HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:00 PM - Monday, June 27, 2016
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Sidewalk Maintenance & Construction
a) AB - 1633
b) Staff Report
c) Sidewalk Ordinance
2. Sunset Planned Action Ordinance
a) AB - 1677
b) Presentation
3. Adoption of 2015 Construction Codes
a) AB - 1672
4. 168 Development Rezone
a) AB - 1687
5. Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board Briefing
AB - 1702
AB - 1633
City Council Regular Meeting - 11 Apr 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: Sidewalk Maintenance and Construction
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz, Associate Planner
EXT.: 7436
FISCAL IMPACT:
Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A
Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ N/A
Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Chapter 9-8 RMC, entitled Sidewalk Construction, details the processes by which a sidewalk is constructed
when not done concurrently with development of the abutting lot, or when a previously constructed sidewalk
needs to be reconstructed, repaired, or cleaned. The Chapter has not been substantially updated in over forty
years. City personnel have adjusted their practices to conform to decisions of the Washington State Supreme
Court (e.g., Rivett v. Tacoma), but the code should be updated to reflect those practices that are formally
approved by City Council; for example, Public Works staff regularly repairs or constructs new sidewalks in
existing residential neighborhoods.
In addition to updating the RMC with respect to process, responsibility of improvements, and indemnification from
injuries/damage resulting from hazardous conditions, staff would like to explore policies, such as:
Prioritizing sidewalk construction/repair based on the severity of any sidewalk defects and the location
of the sidewalk (see attached Sidewalk Repair Priority Matrix); and
The City will perform construction/repair of sidewalk abutting residences in the RC through R-14 zoning
districts (all other uses and zones would be financially responsible for constructing/repairing sidewalk).
EXHIBITS:
A. Sidewalk Priority Matrix
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Refer the Sidewalk Maintenance and Construction item to the Planning Commission and then the Planning and
Development Committee for review.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Sidewalk Priority Matrix
Non-Specific Along Local
Street
Along
Collector
Street
Along Arterial
Street
Within 1/4
mile of
transit/bus
stop
Within 1/4
mile of parks
& libraries
Within 2
miles of a
school
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Low Severity 1
Medium-Low
Severity 2
Medium
Severity 3
Medium-High
Severity 4
High Severity 5
No Sidewalk 6
No Sidewalk 7
Missing sidewalk segment/slab
No sidewalk constructed
Low Severity
Medium-Low
Severity
Medium Severity
Medium-High
Severity
High Severity
No Sidewalk
No Sidewalk
Sidewalk Location
Sidewalk ConditionSidewalk impassable to average mobility-impaired pedestrian; hinders mobility of average pedestrian
Sidewalk impassable to average mobility-impaired pedestrian
Uneven/distressed surface may hinder movement of mobility-impaired pedestrian and may cause injury
Low distress; unlikely to hinder mobility of average person
Sidewalk in good condition; no maintenance needed
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
\\rvfps-02\depts\pw\ced\planning\misc planning projects\sidewalk construction - chapter 9-8 rmc\staff rpt - sidewalk
maintenance and construction.docx April 20, 2016
SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
General Description
City personnel are seeking clarification and guidance on existing and proposed practices related
to sidewalk construction, repair, and maintenance (hereinafter referred to as “sidewalk
improvements”), as well as requesting the opportunity to update Renton Municipal Code (RMC)
to that end. The Chapter indemnifies the City from injuries/damage resulting from hazardous
sidewalk conditions regardless of how the sidewalk defect was created, directs City personnel
to immediately report the need for such sidewalk improvements to City Council, and via
resolution require the owner of property abutting the sidewalk to finance improvements to City
standards.
Assessment of Existing Code
Chapter 9-8 RMC, entitled Sidewalk Construction, details the processes by which sidewalk is
constructed when not done concurrently with development of the abutting lot, or when
previously constructed sidewalk needs to be reconstructed, repaired, or cleaned; the Chapter
has not been substantially updated in over forty years.
Case law, notably Rivett v. Tacoma, has rendered some provisions of Chapter 9-8 RMC to not be
in keeping the Revised Code of Washington. For example, it is unlawful to require an abutting
property owner to fund the repair or reconstruction of sidewalk without any judgment as to the
cause of the sidewalk defect. Sidewalk defects that are caused by the actions, or lack thereof,
by city personnel are the responsibility of that jurisdiction. Additionally, current RMC provisions
require complete indemnification from liability of injuries sustained as result of a defective
sidewalk; this provision is also no longer valid as jurisdictions potentially have culpability if that
jurisdiction had actual knowledge of the defect.
City personnel have adjusted their practices in order to comply with case law. For example,
residential sidewalk is regularly improved by the City without any financial responsibility
required of the abutting property owner.
Sidewalk Study:
In 2008 a Sidewalk Study was conducted to identify and prioritize sidewalk improvements. The
study concluded that “…many arterial and local streets were constructed in Renton prior to the
current standards. Many streets lack sidewalks on either one or both sides. Additionally, recent
annexations have incorporated new neighborhoods into the city that were developed under
King County development standards. The newer neighborhoods have sidewalks per current
King County Road Standards, but older neighborhoods may have been developed without
sidewalks under older King County Road Standards.” The study prioritized 29 projects that
totaled approximately $4 million. Although this estimate was made eight years ago and at least
a portion of the total projects have presumably been constructed, the total miles of street
centerline (lengths measured along the center of roadways) was 232 miles at the time of the
study, compared to 440 miles of centerline that exist today. The 2016-2021 Transportation
Improvement Program allocates a total of $660,000 to the Sidewalk Rehabilitation and
Replacement Program, which is unlikely to fully fund desired or even necessary sidewalk
improvements over the next five years.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Page 2 of 3 April 20, 2016
Proposed Amendments to Code
Allow City Council to contribute or wholly pay for sidewalk improvements regardless of
the cause of sidewalk defect(s);
Repair or reconstruction of existing sidewalk will only be the responsibility of abutting
property owners if it’s determined that a current or past owner caused the defect (e.g.,
evidence of parking vehicles on the sidewalk/curb, planting a tree on private property
that causes sidewalk heaving);
Require an annual report to City Council requesting funds to be expended for specific
sidewalk improvements based upon an assessment of documented hazardous sidewalk,
the severity of those hazardous conditions, the cost of making improvements, and
available budgeted funds;
Requires abutting property owners to report any hazardous or defective sidewalk
condition to the City; and
The City would be indemnified by the abutting property owner only if a sidewalk defect
caused the injury and that property owner had knowledge of the defect at least 14 days
prior to the injury for which a claim is made.
Proposed Practices:
Needed sidewalk improvements in residential neighborhoods (those zoned RC through
R-14) will be performed by the City when funding is available (assuming sidewalk defects
are not caused by the abutting property owner). All other property owners will be
financially responsible for sidewalk improvements based on the notion that their
properties generate revenue, and providing pedestrian access is not only a requirement
but also benefit for their enterprise.
Prioritize sidewalk improvements based on the enclosed “Sidewalk Repair Priority
Matrix.” The matrix is only a draft at this point, and edits or additions are welcome.
The matrix would prioritize necessary improvements based on the Sidewalk Location
(horizontal axis) coupled with the Sidewalk Condition (vertical axis).
Each column and each row would have a numerical value (i.e., weight), and when
the location and condition are determined a sum of the numerical values would
determine its priority (the largest sum equates to the highest priority).
The Sidewalk Conditions have been weighted differently than Sidewalk Locations
because staff considers the condition of sidewalks to be of greater importance than
the location, and because more heavily weighted conditions will result in sidewalk
prioritization that is more geographically equitable. For example, with evenly
weighted axes a sidewalk of “low distress” within two miles of a school would have
equal priority as a block face that lacks up to 50% of sidewalk along a local street.
Block faces that lack sidewalk for more than 50% of the linear length have been
excluded from the matrix because such capital projects will likely draw funds from a
different source than would repairs or construction of sidewalk in limited lengths.
Summary
Like most infrastructure sidewalks require maintenance, repairs, and at times upgrades. A city
the size of Renton will likely always have inadequate funding for all necessary sidewalk
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Page 3 of 3 April 20, 2016
improvements, and therefore the City must be very methodical and deliberate in deciding to
expend resources for this infrastructure.
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
The proposed code amendments and practices are intended to provide the most critically
necessary sidewalk (public facility) improvements while not detracting from the City’s ability to
provide other public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
N/A
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Land values of property abutting adequate sidewalks tend to be higher than those properties
that lack such facilities, and therefore the proposed code amendments and practices will likely
raise the value of properties where sidewalk improvements are made. The proposed code
amendments and practices will not affect the cost of new housing construction.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
The proposed code amendments and practices will help ensure capital improvements or
expenditures are being made or completed as expected.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed code amendments and practices are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and
Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Amend Chapter 9-8 RMC as described.
Implementation Requirements
Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 9-8 RMC.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
Street Classification
Along Local
Street
Along Collector
Street
Along Arterial
Street
5 10 15 20 25 30
Low Distress 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Medium Severity 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Medium-High
Severity 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
High Severity 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Missing Sidewalk
Segment/Slab 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
No Sidewalk < 50%
of Block Face 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Sidewalk Repair Priority Matrix
Sidewalk Location
Within 1/4 Mile
of Parks &
Libraries
Within 1/4 Mile
of Transit Stops
Within 2 miles
of a school
Sidewalk ConditionUneven/distressed surface may hinder movement of mobility-impaired pedestrian and may cause injury
Low distress; unlikely to hinder mobility of average person
Missing a half or a complete sidewalk segment/slab
Low Distress:
Medium Severity:
Medium-High Severity:
High Severity:
Missing Sidewalk:
No Sidewalk (50%):No sidewalk constructed for less than or equal to 50% of block face
Sidewalk impassable to average mobility-impaired pedestrian; hinders mobility of average pedestrian
Sidewalk impassable to average mobility-impaired pedestrian AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
CITY ATTORNEY
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 23, 2016
TO: Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
FROM: Alex Tuttle, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: 1925 – Sidewalk Code
I have enclosed the original of the above-mentioned [ordinance/resolution], which is
approved as to legal form. The requesting staff person has been sent a copy of the
legislation.
Alex Tuttle
AT: jlc
cc: Paul Hintz
Enc.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, REPEALING CHAPTER
8, SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, OF TITLE IX (PUBLIC WAYS AND PROPERTY) OF
THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 9-8,
“SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION.”
WHEREAS, maintenance and repair of sidewalks are an element of public safety; and
WHEREAS, abutting property owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair of
the sidewalks adjoining their properties; and
WHEREAS, abutting property owners do not always repair hazardous sidewalks in a
timely fashion; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton is a non-charter code city with many financial
responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has limited resources to devote to sidewalk maintenance and repair
within its budget; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is exercising its discretionary legislative authority to devote
what resources it deems advisable toward the maintenance and repair of the City’s sidewalks;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the City shall allocate those resources
by creating a Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement Program is designed to
maintain and repair those sidewalks determined by the City Council to be in greatest need of
rehabilitation;
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Chapter 8, Sidewalk Construction, of Title IX (Public Ways and Property)
of the Renton Municipal Code, is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new
Chapter 9-8, entitled “Sidewalk Maintenance and Construction,” to read as follows:
CHAPTER 8
SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION
SECTION:
9-8-1: Definitions
9-8-2: Abutting Property Owner’s Responsibility
9-8-3: Expense Of Construction, Repair And Maintenance
9-8-4: Procedure To Order Construction Or Repair
9-8-5 Hazardous Conditions Of Sidewalk
9-8-6: Indemnification
9-8-1 DEFINITIONS:
A. Abutting Property Owner: The owner, or person in charge, of real
property having frontage on the margin of any street, public place, or where
sidewalk exists or is required to exist.
B. Administrator: For the purposes of this Chapter, the Administrator of the
Public Works Department, or designee, unless otherwise stated.
C. Sidewalk: All structures or forms of improvement for pedestrians included
in the space between the street margin, as defined by a curb or the edge of the
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
traveled road surface, and the line where the public right-of-way meets the
abutting property.
D. Sidewalk Improvement: Any construction, reconstruction, or repair made
to a sidewalk.
E. Sidewalk Maintenance: The removal and disposal of debris, litter and
vegetation which tends to impair the utilization of the right-of-way for public
purposes and the removal of ice and snow from sidewalks.
F. Sidewalk Reconstruction: The removal and disposal of broken, cracked,
raised or sunken portions of the sidewalk, or broken, cracked or dislodged
portions of retaining walls and rockeries lying within the right-of-way, and
replacement of the removed sections with materials to match the portion on
either side of the removed section in accordance with City standards.
G. Sidewalk Repair: The removal, replacement, and/or grinding and patching
of small damaged portions of sidewalks, retaining walls or rockeries lying within
the right-of-way with like materials. Repair of damaged portions exceeding ten
(10) linear feet shall be classified as reconstruction.
9-8-2 ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S RESPONSIBILITY:
It shall be the responsibility of the owner of property abutting upon a public
sidewalk to maintain the sidewalk at all times in a safe condition, free of any and
all obstructions or hazardous conditions, including but not limited to ice, snow,
vegetation, loose dirt, rocks and debris.
9-8-3 EXPENSE OF CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE:
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
A. Responsible Party: The burden and expense of maintaining sidewalks
shall devolve upon and be borne by the owner of the property directly abutting
the sidewalk; the property owner shall be responsible only for the sidewalk
abutting his or her property. The abutting property owner shall be responsible
for performing and paying for sidewalk construction and repairs, unless such
improvements are part of a program approved and funded by the City Council.
The abutting property owner shall be responsible for performing and paying for
sidewalk reconstruction upon a written finding adopted via resolution that a
current or past owner caused the hazardous condition(s) defined by section 9-8-
5, Hazardous Conditions of Sidewalk. An abutting property owner shall not be
charged with the costs of reconstruction if the reconstruction is required to
correct deterioration or damage to the sidewalk that is the direct result of
actions by the City or its agents, or to correct deterioration of, or damage to, the
sidewalk that is the direct result of the failure of the City to enforce its
ordinances. The abutting property owner shall be liable for the costs of repair, to
the extent permitted by Chapter 35.68 RCW.
B. Sidewalk Barriers: When the sidewalk is located more than two feet
(2’) above or below the abutting property, or if the slope of the property
immediately adjacent to the sidewalk exceeds a one-to-one (1:1) ratio, the
erection and/or maintenance of suitable barriers along the outer margin of the
sidewalk shall be the responsibility of the owner of the directly abutting
property. If the difference in elevation is the result of a change in street grade
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
occasioned by any city, county or state roadway construction, reconstruction, or
improvement project, then in that event said barrier shall be erected or installed
as a part of such project and the cost thereof shall be included in the project. The
subsequent maintenance, cleaning, repair and renewal of said barrier shall be
the responsibility of the owner of the directly abutting property. All such repairs
shall be made after application for and issuance of a proper right-of-way
construction permit therefor, as required by law, and all of such work to be duly
inspected and approved by the Administrator.
9-8-4 PROCEDURE TO ORDER CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIR:
A. Sidewalk Repair: Sidewalk repair may be performed by the Maintenance
Services Division through the Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement Program
on an as-needed basis to improve pedestrian safety and remove tripping
hazards. Temporary repairs such as grinding or installing asphalt patches may be
used. Work conducted under the Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Replacement
Program is performed at the discretion of the Administrator until budgeted
resources are depleted, and does not require a biennial report to the City Council
or City Council resolution.
