HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:00 PM - Thursday, January 28, 2016
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. DOCKET 11 briefing
a) D-116 Residential Building Heights - Staff Report
D-116 PowerPoint
b) D-117 Density Bonus Staff Report
D-117 PowerPoint
c) D-119 Street Frontage Improvement Staff Report
D-119 PowerPoint
d) D-120 Public Meetings & Signs Staff Report
D-120 PowerPoint
e) D-121 Downtown Business District Staff Report
D-121 PowerPoint
f) D-122 Impact Fee Deferral Staff Report
D-122 PowerPoint
g) D-123 Setbacks in Commercial Zones Staff Report
D-123 PowerPoint
h) D-124 Subarea, Community and District Plans Staff Report
D-124 PowerPoint
i) D-125 Assisted Living Staff Report
D-125 PowerPoint
j) D-126 Administrative Code Interpretations Staff Report
D-126 PowerPoint
2. EMERGING ISSUES
c:\users\jmedzegian\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\e1wluu2g\#116 res. building
height - staff rpt..docx 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 #1. 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 #1. 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 proposes 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.
Because staff proposes to change the method by which building height is determined in
residential zones, a footnote pertaining to the allowed height of public facilities in residential
zones will need to be amended to conform to the new method. Footnote #9 of RMC 4-2-110.D,
Conditions Associated with Development Standards Table for Residential Zoning Designations,
provides height limitations for facilities such as water towers/reservoirs and water treatment
facilities. The footnote provides ways in which these facilities may have increased height (e.g.,
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Page 4 of 4 October 7, 2015
by providing increased setbacks) and also requires that if such facilities exceed 50’ in height
that they be treated with public art.
Staff proposes to require any such facility be treated with public art, regardless of the allowed
height. Further, staff regards such uniform height limitations/allowances to be undesirable for
such buildings because they disregard site specific conditions that may result in a lower or
greater height to be appropriate for the site. As such, staff proposes that the height of these
facilities be determined through Site Plan Review.
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.
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 #1. a)
Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#116:RESIDENTIALBUILDINGHEIGHTAGENDA ITEM #1.
CURRENTCODE1) Max. wall plate height of 24’ in RC thru R-14.6’ height extension for pitched roofs2) Two-story max. in RC thru R-14Prior to Admin. InterpretationAfter Admin. InterpretationAfter Admin. InterpretationAGENDA ITEM #1.
CURRENTCODEAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Mostly located in periphery of City & Critical Areas•Transitional to rural•Larger lots/setbacks•Appropriate for larger housesLOW-DENSITYRESIDENTIAL(RC, R-1, & R-4)AGENDA ITEM #1.
RCAGENDA ITEM #1.
R-1AGENDA ITEM #1.
R-4AGENDA ITEM #1.
R-6AGENDA ITEM #1.
LOTSIZE& BUILDABLEAREARC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMFMin. Lot Area10 acres 1 acre9,000 sq.ft.7,000 sq.ft.5,000 sq.ft.4,000 sq.ft.3,000 sq.ft.N/AMin. Lot Width150 ft. 100 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft.Townhouse Development: 25 ft.RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMFMin. Front Setback30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft.Townhouse Development: 10 ft.Min. Side Setback25 ft. 15 ft.>7.5 ft. (sum of 20ft.)>5 ft. (sum of 15 ft.)5 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft.
AGENDA ITEM #1.
R-4 COMPARED TOR-6R-4R-6R-61. Zones meant to allow larger homes2. Difficult to meet roof standards with expansive footprints3. Sizeable lot areas/setbacks mitigate increased height
AGENDA ITEM #1.
RMFAGENDA ITEM #1.
PROPOSEDHEIGHTLIMITATIONSRC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14 RMFMax. # of Stories33322 2 3 3Max. Wall Plate Height32' 32' 32' 24' 24' 24' 24' 32'
AGENDA ITEM #1.
NEXTSTEPSPublic Hearing: Shall conclude on 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m.Public Comments: Renton City Hall jsubia@rentonwa.govc/o Judith Subia1055 S. Grady WayRenton, WA 98057Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.
c:\users\jmedzegian\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\e1wluu2g\d-117 density
bonuses staff rpt..docx 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 #1. b)
Page 2 of 7 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 #1. b)
Page 3 of 7 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 #1. b)
Page 4 of 7 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
Regional Growth
Center
CD 100 NA
30% above
allowed density
UC 85/150* NA
Sunset Area CV 80 NA
1/4 mile from transit CO 150 NA
Existing Bonus Density Provisions
Citywide
R-14 14 4 30% above
allowed density RMF 20 5
COR 50 25
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-1, R-10 & R-14
*If ground floor commercial is provided
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Page 5 of 7 October 7, 2015
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
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, specifically the following goal:
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Page 6 of 7 October 7, 2015
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.
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:
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Page 7 of 7 October 7, 2015
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
Regional Growth
Center
CD 100 NA
30% above
allowed density
UC 85/150* NA
Sunset Area CV 80 NA
1/4 mile from transit CO 150 NA
Existing Bonus Density Provisions
Citywide
R-14 14 4 30% above
allowed density RMF 20 5
COR 50 25
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.
