Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AGENDA Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting 4:00 PM - Monday, October 26, 2015 Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way AGENDA Docket 11 a) D-116 Residential Building Height b) D-117 Density Bonuses c) D-118 Health Standards for Rentals d) D-119 Street Frontage Improvements e) D-120 Public Meetings and Signs f) D-121 Downtown Business District g) D-122 Impact Fee Deferral Docket Item #116 – Residential Building Height Summary of proposed changes: The purpose of this docket item is twofold: first, to provide additional public review of Code Interpretation #73 (CI- 73), which changed the method by which the City determines residential building height; and secondly, to consider additional height for certain zones. CI-73 established: 1.A maximum wall plate height; 2.An allowed 6’ extension for pitched roofs; and 3.A limit of two stories. The new method prevents inappropriate massing and encourages pitched roofs, helps ensure the scale of infill development is more closely matched to existing development, and ensures that if the grade plane does enable three floors the foundation will be mostly covered. Based on public comment received in response to the CI-73, staff considered increasing height allowances in some zones. Staff identified the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones as areas where increased height might be suitable. The low- density designation is intended to provide transition to rural areas, or provide for larger housing, and therefore is generally applied to land on the periphery of the City or land with critical areas. Staff determined that a maximum wall plate height of 32’ would provide enough height to accommodate three stories while being mitigated by the substantial setbacks of the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. While the logic to grant additional height for low-density zones is based on the governing land use policy and development standards that foster larger housing, staff believes it is justifiable to grant additional height in the high-density RMF Zone for opposite reasoning. Because RMF townhouse lots are typically small it’s difficult to design a townhouse with only two stories that provides an amount of floor area commensurate with a single- family house in the R-10 or R-14 zones. Also, it’s difficult to meet the minimum density of ten dwelling units per acre, or to maximize density at 20 dwelling units per acre, for RMF multi-family buildings if they are limited to 24’ of height and two stories. Therefore, staff advocates increased height and stories for the RMF Zone to provide housing with adequate floor area for a family. Finally, as a transitional zone between the RMF zone and the R-10 zone, the R-14 zone is proposed to allow three stories within the 24’ wall plate height limitation. While the wall plate height would be equal to that of the R-10 zone, it is possible to provide three stories within that height and therefore create an appropriate transition to the greater height/story limits proposed for the RMF zone. Staff’s recommended height restrictions are as follows: RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMF Max. # of Stories 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 Max. Wall Plate Height 32'32'32'24'24'24'24'32' Background: This docket request was initiated by the Planning Division. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # a) October 7, 2015 #D-116 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING HEIGHT General Description A recent Administrative Code Interpretation determined that building height in residential zones is regulated by applying a maximum wall plate height (24’) and by limiting the number of stories (maximum of two). The previous method of regulating height, limiting the vertical distance from the average grade to the average height of the tallest roof surface, proved to contradict the intent of Title IV, specifically residential design standards. Consistent with the former height limitation, the current limitations are applied uniformly among the City’s eight residential zones (RC, R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8, R-10, R-14, and RMF). This staff report reviews the Administrative Code Interpretation and addresses the notion of varying height limitations among zones. Assessment of Existing Code The Administrative Code Interpretation (CI-73) implemented a revised method of limiting height that is intended, in part, to prevent residential buildings from having massing that is uncharacteristic or undesired within the zone. Limiting wall plate height ensures that houses with flat or shallow roofs have relatively equal massing to those with more steeply pitched roofs. The allowed vertical projection of six feet from the wall plate for pitched roofs incentivizes adherence to the City’s residential design standards for roofs, as opposed to applicants seeking modifications to those standards in order to have flat roofs. In addition to limiting wall plate height, CI-73 established a limit of two stories per house. The limit on the number of stories is intended to ensure that a majority of the structure’s foundation is covered by earth if the topography of the lot is conducive to creating a daylight basement or tucked garage under the first finished floor. This is achieved because a floor can be disqualified as a “story” based on its definition “…If the finished floor level directly above a usable or unused under-floor space is more than six feet (6') above grade for more than fifty percent (50%) of the total perimeter or is more than twelve feet (12') above grade at any point, such usable or unused under-floor space shall be considered as a story” (see illustration below). AGENDA ITEM # a) Page 2 of 4 October 7, 2015 Proposed Amendments to Code Based on public comment received in response to CI-73, staff considered increasing height allowances in some zones. In order to justify the idea, staff first attempted to delineate zones that might be suitable for increased heights. The designation of the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones by the Comprehensive Plan as Residential Low Density establishes a clear distinction based on governing policies cited in the Land Use Element. Policy L-15 states, in part, “[p]lace lands…intended to provide transition to the rural area, or those appropriate for larger lot housing within the Residential Low Density land use designation to allow for a range of lifestyles.” This is in contrast to the Residential Medium Density designation policy (L-16) that aims to create “compact, urban development.” Differentiating the zones based on minimum dimensional requirements and buildable area constraints for lots is more difficult than the clear policy distinction between the Low and Medium Density designations. Dimensional requirements for lots include minimum area, depth, and width. Buildable area constraints include minimum setbacks coupled with maximum building coverage. Dimensional requirements and buildable area constraints are correlated and intended to provide a range of housing sizes that are appropriately spaced to foster the desired character of the built environment. The dimensional requirements and buildable area constraints for the RC and R-1 zones are drastically different than those of other residential zones. However, distinguishing the R-4 zone from higher-density zones is more challenging because a pattern of requirements and constraints is apparent among the R-4 through R-8 zones (see below). Therefore, increases in allowed height should be justified by the differing land use policies. R-4 R-6 R-8 Minimum Lot Size 9,000 sq. ft.7,000 sq. ft.5,000 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 70 ft.60 ft.50 ft. Minimum Lot Depth 100 ft.90 ft.80 ft. Minimum Front Yard 30 ft.25 ft.20 ft. Minimum Side Yard Combined 20 ft. with not less than 7.5 ft. on either side. Combined 15 ft. with not less than 5 ft. on either side. 5 ft. Staff concluded that any increased height afforded to the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones should be the minimum to provide for three stories. Because there is seemingly little difference between the R-4 and R-6 zones, with respect to the development standards cited above, staff sought to AGENDA ITEM # a) Page 3 of 4 October 7, 2015 propose a maximum wall plate height that would result in an innocuous difference. Because building setbacks, particularly side setbacks, have significant influence on perceived height as seen from a public street or adjoining property, an increase in height for the R-4 zone should be proportionate to the side setback and allowed height of the R-6 zone. In other words, the R-4 side setback and maximum wall plate height should be proportionate to that of the R-6 zone. As illustrated below, the allowed wall plate height in the R-6 zone and the minimum side setback creates a ~78o angle at the property line. Allowing a wall plate height of 32 feet in the R-4 zone (as well as RC and R-1) would provide enough height for three stories, and would result in a similar angle at the property line (~77o). R-4 R-6 Finally, consideration was given to the RMF zone for townhouse development. Because lots for townhouse development are typically small and narrow, additional height is necessary in order to provide an amount of floor area that is commensurate with a single-family house in the R-10 or R-14 zone. Staff propose to allow three stories, and a maximum wall plate height of 32 feet for townhouse development in the RMF, as well as development in the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. AGENDA ITEM # a) Page 4 of 4 October 7, 2015 Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Objectives of the Plan are being met, specifically that of Policy L-49: Address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering scale and context in infill project design. Effect on general land values or housing costs There will likely be no effect on general land values or housing costs. