAV+NATALYA PO BOX 2404 909 FERNDALE CIR NE 1917 JONES AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 SZULKOWSKI KINGA B TACLAY LOUS G & ANACORETA C TAJON ENCARNACION+RUTH 11729 SE 93RD ST 2624 NE 19TH ST 2033 HARRINGTON PL NE NEWCASTLE WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TANG EDWARD H+YVES TAYLOR RUTH M TAYLOR-BRASSEL DWIGHT 2412 NE 11TH CT 2740 NE 24TH 573 HARRINGTON AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TE UY K THOMAS CHADD P THUERINGER DARVIN G 3301 NE 11TH PL 2305 NE 13TH PL 3100 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TIETZ CARL G TILLMAN ROBERT E TIMMONS DARRELL K PO BOX 3209 905 FERNDALE CIR NE 912 FERNDALE CIR NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TOKARSYCK JAMES E TOOMS JULIE A+DENNIS K TORRES JAVIER 1203 PIERCE PL NE 2103 HARRINGTON PL NE 2712 NE 6TH PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TOU BRIAN L TOWLE TERI J TRAN TOAN THANH 1414 DAYTON COURT NE 2625 NE 18TH ST 2435 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 TRELOGGEN LAURIE L. TSUMURA KEITH TURNER MATTHEW A+SOKHUNTEA 2424 NE 13TH ST 2311 NE 13TH PL 1166 EDMONDS PL RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 El UNDSDERFER DAVID S VANBUREN AARON E+ERIC M+CAM VERMA RAJAH+KAMNA RALHAN PO BOX 3463 1204 PIERCE PL NE 1603 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 VILLEDA JAMIE C+DAISY VIR HARI K+KIRAN B VU VAN 2402 NE LOTH ST 3232 NE 12TH ST 1209 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 VUONG BINH KHUONG TATHA WALSH JULEI L WEAVER JOHN & CHERIE 2755 SE 4TH ST 2624 NE 18TH ST 1035 LYNNWOOD AVE NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WEG LLC WEISS SCOTT A+ADRIENNE D WEITZEL VERNON A PO BOX 2701 1144 HARRINGTON AVE NE 2724 NE 24TH RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WELLING S LUKE WIEBER ELLA+ERIC WIK BYLUND & PHYLLIS 1223 DAYTON PL NE 608 INDEX AVE 2616 NE 18TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WOLF JOSEPH S WONG ANGELA W WONG YIN HA 2617 NE 20TH ST 2306 NE 12TH ST 2416 NE 13TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 WOODS LINDA ANN WRIGHT CHERIE YADAV & GILL LLC 1211 DAYTON AVE NE 1081 LYNNWOOD AVE N 2800 NE SUNSET BLVD RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 YOUNG JASON S YOUNG WESLEY YU YAN Z 1106 OLYMPIA AVE NE 2125 HARRINGTON PL NE 639 INDEX PL NE RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 ZABLE GALE E ZARABIA ARMANDO B+CARMEN ZENDER JOERG 1701 MONROE AVE NE 2400 NE 10TH PL 2411 NE 14TH ST RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98056 BRIAN WOOD CORPORATION RICHARDS MICHAEL W RYAN PROPERTIES P 0 BOX 503 PO BOX 179 PO BOX 336 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 SCOTT BRECK+CHRISTINE E GRA WONG CONNIE+YIM HUNG BAUER OTTO E JR P 0 BOX 336 P 0 BOX 214 17211 190TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98057 RENTON WA 98058 BOYD JR DONOVAN E+ROXANNE D DELGADO MARTIN+VERDUZZO HER EDWARDS PAUL M 2901 NE 8TH PL 1418 INDEX AVE NE #B 1215 PIERCE PL NE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 FINKBEINER DANIEL E+KELLY A INTHASONE BOUNTHIENG+VANDY KORBEL JERZY M 18509 W LAKE DESIRE DR 513 INDEX AVE NE PO BOX 59381 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 LEIGHTON RONALD I+CALLY A MATHEWS STEVEN L+DEBORAH G PENALOZA WILLIAM 14112 SE 167TH ST PO BOX 58771 16213 142ND AVE SE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 PETERSON CHARLES A+DIANE C THAN VANANH+DUC VAN TRUONG TRUNG HOANG 16954 151ST AVE SE 15509 SE 179TH ST 1609 MONROE AVE NE RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 RENTON WA 98058 VANORNAM RICHARD R 1995 MANN LTD FAMILY PNRSHI ARCARIUS HOMES LLC 16503 145TH AVE SE C/O D MANN 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY #257 RENTON WA 98058 17437 SE 102ND ST NEWCASTLE WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 BARKER SHARON A BUNDY SITYLO R+SARGENT KIMBE CHAKRA 1 LLC 15718 SE 143RD ST 4735 NE 4TH ST 6947 COAL CREEK PKWY SE #228 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 NEWCASTLE WA 98059 MAGNUSON JAMES C MCCLINCY TIMOTHY W NELSON LEE ANN B 523 UNION AVE NE 4604 NE 4TH 2O138 SE 152ND ST RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 PADERES ALBERT+JILL SMITH JEFFREY S+SUSAN S SMITH JOHN+SHARON L 5428 NE 2ND CT 16611 SE MAY VALLEY RD 12216 164TH AVE SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 SMITH SUSAN LOUISE+FISCHER TRAN TIMOTHY WALKER W L PETER ALLAN 16217 205TH PL SE 1517 UNION AVE NE 14321 148TH PL SE RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 WALKER WILLIAM L & JOYCE M WATERHOUSE HELEN ZIMMERMAN MARK E 1517 UNION AVE NE 1317 PIERCE PL NE 4600 NE 12TH ST #4 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 RENTON WA 98059 GAROT EUGENE O+JOAN L TRUST BARKER JOHN V+KERRY A BLANCO GODOFREDO & AVELINA PO BOX 5001 120 214TH PL SE 3733 221ST PL SE KENT WA 98064 SAMMAMISH WA 98074 SAMMAMISH WA 98075 LINDQUIST VERN+JEANNIE SEWELL BERT CHEN CECIL Y+SUE J 1241 E LAKE SAMMAMISH SHORE LN 22539 SE 47TH PL 13417 SE 330TH PL SAMMAMISH WA 98075 SAMMAMISH WA 98075 AUBURN WA 98092 LAMMERT ANITA C+RADLEY ROSS MIS L L C OYLER ROSE 3316 FUHRMAN AVE #250 2633 EASTLAKE AVE E #307 4005 CORLISS AVE N SEATTLE WA 98102 SEATTLE WA 98102 SEATTLE WA 98103 EVERGREEN PLACE HUNDELT KEVIN G+TERESA L LOPEZ RUBEN F C/O DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 223 NW 50TH ST B920 5TH AVE S 925 FOURTH AVE STE 3300 SEATTLE WA 98107 SEATTLE WA 98108 SEATTLE WA 98104 NEOMAHAVONG TANIA FREEMAN JEFFREY WEST CURTIS A+HEDY E 6407 FLORA AVE S C/O CURTIS WEST REALTY 222 QUEEN ANNE AVE N SEATTLE WA 98108 222 QUEEN ANNE AVE N SEATTLE WA 98109 SEATTLE WA 98109 DOWNS JUDITH WEST CURTIS+HEDY E GLENWOOD 906 L L C PO BOX 82 1645 INTERLAKE PL E 3437 60TH AVE SW SEATTLE WA 98111 SEATTLE WA 98112 SEATTLE WA 98116 SAECHAO CHAN FO+MUANG WEUN TIERNEY J KEITH+FRANCES WONG D & C 1 LLC 3220 S DAWSON ST 3705 SOUTH CLOVERDALE ST 6311 SEWARD PARK AVE S SEATTLE WA 98118 SEATTLE WA 98118 SEATTLE WA 98118 PIACENTINI LOUISE FISHER KENNETH L+CATHERINE L GATEWOOD VOYLHACELLA C/O BELMAR PROPERTIES INC PO BOX 22636 825 INDEX CT NE 2001 6TH AVE #2300 SEATTLE WA 98122 RENTON WA 98122 SEATTLE WA 98121 JORGENSEN JIM+SHIRLEY MAYTON BRUCE PAUL CCS/RENTON HOUSING LIMITED PO BOX 94647 PO BOX 58079 100 23RD AVE S SEATTLE WA 98124 TUKWILA WA 98138 SEATTLE WA 98144 CONLEY ALBERT+PEGGY L STIMACH JANET L LONG ARTHUR F 2732 S JUDKINS 1920 S SPOKANE ST 12201 SHOREWOOD DR SW SEATTLE WA 98144 SEATTLE WA 98144 SEATTLE WA 98146 CHOW LYDIA PHAN THUY HELEN YUEH LYDIA 16545 41ST AVE NE 3512 NE 190TH PL 16545 41 AVE NE SEA17LE WA 98155 LAKE FOREST PARK WA 98155 SEATTLE WA 98155 HALLESY HAROLD W KELLER RUSSELL L MALUNE DONALD M 830 SW CHANNON DR 18711 EDGECLIFF DR SW PO BOX 66294 SEATTLE WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98166 SEATTLE WA 98166 WILLIAMS GERALDINE WILSON FAKHARZADEH M HADI KOE ROBERT L THE HIGHLANDS PO BOX 78404 11717 64TH AVE S SHORELINE WA 98177 SEATTLE WA 98178 SEATTLE WA 98178 SIRISISANGPHA YAOCHIEN THUNG BUDKE GORDON E TROXEL JON E 7210 S SUNNYCREST RD 911 W 33RD AVE PO BOX 383 SEATTLE WA 98178 SPOKANE WA 98203 SHAW ISLAND WA 98286 ERICKSON PAMELA J PEPIN KENNETH W ALEXANDERSEN E 4205 PENINSULAI RD 32002 88TH AVE NW PO BOX 441 STANWOOD WA 98292 STANWOOD WA 98292 MILTON WA 98354 GOODMANSEN RON J E PEDERSEN FLORENCE J LOONEY WILLIAM A 2916 91ST AVE E 17016 27TH ST E PO BOX 1435 EDGEWOOD WA 98371 LAKE TAPPS WA 98391 TACOMA WA 98401 KUANG GUANG LIANG WOODARD DONNA M NELSON JON A 5402 21ST AVCT NE 3545 66TH AVE W 414 KINWOOD ST SE TACOMA WA 98422 TACOMA WA 98466 OLYMPIA WA 98503 ALVESTAD LAURITS LILY CARLTON VISTA LLC ANDERSON MYRON L PO BOX 485 2103 LAKESHORE DR PO BOX 1385 GRAPEVIEW WA 98546 MANSON WA 98831 TONASKET WA 98855 MCCORMICK RESIDENTIAL RENTAL HUME INVESTMENTS LTD THRIFTY PAYLESS INC NO 5203 LLC STE 401 1124 LONSDALE AVE PO BOX 3165 191 MAPLEWAY DR NORTH VANCOUVER BC V7M2H1 HARRISBURG PA 17105 SELAH WA 98942 KIN PROPERTIES WONG KIN YIP+KUEN-WONG JEANNE U S BANK CORPORATE PROPS 185 NW SPANISH RIVER BLVD CHIU ET AL 2800 E LAKE ST SUITE 100 2600 W BIG BEAVER RD LAKE0012 BOCA RATON FL 33431 TROY MI 48084 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 BALDRIDGE-RENTON L L C CO WALGREEN CO CORP OFFICES 104 WILMOT RD DEERFIELD IL 60015 RIC21LTD C/O CSK AUTO INC-PROP MGMT PO BOX 19063 PHOENIX AZ 85005 PACIFIC NUT COMPANY INC 15732 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY TUSTIN CA 92780 SAFEWAY INC STORE 0366 C/O COMPREHENSIVE PROP TAX 1371 OAKLAND BLVD STE 200 WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 Redfern Richard 2000 NE 20th St Renton, WA 98056 Halinen David 2115 N 30th St #203 Tacoma, WA 98403 WALGREEN CO MS #3301 300 WILMOT RD DEERFIELD IL 60015 KACHEL RICHARD 7940 BEN HOGAN DR LA VEGAS NV 89149 KAYO OIL ATTN MARKETING PO BOX 1539 PASO ROBLES CA 93447 AGABIAN NINA 1417 HEARST AVE BERKELEY CA 94702 Zorbin Armando 2400 NE 10th PI Renton, WA 98056 Grover Bill P.O. Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 FIRST HORIZON HOME LOANS 4000 HORIZON WAY IRVING TX 75063 STEWART MARY C PO BOX 1552 WINTERHAVEN CA 92283 DUNN CONSTANCEF 514 LOBOS AVE PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950 Cave Robert 1813 NE 24th St Renton, WA 98056 Poon Frank 5360 Col de Vars PI NW Issaquah, WA 98027 PARTIES OF RECORD HIGHLANDS ZONING AND LAND USE LUA06-128, ECF, R, CPA Subhashni Kumar George Rusk 2102 NE 23rd Street 1401 Edmonds Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) tel: (425) 255-4849 (party of record) Marie Engeland Elena Koleva 2914 NE 6th Street 2901 NE 16th Street Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-1392 tel: (425) 226-7153 (party of record) (party of record) John Visser Bill Grover 19404 102nd Avenue SE PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98055-6338 Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) (party of record) Brad Nicholson Pamela Curley 2811 Dayton Avenue NE 1225 Kirkland Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 445-0658 tel: (425) 227-7109 eml: brad827@hotmail.com (party of record) (party of record) Glenda Johnson Inez Somerville Petersen 1216 Monroe Avenue NE 3306 Lake Washington Blvd ste: Renton, WA 98056 #3 (party of record) Renton, WA 98056-1978 (party of record) Patrick Powers 1523 Index Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 235-1106 (party of record) Howard Baldridge 1526 Jefferson Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 tel: (425) 255-9555 (party of record) Terry Persson HCA President PO Box 2041 Renton, WA 98056 tel: (206) 339-8210 (party of record) Edwin & Patricia Rasmussen 1300 Monroe Avenue NE Renton, WA 98056 (party of record) Updated: 10/16/06 (Page 1 of 1) Cf. , Renton Department of Planning / Building / F : Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: M COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128, R ECF DATE CIRCULATE _ BER APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAG R E ' PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & Zoning Package I PLAN REVIEW: KaVrefiXittrick ? I 4 SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA r ss'�' 1IA ii LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area I WORK ORDER NO: 17766 I ',,I I [ ur nT SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This non -project action includes four different actions rel ed to the fzor�ir5'.aYidl land use ans or the Highlands Subarea: """— 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, remvvin'9 the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area In CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resoaaces 104 B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS A<;E-4_1 ceoi)nt,44 Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Mgfor Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics L&AWlare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services HistwicXultural Preservation A6port Environment 10,000 Feet 14 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where addlt nal informatio needad to properly assess this proposal. cl�n1L� f �� A h i Signature of,Dirg6tor or Authodzecf ReqWsentative Date Cit. Renton Department of Planning / Building / t c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128, R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: Cityof Renton - EDNSP VI11 V PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin C E 1 V E PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & Zoning Package PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A 6610420 BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area I WORK ORDER NO: 77662 601LOING DIVISi SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban.Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Sharellne use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources oowt B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Noy--� Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities TranSpWatibn Public Services HistorialCultwal Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with parlicular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information Is needed to properly assess this proposal. MCA b Sigtatft of Director.. I ilhod7ed Representative Date Clt, Renton Department of Planning/ Building / i . c Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:pzlf�COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128, R ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: Ci of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & Zoning Package PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA ross : NIA LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area I WORK ORDER NO: 77662 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removin. the Center Village Bonus District, enacting des' n regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and In the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas In the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor impacts Probable Major !-pacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts Mare Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hU lare Recreation Utilities Trans ation Public Services Historic/CuRwal Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14 OW Feet loea I�/I& a_tl� av, C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS may, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable Impact or areas where additional Information is no !oDd t� rly assess this proposal. A /V1) 62 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Data Clt) .Zenton Department of Planning / Building / F. , Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128 R, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, 2006 APPLICANT: Cityof Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin rm`'� Y "` PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & Zoning Package PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: N/A BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A 2006 LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area WORK ORDER NO: 77662 BUILDING Di SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to R F. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS /-/U IV Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Trangortation Public Services Histodc/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas wh additional Information is needed to properly assess this proposal. S ature of Dlrector r Authorizbd Representative Date City Benton Department of Planning / Building / P,._ Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: OCTOBER 16, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-128 R, ECF y 01.' NtNtuN DATE CIRCULATED: OCTOBER 2, APPLICANT: City of Renton - EDNSP PROJECT MANAGER: Erika Conklin PROJECT TITLE: Highlands Lands Use & Zoning Package PLAN REVIEW: Ka ren Kittrick SITE AREA: WA BUILDING AREA (gross): NIA ING DIVISION LOCATION: Highlands Sub -area I_WORK ORDER NO: 77662 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL. This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12th Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12th Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to CV and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Qo-. - B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS K)oV.L C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Nava. Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major impacts More information Necessary Housing Aesthetics L! ht/Glare Recreation utilities Trans anion Public services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, OW Foot 14, 00O Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas In which we have expertise and have Identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 4i"J'A )�, 4ffilir� —) o I' I) Sigful of D€rector or Authorized Representative Date BRA.DNICHOLSON 2811 Dayton Avenue N.E. Renton, Washington 98056 brad827[�hotmail.com (425) 445-0658 CITY OF REMiON OCT 16 2006 ; October 14, 2006 RECEIVED City of Renton Highlands Task Force Chairman Kirk Moore i41 TY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Renton Mayor �Ond Renton City Council by 'T2cry Perssor Renton Planning Commission City of Renton ERC 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 RE: 2006 Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan RE: Highlands redevelopment and "Task Force" RE: Public Hearing comments RE: LUA-06-121, LUA-06-128, LUA-05-159, LUA-06-123 To the above identified persons, Not having really known all of the details of the City Administration's or Staff's land use strategy, confronted with a constantly changing zoning proposal, and not having been presented with necessary informative data and stable or lawful zoning proposals, most of the residents and citizens that are potential participants under the GMA in Renton are unaware of the proceedings and were therefore unable to participate. They were unaware of unlawful procedures being. used, they didn't hear what were. the true issues needing to be deliberated were, and were unaware of what was unlawfully happening around the City of Renton's planning. For purpose of the acts (GMA & SEPA) they were unable to participate in a meaningful way at a meaningful time. I recommend that there be a change of course in the management philosophy that the City uses to take and gather public input, and a change in how that our leaders act upon recommendations based upon that input. It is in the best interest of the City and our Citizens. I urge the City to make this change of course, because• without that change, further deterioration of areas and processes probably will result. For the most part, doing otherwise would be just like failure to give notice. It continues actions for longer than necessary. There has been failure to give notice of proceedings. It is failure to comply with Laws, only the first of many grounds that may vitiate legislation emerging from these processes. Many appeals and legal actions caused by such lack of respect for laws damage the City. brad nicholson Page 1 1011512006 Neither was I officially notified of the present proceedings whilst I should have been. I am a party of record. Evidently One Council member, Terra. Briere decided not to answer my email around a week ago requesting information as to how I could participate in or join the `Task Force". The Citizens that searched the City's website or word of mouth e-mail, having found the hearing dates and times for scheduled meetings, but the issues were not clear and changed significantly, and participation is limited to only nine people, are all very disappointed. All of them will now be "observers" only supposedly because the "Task Force" will review and rule only on the record that has been previously created. That record has deficiencies like I previously articulated. Most if none of the potential participants wanted to pay the rather large and unlawful City fee to suggest a comprehensive plan or development regulation amendment for the processes, neither were they given a real opportunity to comment. Even though I am a party of record for the above actions I never received notice of the proceedings and least officially, z still haven't. A few private citizens informed me of the "Task Force" meeting. I met the so called chairman at the task force meeting, but he informed me that I couldn't comment in public. Those amendments to our comprehensive plan must have been recommended for approval by someone unqualified to make that decision. I really don't know how to figure that out because nobody informed me of what was decided or recommended by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Some Citizens attended meetings that were public, testified, and wanted to improve the City and be heard, and others were accorded nothing more than exclusion from the processes via certain unlawful administrative decisions and acts, declarations, and tactics. Not the least of which is the newly formed "Task Force" that will supposedly be providing the sole community input from now on. Nine people cannot be considered the "public" according to my interpretation of the code. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no public response, findings or recommendation made by the Planning Commission that I am aware of, instead the City "switched" reviewing bodies after public comment was taken on the issues. It is now evidently believed that quasi-judicial review of the proceedings rests with the "Task Force" I received a notice communication......... an email communication stating that the "Task Force" would be meeting at the Highlands Starbucks. There was a person there to meet, one Kirk Moore, who claimed to be the chairman of the "Task Force" and would allow me to give my comments to him for presentation during what is to be the "review" Here they are. He assured me such "review" would result in findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to a council hearing on these issues. . I request that commitment be honored in the future. I request that he and the "Task Force" be asked to review these comments, find facts, and conclusions'of Law, and inform me of their legal decisions with regard to them. brad nicholson Page 2 1011512006 Disappointment is evident in "Huffy City Council meetings" probably for one reason because the Planning Commission recommendation that was supposedly made as a result of the prior hearings can not be found in public. That has happened on numerous occasions in the past. Perhaps I am wrong and the "Task Force" will be different. If the "Task Force" can respond to my issues, then there will be a great improvement. I have been informed that the newly formed "Task Force" will exact the "Role of Review" from the Planning Commission. One Terri Briere as chairman of the City's Planning and Development Committee as well as the task force chairman have told me so. I can provide proof in the form of evidentiary exhibits for that if it is requested. Otherwise, it is incontrovertible. If I had known that the role of review would rest with the newly formed "Task Force" I would have been able to save the efforts I made for the City's benefit by saving my comments for the task force. The new forum however will not be taking any comments or allowing public participation but will be reviewing the record because the community continues to have concerns with the administrative proposals. I am presuming the record of proceedings will be forwarded to the "Task Force" (exhibit) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are required of quasi-judicial reviewing bodies. I am looking forward to reviewing the decision by Mr. Moore's group as a result of the task force as it becomes a part of the public record, however I will be doing so under protest because of the numerous deliberative and substantive participatory deficiencies I have placed into the record that are subject to review. It seemed quite clear to me Mr. Moore has no experience in law or land use action whatsoever. To be honest, I have no confidence in his ability to work on land use whatsoever. I hope I am wrong, but I think he is now in somewhat of a "pickle". I think he is still working on eminent domain in the highlands even though I understand that the issue is tabled through an ordinance. I would like to say that I am offended not only by the moratoriums and wasted time and money, but by the lack of apparent competency and transparency. Many people genuinely concerned with the City's future are now thoroughly disgusted. Some citizens are frustrated because it is known that pending appeals will require a programmatic EIS document to place new rezoning in the so-called Highlands area Center Village designation, but the proposal has been withdrawn at the last minute and now an EIS should be required because of different arguments. It is still needed to be capable to implement the "vision" of the highlands. It is still being avoided with what appears to be just like an end run, and is unavailable because it was removed from consideration by the City's ERC. They have a new DNS. They should not have done that, because there are accumulations of adverse effects from acting the wrong way, which includes doing nothing, like I have previously contended. brad nicholson Page 3 1011512006 Even though I was a party of record, they did not notify me of that until after the hearing and after I raised the issues. I just found out that the previous DNS was withdrawn. There has been no discussion as to what adverse effects the "Highlands Vision" will have upon transportation issues. Or how not implementing the vision through zoning measures would affect people. It seems clear that if the Staff is intent with little or no development regulation, then maybe the vision should be withdrawn as well. That has not happened, but instead the footprint of the vision is proposed to be expanded. It seems clear that the zoning that is currently proposed will not implement the• present vision. I would call the consistency of the City's actions into question under the GMA. It is not known how the Landing issues will interact with the Hilands, both of which are major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment. I am wondering why there has not been an inclusion of discussion regarding the need for possible changes to the zoning and plans if the "Landing" is required to implement the comprehensive plan through required changes. How the highlands vision will be implemented depending on how the Landing materializes. No information has been disclosed to me other than the fact that there is proposed to be a Target store. Because of the appeals that are before the council, there are many unknowns, thus the Citizens have never been able to comment anyway. If I was a gambler, I would wager that each and member of the "Task Force" is lacking that information as well. According to the Mayor's State of the City Address, the transportation system around Sunset (between cedar river and I-90) will need around 1 to 1.3 billion dollars in improvements for all of the projects. That is significant. In order to implement the vision, an EIS should and must be performed and with analysis as to impact accumulations, something that has never been done. The new 11Ch hour zoning proposal is now before the "Task Force" after Public Hearings have already been held, accompanied by a new EDNSM; I don't get it. The new proposal does not appear to implement the Comprehensive Plan "Highlands vision", or discuss probable significant adverse impacts. I would find that action inconsistent with the GMA as well as the CPP and City Comprehensive Plan on numerous fronts, and I think reviewing jurisdictions would as well. I wish I could understand the proposals, its probable significant impacts, and be able to comment but I have not been able to obtain full information. All of the above should and must be done bearing in mind the deliberative and substantive and participatory processes of GMA and SERA. There seems to be no other explanation for the change in the zoning proposal for the Highlands vision than to subvert disclosure of impacts for the Landing, a project which does not implement the comprehensive plan. brad nicholson Page 4 1011512006 Similarly, the financial information and description of the tenants regarding the "Landing" (Renton Mayor called it, "One of the Largest Big Box destination retail shopping centers in the Puget sound region", "seemingly overnight") was either non-existent or is being unlawfully withheld by the City because it is being called "proprietary" information. There is no way to comment about the Highlands vision possibly containing some revitalized shopping, because it has not been disclosed as to information regarding the "Landing" My comments of one would change depending on implementation of the other creating various consistency issues along with my comments. That is not my idea of a Hearing, and I don't think it is what the GMA intends either. We shall see. A big concern of mine is the money, under just about any standards, was taken from the "cookie jar" because any experienced person would have known the landing improvements should have been imposed upon the developer through nexus and proportionality requirements so basic to any kind of action with regard to the use of land by the United States Constitution. There has never been a legal explanation as to the legal justification for the Police powers being waived in the first place. Perhaps "Public Participation" will be possible when those facts are known to the participants. That money belongs to the people, and not to Harvest Partners; I did not give it to them and neither did a legitimate governmental process. Thus in order to comply with laws, the procedure I identified should be used. The Planning Commission held their hearing while appearing to do nothing more than flout specific directives of the Renton Municipal Code. A number of very powerful appeals that are consistent with the Renton code, GMA, SEPA, CPP, and other "General Laws" cast a pall and aura of uncertainty over most of the City's proceedings and is good reason to rethink and evaluate alternative and options available. Certain Administrators must have been directed to ignore them and "fast track" the planning process but the "fast track" process excluded notice and participation of citizens as well the fact that it violated quite a few general laws applicable to the City in the exercise of the Police Power under article 11, section 11, of the State Constitution. Unfortunately, that will not be so fast a process now because it is a ground for invalidation of amendments according to "Washington Laws" that have been already been identified in Planning Commission and Council proceedings. In my opinion, the way to cure the "pickle", is address this letter, the appeals, become transparent, and give real consideration, thought, and legal determinations to them. It means disclosure of probable significant adverse impacts and mitigation measures necessary for the Highlands and the Landing, and then having a strategy to deal with it. The issues are not going to go away. Appeals are presently pending for actions. I am one of those Citizens trying to participate in these actions. In one instance of the above processes, the Chairman of the Planning Commission (conducting the public hearing on the issues) got up and walked out of the public hearing at the moment I began to comment. brad nicholson Page 5 1011512006 My concerns were never addressed. I have no public answer or public findings as to what happened in my possession. I was already having difficulty to comment because I was without the material and factual information required by the laws. In these other new instances, the public and I were excluded from participating in what was left of the GMA processes altogether. In proceedings before the City's Hearing Examiner I was called a "straw man" and denied standing to appeal and participate because I have been associated with others that share my views. I have been referred to as a "jackboot" "red herring" "cloaked in sheep's wool" and "spurious" by the Mayor and various media. City Attorney says I am "disgruntled". I accept that because I have in my possession a "confidential letter" stating that he would see to it that actions would be performed that never were. I am "disgruntled" because the City Attorney is being much less than truthful leaving out some rather important details. (exhibit) So you see that I am quite comfortable with being "disgruntled" as I believe I well should be. Recent appeals I have made have never even been considered even though I base my issues on the Laws and codes as I see them. I feel quite angry and offended by the disrespect and ignorance, lying, and refusal to observe requirements of the Laws. I have been nothing but sincere, open, and genuine in my comments from my heart and from the start. The other public participants that also made an attempt to participate were also very frustrated by the lack of honest disclosure, lack of proper procedures, and unlawful decision making in the processes. The City "Task Force" was proposed at the last minute, and was quickly and illegally put together by the City Planning/bevelopment Committee to exact away the role of review from the Planning Commission and excluded all citizens except for nine people chosen by that City Council Committee. They were not a part of the Planning Commission. (The City's development committee stating that it was because of identified time constraints and other reasons including agreement with the purpose of "containment" of opposition ideas identified by the administrator of Economic Development and Strategic Planning as those of adverse to the proposal) It seems clear to me that none of the members of the "Task Force" have any experience whatsoever in quasi- judicial administrative proceedings. That is in all likelihood a "Task Farce" brad nicholson Page 6 1011512006 Taken together, these substantial errors and illegal actions deprived me and other Citizens to their GMA participatory rights, in addition to violating certain other substantive and procedural mandates of the GMA, SEPA, General and Constitutional laws, and is good reason for invalidation and remand as I have outlined in this letter. The act of "Suspending the Laws", that is assuming and dispensing with the power to enforce the laws without permission from the State, or an attempt to divest the City of the right to make reasonable Laws, are all actions that shall need to be corrected because they shall also be capable of being reversed in superior jurisdictions. I .recommend that being a reason to carefully consider the next move and "findings of fact and conclusions of Law" in your dirty game, because some more incorrect moves will put the City into a "Checkmate". It appears to me like it should be axiomatic that it is time for the City to make some changes, for benefit of present and future generations of Renton. I look forward to a reply indicating your concurrence. Most Sincerely, Brad Nicholson, a citizen of Renton brad nichokon Page 7 1011512006 1) Has the City engaged in activities that are prohibited by specific sections of the GMA and Washington Laws? 2) Did the City fail to give proper notice of proceedings as required by 36.70A RCW? 3) What are the specific causes of problematic areas of the City that are experiencing insufficient growth that would implement the comprehensive plan? 4) Which impacts have not been disclosed that should be? 5) Is the City violating Washington Laws that require a broad program of early and continuous public participation? 6) Did the City violate provisions of the GMA that require that the comprehensive plan and development regulations be subject to consistency, continuing review, and evaluation? 7) Is it appropriate to issue a proposed DNS when there are so many probable adverse consequences of doing so according to the Mayor's "State of the City" and it is inconsistent with the vision for the Highlands? B) Is it not true that there exist numerous unanalyzed environment concerns and that the City is hiding information that is needed to determine whether and which areas there are significant impacts that should be mitigated? 9) How can so many planning issues be proposed when nobody really knows what will result from the outcomes of other major actions because they are pending? What was the cause of that? Is that appropriate? 10) How will the city fullfill the objectives of the GMA when there has been no findings indicating the proposals indicating are intended to effectuate those goals? 11) Is it not true that the City should lawfully complete the planning for proposed projects and construction before attempting to plan for new ones without public participation without posing a threat to the quality of the environment? 