HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgendaHome
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
January 26, 2015
4:30 p.m.
1. AGENDA
a. 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
b. CriƟcal Area RegulaƟons Update
c. Title IV (Development RegulaƟons), Docket #11 Discussion
Planning & Development Committee - 26 Jan 2015 https://renton.civicweb.net/filepro/document/38330/Planning _ Develop...
1 of 2 7/18/2019, 2:23 PM
K E N TKENT RM-F
R-1
RC
R-8
RC
IH
R-1
R-8IM
IM
RC
R-14
R-4
R-8
CO
R-14
RM-F
CA
R-14
R-14
R-4
RCR-10 R-4RM-F
R-4
R-8
CA
CD
R-10
RMH
IL
R-1
R-8
CA
CO
R-1
R-8
R-8 R-8
IM
IL
R-4
R-4
RC
R-4R-10
R-8
R-8
CA
R-8
CA
CA
R-1
R-8
RC
R-1
R-8 R-4
RM-F
R-14
RC
R-4
RM-F RC
R-10IH
IM
R-8
RC
CA
R-8CO
R-8 R-8
CA
R-4
RC
RM-F
R-8
R-14
§¨¦405
T169
T515
T167
SE 188TH ST
SW 16TH ST SE8TH D RSE 184TH ST
SW5T H PLSE 164TH ST
S 184THSTE VALLEY HWYSE 192ND ST
S 6TH ST
S 192ND ST
S W 1 2 T H S T
TALBOTRDSSE173RDST
S W G R A D Y W A Y
SE 175THST
140THAVESES 23RD ST
SE 21ST ST
SE183RD
PL
111THPLSE127THAVESELINDAVESWSE6THST
SE 162ND ST
PI
ERCEAVESE
129THPLSES 19TH ST
S E P E T R O V IT S K Y RD
116THAVESES E 162NDPL
SE184THPL
SE177TH S T
1
2
7THPLSE108 TH LNSES 7TH ST
S 15TH ST
S PUGE
T DRHIGHAVESS50TH P L
SE1
9THST
S18THST
SE158THST
SE144THST
109THAVESE114TH PL SESE156TH S TS 4 8TH ST WELLSAVESSE 176TH ST
SEFAIRWOODBLVD
102NDAVESES 9TH ST
S2
6THST
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
106TH
P
L
SE117THAVESESE 174TH ST
BEACON
WAYS
98
THAVES
SE151STST
129THAVESES 3 6TH ST 144THAVESES 27TH ST
SE 183RDST
S 21STST
S 38TH CT
S 2 7 THPLS 187 THSTSW 43RD ST
FERNDALEAVESE
S G RAD YW AY136THPLSESE173RDPLSE167THST
SW 41ST ST
SW 19TH ST SE18THPL
119THLNSE106THAVESE
SE 186TH ST 125THAVESES 1 4 T H S T
1 42NDPLSESE 161ST ST
SE 157THSTSE16THPL
113THAVESESE 160TH ST
1 14THAVESE
SE 22ND PL
SECARRRDPUGET DR SECEDAR RIVER TRAIL
SE 181ST S T
SE170TH ST
CEDARRIDGE
DR
SE
S31STST 119THAVESESE5THSTSW 7TH ST
BE
NS
ON
DR
S
SW 34TH ST
113THPLSES 43RD ST
S 47TH ST
M
IL
LAV
E
S
SE187THPL
S 55TH ST 133RDPLSESW 27TH ST
118 THAVESESE 171ST WAY
110THAVESESE 179T HPLH
ARDIE
AVESWS32NDS TLAKE YOUNGS SERVICE RD111THAVESESE 141STSTINDEXAVESE
S 36T H PL
SE 142ND ST
99THPLSS 190THST
S E 169THPL
SE 187TH ST 143RDAVESESE 180TH ST
SE 163RD ST
S E 169THST
SE 1 80TH PL
SE190TH ST
S E 188TH W AY122NDAVESE123RDAVESEDAVISAVESSR167RAMP105THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALKSR 167N/BI-405RAMP128THAVESE108THAVESE146THAVESE135
TH
PLSE132NDPLSE131STPLSE134THAVESEBENSONR
DS GRANTAVES113THWAYSE139THPLSE131STAVESE148THAVESE104THPL
SE124THAVESE126THAVESE140THWAYSE
112THAVESEMO
R
RISAVES
126THPLSESE 170TH PL
105TH PL SESE 18 9TH PL149THAVESE145TH AVE121STAVESELAKEYOUNGSWAYSE
SE154THPL
SE 159TH PL
MAINAVESRENTONAVES104THAVESESE161STPLJONESAVESSE8THPLRAINIERAVES
S 50THST
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
R
SE147
THAVESEEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLN
84THAVESSE 165TH ST
110TH PL SEVALLEY
WESTHILL
FAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
South Fork Springbrook Creek
Unnamed Panther Creek Tributary
Rolling Hills Creek Tributary
Unnamed Soosette TributaryNorth Fork Springbrook Creek
BigSo os Creek
T
h
u
n
d
er
Hill
sCr
e
e
k
PantherC
r
eekRollingHillsCreekSpringbrookCree
k UnnamedGinger
Cr
e
e
kMaple woodCreekC e d arRiver
MolassesCreek0 2,0001,000Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Benson Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisHighlands Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 04/16/2014 8:44:07 AM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
CA
CO IL R-10
CA R-8
R-10
R-1
RM-FRM-FR-10
CAR-10
R-8
R-14
R-1
R-8
R-4
R-1
R-4
R-8
R-14
R-4
R-8
RC
R-10
R-8
CV
R-10
R-8
RM-F
R-4
CN RC
R-8
CA
RM-F
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-8
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8
RM-F
R-8
R-8
IL
R-8
IH
IL
R-10
R-10
R-1
R-4
R-8R-4
R-8
COR
R-10
R-8
R-4
R-8
UC-N2
IH
RMH
RMH
IL
RC
RC
CA
R-8
UC-N1
CV
RM-F
CD
R-4R-8
IL
CA
R-1
R-8
R-8
R-4
R-1
RM-F
RC
§¨¦405
T169
T515
T900
NE 12TH ST
N E 7 T H STNE 10TH ST
NE 4TH ST
SE 116TH ST
UNIONAVENENE 5THPL SERENTONISS A Q UAHRD
NEPARKDR SE92NDST
N E SUNSETBLVD
S 2ND ST
147THPLSESE 100TH ST
MAPLEVALLEYHWY
NE 21ST ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THST
BURNETTAVESCEDAR RIVER TRAIL
NE 19TH ST
NE5THSTBLAINEAVENEI-4
0
5
F
WY
EVERGREENDR ROSARIOPLNENE 17THPL
S E 1 4 1 S T S TBREMERTONAVENES 5TH ST SHADOWAVENENE9TH PL
SE2NDPL
N 29TH ST
NE9THST
NE8THPL
NE 25TH PL
NE23RD PL
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE NE 6TH ST
S4TH ST
152NDAVESEN 6TH ST
NE 3RDCT
NE2ND ST
N 4TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE93RD S T
144THAVESENE 7TH PL
BRONSONW AY N
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 3RD ST
S E 9 5 T H WA Y
NE 4TH CTANACORTESAVENE
N 1ST ST NE 1 STPLNE11THST LYONSAVENEHOUSER WAY NMAINAVESN26THST
NE 25TH ST
NE 4TH PL
N 30TH ST
INDEXAVE
SE
FERN DALEAVENENE1STST
N27TH PL
N E 3 R D S T
SE98TH S T
SE 2ND C TNE2NDCTHOUSERWAYBYPASSNE 28TH ST
QUEENAVENENE 14TH ST
NE 24TH ST
NE 17TH ST
NE 10THPLMONTEREYAVENE
MONTEREYDRNE
C
A
MASAVENELOGANAVEN SE 113TH ST
S E 4TH S TWELLSALYNNE 22ND ST
SE5THST NILEAVENENE 23RD ST
SE 138TH PL
NE 22ND PL
PELLYALYNJEFFERSONAVENENE 20TH PL
N 8TH ST
SE 2N DST
SE 142ND ST
N LANDING W A Y
N RIVERSIDE DR
I
NDEXA VENEROS EWOOD DR
NE6T HPLN 10TH S TN10THP L
GARDENALYNPAS CODRNEMEADOWALYNN 31ST ST
PARKALYN7 5 7 T H A VE NENE2 6TH ST
SUNSETBLVDNS E 3R D P LS E 139THPLI-405RAMP148THAVESEN 28TH PL
NE 31ST ST SE 91STST
156THAVESEEDMONDSAVENEWELLSAVESPARKAVENSUNSET BLVD NEHARRINGTONAVENEABERDEENAVENESPRUCE DRFIR DRILWACOAVENEGARDENAVENS 3 R DST DUVALLAVENEL
A
KE
WASHI
N
GT
O
NBL
V
DNBURNETTAVEN
MILLAVESDAYTONAVENEBRONSONWAYNE151STAVESEEDMONDSAVESEALDERPLLAURELDR ROSARIOAVENEN/B I-405 RAMPVASHONAVE SEFIELDAVENESHELTONAVENEKIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESESE 112TH ST
SE6THSTLYNNWOODAVENE FIELD PL NESUNSET L NNEPEDE STRIA
NWALK
CEDARALYSVASHONAVENERENTONAVESS E 4 T H P L
SE117T H
ST
SE 1STPL 155THAVESES/BI-
4
0
5
R
A
MP
KENNYDALE
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
LakeWashington
MayCreek
Unn
a
me
dHoneyCree k
Joh
n
s
CreekGreenesCreekKenn
ydal
eCreek
M a p lewoodCreekLongMarshCreekCedarRiver
Gypsy Creek
Ginger Creek
Boren Creek
0 1,900950Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Highlands Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisHighlands Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 1:29:47 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
K E N TKENT
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
RM-F
R-1
CA RC
R-8
RC
IH R-8
COIL
R-1
R-8
CO
R-4
R-8
RCIM
R-8
R-1
R-8
R-8
R-14
RM-F
R-14
R-14
R-4
R-10 R-4RM-F
R-4
R-8
IM
CA
R-10
RMH
IL
R-1
R-4
IM
IM
IM
CA
CO
R-1
R-8
R-8
IMIL
RC
R-4
R-4
IH
R-10
R-8
CA
CA
CA
CA
R-8
RC
R-1
RM-F
R-14
RM-F RC
R-10IH
IMCO
RC
CO R-4
R-8
CO
R-8 R-8
CA
RC
RM-F
R-8
R-14
§¨¦405
T515
T181
T167
SE 188TH ST
SE 196TH ST
SE 184TH ST
72NDAVESS 194TH ST
SE 164TH ST
S 184THSTE VALLEY HWY84THAVESSE 192ND ST
S 190TH ST
8
0
T
HPLSS O UTHCENTERB L V D
TALBOTRDSS 200TH ST
S E201S TPLS 23RD ST
SE 200TH ST
SE21ST ST
SE183RD
PL
111THPLSECASCADEAVES127THAVESELINDAVESWS196THST
SE162NDST
PI
ERCEAVESE
129THPLSES 19TH ST
S193RDST
S W G R A D Y W A Y
S192ND ST
I-405 FWY
RAYMONDAVESWSW 27THST
1
2
7THPLSES E 167TH ST
130THAVESES 15TH ST
S PUGE
T
DR
MINKLER BLVD
89THAVESSE19THST
SE158THST
SW 16TH ST
109THAVESES188THST 114TH PL SES 4 8TH ST SE165TH ST
STRANDERBLV DWELLSAVESINTERURBANAVES
ABERDEENAVESESE PETROVITSKY RD
SE184T H LN
102NDAVESES26THST
76THAVESSE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
106T
HP
LSE117THAVESESE 174TH ST
9
8THAVES SOOSCREEKTRAIL
68THAVES129THAVESES 3 6TH ST
S 180TH ST
S 27TH ST
SW 41ST ST
S 21STST
S 38TH CT
118THAVESES 27THPLSE 184 TH PLRAINIERAVES
92NDAVESS187TH ST
FERNDALEAVESE
81STAVES78THAVESSE18THPL
119THLNSE
80THAVESSE 186TH ST 125THAVESES 1 4 T H S T
SE 161ST ST
CHRISTENSENRDANDOVERPARKESE157TH STSE16THPL
113THAVESESE 160TH ST
114THAVESE
SE 22ND PL
SW 19TH ST
SW 43RD ST SECARRRDS W 1 0 T H S T
122NDPLSEPUGET DR SESE 181ST S T
SE170TH ST
S31ST ST 119THAVESEB
E
NS
ON
D
R SSE 182ND ST 113THPLSES 43RD ST
S 47TH ST
BEACONWAYS
MIL
LAVE
S
SE187THPL
S 55TH ST
121STAVESESW 1 3 T H S T
SW 39TH ST
110THAVESES 182ND ST
S W 1 2 T H A LY
S75THPLS 202ND ST
S 186TH PL
SW 34TH ST
S32NDS T111THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALK
INDEXAVESE
S 3 6T H P L
99THPLSS 77TH PLS E 169THPL
70THAVESCOSTCODR
SE 163RD ST
S E 169TH ST
S C ARRRDSE 1 80TH PL 122NDAVESE123RDAVESEDAVI
SAVESS 198TH ST SR167RAMP105THAVESE128THAVESE108THAVESE124THAVESESPERRYDRB
E
N
SONRDSGRANTAVESN ACHESAVESW113THWAYSE104THP
L
SEINDUSTRYDR126THAVESEGRE
E
NRIVERTRAIL
MO
R
RISAVES
103RDAVESEBOEINGACRD126THPLSESE 170TH PL
105TH PL SEINTERURBANTRAILLAKEYOUNGSWAYSE
WESTVALLEYHWYMAINAVESS/B I-405 RAMP
104THAVESE107THAVESEMONSTER
R
DSWS 50THST
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
RSEEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLN
CEDARAVES
SR 167S32NDPL BERKSHIREAPTACRD
COPPERRIDGEAPT ACR
D110TH PL SEVALLEY
FAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
PantherLake
Ging
er Cre
ek
UnnamedL
o
w
er
G
arris
o
n
C
re
e
kMill CreekGreen RiverB
ig
S
o
o
s
C
r
e
e
k
Thunder Hills Creek
Pant
her
Cr
eekRolling Hills CreekSpringbrook CreekCedar Ri
ver
0 2,1001,050Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Talbot Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisTalbot Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:11:36 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
NE W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
T UK W I L ATUKWILA R-8
CA
IM
CA
R-8
R-10
CA R-8
R-10
RM-FRM-FR-10
R-1
R-8
R-1
R-8
CN
R-14
R-8
CO
RC
RM-F
R-14
R-10
CA
CA
CV R-10
R-8
RM-F
RC R-4
IM
RC
CA
IM
IH
IM
R-8 RM-F
R-8
R-8
RM-F
R-8
ILIH
R-10
IL
CO
R-10
IH
CA
R-4
R-8
COR
R-4
RM-F
R-14
R-8
RM-F
R-1
RC
R-4
UC-N2 IH
RMH
RMH
IL
RC
R-8
UC-N1
CV
RM-F
CD
R-8
CO
IM
IL
UC-N2
RM-F CA
R-8
R-8
CA
R-8CO
R-8
CA RC
§¨¦405
T181
T169
T515
T900
T167
SW 19TH STLINDAVESW NE 12TH ST
SE8TH D RN E 7 T H STNE 10TH ST
UNIONAVENEHO
LYOK
E
PLS
NE5THPL
NEPARKDR
SW 7TH ST
S O U T H CENTERBL VD
ARROWSMITHAVES
NE 6TH STNE SUNSET BLVDS 2ND ST
NE 4TH ST
SE1 6TH STSE 100TH ST
MAPLEVALLEYHWY
S TOBIN ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THST
S 115TH PL
TAYL
O
R PL N
W
NE 21ST ST
RAINIERAVES
SE 6TH ST
PI
ERCEAVESESHAZELST
NE 19TH ST
SW G R A D Y W AY
NE 5THST
RAYMONDAVESWHARDIEAVESWBLAINEAVENERAI
NI
ERAVENS BANGOR ST
S 132NDST
S 1 2 5 T H S T
64THAVESS 5TH ST
S 7TH ST69THPLS
S 15TH ST UNIONAVESE70THPLSS 128TH ST
NE17THPL
SWSUNSETBLVD
HIGHAVESNE9TH PL
N 29TH ST
N 28TH ST
SLANGSTONRD 78THAVESS 134TH ST
SWLANGSTONRD
NE9THST
68THAVESCEDAR RIVER TRAIL
NE 16TH ST
NE25TH PL
NE23RDPL
SHATTUCKAVESS18THST MONROEAVENESW 5THPLBE
ACONAVES
BEACON
WAYSE SE11THST
N 4TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE 93RD S T
S RYAN ST
S 115TH ST
MARTINLKINGJRWAYS
S4TH ST BRONSONWAY N
SE 3RD ST
S120THPL
S E 9 5 TH WAY
SE 12THSTLINDAVENWSLAKERIDGEDRMORRISAVESNW 7TH ST
S116THPL65THAVES
NACHESAVESWN 1ST ST NE 1 STPLNE11THST
SE151STSTLAKEAVESHOUSER WAY NMAINAVESN26THST
WOODLEYAVESSE4T H S TBEACON
WAYS
NE1STST63RDAVES
SE 2ND PL
N E 3 R D S T
SE98TH S TMORRISALYSFERNDALEAVESE
S E 2NDC THOUSERWAYBYPASSS G R A D YWAYS 112TH ST
NE 28TH ST
S 118TH ST
130THAVESENE 7THPL
S 124TH STNE8THST QUEENAVENE7
4
T
HPLS
S 1 4 T H S T71STAVESE PERI
METER RDNE 14TH ST
S 114TH ST
NE 24TH ST
SE 16THPL
NE 25THST
NE17TH S T
NE10THPL
NE 8 T H P L76THAVES
POWELLAVESWSW4THPL
NE 2ND ST
S W 1 0T H S T MONTEREYDRNE
C
A
MA
SAVENE
W IN D S ORWAYNE
PUGET DR SELOGANAVENROWANRDSS 121ST ST
CEDARRIDGE
DRSE
SWVICTORIAST
S118THPL
S116THST
S3RD PL
SLAURELST
WELLSALYNNE 22ND ST
SE5THST A STNE 23RD ST
GARDENPLS
116THAVESENE 22ND PL
PELLYALYNJEFFERSONAVENEN 8TH ST
S 1 2 6 T H STS TAFTST
N LANDING W A Y
79THAVESSE 3 R D P LS 113TH ST
N RIVERSIDE DR
AIRPORT WAY
S123RDPL
S 122ND ST
BENSON DR SS W 1 2 T H A LY
R
U
S
TI
CRDSN 10TH S T
THOMASAVESWN1 0 T H P LSRUSTIC RDGARDENALYNMEADOWALYNN 31ST ST
S 130TH ST77THAVES
PARKALYN7 5 7 T H A V E NEFORESTAVES
STILLICUMST
INDEXAVESE
S 129TH ST
SUNSETBLVDNS 133RD PL
S127THPL
BEACONCOALMINER
D
S WPERI
METERRDNE10THLN
N27THALY
66
THLNS
S
P
UGE
T
DRNE31STST
S 133RD ST
S 135THST
ACCESSR D W Y
WILLIAMSAVESSTEVENSAVESWEDMONDSAVENEGRANTAV
E
SWELLSAVESCORNELLAVESLAK
EWAS
H
I
NGTON
T
RAILPARKAVENSUNSET BLVD NEWATERSAVES
HARRINGTONAVENEOAKESDALEAVE
S
WJONESAVENES123RDSTSPRUCE DR80THAVESFIR DRGARDENAVENS 3RD STCRESTWOODDRS
KIRKLAN
D
A
V
E
S
EMILLAVESG
REEN
RI
VERTRAIL DAYTONAVENEBRONSONWAYNEMA
U
L
E
A
V
E
S
SSUNNYCRESTRD
EDMONDSAVESE85THAVESTALBOT RD SRHODYDR
SE4T H PLN/B I-405 RAMPSHELTONAVENEHARDIEAVENWKIRKLANDAVENES 120TH ST
TAYLORAVENW126THAVESELAKEYOUNGSWAYSEBENSONRDSSTEVENSAVENWAUB
U
R
NAV
E
S
LYNNWOODAVENESUNSET L NNEPEDESTRIANWALK
75T
H
A
V
E
SMAPLEAVENW68
THPLSNE4TH CTJONESAVESMONSTERRDSW
SE8THPLCEDARALYS VASHONAVENE70THAVE
S69THAVES
SE 1ST PL
SE7THST
75T
H
ALYSS/B
I-4
0
5
RA
MP
R
EDMONDAVENEINDEXAVEN
E
KENNYDALE
VALLEY
WESTHILL
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
LakeWashington
HoneyCreek
Johns CreekKenn
ydale
C
r
eekGinger
C
r
e
e
kRollingHills C reek
S
p
ri
ngbrookCreek Unnamed
T
h
u
n
d
er
Hill
sC
re
ek
M ayC re e kMap lewoodCreekBlackR iv e rGreenR iverCedar Ri
v
er
Gypsy Creek
Rolling Hills Creek Tributary
Molasses Creek
Boren Creek
Duwamish River
0 2,4001,200Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\City Center Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisCity Center Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 12:34:36 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
R-8
R-8
CA
R-10 R-8
R-10
RMH
R-14
R-8
R-14
RM-F
CA
CA
R-4
R-4
R-8
RC
R-10 R-4
RC R-8
RM-F
R-8
R-8
RM-F
R-4
R-8
RM-F
R-4
R-4
R-8
R-8
ILIH
IL
R-4
RC
R-14
R-10
R-8 R-1 R-4
CA
R-1
R-4R-8
COR
RC
R-8 R-4
RM-F
R-14
R-8R-10
RM-F RC
R-10
R-8
RMH
RMHIL
RC
CA
R-4R-8
CA
R-8
RM-F
R-4
RC
RM-F
R-8
R-14
T515
T900
T169
N 1ST ST
S PUGETDRMAINAVESS 7TH ST
SE8TH D R
N E 7 T H STSE 164TH ST HOQUIAMAVENEN 4TH ST
SE 171ST WAY
NE5THPL
SEFAIRWOODBLVD
SE156TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE173RDST
NE 4TH STUNIONAVENEN 6TH ST
147THPLSESE 21ST ST
S E 166THPL127THAVESESE148THST
SE 6TH ST
PIE
RCEAVESE 150TH LNSE 162NDAVESESE149THST
NE5THST
S E 162NDPL
NE 6TH PL
PINE RDSE 168TH ST ROSARIOPLNEUNIONAVESESE1 4 1S T ST
SE 128TH STBREMERTONAVENE
HIGHAVESSHADOWAVENESE JO NE S RD
NE8THPL
SE1
9THST
S18THST
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE
SE158THST
NE 6TH ST
SE11TH ST
109THAVESENE3RDCT
NE 2ND STNE 1ST CT
SE 165TH ST
SE 2ND PL
144THAVESE152NDAVESENE 7TH PL
SE 2ND ST
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 3RD ST
S 9TH ST
SE136THST
SE 144TH ST
S E 12THST
NE 4TH CT
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
SE 172ND PL
NE 1 STPLSHELTONAVENE
SE151STST
129THAVESELYONSAVENEHOUSER WAY NSE165TH WAY
SE145THPL
129TH
P
LSES 27TH ST
SE P E TR O V IT S K Y R D
NE 4TH PL
BEACON
WAYS
NE1STST
N E 3R D S T
FERNDALEAVESE
NE2NDCTHOUSERWAYBYPASS
136THPLSESE173RDPLSE167THST130THAVESE 149TH PL SESE18THPL
119THLNSE106THAVESE 125THAVESE1 42NDPLSESE 161ST ST
SE132NDST
SE157THSTSE16THPL
113THAVESESE 22ND PL
159TH PL SEMONTEREYDRNE
PUGET DR SE117THAVESE155THPLSE
SE170TH ST
CEDARRIDGE
DRSE
156TH PL SE164TH PL SES E 4TH S TSE5THST
SE135THST
SE 120THST
140THAVESEA STSE 1 42 N D P L
SE 138TH PL
BI RCHDRN 8TH ST
133RDPLSE118 THAVESE142NDAVESEPELLYAVEN133RDAVESE148TH PL SE167THPLSE114THAVESEGARDENALYNPAS CODRNEMEADOWALYN111THAVESEPARKALYNINDEXAVESE
SE 142ND STSUNSETBLVDNSE 3 R D P LSE167TH P LS E 139THPL
S E 169THPL 143RDAVESESE 163RD ST
S E 169THST
SE 143RD STLAKEWASHINGTONTRAIL
122NDAVESE124THAVESE123RDAVESESE
J
ONESPL
105THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALK 160THAVESE132NDPLSE131STPLSEB
E
NS
ONRDSGRANTAVES139THPLSE163RDPLSEFIR DR154THPLSES 3 RDS T
126THAVESE140THWAYSEMILLAVES
SE 171ST PLBRONSONWAYNE164THAVESEDUVALLAVENEEDMONDSAVENEEDMONDSAVESE128THAVESEHARRINGTONAVENE164TH WAY SE120THAVESEROSARIOAVENE156THAVESE161STAVESESE 170TH PL VASHONAVE SE121STAVESELAKEYOUNGSWAYSESU
NS
E
T
BLVDNE
I-405FWYKIRKLANDAVENE158THAVESESE154THPL
134THAVESESE 159TH PL 166THAVESEFIELD PL NERENTONAVES157THPLSESE 160TH PL
166THPLSE104THAVESESE161STPLJONESAVESRIVI
E
R
A
APARTMENTS ACRDSE8THPLCEDARALYSBLAINEAVENE
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
RSES E 4 T H P L
SE2ND CT
PINEDRN/BI-405RAMPTHO
MASLN
SE7THST 155THAVESEOAK DRFAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
0 2,2001,100Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Cedar River Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisCedar River Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 12:30:30 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
M E R C E RMERCERISLANDISLAND N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
R-1 CV
RM-FRM-FR-10
R-10R-14
R-1
R-8
R-4
R-1
R-1
CA
CN
R-8
CA
R-8
RC
R-10
R-8
CV
R-10
R-8
IM
R-8
COR
R-8
RC
R-10
CA
R-8
R-8
R-8
RM-F
R-10
R-8
R-4
R-4
UC-N2 IH
R-8
RM-F
R-1
R-8
§¨¦405
T900
NE 12TH ST
NE10THST84THAVESE78THAVESE SE80TH
WAY
NEPARKDR 120THPLSESE86THPL
WMERCERWAY
SE68THPL
SE 72ND ST
SE 100TH ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THSTEMERCERWAY
S 115TH PL
NE 21ST ST
N42ND PL84THAVESRAINIER
A
V
E
S
SE 91ST ST
NE 19TH ST
SE 80TH ST
BLAINEAVENE128THAVESE93RDAVESESE89THP
LSE 78TH ST
MEADOWAVEN125THAVESESE 73RD ST
NE 17THPL
N 29TH ST
N 36TH ST
N 28TH ST
SE 72ND PL
SUNSETBLVDN E
SE 7 0THST
NE23RD PL
80THAVESSE75THPL
SE84TH W AY
S 112TH ST
SE93RD S T
SE 76TH ST 129THAVESE123RDAVESES E 9 5 T H W AYISLAND CREST WAYSE 89THST
N1 0 T H P L
N 40TH ST
N 30TH ST
SE98TH S T
NE 28TH ST
NE 36THST92NDAVESE
QUEENAVENENE 14TH ST
S 114TH ST
NE 24TH ST
NE 25TH ST
SE74THPL
MONTEREYAVENE118THAVESEH
O
U
S
E
R
WAYNN/BI-405RAMP82NDAVESELYNNWOODAVENENE 22ND ST
DIXONDRS
NE 23RD ST
FORESTAVES
NE 22ND PL
JEFFERSONAVENES 116TH ST
SE 88TH ST
N 33RD ST
S 113TH ST
I
NDEXA VENEN 32ND STN 31ST ST NE 43RDST
757TH AVENEN38TH ST
NE 44THST
N41STPLNE10TH LNI-405RAMPN 35TH ST
N 33RD PL
N 28TH PL
N 27TH ALY PEDESTRIANWALKNE 31 STST
HARRINGTONAVENEUNIONAVENE127THAVESEEDMONDSAVENEABERDEENAVENEPARKAVENJONESAVENEL
AKEWA
SHI
NGT
ON
B
L
VD
N LINCOLNAVENENIS
HI
WAKILN80THPLSE SE88THP L
1 27
THPLSE121ST PL SEBURNETTAVEN122NDP LSESE 74THST86THAVESE122NDAVESE
126THP
L
S
E
SHELTONAVENEMONROEAVENEAVALON DRKIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESE85THPLSELEWIS L NPEDESTRIA