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning Policies. Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to increase the number of allowed stories and the maximum wall plate height to three and 32 feet respectively, in the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones as well as the RMF zone for townhouse development. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending 4-2-110.A, Development Standards for Residential Zoning Designations (Primary and Attached Accessory Structures). AGENDA ITEM # a) Docket Item #117 – Bonus Density Summary of proposed changes: The purpose of this docket item is to determine if any of the provisions for density bonuses should be eliminated from Title IV. Density bonuses permit developers to build at higher than allowed densities in exchange for the provision of a defined public benefit. The added density is intended to compensate the developer with additional revenue, recognizing the added costs of the public benefit. Staff requested review of the public benefits that enable bonus density on the notion that some provisions do not create a public benefit. For example, a hot tub that is exclusively for the residents of the development was used to fulfill a criterion for bonus density based on the Hearing Examiner’s determination. Staff proposes to eliminate provisions that do not address the needs of the community, which leaves the creation of affordable housing units as the only recommended provision. The 2014 Community Needs Assessment for Housing and Human Services (CNA) recommends affordable housing be located in areas that offer economic, social, and transportation opportunities. According to transportation and economic health ratings provided by the CNA, the UC and CD zones are opportune areas for residents of affordable units. Areas eligible for transit-oriented development in the CO zone also have high economic ratings, and therefore would also be favorable to residents with low income. Staff also identified the Sunset Area as being appropriate for this development incentive due to relatively strong transportation access, and existing amenities. In addition to being the focus of public investment and having indicators of relatively high economic and mobility opportunities, the creation of affordable housing in CD and R-14 zoned properties in the downtown, as well as CV, RMF, and R-14 zoned properties in the Sunset Area is encouraged by Title IV provisions that offer fee waivers (building permits, impact fees, etc.), and time-limited property tax exemptions for the creation of affordable housing (RMC 4-1-210 and 4-1-220 respectively). Bonus density eligibility is proposed to be expanded to include the CD and UC zones within the Regional Growth Center, the CV Zone in the Sunset Area, and CO Zone within ¼ mile of a qualifying transit service (RapidRide bus stop, dedicated Park and Ride, or a commuter rail station), as shown in the following table. Each affordable unit provided would grant one bonus market-rate unit (a 1:1 ratio), up to 30% above the allowed density. Per state law (RCW 36.70A.540), new or amended density bonus programs must establish affordable housing income levels that equal a maximum of 50% of county median family income for rental housing and 80% of median county family income for ownership housing, and that such rental or owned units remain affordable for 50 years. Area Subject Zone(s)Base Density Existing Bonus Units Proposed Bonus Units CD 100 NARegional Growth Center UC 85/150*NA Sunset Area CV 80 NA 1/4 mile from transit CO 150 NA 30% above allowed density Existing Bonus Density Provisions R-14 14 4 RMF 20 5Citywide COR 50 25 30% above allowed density Assisted Living (citywide) R-1, R-10, R-14, RMF, CV, CD, CO, COR, UC 1.5 times base density, or 18 du/acre in R-10 & R- 14, and no limit in R-1 *If ground floor commercial is provided Background: This docket request was initiated by the Planning Division. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # b) October 7, 2015 #D-117 DENSITY BONUSES General Description Density bonuses are a particular type of zoning incentive that permits developers to build at higher than allowed densities in exchange for provision of a defined public benefit. The added density is intended to compensate the developer with additional revenue, recognizing the added costs of the public benefit. Staff requested review of current bonus density criteria to ensure that an increased number of dwelling units results in a true public benefit that would otherwise not be achieved. During review, staff considered which provisions would be most beneficial to the community, and where the public benefits would best serve the community and residents while minimizing potential adverse impacts of increased density. Staff proposes that bonus density only be offered in exchange for affordable housing, and that eligibility be expanded to include the following areas: 1.Areas with high economic opportunity (Regional Growth Center) 2.Areas with high mobility opportunity (Regional Growth Center and future transit-oriented development in the CO Zone) 3.The Sunset Area (where the City is committed to spurring redevelopment) 4.Where tax and fee waiver incentives are currently offered for affordable housing (the downtown and Sunset Area) Assessment of Existing Code Bonus density is currently offered in the R-14, RMF, and COR zones for providing affordable housing, housing with relatively low-impact to the environment (e.g., LEED construction), civic uses (e.g., recreation center, meeting hall, etc.), alley-accessed units, additional open space, critical area enhancement, or an overall design that exceeds standards. Certain provisions need to be paired and only grant bonus density for a specified number of units per zone. For example, if at least 50% of units in an R-14 development are accessed by alley, and an active common area (e.g., sports courts, pool, etc.) is provided, a developer can be granted an additional four dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living facilities (facilities with limited medical care) also receive bonus density but without needing to satisfy criteria, which is proposed to be preserved. Staff believes that some of the bonus criteria do not provide public benefits that justify the increased density. For example, an additional 25 dwelling units per acre could be granted to a COR development with LEED-certified structures, extra open space with active or passive recreation facilities, and an overall design of the development that exceeds code requirements. While all of these provisions arguably provide a public benefit, they are generally favorable to the residents of the development rather than the general public. Having a bonus program that is tied to numerous community goals may dilute the effectiveness of the City’s goal to increase affordable housing choices. Proposed Amendments to Code Providing more housing that is affordable to people with low income is a need identified in the 2014 Community Needs Assessment for Housing and Human Services (CNA), and a goal of both the Housing and Human Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and the 2009 Sunset AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 2 of 8 October 7, 2015 Area Community Investment Strategy. As such, staff proposes to refocus the purpose of bonus density provisions on the goal of ensuring that Renton’s future housing stock meets the local demand for affordable housing. Economic Opportunity There are certain areas of the City where affordable housing would be most beneficial to the residents. According to the CNA, affordable housing should be located in areas that offer economic, social, and transportation opportunities. Exhibit 18 of the CNA (shown below) shows the economic health rating of census tracts, or portions thereof, within City limits. The rating scheme is based on three measures of economic health: (1) access to living wage jobs, (2) job growth trends, and (3) the unemployment rate. The map indicates moderate to high economic opportunity in the City’s Regional Growth Center (generally the downtown and northward through the UC Zone, marked by the red circles), and areas eligible for future transit-oriented development (TOD) in the CO Zone (yellow circles). AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 3 of 8 October 7, 2015 Mobility Opportunity Transportation and mobility are important components of all forms of