B. Biennial Report to Council: If, in the judgment of the Administrator, public
convenience or safety requires that a sidewalk be constructed, reconstructed, or
repaired, such determination shall be reported to the City Council on a biennial
basis in conjunction with a proposed resolution. The resolution shall specify the
location(s) and length(s) of sidewalk to be constructed, reconstructed, or
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
repaired based upon the Administrator’s assessment of documented hazardous
sidewalk, the severity of those hazardous conditions, the cost of making
improvements, and available budgeted funds.
C. Cost of Improvements: If upon receiving a report from the Administrator,
the City Council, in its discretion, deems the construction, reconstruction, or
repair of such sidewalk necessary for public convenience or safety, the City
Council may then order such work to be performed pursuant to the Sidewalk
Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program. The City may participate in the cost of
engineering, when required, removal of vegetation, placing topsoil, bankrun
gravel, drains, or other materials. In the case of corner lots, the City may pay the
full cost of the sidewalk aprons and the curb around the radius from back of walk
to back of walk. The City may also pay the full cost of replacing defective alley
crossings. The City may construct, reconstruct or repair sidewalks and pay the
costs thereof from any available budgeted funds in such amounts as the City
Council, in its discretion, may determine, or the City may require the abutting
property owner to construct the sidewalk improvement at his or her own cost or
expense; alternatively, the City may assess all or any portion thereof against the
abutting property owner in accordance with Chapter 35.68 RCW. In the event
the City requests an abutting property owner to undertake or pay for the
improvement, it shall follow the procedures for resolution, notice and hearing on
such improvements as outlined in Chapter 35.68 RCW. The Administrator is
authorized to enter into agreements with owners of abutting property for the
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
repair of any sidewalk or curb determined defective or hazardous as herein
defined. The agreements shall define the extent of costs involved and the
amount, if any, to be contributed by the City and the property owner.
D. Citizen Requests: Any person requesting the City to construct,
reconstruct, or repair sidewalk shall make requests in writing to the
Maintenance Services Division of the Public Works Department. Such requests
shall accurately identify the abutting property, those portions of the right-of-way
sought to be improved, and photographic documentation of the conditions if
requested by the City. On a biennial basis the Administrator shall prepare a
report that assesses requests submitted during the previous two (2) years, make
a determination of improvements necessary or convenient for the public health,
safety or welfare, and determine the priority among other sidewalk
improvement requests and City projects with respect to the conditions of the
sidewalk, estimated cost of improvements, available City resources, and other
factors promulgated by the Administrator or City Council.
E. Sidewalk Construction by Property Owner: Any person desiring to
construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or relocate any sidewalk abutting their
property shall submit a complete application in writing to the Development
Services Division of the Department of Community and Economic Development.
No change or relocation of any sidewalk shall be made until the issuance of an
appropriate permit.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
F. Sidewalk Standards: Sidewalks shall be designed and constructed to
conform with existing City standards. The Community and Economic
Development Administrator may approve deviations from existing sidewalk
standards through a Modifications Permit.
9-8-5 HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS OF SIDEWALK:
It shall be a code violation for the owner of any property abutting upon any
public street right-of-way or alley in the City to construct, place, cause, create,
maintain, or permit to remain upon any part of said right-of-way any condition,
structure, or object dangerous or hazardous to members of the general public,
including but not limited to the following conditions:
A. Defective sidewalk surfaces, including but not limited to broken or cracked
cement concrete, upheaved, elevated, or depressed cement concrete within or
between sidewalk joints;
B. Defective cement concrete surfaces placed adjacent to the public sidewalk
or defects at the juncture between said cement surfaces and said public
sidewalks, including elevations or depressions at said junction;
C. Defects in sidewalks or public ways caused or contributed to by the roots
or trees or similar growth or vegetation located either on private adjoining
property or on the parking strip portion of any such street right-of-way;
D. Defective conditions caused by tree limbs, foliage, brush, or grass on or
extending over such public sidewalks or rights-of-way or tree roots extending
under such public sidewalks or rights-of-way and damaging the sidewalk;
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
E. Defective conditions between the curb line and the sidewalk or, if there is
no curb line, then between the edge of the traveled portion of the street and the
sidewalk and between the sidewalk and the abutting property line;
F. Defects resulting from accumulation of ice and snow on public sidewalks or
on the right-of-way between the curb line or, if there is no curb line, then
between the adjacent edge of the traveled portion of the street roadway and the
abutting property line;
G. Defects consisting of foreign matter on the public sidewalks, including but
not limited to gravel, oil, dirt, vegetation, leaves, grease, moss, or any other
foreign subject matter that might cause pedestrians using said sidewalk to fall,
stumble, or slip by reason of the existence of such foreign matter;
H. Defective handrails or fences or other similar structures within or
immediately adjacent to said right-of-way area; and
I. Any defect or obstruction that is likely to cause injury to a reasonable
person exercising due care for their own safety or wellbeing.
9-8-6 INDEMNIFICATION:
A. Notification of Hazardous Conditions on Sidewalk: In order to protect the
public, owners of property abutting a sidewalk are obligated to report, in writing,
any hazardous conditions, as described by subsection 9-8-5, Hazardous
Conditions of Sidewalk, of that portion of the sidewalk to the Maintenance
Services Division of the Public Works Department.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
10
B. Property Owner Liable: In the event of any injury or damage to any
persons and/or property proximately caused by a defective, dangerous or
hazardous sidewalk condition as specified in this Chapter, the City shall:
1. Notify all record owners of property abutting the hazardous sidewalk
condition(s) of any claim for injury within sixty (60) days of receipt of such claim.
Such notification shall advise the abutting owner of the nature of the claim, and
shall provide a copy of the notice of claim filed by the claimant, and offer the
property owner an opportunity to defend, adjust, or pay the claim; and
2. Notify the abutting property owner more than thirty (30) days prior
to trial or arbitration, or more than fourteen (14) days prior to payment of any
claim for damages, of the pendency of trial, arbitration, or payment. Such
notification shall advise the property owner of the right to attend and participate
in such trial or arbitration, and the right to prevent the City from making
payment to an injured person by agreeing, in writing, fourteen (14) days in
advance of trial or arbitration, or three (3) days in advance of the date of
payment, to assume the entire defense of the claim.
C. Indemnification: If the City makes payment, by reason of judgment or
settlement, for any claim for damages proximately caused by a hazardous
sidewalk condition, the City has the right to indemnification by and from any
abutting property owner who had actual knowledge of the condition constituting
the hazard, if:
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
11
1. The abutting property owner failed to notify the Maintenance
Services Division of the Public Works Department, as provided herein, of the
hazardous sidewalk condition prior to the injury for which a claim is made; and
2. Such failure to notify proximately caused the injuries claimed; and
3. The City did not cause the hazard, create the hazard, or have actual
knowledge of the hazard.
SECTION II. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after
publication of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall
consist of this ordnance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2016.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2016.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:1925:6/23/16:jlc
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
AB - 1677
City Council Regular Meeting - 20 Jun 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
EXT.: 7219
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area. The NEPA/SEPA Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011. The number of
total dwellings currently under consideration does not exceed the number of dwellings studied in the FEIS and
considered in the Revised ROD and Planned Action Ordinance of 2014. The City of Renton is proposing to
amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA. The application includes
an expansion of an additional five parcels. An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any
changes to impacts associated with the revised master site plan.
EXHIBITS:
A. Issue Paper
B. NEPA Re-Evaluation and SEPA Addendum Analysis
C. Master Site Plan
D. Draft Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Set public hearing for July 11, 2016 to consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action and
authorize preparation of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance for first and second reading and
adoption.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:June 13, 2016
TO:Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA:Denis Law, Mayor
FROM:C. E. “Chip” Vincent, CED Administrator x6588
SUBJECT:Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments
ISSUE:
Should the City adopt the Sunset Area Planned Action Amendments?
BACKGROUND:
In May 2007, Council adopted land use and zoning changes for the Sunset Area
consistent with the work of the Highland Citizen’s Task Force on Land Use and Zoning.
Building upon this work, the Highlands Phase II Task Force recommended a series of
community and City actions to revitalize this neighborhood. After these
recommendations were adopted by Council in 2009, the City commissioned consultants
to develop the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy to focus on how the City
could best leverage public investments. One of the recommendations of the
Community Investment Strategy was to complete a Planned Action and Environmental
Impact Statement.
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and adopted a Planned Action
Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for
redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area. The NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued on April 1, 2011. The Planned
Action included the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with
mixed-income, mixed-use residential and commercial space, and public amenities.
In 2014, the City, Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and Colpitts proposed a revised
Master Plan based on the selected alternatives of the ROD to promote coordinated
development among the property owners. The City studied changes to total dwellings,
setbacks, building heights, and also reclassified some local streets serving the Sunset
Area to allow for a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating
circulation. The changes to the development proposal to add more units, increase
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Randy Corman, Council President
Page 2 of 3
June 13, 2016
height, and to address street standards, were evaluated in a NEPA Re-Evaluation,
pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD’s) NEPA regulations, and a SEPA Addendum (WAC 197-11-706). The combined Re-
Evaluation and Addendum demonstrated that the Master Plan did not alter the original
conclusions of the NEPA/SEPA FEIS; no new or different impacts would occur as a result
of the modified plan. The Re-Evaluation and Notice of Revised ROD were issued on
December 8, 2014. An amended Planned Action Ordinance was also adopted on
December 8, 2014.
At this time, the City and RHA are considering amended plans that would:
Shift seven units from the Sunset Terrace Apartments (Site 5) to the Suncrest
property (Site 11) within the original Master Plan area established in 2014; and
Develop replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment on five
additional parcels located outside but abutting the 2014 Master Plan area.
Three parcels would be added to the Sunset Court Park site (Site 19) to be
developed with 50 apartments and townhomes. Two parcels would be added to
properties north of the “loop road” in the Harrington Park development which
would serve to provide 19 townhomes (Site 14, 16/17).
With the 2016/currently proposed revisions to the Master Plan and addition of the
abutting parcels, there would be no net increase in the total number of housing units in
the Master Plan area or in the Sunset Area neighborhood. However, consistent with the
flexibility allowed by the adopted Master Plan, some units would be redistributed. The
proposed developments would meet City standards for density, height, setbacks,
transportation levels of service, connection to utilities, and would be subject to City
parking codes, including procedures for modifying applicable standards.
It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned
or purchased by RHA or by private developers, there would be up to 722 total units on
the Sunset Terrace property including nearby land swap/housing replacement sites.
Public amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a
community gathering space, civic facilities, a new park/open space, retail shopping and
commercial space, and green infrastructure.
The changes to the development proposal require a NEPA Re-evaluation, pursuant to
Section 58.47 of HUD’s NEPA regulations, demonstrating that the original conclusions of
the FEIS remain valid. SEPA also provides a process, using an Addendum to the prior FEIS
where new information or analysis does not substantially change prior conclusions
about impacts (WAC 197-11-706).
An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any changes to impacts
associated with the revised Master Site Plan. The re-evaluation, after considering the
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Randy Corman, Council President
Page 3 of 3
June 13, 2016
effects of the revised Master Site Plan and existing and supplemental environmental
documentation, concludes that no substantive change to the findings in the Record of
Decision would occur. The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS
adequately examines the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in
the Master Site Plan would not result in modification to those conclusions.
The 2016 Re-evaluation and Addendum would result in minor revisions of the ROD and
Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Site Plan. Staff is proposing to
amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action ordinance will continue to
implement the recommendations of the Sunset Community Investment Strategy.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
June 2016 1
REEVALUATION / ADDENDUM
Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment | June 2016
Prepared By: BERK Consulting in association with CH2MHill, CRC, Mithun, Perteet, and Weinman
Consulting LLC
1.0 background/Need for Reevaluation .................................................................................................2
2.0 Sunset Area Alternatives ..................................................................................................................6
2.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Land Use Proposals.....................................................................................................................11
2.3 Development Standards .............................................................................................................17
2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals ..........................................................................................19
2.5 Updated Land Cover / Impervious Analysis ................................................................................19
2.6 Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications ....................................................................20
2.7 Phasing........................................................................................................................................21
3.0 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................................................25
3.1 Land Use .....................................................................................................................................25
3.2 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................................................25
3.3 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................25
3.4 Transportation ............................................................................................................................25
3.5 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................................25
3.6 Public Services ............................................................................................................................26
3.7 Utilities........................................................................................................................................26
3.8 Other FEIS Topics ........................................................................................................................28
3.9 Monitoring and Review ..............................................................................................................28
4.0 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................32
Attachments
Attachment A – Cultural Resources Report
Attachment B – Traffic Impact Analysis – Sunset Court
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 2
1.0 BACKGROUND/NEED FOR REEVALUATION
The City of Renton, along with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), King County Library System, and
Colpitts Development, and community partners, is redeveloping the Sunset Terrace public housing
community, an approximately 7-acre site within the larger Sunset Area Community Neighborhood in
northeast Renton. The Sunset Area Community Neighborhood is shown in Exhibit 1. Sunset Terrace is
the central approximately 7-acre property in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea of
the Sunset Area Community Neighborhood in Exhibit 1. The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
subarea includes Sunset Terrace plus some peripheral sites that have been master planned for
redevelopment along with Sunset Terrace for a total of about 12.4 acres. Redevelopment of this area
envisions Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-income community anchored by a new public library
and a new park. Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and affordable rental housing in multi-story,
multi-family townhomes and apartments, along with commercial and retail space.
In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City of
Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011.1
The City served as the Responsible Entity (RE) for NEPA compliance, and the lead agency for SEPA
compliance.
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with NEPA, and in
June 2011 adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with SEPA for redevelopment of the
Sunset Terrace area. Under SEPA, a development application for a site-specific Planned Action project
located within the Sunset Area (Exhibit 1) will be designated a Planned Action if it meets the criteria in
the adopted Planned Action Ordinance, as well as laws, codes, development regulations and standards
of the City of Renton.
The ROD and Planned Action established a range of growth and associated facility and infrastructure
investments (e.g., park, library, “green streets,” etc.) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Study Area, for the neighborhood as a whole and for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, a site then
fully owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Redevelopment efforts have continued since 2011,
including issuance of a Demolition and Disposition permit for a Mixed Use Library redevelopment on a
portion of the property and a purchase and sale agreement with a private developer. This was followed
by a Demolition and Disposition permit for the balance of the Sunset Terrace property, which includes
both market rate and affordable dwellings. There would be no net loss of affordable units; RHA has
developed plans or has constructed units in the Sunset Area that could serve as replacement units for
Sunset Terrace when redeveloped.
In 2014, the City, RHA, and Colpitts proposed a revised Master Plan based on the selected alternatives of
the ROD to promote coordinated development among the property owners. See Exhibit 2. The City
studied changes to total dwellings, setbacks, and building heights, and also reclassified some local
streets serving the Sunset Area to allow a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating
circulation. The changes to the development proposal to add more units and height, and to address
street standards, was evaluated in a NEPA Reevaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) NEPA regulations, and a SEPA addendum (WAC 197-11-706).
1 CH2MHill and ICF International. 2011. Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement.
Final. April. (ICF 00593.10.) Bellevue and Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority, Renton,
WA.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 3
The combined Reevaluation and Addendum demonstrated that the Master Plan did not alter the original
conclusions of the SEPA/NEPA FEIS; no new or different impacts would occur as a result of the modified
plan. The Reevaluation and notice of Revised ROD were issued on December 8, 2014.