NWALK
S/BI-4
0
5
R
A
MPSEAHAWKS WAYKENNYDALE
WESTHILL
CITYCENTER
HIGHLANDS
LakeBoren
LakeWashington
N
e
w
p
ort H
ills C
re
e
k
Johns CreekUn
n
a
me
d
K
e
n
n
y
d
ale
C
re
e
k Gy
p
s
y
Cr
e
e
k Boren CreekM ay C reekH
oney Creek
0 1,800900Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Kennydale Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisKennydale Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 1:57:44 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
K E N TKENT
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
CA
RC
IH
COIL
R-1
R-8IM
IM
CO
R-8
R-8
CA
R-8
RCIM
R-14
RM-F
CA
CA
RM-F
R-4
R-10
IM
CA
RC
CD
R-10
RMH
IL
IM
IH
IM
CA
CO
R-1
R-8
IL
CO
IMIL
IH
IM
R-10
R-8
CA
CA
R-8
CA
R-1
CO RM-F
CA
CA
IH
IM
CD
CO
RC
CO
RM-F CA
CD
R-8
CO
R-8
CA
RC
RM-F
R-8
§¨¦518
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
T900
T515
T181
T167
S 170TH ST
72NDAVESE VALLEY HWYS 143RD STS143RDPL
SW 7TH ST
S 152ND ST
ANDOVER PARK WSOUTHCENTER BLVD
51STAVESS 2ND ST52NDAVES
S 23RD ST
S178THST TALBOTR
D
S
S35 T H STLINDAVESW BEAC
O
N
WAYS
S 19TH ST
S
U
N
WOODBLVD SW G R A D Y W A Y
RAYMONDAVESWHARDIEAVESWUPLAND DR
H O USER W AYSSW27THST
S160THST
S 5TH ST
S 7TH ST
S 15TH ST
TUKWILA PKWY
STRANDER BLVD S
P
UGET
DR6
5
T
HAVES
SWSUNSETBLVD
HIGHAVESSW 3RD PL
SE 172NDST
SWLANGSTONRD
S 18TH STSW 5TH PLSW 16TH ST53RDAVES S 3RDALY
S 4TH ST
80THPL
S
S 9TH ST
S26THST
106T
H
P
LSESE 174TH ST
80THAVESS 3 6TH STMAINAVES
S 180TH ST
S 27TH ST
MINKLER BLVD
SW 41ST ST
S 21ST ST
S 38TH CT
S 2 7THPLMORRISALYSS G R ADYW AYS 153RD ST
S 1 4 T H S T
CHRISTENSENRDANDOVERPARKEMIDLAND DR POWELLAVESWSW 19TH ST
SW 43RD ST SECARRRDS W 1 0 T H S T
S166TH ST
S159TH ST
I-405 FWY
S 168TH STSOUTHCENTERMALL ACRD
S31ST ST56THAVESS3RDPL BE
N
S
ON DR
S
BAKER BLVD
S 43RD ST
S 139TH ST
MIL
LA
VE
S
TRILAND DR
S W 1 3 T H S T
SW 39TH ST
S 182ND ST
S W 1 2 T H A L Y
SR 518
SW 34TH ST
S32NDS TS 36 T H P L
I-5RAMPS 150THST56
TH
PL
S
84THAVESP
E
D
ESTRIANWALK
S 133RD PL
COSTCODRBEACONCOALMINER
D
S
SR167RAMPDAVI
SAVESTHOMASAVESW105THAVESESR167S 135THST
ACCESSR D W Y
SPERRYDRSTEVENSAVESWWELLSAVESSOUTHCENTERPKWYBE
NSONR
DS GRANTAVESN ACHESAVESWS 3R DST
INDUSTRYDRM
A
U
L
E
A
V
E
S
INTERURBAN TRAILRAI
N
I
E
RA
V
ES62NDAVESMO
R
RISAVESMACADAMRDSBOEINGACRD
108THAVESEWILLIAMSAVESS149TH ST58THAVES MAPLEAVESW105TH PL SEOAKESDALEAVESWI-5FWY57THAVESWEST VALLEY HWYSLADEWAY 59THAVESRENTONAVES54THAVES61STPL
S
S/B I-405 RAMP
104THAVESEMONSTERRDSW CEDARALYS55THAVESEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLNLAK
EAVES68THAVESSR599RAMPI-405RAMPSR599BERKSHIREAPTACRD
VALLEY
WESTHILL
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
Thunder Hills Creek
B la c k R iv e rD
u
w
a
m
is
h
Riv
er
Green RiverPant
her
Cr
eekSpringbrook CreekRolling Hills CreekCedar River
0 1,900950Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Valley Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisValley Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:15:57 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
S E A T T L ESEATTLE
R-8
CA
R-8
R-8
CO
RM-F
R-10
CA
CA
RC
IM
IM
IH
R-8
IL
IMCO
IH
R-10
R-8
R-1
UC-N2
CD
CDRM-F CA
R-14
§¨¦5
T167
T900
S LEO ST
HO
LYOK
E
PLS
SAVONST
SW 7TH ST66THAVES S TOBIN ST
S 122ND ST
S 115TH PL
RAINIERAVE
S
S RYAN ST
BEACONAVES
S 1 32NDST
S 1 2 5 T H S T
64THAVESRENT
O
N
A
V
E
SS 144TH ST
S 129TH ST
S 7TH ST69THPLS70THPLSS 128TH ST
SWSUNSETBLVD
SLANGSTON RD 78THAVESSWLANGSTONRD
56TH PL S 68THAVESSHATTUCKAVESSW 5TH PLINTERURBANAVES
53RDAVES55THAVESS CRESTON ST
S 115TH ST
59THAVES60THAVESS120THPL
LINDAVENWSLAKERIDGEDR
NW 7TH ST
S116THPL
NACHESAVESW58THAVES84THAVESWOODLEYAVES51ST PL S
MACA
D
A
M
R
DSS 112TH ST
S 118TH ST
S 124TH ST
71STAVESS 114TH ST
S 117TH ST61STAVES76THAVES
S 3RD ST
50TH
PLS
SW4THPL
R
AIL
R
O
A
D
AVE
S 2ND ST
S JUNIPER ST
S WALLACE ST56THAVES ROWANRD S44TH PL S
S 121ST ST
S127T H S T
SWVICTORIAST
S118THPL
S116THST
S3RD PL
S107THST
SLAURELST
M
A
U
LE
AV
E
S
DIXONDRSGARDENPLS65THAVES
S 139TH ST
S 1 2 6 T H STS TAFT ST
AIRPORT WAY
LUTHERAVES
79THAVESSTILLICUM ST
I-5RAMP
S 113TH ST
S 117TH PL57THAVES
S123RD PL
R
U
S
TI
CR
DS63RDAVESTHOMASAVESWSRUSTIC RDMO
N
STER
RDSW
S 130TH ST
S FOUNTAIN ST
77THAVESS HAZEL ST
60THLNS
FORESTAVES
S134THST62NDAVES
S 133RD PL
S 119TH ST
S 127THPL WPERI
METERRDE PERI
METER RD66TH
LNS
S130THPL
OAKESDALE AVESW
S
R
5
99SR900RAMP
NI
SHI
WAKI LNS 133RD ST
S 135THST
ACCESS R D W Y
STEVENSAVESWCORNELLAVESS123RDST80THAVESHA
R
DIE
A
V
E
SWWAT
E
R
S
A
V
E
S47THAVES
NIS
HI
WAKI
LN
71ST
P
L
SCRESTWOODDRSP EDESTRIANWALK49THAVESSSUNNYCRESTRD
85THAVESMAPLEAVESW46THAVESHARDIEAVENWS 120TH ST
TAYLORAVENWSTEVENSAVENWAUB
U
R
NAVE
S
POWELLAVESWMAPLEAVENW68
THPLSGREENRIVERTRAIL
BEACONCOALMINERDSGATEWAYDR 70THAVE
S69THAVES
SR599R
A
MP48THAVESVALLEY
WESTHILL
CITYCENTER
LakeWashington
Cedar
Ri
ver
BlackRiv
er
DuwamishRiv
er0 1,600800Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\West Hill Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisWest Hill Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:22:08 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
K E N TKENT
R-1
RC
R-8
RC
RMH
R-10 R-4
RC R-8
RM-F
R-8
R-8
R-4
RC
R-14
R-4
R-1
RC
R-4
RC
T169
SE 196TH ST
SE 208TH ST
1
3
0
THAVESESE 192ND ST
SEFAIRWOODBLVD
SE173RDST
140THAVESESE198THST
S E 166THPL
SEPETROVITSKYRD127THAVESE
SE 211TH ST
SE 182NDPL
129THPLSESE1 62ND PL
SE184THPL
SE177THS T
1
2
7THPLSES E 167T HST
S E 1 8 6THWAY
SE 176TH ST
SE 202ND PL
SE158THST
142NDAVESESE 164TH ST
155THAVESESE176THPL
SE156TH S TSE 165THST
120THAVESESE 200TH ST
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
SE 172ND PL
SEJONES R D
SE 170TH PL
SE163RDST
SE 202ND ST SELAKEYOUNGSRD129THAVESE133RDAVESE136TH PL SE159THAVESE
137THAVESE135THAVESESE173RDPL
MAPLE VALLEY HWY
SE178THST125THAVESE142NDPLSESE 161ST ST
S E 204TH W AYWOODSIDEDRSESE 186THST
SE171STPL 159THPLSE172NDAVESE122NDPLSESE 184TH ST
143RDPLSE155THPLSE
SERENTONMAPLEVALLEYRD
119THAVESESE1 9 6 T H DR
143RDAVESESE 168THST
SE 204TH PL
BI RCHDRSE175TH ST
SE187THPL
121STAVESE133RDPLSEEAST
LAKEDESIREDRSESE 171ST WAY
SE 201ST ST
SE 179TH PL174THAVESE132NDAVESESE180THPL
SE167TH P LS E 169THPL
SE 187TH ST
SE 180TH ST
S E 169THST
1
58THAVESE
SE190TH ST
184THAVESES E 188TH W AY122NDAVESE123RDAVESE
SE 201S TPL 181STAV
E
S
E
SE
195TH P L
PEDESTRIANWALK
LAKE YOUNGS TRAIL128THAVESESE 179TH ST
157T
H
A
V
E
S
E
135TH
PLSE132NDPLSE13
8
T
HAV
ESE163RD PL SE131STPLSE134THAVESE173RDWAYSE139THPLSE131STAVESE146THAVESE148THAVESE124THAVESE162
NDAVESE126THAVESEWE
S
TLAKEDESIREDRSE
SE183R
D
DR
120THPLSE161STAVESE121STLNSE164TH WAY SE126THPLSESOOSCREEKTRAI
L PARKSIDEWAYSE149THAVESECEDARRIVERTRAIL
SE 1 8 9TH PLSE 192NDDR145TH AVESE 1 54THPL
150THAVE
S
ESE 159TH PL
SE 160TH PL
166THPL
SESE161STPL
140THWAYSE
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
R
SESE170THST
183RDWAY
SELAKE YOUNGS SERVICE RD 182NDAVESEOAK DRFAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
BENSON
LakeDesire
LakeYoungs
ShadyLake
Unnamed Soosette TributaryBigSoosCreek
Ma d s o n C reekGin
g
er
C
re
ekSum
m
erfield
Creek
SoosetteCreekTributaryMads
en
Creek
Ced a r R iverUnnamedMolassesCreek
0 2,2501,125Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\Fairwood Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisFairwood Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 1:26:48 PM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
N E W C A S TL ENEWCASTLE
R-10 R-8
R-10
RM-FRM-F R-8
R-1
R-14
R-14
R-4
R-4
RC
CV R-10
RM-F
R-4
R-8
CA
R-8
R-4
CA
R-8
IL
RC
R-10
R-1 R-4
RC
R-4
RM-F
R-14
R-8
R-8
R-4
RMH
IL
RC
RC
CA
R-8
R-4R-8
CA
R-8
R-8
R-1
RM-F
T169
T900
NE 12TH ST
SE 128TH ST
NE6THST
SE 116TH ST
FIELDAVENEUNIONAVENESERENTONISSAQUAHRDSE92NDST
NILEAVENENESUNSETBLVD
MAPLEVALLEYHWY
NE 4TH ST 171
S
T PL SE147THPLSESE 100TH ST
NE2 1S T ST
SE148THST
SE 6TH ST
150TH LNSE 162NDAVESESE149THST
SEMAYVALLEYRD
NE 19TH ST
OAKDR
NE5THST
SE 121ST PLNE 6TH PL
SE120THST
SE 133RDPLROSARIOPLNE
UNIONAVESENE17THPL
SE1 41 S T S TBREMERTONAVENE 185THAV
ESESHADOWAVENENE5THPL
NE25TH PL
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE 147THAVESESE11TH ST
NE3RDCT
NE2ND STNE 1ST CT
SE 2ND PL
144THAVESENE 7TH ST
152NDAVESENE 7TH PL
SE 2ND ST
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 95 T H W AY
SE 144TH ST
NE 4TH CTANACORTESAVENE
NE 1ST ST
S E JONESRD
NE 1 STPLNE11THST 177TH PL SESE151STST
SE145THST
SE 134TH ST
SE 146T HSTSE145THPL
NE 25TH ST
NE 4TH PL
SE98TH S T
NE2NDCT
SE137THST
130THAVESE149TH PL SENE 24TH ST
QUEENAVENESE 140TH ST
SE 132NDST
NE 17TH ST
NE10THPL
SE102ND ST
SE 136TH ST
156TH PL SESE 113TH ST
SE 138TH STSE 4T H S T
NE 22ND ST
SE 147TH ST
SE5THST
183RDAVESESE135THSTA STSE 142 N D P L
SE 138TH PL
SE 110TH ST
SE106THST
NE 22ND PL
NE 20TH PL
NE 23RD ST
NE23RDPL
177THAVESE142NDAVESE133RDAVESE148TH PL SEROS EWOOD DR
PINEDR
SE 118THST
PAS CODRNESE 142ND ST 178THAVESE168THAVESENE2 6TH ST
S E 3 R D P L
S E 139TH PL 188THAVESESE109THS TNE10THLN
SE 143RD ST 172NDAVESESE 122ND ST148THAVESESE108THST
SE
J
ONESPL
PEDEST RIA N WALK160THAVESESPRUCE DR164THAVESEFIR DRILWACOAVENE154THPLSEDUVALLAVENE15
1STAVESER
EDMONDAVENEPASCO PL NEROSARIOAVENE156THAVESELAKEKATH
L
EENRD
SE
SE91STST
161STAVESE171ST
AVESEVASHONAVE SE176THAVESESHELTONAVENEWE
STL
A
K
EKATHLEEND
R
SEKIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESE175THAVESE158THAVESESE1 54THPL
SE 112TH ST
167TH PL SELYNNWOODAVENE184THAVESE166THAVESEFIELD PL NE157THPLSEVASHONAVENE174TH
AVESE
S E 4 TH P L181STAVESESE2NDCT EA
ST
LA
KE
KA
T
H
L
E
E
NDRSE180THAVESESE117THST
SE 1STPL
143RD
A
VE
S
E
173R
D
A
VESE
SE7THST 155THAVESE186THAVESE169TH
AV
ESE
SELICORICEWAY
CEDARRIVER
BENSON
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS May Creek
HoneyCreekGreenesCreekMaplew oodCreekUnnamedEastForkMayCreekLongMarshCreekNorth ForkMayC reekSouth
F
orkMa
y
C
re
e
k
C edarRiver
Newport Hills Creek
Madson Creek
McDonald Creek
Boren Creek
Molasses Creek
0 2,4001,200Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\Density Mismatch\East Plateau Density Mismatch -with critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisEast Plateau Planning Area - Density Mismatch
1:24,000´
Date Saved: 04/16/2014 9:57:30 AM
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
Slope Percent Range
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density Mismatch
Below Density Range
Above Density Range
ZONING
Commercial Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Center Village
Center Downtown
Residential - 1 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family Urban
Urban Center - North 2
Residential Multi-Family Traditional
Urban Center - North 1
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Resource Conservation
Residential 4 du/ac
Residential 8 du/ac
Residential Manufactured Homes
Residential 10 du/ac
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial Office
Commercial Neighborhood
Industrial - Light
Industrial - Medium
Industrial - Heavy
K E N TKENT
§¨¦405
T169
T515
T167
SE 188TH ST
SW 16TH ST SE8TH D RSE 184TH ST
SW5T H PLSE 164TH ST
S 184THSTE VALLEY HWYSE 192ND ST
S 6TH ST
S 192ND ST
S W 1 2 T H S T
TALBOTRDSSE173RDST
S W G R A D Y W A Y
140THAVESES 23RD ST
SE 21ST ST
SE 183RDPL SE1 6TH ST111THPLSE127THAVESELINDAVESWSE6THST
SE 162ND ST
PI
ERCEAVESE
129THPLSES 19TH ST
S E P E T R O V IT S K Y RD
116THAVESES E 162NDPL
SE184THPL
SE177TH S T
1
2
7THPLSE108 TH LNSES 7TH ST
S 15TH ST
S PUGE
T DRHIGHAVESS50TH P L
SE1
9THST
S18THST
SE158THST
SE144THST
109THAVESE114TH PL SESE156TH S TS 4 8TH ST WELLSAVESSE 176TH ST
SEFAIRWOODBLVD
102NDAVESES 9TH ST S E 12THST
S2
6THST
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
106TH
P
L
SE117THAVESESE 174TH ST
BEACON
WAYS
98
THAVES
SE151STST
129THAVESES 3 6TH ST
SEROYALHILLSDR 144THAVESES 27TH ST
SE 183RDST
S 21STST
S 38TH CT
S 2 7 THPLS 187 THSTSW 43RD ST
FERNDALEAVESE
S G RAD YW AY136THPLSESE173RDPLSE167THST
SW 41ST ST
SW 19TH ST SE18THPL
119THLNSE
BEACON WAY SE
106THAVESESE 186TH ST 125THAVESES 1 4 T H S T
1 42NDPLSESE 161ST ST
SE 157THSTSE16THPL
113THAVESESE 160TH ST
1 14THAVESE
SE 22ND PL
SECARRRDPUGET DR SECEDAR RIVER TRAIL
SE 181ST S T
SE170TH ST
CEDARRIDGE
DR
SE
S31STST 119THAVESESE5THSTSW 7TH ST
BE
NS
ON
DR
S
SW 34TH ST
113THPLSES 43RD ST
S 47TH ST
M
IL
LAV
E
S
SE187THPL
S 55TH ST 133RDPLSESW 27TH ST
118 THAVESESE 171ST WAY
110THAVESEN/B I-405 RAMP
SE 179T HPLH
ARDIE
AVESWS32NDS TLAKE YOUNGS SERVICE RD111THAVESESE 141STSTINDEXAVESE
S 36T H PL
SE 142ND ST
99THPLSS 190THST
S E 169THPL
SE 187TH ST 143RDAVESESE 180TH ST
SE 163RD ST
S E 169THST
S C ARRRDSE 1 80TH PL
SE190TH ST
S E 188TH W AY122NDAVESE123RDAVESEDAVISAVESSR167RAMP105THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALKSR 167S/B I-405 R A M P
128THAVESE108THAVESE146THAVESE135
TH
PLSE132NDPLSE131STPLSE134THAVESEBENSONR
DS GRANTAVES113THWAYSE139THPLSE131STAVESE148THAVESE104THPL
SE124THAVESE126THAVESE140THWAYSE
112THAVESEMO
R
RISAVES
103RDAVESE121STLNSE126THPLSESE 170TH PL
105TH PL SESE 18 9TH PL149THAVESE145TH AVE121STAVESELAKEYOUNGSWAYSE
SE154THPL
SE 159TH PL
MAINAVESRENTONAVES104THAVESESE161STPLJONESAVESSE8THPLRAINIERAVES
S 50THST
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
R
SE147
THAVESEEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLN
SE7THST
LAKEAVES84THAVESSE 165TH STBERKSHIREAPTACRD
110TH PL SEVALLEY
WESTHILL
FAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
UnnamedGinger Creek Maplewood CreekCedar RiverMolasses CreekBi
g Soos CreekThunder Hills Creek
Pant
her
Cr
eekRolling Hills CreekSpringbrook Creek
0 2,0001,000Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Benson R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014v2.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisBenson - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:36:33 PM
N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
§¨¦405
T169
T515
T900
NE 12TH ST
N E 7 T H STNE6THST
NE 10TH ST
HOQUIAMAVENENE 4TH ST
SE 116TH ST
FIELDAVENEUNIONAVENENE5THPL SERENTONISSA Q UAHRD
NEPARKDR
S E92NDST
NILEAVENEN E SUNSETBLVD
S 2ND ST
147THPLSESE 100TH ST
MAPLEVALLEYHWY
NE2 1ST ST
S 3RD ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THST
CEDAR RIVER TRAIL
NE 19TH ST
NE5THSTBLAINEAVENEI-4
0
5
F
WY
EVERGREEN DR ROSARIOPLNELOGANAVESNE 17THPL
S E 1 4 1 S T S TBREMERTONAVENES 5TH ST SHADOWAVENESE2NDPL
N 29TH ST
N 28TH ST
NE9THST
NE8THPL
NE 25TH PL
NE23RD PL
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE 147THAVESES4TH ST
152NDAVESEN 6TH ST
NE 3RDCT
NE 2ND ST
N 4TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE93RD S T
144THAVESENE 7TH PL
SE 2ND STBRONSONWAYN
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 3RD ST
S E 9 5 T H W AY
NE 4TH CTANACORTESAVENE
N 1ST ST LYONSAVENENE 1 STPLNE11THSTHOUSER WAY NMAINAVESN26THST
NE 25TH ST
NE 4TH PL
N 30TH ST
INDEXAVE
SE
FERN D ALEAVENENE1STST
N 27THPL
N E 3R D S T
SE98TH S T
SE2NDCT NE2NDCT
HOUSERWAYSHOUSERWAYBYPASSNE 28TH ST
QUEENAVENENE 14TH ST
NE 24TH ST
NE 17TH ST
NE10THPL
SEMAYVALLEYRD
MONTEREYAVENEMONTEREYDRNE
C
A
MA
SAVENE
W IN D S ORWAYNELOGANAVEN SE 113TH ST
S E 4T H S TWELLSALYNNE 22ND ST
SE 5THST A STNE 23RD ST
SE 138TH PL
NE 22ND PL
PELLYALYNJEFFERSONAVENENE 20TH PL
N 8TH ST
SE142ND ST
N LANDING W A Y
N RIVERSIDE DR
I
NDEXA VENENE6T HPLN 10TH S TN10THP L
N 32ND ST
GARDENALYNPAS CODRNEMEADOWALYNPARKALYN7 5 7 T H A V E NENE2 6 TH ST
SUNSETBLVDNS E 3R D P LS E 139TH PL
NE 10THALY NE10THLN
SE 132ND ST148THAVESEN27THALY
NE31STS T
SE 91STST
156THAVESEEDMONDSAVENEPARKAVENSUNSET BLVD NEHARRINGTONAVENEABERDEENAVENEJONESAVENESPRUCE DRFIR DRILWACOAVENEGARDENAVENDUVALLAVENEL
A
K
EWA
S
HI
N
GT
O
NB
L
VDNBURNETTAVEN
MILLAVESDAYTONAVENEBRONSONWAYNE151
STAVESEREDMONDAVENEEDMONDSAVESEPASCO PL NEALDERPLLAURELDR ROSARIOAVENEN/B I-405 RAMPSHELTONAVENEKIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESESE 112TH ST
SE6THS TLYNNWOODAVENE FIELD PL NES
UNSET L NNEPEDESTRIA
NWALK
R
IVIE
R
AAPARTMENTS ACRDCEDARALYSVASHONAVENERENTONAVESS E 4 T H P L
SE117T HST
SE 1ST PL 155THAVESES/B
I-4
0
5
RAMP
KENNYDALE
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
LakeWashington
M
aple
w
ood Creek Long Marsh CreekUnnamedHoney CreekJ
o
h
n
s
Cr
e
e
k Greenes CreekK
ennyd
ale Creek
May Creek
Cedar River
0 1,900950Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\HIghlands R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisHIghlands - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
Community Planning Areas
City Limits
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:11:32 PM
K E N TKENT
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
§¨¦405
T515
T181
T167
SE 188TH ST
SE 196TH ST
SE 184TH ST
72NDAVESS 194TH ST
SE 164TH ST
S 184THSTE VALLEY HWY84THAVESSE 192ND ST
S 190TH ST
8
0
T
HPLSTALBOTRDSS 200TH ST
SE 201ST PLS 23RD ST
SE 200TH ST
SE 21ST ST
SE 183RDPL SE1 6TH ST111THPLSECASCADEAVES127THAVESELINDAVESWS196THST
SE162NDST
PI
ERCEAVESE
129THPLSES 19TH ST
S193RDST
S W G R A D Y W A Y
S192ND ST
I-405 FWY
RAYMONDAVESWSW 27THST
1
2
7THPLSES E 167TH ST
130THAVESES 15TH ST
S PUGET
DRMINKLER BLVD
S 50TH PL
89THAVESSE19THST
SE158THST
SW 16TH ST
109THAVESES188TH ST 114TH PL SES 4 8TH ST SE165TH ST
STRANDERBLV DWELLSAVESABERDEENAVESESE PETROVITSKY RD
SE184T H LN
102NDAVESES26THST
76THAVESSE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
106TH
P
L
SE117THAVESESE 174TH ST
98THAVES SOOSCREEKTRAIL68THAVES 129THAVESES 3 6T H ST
SEROYALHILLSDR
S 180TH ST
S 27TH ST
SW 41ST ST
S 21ST ST
S 38TH CT
118THAVESES 27THPLSE 18 4TH PLRAINIERAVES
92NDAVESS187TH ST
FERNDALEAVESE
81STAVES78THAVESSE18THPL
119THLNSE
BEACON WAY SE
80THAVESSE 186TH ST 125THAVESES 1 4 T H S T
SE 161ST ST
CHRISTENSENRDANDOVERPARKESE157TH STSE16THPL
113THAVESESE 160TH ST
114THAVESE
SE 22ND PL
SW 19TH ST
SW 43RD ST SECARRRDS W 1 0 T H S T
122NDPLSEPUGET DR SESE 181ST S T
SE170TH ST
S31ST ST
B
E
NS
ON
D
R S113THPLSES 43RD ST
S 47TH ST
BEACONWAYS
MIL
LAVE
S
SE187THPL
S 55TH ST
121STAVESESW 1 3 T H S T
SW 39TH ST
110THAVESES 182ND ST
N /B I-405R AM PS W 1 2 T H A LY
S75THPLS 202ND ST
S 186TH PL
SW 34TH ST
S32NDS T111THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALK
INDEXAVESE
S 3 6 TH PL
99THPLSS 77TH PLS E 169THPL
70THAVESCOSTCODR
SE 163RD ST
S E 169TH ST
S C ARRRDSE 1 80TH PL 122NDAVESE123RDAVESEDAVI
SAVESS 198TH ST SR167RAMP105THAVESE128THAVESE108THAVESE124THAVESE106THAVESESPERRYDRB
E
N
SONRDSGRANTAVESN ACHESAVESW113THWAYSE116THAVESE104THP
L
SEINDUSTRYDR126THAVESEGRE
E
NRIVERTRAIL
112THAVESEMO
R
RISAVES
103RDAVESEBOEINGACRD119THAVESE126THPLSE120THAVESESE 170TH PL
105TH PL SEINTERURBANTRAILLAKEYOUNGSWAYSE