opportunity. Mobility barriers can limit a household’s ability to obtain basic goods and services, receive medical or dental care, commute to a job, and maintain employment. Renton’s Regional Growth Center and possible TOD development in the CO Zone are well served by existing transportation infrastructure and services. Exhibit 19 of the CNA (shown below) provides a Transportation/ Mobility rating distribution for Renton based on four measures: (1) average cost of commute, (2) access to transit, (3) transit cost, and (4) walkability. Although the averaged mobility factors resulted in a low rating for the census tracts that generally comprise the expansive “valley,” possible multi-family development in that area would be within ¼ mile of the commuter rail station. Commuter Rail Station AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 4 of 8 October 7, 2015 The Sunset Area The Sunset Area (shown in Exhibit 18 and 19) is an ethnically diverse, low-income neighborhood in the City of Renton. It includes the City’s largest public housing community, Sunset Terrace, and is a community revitalization priority. Since the late 1990s, the City has focused on this area for targeted improvement and investment, and along with its partners, continues to seek opportunities for coordinated redevelopment driven by a community vision. The vision aims to catalyze private property development, create opportunities for market-rate and affordable housing, and stimulate retail investment. The City believes the Sunset Area has significant market potential because it has relatively strong transportation access, a convenient location, and existing amenities. Bonus density is usually offered by jurisdictions as a tool to encourage development, and therefore the Sunset Area is included as a proposed location eligible for revised bonus density provisions. Complementary Fee Waivers / Tax Exemptions In addition to being the focus of public investment and having indicators of relatively high economic and mobility opportunities, the creation of affordable housing in CD and R-14 zoned properties in the downtown and CV, RMF, and R-14 zoned properties in the Sunset Area is encouraged by Title IV provisions that offer fee waivers (building permits, impact fees, etc.), and time-limited property tax exemptions for the creation of affordable housing (RMC 4-1-210 and 4-1-220 respectively). These existing provisions reinforce the notion that affordable housing should be encouraged in the downtown and Sunset Area. Summary Bonus density eligibility is proposed to be expanded to include the CD and UC zones within the Regional Growth Center, the CV Zone in the Sunset Area, and CO Zone within ¼ mile of a qualifying transit service (RapidRide bus stop, dedicated Park and Ride, or a commuter rail station), as shown in the following table. For both new and expanded areas, each affordable unit provided would grant a bonus market-rate unit on a 1:1 ratio, up to 30% above the allowed density. Per state law (RCW 36.70A.540), new or amended density bonus programs must establish affordable housing income levels that equal a maximum of 50% of county median family income for rental housing and 80% of median county family income for ownership housing. Affordable housing incentive programs require that units remain affordable for 50 years. Area Subject Zone(s)Base Density Existing Bonus Units Proposed Bonus Units CD 100 NARegional Growth Center UC 85/150*NA Sunset Area CV 80 NA 1/4 mile from transit CO 150 NA 30% above allowed density Existing Bonus Density Provisions R-14 14 4 RMF 20 5Citywide COR 50 25 30% above allowed density AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 5 of 8 October 7, 2015 Assisted Living (citywide) R-1, R-10, R-14, RMF, CV, CD, CO, COR, UC 1.5 times base density, or 18 du/acre in R-10 & R-14, and no limit in R-1 *If ground floor commercial is provided Staff’s proposal to restrict bonus density eligibility to the creation of affordable housing and expand its use to select zones in the City’s Regional Growth Center, the Sunset Area, and future transit-oriented development in the CO Zone is in keeping with: The GMA, Vision 2040, King Countywide Planning Policies, Renton’s Comprehensive Plan, Regional Growth Center goals/objectives, and The Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy By enabling bonus density exclusively for affordable housing in areas that will best serve the residents, based on economic and mobility opportunities, the City can start to make meaningful inroads to diversifying housing options while minimizing adverse effects of density related to transportation. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Because the goal is to create affordable housing through private development by allowing density above that allowed in each zone, the rate of growth might increase but likely by negligible amounts. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities The areas to where bonus density is proposed to be expanded are well served by existing infrastructure and services, and therefore more able to accommodate additional density than other areas of the City. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Units resulting from bonus density will provide additional housing capacity, but will likely have a negligible effect on the rate of population and employment growth. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Plan objectives will be furthered by this proposed code amendment, specifically Goal L-B of the Land Use Element: Goal L-B: Continue to build Renton’s Regional Growth Center consistent with VISION 2040 to provide compact, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development to meet the demands of population and employment growth, while reducing the transportation- related and environmental impacts of growth. Effect on general land values or housing costs Because approval criteria for bonus density is proposed to be relegated to affordable housing, the proposed code amendments will likely result in more affordable housing than would be realized under current bonus density provisions. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 6 of 8 October 7, 2015 N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, specifically the following goal: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.” (RCW 36.70A.020) The proposed revisions are consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, specifically: DP-32 Adopt a map and housing and employment growth targets in city comprehensive plans for each Urban Center, and adopt policies to promote and maintain quality of life in the Center through: A range of affordable and healthy housing choices. H-5 Adopt policies, strategies, actions and regulations at the local and countywide levels that promote housing supply, affordability, and diversity, including those that address a significant share of the countywide need for housing affordable to very-low, low, and moderate income households. These strategies should address the following: a. Overall supply and diversity of housing, including both rental and ownership; b. Housing suitable for a range of household types and sizes; c. Affordability to very-low, low, and moderate income households; d. Housing suitable and affordable for households with special needs; e. Universal design and sustainable development of housing; and f. Housing supply, including affordable housing and special needs housing, within Urban Centers and in other areas planned for concentrations of mixed land uses. H-9 Plan for housing that is accessible to major employment centers and affordable to the workforce in them so people of all incomes can live near or within reasonable commuting distance of their places of work. Encourage housing production at a level that improves the balance of housing to employment throughout the county. H-18 Review and amend, a minimum every five years, the countywide and local housing policies and strategies, especially where monitoring indicates that adopted strategies are not resulting in adequate affordable housing to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the countywide need. The proposed revisions are consistent with the Plan, specifically: Policy L-2: Support compact urban development to improve health outcomes, support transit use, maximize land use efficiency, and maximize public investment in infrastructure and services. Policy HHS-6: Implement inclusionary zoning provisions and other techniques that result in a range of housing types, at different densities, and prices in new developments that address the housing needs of all people at all stages of life, including vulnerable populations. AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 7 of 8 October 7, 2015 Policy HHS-9: Foster and locate new housing in proximity to Employment Centers and streets that have public transportation systems in place, that complements existing housing and furthers the City’s goal to achieve a housing stock that is affordable for the following minimum percentages of the City’s households, as determined by an Area Median Income (AMI) range: Total Households AMI 12 % Below 30% (very low-income) 12 % 30 to 50% (low-income) 16 % 51 to 80% (moderate-income) Policy HHS-12: Promote housing development in proximity to the City’s Employment Centers and other areas of the City that have jobs and work opportunities, or the potential for future job growth. Policy HHS-25: Encourage construction of universally designed units, supportive housing arrangements, and transitional housing in close proximity (within one-quarter mile) to public transportation. Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to relegate bonus density approval criteria to the provision of affordable dwelling units, and for the following zones: Area Subject Zone(s)Base Density Existing Bonus Units Proposed Bonus Units CD 100 NARegional Growth Center UC 85/150*NA Sunset Area CV 80 NA 1/4 mile from transit CO 150 NA 30% above allowed density Existing Bonus Density Provisions R-14 14 4 RMF 20 5Citywide COR 50 25 30% above allowed density Assisted Living (citywide) R-1, R-10, R-14, RMF, CV, CD, CO, COR, UC 1.5 times base density, or 18 du/acre in R-10 & R-14, and no limit in R-1 *If ground floor commercial is provided Additionally, staff recommends retaining a revised version of this docket item that will focus on evaluating needed public benefits in the Center Downtown (CD) Zone. Because the built environment of the downtown presents redevelopment complexities and needs for an area that serves a wide ranging business and resident population, certain amenities might be more valued than would be in other areas of the City. For example, a small open space in the densely populated downtown would likely have more use and neighborhood appreciation than would a small open space in an R-14 neighborhood with less density and fewer non-resident visitors. AGENDA ITEM # b) Page 8 of 8 October 7, 2015 Staff would also like to evaluate the density bonus increases for Assisted Living Facilities during Docket #125, which will address the allowed locations and intensity at which these facilities may be developed. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-9-065, Bonus Density Review. AGENDA ITEM # b) Docket Item #118 – Maintaining Minimum Health Standards for Rental Housing Summary of proposed changes: One measure of a health community is reflected in the condition of the physical and social environment within which its citizens reside. Low-income people, people of color, children, and older adults are more likely to live in substandard rental homes that are in poor condition, resulting in harm to the health of those community members. This docket item explores a method employed by several Northwest region cities, which is used to ensure rental housing is maintained to uniform standards through a Residential Rental Registration Ordinance that would not require any involvement of tenants. The purpose would be the protection of some of our community’s most vulnerable population and the goal of healthier, safer, more efficient rental housing throughout the City. The Renton Code Enforcement Division monitors housing conditions that may have an impact on health, but generally only as they relate to the exterior of a building. An example would be broken windows, which if not replaced, may cause mildew from interior moisture. Housing violations that are not apparent from the public realm can generally only be addressed through a request by the tenant. For example, if the resident of a rental unit invites the code enforcement officer into the building and requests an inspection, the property owner may be required to correct interior violations. However, a tenant who initiates City intervention via code enforcement may fear reprisals in the form of rent increases or eviction by a landlord. Justification for the Residential Rental Registration Ordinance stems from existing Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4- 5-130, “International Property Maintenance Code,” which includes amended standards adopted from the 2012 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, with certain exceptions. The above Code states, “The owner of the premises shall maintain the structures and exterior property in compliance with these requirements, except as otherwise provided for in this code. A person shall not occupy as owner-occupant or permit another person to occupy premises which are not in a sanitary and safe condition and which do not comply with the requirements of this section.” However, when there is no business license to allow an inspection of the building interior, compliance with the regulations cannot be verified. Additionally, business licenses are regulated by RMC Chapter 5. A “business” is defined by Section 5-5-2.D: “All activities, occupations, trades, pursuits, professions and matters located or engaged in within the City or anywhere else within the City’s jurisdiction with the object of gain, benefit, advantage or profit to the business enterprise or to another person, directly or indirectly.” Although this definition, on its face, includes people or other entities that rent property, it is not enforced as such. The foundation for maintaining minimum health standards for rental housing is a Rental Housing Inspection Program, which would be phased in over several years. These programs typically regard rental of residential property as a business, just as the rental of commercial or institutional property is a commercial enterprise. Under the Program, landlords are required to maintain a City business license. Residential rental business licenses would be renewable biennially upon recertification that a landlord has maintained their rental unit(s) to a set of adopted standards. Recertification can be secured by an approved inspector retained either by the landlord or by the City. Administrative costs of the program, including the inspections, would be covered by administrative fees. It might be assumed that this action would increase housing rents citywide, however, anecdotal information from Tukwila indicates that rents are largely market driven and there has not been significant increase in rents there since their program was adopted. Inaction on this matter results in an economic impact on the community from costs resulting from medical conditions caused by unhealthy housing, which can be significant, in terms of both health care costs and lost work days. Costs related to hospitalizations resulting from asthma alone, an affliction directly related in many cases to unhealthy living conditions, are many millions of dollars in King County each year. Background: This docket request was initiated by the Long-range Planning Division. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # c) October 7, 2015 R#D-118 MAINTAINING MINIMUM HEALTH STANDARDS FOR RENTAL HOUSING General Description One measure of the health of a community is reflected in the condition of the physical and social environment within which its citizens reside. Low income people, people of color, children, and older adults are more likely to live in substandard rental homes that are in poor condition, resulting in harm to the health of those community members. This docket item explores a method employed by several Northwest region cities, which is used to ensure rental housing is maintained to uniform standards in a manner that removes responsibility of tenants to seek intervention by local government for substandard housing. The eight principles of healthy housing are: Moisture free, Adequately ventilated, Contaminant free, Free of pests, Clean, Well-maintained, Free of injury hazards, and Thermally controlled. The Renton Code Enforcement Division monitors housing conditions that may have an impact on health, but generally only as they relate to the exterior of a building. An example would be broken windows, which if not replaced, may cause mildew from interior moisture. Housing violations that are not apparent from the public realm can generally only be addressed through a request. For example, if the resident of a rental unit invites the code enforcement officer into the building and requests an inspection, the property owner may be required to correct interior violations. However, a tenant who initiates City intervention via code enforcement may fear reprisals in the form of rent increases or eviction by a landlord. According to the 2014 Community Needs Assessment (CNA), there are approximately 15,426 rental units in Renton. King County Assessor’s data indicates that approximately one-third of housing in Renton (34.2 percent) was constructed more than 45 years ago. We know that most of the housing in the Sunset Area of Renton is more than 70 years old and 62 percent of it is comprised of rental units. Of these 1940s structures, the CNA states, “Much of this housing is still in use today and approaching functional obsolescence.” In many cases, however, the reason for the failing condition of this housing is lack of maintenance, rather than age. Older, poorly maintained housing most often affects the health of lower income people who may also have less access to health care options. AGENDA ITEM # c) #D-118 Page 2 of 4 October 7, 2015 The intent of a Residential Rental Registration Ordinance would be to create incentive for property owners to maintain rental units to uniform standards. The purpose would be the protection of some of our community’s most vulnerable population and the goal of healthier, safer, more efficient rental