Following the December 2014 NEPA reevaluation, the City approved a Master Plan including a new
Conceptual Plan for Sunset Terrace pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV. The revised
Master Plan included additional dwellings, alternative building locations, height, and street
reclassifications in the Sunset Terrace area. This Master Plan will facilitate the preparation of detailed
Site Plans in phases over time; provides a point of consistency with applicable regulations; and provides
more certainty regarding future development for members of the public and private developers. An
amended Planned Action Ordinance was adopted on December 8, 2014.
At this time, the City and RHA are considering amended plans that would:
Shift seven units from Site 5 to Site 11 within the original Master Plan area established in 2014 (see
Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3). Sites are commonly known as Sunset Terrace Apartments (Site 5) and
Suncrest Homes (Site 11).
Develop replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment on five parcels
located outside but abutting the 2014 Master Plan area – three parcels would be added to Site 19
and developed with 50 apartments and townhomes, and two parcels would be added to properties
north of the “loop road” to sites 14/16/17. Forty-four units would be transferred from Site 18 to
Sites 14/16/17 (+9 units) and Site 19 (+35 units). Sites are commonly known as Edmonds
Apartments (Site 18), Harrington Park (Sites 14/16/17), and Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19). See
Exhibit 3 for the referenced sites and added parcels.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 4
Exhibit 1. Planned Action Area: 2011
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 5
Exhibit 2. Renton Sunset Terrace Master Plan: 2014
Source: Mithun 2014
Exhibit 3. Sunset Terrace Master Plan and Added Parcels: 2016
Source: Mithun 2014; Master Plan Amendment Area – conceptually drawn by City of Renton 2015
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 6
With the 2016 revisions to the Master Plan and addition of the abutting parcels, there would be no net
increase in the total number of housing units in the Master Plan area or in the Sunset Area
neighborhood. However, consistent with the flexibility allowed by the adopted Master Plan, some units
would be redistributed. The proposed developments would meet City standards for density, height,
setbacks, transportation levels of service, connection to utilities, and would be subject to City parking
codes, including procedures for modifying applicable standards. The new developments would be
incorporated into an amended Master Plan pursuant to RMC Title IV. Also, the SEPA Planned Action
Ordinance could be amended to include the revised Master Plan concept.
As with the changes previously evaluated in 2014, the revisions proposed to the Master Plan at this time
require a NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum to provide additional information about the proposal,
to determine whether the proposed changes would result in any new or substantially different
environmental impacts, and to assess whether the conclusions of the original EIS are still valid. This
analysis would also provide the basis for amendments to the ROD and/or Planned Action Ordinance, if
any. This Reevaluation and Addendum document is structured as follows:
1.Introduction
2.Sunset Area Alternatives
3.Environmental Analysis
4.Conclusions
2.0 SUNSET AREA
ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Study Area
The primary Sunset Terrace redevelopment
area as well as housing Replacement sites,
and areas of public investment are illustrated
on Exhibit 4. (See also inset map at right.)
The Master Plan completed in 2014 provides
a coordinated plan of development for both
the Sunset Terrace and Replacement sites.
The proposed 2016 Master Plan amendment
would add properties into the Master Plan,
and redistribute some dwelling units, but
would develop the same overall number of
units as approved by the 2014 Master Plan.
See Exhibit 5.
All sites on Exhibit 5 were evaluated in the
2011 EIS for the Sunset Area Community
Planned Action Area shown in Exhibit 1 and
Exhibit 6. Most of the Master Plan sites being
reviewed in this document were previously considered in the Potential Sunset Redevelopment Study
Area (shaded in purple on Exhibit 1) or were considered “swap sites” (where housing replacement could
occur) as shown in Exhibit 6. Three additional parcels abutting Site 19 (also lettered F) are added to the
Master Plan, and two additional parcels are added to Master Plan Site 14/16/17 (lettered E). See Exhibit
# - Master Plan Sites /// - Sunset Terrace Public Housing Boundaries
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 7
5 and Exhibit 7. The 2014 Master Plan area totaled about 12.4 acres. The updated 2016 Master Plan area
would now equal about 14 acres.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 8
Exhibit 4. Revitalization Projects: 2014
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 9
Exhibit 5. Revitalization Projects: 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 10
Exhibit 6. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites: 2011/2014
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 11
Exhibit 7. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites: 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 12
2.2 Land Use Proposals
In total, 722 dwelling units are being proposed in the study area in this 2016 Reevaluation, which is to
the same as the number of units considered in the 2014 Reevaluation. See Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8. Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
Location
See Exhibit 5 for Site Letters
Land Area
(acres):
2014
Total
Dwelling
Units: 2014
Land Area
(acres):
2016
Total
Dwelling
Units: 2016
Commercial
Square Feet:
2014 and
2016
Master Plan Sites
Sunset Terrace and Replacement Sites: C through J 7.63 671 9.23 671 4,500-
39,500
Library (Site K), Developed 15,000
Sunset Park (Site M) and Regional Stormwater Facility
(Site L), Installed 3.20 3.20
NE 10th and Sunset Lane Loop (Site N and O)1.61 1.61
Total Master Plan Sites 12.44 671 14.04 671 19,500-
54,500
Other Sunset Terrace Study Area Sites: Glenwood
(Site A) - Developed 0.65 8 0.65 8
Swap Sites: Kirkland Avenue (B) - Developed, Library
Site for Future Surplus (X)2.18 43 2.18 43
Other Employment potential in Sunset Terrace and
Replacement Sites 4,500
Total All Sites 15.28 722 16.88 722 19,500-
59,000
Source: King County Assessor; ICF Jones & Stokes et al. 2011; BERK Consulting 2015
Two alternatives were addressed in the NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and the Planned Action
Ordinance as “selected” alternatives: Alternative 3 and a Preferred Alternative. See Exhibit 9 for a list of
net dwelling units. These alternatives represented the higher growth levels studied in the EIS. The
mitigation documents contained in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance were based on the range of
growth of the two Selected Sunset Area Alternatives.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 13
Exhibit 9. Comparison of Net Growth in Sunset Terrace and Neighborhood Alternatives
Net New Growth
FEIS Alternative 3
FEIS Preferred
Alternative
Reevaluation
Alternative: 2014
Reevaluation
Alternative: 2016
Dwelling
Units/Jobs
Neighbor-
hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor-
hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor-
hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor-
hood
Sunset
Terrace
Dwelling units 2,506 479c 2,339 266a 2,506 554b 2,506 519b
Population 5,789 1,106 5,403 614a 5,789 1,279 5,789 1,199
Employment SF 1,310,113 59,000 1,247,444
–
1,259,944
38,100 1,310,113 19,500-
59,000
1,310,113 19,500-
59,000
Jobs 3,330 182 3,154–
3,192
117 3,330 60-182 3,330 60-182
a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites.
b Similar to the FEIS, includes the sites shaded purple in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 6, considered Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment subarea. This equates to Master Plan sites C, D, E, G to O, plus site A. Sites B, F, and X considered swap
sites and included within neighborhood dwelling units.
C Does not include swap sites B, F, and X.
Source: FEIS 2011, BERK 2014
The purpose of identifying two “Selected Sunset Area Alternatives” in the FEIS was to define a range of
acceptable growth and designs considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment
plans in 2011, as well as the 20-year horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred
Alternative was similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space
and road network. The two alternatives were similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse
impacts and required mitigation measures.
Since the original FEIS analysis, additional site planning for Sunset Terrace and other properties has
occurred and some changes in the number or location of units have been considered. In 2014, 90 units
were added to in the Sunset Terrace Master Plan area (Exhibit 7), compared to Alternative 3 in the FEIS,
but the total number of units in the overall Sunset Area neighborhood remained the same. As well,
other site planning considerations were addressed regarding building height, etc. as described above.
The NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation conducted in 2014 showed no substantive changes in impacts or required
mitigation were needed as a result of the revised alternative, which is termed the “Reevaluation
Alternative.” Per the approved 2014 Master Plan, dwelling units may be redistributed among sites
provided the Reevaluation conclusions are maintained.
While the net units in Sunset Terrace are lower in 2016 than in 2014 per Exhibit 9, this is a reflection of
the boundaries of the 2011 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area (sites shaded purple in Exhibit
1 and Exhibit 6) that excluded Site 19 (also lettered Site F). Site 19 is included in the Sunset Area
neighborhood units.
Some potential dwelling units are proposed to be transferred among five individual Master Plan sites;
these are identified with the “box” on Exhibit 10. However, the total number of units that could be
developed in the Master Plan area would remain the same.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 14
Exhibit 10. Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site Development Title Status Acres:
2014
Total Units
Reviewed in
Reevaluation:
2014
Acres: 2016
Total Units
Reviewed in
Reevaluation:
2016
A Glennwood Townhomes Constructed RHA 0.65 8 0.65 8
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Constructed RHA 0.77 18 0.77 18
C 18 Edmonds Apartments Part of Master Site Plan 1.70 112 1.70 68
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments Part of Master Site Plan 0.51 54 0.51 47
E 14, 16/17 Sunset Park West Townhomes 2014 / Harrington Park 2016 Part of Master Site Plan, Amended 0.55 10 1.06 19
F 19 Sunset Court Townhomes 2014 / Sunset Court Apartments 2016 Part of Master Site Plan, Amended 0.88 15 1.95 50
G 11 Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apts 2014 / Suncrest Homes 2016 Part of Master Site Plan 1.09 57 1.09 64
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A Part of Master Site Plan 0.99 117 0.99 117
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B Part of Master Site Plan 1.18 196 1.18 196
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C Part of Master Site Plan 0.74 110 0.74 110
K 10 Renton Highlands Library Part of Master Site Plan See H See H
L Regional Stormwater Facility Part of Master Site Plan See M See M
M Sunset Park Part of Master Site Plan 3.20 3.2
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Part of Master Site Plan 1.41 1.41
O NE 10th Street Extension Improvements Part of Master Site Plan 0.20 0.20
X Library Site (2013)Future Development 1.41 25 1.41 25
Total - Master Plan Sites 12.44 671 14.04 671
Total - All Sites 15.28 722 16.88 722
= Master Plan Properties
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, Mithun, BERK 2014 and 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 15
The 2016 Reevaluation alternative is similar to the 2014 Reevaluation alternative in almost all respects,
but potential dwelling units would be transferred as follows:
Site 18 would be reduced from 112 units to 68 units (a reduction of 44 units) and the units
redistributed by 35 to Site 19 (an increase of 15 to 50) and by 9 to Site 14/16/17 (an increase of 10
to 19 units).
Site 5 would be reduced from 54 to 47 units and Site 11 would be increased from 57 to 64 units.
In 2011, the Sunset Court Apartment concept (Site 19) was considered as a “swap site” within the larger
project, whereby an existing park and parcels would be consolidated for a larger park.
On Site 19, the “swap site” is designed with the proposed Sunset Court Apartments. This will be a 50-
unit multi-family housing project situated on four tax parcels. Tax parcel numbers (and addresses) are:
722780-1660 (1144 Harrington Avenue NE); 722780-1665 (1156 Glenwood Avenue NE); 722780-1780
(vacant lot on Harrington Place NE); and, 722780-1781 (City park on Harrington Place NE). The three
additional lots are now included to make the design more conducive to the overall revitalization plan.
On Site 14/16/17, part of the Sunset Area Redevelopment in 2011, two parcels are added: 722780-1315
(1062 Glenwood Avenue NE) and 722780-1290 (1081 Harrington Avenue NE). The two parcels abut two
other previously studied parcels in the Sunset Area Redevelopment. Collectively these are called
Harrington Park. Approximately 19 townhomes and flats would be constructed on the sites. Six of the
parcels (two lots that are part of the Sunset Court Apartment project and all four lots that are part of the
Harrington Park project) contain one-story duplex residences that would be demolished.
Sites 5 and 11 were included in the original Sunset Terrace redevelopment area in the 2011 FEIS and the
2014 Reevaluation.
The Master Plan concept approved in 2014 would be revised per the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative
shown in Exhibit 11 below.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 16
Exhibit 11. Reevaluation Alternative: Master Plan Sites
Source: Mithun 2014; Master Plan Amendment Area – conceptually drawn by City of Renton 2015 AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 17
2.3 Development Standards
Sites proposed for the parcel additions and unit reallocations in the 2016 Reevaluation proposal are
addressed in this section, identified as Master Plan Sites 14/16/17, 18, and 19. Sites 5 and 11 proposed
for unit reallocations are also addressed. No changes to the other sites considered in the 2014
Reevaluation, and approved in the currently adopted Master Plan are anticipated. All environmental
impacts were addressed in the 2014 NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation.
Building Height
The Edmonds Apartments (Site 18), Harrington Park (Sites 14/16/17), and Sunset Court Apartments (Site
19) would be designed to meet allowable heights of their respective zones.
Sites 18 and 19 are zoned Center Village with a maximum height of 50 feet (60 feet is allowed if there is
ground floor commercial). Site 18 has been conceptually included in the Master Plan with no change to
the maximum height; detailed site plans have not been prepared for the property at the time of this
writing. Preliminary site plans prepared by RHA for Site 19 propose up to 40 feet in height under the
maximum heights of the zone. Sites 14/16/17 are zoned R-14 with a maximum height of 30 feet;
proposed heights in preliminary site plans prepared by RHA are below that maximum.
Site 5 was approved for greater height in the 2014 Master Plan based on a density transfer from the new
central park; heights of 60 feet are allowed instead of the standard maximum of 50 feet for single
purpose multifamily residential uses. The reduction of seven units is not anticipated to change the need
for the prior approved conditional use permit for the height increase above the zone standard.
With seven units transferred to Site 11, there would be no change to the conclusions that the site is
within the allowed zoning height of 50 feet allowed for single-use multifamily residential.
Density
All sites are consistent with the density requirements of the zoning code or density transfer agreements;
Site 5 was allowed to exceed density in 2014 based on the density transfer from the larger park via the
Master Plan approval. See Exhibit 12. Density Standards and Results.
Exhibit 12. Density Standards and Results
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site Site Zone Acres
Revised
Units
Units Per
Acre
Maximum
Density
C 18 Edmonds Apartments CV 1.70 68 40 80
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments CV 0.51 47 93 80
E 14, 16/17 Harrington Park R-14 1.06 19 17.9 14/18/30
F 19 Sunset Court Apartments CV 1.95 50 26 80
G 11 Suncrest Homes CV 1.09 64 58.6 80
Notes:
R-14 zone allows a bonus density: A maximum density of eighteen (18) units per net acre, for assisted living, may be allowed subject to conditions of RMC 4-9-065, Density Bonus Review. Affordable housing bonus in the R-14 zone: Up to thirty (30) dwelling units per net acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two (2) acres in size if fifty percent (50%) or more of the proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below fifty percent (50%) of the area median income. Per 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review: Up to 4 additional dwelling units per net acre. Densities of greater than eighteen (18) units per net acre are prohibited.
CV Zone: Assisted living bonus: 1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of RMC 4-9-065; assisted living units could achieve up to 120 units per acre. No such property is proposed at the time of this evaluation.
Source: City of Renton Municipal Code; BERK Consulting 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 18
Parking
Subject sites will be required to meet City parking standards. The standards for parking are as follows:
Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, RM-F, R-14, and R-10 Zones: A minimum and maximum of 1.6 per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.0 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit.
Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed.
Attached dwellings for low income: A minimum of 1 for each 4 dwelling units is required [0.25]. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed.
The sites propose parking consistent with the standards for low-income attached dwellings which may
range from 0.25 to 1.75 per dwelling unit:
Harington Park (Site 14/16/17): 19 units, 3 bedrooms, 25 stalls: Rate of 1.3 stalls per dwelling.
Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19): 50 units (1 bedroom (12); 2 bedroom (20); 3 bedroom (18): Rate
of 0.98.
Suncrest Homes (Site 11): 64 units: 8 townhomes would have 1 stall each and the 56 apartment
units would have 47 stalls. Townhomes would have 3 bedrooms. Apartments would have a mix of 1,
2 and 3 bedroom units. The overall ratio is 0.859.
Site 18 has not yet been the subject of a preliminary site plan, but will follow City codes as appropriate
at the time of application. Site 5 was evaluated in the 2014 Reevaluation and was found consistent with
City parking standards at that time, and would have parking consistent with City codes at the time of
application.
Onsite Open Space
In the CV zone, common open space is required to be provided at a rate of fifty (50) square feet per unit.
The City may allow substitutions in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC
4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require payment of a Fee-in-Lieu of
Common Open Space. This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications.
The Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19) have a central common space of over 7,750 square feet, larger
than the minimum 2,500 square feet required (west of Buildings 3 and 4).
The Harrington Park development (Sites 14/16/17) has a common space of about 4,000 square feet (a
larger common area between buildings 1 and 2 and a smaller common area between buildings 3 and 4),
more than the minimum 950 square feet required.
Suncrest Homes (Site 11) proposes an open space of at least 9,025 square feet with both vegetated
landscaping and hardscape larger than the 3,200 square feet required. Features would include common
gathering spaces, play spaces, and on-site paths.
Private open space is required to be provided for each dwelling unit. Site plans show ground floor units
with patio space and upper floors with balconies. At the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may
approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space
standards if meeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-
250(D).
Setbacks
Based on the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) zoning standards, 15 foot setbacks are needed from streets
in the R-14 zones and 4-foot setbacks are required for unattached side yards. A maximum 15 foot street
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 19
setback is required unless parking is accessed from an alley in which case the setback can be 10 feet.
Further the parking would need to be located 20 feet from the street.
The CV zone setback requires a minimum 10 foot setback which may be reduced to 0 feet as part of the
site plan development review process, provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback.
The proposed Harrington Park street setbacks are 10 feet from NE 10th Street, and otherwise 15 feet
from other streets (Sites 14/16/17). This is based on the parking being located behind the townhomes
and accessed at least 20 feet away from the street.
The Sunset Court Apartments plans (Site 19) meet the required setbacks of 10 feet from streets.
Suncrest Homes (Site 11) have minimum 10 foot setback from streets and other side and rear yards.
2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals
Detailed infrastructure plans have not yet been submitted for the proposals. However, Sunset Court
Apartments (Site 19), Harrington Park (Sites 14/16/17), and Suncrest Homes (Site 11) will be required to
meet City standards for utility hookups, fire flow pressure, and stormwater standards.
2.5 Updated Land Cover / Impervious Analysis
The FEIS included an analysis of changes in impervious surfaces. Additionally, consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the original 2011 proposal was
evaluated with respect to potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A
biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in
December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA-
protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS corresponded in
January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of concurrence in May
2011.
Exhibit 13 shows the land cover analysis associated with the 2011 FEIS Alternative 3, and Exhibit 14
shows the analysis associated with the Preferred Alternative; both were addressed in the FEIS, ROD, and
NMFS correspondence.
Exhibit 13. FEIS Alternative 3 Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total Area
(acres)
Total
Impervious
Area (acres)
Total
Pervious Area
(acres)
Total PGIS
(acres)
Total
Untreated
PGIS (acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 2.14
Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
12.64 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22
Total 15.70 9.32 6.80 3.05 0.26 6.36
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill, April 29, 2011, memo to Erika Conkling, City of Renton, Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 20
Exhibit 14. FEIS Preferred Alternative Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total Area
(acres)
Total Impervious
Area (acres)
Total Pervious
Area (acres)
Total PGIS
(acres)
Total Untreated
PGIS (acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 2.39
Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66
Total 15.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.15
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill, April 29, 2011, memo to Erika Conkling, City of Renton, Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
The following table shows an updated analysis of the 2016 Reevaluation Proposal, indicating that the
total impervious area, pollutant generating impervious surfaces (PGIS), and effective impervious area is
less than FEIS Alternative 3.
Exhibit 15. Reevaluation 2016 Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total
Area
(acres)
Total
Impervious
Area (acres)
Total
Pervious
Area
(acres)
Total
PGIS
(acres)
Total
Untreated
PGIS
(acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)*
Potential Replacement Sites 4.14 1.14 3.00 0.29 0.26 0.68
Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea 12.73 7.03 5.70 1.27 0 4.22
Total 16.87 8.17 8.71 1.57 0.26 4.90
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, CH2MHill, BERK 2014; Schemata, Renton
Housing Authority, BERK 2015
Notes: Per FEIS & BA, assumes that 40% of the impervious area in the site would be mitigated with flow control best
management practices. Assumes that 35% of the 3.2 acre park site would be impervious.
In comparison to Alternative 3, the preliminary analysis indicates that total acres within the study area
as a whole is higher due to the added properties for replacement housing, but total impervious area is
lower due to the proposed designs of the sites, lesser Sunset Terrace right-of-way, and the larger park.
There are also less PGIS as there is less surface parking in the preliminary site plans for the 2016
Reevaluation proposal than in Alternative 3; RHA has also indicated use of pervious parking and
sidewalks for its developments similar to designs accomplished in the already constructed Kirkland
Townhomes (Site B, Exhibit 5). Effective impervious area is also a little lower overall than Alternative 3.
Therefore, the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative is in the range of the prior analysis and no further analysis
or conditions are needed in association with the proposal.
The City communicated with NOAA and received confirmation that no new formal consultation is
needed with regard to the ESA as the results are within the range previously received in the 2011 letter
of concurrence. (pers com, Janet Curran, NOAA to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton, October 30, 2015)
The analysis updated in 2015 reflects the adjusted Harrington Park and Sunset Court Apartments
portions of the revised Master Site Plan. The Suncrest Homes proposal (Site 11) is consistent in footprint
with what was evaluated in the 2014 Master Site Plan and associated reevaluation, and thus does not
change what was sent to NOAA in 2015.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 21
2.6 Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications
The City intends to amend the Master Plan per RMC 4-9-200 to add in the five new parcels (three
surrounding Sunset Court Park and two added north of the loop road with the Harrington Park
development). For each Master Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated.
See Exhibit 17. This Reevaluation and Addendum for the revised proposal will also result in minor
revisions of the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Plan.
Other development permits and approvals would also follow, such as lot line adjustments/subdivisions,
right-of-way dedications and easements, phased/detailed site plans and associated design modifications
where appropriate. Lastly, building and construction permits would be sought.
2.7 Phasing
The redevelopment of the study area and broader neighborhood was anticipated to occur over a
number of years. The Master Plan sites will generally be phased over a 10 year period in approximately 5
phases. See Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16. Site Phasing
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site Phasing
RHA Sunset Terrace- Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
A Glennwood Townhomes Completed
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Completed
C 18 Edmonds Apartments Phase 5
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments Phase 5
E 14,16/17 Harrington Park Phase 5
F 19 Sunset Court Apartments Phase 4
G 11 Suncrest Homes Phase 4
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A Phase 1
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B Phase 2
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C Phase 3
K 10 Renton Highlands Library Phase 1
L Regional Stormwater Facility Phase 2
M Sunset Park Phase 4
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Extended with Utilities
O NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements Extended with Utilities
X Library Site Phase 5
= Master Plan Sites
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, BERK 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 22
Exhibit 17. Matrix of Permits
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site
Project Name Master PlanHeight CUPDensity InterpretationParking Rate InterpretationStreet Reclass-ificationsNEPA/SEPA ReevaluationROD/Planned Action AmendmentLot Line Adjustment or SubdivisionROW Dedication / EasementsSite Plan ReviewDensity BonusMod: Open SpaceMod: TransparencyMod: Blank WallMod: ModulationBuilding & Construction PermitsRHA Sunset Terrace- Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
C 18 Edmonds Apartments X X X X X
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments X X X X X X X X
E 14, 16/17 Harrington Park Apartments X X X X X X X X
F 19 Sunset Court Apartments X X X X X X X
G 11 Suncrest Homes X X X X X X
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A X X X X X X X X X X X
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B X X X X X X X X X X X X
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C X X X X X X X X X X X X
K Renton Highlands Library X X X X
L Regional Stormwater Facility X X X X
M Sunset Park X X X X X
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements X X X X
O NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements X X X X
Approvals and Permits Summer 2014 Future Permits Permits with Site Plan Review
Not Applicable: Already approved
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, BERK 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 23
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The analysis of each element of the environment below compares the conclusions from the FEIS
regarding Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative to the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative. It concludes
that the revised Master Plan would not change impacts significantly from those identified in the FEIS.
3.1 Land Use
The Land Use analysis in the FEIS concluded that the Sunset Area subarea would advance the purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and Center Village (CV) zoning district. It would serve as an incentive for
other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Anticipated growth would also help the City
meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. These conclusions are still valid for the 2016
Reevaluation Alternative which proposes housing uses consistent with zoning and developed in
coordination with the Master Plan.
3.2 Aesthetics
As described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Reevaluation Alternative will reallocate dwelling units among
sites, but all sites will meet zoning densities, building heights and setbacks, open space, and landscaping
per the code or per the Master Site Plan approval in 2014. Design standards will apply.
3.3 Cultural Resources
Five parcels were previously studied for potential cultural resources as part of the 2011 FEIS (Site 11,
original boundaries of Site 19, and two Harrington Park lots on the south side of the property, i.e. sites
14/16/17), and a determination of “no effect” upon historic properties was issued by the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
For this 2016 Reevaluation, the added lots with duplexes on the expanded Sites 14/16/17 and Site 19
were studied for potential historic resources; Sunset Court Park was studied again for potential
archaeological resources. The report prepared by CRC (Attachment A) shows a new determination of
“no effect” as of September 22, 2015.
3.4 Transportation
Based on the results of the 2014 Reevaluation traffic analysis, overall transportation conditions are
expected to operate similarly to the FEIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. The intersection LOS at
each study location is expected to be the same for all of the alternatives, in both 2015 and 2030. The
difference in average vehicle delay at intersections studied in the 2014 Reevaluation Alternative is
expected to be negligible compared to the delay with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative. Similar
mitigation measures as identified in the FEIS would still be required.
The 2016 Reevaluation proposal retains the same level of neighborhood growth per the 2011 range of
alternatives and the total number of housing units would remain the same neighborhood wide. A traffic
impact analysis was prepared for the Sunset Court Apartments to confirm the relocation of units to the
site (from 15 to 50 units) would not result in traffic impacts. No significant impacts were identified and
the City’s level of service standards would be met. See Appendix B.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 24
3.5 Parks and Recreation
The Sunset Court Park (Site 19) is being relocated to a central larger park with the Sunset Terrace
property redevelopment consistent with the adopted master plan. There are no changes to the 2014
Reevaluation and FEIS results.
3.6 Public Services
The overall conclusions of the FEIS for Selected Alternatives is expected to be similar for the
Reevaluation Alternative since growth is the same as projected for the overall neighborhood and is
similar to the 2014 Reevaluation proposal.
3.7 Utilities
Water
In the 2014 Reevaluation, a conceptual water main improvements layout for the proposed
developments identified in the conceptual master plan was presented in Exhibit 18 and remains valid for
the 2016 Reevaluation.
The City will require 12-inch water mains in all new public streets (Harrington Avenue NE, Sunset Lane
NE, NE 10th Street, Glennwood Avenue NE) to provide the estimated fire flow demand ranging from
3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 4,000 gpm based on the City Fire Prevention’s review of various pre-
application submittals.
Portions of the water mains in SR 900 were installed by prior projects in the area.
The section of the 12-inch main in Harrington Ave between Glennwood Avenue NE and NE 10th street
was scheduled for implementation by the City in 2015 as part of the Harrington Ave Green Connection
stormwater and water improvements project. Another section has been installed by the KCLS library
project in NE 10th Street and in Sunset Lane NE up to the west property line of the KCLS project.
A developer’s extension of the section of 12-inch water main in SR 900 will be required to be a looped
water system.
The location of the new water main in SR 900 west of Harrington, whether it will be installed in the
existing roadway pavement or in the future unimproved right-of-way must be carefully evaluated as part
of the pre-design/design of the roadway improvements projects, and consider the need to
accommodate existing and future public and private utilities, rockery/retaining walls, street trees, etc.
Adequate horizontal separation (5-ft minimum and up to 10-feet) must be provided between the new
water main and other utilities, structures, or trees.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 25
Exhibit 18. Water Main Improvements
Note: See Exhibit for approved Master Plan. While the Master Plan has been updated since the above base map was
prepared, the concept for water mains remains intact.
Sewer
Sites plans will be required to show the location of the existing sewer system in order to determine the
potential re-use of existing sewer (conditioned on lining the existing sewer mains and manholes)
provided the location does not interfere with the ultimate roadway/building alignments.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 26
3.8 Other FEIS Topics
Generally, regarding natural environment topics (earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals),
there are no anticipated changes to the overall conclusions or mitigation measures identified in the ROD
and Planned Action EIS since the proposed mixed use development activities are essentially occurring
within the same footprint and the impervious estimates in the FEIS and ROD will be maintained.
Conditions, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding Environmental Health and Historic/Cultural
Features are likewise unchanged. No environmental health conditions or cultural resources features are
known in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but in case such features are uncovered
mitigation measures would apply.
Built environment topics that are more suited to analysis under cumulative growth conditions include air
quality and energy. The level of potential greenhouse gas emissions and energy use may be slightly
higher in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole,
and overall FEIS conclusions and mitigation measures are still applicable.
Lastly, regarding socio-economics, housing, and environmental justice, it is anticipated that the overall
conditions and impacts regarding the potential for change in the neighborhood, need for relocation
assistance, etc. identified in the FEIS are still valid, as the study area would still redevelop from present
conditions to a mixed use, amenity-rich environment.
3.9 Monitoring and Review
The Planned Action Ordinance includes monitoring and review measures to be considered within five
years of the ordinance adoption; some measures are to be considered at the time of a NEPA
Reevaluation (compliance with neighborhood goals and Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design
rating system for Neighborhood Development [LEED-ND] criteria or equivalent), though monitoring and
review are directed to the Planned Action area as a whole. The City conducted a review in the 2014
Reevaluation. The next 5-year milestone, based on the effective date of the amended ordinance in 2014,
would occur in 2019. At that point more development in the area would have occurred and there would
be results to monitor.
Nevertheless, this Reevaluation provides a review of the Planned Action Study Area Goals and
Objectives and to the LEED-ND criteria in relation to the Reevaluation Alternative to contribute to the
City’s future 5-year review effort. See Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20. In general, the 2016 Reevaluation
Alternative continues to promote a public and private effort to create a mixed use, mixed income
neighborhood supported by park, library, road, and stormwater improvements that increase quality of
life.
Exhibit 19. Goals and Objectives Reevaluation
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
Transformation of private and public properties in the
Planned Action Study Area …is expected to meet the Sunset
Area Community vision, as expressed in the Highlands
Phase II Task Force Recommendations (City of Renton
2008a) and the CIS (City of Renton 2009b).
The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and
beyond.
The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and
involved in the community.
Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable.
The Reevaluation Alternative is based on the prior studied
alternatives and continues to promote a mixed income,
mixed use development with parks, library, and
greenstreets to promote an affordable, connected,
walkable, and attractive area for residents and businesses.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 27
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
The neighborhood feels safe and secure.
Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a
way that preserves quality of life.