WESTVALLEYHWYMAINAVES104THAVESE107THAVESEMONSTE
RRDS
WS 50THST
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
RSEEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLN
CEDARAVESLAKEAVES
SR 167S32NDPL BERKSHIREAPTACRD
COPPERRIDGEAPT ACR
D 110TH PL SEVALLEY
FAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
PantherLake
Gin
g
er Cre
ek
UnnamedLo
w
er G
arriso
n C
re
ekMi
l
l CreekGreen RiverBi
g Soos CreekThunder Hills Creek
Pant
her Cr
eekRolling Hills CreekSpringbrook CreekCedar Ri
ver0 2,1001,050Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Talbot R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisTalbot - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:19:40 PM
N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
§¨¦405
T181
T169
T515
T900
T167
SW 19TH ST
NE 12TH ST
SE8TH D RN E 7 T H STNE 10TH ST
UNIONAVENEHO
LYOK
E
PLS
NE5THPL
NEPARKDR
SW 7TH ST
S O U T H CENTERBL VD
ARROWSMITHAVES
NE SUNSET BLVDS 2ND ST
NE 4TH ST
SE1 6TH STSE 100TH ST
MAPLEVALLEYHWY
S TOBIN ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THST
S 115TH PL
TAYL
O
R PL N
W
NE 21ST ST
RAINIERAVES
SE 6TH ST
PI
ERCEAVESESHAZELST
NE 19TH ST
NE 5THST
RAYMONDAVESWHARDIEAVESWBLAINEAVENERAI
NI
ERAVENH O U S ERW AY SS BANGOR ST
S 132NDST
S 1 2 5 T H S T
64THAVESS 5TH ST
S 7TH ST69THPLS
S 15TH ST UNIONAVESE70THPLSS 128TH ST
NE17THPL
SWSUNSETBLVD
SE2NDPL
HIGHAVESNE9TH PL
N 29TH ST
N 28TH ST
SLANGSTONRD 78THAVESSW 3RD PL
SWLANGSTONRD
NE9THST
68THAVESCEDAR RIVER TRAIL
NE25TH PL
NE23RDPL
SHATTUCKAVESS18THST MONROEAVENESW 5THPLBE
ACONAVES
BEACON
WAYSE
SW 16TH ST SE11THST
N 4TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE 93RD S T
S RYAN ST
S 115TH ST
MARTINLKINGJRWAYS
S4TH ST BRONSONWAY N
SE 3RD ST
S120THPL
S E 9 5 TH WAY
SE 12THSTLINDAVENWSLAKERIDGEDRMORRISAVESNW 7TH ST
S116THPL65THAVES
NACHESAVESWN 1ST ST NE 1 STPLNE11THST
SE151STSTLAKEAVESHOUSER WAY NSEROYALHILLSDRMAINAVESN26THST84THAVESWOODLEYAVESSE4THSTN 30TH ST
BEACON
WAYS
NE1STST63RDAVESN27THPL
N E 3 R D S T
SE98TH S TMORRISALYSFERNDALEAVESE
S E 2NDC THOUSERWAYBYPASSS G R A D YWAYS 112TH ST
NE 28TH ST
S 118TH ST
130THAVESENE 7THPL
S 124TH STNE8THST
7
4
T
HPLS
S 1 4 T H S T71STAVESE PERI
METER RDNE 14TH ST
S 114TH ST
NE 24TH ST
SE 16THPL
NE 25THST
NE17TH S T
NE10THPL
NE 8 T H P L76THAVES
POWELLAVESWSW4THPL
NE 2ND STMONTEREYAVENEM
ONTEREYDRNE
C
A
MA
SAVENE
W IN D S ORWAYNE
PUGET DR SELOGANAVENROWANRDSS 121ST ST
CEDARRIDGE
DRSE
SWVICTORIAST
S118THPL
S116THST
S3RD PL
SLAURELST
WELLSALYNNE 22ND ST
SE5THST A STNE 23RD ST
GARDENPLS
116THAVESENE 22ND PL
PELLYALYNJEFFERSONAVENEN 8TH ST
S 1 2 6 T H STS TAFTST
N LANDING W A Y
79THAVESSE 3 R D PLSW 1 3 T H S T
S 113TH ST
N RIVERSIDE DR
AIRPORT WAY
S123RDPL
S 122ND ST
N/B I-405 RAMP
BENSON DR SS W 1 2 T H A LY
NE6T HPLR
U
S
TI
CRDSN 10TH S T
SR 167N1 0 T H P LSRUSTIC RDGARDENALYNMEADOWALYNS 130TH ST77THAVES
PARKALYN7 5 7 T H A V E NEFORESTAVES
STILLICUMST
INDEXAVESE
S134THST
S 129TH ST
SUNSETBLVDNS 133RD PL
S127THPL
BEACONCOALMINER
D
S WPERI
METERRDNE10THLN
N27THALY
DAVI
SAVES66
THLNS
THOMASAVESWS
P
UGE
T
DRNE31STST
NI
SHI
WAKI LNS 133RD ST
S 135THST
ACCESSR D W Y
WILLIAMSAVESSTEVENSAVESWEDMONDSAVENEGRANTAV
E
SWELLSAVESCORNELLAVESLAK
EWAS
H
I
NGTON
T
RAILPARKAVENSUNSET BLVD NEWATERSAVES
HARRINGTONAVENEABERDEENAVENEOAKESDALEAVE
S
WJONESAVENES123RDSTSPRUCE DR80THAVESFIR DRGARDENAVENS 3RD STCRESTWOODDRS
KIRKLAN
D
A
V
E
S
EMILLAVESG
REEN
RI
VERTRAIL DAYTONAVENEBRONSONWAYNEMA
U
L
E
A
V
E
S
SSUNNYCRESTRD
EDMONDSAVESEQUEENAVENELAURELDR85THAVES
TALBOT RD SRHODYDR
SE4T H PLVASHONAVE SESHELTONAVENEHARDIEAVENWKIRKLANDAVENES 120TH ST
TAYLORAVENW126THAVESELAKEYOUNGSWAYSE
I-40 5 F WY
BENSONRDSSTEVENSAVENWAUB
U
R
NAV
E
S
LYNNWOODAVENESUNSET L NNEPEDESTRIANWALK
75T
H
A
V
E
SMAPLEAVENW68
THPLSNE4TH CTJONESAVESMONSTERRDSW
SE8THPLCEDARALYS VASHONAVENE70THAVE
S69THAVES
SE 1ST PL
THO
MASLN
SE7THST
75T
H
ALYSS/B
I-4
0
5
RA
MP
R
EDMONDAVENEINDEXAVEN
E
KENNYDALE
VALLEY
WESTHILL
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
LakeWashington
0 2,4001,200Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\City Center R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisCity Center - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:55:02 PM
T515
T900
T169
N 1ST ST
S PUGETDRMAINAVESS 7TH ST
SE8TH DR
N E 7 T H STNE6THST
SE 164TH ST HOQUIAMAVENEFIELDAVENESE 171ST WAY
NE5THPL
SEFAIRWOODBLVDNILEAVENE SE156TH ST
N 5TH ST
SE173RDST
NE 4TH STUNIONAVENEN 6TH ST
147THPLSESE 21ST ST SE1 6TH STS E 166THPL127THAVESESE148THST
SE 6TH ST
PI
ERCEAVESE 150TH LNSE 162NDAVESESE149THST
NE5THST
SE1 62ND PL
SE 168TH ST ROSARIOPLNEUNIONAVESESE141S T S T
SE 128TH STBREMERTONAVENE
HIGHAVESSHADOWAVENESE JO N E S R D
NE8THPL
JERICHOAVENECEDAR RIVER TRAIL
SE19THST
S18THST
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE
SE158THST SE11THST
109THAVESENE 3RD CT
NE 2ND STNE 1ST CT
SE165TH ST
SE 2ND PL
144THAVESE152NDAVESESE 2ND STBRONSONWAYN
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 3RD ST
S 9TH ST
SE136THST
SE 144TH ST
S E 12THST
NE 4TH CT
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
SE 174TH ST
SE 172ND PL
NE 1 STPLSHELTONAVENE
SE151STST
SE145THST
129THAVESELYONSAVENEHOUSER WAY NSE165THWAY
SEROYALHILLSDR
SE145THPL
129TH
P
LSES 27TH ST
SE P E TR O V IT S K Y R D
NE 4TH PL
BEACON
WAYS
FERN D ALEAVENENE1STST
N E 3 R D S T
FERNDALEAVESE
S E 2NDC THOUSERWAYBYPASS136THPLSESE173RDPLSE167THSTNE 2ND CT
130THAVESE149TH PL SESE18THPL
119THL
NSE
BEACON WAY SE
106THAVESE125THAVESE1 42NDPLSESE 161ST ST
SE132NDST
SE157TH STSE16THPL
113THAVESE108THAVESESE 160TH STSE 22ND PL
SE171STPL 159THPLSEMONTEREYDRNE
C
A
MASAVENE
W IN D S ORWAYNE
PUGET DR SENE7TH PL
117THAVESE155THPLSE
CEDARRIDGE
DR
SE
156TH PL SESE170TH ST
S E 4T H S TSE 147TH ST
SE5THST
SE135THST
SE 120THST
140THAVESEBENSONDRS A STSE 1 42 N D P L
SE 138TH PL
BIRCHDRN 8TH ST
133RDPLSE11 8THAVESE142NDAVESEPELLYAVEN133RDAVESE148TH PL SEROS EWOODDR
167THPLSE114THAVESEGARDENALYNPAS CODRNEMEADOWALYN111THAVESEPARKALYNINDEXAVESE
SE 142ND STSUNSETBLVDNSE 3 R D P L1
44THPL SESE167TH P LS E 139THPL
S E 169THPL 143RDAVESESE 163RD ST
S E 169THST
SE 143RD STLAKEWASHINGTONTRAIL
122NDAVESE124THAVESE123RDAVESESE
J
ONESPL
105THAVESEPEDESTRIANWALK 160THAVESE132NDPLSE131STPLSEPARKSI
DEWAYSEB
E
NS
ONRDSGRANTAVES139THPLSE163RDPLSESPRUCE DRFIR DRGARDENAVEN154THPLSES 3R DST
126THAVESE140THWAYSEMILLAVESBRONSONWAYNENE6THPL 164THAVESEDUVALLAVENEEDMONDSAVENEEDMONDSAVESEQUEENAVENEPASCO PL NE121STLNSE128THAVESEHARRINGTONAVENELAURELDR
164TH WAY SE120THAVESEROSARIOAVENE156THAVESE161STAVESESE 170TH PL 121STAVESEWOODSIDEDRSELAKEYOUNGSWAYSESUN
S
E
T
BLVDNE
I-405FWYKIRKLANDAVENE158THAVESESE 154THPL
134THAVESESE 159TH PL 166THAVESEFIELD PL NERENTONAVES157THPLSESE 160TH PL
166THPLSE104THAVESESE161STPLJONESAVESRIVIE
R
AAPARTMENTS ACRDSE8THPLCEDARALYSBLAINEAVENE
1
2
0
T
H
T
E
R
SES E 4 T H P L
PINEDRN/BI-405RAMPSE 1STPL
THOMASLN
SE7THST 155THAVESEOAK DRFAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
0 2,2001,100Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Cedar River R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisCedar River - Zone Density Mismatch & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 2:40:31 PM
M E R C E RMERCERISLANDISLAND N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
§¨¦405
T900
NEWCASTLE WAY
NE 12TH ST
NE10THST
N E SUNSETBLVD84THAVESE78THAVESESE80TH
WAY
NEPARKDR 120THPLSESE86THPL
WMERCERWAY
SE 72ND ST
SE 100TH ST
NE 20TH ST
NE27THSTEMERCERWAY
NE 21ST ST
N42ND PL84THAVESRAINIER
A
V
E
SSE 91ST ST
NE 19TH ST
SE 80TH ST
BLAINEAVENE128THAVESE93RDAVESESE89THPL
SE 78TH ST
MEADOWAVEN125THAVESESE 73RD ST
NE17THPL
N 29TH ST
OLYMPIAAVENEN 28TH ST
SE 72ND PL
SUNSETBLVDN ESE 70THST
NE23RD PL
80THAVESSE75THPL
SE84TH W AY
S 112TH ST
SE93R D S
TSE 76TH ST 129THAVESE123RDAVESES E 9 5 T H W AYAVALONPLISLAND CREST WAYSE89TH STSE82NDST
N1 0 T H P L
N 40TH ST
N 30TH ST
SE98TH S T
NE 28TH ST
NE 36THST92NDAVESE
QUEENAVENES 114TH ST
NE 24TH ST
NE 25TH ST
SE74THP
L
SE 71ST ST
MONTEREYAVENE118THAVESEH
O
U
S
ERWAY
NN/BI-405RAMP82NDAVESELYNNWOODAVENENE 22ND ST
NE 23RD ST
GARDENPLS
FORESTAVES
NE 22ND PL
JEFFERSONAVENES 116TH ST
SE 88TH ST
N 33RD ST
N 36TH ST
S 113TH ST
I
NDEX AVENEN 32ND STN 31ST ST NE 43RDST
757TH AVENENE33RDST
N38TH ST
NE44THS
T
N41STPLNE10TH LNI-405RAMPN 35TH ST
N 33RD PL
N 28TH PLN27THALY PEDESTRIANWALKNE 31STST
HARRINGTONAVENEUNIONAVENELAKE
WAS
HINGT
O
N
TRA
IL
N 2 0T H ST127THAVESEEDMONDSAVENEABERDEENAVENEPARKAVENJONESAVENEL
A
KE
WA
S
H
I
N
GT
ONBL
V
DNLINCOLNAVENENIS
HI
WAKILN SE88THP L 127
THPLSE121ST PL SEBURNETTAVEN122NDP LSESE 74THST86THAVESE122NDAVESE
126THP
L
S
E
SHELTONAVENEMONROEAVENEAVALON DRC
O
A
L
C
R
E
EKPKWYSE
KIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESE85THPLSE85THAVESE
PEDE STRIAN
WALK S/BI-4
0
5
R
A
MPSEAHAWKS WAYKENNYDALE
WESTHILL
CITYCENTER
HIGHLANDS
LakeBoren
LakeWashington
N
e
w
p
ort Hills
C
re
e
k
Johns CreekUnnamed
K
e
n
n
y
d
ale
C
re
e
k Gyps
y
Cr
ee
k Boren CreekMay CreekHoney Creek
0 1,800900Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Kennydale R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisKennydale - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:15:07 PM
K E N TKENT
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
§¨¦518
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
T900
T515
T181
T167
S 170TH ST
72NDAVESE VALLEY HWYS 143RD ST S 6TH STS143RDPL
SW 7TH ST
S 152ND ST
ANDOVER PARK WSOUTHCENTER BLVD
51STAVESS 2ND ST
52NDAVESSE 1 81STST
S 23RD ST
S178THST TALBOTRDS
S35 T H STLINDAVESWS164THST
BEAC
O
N
W
AYS
S 19TH ST
S
U
N
WOODBLVD
S W G R A D Y W A Y
RAYMONDAVESWHARDIEAVESWS 3RD ST
UPLAND DR
H O USERW AYSSW27THST
S160THST
S 5TH ST
S 7TH ST
S 15TH ST
TUKWILA PKWY
STRANDER BLVD S PUGE
T DR6
5
THA
VES HIGHAVESSW 3RD PL
SE 172NDST
SWLANGSTONRD
SHATTUCKAVESS 18TH ST
SW 5THPLSW 16TH ST53RDAVES S 3RDALY
S 4TH ST
80THPL
S
S 9TH ST
S26THST
106TH
P
L
SESE 174TH ST
80THAVESS 3 6TH STMAINAVES
S 180TH ST
S 27TH ST
MINKLER BLVD
SW 41ST ST
S 21ST ST
S 38TH CT
S 27THPLS G R ADYW AYS 153RD ST
106THAVESES 1 4 T H S T
CHRISTENSENRDANDOVERPARKEMIDLAND DR POWELLAVESWSW 19TH ST
SW 43RD ST
S W 1 0 T H S T
S166TH ST
S159THST
I-405 FWY
S 168T HSTS31ST ST56THAVESS3RDPL
B
ENS
ON
D
R
S
BAKER BLVD
S 43RD ST
S 139TH ST
MIL
L
AVE
S
TRILAND DR
SW 39TH ST
S 182ND ST
N /B I-405RAM PS W 1 2 T H A L Y
SR 518
SW 34TH ST
S32NDS TS 36 T H P L
I-5RAMPS 150THST56T
H
P
L
S84THAVESPE
DE
STRIANWALK
S 133RD PL
COSTCODRBEACONCOALMINER
D
S
SR167RAMPS C A RRRDDAVI
SAVESTHOMASAVESW105THAVESESR167S135THST
ACCESS R D W Y
SPERRYDRSTEVENSAVESWWELLSAVESSOUTHCENTERPKWYBENSONR
D
S GRANTAVESN ACHESAVESWINDUSTRYDRM
A
U
L
E
A
V
E
S
INTERURBAN TRAILRAI
N
I
E
RA
VES62NDAVESMO
R
RISAVESMACADAMRDSBOEINGACRD
108THAVESEWILLIAMSAVESS149TH ST58THAVES MAPLEAVESW105TH PL SEOA
K
E
S
DAL
E
AV
E
S
WI-5FWY57THAVESWEST VALLEY HWYSLADEWAY 59THAVESRENTONAVES54THAVES61STPL
S
104THAVESEMONSTERRDSW CEDARALYS55THAVESEAST VALLEY RDTHO
MASLNLAK
EAVES68THAVESSR599RAMPI-405RAMPSR599VALLEY
WESTHILL
CEDARRIVER
CITYCENTER
BENSON
TALBOT
Unname d P a n ther CreekTributaryPantherCreek
SpringbrookC re e kRolling Hills Creek
UnnamedMil lCreekT
h
u
n
d
er
H
ills
Cr
eek
CedarRiver
BlackRiver
DuwamishRiver
GreenRiverRolling Hills Creek Tributary
0 1,900950Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Valley R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisValley - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:27:53 PM
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
S E A T T L ESEATTLE
§¨¦5
T167
T900
S LEO ST
HO
LYOK
E
PLS
S 143RD ST
SAVONST
SW 7TH ST52NDAVES66THAVES S TOBIN ST
S 122ND ST
S 115TH PL
TAY
L
O
R PL N
W
RAINIERAVES
BEACONAVES51STAVESSBANGOR ST
S 1 32NDST
S 1 2 5T H S T
64THAVESS 144TH ST
S 129TH ST
S 7TH ST69THPLS70THPLSS 128TH ST
SWSUNSETBLVD
SLANGSTON RD
SWLANGSTONRD
56TH PL S 68THAVESSW 5THPLINTERURBANAVES
53RDAVES55THAVESS RYAN ST
S CRESTON ST
S 115TH ST
59THAVES60THAVESLINDAVENWSLAKERIDGEDR
NW 7TH ST
S116THPL
58THAVESLAKEAVESWOODLEYAVES51ST P
L S
MACA
D
A
M
R
DS62NDAVESS 112TH ST
S 134TH PL
S 118TH ST
S 124TH ST
7
4
T
HPLS
71STAVESS 114TH ST
S 117TH ST61STAVES
78THAVES76THAVESS 3RD ST
50TH
PLS
R
AIL
R
O
A
D
AVE
S 2ND ST
S JUNIPER ST
S WALLACE ST56THAVES ROWANRDS44TH PL S
S127 T H S TSWVICTORIAST
S118THPL
CEDARRI
VERT
RAI
L
S116THST
S3RD PL
SLAURELST
M
A
U
LE
AV
E
S
DIXONDRSSRYANWAY65THAVES
S 139TH ST
S 1 2 6 T H STS TAFTST
AIRPORT WAY
SR 599
LUTHERAVES
79THAVESSTILLICUM ST
I-5RAMP
S 113TH ST57THAVES
S123RDPL
S 119TH ST
R
U
S
TI
CRDS63RDAVESTHOMASAVESWSRUSTIC RDMO
N
STE
R
R
DSW
S 130TH ST
S FOUNTAIN ST
77THAVESS HAZEL ST
6 0THLN
S
FORESTAVES
S134THST
S 133RD PL
S 127THPL WPERI
MET
ERRDE PERI
METER RD66
T
HLNS
S130THPL
SR900RAMP
NI
SHI
WAKI LNS 133RD ST
S 135THST
ACCESS R D W Y
STEVENSAVESWCORNELLAVES84THAVESS123RDST80THAVESHA
R
DIE
A
V
E
S
WWATE
R
S
A
V
E
S47THAVES
71ST
P
L
SCRESTWOODDRSPE
D
E
S
T
RIANWALK49THAVESSSUNNYCRESTRD
85THAVESMAPLEAVESWHARDIEAVENWS120TH ST
TAYLORAVENWSTEVENSAVENWAUB
U
R
NAVESPOWELLAVESWMAPLEAVENW68
T
HPLSBEACONCOALMINERDSGATEWAYDR 70THAVE
S69THAVES
75T
H
ALYSSR599
R
A
MP48THAVESVALLEY
WESTHILL
CITYCENTER
LakeWashington
Spring
b
r
o
ok
CreekGre en Riv e rCedar
Ri
ver
BlackRiv
erDuwamishRiver 0 1,600800Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\West Hill R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisWest Hill - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:32:05 PM
K E N TKENT
T169
SE 196TH ST
SE 208TH ST
1
3
0
THAVESESE 192ND ST
SEFAIRWOODBLVD
SE173RDST
SE 201ST PL140THAVESESE198THST
S E 166THPL
SEPETROVITSKYRD127THAVESE
SE 211TH ST
SE 182NDPL
129THPLSESE 204TH
ST
SE 162NDPL
SE184THPL
SE177THS T
1
2
7THPLSES E 167T HST
SE 18 6THWAY
SE 176TH ST
SE 202ND PL
SE158THST
142NDAVESESE 164TH ST
155THAVESESE156TH S TSE 165THST
120THAVESESE160THST
SE 200TH ST
SE157THPL
SE 172ND ST
SE 172ND PL
SEJONES R D
SE 170TH PL
SE163RDST
SE 202ND ST SELAKEYOUNGSRD129THAVESE133RDAVESE
SE165TH WAY
136TH PL SE159THAVESE
137THAVESE135THAVESESE173RDPL
MAPLE VALLEY HWY
SE178THST125THAVESE142NDPLSESE 161ST ST
S E 204TH W AYWOODSIDEDRSESE186THST
SE171STPL 159THPLSE172NDAVESE122NDPLSESE 184TH ST
143RDPLSES E 176THPL
155THPLSE
SERENTONMAPLEVALLEYRD
119THAVESESE1 9 6 T H DR
143RDAVESESE 168THST
SE 204TH PL
BI RCHDRSE187THPL
121STAVESE133RDPLSEEAST
LAKEDESIREDRSESE 171ST WAY
SE 201ST ST
SE 179TH PL174THAVESE132NDAVESESE180THPL
SE167TH P LS E 169THPL
SE 187TH ST
S E188THST
SE 180TH ST
S E 169THST
1
58THAVESE
SE190TH ST
184THAVESES E 188TH W AY122NDAVESE123RDAVESE 181STAV
E
S
E
SE
195TH P L
PEDESTRIANWALK
LAKE YOUNGS TRAIL128THAVESE124THAVESESE 179TH ST
157T
H
A
V
E
SE
135TH
PLSE132NDPLSE13
8
T
HAV
ESE163RD PL SE131STPLSE134THAVESE139THPLSE131STAVESE146THAVESE148THAVESE162
NDAVESE126THAVESEW
E
S
TLAKEDESIREDRSE
SE183R
D
DR
120THPLSE161STAVESE121STLNSE164TH WAY SE126THPLSESOOSCREEKTRA
I
LPARKSIDEWAYSECEDARRIVERTRAIL
SE 189TH PLSE 192NDDR145TH AVESE 1 54THPL
150THAVE
S
ESE 159TH PL
SE 160TH PL
166THPL
SESE161STPL
140THWAYSE
1
2
0
T
HT
E
RSESE170THST
147T
H
AVESE183RDWAYSE
LAKE YOUNGS SERVICE RD 182NDAVESEOAK DRFAIRWOOD
CEDARRIVER
BENSON
LakeDesire
LakeYoungs
ShadyLake
Soosette Creek TributaryMadsen Creek
C edar RiverU
nna
m
ed
M
olasses Cree
k
M
adson CreekGinger
Cr
eekS
u
mme
rfield
C
r
e
e
k
Bi
g Soos Creek0 2,2501,125Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\Fairwood R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisFairwood - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 05/07/2014 3:05:25 PM
N E W C A S TL ENEWCASTLE
T169
T900
NE 12TH ST
SE 128TH ST
NE6THST
SE 116TH ST
UNIONAVENESERENTONISSAQUAHRD
S E 92NDST
NILEAVENENESUNSETBLVD
NE 4TH ST 171
S
T PL SE147THPLSESE 100TH ST
CEDARRIVERTRAIL
NE2 1S T ST
SE148THST
SE 6TH ST
150TH LNSE 162NDAVESESE149THST
SEMAYVALLEYRD
NE 19TH ST
OAKDR
NE5THST
SE 121ST PL
SE120THST
PINE RDSE133RDPLROSARIOPLNENE17THPL
SE14 1 S T STBREMERTONAVENE SHADOWAVENENE5THPL
NE8THPL
JERICHOAVENENE25TH PL
NE 2ND PLMONROEAVENE 147THAVESESE11TH ST
NE 3RD CT
NE 2ND STNE 1ST CT
SE 2ND PL
144THAVESENE 7TH ST
152NDAVESENE 7TH PL
SE 2ND ST
NE 3RD PL
NE 8TH ST
SE 95 T H W AY
SE 144TH ST
NE 4TH CTANACORTESAVENE
NE1ST ST
SE JONESRDLYONSAVENENE1STPLNE11THST 177TH PL SESE151STST
SE145THST
SE 134TH ST
SE 146T HSTSE145THPL
NE 25TH ST
NE 4TH PL
SE98TH S T
SE137THST
S E16T HPL
NE 2ND CT
130THAVESE149TH PL SENE 24TH ST
SE 140TH ST
SE 132NDST
NE9TH ST
NE 17TH ST
NE10THPL
SE102NDST
SE 136TH ST
156TH PL SESE 113TH ST
SE 138TH STSE 4T H S T
NE 22ND ST
SE 147TH ST
SE5THST
183RDAVESESE135THSTA STSE 1 42N D P L
SE 138TH PL
SE 110TH ST
SE106THST
NE 22ND PL
NE 20TH PL
NE 23RD ST
NE23RDPL
177THAVESE142NDAVESE133RDAVESE148TH PL SEPINEDR
SE 118THST
PAS CODRNESE 142ND ST 178THAVESE168THAVESENE2 6TH ST
SE 133RD ST
S E 3 R D P L
1
44THPL SES E 139THPL
SE109THS TNE10THLN
SE 143RD ST 172NDAVESESE 122ND ST148THAVESESE108THST
SE
J
ONESPL 188THAVESEPEDEST RIAN WALK160THAVESESPRUCE DR164THAVESEFIR DRILWACOAVENE154THPLSEDUVALLAVENE140THWAYSE 15
1STAVESEREDMONDAVENEQUEENAVENEPASCO PL NEALDERPLLAURELDR ROSARIOAVENE156THAVESELAKEKATH
L
EENRD
SE
SE91STST
161STAVESE171ST
AVESEFIELDAVENE176THAVESESHELTONAVENEWE
STL
A
K
EKATHLEEND
R
SEKIRKLANDAVENE126THAVESE158THAVESESE154THPL
SE 112TH ST
167TH PL SELYNNWOODAVENE184THAVESE166THAVESEFIELD PL NE157THPLSEVASHONAVENE191STPLSE174TH
AVESE
S E 4 TH P L181STAVESESE2NDCT E
A
ST
LAKE
K
A
T
H
L
E
E
NDRSE180THAVESESE117THST
SE1ST PL
143R
D
AV
E
SE173RD
A
V
E
SE
SE7THST 155THAVESE175TH
AVESE 186THAVESE169THA
V
ESE
SELICORICEWAY
CEDARRIVER
BENSON
EASTPLATEAU
HIGHLANDS
UnnamedEast Fork May CreekLong M arsh CreekNorth Fork May CreekSouth Fork May CreekCedar River
May Creek
Honey CreekGreenes CreekMadson CreekMaplewood Creek0 2,4001,200Feet
Document Path: H:\CED\Planning\GIS\GIS_projects\complan_amendment\2014\Land Use Analysis Element\Mxds\R-8 Density Mismatch\East Plateau R-8 Zone Density Mismatch-w-critical areas 11x17 April2014.mxdComprehensive Plan Amendment-Land AnalysisEast Plateau - R-8 Zone Density & Critical Areas
1:24,000´
City Limits
Community Planning Areas
Wetlands
Streams
Slopes
>40% & <=90%
>90%
Density R8 Parcels
0.11 - 3.99
4.00 - 5.99
6.00 - 7.99
8.00 - 9.99
10.00 - 48.97
Date Saved: 04/16/2014 3:50:47 PM
CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS
Background
• In compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City regulates the following critical
areas: aquifer protection areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded
areas, geologically hazardous areas (steep slopes, landslide hazards, coal mine hazard areas,
seismic hazard areas…), and wetlands.