housing throughout the City. Assessment of Existing Code Renton Municipal Code 4-5-130, “International Property Maintenance Code,” includes amended standards adopted from the 2012 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, with certain exceptions. The above Code states, “The owner of the premises shall maintain the structures and exterior property in compliance with these requirements, except as otherwise provided for in this code. A person shall not occupy as owner-occupant or permit another person to occupy premises which are not in a sanitary and safe condition and which do not comply with the requirements of this section.” This statement does not exclude building interiors (“shall maintain structures…”) and the interiors of buildings are inspected for compliance with the code when buildings with licensed businesses are on the premises. However, when there is no business license to allow an inspection of the building interior, compliance with the regulations cannot be verified. Additionally, business licenses are regulated by RMC Chapter 5. The definition of a “business” is in Section 5-5-2-D BUSINESS: “All activities, occupations, trades, pursuits, professions and matters located or engaged in within the City or anywhere else within the City’s jurisdiction with the object of gain, benefit, advantage or profit to the business enterprise or to another person, directly or indirectly.” Although this definition, on its face, includes people or other entities that rent property, it is not enforced as such. Proposed Amendments to Code The foundation for maintaining minimum health standards for rental housing is a multifaceted Rental Housing Inspection Program. These programs typically regard rental of residential property as a business, just as the rental of commercial or institutional property is a commercial enterprise. Under the Program, landlords are required to maintain a City business license. Residential rental business licenses would be renewable biennially upon recertification that a landlord has maintained their rental unit(s) to a set of adopted standards. Recertification can be secured by an approved inspector retained either by the landlord or by the City. Economic Impacts Administrative cost of the program, including the inspections, would be included in the business license fee. Typically, programs of this type have been phased in over several years. AGENDA ITEM # c) #D-118 Page 3 of 4 October 7, 2015 Rental units are registered with the city when business licenses are issued, and then initial inspections occur phased over several years. It would be naïve to assume that this action would not result in an increase in housing rents citywide. Anecdotal information, from Tukwila however, indicates that rents are largely market driven and there has not been significant increase in rents there since the program was adopted. (see also Impact Analysis below) Inaction on this matter results in an economic impact on the community from costs resulting from medical conditions caused by unhealthy housing, which can be significant, in terms of both health care costs and lost work days. Costs related to hospitalizations resulting from asthma alone, an affliction directly related in many cases to unhealthy living conditions, are many millions of dollars in King County each year. Summary Adoption of an ordinance that would require landlords to obtain business licenses and provide certification that rental units pass inspection before businesses licenses can be renewed. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan The demand for additional rental units is market-driven. It is not anticipated that this initiative would affect the growth, development, or conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities This initiative would not impact the capacity of the City to provide adequate public facilities. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth There could possibly be an effect on the rate of population growth if rental housing became more expensive. The CNA, however, indicates Renton has (2007-2011) an “over supply” of rental units available to households with income ranges at 30 to 80 percent of Average Monthly Income. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Plan objectives will be furthered by this proposed code amendment, specifically Goal HHS-A of the Housing Element: Goal HHS-A: Adopt best available housing practices and implement innovative techniques to advance the provision of affordable, fair, healthy, and safe housing for renters, homeowners, and the homeless. Goal HHS-C: Increase the stability of neighborhoods by fostering long-term homeownership, property maintenance, and investments in existing housing. Goal HHS-H: Actively work to increase the availability of healthy, equitable and affordable housing for people in all demographic groups and at all income levels and promote a balance of housing and the amenities needed by residents at a neighborhood AGENDA ITEM # c) #D-118 Page 4 of 4 October 7, 2015 level, such as childcare, availability of fresh food, recreational opportunities, and medical care. Effect on general land values or housing costs If housing becomes more valuable due to improved condition, both land values and housing costs may rise. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies Regulations related to healthy housing are not included in the Growth Management Act, but rather the Washington State Residential Landlord-Tenant Act (RCW 59.18). The proposed new ordinance is consistent with the Countywide Planning Policies, which promote healthy living and healthy communities, specifically: Healthy Housing: Housing that protects all residents from exposure to harmful substances and environments, reduces the risk of injury, provides opportunities for safe and convenient daily physical activity, and assures access to healthy food and social connectivity. The proposed revisions are consistent with the Plan, specifically: Policy HHS-8: Utilize the City’s authority to rehabilitate housing to prevent neighborhood blight or eliminate unsound structures. Policy HHS-9: Encourage expansion of programs that result in home repair, weatherization, and other energy-efficient improvements to owner-occupied and rental housing, and promote additional funding for these programs at the state and federal level. Effect on other considerations Although the primary goal of this initiative is to improve the health of residents, as indicated in the analysis herein, improving the health of neighborhoods is a secondary goal that can lead to greater neighborhood stability. A more stable community has public safety, environmental, and economic impacts and contributes to an overall higher quality of life for all. Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to adopt a rental registration program and uniform maintenance standards. Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance implementing Residential Rental Registration and Inspection. AGENDA ITEM # c) Docket Item #119 – Frontage Improvements Summary of proposed changes: Spend funds received as fee-in-lieu for frontage improvements in grouped community planning areas. Background: Typically, the City requires installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk as part of new development. For example, a subdivision of 20 new homes would be constructed with new interior roadways complete with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and would connect its exterior or frontage roads to the existing road network with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. For some infill development of just a few homes or a single home, the City may not require the physical installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but would allow a fee-in-lieu to be paid. Per City Code, “The City may accept payment of a fee-in-lieu instead of requiring installation of street improvements in the following circumstances: 1.There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is no likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next five (5) years; or 2.Installation of the required improvement would require substantial off-site roadway modifications; or 3.The Administrator determines that installation of the required improvement would result in a safety hazard; or 4.Other unusual circumstances preclude the construction of the improvements as required.” However, there are many areas of the City where curb, gutter, and sidewalks are not part of the development pattern. Residents have questioned why they are required to pay the fee in these areas in particular. Staff recommends retaining the requirement, but specifying that the fee will be expended within reasonable proximity to where they are collected. The money received through the fee-in-lieu option is utilized to complete the sidewalk network in the City, but the sidewalks may or may not be in the same community where the fee is collected. For example, a fee collected for development occurring in the Benson community may be utilized to build sidewalks in the Highlands. The equity of this practice has been questioned. Rather than not collect a fee-in-lieu in areas where there is not an existing sidewalk network, staff recommends amending Code to state that fees collected will be expended within grouped Community Planning Areas. The groupings are as follows: 1) West Hill, City Center, Cedar River; 2) Valley; 3) Talbot, Benson, Fairwood; and 4) Kennydale, Highlands, and East Plateau. These are the same groupings the City will be tracking person trips and transportation projects. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # d) October 21, 2015 #D-119 STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS General Description Currently, the City allows people to pay a fee-in-lieu of installation of required frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk). However, there are many areas of the City where curb, gutter, and sidewalks are not part of the development pattern. Residents have questioned why they are required to pay the fee in these areas in particular. Staff recommends retaining the requirement, but specifying that the fee will be expended within reasonable proximity to where they are collected. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities created by the proposed changes. Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employement growth created by the proposed changes. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The Vision identifies Renton as “a well-connected place that builds cohesive networks, in the form of: partnerships that enhance community resources; transportation and recreation facilities that connect through trails, sidewalks, and streets; and local business volunteer, and neighborhood organizations that bring people together”. The Plan identifies sidewalks as integral to fulfilling the Vision of the City. Additionally, Policy T-45 seeks to “Ensure that new development contributes its fair share of the cost of transportation facilities, programs and services needed to mitigate growth related transportation impacts.” The proposal to retain the frontage improvement fee-in-lieu program seeks to further the Vision and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Effect on general land values or housing costs Requiring a property owner to either construct frontage improvement or pay a fee-in-lieu for those improvements does increase the cost to them. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable. Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The staff proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan, and the Countywide Planning Policies. GMA planning goals seek to encourage efficient multimodal AGENDA ITEM # d) #D-119 Page 2 of 3 October 21, 2015 transportation systems and sidewalks are part of a multimodal system. King County Countywide Planning Policy T-19 seeks to ”Design roads and streets, including retrofit projects, to accommodate a range of motorized and non-motorized travel modes in order to reduce injuries and fatalities and to encourage non-motorized travel. The design should include well-defined, safe and appealing spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.” Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on critical areas or natural resource lands. Discussion Typically, the City requires installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk as part of new development. For example, a subdivision of 20 new homes would be constructed with new interior roadways complete with curb, gutter, and sidewalk and would connect its exterior or frontage roads to the existing road network with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. For some infill development of just a few homes or a single home, the City may not require the physical installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but would allow a fee-in-lieu to be paid. Per City Code, “The City may accept payment of a fee-in-lieu instead of requiring installation of street improvements in the following circumstances: 1.T here are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is no likelihood that the improvements will be needed or required in the next five (5) years; or 2.I nstallation of the required improvement would require substantial off-site roadway modifications; or 3.T he Administrator determines that installation of the required improvement would result in a safety hazard; or 4.O ther unusual circumstances preclude the construction of the improvements as required.” The money received through the fee-in-lieu option is utilized to complete the sidewalk network in the City, but the sidewalks may or may not be in the same community where the fee is collected. For example, a fee collected for development occurring in the Benson community may be utilized to build sidewalks in the Highlands. The equity of this practice has been questioned. Rather than not collect a fee-in-lieu in areas where there is not an existing sidewalk network, staff recommends amending Code to state that fees collected will be expended within a reasonable proximity to where they are collected. Staff proposes that the reasonable proximity be identified as the areas that were developed as part of the Transportation Element with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update. Under the policies established in the Element, the City will be tracking person trips and transportation projects by grouped Community Planning Areas. The groupings are as follows: 1) West Hill, City Center, Cedar River; 2) Valley; 3) Talbot, Benson, Fairwood; and 4) Kennydale, Highlands, and East Plateau. Staff recommends using AGENDA ITEM # d) #D-119 Page 3 of 3 October 21, 2015 these same established groupings as the areas for the frontage improvement fee in lieu expenditure areas. AGENDA ITEM # d) Docket Item #120 – Public Meetings and Signs Summary of proposed changes: Public information signs are currently required by applicants of subdivisions in order to apprise the public of the proposed project. A sign posted on a site proposed for subdivision provides the public with basic information, including the type of proposed land use action, required permits, and opportunities for public comment. Because this basic information is valuable to the public, staff proposes requiring such signs for most Type II and Type III land use permits with the following exemptions: 1.Additional Animals Permit 2.Home Occupation Business License 3.Temporary Use Permit 4.Temporary Emergency Wetland Permit 5.Special Flood Hazard Development Permit 6.Final Plats Type II and Type III land use permits that would apply can usually have greater adverse impacts for surrounding properties and the neighborhood than those proposed for exemption. These permits range from Variances and Conditional Use Permits to Temporary Homeless Encampments. To further facilitate meaningful public involvement in response to land use action proposals that can affect surrounding properties (those within 300’ of the site), staff recommend requiring neighborhood meetings for projects of significance. Such projects would include preliminary plats or improvements to the land appraised to be ten million dollars or more. A meeting would be hosted by an applicant as an opportunity to explain the project to surrounding property owners and in turn receive feedback that might influence aspects of the project and mitigate potential conflict. A required meeting would occur after a pre-application meeting with staff, but before submittal of an application. Requiring a meeting during an early stage of the process will help ensure development plans are premature and therefore an applicant can be responsive to raised issues without having to redesign near-final plans. In addition to neighborhood meetings for preliminary plats or improvements to the land appraised to be ten million dollars or more, staff proposes requiring a Public Outreach Sign. These signs would be less prescriptive by granting the developer some discretion to create an intriguing yet informative sign as part of a complete application. The signs would need to include a brief description of the development, a colored rendering of a building elevation, the estimated completion date, the primary consultant and any sub-consultants, as well as the City’s project manager. Two examples of Public Outreach Signs are attached for reference. Background: This docket request was initiated by the Planning Division. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # e) Renton Hampton Inn & Suites 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N Renton, WA 98056 OWNER: Legacy Renton LLC 6501 Eagle Rock Ave NE, Suite B-5 Albuquerque, NM 87113 Contact: Faizel Kassam CONTRACTOR: Legacy Hospitality, Inc. 6501 Eagle Rock Ave NE, Suite B-5 Albuquerque, NM 87113 Contact: Casey Gibbs ARCHITECT: Clark Design Group PLLC 1401 West Garfield Street Seattle, WA 98119 Contact: Scott Clark GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: Earth Solutions NW 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 Contact: Ray Coglas CIVIL ENGINEER: Insight Engineering Co. 2804 Grand Ave, Suite 308 Everett, WA 98201 Contact: Brian Kalab LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: Origin Design Group P.O. Box 1478 Everett, WA 98206 Contact: Krystal Lowe TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. 