12) Have the above proceedings taken place for the benefit of Citizens? From; "Terri Briere" <tbrierer?aci.renton.wa.us> To: <brad827@hotmail.com> CC: 'Alexander Pieisch" <Apietsch@ci. renton. wa. us> Subject: Re., Council Date: Fri, 06 Oct 200610:18.14 -0700 > Mr. Nicholson, >Thank you for correspondence regarding the role of the Planning Commission and the Highlands Task Force. You are correct that the Planning Commission is the body that takes public input and makes recommendations to the council on planning and zoning issues. The Planning Commission has previously heard public testimony and made a reccommendation to the Council on the Highlands Zoning and Comp Plan Changes. It be came apparent to council that the community continued to have concerns with the Planning Commission and Administration recommendation. A result of citizen concerns is the Highlands Task Force. Because of the compressed time schedule to make changes to the Comp Plan Council agreed to allow the Task Force to take the role of review rather than the Planning Commission, The Task Force will not take any new testimony, they will be working with the existing record. >Again, thank you for contacting me. >Terri Briere > >>> "'Brad Nicholson"' <brad827@hotmaii.com> 10/06/06 8:42 AM >>> >I was wondering the reason why the Planning Commission is not the primary or exclusive way of taking public input and making recommendations to the Council for the "Hilands Vision" but rather it appears that a "task force" will be used for that above purpose? Could you answer that? Or am I wrong is it the Planning Commission that will be given substantial weight? Could you answer that too? the question is .........which citizen body will be accorded substantial weight? I am going to want to participate. Your response is appreciated. >This email request originated from the following link: http://rentonwa.gov/government/default.aspx?id=1080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL In the Matter of the Appeal of ) Alliance for South End (ASE) re: } LUA-05-136. SA -A. SM The Director's Administrative Decision ) NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Designating The Landing Master Plan ) HEARING EXAMINER Application a Planned Action; And The ) DECISION Director's Master Site Plan Approval ) } I. INTRODUCTION The Alliance for South End (ASE) hereby files this Notice of Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision dated September 5, 2006, which dismissed ASE's above -captioned appeals for lack of standing ("Examiner's Decision," Exhibit A). The grounds for appeal are that the Hearing Examiner's decision is contrary to Washington law, without support in state or federal law, and in violation of the constitutional rights of ASE's members. II. TIMELINESS This appeal is filed pursuant to RMC 4-8-110.E(8) and RMC 4-8-110.F(1), which specify a 14-day appeal period for Hearing Examiner decisions. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuckO Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 1 in-K Firsta,•tizaa, Suites��e CADOCUMENTSAND SEMNGSIREN65341LOCALSE17INGsvrEMPORARY INTERNET FII.ESICONTENT'.IE510DQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNCIL090606[ I ].DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9i 10 12 13 14, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 III. FACTS The facts are set forth in the record below. ASE's pleadings are incorporated herein by i I reference. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Council reviews Hearing Examiner decisions to determine whether "substantial I error of fact or law exists in the record." RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). if the Council finds such an I error, "it may remand the proceeding to Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly." Id. V. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The Hearing Examiner's decision reflects several errors of fact or law. His decision to f dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing was entirely dependent upon the proposition I that, in order for an organization to have standing, it must not only have a member or f members with standing, but it also must have members with certain "indicia of membership," such as particular voting rights. This proposition is directly contrary to the well established law in Washington, and does not appear to have support in any state or federal law. The Hearing Examiner's decision also violated the rights of ASE's members to freedom of association. The Hearing Examiner's decision should therefore be reversed. A. In Washington, An Association Has Standing When One Member Has Standing. Washington courts have consistently held that a citizens' group or other organization has standing to challenge land use decisions "as long as one member has standing to do so." East Gig Harbor Imp. Assn v. Pierce County, 106 Wn.2d 707, 701, 724 P.2d 1009 NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Bucker Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 2 2,ozs First'. }Avenue., 5uito 500 WA 5t R 1 z 1, C 00CUMENTS AND SETTINGSIBEN65341L0CAL SETTINC,SITEMPORARY INTERNET FILESICONTENT.IES1ODQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOIJNCIL0906061 1 J.DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (1986) (emphasis added), citing Save a Valuable Environment (S,411E) v. Bothell, 891 Wn.2d 862, 867, 576 P.2d 401 (1978); see also Suyuamish Indian Tribe, 92 Wn.App. ate 830 (citing East Gig Harbor Imp. Assn and SAVE for proposition that "an organization 1 has standing only when at least one of its members has standing as an individual"). None of these cases hold or even suggest that a member must have particular rights in the organization, or that any other inquiry should be made once it has been established that at least one member of the organization has standing. Nor do any of these cases hold or suggest that the organization's funding sources are relevant to standing. B. There is No Precedent for the Hearing Examiner's Denial of Standing in this Case. To our knowledge, no state or federal court has ever held that members of an I organization must possess "indicia of membership" in order for the organization to have standing. The cases cited by the Applicant in briefing before the Hearing Examiner do not support this proposition. The question presented and answered in the three cases cited by 1 the Applicant was not whether members of an organization must have voting rights in I order to assert associational standing, but whether "an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing," See Fund'i Democracy, LLC v. S.E.C., 278 F.3d 21, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Those cases hold that, if an association does not have any members, but asserts that its has standing to sue on behalf of non-member "supporters," then a court may inquire into whether its supporters possess "indicia of membership." Id. at 26. The Applicant's argument that "a non -voting member. NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuckGordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 3 2025 First: Avonu ,, sui rx,. son C:IDOCUMFNTS AND SETTINMBEN653410CALSETTINGSITEMPORARY E>Bnr.(:1w3, WA 9U.21 INTERNET FILCSICONTENT.IE510DQRSLQFWOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNC[L090606[ I ].DOC 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .. cannot establish standing for the association" (Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 7) is simply false. In fact, one of the cases cited by the Applicant directly contradicts the Applicant's position. In Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d 1201, (D.C. 2002), the court explicitly stated that the nonprofit would have standing if it had any members: Friends initially asserted in Superior Court that it had standing to sue on behalf of its members, whom it described as persons residing in the vicinity of 3883 Connecticut Avenue who recreate in and enjoy the benefits of nearby Rock Creek Park. We do not doubt that if Friends had such members, it would have standing as their representative to maintain an action challenging the District's failure to require Clark to prepare an EIS ... The persons whom Friends claims to represent are not its members, however. By the terms of its articles of incorporation, Friends has no members. Confronted with this inconvenient fact, Friends argues in this court that it nonetheless has standing to sue as the representative of its "supporters" among the neighborhood residents whose environmental interests are at stake. These supporters, Friends suggests, are its de facto if not its de jure members. The record, though, does not bear out this claim. Friends, 806 A.2d at 1208 (emphasis added). See also Hunt v. ii'ashington Slate Apple Advertising Com'n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434 (1977) (holding that the Commission had associational standing even though "the apple growers and dealers are not `members' of the Commission in the traditional trade association sense")-, Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 25 (stating that, "[i]n determining whether an organization that has no members in the traditional sense may nonetheless assert associational standing, the question is whether the NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck ,� Gordon LLF HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 4 'First Aw-nuc-, L-uite 500 :•ut5 C?.r:. WA 98121 000CUMENTS AND SETTINGSIBEN6534ILOCAL SETT]NGMTEMPORARY (206; _; ,L-5340 INTERNET I'I LESICONTENT.IE5IODQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEAL-1-OCOUNCI L090606111,DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 organization is the functional equivalent of a traditional membership organization") (emphasis added). Unlike the "supporters" of the organizations in Friends of Tilden Park, Hunt, and Fund Democracy, Brad Nicholson is a member of ASE "in the traditional sense." Moreover, even if these cases could be interpreted to require "indicia of membership" in cases where an organization actually has members, those cases are not relevant in this proceeding because Washington courts have not adopted or even discussed such a I 9 f[ requirement.' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 FM 01 22 23 24 25 C. The Hearing Examiner's Decision Violated the Constitutional Rights ASE's Members. The Hearing Examiner's dismissal of ASE's appeals violated the First Amendment rights of Renton citizens to freely associate as members of ASE in order to protect their rights. Ironically, the Hearing Examiner previously found that Brad Nicholson, a member of ASE, had standing to sue on his own behalf in a similar matter, but then deprived Mr. Nicholson standing in this matter simply because he chose to associate with other Renton citizens who share his concerns about The Landing.z I The Applicant did not cite any Washington cases to support its arguments about associational standing. The Applicant's reliance on SAVE for the proposition that "Washington courts have adopted the federal approach to standing requirements in environmental and land use cases" is misplaced. See Applicant's Reply to ASE Lack of Standing, p. 8, n. 16, citing SA VE, 89 Wn.2d 862. The SA 1'E court's approval of "the federal approach" refers to the holdings, discussed earlier in the SAYE opinion, which state that "a non- profit corporation or association which shows that one or more of its members are specifically injured by a government action may represent those members in proceedings for judicial review." Id. at 867. When read in context, the SAVE court's discussion of association standing actually hies in the face of the Applicant's suggestions that ASE lacks standing as an association. Z Unfortunately, the Renton Municipal Code allows the Hearing Examiner to rule on the constitutional rights of developers who apply for permits, but the Examiner may not consider the constitutional rights of Renton citizens appealing a City decision. See RMC 4-8-1 I O.E(7)(b). NOTICE OF APPEAL OF Buck C , Gordon Lp HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 5 zags FZY>:. Avenue, zuite Soo eatLCADOCUMENTSAND SETrrNGS\BEN6534\LOCALSETTINGSITEMPORARY .120G) 3u29 '-58123 1?aG) 540 INTERNET FILES\CON'I'EN'I'.IES\ODQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEALTOCOUNC1L09060611 t.DOC 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized "a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment — speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.." Roberts v. U.S Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618, 104 S.Ct. 3244 (1984). By dismissing ASE's appeals based on the form of the association, the Hearing Examiner violated the rights of ASE members to associate for the purpose of petitioning the government. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of association of this kind as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties." Id. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, ASE respectfully requests that the Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's decision to dismiss ASE's appeals for lack of standing. Dated this day of September, 2006. BUCK & GORDON LLP By: Peter L. Buck, WSBA #05060 Attorneys for Alliance for the South End NOTICE OF APPEAL OF BuckTf Gordon LLP HEARING EXAMINER DECISION - 6 �.025 First. Avenue, s�tit:o 500 C:IDOCUMENTSANDSE-MNGSlBEN65341LOCALSETTINGSUE•MPORARY 6eat:t:1�. 'rta �i�31z1 iwa�,i ?xz-_sao INTERNET FILEWONTENT.IL'.51UDQRSLQFINOTICEOFAPPEAI.TOCOUNCII.090606[I ].DOC J � •6 ` Citi2en Cornments - LUA06-121 AND LUA06-128 from Inez Somerville Petersen Page 1 of 2 CITIZEN COMMENT ` regarding "'' =• - TWO NOTICES'OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- ` SIGNIFICANCE (DNS); r.. DATE: LAN&USE'NUMBER; APPLICATION NAME: LAND USE• NUMBER:- APPLICATION)NAME: Friday, October 13, 2006 LUA06-1-21, ECF Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments LUA06.428, -ECF Highlands -Land Use & Zoning Package CPA 2006-M-06 arid CPA 2006-T2 ' E F'lV E U 0 ,.- _1,.3 2006 ECONOWC UEVELOPMEN 'NEIGHBORHOODS AN'08TR.A"rEG:(" '.,.IN'!INC T 3' I wish to submit;tN followingi1comments'which'apply to,fttwo named Land Use"`O Actions.,,, C6inments,are due by 5 p:m:,,on Mohday; Oct 1'6;-2006: Rules,of.-Evldence";.r Rules of Evidence, a&adopted by Washington Courts; apply to Hearing' Exarriiher,0` proceedings; and I believe they also apply to preceding and succeeding legal processes in suppoit�of'LandiUse Actions.. 1EDNSP.employee6'dd'nofu-hd6rstand Rules'of `��' --I ' Evidence0' The Planning'Commissioners`do not understand'the-Washington Courts' Rules:of Evidence, except for possibly Attorney/Commissioner Jerrilynn Hadley. Koelker's "direct reports" who comprlse the -Environmental Review Committee do not understand the Washington Courts' Rules of Evidence. The City Council members, who are part' of the Appeal process, do not understand the Washington Courts' Rules of Evidence, except for possibly Attorney/Councilmember Dan Clawson. The whole process -is -flawed on that basis alone. How can these city officials judgment on any Land'Use Actiori when they can't even,determine what is admissible evidence upon which to ba6e4 judgment? ' Growth Management and Environmental Protection State Laws applicable to growth management and environmental protection apply to Land Use Actions. I do not see objective: solid evidence to properly justify a "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination`of Non=Significance (DNS)' in either¢Land' Use Action file. , ` . '';i; t _J J Citizen Comments - LUA06-121 AND LUA06-128 from Inez Somerville Petersen Page 2 of 2 Traffic Proposals State and Federal Laws applicable to traffic proposals apply to Land Use Actions, and this is mandatory in the case of state highways within city limits, reference SR900. I do not see any objective, solid evidence to properly justify a "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)" in either Land Use Action file. Public Hearing Process , , , The Planning Commission public hearing on these two Land Use Actions failed to provide citizens a proper opportunity to comment. There were so many people -in the Council Chambers that it was standing room only, and citizens overflowed into the hallway where they could not hear or see the proceedings. I saw many citizens leave, assuming they would have no opportunity to speak. And those who stayed were allowed only three (3) minutes, total for comments on all items on the agenda that night. This was not a public hearing--itwas a -farce. What did. the EDNSP Department.expegt when it stacked so, many Comp Plan Amendments together into one public hearing? Obviously, many people wanted to comment and comment on multiple items. Three minutes total per person can not be deemed an adequate amount of time for public comment at a -public hearing where -the Agenda was. overly full, The City cannot proceed to the any "Notice of Application and;Proposed Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)" on these two Land Use Actions, because the Planning, Commission failed to properly hold a public hearing. This is part of the City's process prior to beginning the "Notice of Application and Proposed Determination of -Non- Significance (DNS)." , I have a video to document how that public hearing was conducted, if it is necessary. EDNSP staff members were present and can confirm my comments about the Planning Commission public hearing covering these two Land Use Actions, and the many other Comp Plan Amendments presented for comment that night. GMA 13 goals There exists no proof in the two Land Use Action files to prove that the City of Renton met the thirteen (13) goals of Growth Management in any of its proceedings or documentation regarding LUA067121 or LUA06-128. It appears to me that the routine issuance of DNS's shows an irresponsible regard for the citizen&and the environment. Submitted by:' J Inez Somerville Petersen Date: Friday, 'Oct�13, 2006 3306 Lake Wash Blvd North Apt 3 Renton, WA 98056-1978 "Influencing the community and the city" CITYOFRW N OCT 16 2066 li,�-,hl(-ili(I1Coln.ii-iiiitltN!A-5so (,I. rtio' ll RECEIVED P.O. Box 2041 ;ITy OLERics OFFICE Had bj-�e'rc--red IZC'.11E()li. VI/� i}iS(} (} by Terry S 0/I October 13, 2006 Dear EDNSP Department: Please enter the following citizen comments under: LAND USE NUMBER: LUA06-121, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Highlands R-10 Zoning Text Amendments LAND USE NUMBER: LUA06-128, ECF APPLICATION NAME: Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package I CPA 2006-M-06 and CPA 2006-T2 Why is the City of Renton forging ahead with Comp Plan Amendments relating to Highlands zoning and text amendments when the Highlands Task Force is in the process of deciding what the VISION should be for the neighborhood? Is. it not clear yet that the People of the Highlands Subarea will not accept the "mayor's vision of an urban village"? We want to have a say in how our community grows. I do not believe these LUA's reflect the actions of a City Administration which is chartered to follow the wants and needs of the residential property owners In the Highlands. Instead, these LUA's indicate an Administration which behaves as if this Committee didn't exist .. and as if this Committee will have no effect on the final zoning and text amendments ... and as if these Comp Plan Amendments MUST be adopted year's end. Sincerely, Terry Persson, HCA President PO Box 2041, Renton, WA 98056 206-339-8210 D V CIT/ OF EMON I��G Edwin and Patricia Rasmussen 1300 Monroe Ave NE OCT 1 6 2006 Renton, WA 98056 RECEIVED Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 October 15, 2006 Re: LUA06-128, R, ECF 1 Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package, CPA 2006-M-6 Dear Ms. Lind, As you can see from my return address, we live in the zoning package. Having been an owner and resident of this property for over 45 years, we are glad to see that the zoning will be returned to what the property covenant originally intended. It will also acknowledge a ruling that the covenant was in deed valid as was found in King County court. Thanks for your time and effort in this matter. Sincerely, Oycr� ��OA Opp rr+rr1�u Glenda L. Johnson OCT 1 6 2006 1216 Monroe Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 nECEIVED Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 October 15, 2006 Re: LUA06-128, R, ECF / Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package, CPA 2006- M-6 Dear Ms. Lind, As you can see from my return address, I live in the zoning package. I am sure you get plenty of complaints about rezoning but, in this instance, I am completely in favor of what the proposal says. It will reflect the covenant that has been on these properties for over 50 years and a ruling that the covenant was in deed valid and upheld in King County court. I applaud the Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division for making this change and to make the zoning and covenant concur. Thanks for your time and effort in this matter. 8 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: October 2, 2004 IJWD USE NUMBER: LUA06.126, R. ECF APPLICATION NAME: Nlgblands Land Use A Zoning Package I CPA 2006-MO6 i CPA 2006-T2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This non•project action hchdes lour different ACW4 related W the zoning and land use plan& for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendmants Ihat remove R-10 as an implement ng zone of the CV land use designation and replan itwiN R-14, removastrategy 319,3, a few nor-wbsanOve'dean-up' changes. 2. ZoNrq Code Text Amendments knckdkg: amendkg R-14 to be an amicartnenting zone Of the CV lard use deelgration, smarnd lore uses allowed In fen CV m w amending notes for the :wing use table. amerhmeg ON developmsm regulation far sere R-14 erne, amm" the development regulations for the CV zone, remwvNg On Center Vipape Bonus District, enacting design regulation for ail parcels h a Canter Yaape Land Use designa8on, amending the parking reWlrementa, smendkg the c iterla for R-14 bonus revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Pm*st and revising dalnitio s. 3. Comprehensive Pan Map ariendmenls that move Oro RMD area north of HE le SVeei, tie parcels hixnkg Henkpan Ave HE be~ HE 7e So" and HE a Street and two parcels near the vidnlry of HE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave HE to time CV land use designsion; moving the area 0 CV designation mouth o1 Sunset and In the vtb*y of HE V' Street to RMF des4na90n; placing the areas in the vick" of Mamma Ave HE and HE lei and Edmonds Ave NE tram RMD to RSF designation. Pease see attached mope 4. Zoning Map amendments that pace most of the R-10 property north all HE 12' Street In R-14: that rezones the R-10 property In the vicinity of HE 12e Street and Edwards Ave HE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave HE from R-10 to R-8; dangea got property in the vicinity o1 Harrington Ave NE and Olenmoad Apr HE and Sunset Lane, end the parcel on the corner of HE 9' Street and Glens ood Ave HE tram RMF to CV; changes thajpercels. surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels ranting Harrington Ave HE belwoen HE Te Street and HE V Street and 1M Iwo parcels in the vicintty of HE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, tram R-10 to CV; NO s portion of the parcel near Haver Tammap tram RAO to RMF, PROJECT LOCATION: Highland* Subarse boated both north and mouth or HE Sunset Boulevard betvnen Edmonds Ave HE end Momoe Ave NE, OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-9i0NIFICANCE {DNSI: Am the Lead Agent, the City of Renton has doWmir" bat aignfteril environmental impacts we unlikely to result hum tins proposed. toning. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110. Ohm City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to 9" notice that a DNS is likely 10 be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS we Integrated into a simple comment period. There will be no Comment period following the Issuance of ohm Threshold Determination of Nor4ignificenn (DNS). A 14-day appeal period wed foaow, the iasuann of the DNS. i PERMIT APPI.MATIoN DATE: Sepamber29, 2008 ParmtalRsvlew, Requsetsd: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Comprehensive Pan Amendment Rezone, and Zoning Text Amendments Other Permfar which may be required: WA Requested Studies: NIA EnvironmeMel Documema that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist prepared September 28, 2D06, Transportation Analysis dated April 17, 2D06. Development Reguladoes Used For Project Mctgation: This norWoject action will be subject to the CWs SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and adw applicable Codes and regulation& as appropriate. Proposed Mltlgallon Maasu rec The ans"s or the proposal does not reveal any adverse environmental impacts requiring mllgadon above and beyond mdsdrg code provisions However, mitigation may be necessary and may be kllp *W al the lima of a site specMc development proposed an One wboCt she. Convnmrb on Oka above application must be subm8sd in writing W Rebecca Lind, Planning Manalfar. Economic Development Neighborhoods anti Strategic Plarming Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98065. by 5:00 PM on October 16, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or with to be made a party of record and receive additional nwtif elon by mall, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits wmiten Comment$ wig aulomadeaily become a party Of record and will be notified of any decision on this project CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6588 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION- I - Y,I ,I, IY IYI,1- - YYY`. YYYYA Highlands Subarea„ o..ighle r•....++ • sou � �. As W rJU Highlands Subarea ®PSt� •••,..• � ,soar � Location where application may if you would like to receive further information on the environmental review of this Proposed projad, complete be reviewed: ptanninglsutIding1PubIlC Works Division, Development Servlcse this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Department, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 00085 You must return this form to receive Arture Information regarding the anvlrwnmental dstarminstlon for PUBLIC HEARING: A pudic hearing on this awe was hall On One Comprebenalve Plan Amandmama this proJact base the Plannap Commission on September 20, 2006. A pudic twang m File NodName: LUA06-728, R, ECF I HIGHLANDS LAND USE AND ZONING PACKAGE, CPA 200&M4 " proposed zonkg text smanOnants end rezones will be held before the City and 2006-T•2 Council prior to adoption. NAME: CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The wbjed ice is bested within the Residential Medium Density (RMO), ADDRESS: Residential Mumd-Family (RMF) and center Ville" (CV) Comprehensive Plan I" US, Map daalgna0ons. no proposal IS oansWI&M with Ores and use designation, as well a& maven and use policies adopted In November 2004. TELEPHONE NO.: NwA ae-t7e NOA M12e CERTIFICATION I, G1 J/'7V1S"la , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on_,a%, DATE: /0.O`er 5' SIGNED ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, in and for I aR on the --,� f 6, _ day of Ck.�16W-A **"y0a'V- NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DATE: LAND USE NUMBER: APPLICATION NAME: October 2, 2006 LUA06-128, R. ECF Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package I CPA 2006-M-06 & CPA 2006-T2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive `clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 160' Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7" Street and NE 9"' Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9"' Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE le and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12"' Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12"' Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the props the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the corner of NE 9, in Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE r Street and NE 9"' Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. PROJECT LOCATION: Highlands Subarea located both north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE. OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed zoning. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110. the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS process to give notice that a DNS is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS are Integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance (DNS). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: September 28, 2006 PermltslRevlew Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Zoning Text Amendments Other Permits which may be required: NIA Requested Studies: NIA Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division, Development Services Department,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on this issue was held on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments before the Planning Commission on September 20, 2006. A public hearing on the proposed zoning text amendments and rezones will be held before the City Council prior to adoption. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Land Use: The subject site is located within the Residential Medium Density (RMD), Residential Multi-Famlly (RMF) and Center Village (CV) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designations. The proposal is consistent with these land use designation, as well as relevant land use policies adopted in November 2004. NOA 06-128 Environmental Documents tha.- Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental Checklist prepared September 26, 2006, Transportation Analysis dated April 17, 2006, Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: This non -project action will be subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance and Development Regulations and other applicable codes dnd regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The analysis of the proposal does not reveal any adverse 1 environmental impacts requiring mitigation above and beyond existing code provisions. However, mitigation may be necessary and may be imposed at the time of a site specific development proposal on the subject site. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager, Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Division, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on October 16, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: REBECCA LIND (425) 430-6888 PLEASP INCLUDE THE PROJECTNUM8ER WHEN CALLING,FOR`PROPER FILE IDENT'IFICAtION Highlands Subarea "—•— I aaw..w.al.,a�srp e e a o Ima moo I:Imao i u WOM N,-i Highlands Subarea 0 loco two If you would like to receive further information on the environmental, review of this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. You must return this form to receive future Information regarding the environmental determination -for this project. File No./Name: LUA06-128, R, ECF I HIGHLANDS LAND USE AND ZONING PACKAGE, CPA 2006-M-6 and 2006-T-2 NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: NOA M126 CITY OF RENTON M 14 IT, • MAN � MW Date: October 2, 2006 To: File From: Development Services Subject: Highlands Land Use & Zoning Package LUA06-128, R, ECF The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on October 23, 2066. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Acceptance Memo 06-128 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 2, 2006 TO: Erika FROM: Stacy SUBJECT: New Land Use File Set -Up Please complete the following information to facilitate routing of file and application acceptance. If you have special form requirements or instructions, please write them in the "Comments" section. Project Name: Highlands Sub -Area 44e &m LA4 (tp ",.MJ 7&V% I obl pm,Q,el E Project Manager: Erika Conkling Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick LUA (File) Number: LUA06-128, R, ECF Applicant: City of Renton - EDNSP 1. Acceptance/ !!Submittal Date: September 28, 2006 Circulation Date: 1—Z—D ,!Work Order #: 77662 Function #: 4080 Comments Due: t) - 16 -0 � ,,Project Description: P t ects f i;� a 4atlaA 15ite ;sq. ft. !Bldg. Area sq. ft. Project i Area: acre(s) 1(gross): N I A' acre(s) ILocation: IJJ W 6 &U6afa- ;Other Permits (Studies/^^ 'Req'd : Reports Req'd : 1 ,.Public Approvals: CIPAs 1A, ft Z,t"lY1lViG1 Zoning/Land Use: 144 UW OAA RMF , 06, RSF Dev. Regs:`��p, IV ;Tentative ERC Date: } n" z3- O b Tentative HEX Date: (� ;Categories: Single-Family0 School/Utilities/Public Project)Q Church/Daycare 0 �', Coinmerclal 0 Industrial O Multi -Family 0 Wireless 0 ;DOT Notification Required: NOA only J(TIA 0 Boeing Notification: YESO NO !!School District Letter: YE NOD Airport Notification: YESO NO Renton School / Issaquah School 0 1Wetlands: YESD N Comments: This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non - substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 91h Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12th and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12t" Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12'h Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the corner of NE 9th Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7th Street and NE 9th Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF. VP J 12- F 2006 NECEIV MASTER APPLICATION ED City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: CITY OF RENTON ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 425-430-6581 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: Rebecca Lind COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98055 TELEPHONE NUMBER 425-430-6588 CONTACT PERSON NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): EDNSP Department ADDRESS: 1055 S. Grady Way CITY: Renton ZIP: 98058 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: SEP 2' 8 PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package PROJECTIADDRESS(S)1LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: The proposal affects the Highlands Subarea located both north and south of NE Sunset Boulevard between Edmonds Ave NE and Monroe Ave NE. KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): See Attached List for affected P1Ds. EXISTING LAND USE(S):Residential, Commercial, Recreational, Community Uses PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Same as existing. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: (RMD) Residential Medium Density, (CV) Center Village in Renton's Comprehensive Plan PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): same as existing EXISTING ZONING: R-10, RMF, CV PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): Same as Existing SITE AREA (in square feet): n/a SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED FOR SUBDIVISIONS OR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING THREE LOTS OR MORE if applicable): n/a PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): n/a NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): rVa LQ:web/pw/devserv/forms/planning/masterapp.doc 09/27/06 PRO 37 1NFOR NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): rile SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): nla SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): Na SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): rVa SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): n/a NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): nle NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): rVa f MATION continu �! _ PROJECT VALUE: n/a IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): rVa O AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE _ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. _ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. 17 SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. _ WETLANDS _ SaJt, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following Information Included SITUATE IN THE OF SECTION , TOWNSHIP_, RANGE , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. ,Environmental Checklist 4. 2. Rezone 5. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 1, (Print Name/s) —ebe= Lind , declare that I am (please check one) the current owner of the property involved In this applicalFon or X•_ the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach prof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith are In all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this Instrument and acknowledged It to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Rebecca._Lind (Signature of Owner/Representative) L&Z426zl� (Signature of Owner/Representative) Q:web/pwldevserv/Forms/planning/mastempp.doc 09/27/06 PIDs for Highlands LanL .e and Zoning Package (Fall 06) PIDs for RMD to RSF, R-10 to R-8 773610000301,773610001606,082305913301,082305913400,082305904201,227000003003, 042305911101,334390032103,773610000509,092305916204,092305917004,227000006006, 042305918601,227000015007,230920018002,042305904205,773610002000,773610002505, 042305912604,092305919406,227000014000,227000011006,230920004002,227000005008, 082305914507,227000001007,230920011007,773610004600,092305918309,092305913508, 092305912401,227000013002,230920013003,230920010009,230920003004,082305909408, 773610003503,773610001002,230920015008,230920016006,773610005003,227000009000, 092305917301,773610001507,230920007005,230920017004,227000016005,230920008003, 230920006007,082305919506,773610004105,773610004006,773610004501,773610005508, 227000007004,227000002005,773610003602,773610003008,230920001008,227000010008, 227000012004,230920002006,230920014001,227000008002,082305910406,230920009001, 082305914705,227000004001,230920005009,230920012005,334390032509 PIDs for RMD to CV and associated rezone 722780192505, 722780000500, 722780090501, 722780197504, 245720019802, 722780199104, 245720019307, 722780202502, 722780093000, 245720019000, 722780199203, 722780203005, 722780010509, 722780201504,722780012000,245720019604,722780005004,722780195508, 722780001003,245720019703,722780014501,722780002506,722780016506, 722780013503,722780002001,722780001508,722780192000,722780005509, 722780194006,722780197009,722780007505,722780011507,722780193008, 722780003009,722780201009,722780196001,722780018007,722780193503, 722780000203,722780195003,722780007000,245720019901,722780199500, 722780200506,722780004502,722780000104,722780202007,722780006507, 722780194501,722780199005,722780012505,245720019109,245720019208, 722780200001,722780000401,722780008008,722780014006,722780015508, 722780008503,722780009006,722780010004,722780009501,722780013008, 722780199302,722780003504,245720019505,722780196506,722780006002, 722780010202,722780198502,722780191507,722780198007,722780004007, 722780011002,042305915607 PIDs for CV to RMF Properties (remain RMF zoning) 092305910900,092305911304,722750053000,092305905702,092305908607,722750054008, 722750060005,092305915800,722750059007,092305913102,722750058504,092305905900, 092305921006,722750058009,092305918606,092305920701,092305911908,722750057001 PIDs for CV properties R-10 to R-14 722780174008,722780023502,722780159504,722780156005,722780148507, 722780182001,722780181508,722780171509,722780150503,722780160502, 722780161500,722780162003,722780180500,722780184007,722780185004, 722780184502,722780173000,722780024005,722780179502,722780173505, 722780021001,722780182506,722780155502,722780170501,722780153002, 722780150008,722780026000,722780183108,722780019500,722780164009, 722780158605,722780158506,722780159009,722780174503,722780177001, 722780175005,722780163001,722780152509,722780180005,722780154505, 722780156500,722780154000,722780176508,722780185509,722780153507, 722780176003,722780172002,722780152004,722780148002,722780179007, 722780022504, 722780161005, 722780183504, 722780163506, 722780024500, 722780171004, 722780021506, 722780175500, 722780160007, 722780170006, PIDs for Highlands Lam .e and Zoning Package (Fall 06) 722780019005,722780018502,722780020003,722780165105,722780151006,722780162508, 722780157508,722780151501,722780152608,722780169503,722780181003,722780148101, 722780183009,722780155007,722780023007,722780025002,722780025507,722780020508, 722780172507,722780158001,722780157003,722780147509,722780164504,722780022009, 722780149000,722780149505 PIDs for CV properties R-10 to RIME 042305926901 PIDs for CV properties RMF to CV 722780126503,722780133004,722780139506,722780167002,722780135504,722780131008, 722780136502,722780168000,092305906205,092305910207,722780178108,722780130505, 722780129507,722780166509,722780138003,722780129002,722780131503,722780167507, 092305916105,722780139001,722780134507,722780134002,092305905801,722780132501, 722780128509,722780133509,722780137005,722780132006,042305926901,092305908003, 722780108501,722780137500,722780140009,722780127501,722780130000,722780128004, 092305906106,722780105507,722780136007,722780138508,722780166004 PIDs for CV properties R-10 to CV 722780204003,722780165501,722780165584,722780168505,722780169008 r Project Narrative- Highlands Land Use and Zoning Package (Fall 2006) This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea: 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non - substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including: amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16`n Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7`n Street and NE 9`h Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9`h Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 12`n and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12`n Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE 12`h Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the corner of NE 9`n Street and Glennwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the parcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7`h Street and NE 9`h Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF.. Please see attached maps. Cam' O 8�P F4,LIOV, SFp ? 8 t9Ecov �' : • OEVELOPMENr P C17y OF A'EAfrONNING SEP 2 8 2o06 IX. CENTERS Goal: Develop well-balanced attractive, convenient, robust commercial office, office, and residential development within designated Centers serving the City and the region. Discussion: The Centers category of land use includes two areas of the City, the Center Village in the Highlands and the Urban Center located in the historic downtown and the employment area north to Lake Washington. The Urban Center includes two sub -areas: Urban Center- Downtown (220 acres) and the Urban Center -North (310 acres). Together these two areas are envisioned to evolve into a vibrant city core that provides arts, entertainment, regional employment opportunities, recreation, and quality urban residential neighborhoods. The Renton Urban Center is envisioned as the dynamic heart of a growing regional city. Renton's Urban Center will provide significant capacity for new housing in order to absorb the city's share of future regional growth. This residential population will help to balance the City's employment population and thereby meet the policy directive of a 2:1 ratio of jobs to housing. The Center Village designation is envisioned as a revitalized residential and commercial area providing goods and services to the Greater Highlands area. The area could potentially become a focal point for a larger area, the Coal Creek Corridor, connecting Renton to Newcastle -to and Issaquah. While development is envisioned at a smaller scale than expected in the Urban Center, the Village Center will still focus on urban mixed -use projects with a pedestrian --oriented development pattern. Objective LU-MM: Encourage a wide range and combination of uses, developed at sufficient intensity to maximize efficient use of land, support transit use, and create a viable district. Policy LU-193. Promote the innovative site planning and clustering of Center uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas, Policy LU-194. Phase implementation of development within Centers to support economically feasible development in the short term but also provide a transition to achieve new development consistent with long term land use objectives. Policy LU-195. Designate Center boundaries according to the following criteria: 1) The boundary should coincide with a major change in land use type or intensity; 2) Boundaries should consider topography and natural features such as ravines, hills, and significant stands of trees; 3) Boundaries should occur along public rights -of -way including streets or utility easements, or at rear property lines where justified by the existing land use pattern. Boundary lines should not be drawn through the interior of parcels; and 4) As a maximum distance, the boundary should be drawn within a walkable distance from one or two focal points, which may be defined by intersections, transit stops, or shopping centers. Policy LU-196. Designate Centers in locations with the following characteristics: 1) A nucleus of existing multi -use development; 2) Potential for redevelopment, or vacant land to encourage significant concentration of development; 3) Center locations should be located on major transit and transportation routes; 4) Center locations should be served by the City's arterial street system. Policy LU-197. Change adopted boundaries only in the following circumstances: 1) The original mapping failed to consider a major natural feature or significant land use that would make implementation of the boundary illogical, or 2) The amount of land within a Center is inadequate to allow development of the range and intensity of uses envisioned for the Center. Policy LU-198. Support new office and commercial development that is more intensive than the older office and commercial development in existing Centers in order to create more compact and efficient Centers over time. Policy LU-199. Allow stand-alone residential development of various types and urban densities in portions of Centers not conducive to commercial development, or in the Urban Center in districts designated for residential use. Policy LU-200. Allow residential uses throughout Centers as part of mixed -use developments. Consider bonus incentives for housing types compatible with commercial uses or lower density residential that is adjacent to Centers. Policy LU-201. Include uses that are compatible with each other within mixed -use developments; for example, office and certain retail uses with residential, office, and retail. Policy LU-202. Locate and design commercial uses within a residential mixed -use development in a manner that preserves privacy and quiet for residents. Policy LU-203. Modify existing commercial and residential uses that are adjacent to or within new proposed development to implement the new Center land use vision as much as possible through alterations in parking lot design, landscape, signage, and site plan as redevelopment opportunities occur. Policy LU-204. Consolidate signage for mixed -use development. Policy LU-205. Identify major natural features and support development of new focal points that define the Center and are visually distinctive. Policy LU-206. Design focal points to include a combination of public areas such as parks or plazas, architectural features such as towers, outstanding building design, transit stops, or outdoor eating areas. These features should be connected to pedestrian pathways if possible. Policy LU-207. Evaluate existing intersections of arterial roadways for opportunities to create focal points. Policy LU-208. Consolidate access to existing streets and provide internal vehicular circulation that supports shared access. Policy LU-209. Locate parking for residential uses in the mixed -use developments to minimize disruption of pedestrian or auto access to the retail component of the project. Policy LU-210. Connect residential uses to other uses in the Center through design features such as pedestrian access, shared parking areas, and common open spaces. CENTER VILLAGE LAND USE DESIGNATION Purpose Statement: Center Village is characterized by areas of the City that provide an opportunity for redevelopment as close -in urban mixed -use residential and commercial areas that are pedestrian --oriented. These areas are anticipated to provide medium to high -density residential development and a wide range of commercial activities serving citywide and sub -regional markets. Center Villages typically are developed within an existing suburban land use pattern where opportunities exist to modify the development pattern to accommodate more growth within the existing urban areas by providing for compact urban development, transit orientation, pedestrian circulation, and a community focal point organized around an urban village concept. Objective LU-CCC: Develop Center Villages, characterized by intense urban development supported by site planning and infrastructure that provides a pedestrian scale environment. Policy LU-317. Apply the Center Village d.Designation to areas with an existing suburban and auto -oriented land use pattern, which, due to availability and proximity to existing residential neighborhoods, are candidate locations for a higher density mixed -use type of development. Policy LU-318. Implement the Center Village Designation using multiple zoning designations including Residential 4-0-14 (R-1914 ), Center Village (CV), and Residential Multi -family (RAF). Strategy 319.1. Evaluate commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village and replace zoning designations or re -zone with the vision for a Center Village designation Strategy 319.2. Prepare a Highlands Plan as a sub -area plan to further refine the land use concept for and implement the Center Village land use concepts. Phasing of the Highlands Re Subarea Plan is expected to occur ester -within a 2 - 5- year period from the 2004 GMA update. Policy LU-320. Allow residential density ranging from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 80 dwelling units per acre in the Center Village Des designation. Policy LU-321. Encourage mixed -use structures and projects. - Policy LU•322. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians and people to maximize pedestrian activity and minimize automobile use for circulation within the Center Village. Policy LU-323. Accommodate parking within a parking structure. Where structured parking is infeasible due to site configuration, parking should be located in the back or the side of the primary structure. age- arking lots between structures and street rights -of- way shall not be permitted. Policy LU-324. Use alley access where alleys currently exist. Encourage designation of new alleys in redevelopment projects. Policy LU-325. Encourage shared parking to use urban land efficiency. Policy LU-326. Develop design guidelines to provide direction on site design, building design, landscape treatments, aW-parking, and circulation components of new development projects. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-327. Encourage uses in Center Villages that serve a sub -regional or citywide market as well as the surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU-328. Encourage more urban style design and intensity of development (e.g. building height, bulk, landscaping, parking) within Center Villages than with land uses outside the Centers. Policy LU-329. Promote the clustering of community commercial uses and discourage the development of strip commercial areas. Policy LU-330. Residential development within Center Villages is intended to be urban scale, stacked, flat and/or townhouse development with structured parking. Policy LU-331. Prohibit new garden style multi -family development. Policy LU-332. Provide community scale office and service uses. o F P�NN CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON eSEp 2 8 2006 ORDINANCE NO. nLCE'kih AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 4-2, ZONING DISTRICTS — USES AND STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-3, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND OVERLAY DISTRICTS, CHAPTER 4-4, CITY-WIDE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CHAPTER 4-8, PERMITS- GENERAL AND APPEALS, AND CHAPTER 4-11, DEFINITIONS, OF TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF ORDINANCE NO.4260 ENTITLED "CODE OF GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON" BY CHANGING THE ZONING REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE CENTER VILLAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION, INCLUDING THE RESIDENTIAL-14 (R-14) ZONE AND CENTER VILLAGE (CV) ZONE, AND ENACTING DESIGN REGULATIONS. WHEREAS, the Vision for the Center Village calls for the modification of the existing, low -density suburban land use pattern; and WHEREAS, Comprehensive Plan Strategy 319.1 requires the evaluation of commercial and residential development standards in the Center Village Land Use Designation to ensure better implementation of the Center Village policies; and WHEREAS, Strategy 319.1 calls for the replacement of existing zoning that does not implement the Center Village Vision; and WHEREAS, the R-10 zone does not implement the Center Village vision for medium to high density residential development; and and WHEREAS, the Center Village zone includes uses that are incompatible with high density housing; WHEREAS, the Center Village Land Use policies promote high standards of design, pedestrian orientation, development of alleys, and the clustering of commercial and civic uses; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element promotes the provision of affordable housing for all income groups; and; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 of 53 SECTION L Section 4-2-0I0.1) 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 on Attachment `A'. SECTION H. Section 4-2-020.11 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: H. RESDIENTIAL-14 DU/ACRE (R-14): The purpose of the Residential-14 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-14) is to encourage development, and redevelopment, of new -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. It is intended to implement the Residential Medium Density or the Center Village Land Use Comprehensive Plan designations. Densities range from o"'�ten 10 to fourteen (14) units per net acre with opportunities for bonuses up to eighteen (18) dwelling units per net acre. Structure size is intended to be limited in terms of bulk and scale so that the various unit types allowed in the zone are compatible with one another and can be integrated together into a quality neighborhood. Project features are encouraged, such as yards for private use, common open spaces, and landscaped areas that enhance a neighborhood and foster a sense of community. Civic and limited commercial uses may be allowed when they support the purpose of the designation. Interpretation of uses and project review in this zone shall be based on the purpose established in the Residential Medium Density land use designation, Objectives LU-GG through LU•H, Policies LU- 157 through LU-181, or the Center Village land use designation, Objective LU-CCC, Policies LU- 317_thro_ugh LU-332, and the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 53 SECTION III. Section 4-2-060 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 on Attachment `B'. SECTION IV. Section 4-2-070J 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 on Attachment `C'. SECTION V. Section 4-2-080A.33 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: 33. , t.,....a..,,., ats do), eam n..,.,or- ,. ulf .7,,. eare rr Non-residential uses are permitted eMy in eei�twe cif intended to serve residential development in the R-14 Zone. Project size limitations of RMC 4-2- 11 OF apply. A preschool or day care center, when accessory to public or community facilities listed in RMC 4-2-060J, is considered a permitted use and not a conditional use. SECTION VI. Section 4-2-080A.73 of Chapter 2, Zoning Districts — Uses and Standards, of Title rV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to read as follows: 73. Within the Center Village Zone, Residential Bones Distriat, " " afe limited to te%%heuse development in the fange ef seven (7) to twenty (20) dwellifig Mits per- Flet arden style apartments are prohibited. FlatS OF tOWRI10tises, fir-st floor- eemmer-eial uses, have a fna*kvmfn deasity of eighty (80) dwelling units per- net aere. Pr-ejeets w4hin the Center Village are also sul�eet �a the provisions and developmem standards in RA4G 4 3 09 and D, Gemer- V411age Residential Beaus Distriet. Atteehed dweiling unit develepineff4s in thO range Of4@0 (10) to twenty (20) dwelling tinits per- not aeFe may only be teyAihouse unit . Ground floor commercial development is required for all residential projects on parcels abutting Sunset Boulevard NE. Page 3 of 53 Y SECTION VII. Section 4-2-11OF 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 on Attachment `D'. SECTION VM. Section 4-2-110G 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 on Attachment `E'. SECTION IX. Section 4-2-120A 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 on Attachment `F'. SECTION X. Section 4-3-095 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 deleted in its entirety. SECTION XI. Section 4-3-100 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 to read as follows: A PURPOSE: 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. b. C. d. e. Maintain and protect property values; Enhance the general appearance of the City; Encourage creativity in building and site design; Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and Consider the individual merits of proposals. Page 4 of 53 2. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'A' (the Downtown Core) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — Downtown. 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. 3. Create design standards and guidelines specific to District 'B' (the South Renton Neighborhood) that ensure design quality of structures and site development implementing the City's South Renton Neighborhood Plan. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan, for a residential area located within the Urban Center — Downtown, maintains the existing, traditional grid street plan and respects the scale of the neighborhood, while providing new housing at urban densities. The South Renton Neighborhood Plan supports a residential area that is positioned to capitalize on the employment and retail opportunities increasingly available in the Downtown Core. 4. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center —North (District 'C') that ensure design quality of structures and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for its Urban Center — North. This Vision is of an urban environment that concentrates uses in a "grid pattern" of streets and blocks. The Vision is of a vibrant, economically vital neighborhood that encourages use throughout by pedestrians. 5. Create design standards and guidelines applicable to the use of "big -box retail" as defined in RMC 4- 11-180, Definitions. 6. Create design standards and guidelines suecifrc to the Center Village commercial core (District that ensure design gualijy of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation. Uses within this district include_ business and professional offices, services, retail, restaurants, recreational businesses, mixed -use commercial and residential buildings, and multi -family residential. This portion of the Center Village is intended to provide a vital business district serving the local neighborhood and beyond. 7. Create design standards and guidelines specific to the residential portion of the Center Villm District'E' that ensure design guality of structure and site development that implements the City of Renton's Comprehensive Plan Vision for the Center Village designation. A variejy of housing options allows economic and life& le diversily in the Center Village, with design regulation to tie the range of styles and types together. 8. Establish two categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. ,Set specific minimum standards and guidelines that may apply to all districts, or certain districts only (Districts 'A', '13% Er-'C', 'D', or `E'), as indicated herein. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) B APPLICABILITY: 1. This Section shall apply to all development in the Urban Center — Downtown and Urban Center — North. For the purposes of the design regulations, the Center Downtown is District ' A', South Renton is District '13% and the Urban Center — North is District 'C.' Districts A through C are depicted on the Urban Center Design Overlay District Map, shown in subsection 134 of this Section. Page 5 of 53 2. This Section shall also apply to big -box retail use where allowed in the Commercial Arterial (CA), Light Industrial (IL), Medium Industrial (IM), and Heavy Industrial (IH) zones, except when those zones are located in the Employment Area -- Valley south of Interstate 405. Big -box retail uses within these zones, except in the Employment Area — Valley, must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center —North (District 'C'). 3. Where conflicts may be construed between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail. 4. Urban Center Design Overlay District Map: 5. _ This section shall apply to al development in the Center Village Land Use Designation as shown on the Comprehensive flan Land Use Map_. _ For the purposes of the Design Regulations, areas within the Center Village Land Use Designation zoned Center Village (CV) shall comprise District "D". Areas within the Center Village Land Use Designation zoned Residential Multi -family RMF and Residential-14 R-14 area shall be in District "E". (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) C EXEMPTIONS: The design regulations shall not apply to: I . Interior Remodels: Interior remodels of existing buildings or structures provided the alterations do not modify the building facade. 2. Aircraft Manufacturing: Structures related to the existing use of aircraft manufacturing in District `C'. (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) D ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process: Applications subject to design regulations shall be processed as a component of the governing land use process. 2. Authority: The Dir-eeter- of the Development Senxioes Divisi iReviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the DiFeetee-Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) E SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high -density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights -of -way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Page 6 of 53 Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and 'B': Maintain existing grid street pattern b. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. ii. Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its'transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). (e) Drive aisles. 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' &ud,-'B% and ID': Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. Buildings on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall feature "pedestrian -oriented facades" and clear connections to the sidewalk (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7a). Such buildings shall be located adjacent to the sidewalk, except where pedestrian -oriented space is located between the building and the sidewalk. Parking between the building and pedestrian -oriented streets is prohibited. ii. Buildings fronting on pedestrian -oriented streets shall contain pedestrian -oriented uses. Page 7 of 53 iii. Nonresidential buildings may be located directly adjacent to any street as long as they feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. iv. Buildings containing street -level residential uses and single -purpose residential buildings shall be set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10) and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1000b). V. If buildings do not feature pedestrian -oriented facades they shall have substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and building. Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10) in width as measured from the sidewalk (sed illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7c). C. Guidelines Applicable to District 'Cl: i ----Siting of a structure should take into consideration the continued availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas). d. Guideline Applicable to Districts `C' and `D": ii, —Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' a*d-ZB', 1D', and IV: rntmnee T eeation. i_A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street. Sue enfaneesshall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human scale elements. ii. _ Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and_open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. iii. Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as_a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iv. Secondary access (not fronting on a street shall have weather_ Egtection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide over the entrance or other similar, indicator ot'access. V. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property_edgcs, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. b. Minimum Standards for District `C': i. On pedestrian -oriented streets, the primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing the street. Page 8 of 53 ii. On non -pedestrian -oriented streets, entrances shall be prominent, visible from surrounding streets, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. iii. All building entries adjacent to a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings with frontage on designated pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, RMC 4-3- 1 OOE7d). iv. Weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2) wide and proportional to the distance above ground level shall be provided over the primary entry of all buildings and over any entry adjacent to a street. V. Pedestrian pathways from public sidewalks to primary entrances or from parking lots to primary entrances shall be clearly delineated. C. Guidelines Applicable WAR Districts `A' IB' and'C': i. Multiple buildings on the same site should provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. ii. Ground floor units should be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. iii. Secondary access (not fronting on a street) should have weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2) wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. iv. Pedestrian access should be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. V. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street or pedestrian - oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. de. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A' and `D': i. For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. ii. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. iii. Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District `A'. Page 9 of 53 of Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': Front yards should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, or similar feature. €g. Guideline Applicable to District 'C': For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and `D': Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: i. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; ii. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; iii. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. b. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and `V: i. Careful siting and design treatment is necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: (01. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; or (b)iii. Building articulation provided to divide a larger architectural element into smaller pieces; or (e)iv. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. Page 10 of 53 a-r-eas v4� eldef style, steeply pitehed, single family homes, similer- Feef styles are eneettraged to C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. For properties along North 6th Street and Logan Avenue North (between North 4th Street and North 6th Street), applicants shall demonstrate how their project provides an appropriate transition to the long established, existing neighborhood south of North 6th Street known as the North Renton Neighborhood. ii. For properties located south of North 8th Street, east of Garden Avenue North, applicants must demonstrate how their project appropriately provides transitions to existing industrial uses. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high -volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). ii. Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 44-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. iii. In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self -closing doors (see illustration, RMC 4-3-1MEW). iv. The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. V. If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet (Y) wide, shall be located on three (3) sides of such facility. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'C' and `D': i. Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection E7g of this Section). Page 11 of 53 ii. Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection E7h of this Section). iii. Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following: (a) Public art; (b) Monuments; (c) Special landscape treatment; (d) Open space/plaza; (e) identifying building form; (i) Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; (g) Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); (h) Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). 7. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian -oriented facades (see subsection E2b(i) of this Section). Pedestriamoriented facade Property line 1 Pedestrbtnorlented facades: Primary building entry must be facing the street transparent window area or window display along 75% of the ground ftaor between the height of 2 to B feet above the ground r'l weather protection at bast 4 % feet wide �' h� < , along at bast 75% of the facade b. Street -level residential (see subsection E2b(iv) of this Section). Page 12 of 53 Raised planters provide privacy far residents while maintaining views of the street from units Trees C. Buildings without pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection E2b(v) of this Section). Combination of evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees -,. d. Building Raised planter Building entries (see subsection E3b(iii) of this Section). Page 13 of 53 1 e. Service elements located to minimize the impact on the pedestrian environment (see subsection E5a(i) of this Section). DUMPS. LOCATE REAR O SITE f. Service enclosure (see subsection E5a(iii) of this Section). Page 14 of 53 ^,00f enclosure keep birds out WIHA GLG MaY g. Distinguishable building form appropriate for gateway locations (see subsection E6a(i) of this Section). II 'n ■■■in m r°- IIIIIIIIIIIIIf IIl Ill ;I,�,;;;; rrr■ �rrrr 1 1 f 1 I 1 ! 1 1 1 1!lIIIHII ti I Turret m M Elevation Comer accentuating roof line Plan Note: Ensure that building does not block viewing triangle at intersections Elevation 77- Bay window Plan Page 15 of 53 h. Gateway landscaping, open space, pedestrian amenities and signage that identifies the commercial area (see subsection E6a(ii) of this Section). (Ord. 5029,11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) F PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A' and-W, and ID'1: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': Ii. On dDesignated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: Page 16 of 53 (a) Parking shall be at the side and/or rear of a building, with the exception of on -street parallel parking. No more than sixty feet (60') of the street frontage measured parallel to the curb shall be occupied by off-street parking and vehicular access. (b) On -street parallel parking spaces located adjacent to the site can be included in calculation of required parking. For parking ratios based on use and zone, see RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations. (c) On -street, parallel parking shall be required on both sides of the street. ii. All parking lots located between a building and street or visible from a street shall feature landscaping between the sidewalk and building; see RMC 44-080F, Parking Lot Design Standards. iii. Surface Parking Lots: The applicant must successfully demonstrate that the surface parking lot is designed to facilitate future structured parking and/or other infill development. For example, an appropriate surface parking area would feature a one thousand five hundred foot (1,500' maximum perimeter area and a minimum dimension on one side of two hundred feet (200'), unless project proponent can demonstrate future alternative use of the area would be physically possible. Exception: If there are size constraints inherent in the original parcel (see illustration, subsection F5a of this Section). C. Minimum Standards for District 'E': i.. No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property_line or the building and side p=eny line on the street side of a corner lot. ii. Parkina shall be located off an alley if an alley is present. ed _—Guideilne Applicable to A41-Districts `A', `B', `C', and `D': In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. De. Guidelines Applicable to District `C': i. If a limited number of parking spaces are made available in front of a building for passenger drop-off and pick-up, they shall be parallel to the building facade. ii. When fronting on streets not designated as pedestrian -oriented, parking lots should be located on the interior portions of blocks and screened from the surrounding roadways by buildings, landscaping and/or gateway features as dictated by location. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Ia. Minimum Standards for Districts' A'-nnd1'C', and `D': Page 17 of 53 i. Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection F5b of this Section). ii. All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 44-080F7, Landscape Requirements). b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `A', 'C', and ID': i. Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on -site buffering from visual impacts. ii. Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. iii. Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for District `C' and 'D': i. Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground -floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection 175c of this Section). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. ii. Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least six feet (6) from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to ten feet (10) adjacent to high visibility streets. (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; Page 18 of 53 (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (8) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection F5d of this Section). b. Minimum Standards for District `D': i. Parking structures shall provide s ace for ound-floor commercial uses along -street frontages at a minimum of seventy-five percent 75% of the frontage width see illustration subsection F5c of this Section . ii. The entire facade must feature a edestrian-oriented facade. Iii Facades shall be articulated architecturallL so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall_Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection F5d of this Section). pq C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'A' and-C' and rD9: i. Parkin =garage entries sho_uid be desi.�ned and sited to com lement not subordinate the edestrian entry. If possible, locate the parking en away_from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. ii. Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. iii. The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. ii-i•: iv Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Page 19 of 53 iv_v. Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. vi. Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and `E': i. Attached personal parking garages at -grade should be individualized and not enclose more than two (2) cars per enclosed space. Such garages should be architecturally integrated into the whole development. ii. Multiple -user parking garages at -grade should be enclosed or screened from view through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. iviii. Personal parking garages should be individualized whenever possible with separate entries and architectural detailing in character with the lower density district. iv. Large multi-user parking garages arc discouraged in this lower density district and, if provided, should be located below grade whenever possible. 4. Vehicular Access: Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'B' and `E': Parking lots and garages shall be accessed from alleys when available- b. Minimum Standards for District 'C': i. Parking garages shall be accessed at the rear of buildings or from non -pedestrian -oriented streets when available. ii. Surface parking driveways are prohibited on pedestrian -oriented streets. iii. Parking lot entrances, driveways, and other vehicular access points on high visibility streets shall be restricted to one entrance and exit lane per five hundred (500) linear feet as measured horizontally along the street. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and `D': i. Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. Page 20 of 53 ii. Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on -site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. d. Guidelines Applicable to Area 'B' and `E': i. Garage entryways and/or driveways accessible only from a street should not impede pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk. ii. Curb cuts should be minimized whenever possible through the use of shared driveways. 5. Illustrations. a. Parking and vehicular access in District'C' (see subsection Flb(iii) of this Section). Page 21 of 53 Parking lots are accessed by a system of local access "streets„ Parking lots are sited towards the interior of the block to the extent possible? Parking lots are configured to allow future Infill development 4y �4 No parking lots or driveways adjacent to a pedestrian -oriented street Parallel parting on local access ,-- "streets" Minimize access points from High Visibility :---- Streets Mid -block connections enhance access and provide a good framework for future Infill development Parking garage entrance designed to minimize impact - on pedestrian environment b. Parking lot lighting (see subsection F2a(l) of this Section). Page 22 of 53 DO THIS DON'T DO THIS C. Parking structure fronting on pedestrian -oriented street with pedestrian -oriented uses and facades along the ground floor (see subsection F3a(i)(a) of this Section). Parking garage on second floor Ground floor commercial space with pedestrian -oriented facade d. Parking structure designed to enhance streetscape (see subsection F3a(11)(c) of this Section). Page 23 of 53 Articulation of facade comps to reduce scal and add visua interest Decorative tre structure for vi Raised plantin bed adjacent t, sidewalk (Ord. 502 9, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) G PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village -by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi - modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'C' and 'D': i. Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ii. Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of one hundred and fifty feet (150) apart (see illustration, subsection G4a of this Section). 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' anti,-'C' and ID': Page 24 of 53 i. Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection G4b of this Section). ii. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. iii. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection G4c of this Section). iv. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred (100) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least twelve feet (12') in width. The walkway shall include an eight foot (8') minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection G4d of this Section). (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A ten to twelve foot (10' —12) pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four (4) abreast, or two (2) couples passing one another. An eight foot (8') pathway will accommodate three (3) individuals walling abreast, whereas a smaller five to six foot (5' — 6') pathway will accommodate two (2) individuals. V. Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. vi. All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. b. Guidelines Applicable to All Districts: i. Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. ii. Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. iii. Decorative fFences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. C. Guidelines Applicable to District'C' only: i. Through -block connections should be made between buildings, between streets, and to connect sidewalks with public spaces. Preferred location for through -block connections is mid -block (see illustration, subsection G4e of this Section). Page 25 of 53 ii. Between buildings of up to and including two (2) stories in height, through -block connections should be at least six feet (6') in width. iii. Between buildings three (3) stories in height or greater, through -block connections should be at least twelve feet (12') in width. iv. Transit stops should be located along designated transit routes a maximum of one -quarter (0.25) mile apart. V. As an alternative to some of the required street trees, developments may provide pedestrian -scaled light fixtures at appropriate spacing and no taller than fourteen feet (14') in height. No less than one tree or light fixture per sixty (60)1hi L30J lineal feet of the required walkway should be provided. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. a. Minimum Standards for District-'Cl: i. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the length of the building facade facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15') above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8) above ground level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. b. Minimum Standards for District `D': i. Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection_ in the farm of awnings, marquees_ca_n_opies, or building_ overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of four and one-half feet (4'1z') wide along at least seven1y five percent 75% of the length of the building fa ade a maximum height of fifteen feet 15' above the gound elevation and no lower than eight feet 8' above ound level. ii. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be -made of durable,_ vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. iii. Site furniture and amenities shall not im ede or block pedestrian access to public Waces or building entrances, C. Minimum Standards for District IF only: Page 26 of 53 i. Site furniture provided in public spaces shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather -resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. ii. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to 1ublic spaces or building entrances. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'C', Wand `E': i. Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. ii. Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. iii. Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection G4f of this Section). 4. Illustrations. a. Pedestrian walkways within parking lots (see subsection Gla(ii) of this Section). Page 27 of 53 b. Integrated pedestrian access system (pathways are shown in solid black lines) (see subsection G2a(i) of this Section). Page 28 of 53 Pathways along building facades are at least 12'wide and Includes street trees 1.4 Parking lot pathway connects pathwayonnects uses and attlAity centers 4 Pedestrian -oriented street with wide sidewalks, and street F � 4f Sidewalk along high visibility street Major local access "streets" are designed with sidewalks — on at least one side Interior pathways that link storefronts, parking areas, — and resIdenflal uses C. Parking lot pedestrian Interior walkway (see subsection G2a(HI) of this Section). Page 29 of 53 f�J d. Sidewalks along retail building facade (see subsection GU(iv)(a) of this Section). Street trees and/or pedestrian street lamps every 30' Weather e. Through -block pedestrian connections (see subsection G2c of this Section). Page 30 of 53 f. 0 '4 j Pedestrian Corridor V �edr°� PVdP loanat�"� V Pedestrian Corridor 4*00002005000■ Pedestrian amenities incorporated into development (see subsection G3b(iii) of this Section). Recessed entry Seasonal landscaping Transparent windows Weather protection iestrian xiented space Seating areas ses and street eatures used to define destrian Me Varied vement destrian oriented signage (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) H LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREASICOMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in Page 31 of 53 sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). ii. Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. iii. On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection H3a of this Section). iv. The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. V. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and non -vegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. vi. Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscaping Requirements). Such Iandscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection H3b of this Section). Standards for planting shall be as follows: (a) Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8') or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (b) Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area, Shrubs shall be at least twelve inches (12") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (c) Groundcover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. (d) The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three (3) years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. (e) Surface parking with more than fourteen (14) stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Page 32 of 53 Total Number of SpacesMinimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and groundcover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six (6) parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least thirty five feet (35'). Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet (8) or two inch (2") caliper (as measured four feet (4') from the top of the root ball) respectively. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five (5) per one hundred (100) square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least sixteen inches (16") tall at planting and have a mature height between three feet (3') and four feet (4'). (5) Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous. (6) Select and plant groundcover so as to provide ninety percent (90%) coverage within three (3) years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than fifty feet (50') from a landscape area. vii. Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. viii. Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. b, Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. ii. Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. iii. Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. iv. Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. V. Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. Page 33 of 53 vi. Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. vii. Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'B' and IE': i. Front yards should be visible from the street and visually contribute to the streetscape. ii. Decorative walls and fencing are encouraged when architecturally integrated into the project. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. a. Minimum Standards for Districts'A', and-'C' and and IV: i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. iii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iv. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection 113c of this Section). Page 34 of 53 V. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. vi. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and -common space requirement. vii. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection H3d of this Section) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space viii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On -site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet (Y) of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. ix. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection H3e of this Section) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. (d) Provide movable public seating. X. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Page 35 of 53 xi. The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian -oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian - oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'B' and IE': Attached housing developments shall provide a minimum area of private usable open space equal to one hundred fifty (IS0) square feet per unit of which one hundred (100) square feet are contiguous. Such space may include porches, balconies, yards, and decks. C. Minimum Standards for District 'C': The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' ,anrd2C' and `D': i. Common space areas in mixed -use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. ii. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. f iii. In mixed -use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. e. Guidelines Applicable to District 'Cl: Developments located at street intersection corners on designated pedestrian -oriented streets are encouraged to provide pedestrian -oriented space adjacent to the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (see illustration, subsection HYof this Section). 3. Illustrations. a. Street tree installed with tree grate (see subsection Hla(iii) of this Section). Page 36 of 53 b. Parking lot landscaped buffer (see subsection Hla(vi) of this Section). One free per 30 lineal feet Parking, service, or storage areas i „ D' Ilk lendsaeprng Buffer C. Visible and accessible common area featuring landscaping and other amenities (see subsection H2a(iv) of this Section). d. Pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building (see subsection H2a(vii) of this Section). Page 37 of 53 e. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components and pedestrian -oriented uses (see subsection H2a(ix) of this Section). f. Building setbacks increased at street corners along pedestrian -oriented streets to encourage provisions for pedestrian -oriented spaces (see subsection H2e of this Section). (Ord. 502 9, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) Page 38 of 53 Corner entr with increm setback PedsOran-dented space BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. a. Minimum Standard for Districts 'A' and `D': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). b. Minimum Standard for Districts'B' and `E': All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than twenty feet (20'). C. Minimum Standards for District'C': i. All building facades shall include measures to reduce the apparent scale of the building and add visual interest. Examples include modulation, articulation, defined entrances, and display windows (see illustration, subsection I5a of this Section). ii. All buildings shall be articulated with one or more of the following: (a) Defined entry features; (b) Window treatment; (c) Bay windows and/or balconies; Page 39 of 53 (d) Roofline features; or (e) Other features as approved by the Director. iii. Single purpose residential buildings shall feature building modulation as follows (see illustration, subsection 15b of this Section): (a) The maximum width (as measured horizontally along the building's exterior) without building modulation shall be forty feet (40'). (b) The minimum width of modulation shall be fifteen feet (IT). (c) The minimum depth of modulation shall be the greater of six feet (6) or not less than two tenths (0.2) multiplied by the height of the structure (finished grade to the top of the wall). d. Guidelines Applicable to Districts'A' and-i B' ID' and `E': i. Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. iii. A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. e. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A Wand `E": Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (T) in depth and four feet (4') in width. f. Guidelines Applicable to Districts A' and ID"B-1: i. Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet (T) deep, sixteen feet (16) in height, and eight feet (8') in width. ii. Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the intent of this Section is met. g. Guidelines Applicable to District ' C': i. Although streetfront buildings along designated pedestrian streets should strive to create a uniform street edge, building facades should generally be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. ii. Style: Buildings should be urban in character. iii. Buildings greater than one hundred and sixty feet (160') in length should provide a variety of techniques to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the facade or provide an additional special design feature Page 40 of 53 such as a clock tower, courtyard, fountain, or public gathering place to add visual interest (see illustration, subsection I5c of this Section). 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. a. Minimum Standards for All Districts: i. Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet (6) in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet (15% and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. ii. Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection 15d of this Section): (a) A planting bed at least five feet (5') in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. iii. Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. iv. Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. V. Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. vi. Other facade window requirements include the following: Page 41 of 53 (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be fifty percent (50%). (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'A' and-, 'C' and 'D': i. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection Lye of this Section): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting; (5) Lighted displays. (c) DetaiI Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; Page 42 of 53 (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). ii. Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. iii. Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. C. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `B' and'E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is encouraged. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. a. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' a*d-i C', and `D': Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection 15f of this Section): i. Extended parapets; ii. Feature elements projecting above parapets; iii. Projected cornices; iv. Pitched or sloped roofs. (a) 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) Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4- 095E, Roof -Top Equipment. (c) 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. b. Guidelines Applicable to Districts `B' and `E': i. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses should have pitched roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4). Such roofs should have dormers or intersecting roof forms that break up the massiveness of a continuous, uninterrupted sloping roof. ii. Roof colors should be dark. Page 43 of 53 C. Guidelines Applicable to District 'C': Building roof lines should be varied to add visual interest to the building. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. a. Minimum Standards for all Districts: i. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. ii. Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. iii. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. b. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' a*l-., C', and 'D': Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. C. Guidelines Applicable to all Districts: i. Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in -place concrete. ii. Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. iii. Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. iv. Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4) above. d. Guideline Applicable to Districts 'B' and 'E': Use of material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding or patterns, or textural changes is encouraged. 5. Illustrations. a. Building modulation and articulation (see subsection I1c(1) of this Section). Page 44 of 53 :A i e. 1i INTERVAC'-INTERVAL`� b. Single purpose residential building featuring building modulation to reduce the scale of the building and add visual interest (see subsection 11c(iii) of this Section). Articulated roofline - in this case a traditional cornice Windows and bulldIn I; surfaces add visual interest and give the building a human scale Building Is 'modulated' (goes In and out to relieve the monotony of the wide wall A 5 R".1 TV oil i�: Mr. �Jlui. nPril?".; C. Reducing scale of long buildings (see subsection 11g(iii) of this Section). Page 45 of 53 N w rn z WQ M5 O Maximum facade length allowed r w� ww �z o Z-' w G 05 O� R,77 � 1 More than 160' V) w W Z � LU (9 I Facade is too long 160' or Meets guideline { I Meets guideline d. Acceptable blank wall treatments (see subsection I2a(D) of this Section). Trellis with vines or other plants Artwork C. Building facade features (see subsection I2b(i) of this Section). Page 46 of 53 4'-6' min. -�s, 4 4� 3:cl V4 III NN CANOPY RECESS OVERHANG lit TRELLIS PORTICO PORCH f. Preferred roof forms (see subsection 13a of this Section). (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7- 2005) Extended oaracets i6l ;11, 11 h shb, cornices J SIGNAGE: Feature elements projecting aDove vitcnea or siopea rooTs r Page 47 of 53 Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center, Village; and create color and interest. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts'C' and `DI: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. b. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. C. Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection J3a of this Section): i. Pole signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. d. In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. e. Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5') above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (groundcover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. f. Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts = C' and `D': a. Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. b. Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. C. Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. 3. Illustrations. a. Acceptable and unacceptable signs (see subsection J1c of this Section). Page 48 of 53 r Typical "can signs" Internally lit letters are not acceptable or graphics are acceptable Plastic or — translucent sheet metal box +— Only the individual letters are lit (Ord. 5029,1.1-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) K LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. 1. Minimum Standards for Districts 'A' and-, C'. and ID': a. Lighting shall conform to on -site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 44-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. b. Lighting shall be provided on -site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off -site, C. Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. 2. Guidelines Applicable to Districts 'C' and `D': a. Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant Iandscape features such as specimen trees. b. Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) L. MODIFICATION OF MINIMUM STANDARDS: Page 49 of 53 1. The Reviewi_ng, Official Divisien shall have the authority to modify the minimum standards of the design regulations, subject to the provisions of RMC 4-9-250D, Modification Procedures, and the following requirements: a. The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations; b. The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design standard; C. The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; d. The deviation manifests high quality design; and e. The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. 2. Exceptions for Districts A and B: Modifications to the requirements in subsections E2a and E3a of this Section are limited to the following circumstances: a. When the building is oriented to an interior courtyard, and the courtyard has a prominent entry and walkway connecting directly to the public sidewalk; or b. When a building includes an architectural feature that connects the building entry to the public sidewalk; or C. In complexes with several buildings, when the building is oriented to an internal integrated walkway system with prominent connections to the public sidewalk(s). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) M VARIANCE: (Reserved). (Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) N APPEALS: For appeals of administrative decisions made pursuant to the design regulations, see RMC 4-8-110, Appeals. (Ord. 4821, 12-20-1999; Amd. Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-03; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005) SECTION XII. Section 4-4-080F.10e 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 V. SECTION XIII. Section 4-8-120D.21 of Chapter 8, Permits- General and Appeals, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of Ordinance No. 4260 entitled "Code of General Page 50 of 53 Ordinances of the City of Renton, Washington" is hereby amended to revise the following definition: Urban Geete�Design Overlay-DistFW& u1at1ons Review Packet: A set of submission materials required for projects in subject to the Urban Design Retulations in RIvIG 4- 3-100: a. Site plan, land use review; b. Elevations, architectural; c. Floor plans, general; d. Narrative outlining how the applicant's proposal addresses the City's Urban Eenter-Design Overlay Regulations. SECTION XIV. Section 4-9-065D 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 as shown in Attachment `H'. SECTION XV. The definition of "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" in Section 4- I I-010 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 read as follows: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Housing used as a primary residence for any household whose income is less than eighty percent (80%) 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 satisf zonin r requirements, whether for inclusionary or bonus plovisions, must be secured to remain affordable inTgMetuity, as determined by the Ci1y attorney. SECTION XVI. The definition of "DWELLING, MULTI -FAMILY" in Section 4-11-040 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 read as follows: DWELLING, MULTI -FAMILY: Page 51 of 53 Dwelling, Attached: A one -family dwelling attached to one or more one -family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home Ii as defined herein. A. Flat: A residential building containing two (2) or more dwelling units which are attached at one or more common roofs, walls, or floors. Typically, the unit's habitable area is provided on a single level. Unit entrances may or may not be provided from a common corridor. B. Townhouse: A one -family, ground -related dwelling attached to one or more such units in which each unit has its own exterior, ground -level access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other unit by one or more vertical common walls. Typioally Townhouse the units are multi -story. C. Carriage House: One or more accessory dwelling units attached to a garage. The garage attached to the carriage house typically contains vehicle and/or storage for people living in another building as well as occupants of the carriage house. D. Penthouse: A single dwelling unit located at or near the top of a building containing other, non- residential uses. E. Garden Style Apartment: A dwelling unit that is one of several stacked vertically, frequently with exterior stairways and/or exterior corridors and surface parking. Parking is usually at grade with no structure or with detached carports or garages. Buildings typically have access from internal drive aisles and/or parking lots. The building usually turns its back to the front yard. There is typically no formal building entry area connected to a public sidewalk and a public street. Site planning may incorporate structures developed at low landscaped setbacks. SECTION XVIL This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and five days after publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 12006. Bonnie Walton, City Clerk APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of 2006. Approved as to form: Kathy Keolker, Mayor Page 52 of 53 Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Date of Publication: Page 53 of 53 ATTACHMENT A 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- I)Residential — 4 DU/AC (R-4) Residential Single Family (RS) Residential — 8 DUTAC (R- )Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH) Residential Medium Density Residential —10 DUTAC (R- (RMD) 10)Residential Manufactured Home Park (RMH)Residential — 14 DU/AC (R-14) Residential Multi -Family (RM) Residential Multi -Family (RM-V, RM-I, RM-F) Urban Center Downtown (UC- Center Downtown CD)Residential Multi -Family Urban Center (RM- U)Residential Multi -Family Traditional (RM-T) Urban Center North (UC-N) Urban Center -North 1 (UC- 1)Urban Center -North 2 (UC- N2) ommercial/Office/ Residential Commercial/Office/ Residential (COR) (COR) Center Village (CV):Residential Residential Multi -Family (RM-F)Center Village (CV) Residential- 14 DU/AC R-14 Commercial Corridor (CC) Commercial Arterial (CA)Commercial Office (CO)Light Industrial (IL) Employment Area Industrial Light Industrial (IL)Medium (EAI) 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) ommercial Neighborhood (CN)Commercial Neighborhood (CN) ATTACHMENT B 4-2-060 ZONING USE TABLE — USES ALLOWED IN ZONING DESIGNATIONS: ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 IRMH 10 R- 14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO CORN; UC-N2 A. AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Agriculture P P Natural resource extraction/recovery H I H H H H H H H H H59 H H H H H Hj H B. ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Animal husbandry (20 or fewer small animals per P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 acre) Animal husbandry (4 or fewer medium animals P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 per acre) Animal husbandry (maximum of 1 large P51 P51 P51 P51 P51 animal per acre) Greater number of animals than allowed above H36 Has Has H36 Has Beekeeping P35 P35 P35 P35 Kennels A�3 P37 P37 P37 Kennels, hobby A7C3 A7C3 AW AC37 AC37 AC37 37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 AC37 A� AC37 AC37 AC37 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC establishment Stables, commercial AD3 7 I AD3 7 C. RESIDENTIAL P19 Detached dwelling P19 P19 P19 P19 P19 Detached dwelling P P P Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- R- RM 10 14 IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR N�- UC-N2 (existing legal) Semi -attached dwelling P19 p19 Attached dwellings P50 P50 P19 P18 P73 P18 P16 p19 P74 P87 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) p P P73 Flats or townhouses, no greater than 2 units total p P P P p p per building (existing - legal) C. RESIDENTIAL (Continued) Manufactured Homes Manufactured homes P19 Manufactured homes, designated P19 P19 P19 p19 P19 P19 Mobile homes P1s (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003) D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS Accessory dwelling unit AD7 Adult family home P P P P P P P P P P3 Caretaker's residence AC AC AC AC - AC AC AC AC Congregate residence AD P P3 Group homes I - H H3 Group homes it for 6 or P P P P P19 P P P P P3 P less Group homes II for 7 or P H H H H H H H P H H3 AD more Home occupations AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 6C AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC6 AC AC Retirement residences H H AD P P P3 P39 P P75 P88 E. SCHOOLS K-12 educational institutionF H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H H H H9 H9 H9 H9 H9 H76 H89 Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R R- RM 110 i4 IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR C UC-N2 (public or private) K-12 educational institution (public or private), P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 P9 n P9 P9 P9 existing Other higher education institution P38 P3$ P38 P P P P21 P H88 Schools/studios, arts and crafts P P38 P38 P22 P P P Trade or vocational school P P H H H77 F. PARKS Parks, neighborhood P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Parks, regionalicommunity, P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P existing Parks, regionallcommunity, AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P P new G. OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Cemetery H H H H H H H H H H H H k# H H H H Religious institutions H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 Service and social organizations H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H12 H21 H78 H90 Public Facilities City government offices AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P AD AD AD90 City government H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H90 facilities Jails, existing municipal - P Secure community H7i H71 - transition facilities Other government H I H I H I H H H H H I H I H H I H H H H I H H H H90 Page 3 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR N1- UC-N2 offices and facilities H. OFFICE AND CONFERENCE Conference centers P38 P38 P38 H P38 P P P21 P P91 Medical and dental Offices P42 P38 P38 P38 AD17 P22 P P P P P P92 Offices, general P42 P13 P13 P13 AD17 P22 P P P P P M Veterinary offices/clinics P P42 P38 P38 P38 P22 P P P38 P I P78 1. RETAIL Adult retail use P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 P43 Big -box retail P P P - P20 P72 P79 Drive-in/drive-through, retail AC AC AC AC AC28 AC AC28 AC78 AC80 Eating and drinking establishments P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 P1 H33 P42 P P P P22 P22 P P P12 P27 P81 P94 Horticultural nurseries, existing H H H H H H H H H H H H 9 H H H H H Horticultural nurseries, new H Retail sales H33 AD P34 P34 P34 P60 P22 P68 P P54 P21 P82 P95 Retail sales, outdoor P30 P30 P30 P15 P15 P15 Taverns AD P20 AD P21 P82 P99 Vehicle sales, large P P P P41 Vehicle sales, small P P P P20 (Amd. Ord. 5001, 2-10-2003) J. ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment Adult entertainment business P43 P43 P43 P43 Card room tAD P52 P52 Cultural facilities H H H H H H H H AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD90 Dance clubs P38 AD22 P20 H P38 H Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- 10 R. 14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC-N2 NC1- Dance halls P38 P38 P38 ADQ P20 H P38 H Gaming/gambling facilities, not -for -profit H38 H29 H38 - H2O H38 Movie theaters P38 I P38 P38 PAD P20 P P12 P83 P94 Sports arenas, auditoriums, P38 P38 P38 P20 P H84 H96 exhibition halls, indoor Sports arenas, auditoriums, exhibition halls, P P38 P38 AD20 H$4 H96 outdoor Recreation Golf courses (existing) P P P P P Golf courses, new H P H H H H Marinas P P21 H97 Recreational facilities, indoor, existing P33 P38 P38 P38 P P P P65 P21 P78 P94 Recreational facilities, indoor, new H P Recreational facilities, outdoor P33 P32 P32 P32 H2O H38 K. SERVICES Services, General Bed and breakfast house, accessory AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD P Bed and breakfast house, professional AD AD AD5 AD P Hotel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 P P38 P P P98 Motel P38 P38 P38 P22 P20 Off -site services P42 P381 P38 I P38 I I P38 On -site services H33 P42 P38 I P38 I P38 I P63 I P221 P691 P I P54 P21 P78 P99 K. SERVICES (Continued) Ddve4nldrive-through I I I AC62 AC62 AC62 AC AC28 AC AC70 AC61 I AC61 AC78 AC80 Page 5 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: service RC R-1 R-4 R-B RMH R- 10 R 14 RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR N1- UC-N2 Vehicle rental, small P P P AD P20 Vehicle and equipment rental, large P38 P29 P29 Day Care Services Adult day care I AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC P55 P55 P55 P22 P22 P22 P P P P78 P100 Adult day care II H H H H H H H33 H AD AD H P22 P22 P22 P P12 P21 P78 P100 Day Care centers H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 H25 P54 P54 P54 P22 M P22 P P P21 P78 P100 Family day care home AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC3 AC AC AC AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers I H I H H I H I I H I I I I I P22 H I P3 I P391 AD JAD861 AD101 Medical institutions H I H H H H H H H I H56 I H56 I H56 H I H LHL H I Poo H H H93 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Body shops P31 P31 P31 H31 Car washes P P P AD2 P22 P22 Express transportation services AD P A922 A020 Fuel dealers H59 P Industrial engine or transmission rebuild P31 P31 P31 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P P P P22 P20 P3 P P P P102 Parking, surface, commercial or public P38 P38 P38 R P20 P3 AD Park and ride, dedicated P105 P105 P105 P106 P105 P107 P105 P107 Park and ride, shared- use P108 P108 P108 P108 P80 P108 P P P P108 P109 P107 P P107 Railroad yards P Tax! stand P AD AD ow truck operation/auto Impoundment yard H59 P Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR Ic UC-N2 10 14 Transit centers I I IH38 H38 H38 P H2O P H38 P P103 L. VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES (Continued) Truck terminals I P Vehicle fueling stations P P P P38 Vehicle fueling stations, existing legal P AD110 P P P38 Vehicle service and [HP59 repair, large P - Vehicle service and repair, small P AD2 RAD2P necking yard, auto H "r Transportation Uses Airplane manufacturing H59 P Airplane manufacturing, accessory functions AC AC Airplane sales and repair P Helipads, accessory to primary use H H38 H38 H2O H H H97 Helipads, commercial H H97 Municipal airports H M. STORAGE Hazardous material storage, on -site or off- site, including H24 H24 H24 treatment Indoor storage P P P AC11 ACi 1 AC11 AC11 AC11 AC11 Outdoor storage P57 P57 P57 A9654 P64 Self-service storage P8 P58 P59 P H26 W26 H26 Vehicle storage AD38 Warehousing P P P N. INDUSTRIAL if Industrial, General Page 7 of 10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RNtH R R- I RM IL I IM IH CN Cv CA CD CO COR NC- UC-N2 10 14 Assembly and/or packaging operations P P P P86 P104 Commercial laundries, existing Pas P38 Pas P4 Commercial laundries, new P38 P38 P38 Construction/contractor' s office P14 P P N. INDUSTRIAL (CONTINUED) Laboratories: light manufacturing P38 Pig P38 AD P20 P3 AD54 P P104 Laboratories: research, development and P31 P P H P20 AD3 AD H P P104 testing Manufacturing and fabrication, heavy H59 Ps7 Pz3 Manufacturing and • fabrication, medium P67 P67 P23 Manufacturing and fabrication, light LP P P--I-- t P Solid Waste/Recycling Recycling collection and processing center P14 P38 P38 P38 Recycling collection station P P P P P P P P P Sewage disposal and treatment plants H5s H Waste recycling and H5s P transfer facilities O. UTILITIES Communication broadcast and relay H H H H H H H H H38 H29 H38 H H H H H H towers Electrical power H H66 H66 H6fi H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 H66 Page 8of10 ATTACHMENT B ZONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL. ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R 10 R- RM 114 IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR N9 UC-N2 generation and cogeneration Utilities, small P P P P P P P33 P P P P I P P P I P I P P P P Utilities, medium AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD Ap AD ADAp AD AD AD Utilities, large H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I H I H H H P. WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Lattice towers support structures Hog AD47 AD47 AD47 H48 H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 Macro facility antennas A64 AD4 A64 AD46 AD46 AD46 A46D P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 H H Micro facility antennas P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P AD AD Mini facility antennas P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P44 P P Minor modifications to existing wireless communication P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P49 P P facilities Monopole I support structures H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 H45 AD46 P44 P44 P44 AD46 P44 P44 AD46 P44 AD46 Monopole II support structures H48 AD47 AD47 AD47 Hag H48 AD47 H48 AD47 H48 . GENERAL ACCESSORY USES ccessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter 4-11 RMC, AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC AC where not otherwise listed in Use Table R. TEMPORARY USES Model homes in an approved residential development: one P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 model home on an existing lot Sales/marketing trailers. on -site P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P10 P10 Page 9of10 ATTACHMENT B ONING USE TABLE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS USES: RC R-1 R-4 R-8 RMH R- RM IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR C UC-N2 10 14 NI Temporaryor manufactured buildings used for P10 P10 P10 PIG P10 P10 P10 PIG P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 P10 construction Temporary uses P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 I P53 P53 I P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 P53 Slank=€ot Allowed Ria=Permitted AD=Adm€nistrative Conditional Use AC -Accessory provided condition can be met Use P=Permitted Use H=Hearing Examiner Conditional Use #=Cond€tion(s) Uses may be further restricted by. RMC 4-3.020, Airport Related Height and Use Restrictions; RMC 4-3-040C, Uses Permitted In the Automall Improvement District RMC 3-050C, Aquifer Protection Regulations; RMC 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4786, 7-12-1999; Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25-1999; Ord. 4827, 1-24-2000; Ord. 4840, 5- 8-2000; Ord. 4857, 8-21-2000; Ord. 4915, 8-27-2001; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord.4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4982, 9-23-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003; Ord. 5027,11-24-2003; Ord. 5080, 6-14-2004; OM. 5100,11-1 2004) Page 10 of 10 ATTACHMENT C 4-2-070J CENTER VILLAGE (CV) Uses allowed in the CV Zone are as follows: USES: TYPE: AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resource extractionlrecovery H ANIMALS AND RELATED USES Ken iels, hobby AG 937 Pets, common household, up to 3 per dwelling unit or business establishment AC RESIDENTIAL Attached dwelling P73 Flats or townhouses (existing legal) P73 R ' FK 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 #s K-12 educational institution (public or private), existing P#s School slstudios, arts and crafts P #22 PARKS Parks, neighborhood P Parks, regional/community, existing P Parks, regional/community, new AD OTHER COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC FACILITIES Community Facilities Gernek" H Religious institutions H USES: TYPE: USES: TYPE: 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 #22 Offices, general P #22 Veterinary offlceslclinics P #22 Conference Center -H RETAIL Adult retail use P #43 Drive-in/drive-through, retail Ac #2e Eating and drinking establishments P #22 Horticultural nurseries H Retail sales P #22 Retail sales, outdoor P #15 Taverns AD ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATION Entertainment R #43 Cultural facilities AD Dance clubs AD #22 Dance halls AD #22 Movie Theatres AD Recreation Recreation facilities, indoor existin P #22 Recreation facilities, indoor new -P SERVICES Services, General Hotel P #22 Motel P #22 On -site services P #22 Drive-inldrive-through service AC #28 Day Care Services Adult day care I P #22 Adult day care II P #22 Day care centers P #22 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C USES: TYPE: USES: TYPE: Family day care AC Healthcare Services Convalescent centers P #22 Medical institutions H VEHICLE RELATED ACTIVITIES Gar washes AD422 Parking garage, structured, commercial or public P #L12 Parking, surface, commercial or public P Park and ride, shared use P #= Park and rides, dedicated P #106 Vehicle fueling stations P Vehicle service and repair, small PAD #2 Taxi Stand P -Transit Centers -P STORAGE Indoor storage AC #11 01611ld6eF-6ter-aQ9 AD #64 Self-seFviGo4tsrae W426 INDUSTRIAL Industrial, General Laboratories: light manufacturing AD #22 Laboratories: Research, Development H — and Testin❑ Solid WastelRecycling Recycling collection station P UTILITIES Communications broadcast and relay towers H USES: TYPE: 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 USES: TYPE: 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 P #44 Monopole II support structures H #48 GENERAL ACCESSORY USES Accessory uses per RMC 4-2-050 and as defined in chapter RMC 4-11, 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 Salestmarketing trailers, on -site P #53 Temporary or manufactured buildings used for construction P #10 Temporary uses P #s3 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT D 4-2-11 OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures R-10 I R-14 RM DENSITY Net D nsity in Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Minimum Housing For parcels over 112 gross 8-10 units per net acre. 4,13 For any subdivision, andlor Density4,13 acre: 4 units per net acre for Minimum density requirements shall not apply to:. -the development: 4,13 any subdivision or development. 4,13the renovation f an existing-�r-b) , structur e opment of a legal lot V2 "U" suffix-10 25 units per Minimum density net acre. requirements shall not apply "T" suffix: 10 14 units per to: a) the renovation or Conversion, re -development or subdivision of le arc I lots net acre. in existence as of January 1 2007 require the removal conversion of an existing of all existing residential structures. structure, or b) the subdivision, "F" suffix: 10 units per net and/or development of a legal acre. lot 112 gross acre or less in size Minimum density as of March 1, 1995. requirements shall not apply to the renovation or conversion of an existing structure. Maximum Housing For developments or For developments or subdivisions: 14 dwelling units For any subdivision and/or. Density subdivisions including per net acre, except that density of up to 18 dwelling development:4 attached or semi -attached units per acre may be permitted subject to conditions in "U" suffix: 75 units per net dwellings: 10 dwelling units RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. 4 acre. 10. 24 per net acre. 4 Conversion re -development, or subdivision of legal lots " "T suffix: 35 units per net in existence as of January1 2007 require the removal acre.l0 of all existing residential structures. "F" suffix: 20 units per net acre. PLATS OR SHADOW PLATS General Uses shall be developed on a "legal I All Uses: Uses may be developed on either: a) properties which NA lot." For the purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" are platted through the subdivision process; or b) properties which are to remain unplatted. means: - a lot created through the I For properties which are to remain un latted, the Page 1 of 12 ATTACHMENT D subdivision process, or • created through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards. If title is created through another mechanism other than a subdivision, the development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and, if applicable, phasing or land reserve plan.18 development application shall be accompanied by a shadow plat and, if applicable, phasing or land reserve plan. For purposes of this zone, "lot" shall mean legal platted lot and/or equivalent shadow platted land area./8 Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. Covenants shall be filed as part of a final plat in order to address the density and unit mix requirements of the zone. DWELLING UNIT MIX General Existing development. None A minimum of 50% to,a maximum of 100% of permitted NA required. units shall consist of detached, semi -attached or up to 3 For parcels which are a consecutively attached townhouses. Up to 4 townhouse maximum size of 112 acre as units may be consecutively attached if provisions of of the effective date hereof RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review, are met. A (March 1,1995): None maximum of 50% of the permitted units in a project may required. consist of. Full subdivisions and/or development on parcels greater than 112 acre, excluding short plats: A minimum of 50% to a maximum of 100% of detached or semi - attached dwelling units. A minimum of one detached or semi -attached dwelling unit must be provided for each attached dwelling unit (e.g., townhouse or flat) created • 4 to 6 consecutively attached townhouses; • Flats; • Townhouses/flats in one structure. Provided that buildings shall not exceed 6 dwelling units per structure, except as provided in RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. Page 2 of 12 ATTACHMENT D within a proposed development. A maximum of 4 units may be consecutively attached.4 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER LOT General Only 1 residential building (e.g., detached dwelling, semi - attached dwelling, townhouse, flat, etc.) with a maximum of 4 residential units and associated accessory structures for that building shall be permitted on a legal lot except for residential buildings legally existing at the effective date hereof. For the purposes of this subsection, "legal lot" means a lot created through the subdivision process, or through another mechanism which creates individual title for the residential building and any associated private yards (e.g., condominium). 4 LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size Density requirements shall take for lots created after precedence over the following July 11, 1993 minimum lot size standards. For parcels which exceed 112 acre in size: Detached and semi -attached dwelling units: 3,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. Attached townhouse dwelling units: 2,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit. 2 fiats: 5,000 sq. ft. per 1 residential structure and associated accessory buildings for that structure shall be permitted per lot, except for residential buildings legally existing at the date of adoption of this Section. 4 Density requirements shall take precedence over the following minimum lot size standards. Residential Uses: Detached or semi -attached units: 3-0GG 5,000 sq. ft. Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: Attached exterior/end unit: 2,500 sq. ft. Attached interior/middle unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached; Flats; TownhouselFlat Combinations: Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 2,000 sq. ft. Page 3 of 12 NA None ATTACHMENT D Minimum Lot Width for lots created after July 11, 1993 structure. Attached interior/middle townhouse unit or fiats: 1,800 3 flats: 7,500 sq. ft. per sq. ft. structure. Commercial or Civic Uses: None. 4 flats: 10,000 sq. ft. per structure. For parcels that are 1/2 acre or less in size as of March 1, 1995: No minimum lot size requirement when they are subsequently subdivided. Density requirements shall apply. Detached or semi -attached dwellings: Interior lots: 30 ft. Comer lots: 40 ft. Townhouses: 20 ft.19 Flats: 50 ft. Residential Uses: Detached or semi -attached: 30 ft. Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: Attached exterior/end townhouse unit: 25 ft. Attached interior/middle townhouse unit: 20 ft. Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached; Flats; Townhouse/Flat Combinations: Attached exterior/interior townhouse unit: 20 ft. Flats: 50 ft. " T" suffix: 14 ft. All other suffixes: 50 ft. LOT DIMENSIONS Continued Minimum Lot 55 ft.19 Residential Uses: 65 ft. Depth for lots Detached or semi -attached: 50 ft. created after July Up to 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached: 11, 1993 Attached exterior/interior townhouse unit: 45 ft. Greater than 3 Townhouse Units Consecutively Attached; Flats; Townhouse/Flat Combinations: Attached exterior/interior townhouse unit: 40 ft. Flats: 35 ft. SETBACKS$ Page 4 of 12 ATTACHMENT D Minimum Front Yard Along streets existing as of March 1,1995: 20 ft. 9,20 Along streets created after March 1,1995: 10 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for attached garages which access from the front yard street(s).. 20 Minimum Side 10 ft. for a primary structure, Yard Along a and 20 ft. for attached garages Street which access from the side yard street 20 Residential Uses: I"U" suffix: 5 ft.1,2 Detached and semi -attached units with parking "T" suffix: 5 ft. access provided from the front: 48-10ft. for the orimary structure and 20 ft. for attached or detached "F" suffix: 20 ft. garage unit.20 Detached and semi -attached units with parking access provided from the rear via street or alley: 10 ft._ , 20 Attached units, and their accessory structures with parking provided from the front: 2-0-10 ft. for the primary structure and 20 ft. for attached or detached garage unit.20 Attached units and their accessory structures with parking provided from the rear via street or alley: 10 ft., unless the lot is adjarenM W a pmpeFty zoned RG, 0 Commercial or Civic Uses: 10 ft. - except when abuttingl5 or adjacentl4 to residential development then 15 ft.20 Residential Uses: "U" and "T" suffixes and 10 ft. for a primary structure, and 18 ft. for attached on all previously existing garages which access from the side yard street.20 platted lots which are 50 ft. or less In width: 10 ft. All other suffixes with lots over 50 ft. in width: 20 ft. SETBACKS$ Continued Minimum Side Detached dwellings: 5 ft 3,20 Residential Uses: "T" suffix - Attached Units: Yard Semi -Attached and Attached Detached and semi -attached primary structures: 5 A minimum of 3 ft. for the Units: 5 ft. for the unattached ft_20 unattached side(s) of the side(s) of the structure. 0 ft. for structure. 0 ft. for the Attached townhouses, flats over 3 units and their attached side(s). Page 5 of 12 ATTACHMENT D the attached side(s).20 accessory structures: 5 ft. on both sides. 10 ft. when Standard Minimum Abutting RC, R-1, R-4 or R- the lot is adjacent14 to a lower intensity residentially Setbacks for all other 8:15 25 ft. interior side yard zoned property.20 suffixes: Minimum setbacks for side yards: 22 setback for all structures Attached accessory structures: None required20 containing 3 or more attached Lot width: less than or equal dwelling units on a lot20 Commercial or Civic Uses: to 50 ft. - Yard setback: 5 ft. None -except when abutting 15 or adjacent14 to Lot width: 50.1 to 60 ft. - Yard setback: 6 ft. residential development - 15 ft 20 Lot width: 60.1 to 70 ft. - Yard setback: 7 ft. Lot width: 70.1 to 80 ft. - Yard setback: 8 ft. Lot width: 80.1 to 90 ft. - Yard setback: 9 ft. Lot width 90.1 to 100 ft. - Yard setback: 10 ft. Lot width 100.1 to 110 ft. - Yard setback: 11 ft. Lot width: 110.1 + ft. - Yard setback: 12 ft. Additional Setbacks for Structures Greater than 2 Stories: The entire structure shall be set back an additional 1 ft. for each story in excess of 2 up to a maximum cumulative setback of 20 ft. Special side yard setback for lots abutting Single Family Residential Zones RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, and R- 10:15 25 ft. along the abutting side(s) of the property. SETBACKS$ Continued Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT D Minimum Rear Unit with Attached Street Residential Uses with Street Access Garage: 15 ft.20 "U" suffix: 5 ft.,1,2 unless Yard Access Garage: 15 ft. Residential Uses with Attached Alley Access lot abuts an RC, R-1, R-4, R- However, if the lot abuts a lot Garage: 3 ft. provided that the garage must be set back 8, or R-10 zone, then 25 ft. zoned RC, R-1, R4, or R-8, a "T" suffix: 5 ft. a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of 25 ft. setback shall be required back -out room, counting alley surface. If there is of all attached dwelling units.20 occupiable space above an attached garage with allev "F" suffix: 15 ft. Unit with Attached Alley access, the minimum setback for the occupiable space Access Garage: 3 ft. provided shall be the same as the minimum setback for the unit that the garage must be set with attached alley access garage 20 back a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of Commercial or Civic Uses: None - except when back -out room, counting alley abutting15 or adjacent14 to residential development surface. If there is occuplable then 15 ft.20 space above an attached garage with alley access, the minimum setback for the occupiable space shall be the same as the minimum setback for the unit with attached alley access garage.20 Clear Vision Area In no case shall a structure In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- over 42 in. in height intrude the 20 ft. dear vision area 030. into the 20 ft. clear vision defined in RMC 4-11-030. area defined in RMC 4-11- 030. Minimum Freeway 10 ft. landscaped setback from 10 ft. landscaped setback from the street property line. 10 ft. landscaped setback Frontage Setback the street property line. from the street property line. BUILDING STANDARDS Maximum Number 2 stories and 30 ft. in height. Residential Uses: "U" suffix: 50 ft./5 stories. of Stories and 2 stories and 30 ft. See RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus "T" suffix: 35 ft./3 stories. Maximum Building Review. Height, except for "F" suffix: 35 ft./3 Public uses having a Commercial Uses: stories.5,6 "Public Suffix" (P) 1 story and 20 ft. designation.7,21 Civic Uses: 2 stories. Page 7 of 12 ATTACHMENT D Maximum Height See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. for Wireless Communication Facilities Building Location NA Residential Uses: NA Dwellings shall be arranged in a manner which creates a neighborhood environment. Residential units and any associated commercial development within an overall development shall be connected through organization of roads, blocks, yards, central places, pedestrian linkage and amenity features. Front facades of structures shall address the public street, private street or court by providing: - a landscaped pedestrian connection; and - an entry feature facing the front yard. Uses in the Center Village Cam rehensive Plan Land Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4--3-100. BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Building Design NA Residential Uses: "U" suffix: Architectural design shall incorporate: Modulation of vertical and a) Variation in vertical and horizontal modulation of horizontal facades is structural facades and roof lines among individual required at a minimum of 2 attached dwelling units (e.g., angular design, ft. at an interval of a modulation, multiple roof planes), and b) private entry minimum offset of 40 ft. on features which are designed to provide individual each building face. ground -floor connection to the outside for detached, "U" and "T" suffixes: semi -attached, and townhouse units. See RMC 4-3-100 for Urban Commercial or Civic Uses: Structures shall be: Center Design Overlay a) Designed to serve as a focal point for the residential Regulations. community; and b) compatible with architectural character and site features of surrounding residential development and characteristics; and c) designed to include a common motif or theme; and d) pedestrian oriented through such measures as: pedestrian Page 8 of 12 ATTACHMENT D walkways, pedestrian amenities and improvements which support a variety of modes of transportation (e.g., bicycle racks). Uses in the Center Villa a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100, BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Project Size NA Civic Uses: NA Limitations The maximum lot area dedicated for civic uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable area of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, except that by Hearing Examiner conditional use permit civic uses may be allowed to be a maximum of 5,000 sq, ft. for all uses 4 Commercial Uses: The maximum area dedicated for all commercial uses shall be limited to 10% of the net developable portion of a property. Building size shall be limited to 3,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area4 Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Use Desi nation: See Urban Desicin Reciulations in RMC 4-3-100. Maximum Building NA Up to 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses: NA Length Building length shall not exceed 85 ft., unless otherwise granted per RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. Over 3 Consecutively Attached Townhouses; Flats; Townhouses/Flats in One Structure: Shall not exceed 115 ft. in length, unless otherwise granted per RMC 4-9- 065, Density Bonus Review. Maximum Building Detached or semi -attached 50%. "U" suffix: 75%. Coverage units: 70%. "T" suffix: 75%. Flats or townhouses: 50%. "F" suffix: 35%. A maximum coverage of 45% may be obtained throuah the Hearina Page 9 of 12 ATTACHMENT D Examiner site development plan review process. BUILDING STANDARDS Continued Maximum Detached or semi -attached NA "U" and "r suffixes: 85%. Impervious units: 75%. All other suffixes: 75%. Surface Area Flats or townhouses: 60%_ LANDSCAPING General Setback areas shall be Residential Uses: Setback areas shall be landscaped, excluding The entire front setback, excluding driveways and an landscaped, unless driveways and walkways entry walkway, shall be landscaped. otherwise determined except for detached, semi- attached, or 2 attached Commercial or Civic Uses: through the site development plan review residential units. Lots abutting public streets shall be improved with a process.23 minimum 10 ft. wide landscaping strip. 16 For RM-U, the landscape Lots abutting15 residential property(ies) zoned RC, R-1, requirement does not apply RAR-8, R-10 or R-14 shall be improved along the the Downtown Core {see common boundary with a minimum 15 ft. wide RMC 4-2-080C), or if landscaped setback and a sight -obscuring solid barrier setbacks are reduced.l wall.17 If abutting15 a lot zoned RC, Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land R-1, R-4, R-8, or R-10, then Use Desi nation: See Urban Design Regulations in a 15 ft. landscape strip shall RMC 4-3-100. be required along the abutting portions of the lot.17 SCREENING Surface Mounted See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. or Roof Top Equipment, or Outdoor Storage Recyclables and See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. Refuse DUMPSTERIRECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Minimum Size and See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090_ Location Page 10 of 12 ATTACHMENT D Requirements PARKING AND LOADING General See RMC 4-4-080. See RMC 4-4-080. All suffixes: See RMC 4-4- Commercial/Civic: Parking areas abutting residential 080. development shall be screened with a solid barrier fence and/or landscaping. Required Location for Parking For any unit, required parking shall be provided in the rear For any unit. reguired_parking shall be provided in the "U" and "T" suffixes: For lots abutting an alley: rear yard area when alley access is available. When yard area when alley access is available. For flats, when all parking shall be provided in the rear portion of the alley access is not available, parking shall be located in the rearyard, side yard or underground, unless. it is alley access is not available, determined through the modification process for site yard, and access shall be parking should be located in development plan exempt proposals or the site taken from the alley. the rear yard, side yard or underground, unless it is determined through the modification process for site development plan exempt proposals or the site development plan review process for non-exempt proposals, that parking may be allowed in the front yard or that under building parking develo ment plan review process for non-exempt proposals, that front access under building parking (ground level of a residential structure) should be permitted. Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land For lots not abutting an alley: no portion of covered or uncovered parking shall be located between the primary structure and the front property line. Parking structures shall be recessed from the front facade of the primary structure a minimum of 2 ft. Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations in RMC 4-3-100.NA (ground level of a residential "F" suffixes: Surface structure) should be permitted. parking is permitted in the side and rear yard areas only. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. CRITICAL AREAS General HSee RMC 4-3-050 and 4-0- See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. FSee. RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3- 090. SPECIAL DESIGN STANDARDS General Street Patterns: Uses in the Center Village Comprehensive Plan Land Properties abutting 15 a less Use Designation: See Urban Design Regulations_ in Nonmeandering street intense residential zone may I RMC 4-3-100.NA4 attems and the provision of be required to incorporate Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENT D EXCEPTIONS Pre -Existing Legal Lots alleys (confined to side yard or rear yard frontages) shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted within this zone; provided, that this does not cause the need for lots with front and rear street frontages or dead-end streets. Cul-de-sacs shall be allowed when required to provide public access to lots where a through street cannot be provided or where topography or sensitive areas necessitate them. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of a single family dwelling and its accessory buildings or the existence of a single family dwelling or two attached dwellings, existing as of March 1, 1995, on a pre- existing legal lot provided that all setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of a single family dwelling and its accessory buildings on a pre-existing legal lot provided that all density, setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. special design standards (e.g., additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site development plan review process. Properties abutting 15 a designated "focal center," as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, may be required to provide special design features similar to those listed above through the site development plan review process. Nothing herein shall be determined to prohibit the construction of attached dwellings having no more than two units in the structure, and its accessory buildings on a pre-existing legal lot; provided, that all setback, lot coverage, height limits, infrastructure, and parking requirements for this zone can be satisfied, and provisions of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas, and other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code can be met. (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4788, 7-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4985, 10-14- 2002; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT E 4-2-11 OG PMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ina#arhae4112 A..wn.- ENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS R-10 MAXIMUM NUMBER AND SIZE General 2 structures, up to a maximum of 720 sq_ ft. for each building, or 1 structure up to a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. The total floor area of all accessory buildings shall not be greater than the floor area of the residential uses. The lot coverage of the primary residential structure along with all accessory buildings shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary residential use. LOCATION General HEIGHT NA Maximum Number of Stories 1 story and 15 ft. Page 1 of 3 1 per residential unit. Maximum of 400 sq. ft. and less than the floor area of the principal unit. The lot coverage of the primary residential structure along with all accessory buildings shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary use. Garages and carports shall only have access from the alley when lots abut an alley. When lots do not abut an alley, garages and carports shall be located in the rear yard or side yard and set back from the front of the primary structure by a minimum 15 ft. The lot coverage of the primary residential structure along with all accessory buildings shall not exceed the maximum lot coverage of this Zoning District. Accessory structures shall only be allowed on lots in conjunction with a primary use. "U" suffixes: Garages and carports shall only have access from the alley when lots abut an alley. When lots do not abut an alley, garages and carports shall be located in the rear yard or side yard. 25 ft. except in the RM- ATTACHMENT E and Maximum Height2l SETBACKS8 U District where the maximum height shall be determined through the site plan review Minimum Front Yard Not allowed within the required front yards or side Not allowed within the Not allowed within the yards along streets. required front yards or required front yards or side yards along streets. side yards along streets. Minimum Side Yard 3 ft. unless located between the rear of the house Side Yard: None 3 ft. unless located and the rear property line, then 0 ft. side yard is required. between the rear of the allowed. Garages, carports and parking areas must house and the rear be set back from the rear property line a sufficient property line, then 0 ft. distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out side yard is allowed. room, either on -site or counting improved alley Garages, carports and surface or other improved right -of way surface.1 t parking areas must be set back from the rear property line a sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on -site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface.1 t Minimum Rear Yard 3 ft. unless located between the rear of the house 3 ft. unless located 3 ft. unless located and the rear property line, then 0 ft. rear yard is between the rear of the between the rear of the allowed. Garages, carports and parking areas must house and the rear house and the rear be set back from the rear property line a sufficient property line, then 0 ft, property line, then 0 ft. distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out rear yard is allowed. rear yard is allowed. room, either on -site or counting improved alley Garages and carports Garages, carports and surface or other improved right-of-way surface.11 must provide a minimum parking areas must be of 24 ft. of back -out set back from the rear room, either on -site or property lines a Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS rno*zir-tiea12 e....e.,.... Special Setbacks for Animal Husbandry Related Structures Clear Vision Area See RMC 4-4-010. 