• The City is required to review Best Available Science (BAS) when updating its Critical Areas
Regulations in compliance with the GMA. The City has hire ESA Adolfson to perform this
function.
• In 2011 the City updated its Shoreline Master Program Regulations (SMP). The updated SMP
adopted the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) 4-tiered wetland rating system for wetlands located
within Shoreline jurisdiction.
Current Work
• In compliance with the GMA, the City is in the process of updating its Critical Areas Regulations
to be compatible with Best Available Science. No substantive changes are proposed to the
Aquifer Protection Areas or Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations.
• In response to the Biological Opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
the City is currently conducting site specific reviews for development proposals within flood
hazard areas to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The City is considering
revising the flood hazard area regulations to be City specific and consistent with the NMFS
Biological Opinion.
• The existing stream classifications include 5 classes, the proposed stream classifications would
include four types based on the State’s Permanent Water Typing System. The existing and
proposed stream classifications and buffers are depicted in the following table:
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Existing Standards Proposed Standards
Stream Class Standard Buffer Stream Class Standard Buffer
Class 1 Shorelines of the
State regulated under
SMP
Type S Shorelines of the
State regulated under
SMP
Class 2 100 feet Type F 115 feet
Class 3 75 feet Type Np 75 feet
Class 4 35 feet Type Ns 35 feet
Class 5 Exempt from Critical
Areas Regulations
• The City’s current wetland regulations include a 3-teired wetland rating system. The City is
considering adopting Ecology’s 4-tiered rating system, which would be consistent with what was
adopted under the SMP. The existing and proposed wetland classifications and buffers are
depicted in the following table:
Existing Standards Proposed Standards
Wetland
Category
Standard
Buffer
Wetland
Category
Standard Buffer
Low wildlife
function (<20
points)
Moderate
wildlife
function (20-28
points)
High wildlife
function (>28
points)
Category I 100 feet Category I 125 feet 150 feet 225 feet
Category II 50 feet Category II 100 feet 150 feet 225 feet
Category
III
25 feet Category III 75 feet 125 feet 150 feet
Category IV 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
• Under the proposed changes to the Critical Areas Regulations, it is likely that development sites
with critical areas will have less developable area available due to the proposed increased
buffers require for compliance with BAS.
• An additional 15-foot setback will be required between buildings and critical area buffers.
Next Steps
• Work with the Mayor, Planning Commission, DOE and City Council to complete the GMA
mandated update to the Critical Areas Regulations and ensure that the updated regulations are
consistent with BAS.
RENTON COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
Land Use Suitability:
Renton Land Use & Zoning
Prepared for:
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Prepared by:
2025 1st Ave #800
Seattle, WA 98122
http://berkconsulting.com/
September 2, 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 2
Table of Contents
1.0 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0 Vision ................................................................................................................................................. 3
3.0 No Action: Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning ............................................... 4
4.0 Consolidation and Alignment alternative ......................................................................................... 7
5.0 Suitability Analysis Methods ........................................................................................................... 10
6.0 Suitability & Opportunity Analysis Results...................................................................................... 11
Benson .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Highlands ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Talbot ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
City Center .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Cedar River .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Kennydale ............................................................................................................................................... 17
Valley ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
West Hill .................................................................................................................................................. 18
Fairwood ................................................................................................................................................. 18
East Plateau ............................................................................................................................................. 18
7.0 “Right Size” Zoning Code Options ................................................................................................... 19
R-6 Zone .................................................................................................................................................. 19
R-8 Zone Development Standards .......................................................................................................... 19
RM-F Zone Adjustments ......................................................................................................................... 22
8.0 Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 23
9.0 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 25
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 3
1.0 PURPOSE
The City of Renton is preparing its Comprehensive Plan Update for completion by June 2015. A central
focus of the Comprehensive Plan is the Land Use Plan. The City has developed three land use concepts:
1. No Action: Retain the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zones.
2. Consolidation & Alignment: Consolidate Comprehensive Plan designations and better align Zones to
the Comprehensive Plan land use designations.
3. “Right Size” Land Use & Zoning: “Right size” Renton’s Land Use designations and Zones based on
the compatibility of current land uses and future growth. There are three options to consider,
including:
Re-designate the zoning of built out areas to the density of the zone it most closely matches in
order to have greater compatibility based on the suitability of density.
Re-designate the zoning of built out areas to the density of the zone it most closely matches in
order to have greater compatibility based on the suitability of critical areas.
Consider rezones for some areas, such as for mixed use along corridors based on opportunity
sites (e.g. vacant and redevelopable sites), the character of adjacent lands, and the
Comprehensive Plan Vision.
The purpose of this white paper is to 1) describe the No Action and Consolidation & Alignment
Alternatives, 2) develop land use and zoning recommendations for the “Right Size” alternative, and 3) to
compare all three alternatives regarding how well they meet the Comprehensive Plan Vision, protect
environmental features, recognize neighborhood character, allow efficient public services, and maintain
the City’s ability to meet its growth targets.
2.0 VISION
Each alternative is compared to the draft updated Vision Statement, excerpted below. The Vision
promotes growth focused in the City Center and other mixed use areas as well as single family infill
areas.
“Renton - The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where families and
businesses thrive.” (Business Plan, and Draft Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement May
2013)
***
Policies direct future residential and commercial growth to the City Center and to mixed-
use areas that already exist throughout the City. Expansion of Renton’s employment and
economic base will continue through redevelopment in the City Center and the Valley.
The development of small business and industry in Renton will also diversify and
strengthen the local economy.
Renton’s City Center is located at the hub of commerce and transportation networks and
designated as a regional growth center for employment and housing. A revitalized
Downtown that functions as a 24-hour living, working, and entertainment area will
emerge through planning for a balance of residential, commercial, and office uses with a
distinctive, local identity. Development north of Downtown, near the Landing, will
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 4
contribute to the vitality of the City Center by serving regional needs for shopping,
entertainment, housing, and employment.
Outside of the City Center, higher density mixed-use development, allowed in areas
currently dominated by strip development, will establish neighborhood scale living,
working, and entertainment nodes, such as the Sunset Area of the Renton Highlands.
Mixed-use centers and neighborhood nodes will reduce transportation impacts within
the City by allowing residents to work and shop close to where they live and provide
alternatives to single-occupant vehicle trips.
While new multi-family and mixed-use housing in the City Center and established
neighborhood nodes will help to accommodate housing growth, single-family housing
stock will grow through infill development. Single-family infill development also allows
for the necessary densities to provide services at the edge of the urban area. Renton is
proud of the diversity of its population and requires a full range of housing types to
accommodate people of different ages, incomes, and ethnic groups. Housing Renton’s
growing population will require approaches that allow for a variety of housing types,
maintain the ability to provide high levels of service, and ensure a high quality of life in
Renton’s new and established neighborhoods. (Excerpt from Draft Comprehensive Plan
Vision Statement May 2013)
3.0 NO ACTION: CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP
AND ZONING
This alternative is a “no action” alternative and retains the present scheme. Land Use designations
consist of 12 categories in a pattern transitioning from the eastern Urban Growth Boundary at a lower
residential density to a typical urban single family designation to commercial corridors, dense urban
mixed use neighborhoods, and employment centers. See Exhibit 1.
Implementing zoning is complex with 21 commercial, industrial, mixed use, single family and multifamily
categories. See Exhibit 2.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 5
Exhibit 1. Current Comprehensive Land Use Map
Source: City of Renton 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 6
Exhibit 2. Current Zoning Map
Source: City of Renton 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 7
4.0 CONSOLIDATION AND ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE
A second land use option under consideration is one that simplifies, consolidates and reduces the land
use designations from 12 to 6, principally by consolidating the residential high density designations,
mixed use designations, and employment areas into fewer categories. See Exhibit 3. Implementing
zoning would consist of about 19 districts. Exhibit 4 shows the resulting plan and zoning alignment in a
tabular form.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 8
Exhibit 3. Consolidation and Alignment Land Use Map
Source: City of Renton 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 9
Exhibit 4. Proposed Land Use Consolidation
Source: City of Renton 2014
5.0 SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODS
The “Right Size” alternative focuses on compatibility of current land uses and future growth.
Compatibility is reviewed based on a suitability analysis of density and critical areas, and a match of
current development to the nearest appropriate zone (bump up or down) for greater compatibility.
Additionally, based on opportunity sites (e.g. vacant and redevelopable sites), the character of adjacent
lands, and the Comprehensive Plan vision, this alternative analysis considers if some areas should be
rezoned, such as for mixed use along corridors.
The Right Size alternative is being developed through a Suitability Analysis according to the following
steps. Maps that reflect these steps are included in the Appendix.
1. Map Series A, Density Mismatch: This map series shows parcels in all single family, multifamily and
mixed use zones with a mismatch between actual, minimum and maximum densities. Using Exhibit 5
below, the maps highlight areas that are below or above in the zoning density range. In RC through
R-14 zones the approach is to determine a density at which an area could be considered for a
different zone, above or below. In the multifamily and mixed use zones, the approach is based
typically on a formula of -20% below minimum or +20% above maximum densities. Also shown on
this map series are critical areas, including wetlands, streams, and steep slopes. Areas of potential
“bump up” or “bump down” are shown with dash circles and arrows indicating the direction of the
change (↓ or ↑). Some locations are shown as an opportunity area (). Last some areas are
highlighted for review, such as RM-F areas that are above range (!).
2. Map Series B, R-8 Density Achievement and Mismatch: For the R-8 zone another map series
illustrates a color range of achieved densities: <4, 4-6, >6 units per acre, as well as areas that are
below or above the density range. This map series may show where a new R-6 zone could be an
appropriate transition from the R-4 to the R-8 zones, particularly where the existing pattern is set
and there is little infill potential that is desired. Critical areas are also shown on this map series.
Areas of potential “bump down” are shown with dash circles and an arrow (↓).
3. Map Series C, Zoning and Critical Areas. This map provides aerials, zoning districts, and critical
areas; it helps highlight building patterns.
4. Map Series D, Opportunity Maps: This set of maps shows properties with structures 40 years old on
non-single family zoned lots, as well as vacant properties in all zones. Additionally, the maps show
redevelopable parcels, consisting of multifamily, mixed use, or commercial parcels where the
building value is less than 50% of the value of the land. This map helps identify if there could be
opportunity sites or areas important for growth capacity in the future.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 11
Exhibit 5. Density Chart used for Mismatch Analysis
Zone
Minimum
Density
Maximum
Density (Net
Acre) with no
Bonuses
Achieved
Density 2007
Mid-Point
Density
Density assumed for
Compatibility Analysis
Less than or
equal to
Equal to or
Greater
RC 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0
R-1 0 1 1.3 0.5 0.3 3.0
R-4 0 4 4.5 2.0 2.0 6.0
R-8 4 8 6.6 6.0 4.0 10.0
R-10 4 10 8.4 7.0 8.0 14.0
R-14 10 14 12.3 12.0 10.0 20.0
RM-U 25 75 84.3 50.0 20.0 90.0
RM-T 14 35 29.0 24.5 11.2 42.0
RM-F 10 20 10.9 15.0 8.0 24.0
CN 0 4 8.2 2.0 2.0 6.0
CV 20 80 78.3 40.0 16.0 96.0
CA 10 60 45.0 35.0 8.0 72.0
CD 25 100 97.8 67.5 20.0 120.0
CO 30 50 53.1 40.0 24.0 60.0
COR 20 85 116.0 52.5 16.0 102.0
UC-N1 20 150 58.2 85.0 16.0 180.0
UC-N2 250 135.0 16.0 300.0
Note: In addition to the single family and multifamily zones above, Renton applies a Residential Manufactured Home Park
Zoning Designation to existing manufactured home parks, largely in the Renton Highlands. The minimum density is 5
units per acre and the maximum 10 units per acre. The City is not proposing to change its regulation of existing
manufactured home parks in this suitability analysis effort.
In addition to these map series developed for the suitability analysis, this white paper also considers a
mobility/transportation index (Map E), location of schools, trails and bikeways (Map F), and parks
including walkability (Map G).
6.0 SUITABILITY & OPPORTUNITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
As described in the Methods section, all parcels in single-family, multi-family, and mixed-use zones were
reviewed to compare actual achieved densities with established density thresholds. Properties with
achieved densities below the minimum threshold for the applicable zone were considered to be below
the density range and parcels with achieved densities above the maximum threshold for the applicable
zone were considered to be above the density range. A summary of the acreage and number of parcels
classified as below or above the range by planning area and zone is presented in Exhibit 6. The following
sections summarize current land use conditions, key issues, and recommendations.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 12
Exhibit 6. Density Mismatch By Planning Area and Zone
Count Acreage Count Acreage
Benson 864 574.87 391 61.94
CA 2 0.43 - -
R-4 142 173.28 151 17.67
R-8 618 292.66 177 19.64
R-10 2 4.29 1 1.73
R-14 92 99.42 58 9.11
RM-F 8 4.78 4 13.78
Cedar River 78 53.92 93 24.78
COR 3 2.38 - -
R-4 39 27.09 78 12.40
R-8 35 13.03 11 1.02
R-14 1 11.42 1 3.73
RC - - 3 7.62
City Center 384 77.10 235 40.82
CA 18 3.98 - -
CD 97 12.88 5 1.87
CN - - 9 1.20
R-8 95 37.07 173 18.71
R-10 - - 42 6.83
RM-F 2 0.27 3 10.62
RM-T 86 10.57 1 0.11
RM-U 84 11.44 2 1.48
UC-N1 1 0.11 - -
UC-N2 1 0.77 - -
East Plateau 198 211.70 766 97.29
CA 2 0.59 - -
R-1 5 26.49 - -
R-4 103 140.82 740 95.67
R-8 84 41.63 - -
R-10 - - 17 1.19
R-14 3 0.36 9 0.43
RM-F 1 1.81 - -
Fairwood - - 53 8.57
R-4 - - 53 8.57
Planning
Area Zone
Parcels Below Density
Range
Parcels Above Density
Range
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 13
Count Acreage Count Acreage
Highlands 714 306.94 121 66.87
CA 23 15.16 - -
CV 16 17.43 - -
R-1 1 4.29 - -
R-4 2 15.31 - -
R-8 492 196.72 50 7.75
R-10 1 1.02 40 6.87
R-14 127 42.78 1 0.17
RC - - 1 0.58
RM-F 52 14.23 29 51.50
Kennydale 388 194.90 91 13.04
CA 5 5.13 - -
CN - - 1 0.32
R-4 19 18.12 25 3.73
R-8 361 164.53 42 5.00
R-10 3 7.12 19 1.52
RC - - 4 2.47
Talbot 376 300.64 111 22.73
CN - - 1 0.25
R-1 3 22.90 - -
R-4 37 59.74 89 11.08
R-8 308 164.79 18 2.24
R-10 1 1.60 - -
R-14 27 51.61 - -
RM-F - - 3 9.17
Valley 1 11.62 0 -
RM-F 1 11.62 - -
West Hill 194 83.59 49 8.62
CA 1 0.43 - -
CN - - 2 0.31
R-8 164 64.36 37 3.94
R-10 6 11.31 6 2.14
R-14 11 5.28 - -
RM-F 12 2.20 4 2.23
Parcels Above Density
RangePlanning
Area Zone
Parcels Below Density
Range
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 14
Benson
The Benson Planning Area is predominantly residential in character, with R-8 and R-4 zoning covering
large portions of the planning area as shown in Figure C-1. Much of the property in the Benson Planning
Area is below range per Figure A-1 and Exhibit 6 especially in the R-8 zone. Achieved R-8 densities are
below the level allowed by zoning, including large contiguous areas, illustrated on Figure B-1:
A. South of SE Carr Road on the west side of 116th Avenue SE (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-1). This area
is zoned R-8 and contains a mixture of achieved densities. Several contiguous blocks exhibit
achieved densities below 4 units per acre, indicating that the R-6 or R-4 zone may be appropriate.
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: With little vacant land as shown on Figure D-1, this change
to a lower density would not affect growth capacity significantly. This area scores relatively low on
the mobility/transportation index (see Figure E). Major roads generally do not have bike lanes or
wide shoulders (see Figure F). The area is near Benson Hill Elementary School (see Figure F). Public
parks are limited with SE 186th Place Properties nearby (see Figure F), and the area is not considered
in a park pedestrian service area (Figure G).
B. East of 116th Avenue SE between SE 160th Street and SE 170th Pl (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-1). This
area is predominantly zoned R-8, but its achieved densities generally fall between 4 and 6 units per
acre. Applying a new R-6 zone may be appropriate to increase consistency with the existing land use
pattern.
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: This area has some vacant capacity and larger lots in the
area northwest of the Cascade Village Shopping Center (see Figures D-1 and B-1), and would require
some care in drawing boundaries between the R-6 and R-8 zones to recognize existing character as
well as allow for infill development as promoted in the Vision Statement. The area is near Cascade
Elementary, Cascade Park, and Tiffany Park, has pedestrian trails and is in a parks pedestrian service
area (Figures F and G). It has a low mobility/transportation index score (Figure E).
Further there are some locations of RM-F that are above range in this neighborhood with densities
ranging from 24-42 units per acre (shown with ! symbol on Figure A-1). There is also an opportunity site
(shown with a ) to create a more defined neighborhood center.
C. It may be appropriate to consider a zoning code adjustment to the density range in the RM-F zone
applicable to this and other planning areas. These multifamily areas tend to be located near
commercial centers and major roads, schools, and parks.
D. Based on past community planning efforts and redevelopable land on Figure D-1, the Cascade
Village Center with CA and RM-F zoning at 116th Avenue SE and SE Petrovisky Rd could be
considered an opportunity site for mixed use zoning to create a more robust center (see symbol
on Figure A-1).
Highlands
The Highlands Planning Area contains a mix of zoning districts, though it is primarily residential in
character. Multi-family, mixed use, commercial and light industrial zones are grouped along major road
corridors, such as NE 4th Street and NE Sunset Boulevard. R-8 zoning forms the core of the residential
areas in the Highlands, with smaller areas of R-10 and R-14 zoning located in proximity to commercial
and mixed-use nodes. While the planning area contains a large number of parcels with achieved
densities below the minimum density of the applicable zone, these are generally scattered throughout
the planning area, with few contiguous concentrations of below range properties. One notable
exception to this trend is the R-14 district in the Sunset area, where most of the residential property
does not meet the minimum density for the zone, primarily due to historic development patterns of
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 15
single family and multiplexes that often are 40 years or greater in age. Recent planning efforts in this
area are anticipated to promote the gradual conversion of housing in this area to higher densities.
The Highlands Planning Area also contains several areas of R-8 zoning where application of a new R-6
zone may be appropriate due to achieved densities in the range of 4-6 units per acre. This would
increase consistency with the existing land use pattern. As illustrated on Figure B-2, these areas include:
E. East and West of Duvall Avenue NE and south of NE 25th Place (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-2). Little
of this area is vacant and a change of zoning would not likely affect growth capacity. This area has
access to Glencoe Park and is near May Creek Park, and is in a park pedestrian area (see Appendices
F and G). A bike lane extends along Duvall Avenue NE (Figure F). It is near Sierra Heights Elementary
School. It is in a lower mobility/transportation index area (Figure E).
F. East of Union Avenue NE and south of NE 1st Place (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-2). The area is
largely developed except for a steep slope open space, and a change in zoning would not affect
growth capacity meaningfully (Figure D-2). The area has access to Heritage Park, and is in a park
pedestrian area (see Figures F and G). Wide shoulders or curb lanes are available for bicycling. This
area too is in a lower mobility/transportation index area (Figure E).
G. East of Nile Avenue NE and south of NE 2nd Street (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-2). The area is zoned
R-8 and is surrounded by lands zoned R-4. Development is clustered around open space tracts.
Because of clustering, the lots represent a mix of densities ranging from 4-10 units an acre. The R-6
zone could serve as moderate zone in the range of densities of this neighborhood and as a more
compatible zone next to R-4 zoned lands to the north, east and west. The property is located near
Maplewood Heights Elementary School and Maplewood Park (Figure F). Wider curb lanes are found
on surrounding roadways (Figure F) though no formal bike lanes are marked. This area is in a lower
mobility/transportation index area (Figure E).
As with the Benson Community Planning Area, there are some multifamily properties in the Highlands
area that are above range (about 27-67 units per acre).
H. NE Sunset Boulevard and NE 3rd Street Locations. A zoning code adjustment to the density range in
the RM-F zone could be reasonable (shown with ! symbol on Figure A-2).
A mixed use area with significant environmental constraints should also be revisited.
I. NE 4th and Duvall Avenue NE (see green dashed circle and letter “I” on Figure A-2). A review of
development patterns and densities in CA zoned property is warranted since there are some
significant wetlands and streams. The potential to achieve commercial or mixed use higher density
development appears limited given constraints. If development to the CA zone intent cannot be
achieved, alternative zones could be considered.
Talbot
The Talbot Planning Area contains predominantly residential zoning, with commercial areas and higher-
density residential concentrated along SE Carr Road. R-8 zoning makes up the bulk of residential zoning
in the planning area, and a large portion of these properties have achieved densities below the
minimum density (4 units per acre) established by the zoning district. Although below range parcels are
widespread in the Talbot Planning Area, they are often intermixed with properties performing within the
established density ranges for the applicable zone.
The planning area contains few concentrations of below range properties; however, a limited amount of
the R-8 zoning district may be appropriate for rezoning to R-6 due to achieved densities in the range of
4-6 units per acre, as illustrated on Figure B-3:
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 16
J. Talbot Hill, Benson Drive S, and Panther Creek Area (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-3). This area is
constrained by the Panther Creek wetlands on the west. Many lots were platted at a density of 4-6
units per acre and there is little vacant land that is not committed as a public open space (Figure D-
3). The area has access to Thomas Teasdale Park and Talbot Hill Elementary School (Figures F and G).
It is in a moderate mobility/transportation index area (Figure E), and in a park pedestrian access
area (Map G). This area may be more appropriately zoned R-6 or R-4.
K. West of 108th Avenue SE and South of SE 184th Lane (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-3). This area is
divided by Panther Creek, and very few properties achieve densities approaching 8 units per acre,
with most below 6 units per acre. The northern portion of this area also contains moderate slopes.
As a result, the area may more appropriately be zoned R-6 or R-4.
As with other planning areas, there is an RM-F property near S Carr Road and Benson Drive S that is
above the density range.
L. Shown with ! symbol on Figure A-3, this area ranges from 45 to 75 units per acre of achieved
density.
There are RC, R-1, R-4, R-10 and R-14 areas with steep slope and wetland environmental constraints.
M. South of SE Carr Road along Talbot Road S (see letter “M” on Figure A-3). Areas with the greatest
critical area constraints are zoned RC and R-1. The area closest to SE Carr Road appears to be within
the appropriate density ranges for the most part. Lands in the vicinity of S 55th Street appear to be
below the R-14 zone density minimum. Some fine tuning of zoning may be appropriate at the NE
corner of Talbot Road South and S 55th Street.
City Center
The City Center Planning Area contains a broad mix of zoning districts, including commercial, industrial,
residential, and mixed-use zones. Achieved densities in residential and mixed-use areas vary widely. The
R-8 and R-10 zones northeast of the Cedar River contain pockets of above range parcels, which were
studied in a prior neighborhood plan for City Center and are not identified for change.