2802 Wetmore Ave, Suite 220 Everett, WA 98201 Contact: Brad Lincoln MEP ENGINEER: DC Engineering 440 East Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Meridian, ID 83642 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: PLANNING DIVISION Project Manager: Rocale Timmons rtimmons@rentonwa.gov Completion: Winter 2017 Expect traffic delays during construction 110 Hotel Guestrooms 110 Parking Stalls AGENDA ITEM # e) The Lofts at Second and Main DEVELOPER and PROJECT CONTACT: COSMOS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 11747 NE FIRST ST. SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 CONTACT: Oscar Del Moro oscardelmoro@cosmos-group.com CITY CONTACT: Rocale Timmons rtimmons@rentonwa.gov coming soon... LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: WEISMAN DESIGN GROUP 2329 E MADISON ST SEATTLE WA 98112 CONTACT: Andy Rasmussen STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEER: DCI ENGINEERS 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 CONTACT: Bruce Zhong/Darren Simpson ARCHITECT: JACKSON MAIN ARCHITECTURE 311 FIRST AVE SOUTH SEATTLE, WA 98104 CONTACT: Robin Murphy General Contractor: OCC-HCG, A Joint Venture CONTACT: Shawn Harriman - Shawn.Harriman@osborne.cc 10602 NE 38th Place, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033-7947 101 New Apartment Units 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms with lofts 5,000 sf of residential amenity area 4,000 sf of street front retail completion: winter 2016 expect traffic delays durring construction TRAFFIC: Heffron Transportation, Inc. 6544 NE 61st Street Seattle, WA 98115 CONTACT: Todd McBryan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: EARTH SOLUTIONS 1805 136th Place NE, Suite 201 Bellevue, WA 98005 CONTACT: Ray Coglas Cosmos Development Company 11747 NE FIRST ST. SUITE 300 BELLEVUE, WA 98005 P: 425 451 8188 F: 425 451 8498 AGENDA ITEM # e) October 21, 2015 #D-120 PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SIGNS General Description Public information signs are currently required by applicants of subdivisions in order to apprise the public of the proposed project. A sign posted on a site proposed for subdivision provides the public with basic information, including the type of proposed land use action, required permits, and opportunities for public comment. Because this basic information is valuable to the public, staff proposes requiring such signs for most Type II and Type III land use permits with the following exemptions: 1.Additional Animals Permit 2.Home Occupation Business License 3.Temporary Use Permit 4.Temporary Emergency Wetland Permit 5.Special Flood Hazard Development Permit 6.Final Plats Type II and Type III land use permits that would apply can usually have greater adverse impacts for surrounding properties and the neighborhood than those proposed for exemption. These permits range from Variances and Conditional Use Permits to Temporary Homeless Encampments. To further facilitate meaningful public involvement in response to land use action proposals that can affect surrounding properties (those within 300’ of the site), staff recommend requiring neighborhood meetings for projects of significance. Such projects would include preliminary plats or improvements to the land appraised to be ten million dollars or more. A meeting would be hosted by an applicant as an opportunity to explain the project to surrounding property owners and in turn receive feedback that might influence aspects of the project and mitigate potential conflict. A required meeting would occur after a pre-application meeting with staff, but before submittal of an application. Requiring a meeting during an early stage of the process will help ensure development plans are premature and therefore an applicant can be responsive to raised issues without having to redesign near-final plans. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan The proposed amendments might assist in producing applications that are responsive to neighborhood concerns, and therefore reduce the likelihood of delays and appeals. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities N/A Effect on the rate of population and employment growth N/A AGENDA ITEM # e) Page 2 of 2 October 7, 2015 Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Specific Plan objectives are not being met, but objectives are not invalidated or undesirable as a result of these proposed amendments. Effect on general land values or housing costs N/A Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed amendments are consistent with GMA, specifically Chapter 36.70B RCW, Local Project Review and do not conflict with the Countywide Planning Policies or the Plan. Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-9-065, Bonus Density Review. AGENDA ITEM # e) Docket Item #121 – Downtown Business District Summary of proposed changes: Map in Code a larger area of Downtown as the Downtown Business District. Background: Within Renton Municipal Code there are many references to uses that are allowed or things that are required of properties that are within the “Downtown Pedestrian District”, but that area is identified in two different ways in Code. Those two different ways are shown at right. In 2013, the Planning Commission and the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board reviewed the maps and the Planning Commission made a recommendation to Council. The recommended boundary is shown at right. The Council’s Planning and Development Committee requested that both bodies continue their work and consider the following factors as guidance: “consider including businesses along the boundary of the Downtown Business Core (such as Red House, VFW, and Service Linen; evaluate the western boundary on [South] 3rd Street; and consider a boundary for a second tier (sphere of influence) around the Downtown Business Core”. In 2014, the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board and the Planning Commission reviewed the comments made by the Planning and Development Committee and both bodies went Downtown to walk the area to physically identify the boundary of the Downtown. The map generated from those walks is on the next page. In general terms, both bodies felt that the area was best served by a concentrated boundary, not by expanding it to include the VFW, Red House AGENDA ITEM # f) and/or Service Linen or at the western boundary along South 3rd Street. If, over time, the need arises to expand the boundary or identify another second tier, that could be done. However, at present the area identified as Downtown should be concentrated and fairly narrowly focused. Both groups felt that all Downtown businesses should be pedestrian friendly and have features that encourage pedestrians and that a Business District can be more easily utilized in other ways beyond city code. For example, the Economic Development Division and Code Enforcement Section have utilized it as the area for targeted code enforcement work. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # f) October 21, 2015 D# 121 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT General Description There are different ways that the City’s Downtown is mapped in City Code. This can be challenging, as well as confusing for staff and applicants in the administration of the Code. This docket item seeks to adopt the mapped area identified by the Planning Commission and City Center Community Plan Advisory Board in 2014. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities created by the proposed changes Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment growth created by the proposed changes. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The Vision seeks a “revitalized Downtown that functions as a 24-hour living, working, and entertainment area” that “will emerge through planning for a balance of residential, commercial, and office uses with a distinctive, local identity”. It would be beneficial to have clarity regarding what specific area constitutes the Downtown Business area. Effect on general land values or housing costs Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs created by the proposed map changes. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed map changes are consistent with the statewide Growth Management Act and City Comprehensive Plan which call for sound planning. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands Mapping the Downtown will not have any effect on how critical areas and natural resource lands are managed. AGENDA ITEM # f) #D-121 Page 2 of 5 October 21, 2015 Discussion Within Renton Municipal Code there are many references to uses that are allowed or things that are required of properties that are within the “Downtown Pedestrian District”. It is mapped in 4.2.080D (shown in tan) and is defined in 4.11.040 (shown in yellow) as: “Those uses, buildings and walkways along either side of South Third Street between Burnett Avenue South and Main Avenue South, and along either side of Wells Avenue South between South Second Street and Houser Way South.” As is shown in the map at right, the mapped area and the defined area do not match. Another concern with the map as it is currently adopted is that it does not indicate actual parcels that would be included within the Pedestrian District, only streets. According to the Code definition, it is intended to include the parcels that abut specified streets. So, the map in the Code should show those parcels. AGENDA ITEM # f) #D-121 Page 3 of 5 October 21, 2015 In 2013, the Planning Commission and the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board reviewed the maps and the Planning Commission made a recommendation to Council. The recommended boundary is shown below. The Council’s Planning and Development Committee requested that both bodies continue their work and consider the following factors as guidance: “consider including businesses along the boundary of the Downtown Business Core (such as Red House, VFW, and Service Linen; evaluate the western boundary on [South] 3rd Street; and consider a boundary for a second tier (sphere of influence) around the Downtown Business Core”. AGENDA ITEM # f) #D-121 Page 4 of 5 October 21, 2015 In 2014, the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board and the Planning Commission reviewed the comments made by the Planning and Development Committee and both bodies went Downtown to walk the area to physically identify the boundary of the Downtown. The map generated from those walks is below. In general terms, both bodies felt that the area was best served by a concentrated boundary, not by expanding it to include the VFW, Red House and/or Service Linen or at the western boundary along South 3rd Street. If, over time, the need arises to expand the boundary or identify another second tier, that could be done. However, at present the area identified as Downtown should be concentrated and fairly narrowly focused. AGENDA ITEM # f) #D-121 Page 5 of 5 October 21, 2015 One of the most significant outcomes was to consider the area the Downtown Business District, not the Pedestrian District. Both groups felt that all Downtown businesses should be pedestrian friendly and have features that encourage pedestrians and that a Business District can be more easily utilized in other ways beyond city code. For example, the Economic Development Division and Code Enforcement Section have utilized it as the area for targeted code enforcement work. Another significant outcome was the removal of the Civic Node area, old City Hall, Library, History Museum, and Fire Station. Both groups felt that even though it is close in proximity, the area is distinctly different from Downtown and is not a part of the Downtown business area. Staff recommends adopting the boundary as drafted by the Planning Commission and City Center Community Plan Advisory Board into Code. AGENDA ITEM # f) Docket Item #122 – Impact Fee Deferral Summary of proposed changes: Allow school impact fees to be deferred. Amend Code regarding how long the fees can be deferred until, from the earlier of 18 months or seven days after sale to the earlier of 18 months or at closing. Set a limit of 20 deferrals per year. Background: The City currently charges impact fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire and allows for all of those fees to be deferred until “the earlier of seven calendar days after the date of sale . . . or eighteen months after the issuance of the original building permit”. The City also charges school impact fees for Renton, Issaquah, and Kent School Districts, but does not allow the fees to be deferred. This year, the Legislature amended the RCW’s related to impact fees in the following significant ways: 1.All jurisdiction that collect impact fees must allow deferral for impact fees. 2.School impact fees can be deferred. 3.Fees can be deferred until the earlier of eighteen months or at the time of: a.Final inspection b.Certificate of occupancy, or c.At the time of closing d.(jurisdictions choose one of the above). 4.Allows for school districts to initiate foreclosure proceedings if the City doesn’t on a property where fees are not paid. 5.Sets an annual limit of twenty deferrals per applicant; however jurisdictions can set a higher limit. If a jurisdiction sets a higher limit, it must consult with the school districts and “give substantial weight” to the recommendation of each school district. If the jurisdiction disagrees, it must provide a written rationale for its decision. In regards to the point at which fees can be deferred until, staff recommends collecting them at the time of closing (or eighteen months if it comes before closing). This is the most similar to the existing regulation for deferral of Transportation, Fire, and Parks impact fees. For those fees, the current code requires payment within seven days of sale. Using the option of at the time of closing also provides the most reasonable certainty that deferred fees will be collected because a lien is filed on the property if the property owner elects to defer fees and during the closing process, the title company will check for liens to ensure clear title. In regards to setting an annual limit, staff recommends not setting a higher limit. The City regards twenty deferrals as adequate. Additionally, to set a higher limit, the requirements to get there indicate that the preference for school districts is twenty. That number is acceptable to the City. Appeal Available: Text amendments of the Development Regulations that are referred to the Planning Commission are a Type VI process. The appeal available is a judicial appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board. AGENDA ITEM # g) October 21, 2015 #D-122 IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL General Description In May 2015, the State Legislature passed legislation that requires jurisdictions to allow the payment of impact fees to be deferred. The legislation also provided options for the point at which the fees are collected and included school impact fees as an impact fee that can be deferred. The City’s Code needs to be amended to address these changes. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities created by the proposed changes Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employement growth created by the proposed changes. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The Plan seeks to comply with State law. Effect on general land values or housing costs Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs created by the proposed map changes. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies Impact fees are consistent with GMA because by State law jurisdictions that have adopted plans through GMA are allowed to charge impact fees. The Legislature amended the RCW related to impact fees, the proposed amendments seek to ensure that the City is consistent with the new regulations. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands. Discussion The City currently charges impact fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire and allows for all of those fees to be deferred until “the earlier of seven calendar days after the date of sale . . . or eighteen months after the issuance of the original building permit”. The City also charges school impact fees for Renton, Issaquah, and Kent School Districts, but does not allow the fees AGENDA ITEM # g) #D-122 Page 2 of 2 October 21, 2015 to be deferred. This year, the Legislature amended the RCW’s related to impact fees in the following significant ways: 1.All jurisdiction that collect impact fees must allow deferral for impact fees. 2.School impact fees can be deferred. 3.Fees can be deferred until the earlier of eighteen months or at the time of: a.Final inspection b.Certificate of occupancy, or c.At the time of closing d.(jurisdictions choose one of the above). 4.Allows for school districts to initiate foreclosure proceedings if the City doesn’t on a property where fees are not paid. 5.Sets an annual limit of twenty deferrals per applicant; however jurisdictions can set a higher limit. If a jurisdiction sets a higher limit, it must consult with the school districts and “give substantial weight” to the recommendation of each school district. If the jurisdiction disagrees, it must provide a written rationale for its decision. The City needs to amend its code related to both impact fees and school impact fees in order to bring City code in line with State regulations. There are two policy decisions that the City needs to make related to the changes. In regards to the point at which fees can be deferred until, staff recommends collecting them at the time of closing (or eighteen months if it comes before closing). This is the most similar to the existing regulation for deferral of Transportation, Fire, and Parks impact fees. For those fees, the current code requires payment within seven days of sale. Staff is concerned about tracking where a project is in the development process in relation to eighteen months. With a lien filed on the property during the closing process, the title company will check for liens to ensure clear title. Using the option of at the time of closing provides the most reasonable certainty that deferred fees will be collected, if they are not paid at eighteen months and only requires the City to track the eighteen month time period. In regards to setting an annual limit, staff recommends not setting a higher limit. The City regards twenty deferrals as adequate. Additionally, to set a higher limit, the requirements to get there indicate that the preference for school districts is twenty. That number is acceptable to the City. AGENDA ITEM # g)