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. counting improved alley surface or other improved right -of --way surface. NA 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. sufficient distance to provide a minimum of 24 ft. of back -out room, either on -site or counting improved alley surface or other improved right-of-way surface.22 NA In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- CRITICAL AREAS _ General See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. See RMC 4-3-050 and See RMC 4-3-050 and 4-3-090. 4-3-090. (Ord. 4736, 8-24-1998; Ord. 4788, 7-19-1999; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13-2002; Ord. 4971, 6-10-2002; Ord. 4999, 1-13-2003) Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT l= 4-2-120A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV r CA LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Size for 5,000 sq. ft. 25,000 sq. ft. None, except: 1,200 sq. ft. in lots created after Nov. the Sunset, NE Fourth, and 10, 2004 Puget Business Districts. See maps in RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Lot None None None Width/Depth for lots created after Nov. 10, 2004 LOT COVERAGE Maximum Lot Coverage 65% of total lot area 65% of total lot area or 65% of total lot area or 75% if for Buildings or 75% if parking is 75% if parking is parking is provided within the provided within the provided within building or within an on -site building or within an tiaeundgrground or parking garage. on -site parking under building or within garage. an on -site parking ara e. DENSITY Net Density in Dwelling Units per Net Acre Minimum Net Residential None 449-20 dwelling units None, except in the Sunset, Densi`ty9 per net acre. NE Fourth, and Puget Business Districts (see maps in RMC 4-3-040): 10 dwelling unitsper net acre. Maximum Net 4 dwelling units per 80 dwellinq units per 20 dwelling units per net Residential Densi 9 structure. net acre. acre, except within the Sunset, NE Fourth, and Puget Business Districts, it shall be 60 dwelling units per acre for development with Residential Benue mixed commercial and BistKist residential use in the same a Page 1 of 9 I ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA building. See maps in RMC 095, up to go dwelling be granted fGr pmvisian of-- a. ,. Fninknu 4-3-040. depth of 30 ft. and a ft. of cemmemjal use OF; the fiFM flOOF Of the barL:nn enGlesed within the firs floor of the prima SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard18 10 ft. The minimum 10 ft. The minimum 10 ft. The minimum setback setback may be setback may be may be reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft. reduced to 0 ft_ through through the site plan through the site plan the site plan development review process development review development review provided blank walls are not process provided process provided blank located within the reduced blank wails are not walls are not located setback. located within the within the reduced reduced setback. setback. Maximum Front Yard" 15 ft. 15 15 ft. 15 None, except 15 ft. in the Rainier Avenue, Sunset, NE Fourth and Puget Business Districts. See maps and standards in RMC 4-3-040. 61nimurn Side Yard h0ft. The minimum 10 ft. The minimum 110ft. The minimum setback Page 2 of 9 ATTACHMENT F 751 g a Streetl8 um Freeway roe Setback um Rear Yardl8 Side Yard18 (Clear Vision Area STANDARDS FOR setback may be reduced to 0 ft. through the site plan development review process provided blank wails are not located within the 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R- 10, R-14, or RM-F. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. clear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- NAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CV CA setback may be reduced to 0 ft. through the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R- 10, R-14. or RM-F. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R- 14, or RM-F. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. dear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- 030. BUILDING LIMITATIONS Jlaximurn Gross Floor 5,000 gross sq. ft. The None #rea of Any Single maximum size shall :ommercial Use on a not be exceeded iite except by conditional may be reduced to 0 ft. through the site plan development review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced 10 ft. landscaped setback from the property line. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R- 4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM-F. None, except 15 ft. if lot abuts or Is adjacent to a residential zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM- F. In no case shall a structure over 42 in. in height intrude into the 20 ft. dear vision area defined in RMC 4-11- None, except: a. In the NE Fourth Business District: 65,000 Page 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA use permit 2,9 These gross sq. ft. restrictions do not b. In the Puget and apply to residential Sunset Business Districts: uses subject to net 35,000 sq. ft. density limitations. Restrictions do not apply to uses subject to net density limitations and grocery stores (see maps in RMC 4-3-040). Maximum Gross Floor 3,000 gross sq. ft. 21 None None, except: Area of Any Single Office The maximum size a. In the NE Fourth Use on a Site2, 9 shall not be exceeded Business District: 65,000 except by conditional gross sq. ft. use permit.2,9 These b. In the Puget and restrictions do not Sunset Business Districts: apply to residential 35,000 sq. ft. uses, which are subject to net density The total gross square limitations. footage of these uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross square footage of the site.2,9 These restrictions do not apply to residential uses, which are subject to net density limitations. (See maps in RMC 4-3-040.) Building Orientation and All commercial uses NASee Urban Design NA except in the Puget, Location shall have their Regulations in RMC 4- Sunset and NE Fourth 3-100. primary entrance and Business Districts. See RMC shop display window Commercial and Civic 4-3-040 for standards. oriented toward the Uses ghall provide street frontage. entry features on all Page 4of9 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA side of a building facing a public right of way or parkinq lot. LANDSCAPING Minimum On -site 10 ft., except where 10 ft., except where 10 ft., except where reduced Landscape Width reduced through the reduced through the through the site plan Required Along the site plan development site plan development development review process. Street Frontage review process. review process. There are additional landscaping standards for pedestrian connections in the Puget, Sunset, and NE Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040. Minimum On -site 15 ft. wide sight- 15 ft. wide landscape 15 ft. wide sight -obscuring Landscape Width Along obscuring landscape buffer is required3 landscape strip.3,5 the Street Frontage strip 3,5 unless otherwise If the street is a designated Required When a If the street is a determined by the principal arterial,l non -sight - Commercial Lot is Adjacent$ to Property designated principal non Reviewing Official through the site plan obscuring landscaping shall Zoned Residential, RC, arterial,l -sight- obscuring landscaping development review be provided unless otherwise determined by the Reviewing R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, shall be provided process. Official through the site plan or RM unless otherwise development review process. determined by the There are additional Reviewing Official landscaping standards for through the site plan pedestrian connections in the development review Puget, Sunset, and NE process. Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040. Minimum Landscape 15 ft. wide landscaped 15 ft. wide landscaped 15 ft, wide landscaped visual Width Required When a visual barrier Ivisual barrier barrier consistent with the Page 5 of 9 f ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA Commercial Lot is consistent with the consistent with the definitions in RMC 4-11-120. Abutgng7 to Property definition in RMC 4- definition in RMC 4-11- A 10 ft. sight -obscuring Zoned Residential, RC, 11-120. A 10 ft. sight- 120. A 10 ft. sight- landscape strip may be R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, R-14, obscuring landscape obscuring landscape allowed through the site plan or RM strip may be allowed strip may be allowed development review process. through the site plan through the site plan There are additional development review development review landscaping standards for process3,4 process.3,4 pedestrian connections in the Puget, Sunset, and NE Fourth Business Districts. See maps and standards at RMC 4-3-040.3,4 HEIGHT Maximum Building 35 ft. In no case shall 50 ft. except when 50 ft., except 35 ft. for Height,14,16 except for height exceed the abutting lots zoned R residential use only buildings Public uses with a "Public Suffix" (P) designation20 limits specified in RMC 4-3-020. Q RMH', R 10, R 14, in the Sunset and NE Fourth Business Districts. See maps in RMC 4-3-040.Heights may or . 0 ft. if a minimum of 50% of the ground floor of the exceed the maximum height building is commercial with a Conditional Use use. Permit.16 In no case shall height exceed the limits specified in RMC 4-3-020. Maximum Height for See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. See RMC 4-4-140G. Wireless Communication Facilities SCREENING Outdoor, Loading, See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. See RMC 4-4-095. Repair, Maintenance, Work, or Storage Areas; Surface -Mounted Utili Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA and Mechanical Equipment; Roof Top Equipment (Except for Telecommunication E ui meet Refuse or Rec clables See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. ISee RMC 44-090. PARKING General See RMC 10-10-13 See RMC 10-10-13 See RMC 10-10-13 and RMC and RMC 4-4-080. and RMC 4-4-080. 4-4-080. For the NE Fourth, Sunset, Puget, and Rainier Avenue Business Districts, see RMC 4-3-040. Required Location for NA Residential Uses: NA Parking Required garking shall be located underground or under building ion the first floor of the residential structure), or in an attached or detached structure. Any additional parking may not be located between the buildina and ublic street unless located within a structured parking garage. Commercial Uses. Parking may not be located between the building and- the public street unless located Page 7 of 9 I ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN Cv CA withia a structured panting -garage. Mixed Use: Shared parking, is required in compliance with RMC 4-4-080E (3). PEDESTRIAN ACCESS General A pedestrian See Urban Design A pedestrian connection shall connection shall be Regulations in RMC 4- be provided from a public 3-100. provided from a public entrance to the street, in entrance to the street, A pedestrian order to provide direct, clear in order to provide connection shall be and separate pedestrian direct, clear and provided from a public walks from sidewalks to separate pedestrian entrance to the street,. building entries and internally walks from sidewalks in order to provide from buildings to abutting to building entries and direct, clear and retail properties. There are internally from separate pedestrian additional standards for the buildings to abutting walks from sidewalks Rainier Avenue, NE Fourth, retail properties. to building entries and Sunset, and Puget Business intemally from Districts. See RMC 4-3-040 buildings to abutting for maps and standards. retail properties. SIGNS General See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. See RMC 4-4-100. There are additional standards for the Rainier Avenue Business District at RMC 4-3-040. LOADING DOCKS Location within Site See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-4- See RMC 4-"80.Shall not 080.Shall not be 080.Shall not be be permitted on the side of permitted on the side permitted on the side of the lot adjacent to or abutting Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT F DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS CN CV CA of the lot adjacent to the lot adjacent to or a residential zone, RC, R-1, or abutting a abutting a residential R4, R-8, R-10, R-14, or RM. residential zone, RC, zone, RC, R-1, R-4, R- 3 R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, 8, R-10, R-14, or RM. 3 R-14, or RM. 3 DUMPSTERIRECYCLING COLLECTION AREA Size and Location of See RMC 44-090. See RMC 4-4-090. See RMC 4-4-090. Refuse or Recycling Areas CRITICAL AREAS General ISee RMC 4-3-050. TSee RMC 4-3-050. See RMC 4-3-050. DESIGN GUIDELINES General NA See Urban Design NA in RMC 4- _Regulations 3-100. (Ord. 4773, 3-22-1999; Ord. 4777, 4-19-1999; Ord. 4803, 10-25-1999; Ord.4851, 8-7-2000; Ord. 4917, 9-17-2001; Amd. Ord. 4963, 5-13- 2002; Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004; Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005; Ord. 5191, 12-12-2005) Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT L 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) USE NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES ENERAL:' ;, Mixed occupancies: The total requirements for off-street (2 or 3 different uses in the same building parking facilities shall be the sum of the or sharing a lot. For 4 or more uses, see requirements for the several uses computed "shopping center" requirements) 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. 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. Bed and breakfast houses: i per guest room. The parking space must not be located in any required setback. 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 k t 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. ATTACHMENT G Attached dwellings in CD, RM-U, RM- T, UC-N1, UC-N2 and Zones nr+i37iR V Zones - 1.8 per 3 bedroom or larger dwelling 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 development. (Amd. Ord. 5018, 9-22-2003; Ord, 5087, 6-28-2004) Attached dwellings within the RM-F Zone: (Amd. Ord. 5100, 11-1-2004) Attached dwellings within the CV Zone: Attached dwellings within all other zones: Attached dwelling for low income 2 per dwelling unit where tandem spaces are not provided; and/or2.5 per dwelling unit where tandem parking is provided, subject to the criteria found in subsection F8d of this Section. 1_ner dwelling_unit_is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is 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. 1 for each 4 dwelling units. Attached dwellings: 1 per unit. Attached dwellings for low income 1 for every 3 dwelling units. elderlv: OMME SIIO 11VG ACTIVITIES � OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOW CORE Drive -through retail or drive -through service: Stacking spaces: The drive -through 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 ATTACHMENT L 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 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 employees. 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 0.25 per 100 square feet of net floor area. small 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 ATTACHMENT G 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 area nurseries: 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, square feet of floor area of main auditorium and entertainment clubs: or of principal place of assembly not containing fixed seats, whichever is eater. Bowling alleys: 5 per alley. Dance malls, 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 sli s. 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. OMNN1EKRGIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE" XCEP OOPPINg'CENTERSF All uses allowed in the CD Zone except 1 space per 1,000 square feet of net floor for the following uses: area. Excepted uses follow the standards Excepted Uses: Convalescent center, applied outside the Downtown Core. 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. HOPPING CENT]gRS: Shopping centers includes any type of A minimum of 0.4 per 100 square feet of ATTACHMENT G business occupying a shopping center): net floor area and a maximum of 0.5 per 100 square feet of net floor area. In the UC- N1 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. N{DOT L/Sy RAC:' AXl ;I IVA c S, 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 laboratories, and assembly and/or net floor area and a maximum of 0.15 packaging operations: spaces per 100 square feet of net floor area (including warehouses 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: UIR C/Oi AN% B E IT 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. ATTACHMENT G Public post office: 0.3 for every 100 square feet. Secure community transition facilities: I 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 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 crafts 1 per employee plus 1 for every 3 students schools/studios, and trade or vocational residing on campus, plus 1 space for every schools: 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. (Amd. Ord. 5030, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5087, 6-28-2004) ATTACHMENT H D. BONUS ALLOWANCES AND REVIEW CRTIERIA: The following table lists the conditions under which additional densitv or alternative bulk standards ma be achieved* R-14 Zone RM-U Zone COR 1 COR 2 Density and The bonus provisions are intended to allow The bonus NA NA Unit Size greater flexibility in the implementation of provisions are Bonus- the purpose of the R-14 designation. intended to allow Purpose: Bonus criteria encourage provision of greater densities aggregated open space and rear access within the portion parking in an effort to simulate provision of of the RM-U zone higher amenity neighborhoods and project located within the designs which address methods of reducing Urban Center the size and bulk of structures. Applicants Design Overlay and wishing such bonuses must demonstrate north of South 2nd that the same or better results will occur as Street for those a result of creative design solutions that development would occur with uses developed under proposals that standard criteria. provide high quality design and amenities. Maximum 1 to 4 additional dwelling units per net Up to 25 dwelling Up to 5 Up to 2 dwelling units per Additional acre. Densities of greater than 18 units per units per net acre. additional acre for compliance with each Units Per net acre are prohibited. Densities of greater dwelling units provision listed below may be Acre: than 100 dwelling per acre may allowed; provided there is a units per net acre be allowed; balance of height, bulk and are prohibited. provided there density established addressing is a balance of the following public benefits: height, bulk (i) Provision of and density continuous established pedestrian access through a floor to the shoreline area ration consistent with system and/or requirements of the a master plan Shoreline Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT H to be decided Management Act at the time of and fitting a site plan circulation pattern review. within the site, (ii) Provision of an additional 25' setback from the shoreline beyond that required by the Shoreline Management Act, (iii) Establishment of view corridors from upland boundaries of the site to the shoreline, (iv) Water Related Uses. If the applicant wishes to reach these bonus objectives in a different system, a system of floor area rations may be established for the property to be determined at the time of site plan review as approved by Council, (v) Daylighting of piped streams. Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT H Maximum Dwelling units permitted per structure may NA NA NA Allowable be increased as follows: Bonus (i) Dwellings Limited to 3 Dwelling Unit Attached: A maximum of 4 Mix/ units per structure, with a Arrangement: maximum structure length of 100 feet. (ii) Dwellings Limited to 6 Attached: A maximum of 8 units per structure with a maximum structural height of 35 feet, or 3 stories and a maximum structural length of 115 feet. Bonus Bonuses may be achieved independently or Development NA NA Criteria: in combination. To qualify for one or both projects within the bonuses the applicant shall provide either: applicable area that (i) Alley and/or rear access and meet both the parking for 50% of detached, "minimum semi attached, or townhouse requirements" and units (parcels abutting an at leas one existing alley are required to "guideline" in each take alley access and shall not of the following qualify_ for the bonus based four categories" upon this provision), or . Building (ii) Civic uses such as a community Siting and meeting hall, senior center, Design; recreation center, or other • parking, similar uses as determined by Access, and the Zoning Administrator, or Circulation; (iii) A minimum of 5% of the net • Landscapin developable area of the project g/Recreatio in aggregated common open n/Common Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT H space. Common open space Space; and areas may be used for any of the . Building following purposes Architectura (playgrounds, picnic 1 Design shelters/facilities and Applying to Area equipment, village "A" of the Urban greens/squares, trails, corridors Center Design or natural). Structures such as Overlay District kiosks, benches, fountains and located in RMC 4- maintenance equipment storage 3-100 shall be facilities are permitted; permitted a provided, that they serve and/or maximum density promote the use of the open of 100 dwelling space. To qualify as common units per net acre. open space, an area must meet each of the following conditions: • Function as a focal point for the development, • Have a maximum slope of 10% • Have a minimum width of 25', except for trails or corridors, • Be located outside the right- of-way, • Be unproved with landscaping in public areas, and • Be maintained by the homeowners association if the property is subdivided, or by the management Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT H organization as applied to the property if the property is not subdivided. 00 Provision of a minimum of 2 units of affordable housing ner net develo able acre fractional results shall be rounded up to the next whole number). In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate a minimum of 3 features described below: (i) Architectural design which incorporates enhanced building entry features (e.g., varied design materials, arbors and/or trellises, cocheres, gabled roofs). (ii) Active common recreation amenities such as picnic facilities, gazebos, sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/Jacuzzi. (iii) Enhanced ground plane textures or colors (e.g., stamped patterned concrete, cobblestone, or brick at all building entries, courtyards, trails or sidewalks). (iv) Building or structures incorporating bonus units shall have no more than 75 % of the garages on a single fagade. (v) Surface parking lots containing nor more than 6 parking stalls Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT H separated from other parking areas by landscaping with a minimum width of 15 feet. (vi) Site design incorporating a package of at least 3 amenitites which enhance neighborhood character, such as coordinated lighting (street or building), mailbox details, address and signage details, and street trees as approved by the Reviewing Official. General NA NA Where Where included, affordable Provisions: included, units must beet the provisions affordable of the Housing Element of the units must Comprehensive Plan. For meet the COR 2, if a significant public provisions of benefit above City Code the Housing requirements can be provided Element of the for a portion of the property Comprehensiv which may be contaminated, a e Plan. transfer of density may be allowed for other portions of the site. Page 6 of 6 EWI ED 0 wff A'A 0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division vr'rOF4ENTpNNfIVG 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 j Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 SEP 2 B 2006 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: 'leceivCD The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. H:%EDNSP1Comp Plan\Sub Area PlansWighlands0evelopment Reg Drafts\Zoning\R-14 Draft DocsISEPA Checklist.doc A. BACKGROUND Name of proposed project, if applicable: Highlands Zoning and Land Use Package (Fall 2006) 2. Name of applicant: City of Renton 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Economic Development Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning Renton City Hall, 6m Floor 1055 South Grad Way Renton, WA 98055 Contact: Rebecca Lind, Planning Manager Phone: (425) 430-6588 4. Date checklist prepared: September 21, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): N/A non -project action 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. N/A non project action. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Transportation Engineering North West LLC, "City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Analysis" April 17, 2006. and City Staff, Highlands Zoning and Land Use Package (Fall 06) Impact Analysis' September, 2006. Both documents are attached. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 2 Checklist.doc 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council must give approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zoning proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This non -project action includes four different actions related to the zoning and land use plans for the Highlands Subarea. 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments that remove R-10 as an implementing zone of the CV land use designation and replace it with R-14, remove strategy 319.3, a few non -substantive "clean-up" changes. 2. Zoning Code Text Amendments including. amending R-14 to be an implementing zone of the CV land use designation, amend the uses allowed in the CV zone, amending notes for the zoning use table, amending the development regulations for the R-14 zone, amending the development regulations for the CV zone, removing the Center Village Bonus District, enacting design regulations for all parcels in a Center Village Land Use designation, amending the parking requirements, amending the criteria for R-14 bonus, revising the name of the Urban Center Design Review Packet, and revising definitions. 3. Comprehensive Plan Map amendments that move the RMD area north of NE 16th Street, the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7m Street and NE 9th Street, and two parcels near the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE to the CV land use' designation; moving the area in CV designation south of Sunset and in the vicinity of NE 9th Street to RMF designation; placing the areas in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE and NE 121t' and Edmonds Ave NE from RMD to RSF designation. Please see attached maps. 4. Zoning Map amendments that place most of the R-10 property north of NE 12ffi Street in R-14; that rezones the R-10 property in the vicinity of NE le Street and Edwards Ave NE and in the vicinity of Monroe Ave NE from R-10 to R-8; changes the property in the vicinity of Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE and Sunset Lane, and the parcel on the comer of NE 91h Street and Glenwood Ave NE from RMF to CV; changes the Xarcels surrounding the Public Library, and the parcels fronting Harrington Ave NE between NE 7"' Street and NE a Street, and the two parcels in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Monroe Ave NE, from R-10 to CV; and a portion of the parcel near Houser Terrace from R-10 to RMF.. Please see attached maps. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. ' The project is within the Highlands Subarea. The Highlands Subarea can be loosely defined as the area in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard that is South of NE 21$t Street, North of NE a Street East of NE Camas Ave (if extended) and west of NE Olympia Ave (if extended). Please see attached maps for specific location information. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1, EARTH H:IEDNSPIConip P1anlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 3 Checklist.doc a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A. Non project action. The Highlands is generally flat, with typically gentle changes in elevation. There are some steep slopes in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard and Edmonds Avenue. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) N/A Non project action. The steepest slope is between 25-40% C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. N/A non -project action d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A Non project action. The steep slopes area near Edmonds and Sunset is also listed as a moderate landslide hazard. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A non -project action f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A non -project action. Adopting these changes will not create impervious surfaces. There is no significant change between the proposed regulations and the existing regulations in regards to the percentage of allowed lot coverage. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: WA non -project action. 2. AIR H:IEDNSMomp P1an1Sub Area Plans\ ighiands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 4 Checldist.doc a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A non project action. b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A non -project action 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the Immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. N/A. Non project action. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A non project action. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A non -project action. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. WA non project action. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. N/A non project action 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area P1ans\HighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning\R-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 6 Checklist.doc N/A non project action b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A non project action. These regulations would create the potential for additional population in the Highlands Subarea. This population would require domestic water from the City of Renton water system, which relies on wells drawing from a local aquifer. Compared to the potential population under existing conditions, the future potential population that may result from the approval of the proposal would represent an increase of approximately 1292 people. This increase in population is well within the planned growth targets for the City of Renton. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A non project action C. Water Runoff (Including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. N/A non -project action. In the existing condition, the majority of the Highlands was developed without any formal stormwater system. Future development would have to comply with City of Renton stormwater regulations. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. WA non -project action. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: AVA non -project action. Future development would have to comply with City of Renton storm water regulations. 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning\R 14 Draft Docs1SEPA 6 Checklist.doc ' 4IJ . pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? WA non project action. This proposal is intended to result in redevelopment of this neighborhood. With redevelopment of individual parcels, vegetation may be removed and cleared prior to budding. Such actions would be subject to City of Renton development regulations at the time of application. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A non -project action. The proposal enacts design guidelines for the Highlands which require a higher standard of landscaping than under the existing regulations. This is likely to result in more vegetation in the area. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds. eron ea le so ther Mammals: eer bear, ells, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A non project action 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL. RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area Plansl11ighlands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 7 Checklist.doc N/A non project action. Future development in this area is the intended result of this proposal. Various types of energy including all of the types listed above, are likely to be used in the heating of future residential, commercial, and recreational development in this area. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. The design regulations implemented by this proposal would require a greater amount of vegetation than is required under the current regulations. The presence of trees and other vegetation to shade buildings naturally cools them and could result in some measure of energy conservation. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. N/A non -project action. In the current condition, many of the residential buildings in the Highlands are suspected to be constructed with toxic materials such as lead based paints and asbestos. The regulations in the proposal would require these units to be removed upon redevelopment of the property on which they sit. Removal would be subject to all state, local, and federal laws for the containment of hazardous materials. Removal of these materials would eliminate the toxic hazards that these units currently present to the surrounding environment and the people that live in the dwellings. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A non project action. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A non -project action. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? WA non project action. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning\R 14 Draft Docs1SEPA S Checklist.doc 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A non project action. if the proposal is effective in promoting redevelopment there may be an increase in temporary construction noises. There are likely to be construction noises in the neighborhood with, or without the proposal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A non -project action. Site specific development projects will be subject to City development regulations in effect at the time of application. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A non -project action. The current, use of the Highlands is for residential, commercial, community, and recreational uses. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. N/A non project action. C. Describe any structures on the site. N/A non project action. There are a variety of structures in the Highlands including residential, accessory, commercial, community and civic structures. Some of the structures, primarily residential structures, are in dilapidated condition. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A non project action. Although this is a non project action, the change in regulations will likely result in the demolition of residential structures in the Highlands because it requires those who redevelop parcels to remove existing structures as part of the redevelopment. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/a non project action. The Highlands area is characterized by R-90, RMF, and CV zoning. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Renton Residential Medium Density and Center Village g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area P1anslHighlandslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoning\R-14 Draft Docs\SEPA 9 Checkiist.doc NIA non -project action. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. N/A. Non -project action. There are limited areas of steep slopes and moderate potential landslide haza►d. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? This is a non -project action. The change in capacity as a result of this proposal could create a population of approximately 5095 people in the Highlands, an increase of approximately 1292 people over the current potential population. If we assume one employee per 250 square feet of commercial space, the future employee count of the area would be approximately 1648 people, an increase of approximately 507 workers over the current potential conditions. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NIA non project action. This project would not displace anyone. Current property owners would be able to stay in their existing homes for as long as they wished and improve or remodel their homes as desired. Redevelopment would occur as owners redeveloped their properties or sold them to those who wished to redevelop them. The increased capacity in the proposed zoning regulations will allow approximately an additional 718 housing units and 126,707 square feet of commercial development. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA non project action Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan and the City of Renton Business Plan. The proposed comprehensive plan amendments and zoning text amendments are intended to make implementation of the Comprehensive Plan easier. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This is a non project action. The proposal would likely result in approximately 2113 units, or 718 more than provided under the current zoning of the area. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanA ightandADevelopmcnt Reg DraftslZoning\R-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 10 Checklist.doc N/A non -project action. This action would likely result in the creation of more units than under the current regulations. However, some of the existing units are likely to be removed and replaced. Although there are provisions and incentives to provide affordable housing, as redevelopment occurs, it is likely that units that are now serving as (unsecured) affordable housing will be replaced with more expensive housing. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A non project action. Incentives for the creation of affordable housing are included in the development regulations to achieve a bonus in the R-14 zone. 10. AESTHETICS a. What Is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. N/A non project action. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A non -project action. There is a proposed increase in the standard for building height in the CV zone. The existing standard is to only allow building that are 50 ft. in height. The proposed standard would allow buildings with ground floor commercial development in the C V zone to be as tall as 60 ft. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: WA non project action. The proposed design regulations require stricter regulations regard the aesthetic finished of buildings than under the current regulations. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A non project action. There will likely be additional dwelling units and commercial development potential created by the proposed regulations. The Traffic Impact Analysis recommends additional street lighting for the area. This may result in more light in the area. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A non project action. individual proposal will be reviewed on a project basis under the development regulations in effect at the time of application. C. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A non -project action H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area P1anMigb1andslDevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft DocsISEPA Checklist.doc d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A non project action. The design guidelines regulate lighting to reduce negative impacts. There are no regulations in effect for this area at the present time. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? This is a non project action. The project is in the vicinity of the North Highlands Community Center and the Highlands Community Center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A non -project action. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A non -project action. There is an incentive for creating community spaces and public open space in order to receive a bonus in the R-14 zone. Future development would be required to pay Renton's Parks Mitigation Fee. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. N/A non -project action b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A non -project action C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A non -project action 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This is a non project proposal. The area is served by NE Sunset Boulevard, a major arterial, and Edmonds Ave NE a principal arterial. There is an extensive network of streets, which Includes a network of currently un-utilized alleys. H:IEDNSP1Comp P1anlSub Area PtanslHighlandsTevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 12 Checklist.doc b. is site currently served by public transit? if not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? WA Non project action. The Highlands is served by multiple transit lines, including routes 105, 240, 908, and 909. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? WA non -project action. The future number of parking spaces in this area will be determined on a project specific basis. In some areas, where alleys exist, access will be required to be taken from the alley for new development projects. This could possibly result in additional on -street parking in some areas. if, as suggested in the transportation analysis, bike lanes are added to some roadways, this may limit some on street parking in those areas. Addition of bike lanes to this area is equally likely to be implemented with or without the proposal. Parking regulations determine the number of off street parking spaces required for each project. The regulations will remain the same for most types of development For attached dwelling units in the CV zone, the proposed regulations impose an maximum limit for parking per unit at 1.75 spaces per unit. This would apply to the development of new projects in the CV zone and would only limit the number of future spaces, not necessarily existing spaces. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? N/A non -project action. Future development must comply with Renton's Development Regulations. The traffic impact analysis suggests a number of street improvements be made to the Highlands subarea. The improvements include a westbound right turn lane and southbound left turn lane for the intersection at NE 121h St at Edmonds Avenue, improved sidewalks, promotion of transportation altematives through possible implementation of bicycle lane, better definition of on -street parking areas, and additional street lighting. These improvements are suggested for implementation with or without the proposal. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A Non project action. This project is likely to result in approximately 37,851 trips per day, this represents an increase in approximately 10,336 trips over the amount projected under full implementation of the existing zoning. Peak volumes are likely to occur at the same time as existing peaks- AM and PM "rush hour° in the attached transportation analysis, the author analyzed the impacts of approximately 28, 772 additional daily trips and found that there was adequate capacity on the existing road system without significant level of service reduction. All intersections would operate at LOS C or better H:IEDNSPIComp P1anlSub Area PlansWighlandslDevelopment Reg Draftsl7oning\R-14 Draft DocsISEPA 13 Checklist.doc except for the intersection at NE 12th Street and Edmonds Ave NE. This intersection is currently operating at LOS F. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A non project action. Transportation impacts will be addressed through City of Renton development regulations at the time of project specific application. Currently, there are several projects that could improve the street network and transportation system in the Highlands including adding turn lanes to the intersection of NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE, improving sidewalks, adding bicycle lanes and/or other facilities for non - motorized transportation, better detlnition of on -street parking areas, and enhanced street lighting. Such improvements are equally likely to occur with or without the proposal. However, some improvements, such as sidewalk and street lighting improvements may be somewhat more likely as redevelopment occurs under the proposal. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. N/A non project action. The proposal could result in an increased capacity in the area of approximately 718 units, or approximately 1292 people, over the current zoning and land use designations. This increase is likely to increase the need for additional public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A non -project action 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities available at the site electrici natural gas ate re=service elephon , ani#ary sews septic system, othe . N/A non project action b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A non -project action. This will be reviewed on a project specific basis and City of Renton development regulations will be applied The City of Renton is in the process of completing water and sewer upgrades in the vicinity of the proposal that will be used to accommodate any future development. C. SIGNATURE 1, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanslHighlandslDevelopment Reg Dratis\ZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 14 Checklist.doc that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Iti u(► "'up Name Printed: Rebecca Lind for City of Renton D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? It is unlikely that the proposal would have any affect on the above environmental issues. There will be a likely increase in population and in the number of dwelling units and amount of commercial floor space in this area. All future development will have to comply with an applicable federal, state, and local regulations. It is hoped that future demolition of structures suspected to have lead based paints, asbestos, and other hazardous materials would ultimately result in less future risk from those toxic substances. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: New development would be required to comply with the City's development regulations, including the City's. Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? There would be no affect on plants; animals, fish, or marine life as a direct consequence of this non -project, prezoning proposal. There may be some displacement of existing vegetation to clear lots for future development, which is likely to occur under the both the present conditions and the proposal. ' Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None at this non -project level. Development of additional dwelling units must comply with City of Renton regulations and with Renton's Critical Areas Ordinance. Development that occurs as a result of the proposal will be reviewed for these impacts on a project specific basis. This will include application of design regulations, which require higher landscaping standards, and may increase the amount of vegetation in the area. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? H:IEDNSP\Comp PlanlSub Area P1anMighlandsWevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SEPA 15 Checklist.doc The proposed non -project action will not deplete energy or natural resources. Future project level development may impact energy or natural resources slightly, based on the likelihood of additional dwelling units and commercial floor area, but will not deplete them. Development is likely to occur with or without the proposal. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None are proposed at this non project action stage. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? This proposal would likely not use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. At such time that additional dwelling units are developed, they will be subject to City of Renton critical area regulations and development standards that are designed to protect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? This proposal results in any change of capacity of approximately 718 dwelling units and approximately 126,707 square feet of commercial floor area. This would result in an intensification over the current land use. Intensification is likely to occur in this area without the proposal, up to the maximum capacity allowed by the current regulations. The proposal is compatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan, which designates the majority of this area as a Center Village. The proposed Comprehensive Plan map amendments result in a more consistent application of land use policy over areas that are similarly situated. The entire project is consistent with the City of Renton Business Plan Goals. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Under the proposal, regulations would require that new development conform to more stringent site development and aesthetic standards than under the current regulations. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposal increases the number of potential vehicle trip ends by approximately 10,336 daily trips over the capacity allowed under the current zoning. Additional population is also likely to make increased demand for public services. H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlansV ghlandMevelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs1SPPA 16 Checklist.doc Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: The transportation analysis shows that there would be adequate capacity for even an additional 28,772 daily trips in the Highlands subarea, without significant reductions in Levels of Service. The analysis makes suggestions for improving the transportation network in the Highlands, but these items are needed whether or not the proposal is adopted. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The proposal will not conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for protection of the environment. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: 4gi'�(�&Gf' Name Printed: Rebecca Lind for City of Renton Date: H:IEDNSP1Comp PlanlSub Area PlanMighlands0evelopment Reg DraftslZoninglR-14 Draft Docs\SEPA 17 Checklist.doc NGM2rkft Z-ft Bid Land Use Package (Fa9 08)1mpal- An*sfs PROPOSED ZONING Land use Gros Acreage Net Aerea Density/FA R Units Retail S . Ft Estimated population factor 1.8 Estimated Elementary Pupils .276funit Estimated Middle School Pupils .079funit Estimated High School Pupils .070funit Total Estimated Pupils Required Acreage of Nelghborho od Parks 5 a ft (7 q oar n Estimated Trip Ends (per unit or per 1,000 uare ft Trip Generation In Vehicle Trip and R-14 40.88 32.70 14.00 457ZB Na 824.14 126.37 36.17 32.05 194.59 1,42 10.71 4903.64 R-8 22.55 18.04 6.00 108.24 Na 194.83 29.87 8.55 7.58 46.00 0.34 10.71 1159.25 RMF 2.85 2.28 14.00 31.92 Na 57.46 8.81 2.52 2.23 13.57 0.10 6.63 211.63 CV- Multifarrdfy 24.92 19.94 64.00 1275.90 Na 2296.63 352.15 100.80 89.31 542.26 3.95 6.63 8459.24 CV- Mixed Use Housing 18.69 14.95 64.00 956.93 Na 1722.47 264.11 75.60 66.98 406.69 2.97 6.63 6344.43 CV- Mbceduse Cammers 622 4.98 0.30 Na 65026.37 Na Na n/a IrVa Na Na 40.67 2644.62 CV -Mixed Use Retail 33.23 26.58 0.30 Na 347399.71 Al Na Na Na Na 40.67 14128.75 Totals Pro 149.34 119.47 2830.85 412426.08N 781.31 223.64 198.16 1203.111 8.77 37851.56 EXISTING ZONING Land use a Gross Acreage Nat Acres e Density/FA R Units Retail S . Ft Estimated population factor 1/8 Estimated Elementary Pupils .276funit) Estimated Middle School Pupils (.079funit Estimated High School Pupils .0701unit Total Estimated Pupils Required Acreage of Neighborho od Parks (75 aq fL par arson Estimated Trip Ends (per unit or per 1,000 square it Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip ends R-10 72.22 57.781 8.00 462.21 Na 831.97 127.57 36.51 32.35 196.44 1.43 10.71 4950.25 RMF 22.46 17.97i 14.00 251.55 Na 452.79 69.43 19.87 17.61 106.91 0.78 6.63 1667.79 CV-1-I 27.33 21.861 64.00 1399,30 Na 2518.73 38621 110,54 97.95 594.70 4.34 6,63 9277.33 CV-ReWVC rnmorciai 27.33 21.86 0.30 Na 285718.75 Na Na Na Na Na Na 40.67 11620.18 Total$ bdsdng 149.34 119A7 2113.06 285718.75 3803.50 583.20 166.93 147.91 898.05 6.55 27515.55 Units Retail Sq. Ft EsL Pop. I Est ES Est. MS Est HS Total Est Pupils Est VTEs Net 75.7 79._-126707.33. 1292.03 ==_ 191111 _. W,71 .. -50.25 305.06 _ 10336.01 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Land Use Concept El Transportation Analysis April 17, 2006 Prepared for: 'off JUN 'ri<� ('�f f'�r• City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and Strategic Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Prepared by: Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Transportation Engineering/Operations ♦ impact Studies ♦ Design Services ♦ Transportation Planning/Forecasting Seattle Office: PO Box 65254 ♦ Seattle. WA 98155 ♦ Office/Fax (206) 361-7333 • Toll Free (888) 220-7333 Eastside Office: 816 - 6th Avenue S • Kirkland, WA 98033 ♦ Office (425) 531.0567 ♦ Fax (425) 889-8369 City of Renton Land Use Concept E1 Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis _ Table of Contents INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription......................................................................................................................1 ProjectApproach.........................................................................................................................4 EXISTINGCONDITIONS..................................................................................................................5 Existing Roadway Conditions......................................................................................................5 KeyIntersections.......................................................................................................................7 TrafficVolumes.........................................................................................................................10 Intersection Level of Service.....................................................................................................10 Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity............................................................12 Public Transportation Services and Facilities............................................................................14 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities.....................................................................................16 Parking and Street Illumination Characteristics.........................................................................16 Planned Transportation Improvements......................................................................................16 TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS......................................................................................21 2030 Future Travel Demand Forecasts....................................................................................21 Intersection Level of Service Impacts........................................................................................23 NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Impacts............................................................29 Public Transportation Impacts...................................................................................................29 NonmotorizedImpacts...............................................................................................................30 Parking Impacts.........................................................30 Street Illumination Impacts........................................................................................................30 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................31 Appendix A — Intersection LOS Analysis Results Appendix B — 2030 Future Year Traffic Volume Estimates "Fratar Forecasts" Page I Transportation Engineering NoMWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City or Renton Land Use Concept E1 —Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Highlands Subarea Boundary and Vicinity.....................................................................................2 Figure 2: Land Use Concept E1 Site Plan....................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Roadway Characteristics...............................................................................................................6 Figure 4: Study Intersection Locations..........................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Existing Channelization and Traffic Control...................................................................................9 Figure 6: 2006 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................................11 Figure 7: 2006 Existing Intersection Level of Service.................................................................................13 Figure 8: Existing Public Transportation Stop Locations.............................................................................15 Figure 9: Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities........................................................................................17 Figure 10: Existing On -Street Parking........................................................................................................18 Figure 11: Existing Street Light Locations...................................................................................................19 Figure 12: 2030 Baseline P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................................................................24 Figure 13: 2030 With Concept E1 P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................25 Figure 14: 2030 Baseline Intersection Level of Service..............................................................................27 Figure 15: 2030 With Concept E1 Intersection Level of Service................................................................28 Table 1: Land Use Concept Ell — 2030 Conditions.....................................................................................A Table 2: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections..........................................................10 Table 3: 2006 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service........................................................12 Table 4: Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity...............................................................14 Table 5: Existing Public Transportation Services........................................................................................14 Table 6: 2030 P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Impacts........................................................26 Table 7: 2030 Baseline NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity.....................................................29 Table 8: 2030 With Concept E1 NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity........................................29 T po Engineering NorthWeM LLC Page Ii rain nation April i 7. 2006 City of Renton Highlands Stibarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 INTRODUCTION The City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan will address a Vrrien and comprehensive planning policies for an area with commercial, multi -family, and single-family residential redevelopment in northeast Renton. This transportation analysis was conducted to evaluate transportation needs of potential redevelopment of the Highlands Subarea Plan and recommend suitable mitigation for environmental impacts of the proposed Land Use Concept El. Project Description The Highlands Subarea is located on both sides of NE Sunset Boulevard between NE 23rd Street to the north and NE 5th Street to the south, and from Camas Avenue NE to the west and Olympia Avenue NE to the east. The study area boundary is shown in Figure 1. This report analyzes future transportation conditions under Land Use Concept E1 (shown in Figure 2). Land Use Concept E1 is proposed under the City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan for zoning/density that would be allowed within the current comprehensive plan Iand use designations (no changes to the comprehensive plan map), but with different zoning. Table 1 summarizes available land use capacity at densities allowed by the current comprehensive plan designation, but with different allowed zoning, as well as resultant land use increases and resulting daily vehicle trip generation. As shown, the net increase in future land uses is estimated at approximately 1,623 residential units and 58,000 square -feet of commercial retail over current land use assumptions by the City in the Highlands Subarea. Table 1: Land Use Conce t El — 2030 Conditions Land Use Type Gross Acreage Net Acreage Density/ FAR Residential Units Retail (Sq Ft) Estimated Population Trip Generation in Vehicle Trip Ends CVR-Cottage 9.25 8.33 12 100 n/a 140 586 CVR-Townhouse 21,59 19.43 21 404 n/a 727 4,328 CVR-Multi-Farniiy 0.00 0.00 64 0 n/a 0 1 0 CVC-Multi-Family14.45 13.00 64 832 n/a 1,498 5,518 RMD 18.70 16.83 14 242 n/a 436 2,596 CVC-Mixeduse Housing 10.84 10.18 64 651 n/a 1,172 4,318 CVC-Mixeduse Commercial 3.61 3.39 0.30 n/a 44,329 n/a 1,803 CVC-Retail 19.26 18.11 0.30 n/a 236,637 n/a 9,624 School 7.18 0.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a Parks/Public O en Space 5.98 5.98 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Future Total 110.86 95.25 - 2,230 280,967 3,974 28,772 Existing Park 3.32 - - - - Existing Retail - - - 223,019 - Existing Residential - 607 - 1 1,335 Net Change 2.66 - - 1,623 57,948 1 2,638 - Sousse: City of Renton Economic Development, Neighborhoods, and strategic Planning Department, Marsh 2006. Page 1 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 SE 38th Stf s� SJE 95th W S� Ma Yalle Rd d SubareaLa r Z NE 24th St Boundary c NE 24th S a � o NE 20th St ; x �' NE 19th S Lake Z o y�^�,' ;:r' — d �: N��; St Washington 1 d H WE 1 t ., N Z N �� � �'- � w •r Z LU d Q N8thSt a vw m�z 4A Q {. > Q GO aR Z , z S N 6th St 7N eh w O t W W n. Z z Z N 4th St a a NE 4th St E3rdS NE 2nd SE 132nd St E 136 (nlot to Scale) ds Subarea Highlands Transportation Figure 1 Plan Engineering Highlands Subarea Boundary Renton, WA v NorthWest, LLC and Vicinity Land Use Concept t:i 7ransportatton Analysis Page 2 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Ana_ysis • Land Use Concept E1 land Use Concept E1 :QC" 1"7 Ra f44 ache.) l Ftke(+ta dw—) 7#[ � RMf ItD20 ailam) awk Ch—enlc~1 Mwk.- -q Mel.ltltfA-" ta1mld!mre I� gtOnp Transportation Figure 2 Engineering Nortf�West, LLC Land Use Concept E I Site Plan v (Mot to Scale) Highlands Subarea Plan Renton, WA Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Analysis Page 3 ag Transportation Engineering Northwest, Lac April 97, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Project Approach The transportation analysis addresses the following elements associated with the Highlands Subarea Plan under Land Use Concept El: ➢ inventoried existing roadway/intersection conditions and reviewed existing planning documents; ➢ Described and assessed existing transportation conditions in the area; D Discussed planned transportation improvements; ➢ Documented future without -project "baseline" and with Land Use Concept E1 traffic forecasts and assumptions; ➢ Evaluated intersection level of service needs at 13 study intersections; ➢ Analyzed roadway level of service on NE Park Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard; ➢ Assessed impacts to public transportation, nonmotorized transportation facilities and services, parking, and street lights; and ➢ Recommended transportation improvements measures to facilitate redevelopment of Land Use Concept El for the Highlands Subarea Plan. 1�`�' Trans nation Page 4 V po engineering Northi�irast, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Conce t Ell EXISTING CONDITIONS This section includes an inventory of existing roadway conditions, intersection channelization and traffic control, traffic volumes, intersection levels of service, public transportation services and facilities, nontnotorized transportation facilities, and planned roadway improvements. Existing Roadway Conditions The following paragraphs describe general existing roadway conditions affecting site access. Roadway characteristics are also shown in Figure 3. Aberdeen Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. South of NE 2714 Street, the roadway consists of 10-foot travel lanes with a 1- to 2-foot fog line shoulder width and 4- to 5-foot paved shoulders signed as a "walkway." The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Edmonds Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 6 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are located on one or both sides of the street. Parking is located along various parts of the roadway. The pavement width varies from 44 feet between NE 161h Street and NE Sunset Boulevard to 33 feet just north of NE Th Street. The posted speed limit is 30 mph north of and 25 mph south of NE Sunset Boulevard. Harrington Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 8 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are located on one or both sides of the street. Parking is located along various parts of the roadway. The pavement width varies from approximately 27 feet at its northern section to 44 feet in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Jefferson Avenue NE is a two-lane unchannelized north -south roadway. Between NE 16ei Street and NE 121h Street, the roadway consists of 4- to 5-foot concrete pathways and parking on both sides of the street. The total pavement width is 32 feet. In the vicinity of NE 9th Street, the roadway provides parking on both sides of the street with a 4-foot concrete pathway on the east side of the street. The total pavement width varies from 23 to 31 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Kirkland Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 4 to 10 feet wide, 4-foot concrete pathways and/or 13-foot gravel shoulders are Iocated on one or both sides of the street. Parking is located along various parts of the roadway. The pavement width varies from approximately 30 feet in the vicinity of NE 16th Street to 40 feet near NE 10th Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Monroe Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. South of NE 12h Street, the roadway consists of 5- to 6-foot raised sidewalks and parking on both sides of the street. Travel lanes are approximately 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. North of NE 121h Street, the roadway provides parking on both sides of the street with 4- to 8-foot gravel shoulders. The total pavement width along this section is 28 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Olympia Avenue NE is a two-lane unchannelized north -south roadway. Parking is located on both sides of the roadway. Travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. Page 5 Transportation Engineering NorthWast, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan •„• _Transportation Analysis • Land Use Concept E1 NE 24th St_ I 1I- K._ N k I NE I w 2 lanes z 29-foot 25 2 lanes t 44 fee3� ph curb', 2 lanes 34 feet curb to curb 25 mph 4 N� 30400t paved �:r.= 25 mph s. paved 01 j., mph3 F. .�4.. " 2 lanes ` 'x°" is 32 feet curb to curb -`k�' 25 mph NE 19 h St ,. �� "�.;^.= '� 2 lanes th;s . ' 32-foot paved L� 25 mph 4 lanes + Center Left " ,s' � 60 feet curb to curb n NE Sunset Blvd 35 mph 2 lane z 40 feet curb to curb ; ` 25 mph 4 ' 4� ,, 900 4 lanes + Turn Lane 2 lanes ,,;, ` 32.25 59 feet curb to curb 35 mph , pphved , "�A NE 12th St NE Park Dr 2 lanes :,, 36 feet curio to curb a., , u.t.., t; 30 mph � 4 y 2lanes 44 feet curb to curb 2 lanes t9.3 30 mph 27•foot paved 3'C== NE loth $t 2 25 mph �. �; ,'��.� 2lanes b NE 9th t S 31-foot paved Q 25 mph = _ w Z 2lanes � 33•foot paved ; y 2 lanes b 25 mph Moot paved 0 25 mph is 405 W ".. ".E.. E 7th St 2 Wes 2 lanes 34-foot paved w 32•foot paved 25 mph z 25 mph 2lanes 2 lanes 31-foot paved I S 332footpaved p 900 25 mph NE 5th t CY 2 lanes 2 lanes. 32•foot paved 32-foot paved 25 mph 25 mph (Not to Stale) Highlands Subarea Transportation 6,10 Figure 3 Plan Engineering Roadway Characteristics Renton, WA NorthWest, LAC Land use content �, Transportation Analysts Page 6 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17. 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan - T T Transportation Anab2s - Land Use Concept E1 Union Avenue NE is a two-lane north -south roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 6 feet wide are provided on both sides of the street in the vicinity of NE Sunset Boulevard. The curb -to - curb pavement width is approximately 43 to 44 feet. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. NE 271h Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks about 5 to 6 feet in width and parking are provided on both sides of the street. Travel lanes are generally 11 to 12 feet. The speed limit is posted at 30 mph. NE 121h Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 5 to 7 feet wide are provided on one or both sides of the street. The pavement width varies from 23 feet in the vicinity of Dayton Avenue to 40 feet in the vicinity of Edmonds Avenue NE. In the vicinity of Monroe Avenue NE, the roadway consists of 3- to 5-foot paved shoulders. The south side of the street east of Monroe Avenue NE is signed as a "walkway." The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. SR 900 (NE Park Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard) is an east -west roadway. The roadway consists of 4 to 5 travel lanes. A two-way, center left -turn lane is provided along various sections of this roadway. Travel lanes are 12 feet with 5- to 6-foot wide raised sidewalks on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. NE 101h Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 4 to 10 feet wide are provided on both sides of the street. The curb -to -curb pavement width varies from approximately 30 feet in the vicinity of Sunset Lane to 40 feet near Index Avenue. The speed limit is posted at 25 mph. NE 7h Street is a two-lane east -west roadway. Raised sidewalks approximately 4 to 7 feet wide and/or 4-foot concrete pathways are provided on one or both sides of the street. The pavement width is generally 32 to 33 feet and provides for parking along various parts of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. NE 51h Street is a two-lane east -west roadway with 4- to 5-foot concrete pathways on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Key Intersections The following 13 study intersections were chosen to analyze existing levels of service (locations are shown in Figure 4 with existing channelization and traffic control summarized in Figure 5): 1. NE 271h Street / Aberdeen Avenue NE 2. NE 1211, Street / Edmonds Avenue NE 3. NE Park Drive / I-405 SB Ramps 4. NE Park Drive / I-405 NB Ramps 5. NE Park Drive and NE Sunset Boulevard / Sunset Boulevard NE 6. NE Sunset Boulevard / Edmonds Avenue NE 7. NE Sunset Boulevard / Harrington Avenue NE 8. NE Sunset Boulevard / NE 10=1, Street 9. NE Sunset Boulevard / NE 1211, Street 10. NE Sunset Boulevard / Union Avenue NE 11. NE 101h Street / Monroe Avenue NE 12. NE 7th Street / Monroe Avenue NE 13, NE 7th Street / Sunset Boulevard NE Page 7 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17. 