The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and
conduct business.
The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.
The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic
diversity.
For each of the major components of the proposal, the
following specific goals and objectives were developed to
be consistent with this vision.
1. Through designation of a Planned Action and
infrastructure investments, support and stimulate public
and private development.
The Planned Action Ordinance, as amended in 2014,
remains in effect. The City may update the Planned Action
Ordinance with the amended 2016 Master Site Plan results.
Nevertheless the entire Renton Sunset neighborhood was
considered a planned action area in 2011 and 2014 per
Exhibit 1; growth and general types of land uses are similar
and consistent with zoning that has remained the same
throughout.
The Reevaluation/Addendum demonstrates that the
Planned Action EIS conclusions remain valid. City
infrastructure investments for the planned action area
continue. For example, regional stormwater and
greenstreets are expected to be accomplished in earlier
phases. A loop road would be implemented as development
occurs and utilities are extended, with the Library site an
early phase of that investment. The proposed park is
enlarged and would be implemented when funding is
secured.
2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Reevaluation Alternative furthers the intent of the CV
zone for a mixed use center, providing housing, civic, retail,
and park uses.
3. Through the Planned Action and early environmental
review, accelerate the transformation of the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed-
income housing and mixed uses together with places for
community gathering. This will also be accomplished in
part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision,
which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and
Disposition application in 2015.
See Response to #1. A Demolition and Disposition permit
was obtained for the Library site and a second permit was
obtained for the balance of the site.
4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental
review of Sunset Area roadway, drainage, parks and
recreation, and other infrastructure improvements, and
analyze impacts of anticipated private development in
addition to Sunset Terrace.
See Response to #1. The total amount of growth studied
across the Planned Action study area remains unchanged
under the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative; redistribution of
some units was evaluated in 2014 and 2016. Both public
and private development is promoted in the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea as well as the
broader neighborhood.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 28
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
5. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School District
efforts and current projects. Leverage relationships and
partner with existing community outreach activities and
resources. Recognize community desires documented in:
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area
Citizen’s Zoning Task Force (City of Renton 2006),
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II
Task Force (City of Renton 2008a),
Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c),
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City of
Renton 2009b),
Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan (City of Renton
2009d),
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural
Resources Plan (estimated completion date September
2011),
Utility system plans, and
Library replacement (in process).
The Reevaluation Alternative continues to further the prior
planning efforts. The library is under construction. The
parks plan has been adopted, and the subject park site in
the subarea is larger than in prior alternatives. The subarea
will have a mixed income, mixed use development as
anticipated in the Community Investment Strategy.
Elsewhere in the neighborhood an early childhood
education center has been redeveloped and expanded in
partnership with the School District.
6. Create a Great Street on NE Sunset Boulevard, as
described in the CIS. Implement the City Complete Streets
policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset
Area green connections. Extend conceptual design of
improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access
right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE, and include them in
the Planned Action effort.
The Reevaluation Alternative master plan concept
anticipates and recognizes the multimodal design of NE
Sunset Boulevard by matching the future right of way
boundary studied in the FEIS.
7. Encourage low-impact stormwater management
methods and area-wide solutions as part of a master
drainage plan to support development.
The Reevaluation Alternative would be developed
consistent with the Sunset Area drainage plan. Regional
stormwater in the central park and greenstreets (e.g.
Harrington Avenue NE) are expected to be accomplished in
earlier phases; some were under construction as of 2015.
8. Engage the community in a transparent process using
available outreach opportunities and tools successfully
used in prior planning efforts.
The Reevaluation Alternative is similar to prior studied
alternatives that were developed with public engagement
opportunities. The Planned Action Ordinance amendments
are subject to additional public review opportunities.
9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships,
innovation and sustainable development for a healthy
community. Recognize the importance and timing of
integrating housing, transportation, infrastructure,
expanded economic opportunity, parks and recreation, and
the environment.
The Reevaluation Alternative has resulted from a
public/private Master Plan coordination effort. See
response to #1 regarding infrastructure and civic
investments.
Source: FEIS, Appendix A, 2011; BERK 2014
The official 2009 LEED ND project scorecard2 published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a
guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group
on the scorecard, a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles
of LEED ND is provided in Exhibit 20.
2 See: LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND), available: http://www.cnu.org/leednd. Accessed: August 25, 2014.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 29
Exhibit 20. LEED for Neighborhood Development Criteria
Summary of Criteria Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage criteria of the
LEED ND rating system is to encourage development to
occur within and near existing communities and
established public transit infrastructure, as well as reduce
vehicle trips. Development in smart locations also
encourages a greater degree of walking of bicycling, which
has personal health benefits.
The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major
transportation and transit corridor within the City of
Renton. Redevelopment of the site under the Reevaluation
Alternative would contribute to a mixed-use, mixed-income
development already served by the full range of public
services on a previously developed infill site on a major
transit corridor – a “smart location.” The master plan
concept anticipates and recognizes the multimodal design
of NE Sunset Boulevard by matching the future right of way
boundary studied in the FEIS.
The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and Design criteria
of the LEED ND rating system is to promote safe, diverse,
walkable, compact neighborhoods with high-quality design
with a mix of land uses.
The master plan furthers the intent of the CV zone for a
mixed use center, providing housing, civic, retail, and park
uses. The neighborhood is compact, and furthers
walkability and quality design with a loop road,
greenstreets, and a new park and library.
The intent of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings
criteria is to encourage development that implements
green building practices or introduces green infrastructure.
This includes using certified green building techniques,
increasing building water and energy efficiency, controlling
pollution from construction activities, implementing
adaptive reuse of historic buildings, and using green
methods of stormwater management.
The Reevaluation Alternative as expressed in the amended
master plan would implement FEIS mitigation measures
and retain green features of prior studied alternatives,
including:
Construction Emission Control: The FEIS recommends
that the City require all construction contractors to
implement air quality control plans for construction
activities in the study area, including measures for
reducing engine emissions and fugitive dust.
Green Connections for Stormwater Management: The
Reevaluation Alternative would include public
investment in Green Connections, a regional stormwater
facility, and would comply with a drainage master plan
for the study area.
Energy Efficiency: The FEIS recommends that the City
encourage or require implementation of energy and
greenhouse gas reduction measures in the study area
such as compliance with the Northwest ENERGY STAR
Homes program and the Seattle Energy Code for non-
residential buildings.
Source: FEIS, Appendix A, 2011; BERK 2014
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 30
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance
with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)
regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume
responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD
under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the lead agency and proponent of the broader Planned Action for
the Sunset area which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 43.21(C).
The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the
Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final EIS to analyze
potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011.
The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify
any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall
Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping
process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly
consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the
Endangered Species Act (Section 7). As documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record, the
City received a letter of concurrence from NMFS in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS
memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The City also completed Section 106
consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard as
documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record. In addition, consistent with the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington
Department of Ecology (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a ROD in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
The ROD and Planned Action Ordinance identified mitigation measures from the FEIS. The Record of
Decision (ROD) concluded that “[w]ith the application of City-adopted development regulations and
recommended mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no
significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to
proceed with Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation
measures imposed through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals
issued by the City of Renton and through conditions of federal funding.” This Reevaluation and
Addendum maintains the mitigation measures from the EIS, ROD, and Planned Action and identifies
where the application of such mitigation measures (e.g., design guidelines) is particularly relevant and
could be included in permit conditions.
The City finds by this re-evaluation, after considering the effects of the revised Master Plan, as well as
existing and supplemental environmental documentation, that no substantive change to the findings in
the ROD would occur. The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately examines
the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in the Master Plan would not result in
modification to those conclusions. No new or significantly different impacts to the environment would
occur. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS, and additional
consultation and mitigation documented in the ROD, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse
environmental effects of the proposed project. Together, these measures and would reduce effects to
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
June 2016 31
acceptable levels. No additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes proposed in the Master
Plan.
Responsible Entity Certifying Officer
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
Date: Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
KEY
RESIDENTIAL
MIXED-USE
COMMUNITY
SITE AREA
Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan
0’ 100’ 200’400’NSUNSET LN NENEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
NE
1
0
T
H
S
TSUNSET BLVD NE (SR 900)SUNS
E
T
B
LVD
N
E
(
SR
9
0
0
)EN EVA NOTGNIRRAH12TH AVE NE
GLENWOOD AVE NE7/8
9
106/7
5
14,16/17
11
18 19
RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP DECEMBER 08, 2014DECEMBER 08, 2015 AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NOS. 5610 AND 5740, ADDING FIVE PARCELS AND
REDISTRIBUTING, BUT NOT INCREASING, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING
UNITS IN THE SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND REVISING A
PLANNED ACTION DESIGNATED FOR THE SUNSET AREA PURSUANT TO THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findings. The Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A (“GMA”) and is located within an Urban Growth Area;
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and has
amended the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital
facilities specific to the Sunset Area;
C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development
regulations, and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area, as designated in Attachment A,
which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public
housing redevelopment area identified in Attachment C;
D. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sunset
Area, supplemented by addenda, that addresses the probable significant environmental
impacts associated with the location, type, and amount of development anticipated in the
Planned Action area;
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS, and attached to
this ordinance as Attachment B, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate the probable significant environmental impacts from development within
the Planned Action area;
F. Future development projects in and around the Planned Action Area will protect
the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development;
G. The public has meaningfully participated in the proposed Planned Action, during
comment periods, community meetings, and hearings, during and after the preparation of the
EIS, and the City has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to some of the
suggestions;
H. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by
RCW 36.70A.200(1);
I. The Planned Action Area applies to a defined subarea of the City boundaries
illustrated in Attachment A;
J. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action
area;
K. The City adopted a Planned Action Ordinance 5610 on June 13, 2011, and
subsequently replaced it with Ordinance 5740 on December 8, 2014 to reflect preparation of a
Master Plan for the Renton Sunset Terrace redevelopment area within the larger Planned
Action Area and to reflect integration of a Reevaluation Alternative in 2014;
L. A revised master plan for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment area was submitted
to the City on May 27, 2016, which amends the 2014 Reevaluation Alternative by shifting the
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
location of planned dwellings and master plan territory to include five additional parcels, and
redistributing but not altering the total number of dwellings studied or boundaries of the
designated Planned Action Area in Attachment A;
M. A NEPA Reevaluation, dated June 2016, pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), as authorized by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations, and an EIS addendum pursuant to SEPA were prepared to consider the
environmental effects of the revised Sunset Terrace master plan;
N. The City held a community meeting consistent with RCW 43.21C.440 on June 6,
2016; and
O. The City Council held a public hearing on July 11, 2016 regarding new
amendments to the Planned Action applicable to the Sunset Area in order to integrate the
Reevaluation Alternative, outlined in the NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum.
SECTION II. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluating and Determining Projects as
Planned Actions.
A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area
shown in Attachment A.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site‐specific
implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the
Draft EIS issued by the City on December 17, 2010, and the Final EIS published on April 1, 2011,
the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum published on December 12, 2014, and the 2016 NEPA
reevaluation/SEPA addendum published on June 10, 2016. The Planned Action EIS shall consist
of the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the 2016 NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum. The mitigation
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
measures contained in Attachment B are based upon the findings of the above‐mentioned
environmental documents and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the
framework for the City’s imposition of appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action
projects.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned
Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection II.D below and the mitigation
measures contained in Attachment B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action
Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site‐specific Planned
Action project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets
the criteria set forth in subsection II.D of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes,
development regulations and standards of the City.
D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site‐specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by
the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS:
(1) Land Use.
(a) The following general categories/types of land uses are
considered Planned Actions: single family and multi‐family residential; schools; parks;
community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation;
services; utilities; and mixed‐use development incorporating more than one use category
where permitted.
(b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include
those uses specifically listed in RMC 4‐2‐060, Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
Designations, as permitted or conditionally permitted in the zoning classifications applied to
properties within the Planned Action area provided they are consistent with the general
categories/types of land uses in (1)(a).
(2) Development Thresholds.
(a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by
the Planned Action:
Land Use Development Amount
Alternative 3 /
Reevaluation Alternative
FEIS Preferred Alt
Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units
Schools 57,010 gross square feet 57,010 gross square feet
Parks 0.25 ‐3.2 acres 3 acres
Office/Service 776,805 gross square feet 745,810 gross square feet
Retail 476,299 gross square feet 457,119 gross square feet
(b) The following infrastructure and utilities are considered planned
actions: roadways, water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities identified and studied in the
EIS.
(c) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may
be permitted so long as the total build‐out does not exceed the aggregate amount of
development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that
development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with
Attachment B.
(d) The Renton Sunset Area Master Site Plan is included in
Attachment C and is to be used as a conceptual guide to redevelopment in that portion of the
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
Planned Action area, together with the land use studied in the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA
addendum published on June 10, 2016, and the use allowances of the Renton Municipal Code.
(e) If future development proposals in the Planned Action area
exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review
may be required pursuant to WAC 197‐11‐172, Planned actions—Project review. Further, if
proposed development would alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS,
further environmental review may be required.
(3) Transportation ‐ Trip Ranges and Thresholds. Inserted below are the new
PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action area:
Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips*
2006 2,082 trips
2030 Alternative 3 / Reevaluation
Alternative
5,555 trips
2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips
Net increase from 2006 ‐> 2030 Alternative
3 / Reevaluation Alternative
3,473 trips
Net increase from 2006 ‐> 2030 Preferred
Alternative
3,304 trips
*all PM peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs
containing the study area
Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require
additional SEPA review.
(4) Changed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City’s SEPA Responsible Official
may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental
environmental review is conducted.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City’s Environmental Review Committee may designate as “planned
actions”, pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, Guidelines for state agencies, local governments ‐‐
Statements ‐‐ Reports ‐‐ Advice – Information, applications that meet all of the following
conditions:
(a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified
in Attachment A of this ordinance;
(b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those
described in the Planned Action EIS and subsection II.D of this ordinance;
(c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other
criteria of subsection II.D of this ordinance;
(d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive
Plan and applicable zoning regulations;
(e) The proposal’s probable significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS;
(f) The proposal’s probable significant adverse environmental
impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Attachment B, and
other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special
permits that may be required;
(g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or
federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these
constitute adequate mitigation; and
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
(h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW
36.70A.200(1).
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an
alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and
supporting documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to
qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements of RCW
43.21C.030, Guidelines for state agencies, local governments ‐‐ Statements ‐‐ Reports ‐‐ Advice –
Information, WAC 197‐11‐164, Planned actions—Definition and criteria, and this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal
has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its
development parameters and thresholds, and with the Planned Action EIS’s environmental
analysis.
(2) Upon determination by the City’s Environmental Review Committee that
the proposal meets the criteria of subsection II.D and qualifies as a Planned Action, the
proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject
to further review pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be
reviewed pursuant to the following process:
(1) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall
proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4‐8‐
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
080.G and 4‐9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall
be required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a
Planned Action shall be final.
(2) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall
be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as
provided in RMC 4‐8‐080.G, Land Use Permit Procedures, and RMC 4‐9 as modified by RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b). If notice, in addition to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.440(3)(b), is
otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has
qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no
special notice is required by this ordinance.
(3) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the
Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and require a SEPA review
procedure consistent with the City’s SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The
notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned
Action.
(4) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or
otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA
documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may limit
the scope of SEPA review for the non‐qualifying project to those issues and environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS.
SECTION III. Monitoring and Review.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
10
A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned
Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the
Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and
with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area.
B. This Planned Action ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five (5) years from
its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing
relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based
upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement
or revise the Planned Action EIS.