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 #1. b)
Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#117:DENSITYBONUSESAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Permit to allow more dwelling units in exchange of a public benefit.WHAT ARE CURRENT STANDARDS?ZoneBase DensityBonus UnitsQualifying CriteriaR-14 14 4Alley access, orwith:Active common recreation (e.g., sports courts, pool), orCivic uses (e.g., recreation center), ortwo (2) units of affordable housing per acreIncreased surface parking lotlandscapingZoneBase DensityBonus UnitsQualifying CriteriaRMF 20 5one affordable unitand More affordableunits, orBuilt Green 3 Staror betterZoneBase DensityBonus UnitsQualifying CriteriaCOR 50 25> 20% affordableunits, orandImproved overall design, orEnvironmental enhancements(e.g., shoreline/critical area, or LEED design/constructionIncreased open spaceAGENDA ITEM #1.
BESTLOCATIONS FORAFFORDABLEHOUSING?1. access to living wage jobs; 2. job growth trends; and 3. unemployment rate1. average cost of commute; 2. access to transit; 3. transit cost; and4. walkability1. Commuter Rail Station2. Rapid Ride bus service3. Junction of major routesAGENDA ITEM #1.
SUNSETAREA1. Community revitalization priority2. Catalyze retail and housing development (market-rate and affordable)3. Relatively strong transportation access, a convenient location, and existing amenitiesAGENDA ITEM #1.
AreaSubject Zone(s)Base DensityExisting Bonus UnitsProposed Bonus UnitsRegional Growth CenterCD 100 NA30%UC 85/150* NASunset AreaCV 80 NA 30%1/4 mile from transitCO 150 NA 30%Existing Bonus Density ProvisionsR-14 14 430%RMF 20 5COR 50 25Assisted Living: R-1, R-10, R-14, RMF, CV, CD, CO, COR, UC1.5 times base density, or 18 du/acre in R-10 & R-14 *If ground floor commercial is providedAGENDA ITEM #1.
NEXTSTEPSPublic Hearing: Shall conclude January 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.
2ND& MAIN•150 dwelling units per net acre AGENDA ITEM #1.
c:\users\jmedzegian\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\e1wluu2g\d-119 staff
report.docx 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 #1. c)
#D-119 Page 2 of 2 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. 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.”
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
these same established groupings as the areas for the frontage improvement fee in lieu
expenditure areas.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
#D-119: Frontage ImprovementsDatePlanning CommissionOctober 19, 2015AGENDA ITEM #1.
•City typically requires installation of frontage improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) with new development•In some instances the City will allow a fee-in-lieu to be paid•In-lieu fees are not necessarily expended in same area collected•Residents have questioned this practiceBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
•The City may accept fee-in-lieu in the following circumstances: –No similar improvements in area and no likelihood that they will be needed or required in 5 years; or–Improvements would require substantial off-site roadway modifications; or–Improvements would result in a safety hazard; or –Other unusual circumstancesBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Preserve fee-in-lieu, but amend Code so that funds are expended in same general area–Use same groupings of Planning Areas that will be used for tracking person trips and transportation projects (developed with Transportation Element)Staff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #1.
•West Hill, City Center, Cedar River•Valley•Talbot, Benson, Fairwood•KennydaleHighlands, East PlateauStaff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #1.
Next Steps•Public Hearing–January 6, 2016•Deliberations and Recommendation–January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.
c:\users\jmedzegian\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\temporary internet files\content.outlook\e1wluu2g\d-120 staff
rpt.docx 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. Business Licenses for Home Occupations
3. Temporary Use Permit – Tier II
4. Temporary Emergency Wetland Permit
5. Development Permit (special flood hazard)
6. Final Plats
7. Final Short Plats
8. Final Binding Site Plans
9. Mobile Home Park, Final
10. Planned Urban Development, final
Environmental Review
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 projects estimated to be valued at $10M or greater. 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. The construction or alteration of
public facilities, the construction or alteration of airplane manufacturing facilities, and
development within the Employment Area Land Use Designation would be exempt from this
requirement.
Projects required to host a neighborhood meeting will also be required to display a “public
outreach sign” that will provide a colored three-dimensional rendering of the development, a
AGENDA ITEM #1. d)
Page 2 of 3 October 7, 2015
promotional description of the project, consultants providing expertise, and the City’s Project
Manager. Unlike public information signs that are removed upon expiration of the appeal
period, these signs would be required to remain until a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is
issued.
Finally, in tandem with the proposed revisions that will expand public notification efforts and
provide more meaningful public input for large projects, staff proposes to replace the current
practice of providing a “notice of application” via 8.5”x14” pink notices posted on a subject site
by instead providing such notice on the City’s website. The pink notices are ineffective and the
posting and removal of the signs consumes valuable staff time. Providing notice on the City’s
website will likely be more effective because it is known by the public to be a reliable source of
information, and anyone may sign-up for automatic notifications generated from webpage
updates.
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 #1. d)
Page 3 of 3 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 #1. d)
Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#120:PUBLICINFORMATIONSIGNS&NEIGHBORHOODMEETINGSAGENDA ITEM #1.
PUBLICINFORMATIONSIGNSAGENDA ITEM #1.
TYPEII ANDTYPEIII PERMITS1. Conditional Use Permits2. Variances3. Binding Site Plans4. Shoreline Development5. Site Plan Review6. Fill/Grade Permits7. And more…1. Additional Animals Permit2. Home Occupation Business License3. Temporary Use Permit4. Temporary Emergency Wetland Permit5. Special Flood Hazard Development Permit6. Final Plats
AGENDA ITEM #1.