N. The RM-T and U zone south of the BNSF rail line contains a concentration of below range properties
that could potentially be rezoned to increase compatibility (illustrated on Figure A-4). This area,
generally bounded by SR-167 on the west, I-405 on the south and east, and S 2nd Street on the
north, contains the majority of the below range properties in the City Center.
a. The RM-T and U properties south of Houser Way could be considered for R-14. (see ↓ symbol
on Figure A-4)
b. North of Houser Way S some CD properties could be considered for another multifamily zone
that is a closer match to existing density, particularly if the RM-U density range is adjusted as
described above (see ↓ symbol on Figure A-4).
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: In the CD zone, changes to redevelopable properties
(Figure D-4) should be carefully considered to avoid changes to growth capacity. The CD and RM-U
areas are in the “high opportunity” mobility/transportation index (Map E), and are in proximity to
the Burnett Linear Park (Maps F and G). Renton High School and the Performing Arts Center are in
walking distance. Walkability is high throughout the neighborhood.
Cedar River
The Cedar River Planning Area is primarily characterized by Resource Conservation zoning with limited
residential development, though several subdivisions are located adjacent to the Cedar River and SR-
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 17
169, which parallels the river through this area. As illustrated in Figure A-5, the Cedar River Planning
Area contains some properties with achieved densities below the minimum for their zoning district,
mostly concentrated in the eastern end of the planning area in the R-8 and R-4 zones. Two large
properties north of Royal Hills Drive SE, zoned R-14 and currently developed for condominiums, are also
classified as below range.
O. SR 169 at Eastern City Limits and SR 169 (see ↓ symbol on Figure B-5). A below range area that also
exhibits densities closer to R-6 lies in the eastern extent of the city limits and could be considered
for a new R-6 designation.
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: This area is built out and growth capacity would not
change; there are steep slopes abutting to the south (See Figures D-5 and B-5). The area is served by
the Cedar River trail extending along SR 169 (Map F). The area is considered to be in a high
mobility/transportation index area (see Map E).
P. Above range properties do not account for a large portion of the land in the Cedar River Planning
Area, but Figure A-5 shows a concentration of above range parcels in a subdivision on the north side
of SR-169 near Maplewood Park (see↑symbol on Figure A-5). This neighborhood is zoned R-4, and
rezoning to R-6 or R-8 may be appropriate to increase compatibility with the existing land use
pattern.
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: This area is built out and growth capacity would not
change (See Figure D-5). The area is served by the Maplewood Roadside Park, and a regional trail
extends along SR 169. It is adjacent to the Maplewood Golf Course (Figures F and G). Within the
pocket neighborhood the area is walkable, and it is considered in a high mobility/transportation
index area (Figure E).
Kennydale
The Kennydale Planning Area is primarily residential in character, featuring many older single-family
homes west of I-405 with Lake Washington views. Some commercial zoning is present in the northern
end of the planning area along I-405 and near the junction of I-405 with N 30th Street. The bulk of the
planning area consists of R-8 zoning, and achieved densities are mixed. While Kennydale contains a large
number of properties with achieved densities below the minimum for the zoning district, they are
spread across the area and often intermixed with properties that meet or exceed the density standards.
Q. The issue driving future development in the Kennydale Planning Area is the opportunity of view of
Lake Washington in residential areas north of N 28th Street and east and west of I-405 (see Figure
B-6). High property values have prompted a trend of constructing larger homes on relatively small
lots and subdividing larger lots to build as many homes as possible. This gradual transition has slowly
altered the character of the neighborhood.
Given the market attractiveness, infill could continue. Revisions to development regulations
regarding short plats may be appropriate, though no rezoning is recommended in this area.
Measures to improve compatibility include adjustments to minimum lot size, setbacks, and lot
coverage to create homes that better match long standing homes in the neighborhood.
R. There are CA zoned areas in the vicinity of streams, wetlands, and slopes (see Figure A-6 for green
dashed circle and the letter “R”) along I-405 and SE 43rd Street. A few properties are below the
density range of the CA zone. A review of uses and densities given the constraints is warranted.
Qualitative Capacity and Service Analysis: The Kennydale area is served by Gene Coulon Park and
Kennydale Beach Park, as well as a trail along Lake Washington Boulevard. The area is walkable, and it is
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 18
considered in a high mobility/transportation index area (Figure E). Kennydale Elementary and Kennydale
Lions Park lie in upper Kennydale (Figures F and G).
Valley
The Valley Planning Area is primarily zoned for industrial and commercial uses. As such, achieved
residential density in this area was not a focus of this study.
West Hill
Most of the West Hill Planning Area lies within Renton’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area. The
easternmost portion of the planning area lies within city limits and consists primarily of R-8 and R-10
zoning.
S. Much of the property zoned R-8 has not achieved the minimum density for that zone (see Figure B-
8) and could potentially be rezoned to R-6. However, it is suggested that this area be considered
more comprehensively for zoning adjustments when the full neighborhood is annexed.
T. Around Renton Avenue South at Airport Way and Rainier Avenue South, an area zoned R-10
contents steep slopes and streams; a few lots are below the density range (see Figure A-8 and green
dashed circle). A review of achievable densities in this location may be warranted given
environmental conditions. This review could be integrated into a neighborhood wide review when
the full neighborhood is annexed.
Fairwood
The Fairwood Planning Area lies almost entirely in Renton’s unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Only a
small area in the northwest corner, as illustrated in Figure A-9, lies within the current city limits. This
area is entirely zoned R-4, and most of these properties have achieved densities beyond the maximum
for that zone. However, the lot pattern indicates that many of these lots have been clustered to
preserve open space; the gross density of the entire subdivision would be lower than that of the
individual lots. No modifications to zoning in this planning area are recommended as part of this study.
East Plateau
The East Plateau Planning Area lies partially within Renton city limits and partially in the City’s
unincorporated Urban Growth Area, and most of the incorporated areas are zoned R-4 and R-8. The
development pattern in this area is heavily influenced by the prior application of King County zoning;
much of the existing development was permitted prior to annexation by Renton, and development did
not necessarily occur in a manner consistent with the City’s vision which identifies a low density
residential transition area from the more urban parts of Renton to the edge of the Urban Growth
Boundary. As a result, the East Plateau includes a number of areas, primarily in the R-4 zoning districts,
that have achieved densities above the maximum allowed by current zoning. This is symptomatic of a
larger issue of consistency between the King County zoning regulations applied in Renton’s
unincorporated Urban Growth Areas and the zoning applied within the adjacent incorporated areas. The
City’s concern is illustrated in the existing land use policy below:
Policy LU‐148. Encourage larger lot single‐family development in areas providing a
transition to the Urban Growth Boundary and King County Rural Designation. The City
should discourage more intensive platting patterns in these areas.
The City of Renton plans to continue coordination with King County in an effort to improve consistency
in the future. The East Plateau Planning Area is illustrated in Figures A-10 and B-10.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 19
7.0 “RIGHT SIZE” ZONING CODE OPTIONS
R-6 Zone
The City’s zoning scheme incudes R-1, R-4, R-8, R-10, and R-14 zones as well as multifamily zones. The
suitability analysis illustrates a large amount of lots in the 4-6 units per acre range that could fit into an
R-6 zone if created.
The use of the R-8 zone was intended to promote smaller lot single family development to help achieve
the City’s objective of a single family and multifamily balance outside of centers:
Objective H-A: Maintain a balance in the number of single-family and multi-family
housing units outside of the urban center, through adequately zoned capacity.
First time homebuyer housing stock and quality single family stock in general are important. At the
same time, community character and suitability are other factors to consider as to whether to create a
new R-6 zone. An example purpose statement for a new R-6 zone follows:
RESIDENTIAL-6 DU/ACRE (R-6):
The Residential-6 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-4) is established to
promote urban single family residential neighborhoods serviceable by urban
utilities and designed to promote connectivity, walkability, recreation, and
environmental quality. It is intended to implement the [Single Family / Residential
Medium Density] Land Use Comprehensive Plan designation. The Residential-6
Dwelling Units Per Net Acre Zone (R-6) will allow a maximum density of six (6)
dwelling units per net acre. The R-6 designation serves as a transition between
lower density residential zones and higher density residential zones, and provides
opportunities for moderate density homes. “Small lot clusters” are allowed on
sites where open space amenities are created, when superior in design and siting
than that which would normally otherwise occur, and to encourage provision of
efficient sewer services.
R-8 Zone Development Standards
In zones where infill has been successful per the City’s vision, there may be some tension in the manner
the homes have been built, such as if the lots or lot widths, building scale, or footprint of homes do not
match the predominant character of a neighborhood. Adjustments to lot sizes, lot width, and lot
coverage could be considered.
In a comparison of example standards below (Exhibit 7), the City’s allowance for 5,000 square foot lots is
similar to other agencies allowing lots from 4,700 to 5,400 square feet in size. The City could evaluate
whether to continue allowing smaller lots of 4,500 square feet in larger developments if unnecessary to
address odd shaped lots or clustering in critical areas. To customize the lot size standard, the City could
measure the average lot size in neighborhoods where character is a concern and adjust accordingly.
The City’s lot width for the R-8 zone is also similar to other agencies that allow 50 foot widths (Exhibit 8).
The City could measure the average lot width at the street in different zones and see if another
dimension is warranted.
Differences in example standards are found in lot coverage (Exhibit 9) where the City’s standard varies
from 35-50% depending on lot size and other agencies have a flat 35% or 45%.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 20
Exhibit 7. Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet
Renton
R-1: 1 acre, except 10,000 sq. ft. for cluster development.
R-4: 8,000 sq. ft., except for small lot cluster development, where R-8 standards shall apply.
R-8: 4,500 sq. ft. for parcels greater than 1 acre. 5,000 sq. ft. for parcels 1 acre or less.
Bellevue
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION R-1 R-1.8 R-2.5 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 R-7.5
Minimum Lot Area
Acres (A) or Thousands of Sq. Ft. 35 20 13.5 10 8.5 7.2 4.7
Dwelling Units per Acre 1 1.8 2.5 3.5 4 5 7.5
Bothell
R 40,000 – 40,000 sq. ft.
R 9,600 – 9,600 avg. sq. ft.; 8,400 min. sq. ft.
R 8,400 – 8,400 sq. ft.
R 7,200 – 7,200 sq. ft.
R 5,400 – 5,400 sq. ft.
Shoreline
R-4 – 7,200 sq. ft.
R-6 – 7,200 sq. ft.
R-8 – 5,000 sq. ft.
Source: Codepublishing.com and BERK 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 21
Exhibit 8. Example Lot Widths in Single Family Zones
Renton
R-1: 75 ft. for interior lots. 85 ft. for corner lots. Except for cluster development, where R-4 standards shall apply.
R-4: 70 ft. for interior lots. 80 ft. for corner lots. Except for small lot cluster development, where R-8 standards shall apply.
R-8: 50 ft. for interior lots. 60 ft. for corner lots.
Bellevue
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION R-1 R-1.8 R-2.5 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 R-7.5
Minimum Dimensions (feet)
Width of Street Frontage 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
Width Required in Lot 100 90 80 70 65 60 50
Bothell
Minimum lot circle diameter *
R 40,000 - 150
R 9,600 - 70 – 80 per BMC 12.14.030(B)(4)
R 8,400 - 70
R 7,200 - 60
R 5,400 - 50
*Each lot must be of sufficient size to fully accommodate the diameter circle … for the underlying zoning designation except as
may otherwise be permitted under an approved planned unit development, in accordance with Chapter 12.30 BMC or under
Fitzgerald/35th Avenue SE Subarea regulations in accordance with Chapter 12.52 BMC. In the R 9,600 zone, the lot circle
diameter shall be 80 feet for lots of 9,600 square feet or larger, and shall decrease proportionally with smaller lot sizes to a
minimum diameter of 70 feet for lots of 8,400 square feet. Critical areas as defined under Chapter 14.04 BMC and their
associated buffers shall not be included within the lot circle.
Shoreline
Minimum lot width
R-4 – 50 feet
R-6 – 50 feet
R-8 – 50 feet
These standards may be modified to allow zero lot line developments.
Source: Codepublishing.com and BERK 2014
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 22
Exhibit 9. Example Maximum Lot Coverages in Single Family Zones
Renton
R-1: 20%
R-4 and R-8: Lots greater than 5,000 sq. ft.: 35% or 2,500 sq. ft., whichever is greater. Lots 5,000 sq. ft. or less: 50%
Bellevue
LAND USE CLASSIFICATION R-1 R-1.8 R-2.5 R-3.5 R-4 R-5 R-7.5
Maximum Lot Coverage by Structures (percent) 35 35 35 35 35 40 40
Bothell
R 40,000: 35%
R 9,600: 35%
R 8,400: 35%
R 7,200: 35%
R 5,400: 35%
R 4000: 50%
Shoreline
R-4: 35%
R-6: 35%
R-8: 45%
Source: Codepublishing.com and BERK 2014
RM-F Zone Adjustments
The RM-F zone permits a range of densities from 10 to 20 units per acre (minimum and maximum
without bonuses). Many RM-F properties throughout the planning areas are above range at 24 or more
units per acre; this would mean the properties are nonconforming to zoning.
The density range of 10-20 units per acre is typically associated with garden apartments – typically walk
up apartments with setbacks. Densities in the upper 20 units per acre are at the point of being able to
accommodate underbuilding parking.
The City’s multifamily and mixed use densities are laid out in Exhibit 10 below and illustrate there is a
lack of multifamily zones outside of centers that allow densities in the 20-60 units per acre range; only
the CA zone allows for this level of density. The RM-F zone could be amended to allow for densities
greater than 20 units per acre if designed for compatibility with adjacent lower densities zones such as
upper story setbacks, open space amenities, etc. and if the development takes access from major roads.
It should be noted that the RM-F zone is often co-located next to CA zoning and a consistent density
range could be appropriate. A policy question is whether such densities in the RM-F zone would dilute
the effectiveness of development in the centers or would affect any potential mixed use development in
the CA zone; however the RM-F sites are largely built out and not likely to change in the near future.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 23
Exhibit 10. Range of Multifamily and Mixed Use Densities
Zone Minimum Density
Maximum Density (Net
Acre) with no Bonuses Mid-Point Density
R-14 10 14 12.0
RM-U 25 75 50.0
RM-T 14 35 24.5
RM-F 10 20 15.0
CN 0 4 2.0
CV 20 80 40.0
CA 10 60 35.0
CD 25 100 67.5
CO 30 50 40.0
COR 20 85 52.5
UC-N1 20 150 85.0
UC-N2 250 135.0
Source: Renton Municipal Code, BERK Consulting 2014
8.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA
This section evaluates each alternative according to compatibility criteria listed below and in Exhibit 11:
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Vision (see Section 2.0),
Protect natural environment features,
Recognize neighborhood character,
Ensure efficiency of services (e.g. transportation, public services), and
Maintain ability to meet growth targets/try to avoid reductions in land capacity (no net loss
approach),
Maintain a low density residential pattern along UGA boundary,
Recognize recent subarea planning efforts: Sunset Area, City Center, Benson, and others,
Allow for effective implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning.
Exhibit 11 shows a broad level of comparison of the three alternatives and the criteria. All alternatives
meet the community vision and support neighborhood plans, protect natural features, maintain a low
density pattern along the UGA boundary, and promote growth supporting efficient services. Generally
Options 2 and 3 best meet the criteria overall, with Option 2 maximizing plan implementation through
streamlining of land use and zoning categories, and Option 3 maximizing the recognition of
neighborhood character.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 24
Exhibit 11. Alternative Criteria Evaluation Matrix
Criteria 1. Current Plan 2. Consolidation & Alignment 3. Compatibility & Opportunity Notes
Consistency with
Comprehensive Plan Vision
All alternatives meet the vision for centers,
corridors, and single family infill. Option 3 improves
compatibility and quality of life.
Protect natural environment
features
All alternatives would implement critical area
regulations and apply Resource Conservation zoning
in many steep slope and stream corridors. Option 3
proposes to further reduce density near wetlands
and steep slopes in a number of neighborhoods.
Recognize neighborhood
character
Option 3 focus is on compatibility of development
with neighborhood character.
Ensure efficiency of services
(e.g. transportation, public
services)
All alternatives maintain urban growth patterns and
support capital plans.
Maintain ability to meet
growth targets
Option 3 areas of change would include areas of
increased or decreased urban densities based on
existing development patterns, and limit changes in
developable areas to avoid changes in capacity.
Maintain low density
residential pattern along UGA
boundary
All alternatives maintain a low density pattern in
eastern Renton. Option 3 further addresses a lower
density in the eastern Cedar River planning area.
Recognize recent subarea
planning efforts
All options are intended to implement recent
subarea planning efforts. Option 3 maintains plans
for North Renton and Low Density Residential on
the UGA boundary even where densities could
suggest otherwise.
Allows for effective
implementation of the plan
and zoning
Option 2 simplifies implementation of land use
designations and zoning. Option 3 more effectively
matches local character and fine tunes the zoning
code to promote compatibility.
= Improves implementation of criteria = Meets criteria = Partially meets criteria = Does not meet criteria
Options 1 and 2 would generally retain present zoning and would not affect growth capacities; see
Exhibit 12. A final evaluation of Option 3 “Right Size” alternative assesses at a gross level the potential
effect of zoning changes on growth capacity (potential additions and subtractions of growth). More
detailed analysis would be appropriate once boundaries of zoning changes are identified.
RENTON LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
SUITABILITY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGHT SIZE ALTERNATIVE
September 2, 2014 Prepared by BERK Consulting in collaboration with Renton CED 25
Exhibit 12. Option 3 Compatibility & Opportunity Potential Effect on Growth Capacity
Zone
Bump Up Effect on
Capacity Bump Down Effect on Capacity Opportunity Sites
RC -- -- --
R-1 -- -- --
R-4 Benson and Cedar River
- small, few vacant areas
-- --
R-8 -- small if drawing boundaries to
avoid larger lots & vacant areas
--
R-10 -- -- --
R-14 -- -- --
RM-U -- -moderate – if applying R-14. --
RM-T -- -- --
RM-F --
CN -- -- --
CV -- -- --
CA -- - small to moderate there are
vacant and redevelopable CA
properties though constrained
- Depending on
approach to Cascade
center
CD -- -moderate – if applying new
RM-F range.
--
CO -- -- --
COR -- -- --
UC-N1 -- -- --
UC-N2 -- -- --
= Increases capacity = Neutral capacity = Decreases capacity -- = No change
9.0 NEXT STEPS
This white paper identifies potential areas of incompatibility and areas of map or code changes to
improve compatibility and consistency, better recognizing neighborhood character.
Once the broader recommendations regarding the Right Size alternative are vetted with the Planning
Commission and City Council, more specific land use and zoning map and code changes can be
developed for consideration.
h:\ced\planning\comp plan\update\elements\land use\angie work\issue paper #6- land use (october 2014).doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 15, 2014
TO: Michael Drollinger, Planning Commission Chair
Members of the Renton Planning Commission
FROM: Angie Mathias, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element – Designation and
Zone Consolidation
ISSUE
In October 2013, staff proposed a number of consolidations of several Comprehensive
Plan designations and several zones. Staff has analyzed the proposed consolidations of
the zones and presents that analysis for review and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Continue to advance consolidations as indicated. To include: combining the UC-N1 and
UC-N2 zone, as well as the RMT and RMF zone.
DISCUSSION
There are many potential consolidations or deletions recommended to be analyzed and
reviewed, as follows:
• Rezone RMU (75 du/acre 50 feet height) to CV (80 du/acre and 50 feet height or
60 if mixed use)
• Combine UC-N1 (85 du/acre) and UC-N2 (150 or 250 du/acre) and allow 150
du/acre
• Combine CV (80 du/acre with 60 feet height) and CD (150 du/acre with 95 feet
height) zones
• Additionally, in response to the white paper by Berk and Associates titled
“Renton Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Land Use Suitability: Renton Land Use
and Zoning”, consideration of combining the RMF and RMT
Rezone RMU (75 du/acre) properties with CV (80 du/acre) zone
As shown on Attachment A, the development standards for the Residential Multi-Family
Urban (RMU) and the Center Village (CV) zone are comparable. However, the allowed
uses are too disparate to recommend rezoning. For example, fast food restaurants,
taverns, dance clubs and halls, as well as hotels are allowed in the CV zone, but not
RMU. The RMU zone allows very limited commercial uses and also limits most of them
to being located along South 7th Street.
Michael Drollinger
Page 2 of 3
October 15, 2014
Combine UC-N1 (85 du/acre) and UC-N2 (150 or 250 du/acre) and allow 150 du/acre
The development standards for these two zones are comparable, except that north of
North 8th Street allows for significantly more density. The Urban Center North 1 (UC-N1)
allows 85 du/acre, unless the ground floor is commercial, then 150 du/acre is allowed.
The Urban Center North 2 (UC-N2) zone covers generally Boeing properties and
Southport. The apartments at Southport (called Bristol I and II) have been built to 84
du/acre and 52 du/acre. It is not anticipated that the Boeing properties will redevelop
with mixed-use or multi-family in the next twenty years. Therefore, amending the
density in the UC-N2 to match the density of the UC-N1 will not impact the existing and
anticipated development. Staff recommends consolidating the UC-N1 and UC-N2 to just
be the Urban Center zone, with the density matching that of the current UC-N1 zone (85
du/acre, unless the ground floor is commercial, then 150 du/acre).
In regards to allowed uses in the two zones, they are very similar. There are some uses
that are not allowed in the UC-N2, but are in the UC-N1. As shown on Attachment B, it
is recommended that trade or vocational schools, veterinary offices, big box retail, and
fast food restaurants be allowed, but with the requirement that they have the same
conditions placed on them as they have in the UC-N1 zone. For example, big box retail
must function as an anchor to an integrated and cohesive center. Veterinary offices and
fast food must be functionally and architecturally integrated into the overall
development, however a freestanding building may be permitted if it is larger than
5,000 square feet.
Combine CV (80 du/acre) and CD (150 du/acre) zones
A comparison of these two zones indicates that they are each uniquely crafted for
specific areas and that consolidation isn’t practical. The Center Village (CV) zone was
created with the intent of helping a suburbanized area become more urban. For
example, encouraging strip malls to redevelop into multi-story structures. However, the
zone also tries to fit into the context of the surrounding suburban development. So, as
shown on Attachment C, the maximum lot coverage is 65% or 75% if it includes
structured parking. In contrast, the Center Downtown (CD) zone is intended for a very
urbanized area and allows 100% lot coverage. There are also allowed land uses that
would be challenging to reconcile into a single zone. The CV zone does not allow adult
entertainment businesses, bed and breakfast houses, or commercial and/or public
surface parking, but the CD zone does. The CD zone does not allow vehicle fueling
stations or small vehicle service and repair, but the CV zone does.
Combining the RMF (20 du/acre) and RMT (35 du/acre) zone
The only place in the City that is zoned Residential Multi-Family Traditional (RMT) is in
South Renton and with the anticipated rezone of South Renton it makes it very likely
that essentially this zone can simply be deleted. However, given the analysis in the Berk
and Associates white paper it is appropriate to increase the maximum density of the
Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone to 35 du/acre that is the same as the existing
Michael Drollinger
Page 3 of 3
October 15, 2014
density of the RMT zone. The Berk analysis indicates that there are many existing
apartment complexes scattered throughout the city that are more in line with 35
du/acre. As indicated on Attachment D, it is proposed that the standards of the RMF
zone be maintained. However, it is also recommended that the standard for the side
yard setback be simplified. If the City does not rezone the existing RMT in South
Renton to an existing alternate zone, such as R-14, then it may not be as feasible to
combine the RMT and RMF zones.
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT A
CV RMU
Key or Conflicting Development Regulations
Design District “D” “A”
Max density 80 du/acre 75 du/acre
Max height 50 ft, 60 ft if ground floor commercial 50 ft
Max lot coverage 65%, or 75% if structured parking 75%
Minimum lot size 25,000 sq ft, if created after 2004 n/a
Min front yard 10 ft, may be reduced to 0 ft 5 ft
Max front yard 15 ft n/a
Min side yard 0 ft, except 15 ft if abutting residential zone(includes
R-14)
Lot width: less than or equal to 50 ft. – Yard setback: 5 ft.
Lot width: 50.1 to 60 ft. – Yard setback: 6 ft.
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.
If greater than 30 ft. in elevation: Entire structure shall be
set back an additional 1 ft. for each 10 ft. in excess of 30 ft.
to a maximum cumulative setback of 20 ft.
If abutting Single Family Residential Zone (not including R-
14): 25 ft. along the abutting side(s) of the property.
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT A
Min side yard along street 10 ft, may be reduced to 0 ft If lot is 50 ft or less: 10 ft.
If lot is over 50 ft: 20 ft.
Min rear yard 0 ft, except 15 ft if abutting residential zone
(including R-14)
5 ft, except 25 ft if abutting residential zone (not including
R-14)
Required location for
parking n/a
Conflicting Land Uses
Land Use Condition Condition
Home agriculture Not allowed AC n/a
Beekeeping Not allowed AC n/a
Attached dwellings P
Garden style apartments not allowed. If on
Sunset and east of Harrington, must have 75% of
frontage as commercial
P n/a
Congregate residence P n/a Not allowed
Group home II for 7 or
more P n/a H n/a
Schools/studios, arts and
crafts P n/a Not allowed
Cemetery P n/a
Conference center H n/a Not allowed
Medical and dental offices P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
Offices, general P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
Veterinary offices P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
Adult retail P Subject to adult entertainment regulations Not allowed
Drive in/through, retail AC Only if financial institution or multi-story
building Not allowed
Eating and drinking
establishments P n/a P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT A
Fast food restaurant P No drive through window allowed Not allowed
Horticultural nurseries,
existing Not allowed AD
Retail sales P n/a AD
Retail sales, outdoor P Limited to farmer’s markets, building,
hardware and garden retail sales Not allowed
Taverns AD Not allowed
Adult entertainment
business Not allowed Not allowed
Cultural facilities H n/a AD n/a
Movie Theaters AD n/a Not allowed
Dance clubs AD n/a Not allowed
Dance halls AD n/a Not allowed
Recreational facilities,
indoor, existing P n/a Not allowed
Recreational facilities,
indoor, new p Not allowed
Bed and breakfast house,
accessory Not allowed AD n/a
Bed and breakfast house,
professional Not allowed AD n/a
Motel P n/a Not allowed
Hotel P n/a Not allowed
Off-site services Not allowed P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
On-site services P Only along S. 7th and on ground floor of residential
mixed use project
Drive-in/drive-through
service AC Only if financial institution or multi-story
building Not allowed
Adult day care I P n/a AC n/a
Adult day care II P n/a H n/a
Day care center P n/a H When accessory to public or community facility
Convalescent centers P n/a H n/a
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT A
Parking garage,
structured, commercial or
public
P n/a Not allowed
Park and ride, dedicated P Must be structured Not allowed
Park and ride, shared use P Must be structured P n/a
Taxi stand P n/a Not allowed
Transit centers P n/a Not allowed
Vehicle fueling stations P n/a Not allowed
Vehicle fueling stations,
existing legal P n/a Not allowed
Vehicle services and
repair, small AD Must be entirely within a structure, vehicle
storage not allowed Not allowed
Indoor storage AC Limited to products related to retail, service,
or office uses and not visible to public Not allowed
Laboratories: light
manufacturing AD n/a Not allowed
Laboratories: research,
development, and testing H n/a Not allowed
Recycling collection
station P n/a Not allowed
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT B
UCN1 UCN2 Consolidated Zone - UC
Key or Conflicting Development Regulations
Design District “C” “C” “C”
Max Density 85 du/acre
(150 du/acre if ground floor commercial)
North of N 8th St: 250 du/acre
South of N 8th St: 150 du/acre
85 du/acre
(150 du/acre if ground floor commercial)
Max height
10 stories along primary and secondary
arterials
6 stories along residential/minor
collectors
Townhouses only: 3 stories
10 stories along primary and secondary
arterials
6 stories along residential/minor
collectors
10 stories along primary and secondary
arterials
6 stories along residential/minor collectors
Townhouses only: 3 stories
Conflicting Land Uses
Land Use Condition Condition
Attached dwellings P Ground floor must be commercial P Ground floor must be commercial,
unless entire block is residential P Ground floor must be commercial,
unless entire block is residential
Assisted Living P Only west of Park Ave and south of
N. 8th P Ground floor must be commercial,
unless entire block is residential P n/a
Other higher
education
institution
P n/a H Ground floor must be commercial P n/a
Trade or vocational
school H
Must be north of N. 8th and mixed
use. Limited to training related to
research and development, arts,
computer science, business, culinary
arts, medical, and/or other
knowledge based industry
Not allowed H
Must be north of N. 8th and east of
Logan Ave N and mixed use. Limited to
training related to research and
development, arts, computer science,
business, culinary arts, medical, and/or
other knowledge based industry
Service and social
organization H
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
H n/a H
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Conference center P n/a P If north of N 8th, must be mixed use
and have ground floor commercial P Must be mixed use and have ground
floor commercial
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT B
Medical and dental
offices P n/a P
Must be mixed use and if oriented
to pedestrian street, must have
ground floor commercial
P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Offices, general P n/a P If oriented to pedestrian street,
must have ground floor commercial P If oriented to pedestrian street, must
have ground floor commercial
Veterinary offices P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
Not allowed
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Big box retail P
Must function as anchor as part of
integrated and cohesive center. If
on Park Ave, must have entry on
Park Ave
Not allowed P
Must function as anchor as part of
integrated and cohesive center. If on
Park Ave, must have entry on Park Ave
Drive in/through,
retail AC
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
AC n/a AC
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Eating and drinking
establishments P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Fast food restaurant P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
Not allowed P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Horticultural
nursery, existing AD n/a Not allowed Not allowed
Taverns P
Multi-story stand alone retail
greater than 75,000 sq ft, must have
structured parking. No freestanding
structure smaller than 5,000 sq ft is
allowed, unless integrated into
center or mixed use.