C. At the following time periods, the City shall evaluate the overall sustainability of
the Sunset Area Planned Action area, defined in Attachment A, consistent with Final EIS
Appendix A review of Goals and Objectives and LEED‐ND qualitative evaluation, or an
equivalent approach:
(1) At the time of the five (5)‐year review in subsection IV.B above.
(2) At the time of a NEPA re‐evaluation pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.53, for
the Sunset Community Planned Action Area.
D. The City shall conduct a Greenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the
NE Sunset Boulevard design is at the thirty percent (30%) design level and at the sixty percent
(60%) design level.
E. The City shall review the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea at the
time of the five (5)‐year review in subsection III.B in relation to the following evaluation criteria:
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
11
(1) Contribution of final conceptual designs to 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) consistent with Final EIS Table 3.2‐4, Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT.
(2) Changes in land use and population growth and resulting greenhouse gas
emissions of final conceptual designs compared to Tables 3.2‐5 and 3.2‐6 of the Final EIS, titled
respectively Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and Comparison of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
(3) Change in effective impervious area for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea compared with Final EIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 which resulted in a
decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions
as provided in Table 7 of the Planned Action ordinance Attachment B.
SECTION IV. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this ordinance or any
imposed mitigation measure, and any City ordinance or regulation, the provisions of this
ordinance shall control except that the provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede.
SECTION V. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or
situation.
SECTION VI. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
12
days after its passage, approval and after publication of a summary of this ordinance in the
City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this ordnance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _____ day of __________________, 2016.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _____ day of __________________, 2016.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: _______________
ORD.1926:6/13/16:scr
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Sunset Master Site PlanDateNames/TitlesRocale Timmons, Senior PlannerJune 27, 2016P&D Briefing AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
P&D Presentation Outline•Site Characteristics/Vision•Sunset Area History–Sunset Area EIS –Planned Action Ordinance –Completed Projects•Approvals requested•Revised Proposal–Environmental Review–Revised Planned Action OrdinanceAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Vision•A destination place•Neighbors and businesses are engaged•Walkable and inter-connected•Feels safe and secure•Growth preserves quality of life•Attractive place to live and do business•Affordable to all incomes•Celebrates ethnic diversityAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Area Profile•269 acres near the City Center.–Approximately 3000 duplex units were built on 240 acres of land.–Sunset Terrace public housing-100 units•Good access to highways and transit•Close to major employment, shopping, and entertainment opportunitiesAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Terrace Subarea•Approximately 16-acre site within the larger Sunset Area Community Neighborhood.•Redevelopment of this area envisions Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-income community anchored by: –An expanded Sunset Neighborhood Park centrally located within the site. –A circular local road system that facilitates circulation around the park.–Compatibility with future multimodal Sunset Blvd improvements.–Mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses including retail space and a library.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Area History•Initial Planning Efforts (1999-2006)•Highlands Task Forces I & II (2007-2008)•Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (2009)•Sunset Area EIS (2010)•Planned Action Ordinance (2010)•Completed/Current Projects (2011-2015)•Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan / PAO (2015)•Revised Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan (2016)AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Approvals Requested•ERC– June 9, 2016–NEPA Reevaluation–SEPA Addendum•Staff– June 21, 2016–Master Site Plan Modification Approval•City Council - Amendments to the Planned Action Ordinance and Record of Decision–P&D Briefing – June 27, 2016 –CC Public Hearing – July 11, 2016–P&D Deliberations – July 14, 2016–PAO 1stReading – August 1, 2016
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Reevaluation Conclusions•No substantive change to the findings in the original Record of Decision would occur as a result of the reevaluation.•Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the FEIS, combined with additional consultation and mitigation documented in the Record of Decision, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects. •The 2016 Re-evaluation and Addendum would result in minor revisions of the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Site Plan. AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Staff recommends adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance. The revised PAO will continue to implement the recommendations of the Sunset Community Investment Strategy.•CC Public Hearing – July 11, 2016•P&D Deliberations – July 14, 2016•PAO 1stReading – August 1, 2016•PAO 2ndReading – August 8, 2016Recommendation & Next StepsAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Area EIS (2010) - Key Findings
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Area EIS – Alternatives (2010)Alternatives ActionAlternative 1 No action.Alternative 2 Moderate level of growth based on investment in mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Sunset Terrace Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public services.Alternative 3 Highest level of growth based on investment in the Sunset Terrace Subarea with a greater number of dwellings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use style, major public investment in study area infrastructure and services.Preferred Alternative Neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than Alternative 3.AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Sunset Area EIS Mitigation Measures•The ROD and Planned Action Ordinance identifies mitigation measures from the FEIS.•Mitigation measures address:–Air quality–Water resources–Noise–Transportation–Parks and Recreation–Utilities: Water and SewerAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Purpose of the Planned Action Ordinance1. Streamline land use permitting process•Choice Neighborhood Implementation Grant2. Facilitate the preparation of phased specific site plans over time and allow the City to determine consistency 3. Provide more certainty for members of the public and private developersAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Planned Actions (2011 – 2015):1. GlennwoodTownhomes2. Meadowcrest ECLC and Playground3. Kirkland Townhomes4. Highlands Library5. Green Connections
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
What Changed in the Sunset Terrace Subarea in 2015?•Approximately 90 units were redirected to the Sunset Terrace Subarea – for a total of 722 multi-family units–Density Transfer•Building heights were increased by no more than 10 feet. •Reductions in building setbacks from the future Sunset Blvd improvement boundary•The park was expanded to 3.2 acres from 0.5-2.5 acres•Local streets, serving the Sunset Area, were reclassified to allow a more efficient roadway cross-section AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Planned Actions (2015-Present):6. Sunset Park Master Plan7. Sunset Lane
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Market Rate Housing Elevations•Harrington Ave NE and Sunset Blvd•26,300 SF Site - CV Zone•108 Multifamily Apartment Units•2,500 SF Commercial Space•Complete Street Standards•Design District ‘D’ Standards•Enhanced Modulation •Street/Corner Orientation•Enhanced Open Space•High Quality Materials•Completion: Fall 2018Colpitts Phase IAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
What’s Changed in the Sunset Terrace Subarea in 2016 ?20152016AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
RHA•NE 10thSt, GlennwoodAve, and Harrington Ave•248- RHA Affordable Housing Units•Complete Street Standards•Residential Design Standards•Enhanced modulation •Orientation•Open space•Enhanced landscaping•High quality materials•Completion: Contingent upon financingAGENDA ITEM #2. b)
AB - 1672
City Council Regular Meeting - 06 Jun 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: Adoption of 2015 Construction Codes
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Craig Burnell, Building Official
EXT.: 7290
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Effective July 1, 2016, Washington statutes require all jurisdictions in the state to adopt and enforce updated
Construction Code editions as adopted and amended by the State of Washington. Construction Codes include
the following:
2015 International Building Code
2015 International Residential Code
2015 International Mechanical Code
2015 National Fuel Gas Code
2014 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code
2015 Uniform Plumbing Code
2014 National Electrical Code
2015 International Property Maintenance Code
2015 International Existing Building Code
2015 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code
The Department of Community & Economic Development is proposing an update to the Renton Municipal
Code that adopts the 2015 Construction Codes. This will allow the City to utilize the same Code as adopted by
the State of Washington. Changes proposed to the construction codes were limited to those deemed
necessary to provide conformity with the updated code editions or for clarification purposes. Changes made
to the administrative provisions were to remain consistent with Model Codes and amendments and with the
regional administrative code of cities participating within MyBuildingpermit.com.
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the proposed code changes and adoption of the related ordinance.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
SECTIONS 4‐5‐020, 4‐5‐050, 4‐5‐051, 4‐5‐055, 4‐5‐060, 4‐5‐090, 4‐5‐100, 4‐5‐110
AND 4‐5‐130 OF CHAPTER 5, BUILDING AND FIRE PREVENTION STANDARDS, OF
TITLE IV (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE AND AMENDING THE MOST RECENT EDITIONS OF
STATE, NATIONAL, UNIFORM AND INTERNATIONAL CODES AND AMENDING
THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Subsection 4‐5‐020.C, City Clerk Duty, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
C. CITY CLERK DUTY:
The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to duly authenticate and
record shall keep a copy of the International, Uniform and other Codes adopted
under this Chapter, together with any amendments or additions thereto,
together with an authenticated copy of this Chapter and made available in the
City Clerk’s Office for examination by the public.
SECTION II. Subsection 4‐5‐050.A, Adoption, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
A. ADOPTION:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
The 2012 2015 Edition of the International Building Code (IBC) including the
adoption of ICC/ANSI A117.1‐2009, Requirements for Accessible and Useable
Buildings and Facilities, as adopted and amended by the State Building Code
Council in chapter 51‐50 WAC, as published by the International Code Council,
excluding Chapter 1, Administration, is adopted by reference, together with the
following amendments and additions. The Construction Administrative Code, as
set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be used in place of IBC Chapter 1, Administration.
Appendix E – Supplementary Accessibility Requirements of the 2012 2015
Edition of the International Building Code is also adopted by reference.
The 2012 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC) is included in the
adoption of the International Building Code as provided by IBC Section 3401.5
101.4.7 and amended in WAC 51‐50‐480000, including Appendix A, Guidelines
for the Seismic Retrofit of Existing Buildings, excluding Chapter 1, Part 2 –
Administration. The Construction Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐
060, shall be used in place of IEBC Chapter 1, Part 2 – Administration.
The 2015 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code (ISPSC) is included in
the adoption of the International Building Code as provided by IBC Section
3109.1 and amended in WAC 51‐50‐3109, excluding Chapter 1, Part 2 –
Administration. The Construction Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐
060, shall be used in place of ISPSC Chapter 1, Part 2 – Administration. The
design and construction of swimming pools, spas and other aquatic recreation
facilities shall comply with the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code,
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
except that Public swimming pool barriers are regulated by WAC 246‐260‐031(4).
All other "water recreation facilities" as defined in RCW 70.90.110 are regulated
under chapters 246‐260 and 246‐262 WAC.
SECTION III. Subsection 4‐5‐050.C.4, Electrical Power, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
repealed.
SECTION IV. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.1, Section 903.2, Where required, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
1. Section 903.2, Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems
in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in
this Section.
All newly constructed buildings with a gross square footage of five
thousand (5,000) or greater square feet, regardless of type of use as well as zero
lot line townhouses within an aggregate area of all connected townhouses
equaling five thousand (5,000) square feet or greater square feet must be
sprinklered. Additions to existing buildings which would result in a gross floor
area greater than five thousand (5,000) square feet must be retrofitted with an
automatic sprinkler system.
Exceptions:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
a. One time additions to Group R‐3 occupancies of up to five hundred
(500) square feet are permitted without compliance with this Section.
b. One‐ and two‐family dwellings and townhouses built in compliance
with the International Residential Code and meeting fire flow and access
requirements of the City of Renton.
When not required by other provisions of this Chapter, a fire
extinguishing system installed in accordance with NFPA 13 may be used for
increases and substitutions allowed in Sections 504.2, 504.3, 506.3 506.2 and
Table 601.
SECTION V. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.8, Section 903.2.2, Group E, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is amended as follows:
8. Section 903.2.2, 903.2.3, Group E. An automatic sprinkler system shall
be provided for Group E occupancies as follows:
a. Throughout all Group E fire areas greater than five thousand
(5,000) square feet in area.
b. Throughout every portion of educational buildings below the
lowest level of exit discharge serving that portion of the building.
Exception:
Portable school classrooms, provided aggregate area of clusters of
portable school classrooms does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet;
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
and clusters of portable school classrooms shall be separated as required by the
building code.
SECTION VI. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.15, Section 903.2.6, Group I, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is repealed.
SECTION VII. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.16, Section 903.2.7, Group M, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
16 15. Section 903.2.7, Group M. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
provided throughout buildings containing a Group M occupancy where one (1) of
the following conditions exists:
a. Where a Group M gross floor area exceeds five thousand (5,000)
square feet;
b. Where a Group M fire area is located more than three (3) stories
above grade plane;
c. Where the combined area of all Group M fire areas on all floors,
including any mezzanines, exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet; or
d. A Group M occupancy is used for display and sale of upholstered
furniture or mattresses exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet.
SECTION VIII. Subsections 4‐5‐050.D.17, Section 903.2.7.1, High piled storage; and 4‐5‐
050.D.18, Section 903.2.8, Group R, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
6
Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, are repealed and the
remaining subsections shall be renumbered accordingly.
SECTION IX. Subsections 4‐5‐050.D.19, Section 903; 4‐5‐050.D.20, Section 903.2.9,
Group S‐1; and 4‐5‐050.D.21, Section 903.2.9.1, Repair Garages, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, are
amended as follows:
19 16. Section 903 is amended by adding Sections 903.2.8.1 903.2.8.5
and 903.2.8.2 903.2.8.6 to read as follows:
Section 903.2.8.1 903.2.8.5 – Group R‐3 occupancy. When the
occupancy has over five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor area.
Section 903.2.8.2 903.2.8.6 – Dwellings. When proposed within all
residential zones, clustered or constructed so that, when attached, the total
square foot gross floor area of all dwelling units exceeds five thousand
(5,000) square feet. For the purpose of this subsection, portions of buildings
separated by one (1) or more firewalls will not be considered a separate
building.
20 17. Section 903.2.9, Group S‐1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
provided throughout all buildings containing a Group S‐1 occupancy where one
of the following conditions exists:
a. A Group S‐1 fire area exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet.
b. A Group S‐1 fire area is located more than three (3) stories above
grade plane.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
7
c. The combined area of all Group S‐1 fire areas on all floors, including
any mezzanines, exceeds five thousand (5,000) square feet.
d. A Group S‐1 fire area used for the storage of commercial trucks or
buses motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds five thousand (5,000) square
feet.
e. A Group S‐1 occupancy used for the storage of upholstered
furniture or mattresses exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet.
21 18. Section 903.2.9.1, Repair Garages. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be provided throughout all buildings used as repair garages in accordance
with Section 406 of the International Building Code, as shown:
a. Buildings having two (2) or more stories above grade plane,
including basements, with a fire area containing a repair garage exceeding five
thousand (5,000) square feet.
b. Buildings no more than one (1) story above grade plane, with a fire
area containing a repair garage exceeding five thousand (5,000) square feet.
c. Buildings with repair garages servicing vehicles parked in
basements.
d. A Group S‐1 fire area used for the repair of commercial trucks or
buses motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds five thousand (5,000) square
feet.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
8
SECTION X. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.24, Section 903.2.10.1, Commercial Parking
Garages, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
24 21. Section 903.2.10.1, Commercial Parking Garages. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be provided throughout buildings used for storage of
commercial trucks or buses motor vehicles where the fire area exceeds five
thousand (5,000) square feet.
SECTION XI. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.31, Section 903.2.11.3, Buildings Fifty‐Five Feet
(55’) or More in Height, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
31 28. Section 903.2.11.3, Buildings Fifty‐Five Feet (55') or More in
Height. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout buildings
that have one or more stories with a floor level having an occupant load of thirty
(30) or more that is located fifty‐five feet (55') or more above the lowest level of
fire department vehicle access, measured to the finished floor.
Exceptions: Airport control towers.
a. Open parking structures; and
b. Occupancies in Group F‐2.
SECTION XII. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.34, Section 903.2.11.6, Other Required Suppression
Systems, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
9
34 31. Section 903.2.11.6, Other Required Suppression Systems. In
addition to the requirements of Section 903.2, the provisions indicated in Table
903.2.11.6 also require the installation of a fire suppression system for certain
buildings and areas.