PUBLICOUTREACHSIGNSAGENDA ITEM #1.
Neighborhood MeetingWhat?Why?When?Where?Who?NEIGHBORHOODMEETINGSAGENDA ITEM #1.
WHAT IS ANEIGHBORHOODMEETING?•Forum for an informal discussion between neighbors and the applicant about a proposal•Opportunity for applicants to address neighborhood concernsWhat it is NOT:•Delegation of authority•City-sponsored meeting•Reflection of City’sperspective on project meritsAGENDA ITEM #1.
After a required pre-application meetingbut before formal submittal of:•Preliminary Plats & PUDs•$10M projectsNeighborhood Meeting Requirements:•Mon-Thurs evening between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m.•Minimum of one hour long•Not occur on a federally recognized holidayWHEN TOHAVENEIGHBORHOODMEETINGS?AGENDA ITEM #1.
•Open to the public•Americans with Disabilities Act•Accommodate a reasonable number of neighbors •Within two miles from the projectWHERE TOHAVENEIGHBORHOODMEETINGS?AGENDA ITEM #1.
City staff are not required to attend and/or participate in neighborhood review meetingsWHOATTENDSNEIGHBORHOODMEETINGS?Property owners and residents within 300’ of proposed developmentProject applicant(s) or representative(s)AGENDA ITEM #1.
Auburn: Subdivision of > 40 lotsMultifamily with > 40 unitsIssaquah: SubdivisionsSammamish: SubdivisionsConditional Use PermitsShoreline:•Conditional Use Permits•Subdivisions & PUDs•Zoning Variances•Shoreline Permits•Binding Site Plans•SEPA Threshold Determination•Rezones•Critical Areas permitsBellevue:All Process I and III applications. Process II applications based on Director’s decision.Redmond:•Essential Public Facility•Master Planned Development•Preliminary Plat•Short plats with:>3 lotsCritical areas75% tree canopy AGENDA ITEM #1.
Notice of Application•Currently staff provides an NOA by:•mailing residents/owners within 300’ of the site, and •by posting three 8.5”x14” pink notices on site.Posting on Department website, which allows people to subscribe for automatic emails regarding any project. AGENDA ITEM #1.
Public Hearing: Shall conclude on January 13, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #1.
C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-121 Staff Report.docx 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 #1. e)
#D-121
Discussio
Within R
are requi
4.2.080D
walkway
South, an
South.” A
Another
that wou
definition
should sh
on
enton Muni
ired of prop
D (shown in t
ys along eith
nd along eith
As is shown
concern wit
uld be includ
n, it is intend
how those p
cipal Code t
erties that a
tan) and is d
er side of So
her side of W
in the map a
th the map a
ed within th
ded to includ
parcels.
here are ma
are within th
efined in 4.1
outh Third St
Wells Avenue
at right, the
as it is curren
he Pedestria
de the parce
Page 2 of 4
any referenc
e “Downtow
11.040 (show
treet betwee
e South betw
mapped are
ntly adopted
n District, on
els that abut
es to uses th
wn Pedestria
wn in yellow
en Burnett A
ween South S
ea and the d
d is that it do
nly streets.
t specified st
hat are allow
an District”.
w) as: “Those
venue South
Second Stree
defined area
oes not indic
According to
treets. So, t
October 21
wed or thing
It is mappe
e uses, buildi
h and Main A
et and House
do not mat
cate actual p
o the Code
he map in th
1, 2015
gs that
d in
ings and
Avenue
er Way
ch.
parcels
he Code
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
#D-121
In 2013, t
reviewed
recomme
requeste
“consider
House, V
consider
Core”.
the Planning
d the maps a
ended boun
ed that both
r including b
VFW, and Ser
a boundary
g Commissio
and the Plan
dary is show
bodies cont
businesses al
rvice Linen; e
for a second
on and the C
ning Commi
wn below. Th
tinue their w
long the bou
evaluate the
d tier (sphere
Page 3 of 4
ity Center C
ission made
he Council’s
work and con
undary of the
e western bo
e of influenc
ommunity P
a recomme
s Planning an
nsider the fo
e Downtown
oundary on [S
ce) around th
Plan Advisory
ndation to C
nd Developm
ollowing fact
n Business C
[South] 3rd St
he Downtow
October 21
y Board
Council. The
ment Commi
tors as guida
Core (such as
treet; and
wn Business
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
#D-121: Downtown Business DistrictDatePlanning CommissionOctober 19, 2015AGENDA ITEM #1.
•Mapping of Downtown in Code is inconsistent•2013, recommendation forwarded to Council•2014, further review by Planning Commission and City Center Community Plan Advisory Board•Bringing recommendation forwardBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
BackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
Background•2013 recommendationAGENDA ITEM #1.
•The Planning and Development Committee asked that the Commission and CCCPAB–“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”BackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Planning Commission and CCCPAB walked the Downtown to consider the boundary–Determined that concentrated area is most advantageous, at this point in time–Downtown Business District, not just Pedestrian DistrictBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Adopt Planning Commission and CCCPAB recommended Downtown Business District Staff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #1.
Next Steps•Public Hearing–January 6, 2016•Deliberations and Recommendation–January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.
C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-122 Staff Report.docx 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 #1. f)
#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 #1. f)
#D-122: Impact Fee DeferralDatePlanning CommissionOctober 19, 2015AGENDA ITEM #1.