P Must be mixed use P
Multi-story stand alone retail greater
than 75,000 sq ft, must have structured
parking. No freestanding structure
smaller than 5,000 sq ft is allowed,
unless integrated into center or mixed
use.
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT B
Movie Theaters P
No freestanding, unless
architecturally and functionally
integrated
P Must be mixed use P No freestanding, unless architecturally
and functionally integrated
Sports arenas,
auditoriums,
exhibition halls,
indoor
H n/a H If oriented to pedestrian street,
must have ground floor commercial H If oriented to pedestrian street, must
have ground floor commercial
Recreational
facilities, indoor,
new
H n/a H If oriented to pedestrian street,
must have ground floor commercial H If oriented to pedestrian street, must
have ground floor commercial
Marinas Not allowed H n/a H n/a
Recreational
facilities, indoor,
existing
P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Recreational
facilities, indoor,
new
P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Hotel P n/a P If oriented to pedestrian street,
must have ground floor commercial P If oriented to pedestrian street, must
have ground floor commercial
On-site services P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P If north of N 8th, must be mixed use
and have ground floor commercial P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Drive in/through
service AC
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
AC n/a AC
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Adult day care I P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT B
Adult day care II P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Day care centers P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into
overall development. Freestanding
may be permitted if larger than
5,000 sq ft
P Must be mixed use P
Must be functionally and
architecturally integrated into overall
development. Freestanding may be
permitted if larger than 5,000 sq ft
Parking garage,
structured,
commercial or
public
P n/a P If oriented to pedestrian street,
must have ground floor commercial P If oriented to pedestrian street, must
have ground floor commercial
Park and ride
dedicated P Must be structured parking Not allowed Must be structured parking and located
south of xxx Avenue
Airplane
manufacturing Not allowed P n/a P Must be located west of Logan Avenue
North and east of the Cedar River
Airplane
manufacturing,
accessory
Not allowed P n/a P Must be located west of Logan Avenue
North and east of the Cedar River
Helipads Not allowed P ** Wrong footnote -Only in
Employment Area Valley P Must be located west of Logan Avenue
North and east of the Cedar River
Helipads,
commercial Not allowed P n/a P Must be located west of Logan Avenue
North and east of the Cedar River
Laboratories: light
manufacturing P n/a P
Limited to airplane manufacturing,
biotechnology, life science,
information technology, or other
high tech industry. Must be mixed
use if not airplane manufacturing
P
Limited to airplane manufacturing,
biotechnology, life science, information
technology, or other high tech industry.
Must be mixed use if not airplane
manufacturing
Laboratories:
research,
development and
testing
P n/a P
Limited to airplane manufacturing,
biotechnology, life science,
information technology, or other
high tech industry. Must be mixed
use if not airplane manufacturing
P
Limited to airplane manufacturing,
biotechnology, life science, information
technology, or other high tech industry.
Must be mixed use if not airplane
manufacturing
Manufacturing and
fabrication, light P n/a Not allowed ?
2 properties with light manufacturing.
New line in use table “Existing light
manufacturing”?
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT C
CV CD
Key or Conflicting Development Regulations
Design District “D” “A”
Max density 80 du/acre 100 du/acre (150 with Admin Conditional Use)
Max height 50 ft, 60 ft if ground floor commercial 95 ft
Max height when abutting
a lot designated as
residential
n/a 20 ft more than the max height in the abutting residential
zone
Max lot coverage 65%, or 75% if structured parking none
Minimum lot size 25,000 sq ft, if created after 2004 none
Min front yard 10 ft, may be reduced to 0 ft 0 ft
Max front yard 15 ft 15 ft
Min side yard 0 ft, except 15 ft if abutting residential zone 0 ft
Min side yard along street 10 ft, may be reduced to 0 ft 0 ft
Max side yard along
street 10 ft, may be reduced to 0 ft 15 ft. – for buildings 25 ft. or less in height.
None – for that portion of a building over 25 ft. in height.
Min rear yard 0 ft, except 15 ft if abutting residential zone
0 ft, except if abutting residential zone either 15 ft
landscaped strip or 5 ft site obscuring landscape strip and
solid 6 ft barrier along common boundary
Required location for
parking n/a Must be in rear yard with access taken from alley
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT C
Conflicting Land Uses
Land Use Condition Condition
Attached dwellings P
Garden style apartments not allowed. If on
Sunset and east of Harrington, must have 75% of
frontage as commercial
P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Assisted Living P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Adult family home P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Congregate residence P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Group Home I Not allowed H Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Group home II for 6 or
less P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Group home II for 7 or
more P n/a H Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Cemetery Not allowed H n/a
Conference center H n/a P n/a
Medical and dental offices P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P n/a
Offices, general P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P n/a
Veterinary offices P In CV zone, no office and conference uses if on
Edmonds Ave. P n/a
Horticultural nurseries,
existing Not allowed AD n/a
Adult entertainment
business Not allowed P Subject to adult retail and entertainment
regulations and standards
Movie Theaters AD n/a P n/a
Sports arenas,
auditoriums, exhibition Not allowed P n/a
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT C
halls, indoor
Recreational facilities,
indoor, new P n/a P Must be mixed use
Bed and breakfast house,
accessory Not allowed P n/a
Bed and breakfast house,
professional Not allowed P n/a
Motel P n/a Not allowed
Convalescent centers P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Parking garage,
structured, commercial or
public
P n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Parking, surface,
commercial or public Not allowed P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Taxi stand P n/a AD n/a
Vehicle fueling stations P n/a Not allowed
Vehicle fueling stations,
existing legal P n/a Not allowed
Vehicle services and
repair, small AD Must be entirely within a structure, vehicle
storage not allowed Not allowed
Commercial laundries,
existing Not allowed P
Laboratories: light
manufacturing AD n/a P Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
Laboratories: research,
development, and testing H n/a AD Not on ground floor in the “Downtown Pedestrian
Dist.”
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT D
RMF RMT RMF (new)
Key or Conflicting Development Regulations
Design District “B” “B” “B”
Max Density 20 du/acre 35 du/acre 35 du/acre
Max height 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft
Min lot width 50 ft 14 ft. 50 ft
Min front yard 20 ft 5 ft. 20 ft
Min side yard
Lot width: less than or equal to 50 ft.
– Yard setback: 5 ft.
Lot width: 50.1 to 60 ft. – Yard
setback: 6 ft.
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.
3 ft. for unattached side 10 ft
Min side yard along a
street 20 ft. If lot is 50 ft or less: 10 ft.
If lot is over 50 ft: 20 ft. 20 ft
Min rear yard 15 ft 5 ft 15 ft
Max building coverage 35% (45% with Hearing examiner site
plan review) 75% 35% (45% with Hearing examiner site
plan review)
Max impervious surface
area 75% 85% 75%
[Type text] [Type text] ATTACHMENT D
Conflicting Land Uses
Land Use Condition
No land use concerns or conflicts
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 1
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
Level of Service Options Phase 1 Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Renton is undertaking its Comprehensive Plan Update and desires to update and streamline
its Transportation Element. Initiatives to be integrated into the Element include, but are not limited to,
the City’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program, the 2011 Rate Study for Impact Fees that
addresses the 2030 horizon and associated projects, and the City’s trails and bicycle plans. The City
anticipates the Element will reflect the new horizon year of 2035.
In addition to ensuring the Element meets Growth Management Act (GMA) and Puget Sound Regional
Council’s (PSRC’s) requirements in order to be certified, the Element may address a new level of service
(LOS) policy and concurrency approach.
Current LOS and Challenges: The City’s current LOS policy is a multimodal travel time index as described
in the current Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. However, implementation of the travel time
index is difficult since it requires field measurement to verify the travel times of multiple modes on
major routes. As a result, the City has developed a process-oriented concurrency code with LOS
measurement details in a director’s rule. The code and director’s rule endeavor to provide practical
application to development projects; the director’s rule estimates the number of trips supported by
Transportation Element roadway improvements and provides a ratio considering how much the City is
investing in the roadway system over time. On top of these measures the City applies its SEPA authority
to address specific impacts of development. The net effect is a LOS concurrency system that is: A)
complex and less transparent, since details are in a director’s rule or applied on a case by case basis
through SEPA, and B) roadway-oriented rather than multimodal in nature, since the concurrency test
addresses vehicular trips and roadway investments only. Thus, the City desires to consider other
multimodal LOS and concurrency systems in its 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
Objectives for an Updated LOS: that addresses aTo overcome current challenges, the City desires an
updated LOS and concurrency system that is more straightforward and cost effective, while addressing
transportation concerns at three levels: A) citywide, LOS methoddemonstrating the plan as a whole
meets the City’s desired LOS, B) subarea LOS standards, reflecting different neighborhood characteristics
and growth levels, and C) project level, conditions (e.g. providing direction on mitigation and frontage
improvements). Overall, the City’s objectives are that the LOS and concurrency system:
1. Be defensible and meet requirements of GMA
2. Be meaningful to measure transportation system versus development
3. Be simple to explain
4. Be simple and cost efficient to implement and monitor
5. Incorporate other travel modes
6. Be receptive to various transportation demand management (TDM) and parking
strategies
7. Consider the potential for different standards for different parts of the City
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 2
8. Help fund/implement multimodal transportation improvements
9. Provide a basis for interjurisdictional coordination on transportation
Based on the City’s new forecasted 2035 land use to match 2035 projections and PSRC’s growth
distribution (VISION 2040), the LOS, transportation projects, and resulting impact fees may change.
Further, depending on the level of service policy approaches, the concurrency management system may
change.
The purpose of this summary is to identify the City’s level of service and concurrency program objectives
going forward, document the City’s existing LOS approach and test it with the new objectives, and
identify options and a framework for a proposed LOS and concurrency program that could improve the
City’s practices and obtain greater alignment between the City’s desired land use plan and supporting
transportation plan, as well as be more understandable for the public and efficient to administer.
2.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
One of the first steps in evaluating potential revisions to the City’s existing level of service (LOS)
standards and transportation concurrency program is to define the program objectives. That is, what
does the City want to accomplish with the program? Understanding the desired outcomes of the
program are used to help in defining the types of data and analyses that may be required, the travel
modes that will be included, the geographic coverage, and the level of staff resources that may be
required for implementing the program.
To define the objectives of the LOS/concurrency program, City staff provided input on the overall policy
direction for the City’s transportation system as well as the City’s existing LOS/concurrency program. In
addition, concurrency programs and objectives from the other agencies were reviewed with City staff to
get input on what elements of those programs might be important to the City of Renton. Based on the
issues with the City’s existing program and elements of other agency programs, a draft list of program
objectives was assembled to guide the review of the City’s existing concurrency program and
development review processes. The objectives also were used to help guide discussion and
development of a framework for revising the City’s LOS standards and concurrency program.
Table Exhibit 2-.1 summarizes the resulting draft program objectives which are used in evaluating the
City’s existing LOS/concurrency program and defining a proposed program for the City. The proposed
program would be developed as part of the City’s update of the Transportation Element of its
Comprehensive Plan. While the draft objectives will likely be refined and possibly prioritized as the
proposed program is developed, they provide a framework for discussion and comparing options at this
initial stage. This will set the framework for the future work tasks.
As shown in ExhibitTable 2-.1, the objectives for the City of Renton transportation level of service
standards and concurrency program focus on:
• Meeting the intent of GMA to help assure transportation facilities keep pace with development
• Being simple to explain and cost effective to implement
• Reflects the availability of other travel modes and supports the City’s land use plan in order to help
reduce travel in the City by automobile.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 3
Exhibit 2-1:
Draft LOS/Concurrency Program Objectives
Program Objective Description Discussion
1. Be defensible and meet
requirements of GMA
GMA establishes requirements
for establishing level of services
standards 1 and transportation
concurrency that requires denial
of development projects if
adequate transportation facilities
and services are not available
within six-years. 2
As a minimum, the City must set
LOS standards and
adopt/implement a
transportation concurrency
management program to comply
with state law. GMA does not
establish how the standards are
set.
2. Be meaningful to measure
transportation system versus
development
The concurrency program and
associated development review
process should be able to be used
to determine if the transportation
system is adequate to
accommodate each development
applications.
Some communities have
developed transportation level of
service standards and
concurrency programs that
effectively result in all new
developments being concurrent;
these agencies typically rely more
heavily on SEPA to mitigate
transportation impacts of
developments.
3. Be simple to explain The City wants the community
(residents, business owners,
property owners, developers,
elected officials, etc.) to be
readily able to understand how
the potential transportation
impacts of new developments are
being evaluated to reduce
confusion.
4. Be simple and cost efficient to
implement and monitor
The City wants to simplify the
operation of its concurrency
program to improve efficiency,
reduce staff time, and make it
simpler for a development
applicant to determine if it can
meet concurrency in advance of
preparing and submitting a full
application.
Concurrency programs can
become very technical and
require extensive staff and
developer resources to
determine if an application
passes or not. The City does not
want to spend a significant level
of staff resources or funds which
could otherwise be used to
improve the transportation
system.
Monitoring of the transportation
system can help assure that
transportation improvements can
be funded and constructed to
meet the system needs.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 4
Program Objective Description Discussion
5. Incorporate other travel modes The concurrency program and
level of service standard should
include a range of travel modes.
The City would like the
concurrency program to help
complete its multimodal
transportation system to support
it land use plans.
The City’s Transportation Element
and other policies support
development of pedestrian,
bicycle, transit facilities and
services to provide alternatives to
automobiles and to support the
mixed-use, transit supportive,
and higher density land uses per
its Comprehensive Plan.
6. Be receptive to various
transportation demand
management (TDM) and parking
strategies
The level of service standards and
concurrency program should take
into account the ability of a
development (and overall
community) to reduce the
volume of automobile traffic
through programs to increase use
of ridesharing (carpools,
vanpools), parking policies, and
other transportation demand
management programs (such as
flexible work schedules,
telecommuting, bicycle racks,
locker rooms at employer
locations, etc.).
The City has an adopted
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
program and other TDM program
policies to reduce the number of
single-occupant vehicles on City
roadways. The concurrency
program should be able to reflect
the success (or non-success) of
those policies.
7. Consider the pPotential for
different standards for different
parts of the City
The concurrency program and
level of service standards should
reflect different types and density
of development and availability
of transportation services.
Transportation services and land
uses are very different in
different subareas of the City.
The City Center area is targeted
for mixed-use, transit oriented
development and extensive
increases in transit service and
pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
this compares to the East Hill and
Fairwood areas that are more
suburban in nature with lower
density single-family housing
development, neighborhood
commercial areas, and lower
levels of transit service. The
concurrency program should
reflect those differences.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 5
Program Objective Description Discussion
8. Help fund/implement
multimodal transportation
improvements
Concurrency can provide a nexus
between potential traffic impacts
and transportation system facility
and service needs. The City
desires a concurrency program
that can allow developments to
help fund the needed multimodal
transportation improvements to
achieve the community’s vision.
Development mitigation
programs are typically
implemented through GMA
Transportation Impact Fee
program and SEPA review
processes. The programs need to
work together to assure that they
meet the legal requirements and
ensure that the programs do not
require mitigation for the same
impacts.
9. Provides a basis for
interjurisdictional coordination
on transportation
The City of Renton has worked
with King County and regional
partners to define its urban
growth area (UGA) and potential
annexation areas (PAA). The City
would like its concurrency
program to provide a basis for
coordination and cooperation in
defining potential transportation
impacts across jurisdictional
boundaries.
Transportation facilities and
services cross jurisdictional
boundaries – traffic due to
growth in Renton will impact
adjacent cities and
unincorporated areas of King
County as well as state highways
and transit providers. Similarly,
growth in other communities can
impact transportation facilities
and services in Renton.
Depending on the LOS standards
and programs, the various
agencies may be able to agree on
how to help address those
impacts to help meet the basic
tenants of concurrency.
1. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a)(iii)(B)
2. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b)
3.0 CITY’S EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY
PROGRAM
The City of Renton’s current level of service and concurrency program includes the following elements:
1. A plan level adopted level of service (LOS) in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (travel
time index).
2. A project-level concurrency process in RMC 4-6-070 Transportation Concurrency Requirements and
referenced Director’s Rule.
3. Use of the SEPA process to determine development impacts and needed mitigation measures based
on intersection LOS measures.
Adopted Level of Service
The City has adopted a multimodal travel time index which is the sum of the average 30-minute travel
distance for single occupancy vehicles (SOV), high occupancy vehicles (HOV), and transit. The City
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 6
established the index in its 1995 plan and updated it in 2002. The distance was measured in field on key
arterials. The 1995 index was 49 miles. The 2002 index was 42 miles.
A Citywide 2022 Level of Service standard has been developed for the City of Renton. The following
demonstrates how Renton’s LOS policy was used to arrive at the 2022 LOS standard.
Exhibit 2. 2002 Measured Travel Time by Mode
2002 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions
SOV HOV 2 times Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Index
16.6 miles 18.7 miles 6.8 miles 42*
* Rounded
The LOS index measured in 2002 is the basis for the City’s LOS policy, except that the City’s modal split is
weighted more towards transit and less to SOV as shown below. Per the Comprehensive Plan, this
standard will require that the travel time of SOV (15) + HOV (17) + 2 T (10) or the sum of these three
modes (42) must be maintained in the year 2022 and intervening years.
Exhibit 3. 2022 Travel Time Index LOS
2022 Average PM peak travel distance in 30-minutes from the City in all directions
SOV HOV 2 times Transit
(includes access time)
LOS
Standard
15* miles 17* miles 10* miles 42
* Rounded
Transportation Concurrency Code
The City has an adopted transportation concurrency process based on the City’s travel time index.1 The
concurrency test is defined as a review to determine if the system has capacity.
4-6-070 (B) 8. Transportation Concurrency Test: Technical review of a development
activity permit application by the Department to determine if the transportation system
has adequate or unused or uncommitted capacity, or will have adequate capacity, to
accommodate trips generated by the proposed development, without causing the level
of service standards to decline below the adopted standards, at the time of development
or within six (6) years
The test is applied to non-exempt development. Exemptions include development exempt from SEPA
and short plats. Because the City cannot practically rerun the travel time index for each development
application, the City’s process references rules and procedures established by the Department of
Community and Economic Development:
4-6-070 (D) 1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department
for each nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine
consistency with the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency
1 The code references the original index of 49 miles, though it indicates the reader should consult the
Transportation Element for more information.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 7
Management System established in the Transportation Element of the Renton
Comprehensive Plan, according to rules and procedures established by the Department.
The Department shall issue an initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of
the concurrency test.
2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity
permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of
the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the
decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits
required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to
the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the
application and development permit.
3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project
fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker
with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit
application.
Based on a long-standing rules and procedures, the concurrency test consists of determining the
number of trips supported by the Comprehensive Plan and creating a trip bank to which a project’s trips
are subtracted, as well as a review of the rate the City is investing in the system to show movement
towards the plan. The 2013 summary is presented in the Exhibit below. While the concurrency test is
directly related to the transportation plan that was developed based on the City’s proposed land use
and travel demand model and determining proposals to reduce congestion, the linkage to the
multimodal LOS is indirect.
Exhibit 4. 2014 Trip Availability
Column Description
1 Year of Consideration.
2 Estimated trips for the year of consideration, based on current Comp. Plan.
3 Tracked trips for the year of consideration
4 Running total of baseline year trips + tracked trips since baseline year.
5 Ratio of column 4 to column 2, showing % of trips accounted for in Comp. Plan which have been realized.
6 Estimated expenditures for 20 year transportation program (Comp. Plan & Mitigation Document).
7 Running total of planned expenditures since base year.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Year
Estimated Trips:
Comp. Plan
Actual Trips
Added this
Year
Actual Trips,
Running Total
Ratio A:
Actual Trips/
Planned Trips
Estimated
Required
Expenditure
Total Est.
Expenditure
Actual
(Planned)
Expenditure
Total Actual
Expenditure
Ratio B:
Actual Expd./
Planned Expd.
Ratio B
exceeds
Ratio A?
1997 500,292 (baseyear)500,292 1.00 7,178,882 7,178,882 9,130,933 9,130,933 1.27 Y
1998 510,698 13,310 513,602 1.01 7,466,037 14,644,919 9,710,995 18,841,928 1.29 Y
1999 521,321 8,609 522,211 1.00 7,764,679 22,409,598 6,339,498 25,181,426 1.12 Y
2000 532,164 8,871 531,082 1.00 8,075,266 30,484,864 5,207,795 30,389,221 1.00 Y
2001 543,233 5,712 536,794 0.99 8,398,277 38,883,141 8,352,610 38,741,831 1.00 Y
2002 554,532 10,555 547,349 0.99 8,734,208 47,617,348 4,779,559 43,521,390 0.91 N
2003 566,067 5,331 552,680 0.98 9,083,576 56,700,924 4,262,358 47,783,748 0.84 N
2004 577,841 14,430 567,110 0.98 9,446,919 66,147,843 5,280,288 53,064,036 0.80 N
2005 589,860 6,984 574,094 0.97 9,824,796 75,972,639 7,300,791 60,364,827 0.79 N
2006 602,129 6,683 580,777 0.96 10,217,788 86,190,427 17,810,470 78,175,297 0.91 N
2007 614,653 13,918 594,695 0.97 10,626,499 96,816,926 20,973,591 99,148,888 1.02 Y
2008 627,438 7,480 602,175 0.96 11,051,559 107,868,485 29,828,671 128,977,559 1.20 Y
2009 640,489 2,542 604,717 0.94 11,493,621 119,362,107 21,610,826 150,588,385 1.26 Y
2010 653,811 2,018 606,735 0.93 11,953,366 131,315,473 16,804,513 167,392,898 1.27 Y
2011 667,410 2,207 608,942 0.91 12,431,501 143,746,974 13,266,725 180,659,623 1.26 Y
2012 681,292 1,062 610,004 0.90 12,928,761 156,675,735 12,824,800 193,484,423 1.23 Y
2013 695,463 2,927 612,931 0.88 13,445,911 170,121,646 27,333,300 220,817,723 1.30 Y
2014 709,929
2014 Trip Availabiliity 96,998
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 8
8 Actual tracked (or predicted) transportation expenditures.
9 Running total of actual expenditures since base year.
10 Ratio of column 9 to column 7, showing % of planned expenditures to date which have been realized.
11 Annual test result. Yes=Pass.
SEPA – Based LOS Measures
The plan level LOS helps formulate the long-term 20-year transportation plan and promotes a transition
to greater use of multiple modes. The project-level concurrency process ensures that development will
be consistent with the long-term plan. The City has found a gap in these two processes in terms of
determining local operational impacts and mitigation, and therefore has relied on the SEPA process to
fill that gap. Practically speaking the City has used intersection LOS D for most of the City in defining
impacts (e.g. Renton Sunset), and LOS E in the more developed centers of the City (Downtown-Urban
Center, Southport). The purpose of this is explained in the excerpt from the Renton Sunset Area Planned
Action EIS (2011):
The City does not apply a letter-grade LOS threshold standard to individual intersection
operations. Instead, the City uses a complex travel-time index system to assess traffic
operations. This travel-time system measures the distance (in miles) that various modes
can travel in 30 minutes within and through the city. Travel distances for single-occupant
vehicles, high-occupancy vehicles, and transit are summed when developing the travel-
time index. Transit distances are given double weighting to recognize the passenger-
capacity advantages.
… Corridors or routes not expected to meet this travel-distance index could then be
considered for mitigation or improvement.
Travel routes between study intersections are short (less than 1 mile), and would not
produce travel times that could be compared with the City’s current LOS methodology.
Therefore, a mobility standard for local study intersections (that are not located on NE
Sunset Boulevard) was developed through discussions with the City for the purposes of
this Draft EIS. For urban core areas, where congestion or long delays are common, an
LOS E threshold is appropriate. Because the traffic study area is typically represented by
lower volumes and less congestion than an urban core, an LOS D threshold is
appropriate.
The City reviews projects subject to SEPA with either a LOS D or E intersection threshold and defines
improvements necessitated by the development that are not in the City’s transportation plan, nor
accommodated by impact fees.
A subarea-level version of this has occurred through the preparation of Planned Action Environmental
impact Statements that study neighborhoods or master planned sites, estimates future growth,
identifies needed subarea transportation improvements, develops a trip bank, and allows future
development consistent with the Planned Action Ordinance to avoid additional analysis if they are
within the trip bank and other parameters of the ordinance. A similar process has been applied to three
planned actions: Southport, Boeing Landing, and Renton Sunset Area. Below is the example trip bank
from the Renton Sunset Planned Action Ordinance – based on a review of the transportation system and
a LOS D threshold some additional growth was tested and improvements identified assuming this level
of net trips on the system:
Transportation - Trip Ranges and Thresholds. The number of new PM Peak Hour Trips
anticipated in the Planned Action area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows:
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 9
Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips*
2006 2,082 trips
2030 Alternative 3 / Reevaluation
Alternative
5,555 trips
2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips
Net increase from 2006 -> 2030
Alternative 3 / Reevaluation
Alternative
3,473 trips
Net increase from 2006 -> 2030
Preferred Alternative
3,304 trips
*all P.M. peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs
containing the study area
Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require
additional SEPA review.