SECTION XIII. Subsection 4‐5‐050.D.37, Section 903, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
37 34. Section 903 is amended to add a new Section 903.2.14 to read as
follows:
Section 903.2.14, Sprinkler Systems in Remodeled Buildings:
a. Section 903.2.14.1 – When existing buildings with full sprinkler
systems are remodeled or added onto, the remodeled or added on portion shall
be fully sprinklered.
b. Section 903.2.14.2 – When an existing building is added onto or
remodeled and the resulting total square foot gross floor area exceeds five
thousand (5,000) square feet, then the entire structure shall be fully sprinklered.
All existing non‐sprinklered buildings currently exceeding five thousand (5,000)
square feet where a remodel, alteration or repair exceeds fifty percent (50%) of
the building valuation within a three (3) year period shall have a sprinkler system
installed throughout the building. Valuation shall be determined from the King
County Assessor records at the time of the first application for a building permit.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
10
SECTION XIV. Section 4‐5‐051, Washington State Energy Code Adopted, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
4‐5‐051 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE ADOPTED:
The Washington State Energy Code (WSEC), as adopted by the State Building
Code Council in chapter 51‐11 WAC, excluding the Administration sections C106
through C111 and R106 through R111, is adopted by reference. The Construction
Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be used in place of the
Administration sections C106 through C111 and R106 through R111.
SECTION XV. Section 4‐5‐055, International Residential Code Adopted, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
4‐5‐055 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE ADOPTED:
The 2012 2015 Edition of the International Residential Code (IRC), as adopted
and amended by the State Building Code Council in chapter 51‐51 WAC, as
published by the International Code Council, is adopted by reference, with the
City’s amendments thereto, as specified in subsections 4‐5‐055.A through 4‐5‐
055.C, below. Chapter 1, Administration, is not adopted and the Construction
Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be used in place of IRC
Chapter 1, Administration.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
11
A. City Amendments to IRC Table R301.2(1), Climatic and Geographic
Design Criteria: Table R301.2(1) of the International Residential Code is
amended to read as follows:
Footnotes:
1. When using this roof snow load it will be left to the engineer’s
judgment whether to consider drift or sliding snow. However, rain on snow
surcharge of five (5) psf must be considered for roof slopes less than five degrees
(5°).
2. Wind exposure category and Topographic effects (Wind Speed‐up Kzt
factor) shall be determined on a site‐specific basis by the Design Professional in
Responsible Charge (components and cladding need not consider topographic
effects unless otherwise determined by the engineer of record).
3. From IRC Table 301.2(1).
4. Weathering may require a higher strength concrete or grade of
masonry than necessary to satisfy the structural requirements of this code. The
IRC Table R301.2(1)
Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria
Roof
Snow
Load1
Wind Design2 Seismic
Design
Category
3
Subject to Damage From: Outside
Design
Temp. –
Heat/Cool
Ice
Barrier
Under‐
layment
Required
Flood
Hazards5
Air
Freezing
Index
Mean
Annual
Temp. Speed
Topo‐
graphic
Effects
Weathering
4
Frost
Line
Depth
Termite
Decay
25 psf 110
mph
See
footnote
2
D2 Moderate 12" Slight to
Moderate
24ºF/83ºF No N/A 113 50ºF
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
12
grade of masonry units shall be determined from ASTM C 34, C 55, C 62, C 73, C
90, C 129, C 145, C 216 or C 652.
5. The City of Renton participates in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) as specified in City of Renton Resolution No. 1984, dated April
21, 1975. The City’s Flood Insurance Study is April 19, 2005, and the number and
date of current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) are as follows:
53033CIND0A 04/19/2005
53033C0664F 05/16/1995
53033C0666F 05/16/1995
53033C0668F 05/16/1995
53033C0669F 05/16/1995
53033C0957F 05/16/1995
53033C0976F 05/16/1995
53033C0977F 05/16/1995
53033C0978F 05/16/1995
53033C0979F 05/16/1995
53033C0981F 05/16/1995
53033C0982F 05/16/1995
53033C0983F 05/16/1995
53033C0984F 05/16/1995
53033C0986F 05/16/1995
53033C0987F 05/16/1995
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
13
B. Exceptions: The provisions of this code do not apply to temporary
growing structures used solely for the commercial production of horticultural
plants including ornamental plants, flowers, vegetables, and fruits. “Temporary
growing structure” means a structure that has the sides and roof covered with
polyethylene, polyvinyl, or similar flexible synthetic material and is used to
provide plants with either frost protection or increased heat retention. A
temporary growing structure is not considered a building for purposes of this
code.
C. Conflicts: In the case of conflict between the duct sealing or insulation
requirements of Section 603 or Section 604 of this code and the duct sealing or
insulation requirements of Chapter 51‐11C/R WAC, the Washington State Energy
Code, shall govern.
SECTION XVI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.2, 101.2 Scope, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
2. 101.2 Scope. The provisions of this Construction Administrative Code
shall apply to building, plumbing, and mechanical permits and the following
“Construction Codes”:
a. 2012 2015 International Building Code – WAC 51‐50;
b. 2012 2015 International Residential Code – WAC 51‐51;
c. 2012 2015 International Mechanical Code – WAC 51‐52;
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
14
d. 2012 2015 National Fuel Gas Code (ANSI Z223.1/NFPA 54) – WAC
51‐52;
e. 2011 2014 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code (NFPA 58) – WAC 51‐52;
f. 2012 2015 Uniform Plumbing Code – WAC 51‐56 and 51‐57;
g. 2014 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70);
h. 2012 2015 International Property Maintenance Code. ;
i. 2015 International Existing Building Code – WAC 51‐50‐48000; and
j. 2015 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code – WAC 51‐50‐3109
and WAC 51‐51‐0329.
SECTION XVII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.5, 101.4 Intent, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
5. 101.4 Intent. The purpose of the Construction Codes and the
Construction Administrative Code is to establish the minimum requirements to
safeguard the provide a reasonable level of safety, public health, safety and
general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability,
sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life
and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment
and to provide a reasonable level of safety to fire fighters and emergency
responders during emergency operations.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
15
SECTION XVIII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.6.a, 101.5.1 International Building Code –
Scope, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
a. 101.5.1 International Building Code – Scope. The provisions of the
International Building Code (IBC) shall apply to the construction, alteration,
movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy,
location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or
any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.
Exception: Detached one (1) ‐ and two (2) ‐ family dwellings and
multiple single‐family dwellings (townhouses) not more than three (3) stories
above grade plane in height with separate means of egress and their accessory
structures not more than three (3) stories above grade plane in height shall
comply with the International Residential Code.
SECTION XIX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.6.b, 101.5.2 International Residential Code – Scope,
of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of
the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
b. 101.5.2 International Residential Code – Scope. The provisions of
the International Residential Code for One‐ and Two‐Family Dwellings (IRC) shall
apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement,
repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, removal and demolition of
detached one (1) ‐ and two (2) ‐ family dwellings and multiple single‐family
dwellings (townhouses) not more than three (3) stories above grade plane in
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
16
height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures not more
than three (3) stories above grade plane in height, including adult family homes,
foster family care homes and family day care homes licensed by the Washington
state department of social and health services.
Exception: Live/work units located in townhouses complying with the
requirements of Section 419 of the International Building Code shall be
permitted to be built as one (1) ‐ and two (2) ‐ family dwellings or townhouses
constructed in accordance with the International Residential Code for One‐ and
Two‐Family Dwellings. Fire suppression required by Section 419.5 of the
International Building Code when where constructed under the International
Residential Code for One‐ and Two‐Family Dwellings shall conform to Section
P2904 903.3.1.3 of the International Building Residential Code.
SECTION XX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.6.i, 101.5.8 Fire prevention, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is amended as follows:
i. 101.5.8 Fire prevention. The provisions of the International Fire
Code (IFC) shall apply to matters affecting or relating to structures, processes,
and premises and safeguards from the hazard of fire and explosion arising from
the storage, handling or use of structures, materials or devices; from conditions
hazardous to life, property or public welfare in the occupancy or operation of
structures or premises; and from matters related to the construction, extension,
repair, alteration or removal of fire suppression and alarm systems or fire
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
17
hazards in the structure or on the premises from occupancy or operation: and
matters related to preparedness for natural or manmade disasters; and from
conditions affecting the safety of fire fighters and emergency responders during
emergency procedures.
SECTION XXI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.6.j, 101.5.9 Energy Code ‐ Scope, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
j. 101.5.9 Energy Code – Scope. The provisions of the Washington
State Energy Code (WSEC) shall apply to all matters governing the design and
construction of buildings for energy efficiency. WAC 51‐11R applies to residential
buildings, building sites, associated systems and equipment, and WAC 51‐11C
applies to commercial buildings, building sites, associated systems and
equipment.
SECTION XXII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.A.6, 101.5 Referenced Codes, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended to add two new subsections 4‐5‐060.A.6.l and 4‐5‐060.A.6.m, to
read as follows:
l. 101.5.11 International Existing Building Code – Scope. The
provisions of the International Existing Building Code shall apply to matters
governing the repair, alteration, change of occupancy, addition to and relocation
of existing buildings.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
18
i. 101.5.11.1 Buildings previously occupied. The legal occupancy
of any building existing on July 1, 2016 shall be permitted to continue without
change, except as is specifically covered in this code, the International Fire Code,
or as deemed necessary by the code official to mitigate an unsafe building. For
the purpose of this section, "unsafe building" is not to be construed to mean a
mere lack of compliance with the current code.
ii. 101.5.11.2 Appendices. The code official is authorized to
require rehabilitation and retrofit of buildings, structures, or individual structural
members in accordance with the appendices of this code if such appendices
have been individually adopted. Appendix A of the International Existing Building
Code, Guidelines for the Seismic Retrofit of Existing Buildings, is hereby adopted
as part of this code without any specific adoption by the local jurisdiction.
m. 101.5.12 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code – Scope. The
provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement,
renovation, replacement, repair and maintenance of aquatic recreation facilities,
pools and spas. The pools and spas covered by this code are either permanent or
temporary, and shall be only those that are designed and manufactured to be
connected to a circulation system and that are intended for swimming, bathing
or wading. Swimming pools, spas and other aquatic recreation facilities shall
comply with the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, where the facility is
one of the following:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
19
i. For the sole use of residents and invited guests at a single‐family
dwelling;
ii. For the sole use of residents and invited guests of a duplex
owned by the residents; or
iii. Operated exclusively for physical therapy or rehabilitation and
under the supervision of a licensed medical practitioner.
Public swimming pool barriers shall be regulated by WAC 246‐260‐
031(4). All other "water recreation facilities" as defined in RCW 70.90.110 are
regulated under chapters 246‐260 and 246‐262 WAC.
SECTION XXIII. Subsections 4‐5‐060.B.2, 102.1.2 New installations; 4‐5‐060.B.3,
102.1.3, Existing installations; 4‐5‐060.B.4, Maintenance; and 4‐5‐060.B.5, Additions,
alterations, modifications or repairs, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of
Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, are amended as follows:
2. 102.1.2 New Installations. This section applies The adopted
Construction Codes apply to new installations.
Exception: If an electrical, plumbing or mechanical permit application is
received after this section has the adopted Construction Codes have taken
effect, but is identified with a building permit application received prior to the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this section, all applicable codes
adopted and in force at the time of a complete building permit application will
apply.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
20
3. 102.1.3 Existing installations. Lawfully installed existing installations
that do not comply with the provisions of this section the adopted Construction
Codes shall be permitted to be continued without change, except as specifically
authorized by this section, the International Existing Building Code, the
International Property Maintenance Code, the International Fire Code or as is
deemed necessary by the building official for the general safety and welfare of
the occupants and the public. Where changes are required for correction of
hazards, a reasonable amount of time shall be given for compliance, depending
on the degree of the hazard.
4. 102.1.4 Maintenance. Buildings and structures, including their
electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems, equipment, materials and
appurtenances, both existing and new, and parts thereof shall be maintained in
proper operating condition in accordance with the original design and in a safe,
hazard‐free condition. Devices or safeguards that are required by this section the
adopted Construction Codes shall be maintained in compliance with the code
edition under which installed. The owner or the owner’s designated agent shall
be responsible for the maintenance of the systems and equipment. To
determine compliance with this provision, the code official shall have the
authority to require that the systems and equipment be reinspected.
5. 102.1.5 Additions, alterations, modifications or repairs. Additions,
alterations, modifications or repairs to a building or structure or to the electrical,
plumbing or mechanical system(s) of any building, structure, or premises shall
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
21
conform to the requirements of this section the adopted Construction Codes.
However, without requiring those portions of the existing building or system not
being altered or modified are only required to comply with all the requirements
of this section the adopted Construction Codes when specifically required in this
chapter, the International Existing Building Code, the International Property
Maintenance Code, the International Fire Code, or when deemed necessary by
the building official for the general safety and welfare of the occupants and the
public. Installations, additions, alterations, modifications, relocations or repairs
shall not cause an existing building to become unsafe or to adversely affect the
performance of the building as determined by the building official or designated
representative. Electrical wiring added to an existing service, feeder, or branch
circuit shall not result in an installation that violates the provisions of the code in
force at the time the additions were made.
SECTION XXIV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.B.10, 102.6.1 Moved buildings, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
10. 102.6.1 Moved buildings. Buildings or structures moved into or
within a jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this code, the
International Existing Building Code (WAC 51‐50) when applicable, the
International Residential Code (WAC 51‐51), the International Building Code
(WAC 51‐50), the International Mechanical Code (WAC 51‐52), the International
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
22
Fire Code (WAC 51‐54), the Uniform Plumbing Code and Standards (WAC 51‐56
and 51‐57), and the Washington State Energy Code (WAC 51‐11).
Exception: Group R‐3 buildings or structures are not required to comply
if:
a. The original occupancy classification is not changed; and
b. The original building is not substantially remodeled or
rehabilitated.
For the purposes of this section a building shall be considered to be
substantially remodeled when the costs of remodeling exceed sixty percent
(60%) of the value of the building exclusive of the costs relating to preparation,
construction, demolition or renovation of foundations. Valuation shall be
determined from the King County Assessor records at the time of the first
application for a building permit.
SECTION XXV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.B.13, 102.7.2 International Fire Code –
Referenced codes and standards, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title
IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
13. 102.7.2 International Fire Code ‐ Referenced codes and
standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that
are listed in Chapter 4780, except all references to the NFPA 70‐08 National
Electrical Code shall be substituted with the phrase, “Renton Electrical Code”.
Such codes and standards shall be considered part of the requirements of this
code to the prescribed extent of each such reference as determined or modified
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
23
by the fire code official. In the event the referenced codes are inconsistent with
this code, this code shall apply.
SECTION XXVI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.D.2, 104.2 Liability, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
2. 104.2. Liability. The building official, or employee charged with the
enforcement of this code, while acting in good faith and without malice in the
discharge of the duties required by this code or other pertinent law or
ordinance, shall not thereby be rendered civilly or criminally liable personally
and is hereby relieved from personal liability for any damage accruing to persons
or property as a result of any act or by reason of an act or omission in the
discharge of official duties. Any suit or criminal complaint instituted against an
officer or employee because of an act performed by that officer or employee in
the lawful discharge of duties while acting in good faith and without malice and
under the provisions of this code shall be defended by legal representative of the
jurisdiction until the final termination of the proceedings. The building official or
subordinate shall not be liable for cost in any action, suit or proceeding that is
instituted in pursuance of the provisions of this code.