•State Legislature amended regulations regarding deferral of impact fees•School impact fees can now be deferred–Requires City to amend CodeBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1.
Background•Two policy decisions–When to allow fees to be deferred until•The earlier of 18 months or at the time of:–Final inspection–Certificate of occupancy, or –At the time of closing–Number of deferrals allowed•20 (or more)AGENDA ITEM #1.
Staff Recommendation•Defer fees until the earlier of 18 months or the time of closing–Provides the best certainty that deferred fees would be collected–Title company will do a title search and liens would be resolved to ensure clean titleAGENDA ITEM #1.
Staff Recommendation•Retain the limit of 20 deferrals per year allowed by State law–To allow a greater number requires notification to School Districts and rationale for alternate number–20 is adequate and acceptable to CityAGENDA ITEM #1.
Staff Recommendation•Four additional policy decisions identified during code consolidation–Allow assertion that fees have been incorrectly assessed–Strike school impact fee requirement that request for credit be within 20 days of building permit application–Appeals to Hearing Examiner for all fees–Amend replacement of dwelling unit exemption timeframe from 12 months to 36 monthsAGENDA ITEM #1.
Next Steps•Public Hearing–January 6, 2016•Deliberations and Recommendation–January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.
c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\d-123 staff rpt.docx November 4, 2015
#D-123 SETBACKS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
General Description
Staff was directed to review building setbacks in commercial zones with consideration of the
effect on the public realm and other development regulations.
CN, CV, and CA Zones
Planners who implement Title IV regulations have noted the difficulty in requiring a ten feet-
wide landscaping strip and a minimum five feet-wide pedestrian walkway within any given lot
due to the maximum setback of 15 feet in the CN, CV, and CA zones.
The building located at 175 Rainier Ave South (occupied by AutoZone) is a prime example of the
constraint resulting from the provision of a landscaping strip and pedestrian walkway within the
maximum allowed setback of 15 feet (shown below). The combination of these development
regulations limits a developer to an exact setback of 15 feet with no ability to accommodate
site constraints or underground utilities that are often located in front of a building.
15’
AGENDA ITEM #1. g)
Page 2 of 4 November 4, 2015
In addition to a conflict of development regulations, staff considers this particular building to be
too close to the public right-of-way despite it being set back the maximum distance. Below is a
“street view” image of the building for reference.
Staff proposes increasing the minimum front yard and side yard along a street (i.e., secondary
frontage on corner lots) setbacks of the CN, CV, and CA zones from ten feet to fifteen feet, and
increasing the maximum setback distance to 20 feet.
UC Zone
Staff has also noted the obsolescence of the current UC zone setbacks. RMC 4-9-200.B.1,
Master Plan Review, requires all development within the UC and COR zones be governed by a
Master Plan. While setbacks of the COR zone are “determined through site plan review,” front
yard setbacks of the UC zone are prescribed as five feet for townhouses and zero feet for all
other development. However, because all aspects of a UC zone development are determined
through Master Plan Review, providing setback standards is misleading and inaccurate.
Therefore, staff proposes setbacks for the UC zone be “determined through site plan review.”
Conclusion
Staff did not identify other commercial setbacks that should be revised. For reference, the
current front and side yard along a street (i.e., secondary frontage on corner lots) setbacks for
commercial zones are as follows (footnotes were omitted for simplicity):
AGENDA ITEM #1. g)
Page 3 of 4 November 4, 2015
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
N/A
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
N/A
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
N/A
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
N/A
Effect on general land values or housing costs
N/A
CN CV CA UC CD CO COR
Minimum Front
Setback
10'
Townhouses:
5’
All other uses:
0’
none
Residential Mixed
Use Buildings: 0’
Buildings less than
25’ in height: 15’
Buildings 25’ to 80’
in height: 20’
Buildings over 80’
in height: 30’
Determined
through site
plan review.
Maximum Front
Setback 15'
5’
15' for buildings
25' or less in
height
Mixed use: 15’
other: 0’
Determined
through site
plan review.
Minimum Side
Yard Along a
Street
15’
Townhouses:
10’
All other uses:
0’
none
Residential Mixed
Use Buildings: 0’
Buildings less than
25’ in height: 15’
Buildings 25’ to 80’
in height: 20’
Buildings over 80’
in height: 30’
Determined
through site
plan review.
Maximum Side
Yard Along a
Street n/a 5’
15’ for buildings
25’ or less in
height
Mixed use: 15'
other: 0'
Determined
through site
plan review.
AGENDA ITEM #1. g)
Page 4 of 4 November 4, 2015
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
N/A
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to increase the minimum and maximum setbacks
of the CN, CV, and CA zones to 15 feet and 20 feet respectively. Staff also proposes that all
setbacks for the UC zone be “determined through site plan review.”
Implementation Requirements
Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-2-120.A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning
Designations (CN, CV, CA, & UC), and RMC 4-2-120.B, Development Standards for Commercial
Zoning Designations (CD, CO, & COR).
AGENDA ITEM #1. g)
Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#123:SETBACKS INCOMMERCIALZONESAGENDA ITEM #1.
CN, CV, ANDCA ZONES15’AGENDA ITEM #1.
UC ZONECredit: 425magazine.comCredit: northeastsuites.comCredit: bizjournals.comAGENDA ITEM #1.
Public Hearing: Shall conclude on 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m.Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #1.