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan _ Transportation Analysis • Land Use Concept E1 i 405 SE 38thiSt s� NE 31st St 5E 95o W Z SE Ma Valle Rd d Project z NE 24th St Boundaries NE 24 h S a ,a a > o NE 20th St #' ,';� NE 19th S Like d c ;, " N St Washington D ""!' i E S NE Pa y, = H i�:r 5r ^ �•' c z N t t: '�r3i 'ijt�''.L,r-f• I wJ LU a N 8th S[ sc , , IA 5..,,r 0 Co N6thSt 7 t W C W ^ m N 4th St Q a Wit 4thSt g o c � E 3rd $ c � NE 2nd t SE 132nd St 900 E 136 h 900 169 LIJ L. (W to Scale) Transportation Highlands Subarea Figure 4 Plan Engineering Northwest, LLC Study Intersection Locations Renton, WA Land Use Concept EI Transportatlon AnalMs 19 Transportation Engineering NorthWnst, LLC Page 8 April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El NE 27th St/Aberdeen Ave NE211ry Sf NE Park Dr/Sunset Blvd NE F F Sunset 8lsd wpwk • NE Sunset Blvd/NE 12th St NE IM SF Wj NE 7th Sr/Sunset Blvd NE HE nd Sr NE 12th St/Edmwds Ave i NE }?Zti Sr NE Sunset Blvd/Edmonds t--r Stntser Brad • NE Sunset BWd/Union Ave NE Park DrIl-4D5 SO Ramps A ff � HEPa k _y NE StmsI $Wd/Hartinatott E— EN Wd NE 100 St/Monroe Ave NE KIM 5t NE Park Dr/l-40S NO Ramps F INEP&kIDr Y NE Sunset WOW 10th St ,4� FfE}(try St NE 7th St/Monrae Ave NE NE 7fry of t• Legend Traffic Signal y Stop Sign ® All -Way Stop (Not to Scale) Transportation Figure 5 Highlands Subarea Plan Engineering Existing Channelization Renton, WA NorthWest, LLC and Traffic Control tans use Concept EI Transportation Analysts Page 9 19 Transportation Engineering NarihWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis • Land Use Concept E1 Traffic Volumes Figure 6 highlights existing 2006 p.m. peak period turning movements at the 13 study intersections. P.M. peak hour traffic volumes typically represent the highest hourly volume of vehicles passing through an intersection during the 4-6 p.m. peak period. Since the p.m. peak period volumes usually represent the highest volumes of the average day, existing volumes were collected in the study area for use in evaluating traffic impacts. The City of Renton provided traffic counts at all study intersections. Based on historical traffic volumes indicating an average growth rate of 5 percent per year between 2004 and 2005 in the study area, all traffic counts not counted in the year 2006 were factored by 5 percent per year to estimate year 2006 existing conditions. Intersection Level of Service Level of service (LOS) serves as an indicator of the quality of traffic flow at an intersection or road segment. The LOS grading ranges from A to F, such that LOS A is assigned when no delays are present and low volumes are experienced. LOS F indicates long delays and/or forced flow. Table 2 summarizes the delay range for each level of service at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 2: LOS Criteria for Signalized and Unsi nalized Intersections Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay Range sec Unsignalized Intersection Delay Range sec A 5 10 5 10 B > 10toS20 > 10to515 C > 20to535 > 15tos25 D > 35to555 > 25to535 E > 55 to 5 80 > 35 to:5 50 F 2: 80 2t 50 Source: "Highway Capacity Manual", Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 2000, Update. The methods used to calculate the levels of service are described in the updated 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, and increased travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made of up a number of factors that relate to traffic control, geometries, traffic demand, and incidents. Total control delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions (i.e., the absence of traffic control, geometric delay, any incidents, or as a result other vehicles). LOS F at signalized intersections is often considered unacceptable to most drivers, but does not automatically imply that the intersection is over capacity. Jammed conditions could occur on one or all approaches, with periods of long delays and drivers waiting for multiple signal cycles to progress through the intersection. Page 10 19 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17. 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El Page 11 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Come t E1 For unsignalized intersections, a level of service and estimate of average control delay is determined for each minor or controlled movement based upon a sequential analysis of gaps in the major traffic streams and conflicting traffic movements. In addition, given that unsignalized intersections create different driver expectations and congestion levels than signalized intersections, their delay criteria are lower. Control delay at unsignalized intersections include deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay in waiting for an adequate gap in flows through the intersection, and final acceleration delay. Intersection LOS were calculated using the methodology and procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board using the software program of&ncibry for signalized intersections and Hi__ ehway�rpacity for unsignalized intersections. Existing p.m. peak hour levels of service at study intersections are summarized in Table 3 and further illustrated in Figure 7. As shown, all signalized intersections and controlled movements at unsignalized intersections operate at LOS B or better under existing conditions. Detailed level of service summary worksheets are provided in Appendix A. Table 3: 2006 Existing P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service ID # Signalized Intersections Traffic Control LOS' Delays V/C3 3 NE Park Dr / 1-405 SB Rams Signal B 14 0.71 4 NE Park Dr / I-405 NB Rams Signal B 17 0.48 5 NE Park Dr / NE Sunset Blvd / Sunset Blvd NE Signal B 11 0.68 6 NE Sunset Blvd / Edmonds Ave NE Signal A 1 9 0.55 7 NE Sunset Blvd / Harrington Ave NE Sicinal A 5 0.47 8 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 10th St Signal B 13 0.55 9 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 12th St Signal B 15 0.60 10 NE Sunset Blvd / Union Ave NE Signal B 19 1 0.64 13 NE 7th St / Sunset Blvd NE Signal A 5 0.40 ID # Unsi nalized Intersections9 Traffic Control LOS' Dela 2 V/C' 1 NE 27th Street / Aberdeen Ave NE All -Way Stop B 11 0.07 2 NE 12th Street / Edmonds Ave NE All -Way Stop B 15 0.45 11 NE 10th Street / Monroe Ave NE All-WaySWp A 9 0.39 12 NE 7th Street / Monroe Ave NE Eastbound B 11 0.16 Westbound B 12 0.07 Northbound Left A 8 0.04 Southbound Left A 8 0.01 1. LOS analyses are based on methodologies established in the 2000 H4h#vy Capaip, Mmod.. 2. Delay - Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. V/C — Volume to capacity ratio. Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity. Existing critical traffic volumes on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard were compared to directional capacity thresholds used by King County during the p.m. peak hour under 2006 existing conditions. Peak hour directional capacity assumptions from the King County Recommended Arterial Link Type Capacity Valmes (King County Department of Transportation, Transportation System Planning Section) were used as thresholds. Page 12 Transportation Ea,ginesrine Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan _ . _ Transportation Analysis: Land Use ConceptEll 1Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 13 7, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Table 4 summarizes travel demand on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard from west of I405 to west of Union Avenue NE. As shown, NE Sunset Boulevard currently operates under capacity. Table 4: Existing NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes' Capacity Threshold' Difference West of 1-405 [East 5 2,254 1,236 2,160 924 East of 1-405 4 2,083 1,157 1,930 773 of Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr 4 2,267 1,185 1,930 745 West of Edmonds Ave NE 4 2,623 1,487 1,930 443 East of Edmonds Ave NE 4 2,267 1,322 1,930 608 East of Harrington Ave NE 5 2,082 1,097 2,160 1,063 North of NE 10th St 5 2,057 11111 2,160 1,049 South of NE 12th St 5 1,862 947 2,160 1,213 North of NE 12th St 5 2,072 1,085 2,160 1,075 West of Union Ave NE 5 2,232 1,131 2,160 1,029 I. Source: King County Recommended Link Type Capacity Values. Public Transportation Services and Facilities King County -Metro provides public transportation services in the project study area. King County - Metro transit stops are located on NE 161h Street, NE 12th Street, NE Sunset Boulevard, NE loth Street, NE 71h Street, Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, and Kirkland Avenue NE. King County Metro Routes 105, 111, 240, 908, and 909 serve the project site vicinity. Table 5 summarizes the existing public transportation service routes that are provided within the study area. Transit stop locations along with those that provide shelters are shown in Figure 8. Table 5: Existinq Public Transportation Services Metro Transit I Service Weekday Service Route # Service Locations Da s Service Times' Fre uenc ` 105 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Daily 4:30 AM- 30-60 2:15 AM 111 Renton, Newcastle, Bellevue, Downtown Seattle Weekdays 5:30 AM- 15.30 9:00 AM 3:30 PM- 7:15 PM 240 Renton, Newcastle, Bellevue Daily 5:15 AM- 30.60 12:30 AM 908 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Weekdays, 7:15 AM- 60 Saturda 7:00 PM 909 Downtown Renton and Neighborhoods Weekdays, 5:45 AM- 60 Saturdays 7:45 PM t. King County Metro Transit Routes. 2. Service Tunes approximate every 15 minutes and are during weekdays only. 3. Service Frequency shown in minutes and during weekdays only. Page 14 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton i hlands —�-- Subarea Alan Transportation --- „..._ sportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Page 15 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LEC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities Nonmotorized transportation facilities are abundant within the study area and consist of raised sidewalks, paved walkways, paved or gravel shoulders, and concrete pathways. Nonmotorized facility dimensions are summarized in the Roadway Conditions section of this report. Mid -block crosswalks are located in the vicinity of schools within the study area, most notably on Edmonds Avenue NE south of NE 16th Street, and on Harrington Avenue NE south of Index Avenue and between NE 8th Street and NE 91h Street. Existing nonmotorized facility types are illustrated in Figure 9. Parking and Street Illumination Characteristics On -street parking and street luminaries are abundant within the study area and are illustrated in Figures 10 and 11. Planned Transportation Improvements A review of the following planning documents was conducted to determine planned transportation improvements in the study area: The City of Renton's Six -Year Transportation Improvment Program's (77P), 2006-2011, King County's Six -Year Capital Improvement Program's (CIP), 2006-2011, Sound Transit Projects and Plans, WSDOT Project List, and King County Metro's Six -Year Plan 2002- 2007. King County's 6-year CIP identified no transportation improvements in the project site vicinity. Vehicular Transportation Improvements There are 3 planned transportation -related improvement projects identified in the project vicinity for the six -year period between 2006 and 2011 based on the information provided in the City of Renton's 6year TIP: ➢ #14: I-405 Improvements in Renton. Discussed below under lW/SDOT's Project List. ➢ #23: Sound Transit HOV Direct Access. Discussed below under Sound Transit Improvements. ➢ #43: Park -Sunset Corridor. This planning project would develop a long-range transportation plan for this corridor. The results of this Highlands Subarea Plan will likely feed into this proposed corridor study. Sound Transit identified the following transportation improvement: ➢ I405/N Ste Street HOV Direct Access. Construct direct access ramps on I-405 for HOV and transit at N 8th Street to improve transit speed, reliability and access to the North Renton area. The Sound Transit budget for this project is $86,960,000. Page 16 TransportetEon Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton _Highlands Subarea Plan T �. Transportation Analxsis Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Figure 9 Highlands Subarea Plan Engineering Existing NonmotoriZed Renton, WA NorthWest, LLC Transportation Facilities land Use Concept EI Transportation AnalM Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 17 V April 17. 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1_ Highlands Subarea Transportation Figure 10 Plan Engineering Existing On -Street Parkin Renton, WA V NartAWesr, LLC g g Land Use Cnexept EI Transporiz Analysis 1TranspoTransportationPage EnglneeringNorthWesL LLC 18 April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Highlands Subarea �i Figure l 1 Plan Engineering L Existing Street Light Locations Renton, WA Northwest, LLC g g Land Use Concept EI Transportation AnaHsls Page 19 Tramporutton Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 The following transportation improvement project was identified on WSDOT's Project List: ➢ I-405: Renton to Bellevue Project SR 169 to I-90. Construct 2 additional general- purpose lanes in each direction. Install ramp meters at 1121h Avenue SE northbound on - ramp to I-405. Make necessary interchange modifications to accommodate mainline widening. Provide general-purpose direct ramp connections between SR 169 and I-405 to/from the north, and improve interchanges at NE 44th Street, NE 30th Street, NE Park Drive, and SR 169 as part of the widening. Direct ramp junctions currently provided at Sunset Boulevard to/from North I-405 would be replaced at the redeveloped SR 169 split diamond interchange with NE 3rd Street. It should be noted that at the NE Park Drive intersection, a new north kg for northbound on -ramp volumes it assumed instead of the northbound on -ramp volumes -entering at the south kg of the intersection. Total funding from all sources is currently at $170,000,000. Public Transportation Service Improvements Sound Transit identified the following public transportation -related improvement: ➢ Express Bus, Parking Garage and Extension of N $h Street. Construct a park -and -ride with up to 700 parking stalls for transit riders and construct a segment of new roadway from the proposed park -and -ride (Logan Avenue) to the proposed N 8th street direct access ramps at Garden Avenue. This project would provide access to transit service operating along the I-405 corridor and in Renton. The Sound Transit budget for this project is estimated to be between $60,200,000 and $65,000,000. King County Metro's Six -Year Plan 2002-2007 proposes the following service improvements: ➢ Renton to Bellevue. The target service frequency in 2007 is 15 minutes during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour and 30 minutes during weekday midday hours, weekend hours, and evening hours. ➢ Renton to Seattle CBD. The 2007 target service frequency is 5 to 10 minutes during the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour, 15 minutes during weekday midday hours and weekend hours, and. 30 minutes during evening hours. For traffic analysis purposes in 2030, all transportation improvements identified above were assumed to be complete under future baseline conditions. Page 20 Transportation Engineering NorehWest, t.tc April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Tran ortation Analysis - Land Use Concept Ell TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS This section documents transportation needs of the proposed Highlands Subarea Plan under Land Use Concept El on the surrounding arterial network and study intersections that serve the study area. The discussion includes a summary of the future travel demand forecasts, peak hour traffic volume impacts, impacts on intersection and roadway levels of service at study intersections, public transportation services, nonmotorized facilities, parking, and street illumination. 2030 Future Travel Demand Forecasts Travel demand forecasts were prepared in 2030 under Baseline "without the project" and Land Use Concept El conditions using a combination of regional land use forecasting information from the Puget Sound Regional Council refined by the City of Renton. City of Renton 2030 Model The City of Renton's 2030 EMME/2 travel model was used to estimate future 2030 forecasts with and without the Highlands Subarea Plan. In 1999, Rao Associates and RST International were retained by the City of Renton to further develop and update the model that had originally been established in 1990. The 1999 model update was comprehensive in nature. The baseyear land use data and network were updated to 1998 conditions, consistent with regional PSRC land use assumptions and model components, while the forecast year was established as 2030. Local 2030 land use forecasts were refined in 1998 and input into the model to determine trip generation. Network revisions were then implemented to complete the 2030 model consistent with regional forecasts. Within the city limits, all principal arterials, minor arterials, and collector arterials are included within the City's 1998 model. A few local streets are included in cases where they provide important network connectivity. Street configurations within the city (direction, lanes, speed limit) were verified by field observation. The baseyear network includes all facilities existing by 1998, while the forecast network includes additional facilities as outlined in Renton's Comprehensive Plan, 1998. Because Renton's Comprehensive Plan places significant emphasis on multimodal transportation options, HOV facilities proximate to the City were modeled with addition detail compared to the PSRC's modeling convention. The PSRC models freeway HOV lanes by adding a single, two-way link parallel to the general-purpose links and ramps are treated as single intersection nodes. In the Renton model however, freeway HOV facilities were modeled as unique, one-way links parallel to the general-purpose freeway links. On I-405 for instance, a southbound link and a northbound link were added to the network, replacing the two-way HOV link included in the PSRC model. Additionally, HOV direct access ramps were created in detail with unique links for each ramp, rather than just as intersection nodes. Finally, "dummy links" were added prior to and after each ramp location to allow for access and egress between the HOV and general-purpose system. Page 21 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LE.G April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Intersection -Level Forecasts At the intersection level, a Fratar growth factoring process using successive approximations was used to forecast future interchange intersection turning movementsl. First published in the 1954 Highway Research Boat Proceedings, by Thomas J. Fratar, this forecasting distribution method has been applied successfully on many transportation planning and engineering projects. Originally developed to distribute interzonal vehicular trips at a regional or subarea level, the process was later adapted for use in forecasting intersection turning movements. The objective of the successive approximation method is to determine the most logical distribution of vehicle trips expected through an intersection given future conditions of regional development or redistribution of traffic related to infrastructure investment (e.g., widening the I-405 freeway). The procedure is not concerned with the specific techniques and processes used in regional land use and travel demand estimation, which must be prepared regardless of the method used for estimating future trip distributions through an intersection. The procedure does require that arterial -level regional or local forecasts be available to factor the relative changes in traffic entering and leaving a particular intersection or interchange system in a future forecast year. Steps in the estimating the distribution of forecast trips include: 1. Identify relative growth factors between existing and future year conditions for all entering and exiting approaches of an intersection. 2. Distribute the total trips from each entering/exiting approach among the various movements in proportion to the attractiveness of each movement as indicated by variations in growth factors of each intersection leg. 3. The first distribution step produces two tentative results for each intersection turning movement. These tentative pairs are then averaged to obtain the first approximation of the movement. 4. For each intersection approach, the sum of the first approximation volume is divided into the total volume of each intersection leg to obtain a first approximation growth factor, which will be used in the computation of a second approximation process. 5. The original movements for each intersection leg are then distributed into turning movements again in proportion to the turning movements and growth factors obtained in the first approximation process. These volumes are then averaged again, and the process is repeated until conformity or an intersection balance is reached, often around 3 or 4 successive distribution estimations are completed. However, to ensure uniformity, the spreadsheet model developed to forecast turning movements uses 10 successive distribution runs prior to generation of a final turning movement estimate. Forrcariing Dirhibution oflnter wl Vekemlar This by Suaerrisv AppwdxaAiomr, Highway Research Board Proceedings, Thomas , Fratar,1954, pages 376-384. Page 22 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E7 Under the 2030 Baseline and Land Use Concept El conditions, existing turning movement counts at all 13 study intersections during the p.m. peak hours were used as "existing 2006 conditions". Comparing the 1998 and 2030 assignments from the City's E1vffME/2 model, Fratar approximation factors were developed, applied, and calibrated into a Fratar spreadsheet model. An interpolation adjustment was applied to each Fratar approximation factor in order to "backout" traffic from a 2030 estimated to 2006. Estimates of 2030 p.m, peak hour traffic forecasts are provided in Attachment A under Baseline and Land Use Concept E1 conditions. WSDOT 1-405/NE Park Drive Interchange Forecasts & Geometric Assumptions The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes and roadway geometric assumptions at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange. Intersection #3 — NE Park Drive at I-405 SB Ramps and Intersection #4 - NE Park Drive at 1-405 NB Ramps were the only two intersections that did not use the Fratar growth factoring process to estimate future 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes with and without Land Use Concept El. Baseline 2030 forecasts at these ramp junctions were obtained from WSDOT to ensure consistency with the regional planning and design of I-405 interchange systems. However, forecasts from the City of Renton's 2030 Emme/2 model were used to calculate the growth rate at the two intersections between the Baseline and Land Use Concept El in 2030, which was estimated at 1 percent or less. Therefore, at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange, 2030 p.m. peak hour traffic volumes under Baseline conditions were factored by 1 percent to estimate volumes under Land Use Concept E1. The following geometric assumptions at the I-405/NE Park Drive interchange were provided by WSDOT: ➢ Intersection #3 — NE Park Drive at I-405 SB Ramps: This intersection would include four through lanes and one right -turn only lane for eastbound movements, double left -turn lanes and two through lanes in the westbound direction, and one left -turn only lane, one shared left -through lane, and one right -turn only lane in the southbound direction. ➢ Intersection #4 - NE Park Drive at I-405 NB Ramps: This intersection would provide double left -turn lanes and two through lanes for eastbound movements, four through lanes and one right -turn only lane in the westbound direction, and one left -turn only lane, one shared left -through lane, and one right -turn only lane in the northbound direction. Intersection Level of Service Impacts Future traffic volumes under Baseline and Land Use Concept E1 conditions were estimated for p.m. peak hour conditions in the year 2030. The weekday p.m. peak hour "baseline" traffic volumes for year 2030 without Concept El are shown on Figure 12. Future traffic volumes with Concept El traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 13. Future year 2030 traffic volume estimates are provided in Appendix B. (�]f7 Page 23 rV�^' Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan _ Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 NE 27th St/Aberdeen Ave < R-5 5 0 10 tC-260 315-I~ 55 0 s 80 --,ik WE Putt WSurtset Blvd WE 7,Epa*Or F 1,410 130 xESWWBW � Is95 -t. a go 185 I00 -X 11 NE Sunset Blvd/NEI Yth St 727!0 � 40 980 40 E- 210 r 9 NE 1201 365-� f 345 -b- 40 1,035 SS 35 --4k WE 7th 5t/Surtset Blvd NE 275 45 65 140 NE ?M S7 34 220 WE 12th St/Edmatds Ave R- 260 15 85 350 -* 235 K-8 HE t21fr5t 10-If ) f 185 --0- 40 75 100 35 --�k WE Sunset Blvd/Edmonds 10 1:0 so 101 4-11195 /t U Ar- l OS NE &r" ew S P, 1,625 -4p, 175 65 50 315� WE Sunset Blvd/Unbn Ave A R 85 1�5 ISO 75 �260 260 NE Sunse18Ad 250-Jf t 1,090 -ll. 60 115 205 60 -�k WE Park Dr/1.405 SB Ramps 7780 620 F 640 >si szD NEPOM to 1,450� 19D-y� WE Sunset Blvd/Hmrlrwn A *-- 25 15 25 20 F 1,080 �. ENE 1SwserBw 0 1,0�s -1r 20 1000 30 -Y WE 10rh SOMonroe Ave 20 140 10 - - 135 I�' ►`- 20 NE Imr Sr so -� �j t 200--b- 75 125 20 140 --�A WE Park Dr/1-405 NB Ramps *- 280 E- 870 NEPtrk 810� � jI 1,260 -i 90 370 W NE SunsetE IOth St 60 7;1! ,0201OD E-60 i45 r NE M St 20 t 85 45 1,260 145 35 -� WE 7ih St/Motmoe Ave WE R,,, 5 25 170 25 -6- 30 11 4 � 1 - 20 0NE Ms 40 -Jlf ) t r 50 -0- SS 190 20 80 � 9 (Not to Scale) Highlands Subarea Transportation Figure 12 Plan Engineering 2030 Baseline P.M. Peak Renton, WA NorthWest, LLC Hour Traffic Volumes Land Use Concept El Transportation Anaysh Page 24 19 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E7_ Page 25 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E9 The intersection LOS analysis results for the weekday p.m. peak hour under 2030 conditions with and without the proposed Concept El are summarized in Table 6 at all study intersections (LOS also shown in Figures 14 and 15), Table 6: 2030 P.M. Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Impacts ID # Signalized Intersections Traffic Control 2030 Without Coace t El 2030 With Conce t E1 LOS' Dela V/Cs LOS' Delay z V/Cg 3 NE Park Dr / 1-405 SB Ramps Signal B 12 0.65 B 12 0.66 4 NE Park Dr / 1-405 NB Ramps Signal C 23 0.74 C 23 0.75 5 NE Park Dr / NE Sunset Blvd / Sunset Blvd NE Signal B 11 0.76 6 11 0.76 6 NE Sunset Blvd / Edmonds Ave NE Signal C 27 0.93 C 27 0.94 7 NE Sunset Blvd / Harrington Ave NE Signal A 7 0.47 A 7 0.47 8 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 10th St Signal 8 15 0.77 B 15 0.77 9 NE Sunset Blvd / NE 12th St Signal C 32 0.88 C 31 0.87 10 NE Sunset Blvd / Union Ave NE Signal C 26 0.79 C 26 0.78 13 NE 7th St / Sunset Blvd NE Signal A 7 0.52 A 5 0.44 ID # Unsi nalized Intersections Traffic Control 2030 Without Conce t E1 2030 With Con ce t E1 LOS' Delay' V/Cs LOS' Dela : V/Cs 1 NE 27th Street / Aberdeen Ave NE All -Way Stop B 13 0.48 B 14 0.49 2 NE 12th Sweet / Edmonds Ave NEB,"' All -Way Stop Y P .�` F; „ p%� n.., ,,'G` 84; "a ;, Q�r69� . rkr '` : ��' "'"103� s :.1 ,,.� ' ' l�;�,;.. '�' *7 :? s. �j' 11 NE 10th Street / Monroe Ave NE All -Way Stop B 14 0,52 C 20 0.61 12 NE 7th Street / Monroe Ave NE EB C 20 0.42 C 18 0.41 WB C 20 0.19 C 19 0.21 NB Left A 8 0.07 A 8 0.07 SB Left A 8 0.02 A 8 0.02 1. LOS analyses are based on methodologies established in the 2000 Highway Ggpa _* Mat+ral. 2. Delay - Average control delay per vehicle in seconds. 3. V/C - Volume to capacity ratio. As shown above, all signalized intersections and stop controlled movements at unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS C or better except for the NE 121h Street at Edmonds Avenue NE intersection, which would operate at LOS F under 2030 conditions with and without Land Use Concept El. For this intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS, a westbound right -turn lane and southbound left -turn lane would need to be provided for the intersection to operate at LOS C under both with and without Concept E1 conditions. Detailed LOS analysis worksheets at all study intersections are provided in Appendix A. Page 26 19 Transportation engineering Northwest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Trans nation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Transportation Figure 14 Highlands Subarea Plan Engineering 2030 Baseline Intersection Renton, WA NorthWest, LLC Level of Service Land Use Concept tl Transportation Analysis Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 27 April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El Transportation Figure 15 Highlands Subarea Plan Engineering 2030 With Concept El Pennon, WA NorthWest, LLC Intersection Level of Service Land Use Concept EI Trarawudon Analysis Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC Page 28 April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept El NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Impacts Tables 7 and 8 summarize travel demand on NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard from west of I- 405 to west of Union Avenue NE in 2030 without "baseline" and with the proposed Concept El of the Highlands Subarea Plan. As shown below, under future 2030 conditions with and without Concept El, all roadway sections analyzed along NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard would operate below capacity. The section located west of Edmonds Avenue NF, would operate at capacity, but all other roadway sections would operate well within their relative capacity levels in 2030 with and without Concept El. Table 7: 2030 Baseline NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacit Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes, Capacity Threshold' Difference West of 1-405 6/turn channel 3,060 1,640 3,060 1,420 East of 1-405 6 2,780 1 1.630 2,850 1,220 East or Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr- 4/turn channel 3,320 1 1,780 2,160 380 LWek'6f-.Edrno'rfds1Me NE, ,t A'l rrixhanfiO' "..2 40'") East of Edmonds Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,995 1,685 2,160 475 East of Harrington Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,415 1,220 2,160 940 North of NE 1 Oth St 4/turn channel 2,470 1,340 2,160 820 South of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,235 1,130 2,160 1,030 North of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,720 1,440 2,160 720 West of Union Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,825 1,425 1 2,160 1 735 Z Source; King County Recommended Link Type Capacity Values, Table 8: 2030 With Concept El NE Park Drive/NE Sunset Boulevard Capacity Location Geometric Assumptions Two -Way Peak Volumes' One -Way Peak Volumes' Capacity Threshold' Difference West of 1-405 6/turn channel 3,090 1,655 3,060 1,405 East of 1-405 1 6 2,815 1,650 2,850 1,200 - I- East of Sunset Blvd NE & NE Park Dr 4/turn channel 3,340 1,795 2,160 365 est S. -_%YfRn� e.� _�ha6rt �A;6 �5 2,�i 60 30, East of Edmonds Ave NE rNorth 4/turn channel 2,985 1,685 2,160 475 East of Harrington Ave NE 4/turn channel 2,400 1,215 2,160 945 of NE 1 Oth St 4/turn channel 2,455 1,330 2,160 830 South of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,215 1,120 2,160 1,040 North of NE 12th St 4/turn channel 2,715 1,440 2,160 720 West of Union Ave NE J 4/turn channel 2,800 1,415 2,160 745 3. Source: King County Recommended link Type Capacity Values. Public Transportation Impacts Given the numerous existing transit stops, routes/services, and shelters located throughout the Highlands Subarea, no additional public transit services or facilities are necessary to support Land Use Concept El. Page 29 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan _- _ .- Transportation Analysis - Land Use Concept E1 Nonmotorized Impacts Raised sidewalks, paved walkways, concrete pathways, and/or paved/gravel shoulders are provided throughout the Highlands Subarea. The concrete pathways are however, in poor condition along some roadway sections (most notably on Edmonds Avenue NE south of NE 9th Place and Kirkland Avenue near its most northern section within the study site). The reconstruction of these to improve them as concrete pathways or change to raised sidewalks should be considered. No bicycle lanes are known to be located within the Highlands Subarea. To promote a variety of transportation alternatives, consideration for bicycle lanes, facilities, or routes is recommended on appropriate routes within the Highlands Subarea, including but not limited to Edmonds Avenue NE, Harrington Avenue NE, Kirkland Avenue NE, NE 16th Street, NE 121h Street, NE 91h Street, and NE 7ffi Street. These bicycle facilities should be coordinated with other existing and future trails or bikeway systems in the vicinity of the Highlands Subarea. No additional nonmotorized measures are anticipated as part of Land Use Concept El. Parking Impacts Given the abundance of on -street parking within the Highlands Subarea, no additional on -street parking stalls are expected to be required as part of Land Use Concept El. However, if bicycle lanes are to be provided within the study area as previously identified, on -street parking may be impacted by installation of on -street bicycle facilities. Additionally, although there is an abundance of on -street parking, parking stalls and sections are not always distinguishable from travel lanes (i.e., parking at times becomes a "free for all' or it is simply not clear if on -street parking is acceptable or allowed. Therefore, as part of redevelopment and future transportation improvements, on -street parking allowances throughout the Highlands Subarea should be better defined whether by the use of street signs, painted areas, or fog lines. Street Illumination Impacts Given the abundance of street luminaries located within the Highlands Subarea, no additional street illumination are anticipated to be required as part of Land Use Concept El. As redevelopment is allowed, consideration for street illumination per City design standards should be continued. Page 30 Transportation Engineering NorthWest, LLC April 17, 2006 City of Renton Highlands Subarea Plan 'TransponatF ,n Analysis - Land Use Concept Ell RECOMMENDATIONS For the proposed Highlands Subarea Plan, an inventory and summary of existing transportation conditions was performed. Additionally, future 2030 transportation needs under Land Use Concept El were analyzed for peak hour traffic volume impacts, impacts on levels of service at study intersections, arterial roadway thresholds serving the site area, public transportation services, nonmotorized facilities, parking, and street illumination. As a result of the transportation analysis, the following recommendations are proposed as part of implementation of Land Use Concept El: ➢ The NE 12rh Street at Edmonds Avenue NE intersection would require a westbound right - turn lane and southbound left -turn lane for the intersection to operate at an acceptable LOS with and without Land Use Concept El in 2030. ➢ There are certain existing concrete pathway sections that are currently in poor condition and should be considered for reconstruction or be improved to raised sidewalks. D To promote a variety of transportation alternatives, consideration for bicycle lanes, facilities, or routes is recommended on appropriate routes within the Highlands Subarea. ➢ If bicycle lanes are to be provided within the study area as discussed above, on -street parking may impacted. As such, before on -street bicycle facilities are considered, evaluation of on - street parking impacts should be conducted. ➢ Existing on -street parking sections along roadways within the Highlands Subarea Plan should be better defined and distinguishable from travel lanes, whether by the use of street signs, painted areas, or fog lines. ➢ As redevelopment is approved, consideration for street illumination per City design standards should be continued. %9 Transportation Engineering Northwest, LLC Page 31 April 17, 2006