We would interpret that all applicable regulations apply and that the planned action trip bank would be
met in addition to the citywide concurrency test.
Existing System and Concurrency Program Objectives
The current system is evaluated based on the objectives below:
1. Be defensible and meet requirements of GMA: The City has adopted a LOS and a concurrency
process.
2. Be meaningful to measure transportation system versus development: The City’s plan level based
concurrency does not lend itself to measuring individual developments. City also has to rely on a
practical trip bank and expenditure measure for a concurrency test which is not readily connected to
its multimodal travel index defined for concurrency, as well as SEPA to mitigate transportation
impacts of developments at a finer scale.
3. Be simple to explain: The City’s three-part process – plan, project, and SEPA based approach is
complex. The City’s LOS requires complex field-measured travel time index, and has only been
accomplished twice. The concurrency code relies on a director’s rule to establish project
concurrency procedures and is not transparent. The relationship to impact fees is also relatively
weak.
4. Be simple and cost effective to implement and monitor: See #3. The multimodal travel time index
has only been completed twice – originally in 1995 and updated in 2002. This is largely due to the
data requirements, field intensive nature of the travel time testing, and relative level of staff
resources to update the index. [Confirm with City.]
5. Incorporate other travel modes: The City’s travel time index is multimodal and weights transit more
heavily. The existing multimodal system does not include pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or relative
level of transit service (frequency). Furthermore, the City’s project level concurrency test and SEPA-
based intersection LOS are based on vehicular trips.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 10
6. Be receptive to various transportation demand management (TDM) and parking strategies: See #5.
The current concurrency system does provide for some adjustments to reduce trip generation from
a development to reflect TDM program commitments.
7. Consider the pPotential for different standards for different parts of the City: The City’s travel time
index is citywide. The City has tried to adapt a subarea level approach in the planned actions but this
is not an intentional LOS and concurrency system for neighborhoods.
8. Help fund/implement multimodal transportation improvements: Though the City’s travel time index
is multimodal, implementing concurrency regulations, SEPA-based impact and mitigation approach,
and impact fee systems are not. The City’s impact fees are based on planned roadway
improvements and development trips accommodated with them. Non-motorized improvements are
not directly addressed.
9. Provides a basis for interjurisdictional coordination on transportation. The existing concurrency
system relies on transit service providers and state highways in measuring the multimodal travel
time index. However, it does not directly show how the City supports other agency transportation
needs and vice versa.
In sum, the City’s present system meets a couple of objectives in that it is multimodal (at the policy
level) and provides framework for concurrency under GMA. However, the LOS and associated
concurrency system are difficult to administer. The policy level travel time index is not simple or cost-
effective to measure, and nonmotorized and transit modes are not well represented in the practical
concurrency test that focuses on road capacity and SOV trips. The system is not transparent due to the
use of a detailed director’s rule supporting a broad code-based process. The LOS approach is focused at
a citywide scale, and is less effective at a neighborhood and development project scale – the City has
improvised with SEPA based LOS standards on an area by area basis (e.g. Landing, Sunset areas). The
system also does not advance interjurisdictional coordination directly.
4.0 OPTIONS AND FRAMEWORK FOR PROPOSED LEVEL OF SERVICE
AND CONCURRENCY PROGRAM
Overview of review of other agency programs
As a result of our initial review with City staff of other agencies’ program objectives, LOS standards,
concurrency programs, and mitigation fees we focused our review on the programs of Bellingham,
Issaquah, Shoreline and Redmond. Each of these cities has one or more program components that could
help Renton accomplish its objectives for transportation LOS, concurrency, and mitigation.
Overview of framework for Proposed Program
The program proposed for Renton’s transportation LOS, concurrency and mitigation fees builds on, but
takes some different approaches to the City’s commitment to multimodal transportation, the use of a
trip bank for concurrency, and traffic impact fees. The proposed program has the following components
and attributes as shown in Exhibit 4:
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 11
Exhibit 5:
Proposed LOS/Concurrency Program
Program Component or
Characteristic
Attributes
Person Trips Person trips are the number of persons making the same trip in the same
mode of travel. Bicycle and pedestrian trips typically involve one person,
thus one person trip. But motor vehicles often have more than one
occupant. For example, if the average vehicle occupancy was 1.3, and a
concurrency service area (like a community planning area) had 1,000 p.m.
peak vehicle trips, the person trips would be 1,300. Similarly, if a transit
vehicle carries 65 passengers, there would be 65 person trips. Using person
trips provides a common metric for use in concurrency and also impact or
mitigation fees.
Multimodal Levels of Service Levels of service will be developed for the following modes of travel:
• motor vehicles (single- and multi- occupancy)
• transit
• nonmotorized (bicycle and pedestrian)
Specific LOS metrics will be selected based on data that is readily available,
easy to collect and analyze, and easy to understand.
Multiple Service Areas The LOS and trip bank components of the LOS/Concurrency Program could
be scaled and tailored to specific service areas, such as Community Planning
Areas, that reflect differences in transportation opportunities, needs and
capacities, as well as differences in existing and future land uses. The impact
and mitigation fee components may remain citywide in order to preserve
the City’s flexibility to prioritize projects, and to avoid creating smaller
accounts that do not collect enough to fund a project before the deadlines
to spend the money or refund it. The deadline for impact fees is 10 years,
and the deadline for SEPA mitigation fees is 5 years.
Trip Calculator,
Fee Calculator,
Trip Bank
Applicants will provide the type(s) of land uses they will develop, and the
number of units they propose for each type (i.e., # of apartments, or # of
square feet of retail, office, etc.). The Trip Calculator will convert the
applicant’s data to the number of person trips in their service area using trip
generation rates we will develop for each mode. The trip calculator results
will be used for concurrency by comparing the applicant’s person trips to
the balance available in the trip bank for each mode. The trip calculator
results will be used for fee calculations by multiplying the applicant’s person
trips for each mode times the fee per trip for each mode.
Multimodal Mitigation Fees Renton’s existing transportation impact fee will be aligned with the
LOS/Concurrency Program to ensure that the impact fees are based on the
intersection and roadway projects needed to maintain the motor vehicle
portion of the LOS. A separate SEPA-based mitigation fee schedule will
collect each applicant’s proportionate share of their direct impact on the
other modes of travel.
Strategies such as TDM and parking can earn credits that reduce the
mitigation fees.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 12
Program Component or
Characteristic
Attributes
Safety, Operations and Local
Access Analysis
Applicants for development that will generate more person trips than a
threshold we will develop will be required to submit an analysis of the effect
on their proposed development on safety, operations and local access.
The proposed program for Renton’s transportation LOS, concurrency and mitigation accomplishes the
City’s objectives.
Proposed System and Concurrency Program Objectives
The proposed system is evaluated based on the objectives below:
1. Be defensible and meet requirements of GMA: The City will adopt revised LOS and concurrency
process that comply with GMA and are legally defensible.
2. Be meaningful to measure transportation system versus development: The proposed trip calculator
and trip bank compare the person trips generated by individual developments to the City’s capacity
for additional person trips for each mode of travel.
3. Be simple to explain: Applicants will provide the type(s) of land uses they will develop, and the
number of units they propose for each type (i.e., # of apartments, or # of square feet of retail, office,
etc.). The Trip Calculator will convert the applicant’s data to the number of person trips they will
generate. The results will be compared to the balance available in the City’s trip bank. If there are
enough trips in the City’s trip bank, the applicant passes concurrency, and pays the mitigation fees
for the number of trips it generates. Developments generating trips over a defined threshold would
also need to analyze safety, operations and local access through SEPA and City street standards.
4. Be simple to implement and monitor: See #3.
5. Incorporate other travel modes: Each mode of travel will have its own LOS, person trip generation,
trip bank, and mitigation fee.
6. Be receptive to various transportation demand management (TDM) and parking strategies:
Mitigation credits can be earned for specified, enforceable, and durable strategies like TDM and
parking.
7. Consider the pPotential for different standards for different parts of the City: LOS standards and trip
banks could be established for multiple service areas, such as Community Planning Areas.
8. Help fund/implement multimodal transportation improvements: Mitigation fees will be developed
for each mode of travel.
9. Provides a basis for interjurisdictional coordination on transportation. [Discuss.This objective will be
further advanced in the next phase of LOS and concurrency process development. Preliminarily, to
address interjurisdictional coordination, tThis may mean including other agency transportation
plans, especially in the PAA. It may mean a City-County agreement recognizing the City’s LOS under
SEPA and a reciprocal impact fee agreement.]
5.0 NEXT STEPS
This Phase 1 summary is intended to be presented to the Planning Commission and appropriate City
Council committees. Following that review, the City staff and Consultant team will:
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 13
1. Affirm the desired LOS approach to begin implementing policy changes into the Comprehensive Plan
Update,
2. Determine subareas of interest if an area-specific LOS approach is pursued (e.g. consolidation of
some community plan areas or all areas),
3. Update the City’s current travel demand model to test future growth and provide information for
person trips,
4. Finalize the Transportation Element for adoption with the Comprehensive Plan Update,
5. Develop multimodal LOS and concurrency tools (e.g. trip calculator, SEPA mitigation approach, etc.),
and
6. Develop an updated rate study.
The meetings with advisory bodies and committees and affirmation of the approach and subareas of
interest in Steps 1 and 2 are anticipated to occur by the close of December 2014 or in January or early
February 2015.
The travel demand model update, and finalization of the Transportation Element document with the
benefit of the model results would be conducted in the first quarter of 2015 to allow for public review
and adoption by the second quarter of 2015 (i.e. June 30, 2015). Steps 5 and 6 would implement the
Transportation Element and could occur over the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2015.
RENTON TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE
LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS PHASE 1 SUMMARY
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 14
APPENDIX. LEVEL OF SERVICE OPTIONS
Renton Transportation Element Update
OVERVIEW
The City of Renton is updating its Transportation Element as part of its 2015 Comprehensive Plan
Update. A key policy choice relates to levels of service (LOS) for multiple modes. The City desires to
review LOS options at citywide, subarea, and project levels.
The City and consultant team have discussed a variety of measures including: defining person trips,
mobility units, mode split goals, and others. Other points of discussion included ensuring a system that is
easy and cost-effective to administer and that can be the basis for interjurisdictional cooperation with
King County for the Renton Potential Annexation Areas. A number of additional objectives based on a
review of the Bellingham LOS approach were also considered.
This document transmits a summary matrix (page 3+) of example measures reviewed in developing the
proposed LOS approach.
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November 2014 15
Example Multimodal LOS Measures
LOS Measure Scale Example Jurisdictions Ease of Implementation:
Concurrency
ALL-MODES:
Mode Split • Systemwide (Kirkland,
TE Goal/Policy)
• Subarea (PSRC Regional
Centers; Issaquah)
• Kirkland: 65% SOV/35% Alt Mode, also
exploring other options.
• PSRC Regional Growth Centers/MIC
Requirement.
• Issaquah (Central Issaquah Plan: 17% of
trips will be transit and non-motorized).
• Appropriate to develop
transportation plan and test
system as a whole.
• Not necessarily measurable at an
individual development
concurrency review.
Person Capacity/ Trips
“Mobility unit” = person miles
traveled (Redmond)
“Person Trips Available” in each Sub-
area (Bellingham)
Person Trips by Mode
(Issaquah person trips by motorized
and non-motorized modes, citywide;
Seattle Southlake Union, person trips
by mode for subarea)
• Citywide (Redmond,
Issaquah)
• Subarea (Bellingham,
Portland, Seattle)
• Redmond (Transportation Master Plan,
Appendix C)
• Bellingham (FAQ, Municipal Code)
Bellingham is considering adding “quality
of service” for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
• Portland (Innovation Quadrant), Seattle
(South Lake Union) and Issaquah
(Simplified Concurrency) all have person
trips.
• These systems are “plan-based”
which requires the City to
evaluate regularly. Data from
transit “seat” and use needs to be
coordinated with transit providers
– should be readily available.
• Pedestrian and bicycle “capacity”
in Bellingham is simply the
percent complete in subareas. The
quality of service measures would
require much more data and
evaluation.
• Uses a "checkbook” tracking
system so it is easy to implement
at project level.
• Some models calculate person
trips. For models that do not, the
Portland or Issaquah approaches
could be used.
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 16
LOS Measure Scale Example Jurisdictions Ease of Implementation:
Concurrency
Trip Bank • Citywide
• Subarea
Citywide:
• Shoreline
Shoreline developed Trip Calculator for
Applicants: Comparison – Trips available
based on TMP versus Trips produced
• Issaquah
Subarea:
• Numerous Planned Actions for subareas,
e.g. Renton Sunset Area most recently
• Straightforward accounting.
• Need to exclude external trips
because the City does not conduct
concurrency for those trips, nor
can the city collect impact fees
from external trips.
• Trips can potentially be reserved
for specific types of land uses.
MODE-SPECIFIC:
Roadway • Citywide
• Subarea
• Corridor
• Segment: Numerous examples, e.g. Kitsap
and Whatcom Counties
• Intersection: Numerous
• Corridor: Kent, Bothell, Vancouver, Clark
County, others
• Subarea: Kent Downtown; King County
uses travel sheds for roadways in subareas
– no forecasting
• Well established methods.
• Commonly applied to consider
local impacts of development.
• Defining what is an impact for
concurrency has been questioned.
• Forecasting and tracking can be
challenging (challenged) –King
County, Bellevue – many use a
model.
• Vancouver’s system has required
lots of data, but City has new
guidelines defining when updates
are needed (they also are looking
at major changes to the system).
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 17
LOS Measure Scale Example Jurisdictions Ease of Implementation:
Concurrency
Pedestrian:
Measure facilities for degree of
completion against planned facilities.
If over 50% complete, award person
trip credit for each 1% over. Then
combine with bike, transit, and
automobile to establish overall
“Person Trips Available” in subarea.
Define Priority Areas. Provide
sidewalks or upgrades based on
scores according to Pedestrian
Priority Index (PPI). Cost to complete
estimated and per trip fee charged.
• Citywide (Bellingham)
• Subarea (Kent)
• Bellingham (FAQ, Municipal Code
• Kent, Citywide and Downtown per TMP.
See application of measure in Kent
Downtown.
• Portland, Seattle, and Issaquah
use mode splits to apportion
person trips to non-motorized
mode.
• GIS-based analyses based on
“core non-motorized system” –
pretty straight forward.
• Harder to add in “quality of
service” elements.
• Calculation of volume / capacity
of non-motorized modes is not
simple except at a specific
corridor level.
Bicycle:
Same as pedestrian above.
• Citywide (Bellingham)
• Subarea (Kent)
• Bellingham (FAQ, Municipal Code)
• Kent, Citywide and Downtown per TMP.
See application of measure in Kent
Downtown.
See above.
Transit:
Compare current transit ridership to
capacity within sub-area to
determine available transit person
trips. (Bellingham)
Ratings of Availability, Frequency,
Speed, etc.
• Citywide (Bellingham)
• Subarea (Seattle,
Portland)
• Bellingham (FAQ, Municipal Code),
• Seattle
• Portland
• Portland and Seattle use mode
splits to apportion person trips to
transit mode.
• Pretty simple to get the data from
Metro and Sound Transit –
defining weights is a discussion
items (e.g. how important is
transit compared to roadways,
pedestrians, bicycles).
Prepared by HYCO, Transpo, and BERK: November December 2014 18
LOS Measure Scale Example Jurisdictions Ease of Implementation:
Concurrency
Ranking non-motorized
transportation projects by criteria
and priority:
• Connectivity
• Safety/Security
• Potential conflict with other
modes
• Near mixed-use, schools, etc.
• Citywide
• Subarea
• Issaquah
• Seattle
• Portland
• Issaquah’s criteria are more
detailed than Portland’s or
Seattle’s.
• Several jurisdictions have looked
into safety (transportation) as
part of an index.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 1
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Discussion
[Revised text based on existing Comp Plan summary
and Commerce guidance document]
Ownership, control, development and maintenance
of public rights-of-way are a primary function of city
government. Transportation investments shape
community development patterns which, in turn,
influence the economic health, safety, and
character of a community. The design, construction,
and maintenance of city streets, roads, sidewalks,
trails and other transportation facilities impact all
Renton residents, employees, and visitors.
For many decades, transportation problems have
been seen primarily as engineering problems with
engineering solutions. As a result, transportation
planning has been primarily concerned with the
construction of new facilities – mostly roads but
also transit, Airport, and rail facilities – and has
relied on gas taxes to fund the construction.
However, our current transportation challenges are
different.
The facilities built in preceding decades are reaching
the end of their design life and require
maintenance, rehabilitation, or retrofitting.
Securing revenue for transportation investments is
increasingly difficult as the purchasing power of gas
tax revenue has eroded steadily over time along
with the political ease of increasing revenue
through taxes. The public’s concerns about
transportation issues have also expanded beyond
cost and mobility to include neighborhood impacts,
sustainability, and accommodations for all types of
users. There is growing demand for alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicles and reducing the impacts
of transportation on the environment.
While specific responsibility and authority for
transportation choices is divided amongst various
governments and agencies, users expect local and
regional transportation facilities to function as a
unified system. Achieving that requires a great deal
of coordination with federal, state, regional, county,
and municipal stakeholders and decision makers.
Renton has been designated a Core City by the
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). A core city
contains a regionally designated growth center –
Renton’s Urban Center encompassing Boeing, the
Landing, and Central Business District – serves as a
key hub for the region’s long-range multimodal
transportation system, and also provide major civic,
cultural, and employment centers within their
counties.
This Transportation Element assists the City of
Renton in coordinating transportation and land use
planning within its municipal boundaries, to guide
development of a multimodal system that provides
transportation choices for all users, and facilitates
interjurisdictional coordination of transportation
related projects. This element is consistent with
Puget Sound Regional Council’s VISION 2040 and
Transportation 2040.
This Transportation Element includes goals and
policies addressing the following topics:
• Framework and General Goals
• Maintenance, Management and Safety
• Transportation Demand Management
• Street Network
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
• Transit and HOV
• Transportation Options and Mobility
• Growth Strategy, Land Use and Transportation
• Level of Service Standards, Design, and
Concurrency
• Freight
• Airport
• Finance, Investment, and Implementation
• Intergovernmental Coordination
Framework Goal Statement
[From GMA Goals 2 & 12 / existing transportation
Goal 1]
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 2 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Coordinate transportation investments with the
pace of growth and land use development patterns
to ensure Renton maintains an efficient, balanced,
multimodal transportation system.
General Goals and Policies
The following goals and policies are applicable in all
transportation decisions. Policies specific to
particular transportation topics are covered
elsewhere in this element.
Goals
[Consolidated version of state transportation
planning priorities (i.e. economic vitality,
preservation, safety, mobility, environment and
stewardship)]
Goal T-X: Continue to develop a transportation
system that stimulates, supports, and enhances the
safe, efficient and reliable movement of people,
vehicles, and goods. [State transportation planning
priorities, existing Objective T-A, Goal 3 and Policy
T-14]
Goal T-X: Balance transportation needs with other
community values and needs by providing facilities
that promote vibrant commerce, clean air and
water, and health and recreation. [State
transportation planning priorities]
Goal T-X: Maintain, preserve, and extend the life
and utility of prior transportation investments.
[State transportation planning priorities]
Goal T-X: Reduce the number of trips made via
single occupant vehicle. [Existing goal 2, 5;
Objective T-B]
Goal T-X: Apply technological solutions to improve
the efficiency of the transportation system. [Based
on existing ITS section text]
Goal T-X: Promote and develop local air
transportation facilities in a responsible and
efficient manner. [Existing objective T-S]
Goal T-X: Establish a stable, long-term financial
foundation for continuously improving the quality,
effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation
system. [State transportation planning priorities
and existing goal 8]
Policies
Policy T-#: Develop a connected network of
transportation facilities where public streets are
planned, designed, constructed, and maintained for
safe convenient travel of all users – motor vehicle
drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders of
all ages and abilities. [Existing goal 11]
Policy T-#: Implement a multimodal level of service
that maximizes mobility, is coordinated with level of
service standards of adjacent jurisdictions, and
meets concurrency requirements. [Existing policy T-
13]
Policy T-#: Develop a transportation system that
preserves and protects natural resources and
complies with regional, state, and federal air and
water quality standards. [Existing goal 9]
Policy T-#: Support electric vehicle infrastructure in
all areas except those zoned for residential or
resource use or those areas designated as critical
areas. [New planning for EV requirement from
Commerce]
Maintenance, Management and Safety
The design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of the transportation system impacts
the long-term use and safety for all system users.
Safety planning and mitigation, including strategies
for protecting the transportation system from
disasters, includes multidisciplinary efforts that can
significantly improve the livability of our
community.
Policies
Policy T-#: Prioritize essential maintenance,
preservation and safety improvements of the
existing transportation system. [King County CPP
and audit findings]
Policy T-#: Maintain and preserve the
transportation system mindful of life-cycle costs
associated with delayed maintenance.
Policy T-#: Develop and coordinate prevention and
recovery strategies and disaster response plans with
regional and local agencies to protect the
transportation system against major disruptions.
[King County CPP and audit findings]
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 3
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
encompasses the range of actions and strategies
that offer alternatives to single-occupant vehicle
(SOV) travel and help to more efficiently use the
transportation system. TDM focuses on more
effectively using existing and planned
transportation capacity, ensures the compatible use
of the transportation system consistent with
planned uses, helps accommodate growth
consistent with community character and land use
objectives, and serves to mitigate impacts and to
better meet mobility needs.
Encouraging and facilitating reductions in trip-
making, dispersion of peak period travel demand
throughout the day, increased transit usage, and
increased ride sharing are significantly less costly
means of accommodating increased traffic volumes
than constructing new, or widening of existing
transportation facilities, such as roads and bridges,
to accommodate increased traffic volumes.
Reducing the number of commute trips to work
made via single occupant cars and light trucks is
also an effective way of reducing automobile-
related air pollution, traffic congestion and energy
use.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can be used
to apply technological solutions to problems such as
congestion, safety, and mobility through means
such as real time feedback on travel times and
alternatives. Substantial investment in ITS are
continuing to be in the Puget Sound Region.
The location and supply of parking is an integral
part of the local transportation system and TDM
strategies as well as important to commerce and
private enterprise. Inadequate parking can increase
congestion on streets as people circle and hunt for
available spaces. Too much parking is an inefficient
use of land and can deter use of alternative travel
modes, including transit. A proper balance needs to
be achieved between parking supply and demand.
Providing for “right size” parking ratios given a
district’s land use intensity and access to transit is
important to community character and mobility,
and can help reduce total cost of development.
Satellite parking with shuttle services and collective
structured parking are potential physical methods
for managing and increasing the parking supply.
Policies
Policy T-#: Implement transportation demand
management (TDM) programs to support mixed-use
development, commercial centers and employment
areas and reduce disruptive traffic impacts. [Existing
Policy T-7, 65]
Policy T-#: Invest in and maintain Renton’s
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program
coordinated with other agencies.
Policy T-#. Incorporate TDM measures such as
priority parking places for HOVs and convenient,
direct pedestrian access from transit stops/stations
in site design and layout for all types of
development. [Existing Policy T-73, 71, 72]
Policy T-#: Educate employers about their commute
trip reduction obligations under the City of Renton’s
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Ordinance and CTR
Plan.
Policy T-#. Regularly review and refine parking
ratios that account for existing parking supply, land
use intensity, and access to transit. [Existing Policy
T-66, 70 and objective T-R]
Policy T-#. Encourage shared and structured parking
in downtown Renton to achieve land use and
economic development goals as expressed in the
City Center Community Plan and to coordinate
parking for the benefit of the district businesses and
residents. [Existing Policy T-69]
Street Network
Inventory
State highways such as I-405, SR-900 (Sunset
Boulevard), SR-169 (Maple Valley Highway), SR-515
(Benson Highway), and SR-167 (Rainier Avenue) are
integral elements of Renton's arterial system as well
as routes for regional commuters. These five
interstate, freeway, and state highways converge in
central Renton within a half mile radius of each
other. This results in a complex traffic flow as
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 4 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
regional and local trips interact within a relatively
short distance. Local arterial streets link
commercial, industrial, and residential
neighborhoods to the freeways and state highways.
Within neighborhoods, local access streets provide
internal circulation and connections to the arterials.
Local access streets primarily provide direct access
to abutting land uses and are designed to
discourage through traffic.
Arterials in the City of Renton are divided into three
classifications that are used to identify appropriate
uses, establish eligibility for road improvement
funding, and define appropriate street design
standards:
• Principal Arterials – streets and highways that
connect major intra-city activity centers and
have high traffic volumes and relatively fast
vehicle speeds. The focus is on through travel
instead of property access.
• Minor Arterials – streets that provide links
between intra-city activity centers or between
principal and collector arterials. They carry
moderately high traffic volumes and vehicle
speeds are typically lower than principal
arterials.
• Collector Arterials – streets that distribute
traffic between local streets and principal or
minor arterials and provide circulation within
commercial, industrial, or residential areas. The
collector system distributes traffic to local
streets to support property access.
A conceptual arterial map is shown in Figure T-1.
Annually, the City adopts an Arterial Streets map
displaying the three arterial categories above. The
City hereby incorporates by reference its Arterial
Streets Map dated August 4, 2014, Resolution 4222,
or as thereafter amended, into this Transportation
Element.
Generally, local access streets include all public
streets not classified as principal, minor, or collector
arterials. The City has adopted more specific street
classifications in the Renton Sunset area as shown
in Figure T-2.
[Reference road diet policies in City Center
Community Plan? Does that have implications for
roadway classifications?]
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 5
Figure T-1. Conceptual Arterial Streets Map
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 6 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Figure T-2. Renton Sunset Area Street Classification Map
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 7
The transportation element seeks to balance local
and regional mobility needs. The following policies
and priorities address issues related to the street
network as a system, the physical design of
individual roadways, traffic flow, and traffic
operations control. The intent is to reduce the
amount of traffic on City streets that has neither an
origin nor destination in the City of Renton while
providing reasonable levels of traffic flow and
mobility for users of the local street system.
Policies
Policy T-#. Work with the state and neighboring
jurisdictions to provide capacity on regional
transportation systems and to reduce regional
traffic on local streets. [Existing policy T-17]
Policy T-#: Increase the person-carrying capacity of
the Renton arterial system. [Existing goal 3 and
Policy T-14]
Policy T-#: Adopt and implement street standards
based on assigned street classification, land use
objectives, and user needs. [Existing policy T-8, 12]
Policy T-#. Arrange the street network in a grid
pattern to the extent possible. Connect internal
development networks to existing streets and avoid
cul-de-sacs and dead end streets. [Existing policy T-
16]
Policy T-#. Support street vacations when:
• The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed
for future public use;
• The right-of-way to be vacated is not needed
for the interconnection of the roadway system
or to maintain the function of an established
street grid system;
• The abutting property owners have
demonstrated a need for the street vacation;
and
• The road configuration after the street vacation
conforms to adopted City plans. [existing policy
T-10 and T-11]
Policy T-#. Review new developments fronting on
state highways in the City in accordance with
WSDOT access standards for state managed access
highways. [Has City implemented standards in
accordance with RCW 47.50.030?]
Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation
Investments in the non-motorized components of
the City’s transportation system enhance the
quality of life in Renton, improve walking and
bicycling safety, support healthy lifestyles, and
support pedestrian and bicycle transportation
modes as alternatives to the use of automobiles.
Non-motorized facilities may serve both commuters
and recreational users.
Inventory
The City's existing non-motorized transportation
system is comprised primarily of roadside
sidewalks. These facilities provide safe non-
motorized mobility for both pedestrians and cyclists
outside of business districts. Within business
districts, sidewalks are restricted to pedestrians.
Many streets were constructed before the existing
code requiring sidewalks was enacted; as a result,
numerous local and arterial roadways are currently
without sidewalks. Some notable walkway
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 8 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
deficiencies exist along sections of
Maple Valley Highway (SR-169), Puget Drive, and
Talbot Road South. These roadways do not
currently provide safe non-motorized mobility
through Renton. The City of Renton Comprehensive
both a destination and a major transfer center. Bus
service in Renton is currently provided by King
County Metro and Sound Transit.
Metro provides both internal city routes and
regional service. Local transit service includes
RapidRide, buses, shuttles, and Dial-a-Ride (DART).
The RapidRide F-line connects The Landing and
Boeing plant with Downton Renton, Tukwila,
SeaTac, and Burien. It connects with the regional
Sounder (commuter rail) and Link Light Rail systems.
Sound Transit provides regional express routes and
bus connections to Sounder commuter rail service
at the nearby Tukwila station. As of 2014, Renton
has over 1,100 park and ride spaces located
throughout the community to serve local
commuters.
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, available to
buses and vehicles with two or more occupants,
currently exist north and southbound on Interstate
405 and SR-167. HOV queue jump lanes are
provided at some interchange ramps in Renton.
Future Plans
VISION 2040 and Transportation 2040 call for
channeling future growth into regional growth
centers such as Renton and providing transit links
between centers. Transit investments are critical to
providing local and regional trip alternatives to
single-occupancy vehicles.
Transit service and facility improvements are
needed to support and encourage increased transit
use in the City of Renton. Renton has been and will
continue to work with King County Metro and
Sound Transit to develop transit system service
improvements (e.g. new routes, increased
frequency) or capital investments (e.g. signal
queues, park and ride facilities) to adequately serve
Renton’s developing residential and employment
areas.
Specific transit service improvements and facilities
needed to support Renton’s role as a regional
center The City hereby incorporates by reference: 1)
King County Metro’s Strategic Plan for Public
Transportation 2011-2021, or as thereafter
amended, and 2) Sound Transit’s Sound Transit 2
(ST2) Plan adopted by the agency in 2008, or as
thereafter amended.
Planned HOV facility investments, such as HOV
lanes or intersection queue jumps, are planned in
several Renton corridors and direct access HOV
interchange ramps are planned at the following
locations between 2015-2020:
• NE 3rd/NE 4th Corridor Improvements:
Rechannelization and traffic signal
modifications, possible transit priority signal
treatments and queue jumps, seeking to meet
pedestrian, transit and bicycle needs.
• NE Sunset Boulevard (SR900) Corridor
Improvements from I-405 on the west to the
east City limits: Channelization, traffic signal
modifications, signal treatments, possible
queue jumps, and access management through
installation of medians, seeking to meet
pedestrian, transit and bicycle needs.
These HOV investments will improve transit travel
time, accessibility and reliability and contribute to a
reduction in congestion and pollution by proving
and attractive alternative to the single occupant
vehicle.
Policies
Policy T-#: Work with other jurisdictions and transit
authorities to plan and provide frequent,
coordinated and comprehensive transit service and
facilities in residential and employment areas.
[Existing Objective T-D, T-E, T-F, Policy T-20, 21, 22,
23, 25, and 31]
Policy T-#: Support transit center/ direct HOV ramps
to/from I-405 in the vicinity of the Landing (NE 8th)
per the City Center Community Plan.
Policy T-#: Work to improve the speed and
reliability of transit serving Renton’s Downtown and
promote the Downtown Transit Center as part of a
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 9
regional high capacity transit system. [Existing
Objective T-C and Policy T-24, 26, 27, 28, 30, and
35]
Policy T-#: Increase transit service and access in
commercial and mixed use corridors and nodes.
Citywide Walkway Study (March 2008) addresses
the sidewalks and walkways within the City and
identifies a priority roster to construct "missing"
sidewalk/walkway sections throughout the City.
In addition to sidewalks, Renton also has combined
bicycle/pedestrian facilities along portions of
Garden Avenue North and North 8th Street, and
striped bicycle lanes on portions of Southwest 16th
Street, Oakesdale Avenue Southwest, Duvall
Avenue NE, and NE 4th Street. The Renton Trails and
Bicycle Master Plan (2009) lists routes that have
been identified as important bicycle transportation
elements.
The City of Renton Parks, Recreation, and Natural
Areas Plan (November 2011) provides an in-depth
description of proposed walking, bicycle, and
mixed-use trails. By nature, these types of trails are
primarily used for recreational purposes and
supplement the City's non-motorized transportation
system; their development should be encouraged.
Future Plans
Renton's existing transportation system is oriented
towards accommodating cars, trucks, and buses
rather than pedestrians or bicycles. The policies and
priorities of this section provide guidelines for
reevaluating the existing system and making
incremental improvements in the City’s walking and
biking environment. More facilities are also needed
for bicycle storage and parking in shopping areas,
employment centers and in public places. Specific
recommendations on improvement projects are
included in the Renton Trails and Bicycle, Master
Plan, May 2009, hereby incorporated by reference
into this Transportation Element.
Policies
Policy T-#. Coordinate transportation planning
activities with the Renton Trails and Bicycle Master
Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Areas
Plan. [Existing Policy T-62]
Policy T-#. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle
movement and safety by:
• Providing adequate separation between non-
motorized and motorized traffic;
• Separating foot and bicycle traffic when
possible, but giving preference to foot traffic
when necessary;
• Improving arterial intersection crossings for
non-motorized users;
• Minimizing obstructions and conflicts that
restrict the movement of non-motorized users;
and
• Providing convenient access to all transit stops
and transit centers. [existing objective T-K, T-L,
T-M, T-N, T-P, existing Policy T-49, 50, 51, 60,
61, existing goal 4]]
Policy T-#: Develop and designate appropriate
pedestrian and bicycle commuter routes along
existing minor arterial and collector arterial
corridors. [Existing Objective T-O, Policy T-48]
Policy T-#: Ensure provision of safe and convenient
storage and parking facilities for bicyclists. [Existing
goal 4 Policy T-52, 53]
Policy T-#. Promote non-motorized travel not only
as a viable means of transportation but as an
important method for maintaining overall health
and fitness. [Existing Policy T-64]
Transit and HOV
As Renton’s population continues to grow, there is a
greater need to move people efficiently on the local
roadway network. A well-managed, attractive and
convenient transit system reduces traffic demand
by encouraging the use of alternatives to single-
occupancy vehicles both for trips within the city
limits and for trips to regional destinations. The
following policies and priorities seek to maximize
the use of transit and other alternatives to single-
occupancy vehicles in Renton.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 10 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Inventory
The Downtown Renton Transit Center is the hub of
transit service in Renton. The Transit Center acts as
Policy T-#: Coordinate transit, bike and pedestrian
planning efforts and evaluate opportunities to
leverage investments for the benefit of more users.
Policy T-#: Construct improvements and implement
actions to facilitate the flow of HOV’s into, out of,
and through Renton. [Existing goal 3]
Policy T-#: Support exclusive freeway/arterial HOV
facilities that improve transit travel times by
enabling buses to bypass congestion. [From existing
transit text]
Policy T-#: Allow park-and-ride facilities in
appropriate locations subject to design
considerations. [Existing Policy T-32, 33, 36, 37, 38,
39]
Transportation Options and Mobility
As described in Renton’s Community Needs
Assessment (2014) and Housing Element lack of
mobility creates obstacles for individuals and
families to access the services they need. For a
family with very little income, lack of mobility and
transportation services can limit a household’s
ability to obtain basic goods and services, receive
medical or dental care, commute to a job, and
maintain employment. Current barriers to mobility
in Renton include:
• Uneven access to public transit, with limited
options for those who do not live downtown,
do not commute during peak travel times, or
who need to travel within Renton (instead of
between Renton and other destinations in the
region). The most vulnerable groups include
low-income households who are unable to
afford vehicle ownership, as well as residents
who are unable to drive.
• Elderly residents and others with physical with
personal mobility issues also face the challenge
of not being able to walk longer distances to
and from a bus stop, further limiting their
opportunities to use public transit.
• Many pedestrian and bike routes connecting
Renton’s residential areas with basic services
are unsafe, which further limits transportation
alternatives for households without an
automobile.
Policies
Policy T-#: Invest in connection of non-motorized
facilities across Renton. Provide improvements at
intersections to improve safety and comfort of
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Policy T-#: Support transit agencies’ investment in
transit service to Renton neighborhoods within and
beyond Downtown.
Policy T-#: Develop a connected transportation
system that provides opportunities for mobility of
people with special needs.
Growth Strategy, Land Use and Transportation
Renton has been designated a Core City with its
designated Regional Growth Center, Transit Center,
Piazza, Performing Arts Center, and transit oriented
mixed use housing and commercial development.
Renton’s adopted Regional Growth Center
boundary includes two primary sections: The
northern portion borders Lake Washington and
emphasizes mixed use and regional employment,
including Boeing’s Renton Plant and The Landing, a
retail and residential development in the northern
half of the center; the southern portion of the
center includes the downtown core and adjacent
residential area. [Will the City be incorporating its
subarea plans into the Comprehensive Plans in
some way? City Center Community Plan is
important for multiple elements including
Transportation.]
The City is obligated to meet its 2031 Growth
Targets contained in the King County Countywide
Planning Policies, and much of its growth capacity is
in mixed use zones such as the Central Business
District (CBD). The City must also estimate its
growth to the year 2035 to provide the required 20-
year planning period under GMA, i.e. 2015-2035.
Table T-1 shows the City’s growth targets, capacity,
and transportation model assumptions.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 11
Table T-1. 2012-2035 Growth Targets: Adjustments for Growth
2006-2012
Housing Target Employment
Target
2012-2035 Growth
Target 14,050 28,755
Growth Capacity
Estimated 2012 15,351 26,090-38,601
Transportation
Model Assumptions
[to be confirmed]
15,351 28,755
Sources: King County, Puget Sound Regional Council, BERK
Consulting 2014
The City has tested the future land use in the City’s
transportation model, along with the City’s desired
mode split goals and planned transportation system
improvements. The model results show the
following results on both city and state facilities: [to
be provided when modeling is completed.]
Policies
Policy T-#: Provide multimodal transportation
improvements that support land use plans and are
compatible with surrounding land uses. [Existing
Policy T-1, 2, 5]
Policy T-#: Plan for land use densities and mixed-
use development patterns that encourage walking,
biking and transit use in designated areas.
Policy T-#: Continue to implement the following
design guidelines in Renton’s Regional Growth
Center: [Transportation 2040, results of Audit]
• Encourage a mix of complementary land uses
• Encourage compact growth by addressing
density
• Link neighborhoods, connect streets, sidewalks
and trails
• Complete missing links and connections in the
pedestrian and bicycle systems
• Integrate activity areas with surrounding
neighborhoods
• Locate public and semipublic uses near
Renton’s transit center(s)
• Design for pedestrians and bicyclists
• Provide usable open spaces such as the Renton
Piazza, Burnett Linear Park, Cedar River Trail,
and others
• Manage the supply of parking
• Promote the benefits of on-street parking
• Reduce and mitigate the effects of parking
Level of Service Standards, Design, and
Concurrency
Transportation concurrency – ensuring the
programs, projects, and services needed to serve
growth are in place when or soon after growth
occurs – is a key requirement of the Washington
State Growth Management Act (GMA). The City
established the following objectives for its
multimodal concurrency system:
• Be defensible and meet requirements of GMA
• Be meaningful to measure transportation
system versus development
• Be simple to explain
• Be simple and cost efficient to implement and
monitor
• Incorporate other travel modes
• Be receptive to various transportation demand
management (TDM) and parking strategies
• Potential for different standards for different
parts of the City
• Help fund/implement multimodal
transportation improvements
• Provides a basis for interjurisdictional
coordination on transportation
Following a review of different systems and
methods, the City developed a multimodal LOS and
concurrency system for the following modes of
travel meeting the objectives:
• motor vehicles (single- and multi- occupancy)
• transit
• nonmotorized (bicycle and pedestrian)
[Placeholder for description of multimodal LOS and
concurrency approach. See separate issue paper.]
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 12 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
LOS standards guide the types of street, pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit improvements needed to meet
planned levels of growth. [Placeholder for
description of needed improvements within 6 and
20 years.]
The transportation system’s quality of design,
sensitivity to human needs, and integration with the
surroundings impact the City’s urban character and
quality of life. Transportation improvements should
be designed accordingly.
Policies
Policy T-#: Ensure adequate transportation facilities
are in place at the time of development approval or
that an adopted strategy is in place to provide
adequate facilities within six years. [Existing policy
T-3, T-4]
Policy T-#: Ensure that new development
contributes its fair share of the cost of
transportation facilities, programs and services
needed to mitigate growth related transportation
impacts.
Policy T-#: Maintain a multimodal level of service
that maximizes mobility, is coordinated with level of
service standards of adjacent jurisdictions, and
meets concurrency requirements. [Existing policy T-
13]
[Insert multimodal LOS policy language here]
Policy T-#: Incorporate multiple transportation
modes in concurrency determinations. [RCW
36.70A.00(b) and 36.70A.180, MPP-DP-54, 55, 56]
Policy T-#: Encourage development that can be
supported by transit and other non- single occupant
vehicle modes. [MPP – DP-56]
Policy T-#: Design transportation facilities to fit the
neighborhood context. Apply urban design
principles. [MPP-T-20, 21]
Freight
Safe and efficient movement and distribution of
goods is important for attracting and retaining
businesses in the City of Renton.
Inventory
Truck and rail freight are important to the regional
and local economy. The Washington State Freight
Mobility Plan (2014), hereby incorporated by
reference, identifies that the City contains truck
freight routes important to the state economy,
including but not limited to:
• T-1 freight corridors that carry more than 10
million tons per year
• T-2 freight corridors that carry 4 to 10 million
tons per year
Figure T-3 identifies the state designated freight
routes.
The City has a system of truck routes for trucks
weighing over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.
In accordance with the City’s truck route ordinance,
trucks needing to make deliveries off of the
designated truck routes are required to take the
most direct arterial route to/from one of the
designated truck routes and to combine multiple
trips off designated truck routes when feasible. The
truck route ordinance does not apply to the
operation of Renton School District buses on
designated routes, public transit on designated
routes, garbage trucks, city maintenance vehicles,
or emergency vehicles.
Freight rail service is currently available to several
industrial and commercial areas of the City. Existing
rail lines bordering the City of Renton include the
Union Pacific (UPRR) and Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad (BNSF) main line tracks between Seattle
and Tacoma.
The BNSF main line runs in a north-south direction
and is located along the City of Renton's western
city limits, separating Renton from the City of
Tukwila. The BNSF main line carries a considerable
volume of freight service, as well as passenger
service. Two spur lines provide intermittent, as-
needed freight service from the main line to the
Renton Valley industrial area (southwest Renton)
and the Container Corporation of America plant in
the Earlington industrial area. The BNSF 18th
Subdivision Branch Line splits from the BNSF main
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 13
line at the Black River Junction, and continues
through downtown Renton and the North Renton
industrial area before continuing along the east side
of Lake Washington and connecting back with the
BNSF main line in Snohomish County. Spur tracks
off of the branch line provide freight service to the
Earlington industrial area in west central Renton.
Two spur tracks serve the North Renton industrial
area north of downtown Renton.
The UPRR mainline track, located 200 to 300 feet
west of the BNSF mainline and Renton's City limits,
also runs in a north-south direction. The UPRR
mainline is a single track, carrying a somewhat
lower level of freight-only service. [Any specific
issues at at-grade intersections and traffic
queues/safety/ non-motorized?]
The infrequent use of the spur tracks and branch
lines within city limits results in minimal disruption
to vehicular traffic movement in Renton. Future
land use development is not anticipated to result in
a significant increase in rail freight service in
Renton. [Any blockage of traffic or trails with the
spur tracks?]
The following policies and priorities seek to balance
the needs of freight (trucks and trains) with the
needs of other users of the local street network.
Policies
Policy T-#. Work with local, regional, state and
federal agencies to address regional freight needs
and mitigate local impacts. [Existing Policy T-82, 85]
Policy T-#. Maintain and improve freight access to
and from Renton industrial areas. [Existing goal 7,
Objective T-X, Objective T-W]
Policy T-#. Minimize the impact of freight traffic on
transportation facilities and general traffic
circulation. [Existing objective T-X, goal 7, Policy T-
81]
Policy T-#. Limit heavy through truck traffic to
designated truck routes. [Existing Policy T-79]
Policy T-#. Support railroad crossing improvements
that minimize maintenance and protect the street
surface. Where warranted, provide protective
devices, such as barriers and warning signals, on at-
grade crossings. [Existing Policy T-83, 84]
Policy T-#: Through ITS measures, improve rail
crossings and reduce delays.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 14 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Figure T-3. State Freight Routes in Renton
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 15
Airport
The Renton Municipal Airport is a major general
aviation airport in the Puget Sound area. As a
Reliever Airport for SeaTac International Airport, it
is an important regional component of the National
Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Both federal and
state government recognize its importance as part
of the transportation system and require the City to
protect and maintain it so that it can be used safely.
Renton's Airport is more than a transportation
facility. It is a vital element to Renton's commercial
and industrial economy, providing aircraft services,
manufacturing support, flight training, and other
airport activities.
According to the 2012 WSDOT Aviation Economic
Impact Study, four airports in Washington State
account for the greatest economic impact:
The most significant overall finding is
that the statewide economic impacts
attributable to airports are substantial,
but heavily concentrated in just four
facilities - the three major Boeing
activity centers (Paine Field, Boeing
Field, and Renton Municipal) and Sea-
Tac, which is the principal commercial
airline hub in the state and ranked 17th
nationally in terms of annual
enplanements. ***
Combined, they account for 91% of total
jobs and 95% of total statewide output
attributable to individual airport
activity. Each of these facilities is
estimated to support at least 10,000
jobs and more than $5 billion of
economic activity.
Inventory
The Renton Municipal Airport is owned by the City
of Renton. The Airport consists of approximately
165.5 acres; it has one runway with two parallel
taxiways. The Airport is formally designated as a
Reliever Airport in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s National Plan of Integrated Airport
Systems and the Puget Sound Regional Council’s
Regional Airport System Plan.
The runway, running southeast to northwest, is
5,379 feet long and 200 feet wide. It is equipped
with medium intensity runway lighting, runway end
identification lighting (REIL), and precision approach
path indicators (PAPI). Taxiways are lighted, and
there is a rotating beacon, a windsock, and a non-
directional radio beacon. The Federal Aviation
Administration operates a contracted Air Traffic
Control Tower year round during established hours
(generally 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.).
The Renton Airport serves general aviation demand
(i.e., all aviation uses except schedule commercial
passenger airlines and military operations)
generated by Renton, as well as by other
communities generally within a 30-minute drive.
Aircraft services available at the Airport include
aircraft maintenance and service, fuel, flight
instruction, aircraft charter and rental, and aircraft
storage. Fixed base operators (FBO's), which are
aviation-oriented businesses offering a variety of
services and products to aircraft owners and
operators, provide these services to the aviation
public.
Contiguous to the Renton Airport is the Will Rogers-
Wiley Post Memorial Seaplane Base, which during
the summer months is one of the busiest seaplane
bases in the Northwest.
The Renton Municipal Airport is a Landing Rights
Airport, with US Customs services available for both
floatplane and wheeled aircraft arriving by water or
by land.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 16 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Future Plans
The Airport Layout Plan (2009) establishes future
development and improvement priorities and
timelines that will yield a safe, efficient, economical,
and environmentally acceptable public facility with
capacity for the future air transport needs of the
City of Renton and the Puget Sound region.
The number of aircraft and the number of
operations are projected to grow only modestly in
the coming decades; however, the region has a
large unmet need for hangars for aircraft storage.
Should Boeing further reduce its presence on the
Airport, the Airport would be ideally located to
provide additional aircraft storage for King County
aviators.
Policies
Policy T-#: Acknowledge that there are certain costs
to the community associated with the existence of
the Renton Municipal Airport, such as noise
generation, but that these costs have historically
been accepted by the community in exchange for
the economic and transportation-related benefits
and the civic prestige that are also associated with
the Airport. [Existing policy T-74]
Policy T-#: Recognize the significance of the Airport
for economic development. [Policy
recommendation from Commerce]
Policy T-#: Maximize available space on the Airport
site for uses that require direct access to taxiways
and runways. [Existing objective T-T]
Policy T-#: Continue operation of the Airport as a
Landing Rights Airport. [Existing objective T-U]
Policy T-#: Recognize the benefit of Airport access
for emergency medical and disaster response in the
community. [Policy recommendation from
Commerce]
Policy T-#. Promote and develop Airport facilities
and services for all wheeled and float-equipped
aircraft, owners, pilots, and passengers in a manner
that maximizes safety, efficiency, and opportunity
for use. [Existing policy T-75]
Policy T-#. Lease Airport property for aviation-
related uses that create jobs and expand the City’s
tax base. [Existing policy T-76]
Policy T-#. Maintain the northern shoreline of the
Airport as the only publicly-owned seaplane access
and protect its use for that purpose. [Existing policy
T-77]
Policy T-#. Develop appropriate land use plans and
regulations for structures and vegetation within the
Airport’s runway approach zone. [Existing policy T-
78]
Finance, Investment and Implementation
This section contains details of transportation
revenue sources that the City can reasonably expect
to receive during the life of the transportation plan.
Revenue sources contained in the Financial Program
vary widely in terms of the amounts available and
the types of projects for which they may be used. In
most cases, individual transportation projects are
funded by a combination of funding sources,
reflecting the fact that transportation projects have
multiple purposes and serve multiple beneficiaries.
Transportation Improvements
[Include 20-year projects to support the impact fee
program and new multimodal program as part of
concurrency. Or include in Capital Facilities
Element? Address when modeling and LOS
approach is defined.]
Transportation Program Costs
In emphasizing multiple travel modes, this plan
requires resources to be spread and balanced
among all modes. The total cost of funding the
transportation plan outlined in previous sections for
the next 20 years (2015-2035) is estimated at
$INSERT. Renton’s share of the costs for the various
components of this plan are summarized in Table
INSERT. The estimated costs do not include
transportation projects that are the responsibility of
the state, King County, transit authority, or other
cities. Ongoing transportation planning work will
include continued refinement of the 20-year
transportation plan and costs.
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT PAGE 17
Inventory of Funding Sources
Having established a 20-year transportation funding
level of $ INSERT , an annual funding level of $
INSERT can be determined. Sources of revenue to
provide this annual funding need are identified on
Table INSERT. [Insert dollar figures when
transportation model and proposed transportation
improvement program supporting multimodal LOS
is confirmed.]
The following sources of revenue are available for
transportation plan implementation:
• Business License Fee – expected to contribute
XX% of future annual funding.
• Half-Cent Gas Tax – expected to contribute XX%
of future annual funding.
• Grants – expected to contribute XX% of future
annual funding.
• Transportation Impact Fees consistent with
Rate Study for Impact Fees for Transportation,
Parks, and Fire Protection (2011 or as thereafter
amended) – expected to contribute X% of
future annual funding.
The above revenue sources are projected to remain
approximately the same over the next 20 years,
though trends in transportation financing could
affect the City of Renton's transportation revenue.
The trends include:
• Declining revenue available from several
existing sources, such as the half-cent gas tax;
• Transportation needs growing faster than
available revenues;
• Local, state, and federal requirements on
transportation improvements lengthening the
design process and increasing cost;
• The undetermined potential for new funding
sources; and,
• The continued inability of regional agencies to
address regional transportation needs.
Ongoing transportation planning work will include a
review and update of current revenue sources to
reflect federal, state, and regional decisions
regarding these revenue sources. Should the City’s
transportation funding approach result in shortfalls,
the City will reassess its land use plan, level of
service standards, and funding strategies,
accordingly.
This Element provides a summary of six and 20-year
transportation system proposals (see Level of
Service Standards, Design, and Concurrency)
needed to support the land use plan. The City has
developed a six-year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) that details projects and funding by
year for 2015-2020, and is hereby incorporated by
reference [We assume that readoption of new TIPs
would need to be adopted regularly for consistency,
and have not referred to “or as further amended
here.”] See also the Capital Facilities Element that
summarizes the Six-Year TIP. [Assumes CFP will
continue to summarize 6-year plans and funding.
Also need the full 20 year list referenced or
incorporated for impact fee and multimodal
concurrency purposes.]
Policies
Policy T-#: Ensure the transportation system
funding and implementation program supports land
use policies and distributes transportation costs
equitably. [Existing goal 8]
Policy T-#: Pursue federal, state and local sources of
funding (e.g. loans, matching funds) for
transportation improvements in an efficient and
equitable manner. [Policy T-88, Objective T-Y]
Policy T-#: Use business license fees and impact
fees charged to new development to fund growth
related traffic improvements. [Policy T-86]
Policy T-#: Coordinate equitable public/private
partnerships to help pay for transportation
improvements. [Policy T-87]
Policy T-#: Seek opportunities for multi-
jurisdictional cooperation to fund transportation
improvements (e.g. joint transportation mitigation
systems or funding mechanism to address impact of
growth outside municipal boundaries on the City’s
transportation system). [Policy T-89 and T-90]
CITY OF RENTON – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PAGE 18 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Policy T-#: Expedite implementation of
transportation projects that protect neighborhoods
against the impacts of through traffic, improve HOV
flow, increase transit service, and enhance
pedestrian and bicycle facilities. [Revised Objective
T-Z]
Policy T-#: Reassess the land use element, level of
service standard, and funding strategies if probable
funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to
ensure that the land use element, transportation
plans, and financing plan are coordinated and
consistent.
Intergovernmental Coordination
A significant amount of travel that occurs in Renton
is regional in nature – with either the origin or
destination (sometimes both) outside city limits.
Effectively managing flow within and through the
City requires extensive coordination with
neighboring jurisdictions, transit service providers,
and regional, stat, and federal entities.
Policies
Policy T-#: Develop and maintain relationships
between Renton and other agencies and local
jurisdictions for cooperative planning of common
transportation improvements. [Existing goal 10]
Policy T-#: Continue to coordinate Renton's
Transportation Element with adjacent jurisdictions'
transportation and land use goals, countywide
policies, regional land use and transportation plans,
and statewide goals outlined in the GMA. [Existing
text]
Policy T-#: Pursue strategies to address
inconsistencies (i.e. interlocal agreements) and
adjust Renton’s Transportation Element, as needed.
[Existing text]