#D-124 SUBAREA, COMMUNITY, AND DISTRICT PLANS
General Description
Subarea, community, and district plans adopted by the City must be consistent with policies
under the Comprehensive Plan and implementing Renton Municipal Code. Due to the adoption
of a revised Comprehensive Plan in June 2015, plans must be reviewed for consistency. If they
are found to be inconsistent, rectifying recommendations must be provided. This is also an
opportunity to review plans for general relevancy.
Initial review of this issue indicates there are several types of plans. First are plans “adopted by
reference” in RMC 4-4-030.B. Renton Municipal Code 4-4-030.B: “Adoption by Reference,”
states, “The goals, objectives, and policies as set forth in the following documents and related
studies or documents are presently in force or as modified from time to time are hereby
incorporated by reference and shall be considered as if fully set forth herein.” There may also
be plans “adopted by reference” elsewhere in the Renton Municipal Code, but not included in
RMC 4-4-030.B.
Plans adopted by reference in RMC 4-4-030.B are two types: City of Renton initiated plans or
plans generated by King County agencies. The City of Renton plans are:
• Cedar River Master Plan
• Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
• Green River Valley Plan
• Fire Department Master Plan
• Airport Master Plan
• Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan
• Comprehensive Water System Plan
• Long Range Wastewater Management Plan
• Shoreline Master Program
• Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan
• Street Arterial Plan
• Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee
• Parks Mitigation Resolution and Fee
• Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee
• Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010)
The King County plans are:
• King County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
• King County Solid Waste Management Plan
• Countywide Planning Policies
A third classification of plan includes plans adopted by the City, but not included in RMC 4-4-
030.B as adopted by reference. These include:
• Renton Municipal Airport Compatible Land Use Program
• South Renton Neighborhood Plan
AGENDA ITEM #1. h)
#D-124
• Highlands Subarea Plan
• Renton Automall Improvement Plan
• Soos Creek Community Plan
Work to complete this docket item will included the following tasks:
• Determination if there were plans adopted by reference in the Renton Municipal
Code that are not included in RMC 4-4-030.B, [no]
• Check of City of Renton plans heretofore adopted by reference as to relevance,
[done]
• Determination if there are plans adopted by the City, but not adopted by reference
in Title IV of the RMC and, if so, are they still relevant, [done]
• Verification that King County plans included in RMC 4-4-030.B are currently viable,
[upon recommendation of Renton Attorney, county plans removed from RMC]
• Determination if RMC 4-4-030.B: “Adoption by Reference,” can be and should be
removed from Title IV, [not removed upon recommendation of Renton Attorney
• Review other plans adopted by the City as to relevance and determine if they should
be adopted by reference in the RMC, [done]
• Assess the consistency of relevant City plans with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and
Renton Municipal Code, [done]
• Propose revisions to City plans as necessary, and [not necessary]
• Propose additions and deletions to the list of plans adopted by reference. [done]
An example of non-relevance is the South Renton Neighborhood Plan (Plan), which was
adopted before the recent down-zoning of the neighborhood, thereby reducing the maximum
density and building heights. The Plan is in conflict with the current development regulations.
Staff Recommendation
The current recommendation is to revise Renton Municipal Code 4-4-030.B to include only
relevant plans and rescind plans that are no longer relevant.
Implementation Requirements
Adopt ordinances and/or resolutions as appropriate and necessary.
AGENDA ITEM #1. h)
Planning and Development CommitteeJanuary 28, 2016DOCKET#124:PLANREVIEW FORCONSISTENCYAGENDA ITEM #1.
Purpose of Plan Review•Plans adopted over the years must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan•In 2015, Renton’s Comprehensive Plan was substantially revised•If plans are valid, but inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, corrections must be recommended•This work presented an opportunity to verify the relevancy of plansAGENDA ITEM #1.
Adopted Plans InconsistentNo plans were found to be inconsistent with the revised Comprehensive PlanAGENDA ITEM #1.
Plans No Longer ValidSeveral plans were found to be no longer valid and have been proposed to be rescinded. They include:•South Renton Neighborhood Plan •Community Development Plan•Supplement to the Community Development Plan •Comprehensive Plan for Urban Beautification AGENDA ITEM #1.
Plan Review Tasks•Revise Code (RMC 4-4-030.B: “Adopted by Reference”) to include only relevant plans•Rescind adopted plans that are no longer relevantAGENDA ITEM #1.
c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\d-125 staff rpt.docx November 4, 2015
#D-125 ASSISTED LIVING
General Description
Staff was directed to review Title IV regulations pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities,
Convalescent Centers, and senior housing; specifically, review of the permissive zones and the
allowed intensity.
Analysis – Permissive Zones
By definition, an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) contains dwelling units and offers round-the-clock
limited aspects of personal care, such as taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Dwelling units
include a full kitchen or kitchenette, a bathroom, and a living area. On the premises, facilities
include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a
laundry area. Meals may be provided multiple times daily in a common dining area.
In contrast, a Convalescent Center (CC) is licensed by the State for patients recovering health
and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions,
disabilities, or terminal illnesses. Facilities provide twenty-four (24) hour supervised nursing
care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically,
residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board,
laundry service, and organized activities.
“Senior housing” is not defined by Title IV. If an applicant were to propose age-restricted
housing, it would be regulated by the City in the same manner as any other housing. Catering to
a certain demographic group or offering health services would be a voluntary decision of a
proprietor.
Currently, ALFs and CCs are allowed outright, or through an Administrative or Hearing Examiner
Conditional Use Permit in the following zones:
P = Permitted Outright
AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit
H = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit
Staff concludes that the current zones allowing either an ALF or CC are appropriate. Where a
Conditional Use Permit (issued by the Administrator or Hearing Examiner) may allow a facility,
the process and possible conditions would likely mitigate any real or perceived impacts, or such
application may be denied if a site and/or surrounding area is incompatible with the use.
Analysis – Intensity
Because ALFs create dwelling units within the facility the intensity of the development is
governed by the density of applicable zones, in addition to other development regulations (e.g.,
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC
Assisted living AD ADPP P PPPP
Convalescent
centers H H H H PADP PADAD
K. SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALUSES:
D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS
AGENDA ITEM #1. i)
Page 2 of 3 November 4, 2015
building coverage, height, parking, etc.). Bonus density is offered for these facilities, which
allows a one-and-a-half (1.5) increase. For example, in the COR zone the maximum density is 50
dwelling units per acre (du/ac), but up to 75 du/ac with bonus density. In the R-1, R-10, and R-
14 zones an absolute maximum density of 18 du/ac is offered to ALFs. The absolute maximum
density bonus is based on the intensity of other uses allowed in the R-1.
As a land use, the traffic generated by an ALF is generally lower than a grouping of single-family
homes. Other high intensity land uses in the R-1 include group homes for seven or more, bed
and breakfast houses, and family day care. Many of these uses have similar characteristics of
use to ALFs, such as visitors, employees, and traffic generation. Family day care allows for the
care of 12 or fewer children in a 24-hour period. Group homes (II) are not limited to a specified
number of people and includes staff that provide care. Professional bed and breakfast houses
allow for overnight accommodations for a range of four to ten guest rooms. All of these uses
involve a staff and residents or customers.
Staff applied the maximum number of guest rooms (10) allowed at a professional bed and
breakfast as a base to determine the maximum number of assisted living residential units to
allow in the R-1. It is reasonable to assume that a proprietor of a bed and breakfast would have
two bedrooms for themselves. This base number of 12 was multiplied by the density ratio 1.5
to determine that up to 18 du/ac should be allowed for ALFs in the R-1 zone, which was also
applied to the R-10 and R-14 zones.
On the other hand, rooms for habitation in CCs are not required to meet the definition of a
dwelling unit (cooking and sanitary facilities must be provided), and the facilities are generally
comparable to a non-emergency hospital for long-term care and rehabilitation. Because CCs are
not subject to density regulations, the intensity of the facilities is governed by general
development standards (e.g., building coverage, height, parking, etc.) coupled with any site
constraints.
Summary
Staff considers the zones where ALFs and CCs are allowed outright to be appropriate for such
uses, while sites within zones that permit them conditionally will be determined for
appropriateness through the Conditional Use Permit process (Administrative or Hearing
Examiner). Furthermore, staff believes that the density bonus of 1.5 times base density in
commercial zones, and up to 18 du/ac in the R-1, R-10, and R-14 zones to be appropriate
intensities. Staff does not propose any amendments related to Assisted Living Facilities and
Convalescent Centers.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
N/A
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
N/A
AGENDA ITEM #1. i)
Page 3 of 3 November 4, 2015
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
N/A
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
N/A
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
N/A
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
No amendments to Renton Municipal Code are proposed.
Implementation Requirements
N/A
AGENDA ITEM #1. i)
Planning Commission BriefingNovember 4, 2015DOCKET#125:ASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1.
ASSISTEDLIVING, CONVALESCENTCENTERS, & SENIORHOUSING1. Where should these uses be allowed?2. At what intensity should these facilities be permitted to develop?AGENDA ITEM #1.
Credit: merrillgardens.comASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Bathing•Dressing•Grooming•Toileting•Medication Management•Escorts to Meals and Activities•Safety ChecksASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1.
Credit: redmondcareandrehab.comCONVALESCENTCENTERSAGENDA ITEM #1.
•Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy•Round-the-clock nursing care•Dental, Podiatry and Psychiatry•X-Ray, Pharmacy and Laboratory•Ophthalmology and Audiology•Wound Care Management•Restorative Nursing-ADL Care•Recreational Therapy•Dietary and Nutritional Services•Dialysis Care Services•Care management, discharge planning, and social work•Pain Management•Medication Administration•Tube-Feeding•IV Therapy•Respite Care•HospiceCONVALESCENTCENTERSAGENDA ITEM #1.
SENIORHOUSINGCedar River CourtAGENDA ITEM #1.
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UCAssisted living AD AD P P P P P P PConvalescent centersH H H H PADP PADADK. SERVICESRESIDENTIALINDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALUSES:D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONSALLOWEDLOCATIONSP = Permitted OutrightAD = Administrative Conditional Use PermitH = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use PermitAGENDA ITEM #1.
Assisted Living Facility:•Max. density of zone multiplied by 1.5 (or 18 du/ac in residential zones);•General development regulationsALLOWEDINTENSITYConvalescent Center:•General development regulationsBed & Breakfast:12 bedrooms x 1.5 = 18AGENDA ITEM #1.
PROPOSEDREVISIONS•Remove the minimum age requirement of 55 years.AGENDA ITEM #1.
Public Hearing: January 6, 2016Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #1.
C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-126 Staff Rpt..docx November 4, 2015
D# 126 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATIONS
General Description
Renton Municipal Code Title IV Development Regulations are proposed to be amended based
on recent administrative interpretations (attached) of unclear or contradictory code. These
administrative decisions have already become effective. This report to the Planning
Commission is part of the process by which the print version of the code is to be amended
based on such decisions. Municipal code section 4-1-080 provides guidance for Administrative
Interpretations as it states:
RMC 4-1-080.A.1.a: The Community and Economic Development Administrator, or
designee, is hereby authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of
unclear or contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the
Renton Title IV Development Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or
purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety
and public health regulations are assumed to prevail over other regulations.
Interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory regulations. Examples
include mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for users, and where
certain situations were not evaluated in updating Title IV. Each decision has a public appeal
period and is supplied with a background, justification, decision, and recommended code
amendment. For more information about the process or each determination, go to:
• Background and decision: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24686
• Process: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24684
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives are being met as specified and remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
AGENDA ITEM #1. j)
#D-126 Page 2 of 4 November 4, 2015
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
Determinations are based on proposed development standards that have been previously
reviewed in light of these plans and policies. Code Interpretations are consistent with these
plans.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
Effect on other considerations
None
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as written within Administrative Code
Interpretations CI-61 through CI-78. These Code Interpretations are abbreviated below.
• CI-61 – Title Report for Complete Submittal: CI-61 adds a Title Report to the list of
required materials for certain land use actions. Title Reports provide critical information
regarding property, including property owners and any encumbrances. It is important
to ensure all property owners consent to a land use application and that the proposed
use or development does not conflict with any encumbrances, such as easements.
Therefore, a Title Report is a necessary submittal requirement for staff to conduct a
complete review of certain land use applications.
• CI-62 – Side Yard Abutting Shared Driveways: CI-62 clarifies that a side yard along a
street setback is not necessary or appropriate for shared driveways. These setbacks are
intended for corner lots and are usually equal to the front setback. Requiring a
substantial setback for houses that front a public street and a shared driveway is
unnecessary.
• CI-63 – Signs within Shoreline Areas – Special Requirements: Currently the City’s
adopted sign regulations contain special requirements for signs located within shoreline
areas. The language adopted within the Sign Code for signage located within shoreline
areas is not consistent with the language adopted under the City’s current Shoreline
Master Program, and therefore is proposed to be deleted.
• CI-64 – Side Yard Setback Requirements adopted under Ordinance 5724: CI-64
adjusted side yard setbacks established under interim zoning (R-8 standards were
temporarily set to anticipated R-6 standards). Now that interim zoning has been
repealed, this interpretation is rescinded.
• CI-65 – Time Review Period for Minor Alterations: CI-65 determined that applications
for “minor alterations” of existing wireless communication towers, as defined in RMC 4-
AGENDA ITEM #1. j)
#D-126 Page 3 of 4 November 4, 2015
4-140.E, shall be reviewed within 60-days, including review to determine whether an
application is complete.
• CI-66 – Minimum Dimensions for Wireless Landscaping/Screening: CI-66 clarified that
required landscaping to screen a telecommunications compound shall be 15 feet wide,
equal to the height of the compound fence, and located along the outside perimeter of
the fence.
• CI-67 – Minimum Front Yard for Alley Accessed Garages: CI-67 corrects the inadvertent
omission of reduced front setbacks for alley-loaded garages that occurred during
extensive Title IV updates in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update.
• CI-68 – Fence Height for Side Yards Along a Street and Rear Yards Abutting a Street: CI-
68 clarifies that fences within a side yard along a street setback may only exceed 48
inches in height upon approval of a Special Fence Permit.
• CI-69 – Fence Height Requiring Building Permit: CI-69 corrects a reference to the
International Building Code by noting the requirement of a building permit for fences
that are seven feet tall instead of six feet.
• CI-70 – Allowed Projections into Setbacks - Fences/Retaining Walls: CI-70 corrects a
footnote that provides misleading information about allowed height of fences and
retaining walls within setbacks. The footnote was corrected to direct readers to the
Fences/Retaining Wall regulations instead of attempting to summarize standards.
• CI-71 – Underground Utilities Exemption Process: CI-71 provides an exemption to
seeking a variance for undergrounding utilities if compliance with standards can be
shown.
• CI-72 – CD Zone Landscaping and Bicycle Parking Requirements: Specifies that parking
lot landscaping applies to existing or proposed surface parking lots, and that bicycle
parking is still required if off-street vehicular parking is not required.
• CI-73 – Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF): Corrects conflicting standards by
specifying that building height is measured from average grade to the highest portion of
the structure, and placing restrictions on wall plate height and the number of stories.
• CI-74 – Amendments to Wireless Communication Facility Regulations: CI-74 extended
the definition of a Minor Alteration to existing non-tower facilities, clarified that height
restrictions influenced by the airport are applicable, and created a purposeful
redundancy between different RMC Titles regarding utility poles as towers.
• CI-75 – Distinguishing Tracts from Lots During Subdivision Review: Recent docket work
resulted in requiring certain facilities and/or features to be located within tracts as
opposed to easements because of the added legal protection of a distinct property.
AGENDA ITEM #1. j)
#D-126 Page 4 of 4 November 4, 2015
Such facilities/features include protected trees, native growth protection, stormwater
detention facilities, open space, and private access. Prior to the recent docket work
these areas would have been required to be within easements, and therefore these
required tracts should not count towards the lot count of proposed subdivisions.
• CI-76 – RMF Yard Setbacks: CI-76 clarified a setback scheme based on lot width by
replacing it with prescriptive setbacks in the RMF zone (five feet side yard setback, and
20 feet side yard along a street setback).
• CI-77 – WCF Minor Alteration Criteria: CI-77 corrected a scrivener’s error by requiring
all Minor Alteration Criteria be satisfied instead of one or more criterions.
• CI-78 – Fee in Lieu of Street Improvements: CI-78 specifies that the fee in-lieu option is
available to developers of infill single family building permits, and reduces the fee in-lieu
for sidewalk and curb to more appropriate figures.
Implementation Requirements
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amendments to Renton Municipal Code as proposed within the cited
Administrative Code Interpretations.
Implementation Requirements
Although these interpretations are already effective, the Planning Division is bringing these
decisions to the Planning Commission as part of a more extensive public process to provide
greater transparency where Title IV Development Regulations have been clarified and/or
amended. Codify Administrative Code Interpretations by adopting an ordinance amending the
pertinent sections of RMC as prepared within each Administrative Code Interpretation will
codify.
AGENDA ITEM #1. j)
Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#126:ADMINISTRATIVECODEINTERPRETATIONSAGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-61 – Title Report for Complete Submittal:CI-61 adds a Title Report to the list of required materials for certain land use actions. CI-62 – Side Yard Abutting Shared Driveways:CI-62 clarifies that a “side yard along a street” setback is not necessary or appropriate for shared driveways. CI-63 – Signs within Shoreline Areas – Special Requirements: Sign Code for signage located within shoreline areas is not consistent with the language adopted under the City’s current Shoreline Master Program, and therefore is proposed to be deleted.CI-64 – Side Yard Setback Requirements adopted under Ordinance 5724: CI-64 adjusted side yard setbacks established under interim zoning (R-8 standards were temporarily set to anticipated R-6 standards). Now that interim zoning has been repealed, this interpretation is rescinded.AGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-65 – Time Review Period for Minor Alterations: CI-65 determined that applications for “minor alterations” of existing wireless communication towers, as defined in RMC 4-4-140.E, shall be reviewed within 60-days, including review to determine whether an application is complete.CI-66 – Minimum Dimensions for Wireless Landscaping/Screening: Required landscaping to screen a telecommunications compound shall be 15 feet wide, equal to the height of the compound fence, and located along the outside perimeter of the fence.CI-67 – Minimum Front Yard for Alley Accessed Garages: CI-67 corrects the inadvertent omission of reduced front setbacks for alley-loaded garages that occurred during extensive Title IV updates in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. AGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-68 – Fence Height for Side Yards Along a Street and Rear Yards Abutting a Street: CI-68 clarifies that fences within a side yard along a street setback may only exceed 48 inches in height upon approval of a Special Fence Permit.CI-69 – Fence Height Requiring Building Permit: CI-69 corrects a reference to the International Building Code by noting the requirement of a building permit for fences that are seven feet tall instead of six feet.CI-70 – Allowed Projections into Setbacks - Fences/Retaining Walls: CI-70 corrects a footnote that provides misleading information about allowed height of fences and retaining walls within setbacks. The footnote was corrected to direct readers to the Fences/Retaining Wall regulations instead of attempting to summarize standards.AGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-71 – Underground Utilities Exemption Process: CI-71 provides an exemption to seeking a variance for undergrounding utilities if compliance with standards can be shown.CI-72 – CD Zone Landscaping and Bicycle Parking Requirements: Specifies that parking lot landscaping applies to existing or proposed surface parking lots, and that bicycle parking is still required if off-street vehicular parking is not required. CI-73 – Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF): Corrects conflicting standards by specifying that building height is measured from average grade to the highest portion of the structure, and placing restrictions on wall plate height and the number of stories.AGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-74 – Amendments to Wireless Communication Facility Regulations: CI-74 extended the definition of a Minor Alteration to existing non-tower facilities, clarified that height restrictions influenced by the airport are applicable, and created a purposeful redundancy between different RMC Titles regarding utility poles as towers.CI-75 – Distinguishing Tracts from Lots During Subdivision Review: Recent docket work resulted in requiring certain facilities and/or features to be located within tracts as opposed to easements because of the added legal protection of a distinct property. Such facilities/features include protected trees, native growth protection, stormwater detention facilities, open space, and private access. Prior to the recent docket work these areas would have been required to be within easements, and therefore these required tracts should not count towards the lot count of proposed subdivisions.AGENDA ITEM #1.
CI-76 – RMF Yard Setbacks: CI-76 clarified a setback scheme based on lot width by replacing it with prescriptive setbacks in the RMF zone (five feet side yard setback, and 20 feet side yard along a street setback).CI-77 – WCF Minor Alteration Criteria: CI-77 corrected a scrivener's error by requiring all Minor Alteration Criteria be satisfied instead of one or more criterion.CI-78 – Fee in Lieu of Street Improvements: CI-78 specifies that the fee in-lieu option is available to developers of infill single family building permits, and reduces the fee in-lieu for sidewalk and curb to more appropriate figures.AGENDA ITEM #1.
NEXTSTEPSPublic Hearing: Shall conclude on 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m.Public Comments: Renton City Hall jsubia@rentonwa.govc/o Judith Subia1055 S. Grady WayRenton, WA 98057Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1.