SECTION XXVII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.D.8, 104.8 Right of entry, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
24
8. 104.8 Right of entry. Where it is necessary to make an inspection to
enforce the provisions of the Construction Codes and the Construction
Administrative Code, or where the building official has reasonable cause to
believe that there exists in a structure or upon a premises a condition which is
contrary to or in violation of the Construction Codes and the Construction
Administrative Code which makes the structure or premises unsafe, dangerous
or hazardous, the building official is authorized to enter the structure or
premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by the
Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code, provided that if
such structure or premises be occupied that credentials be presented to the
occupant and entry requested. If such structure or premises is unoccupied, the
building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner, the
owner’s authorized agent or other person having charge or control of the
structure or premises and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official
shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.
Where the code official has first obtained a proper inspection warrant or
other remedy provided by law to secure entry, an owner, the owner’s authorized
agent or occupant or person have charge, care or control of the building or
premises shall not fail or neglect to promptly permit entry therein by the code
official for the purpose of inspection and examination pursuant to the applicable
construction code.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
25
SECTION XXVIII. Subsections 4‐5‐060.D.12, 104.12 Modifications, and 4‐5‐060.D.13,
104.13 Alternative material, design and methods of construction and equipment, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, are amended as follows:
12. 104.12 Modifications. Wherever there are practical difficulties
involved in carrying out the provisions of the Construction Codes and the
Construction Administrative Code, the building official shall have the authority to
grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or
owner’s representative authorized agent, provided the building official shall first
find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of the Construction
Codes and the Construction Administrative Code impractical and the
modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of the Construction
Codes and the Construction Administrative Code and that such modification
does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural
requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and
entered in the files of the department. The building official is authorized to
charge an additional fee to evaluate any proposed modification under the
provisions of this section.
13. 104.13 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction
and equipment. The provisions of the Construction Codes are not intended to
prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of
construction not specifically prescribed by the Construction Codes, provided that
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
26
any such alternative has been approved by the building official. An alternative
material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building
official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the
intent of the provisions of the Construction Codes, and that the material,
method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of
that prescribed in the Construction Codes in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire
resistance, durability and safety. Where the alternative material, design or
method of construction is not approved, the building official shall respond in
writing, stating the reasons why the alternative was not approved. The building
official is authorized to charge an additional fee to evaluate any proposed
alternate material, design and/or method of construction and equipment under
the provisions of this section.
SECTION XXIX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.E.1, 105.1 Required, of Chapter 5, Building and
Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code,
is amended as follows:
E. SECTION 105 – PERMITS:
1. 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends
to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of
a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert
or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of
which is regulated by the Construction Codes and the Construction
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
27
Administrative Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make
application to the building official and obtain the required permit.
a. 105.1.1 Annual permit. In lieu of an individual permit for each
alteration to an already approved electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing
installation, the building official is authorized to issue an annual permit upon
application therefor to any person, firm or corporation regularly employing one
or more qualified tradespersons in the building, structure or on the premises
owned or operated by the applicant for the permit.
b. 105.1.2 Annual permit records. The person to whom an annual
permit is issued shall keep a detailed record of alterations made under such
annual permit. The building official shall have access to such records upon
request during the time of inspection and such records shall be filed with the
building official as designated.
a.c. 105.1.13 Electrical permit required. In accordance with
Chapter 19.28 RCW, an electrical permit is required for the following
installations:
i. The installation, alteration, repair, replacement, modification or
maintenance of all electrical systems, wire and electrical equipment regardless
of voltage.
ii. The installation and/or alteration of low voltage systems
defined as:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
28
(a) NEC, Class 1 power limited circuits at thirty (30) volts
maximum.
(b) NEC, Class 2 circuits powered by a Class 2 power supply as
defined in NEC 725.41(A).
(c) NEC, Class 3 circuits powered by a Class 3 power supply as
defined in NEC 725.41(A).
iii. Telecommunications Systems.
(a) All installations of telecommunications systems on the
customer side of the network demarcation point for projects greater than ten
(10) telecommunications outlets.
(b) All backbone installations regardless of size and all
telecommunications cable or equipment installations involving penetrations of
fire barriers or passing through hazardous locations require permits and
inspections.
(c) The installation of greater than ten (10) outlets and the
associated cables along any horizontal pathway from a telecommunications
closet to work areas during any continuous ninety (90) ‐ day period requires a
permit and inspection.
(d) In Residential Groups R‐1 and R‐2 occupancies as defined
in the International Building Code, permits and inspections are required for all
backbone installations, all penetrations of fire‐resistive walls, ceilings and floors;
and installations of greater than ten (10) outlets in common areas.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
29
(e) Definitions of telecommunications technical terms will
come from Chapter 19.28 RCW, the currently adopted WAC rules, EIA/TIA
standards, and the NEC.
b.d. 105.1.24 Grading permit required. No person shall do any
grading without first obtaining a grading permit from the building official.
SECTION XXX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.E.2.c.xix, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
xix. In‐kind window replacement for IRC structures where no
alteration of structural members is required and when the window U‐values
meet the prescriptive requirements within the Washington State Energy Code.
Window and door replacement for IRC structures where openings are not
increased, U‐Value is .30 or less, safety glass is installed in hazardous locations,
and the openable portion of egress window in bedrooms and basements are not
decreased in any dimension.
SECTION XXXI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.E.7, 105.3.2 Time limitation on application, of
Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the
Renton Municipal Code, is amended to add a new subsection 4‐5‐060.E.7.c, to read as follows:
c. The building official may approve a request for extension of the
application for an additional (12) twelve months for a fee of one‐half (1/2) of the
original plan review fee where special circumstances exist and justifiable cause is
demonstrated.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
30
SECTION XXXII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.E.10, 105.5 Expiration, of Chapter 5, Building and
Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code,
is amended as follows:
10. 105.5 Expiration. a. Every permit issued shall expire two one (21)
years from the date of issuance. For permits that have expired, a new permit
must be obtained and new fees paid.
Exceptions:
a. The building official may approve a request for an extended
expiration date where a construction schedule is provided by the applicant
and approved prior to permit issuance.
b. An existing building permit may be renewed one (1) time for a fee
of one‐half (1/2) the original permit fee, provided the permit has not expired.
Permit renewals shall expire in one (1) year. For permits that have been
expired, a new permit must be obtained and new fees paid. No permit shall
be renewed more than once except the building official may consider a
request for further extension where special circumstances exist and
justifiable cause is demonstrated.
c. Electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire, signs and demolition permits
shall expire one (1) year from issuance. An electrical, mechanical, plumbing,
fire or sign permit associated with a building permit may be extended at the
applicant’s request to the same expiration date as the associated building
permit.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
31
d. c. The building official may authorize a thirty (30) ‐ day extension to
an expired permit for the purpose of performing a final inspection and
closing out the permit as long as not more than one hundred eighty (180)
days has passed since the permit expired. The thirty (30) ‐ day extension
would commence on the date of written approval. If work required under a
final inspection is not completed within the thirty (30) ‐ day extension period,
the permit shall expire. However, the building official may authorize an
additional thirty (30) ‐ day extension if conditions outside of the applicant’s
control exist and the applicant is making a good faith effort to complete the
permitted work.
SECTION XXXIII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.F.1, 106.14 Live Loads Posted, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
1. 106.1 Live Loads Posted. Where the live load for which each floor or
portion thereof of a commercial or industrial building is or has been designed to
exceed fifty (50) psf (2.40kN/m2), such design live load shall be conspicuously
posted by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent in that part of each story
in which they apply, using durable signs. It shall be unlawful to remove or deface
such notices.
SECTION XXXIV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.G.2.h.v, Plan review required, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
32
v. Plan review required. Electrical plan review is required for all
new or altered electrical projects in the following occupancies and/or
installations:
(a) Educational, institutional, or health care facilities/buildings
as follows:
(1) Hospital;
(2) Nursing home unit or long‐term care unit;
(3) Boarding home;
(4) Assisted living facility;
(5) Private alcoholism hospital;
(6) Alcoholism treatment facility;
(7) Private psychiatric hospital;
(8) Maternity home;
(9) Ambulatory surgery facility;
(10) Renal hemodialysis clinic;
(11) Residential treatment facility for psychiatrically
impaired children and youth;
(12) Adult residential rehabilitation center;
(13) Educational facilities; and
(14) Institutional facilities.
Exceptions:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
33
(b) Electrical Plan review is not required for the above
educational, institutional, or health care facilities buildings where:
(1) Lighting specific projects that result in an electrical load
reduction on each feeder involved in the project;
(2) Low voltage systems;
(3) Modification to existing electrical installations where all
of the following conditions are met:
(A) Service or distribution equipment involved is rated
less than one hundred (100) amperes or greater and does not exceed two
hundred fifty (250) volts;
(B) Does not involve emergency systems other than
listed unit equipment per NEC 700.12(F);
(C) Does not involve branch circuits or feeders of an
essential electrical system as defined in NEC 517.2; and
(D) Service and feeder load calculations are increased
by five percent (5%) or less.
(4) Stand‐alone utility fed services that do not exceed two
hundred fifty (250) volts, one hundred (100) amperes where the project’s
distribution system does not include:
(A) Emergency systems other than listed unit
equipment per NEC 700.12(F);
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
34
(B) Critical branch circuits or feeders as defined in NEC
517.2; or
(C) A required fire pump system.
(c) Alterations in non‐residential occupancies two thousand
five hundred (2,500) square feet and greater.
(dc) Installations in occupancies, except one (1) ‐ and two (2) ‐
family dwellings, where a service or feeder rated four hundred (400) amperes or
greater is installed or altered or if more than four hundred (400) amperes is
added to the service or feeder.
(ed) All work on electrical systems operating at/over six
hundred (600) Volts.
(fe) All commercial generator installations or alterations.
(gf) All work in areas determined to be hazardous (classified)
location by the NEC.
(hg) If sixty percent (60%) or more of luminaires change.
(ih) Installations of switches or circuit breakers rated four
hundred amperes or over except for one (1) ‐ and two (2) ‐ family dwellings.
(ji) Wind driven generators.
(kj) Solar photovoltaic systems.
(lk) Any proposed installation which cannot be adequately
described in the application form.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
35
SECTION XXXV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.G.3.c, 107.3.3 Phased approval, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
c. 107.3.3 Phased approval. The building official is authorized to issue
a permit for the construction of foundations or any other part of a building or
structure before the construction documents for the whole building or structure
have been submitted approved, provided that adequate information and
detailed statements have been filed complying with pertinent requirements of
the Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code. The holder of
such permit for the foundation or other parts of a building or structure shall
proceed at the holder’s own risk with the building operation and without
assurance that a permit for the entire structure will be granted.
SECTION XXXVI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.G.4, 107.4.1 Design professional in
responsible charge ‐ General, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV
(Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
4. 107.4.1 Design professional in responsible charge ‐ General. When it
is required that documents be prepared by a qualified registered design
professional, the building official shall be authorized to require the owner or the
owner’s authorized agent to engage and designate on the building permit
application a registered design professional who shall act as the registered
design professional in responsible charge. If the circumstances require, the
owner or the owner’s authorized agent shall designate a substitute registered
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
36
design professional in responsible charge who shall perform the duties required
of the original registered design professional in responsible charge. The building
official shall be notified in writing by the owner or the owner’s authorized agent
if the registered design professional in responsible charge is changed or is unable
to continue to perform the duties. The registered design professional in
responsible charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating submittal
documents prepared by others, including phased and deferred submittal items,
for compatibility with the design of the building. Where structural observation is
required by Section 1710 of the IBC, the inspection program shall name the
individual or firms who are to perform structural observations and describe the
stages of construction at which structural observation is to occur (see also other
duties specified in Chapter 17 of the IBC).
SECTION XXXVII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.G.5, 107.4.2 Design professional in
responsible charge – Deferred submittals, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards,
of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
5. 107.4.2 Design professional in responsible charge ‐ Deferred
submittals. For the purposes of this section, deferred submittals are defined as
those portions of the design that are not submitted at the time of the application
and that are to be submitted to the building official within a specified period.
Deferral of any submittal items shall have the prior approval of the building
official. The registered design professional in responsible charge shall indicate
the list of deferred submittals on the construction documents for review by the
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
37
building official. Documents for deferred submittal items shall be submitted to
the registered design professional in responsible charge who shall review them
and forward them to the building official with a notation indicating that the
deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and have been found to be in
general conformance to the design of the building. The deferred submittal items
shall not be installed until the deferred submittal documents have been
approved by the building official. The building official is authorized to charge an
additional plan review fee to evaluate deferred submittals under the provisions
of this section.
SECTION XXXVIII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.H.1, 108.1 General, of Chapter 5, Building and
Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code,
is amended as follows:
1. 108.1 General. The building official is authorized to issue a permit for
temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to
time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than one hundred eighty
(180) days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for
demonstrated cause. Temporary structures and uses shall comply with the
requirements in Section 3103.
SECTION XXXIX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.H, Section 108.1 – Temporary Structures and
Uses, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended to add two new subsections 4‐5‐
060.H.3 and 4‐5‐060.H.4, to read as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
38
3. 108.3 Plumbing and Mechanical. The building official is authorized to
issue a permit for temporary equipment, systems and uses. Such permits shall be
limited to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than one hundred
and eighty (180) days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for
demonstrated cause.
4. 108.4 Utilities. The building official is authorized to give permission to
temporarily supply utilities before an installation has been fully completed and
the final certificate of completion has been issued. The part covered by the
temporary certificate shall comply with the requirements specified for
temporary lighting, heat or power in the code.
SECTION XL. Subsection 4‐5‐060.J.1, 110.1 General, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire
Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is
amended as follows:
1. 110.1 General. Construction or work for which a permit is required
shall be subject to inspection by the building official and such construction or
work shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until
approved. Approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an
approval of a violation of the provisions of the Construction Codes, the
Construction Administrative Code, or of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Inspections presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the
Construction Codes, the Construction Administrative Code, or of other
ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid. It shall be the duty of the permit
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
39
applicant owner or the owner’s authorized agent to cause the work to remain
accessible and exposed for inspection purposes. Neither the building official nor
the jurisdiction shall be liable for expenses entailed in the removal or
replacement of any material required to allow inspection.
SECTION XLI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.J.11.i, 110.11.9 Exterior Finish and Insulations
Systems (EFIS), Lath and gypsum board inspection, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as
follows:
i. 110.11.9 Exterior Finish and Insulation Systems (EFIS), Lath and
gypsum board inspection. EFIS, Lath, and gypsum board and gypsum panel
product inspections shall be made after backing, lathing or gypsum board and
gypsum panel products, interior and exterior, is in place, but before any
plastering is applied or gypsum board joints and fasteners are taped and
finished.
Exception: Interior gypsum board and gypsum panel products that is are
not part of a fire‐resistance‐rated assembly or a shear assembly does not require
inspection.
SECTION XLII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.J.11.j, 110.11.10 Fire‐ and smoke‐ resistant
penetrations, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
j. 110.11.10 Fire‐ and smoke‐resistant penetrations resistance rated
construction inspections. Where fire‐resistance‐rated construction is required,
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
40
an inspection of such construction shall be made after lathing or gypsum board
or gypsum panel products are in place, but before any plaster is applied, or
before board or panel joints and fasteners are taped and finished. Protection of
joints and penetrations in fire‐resistance‐rated assemblies, smoke barriers and
smoke partitions shall not be concealed from view until inspected and approved.
SECTION XLIII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.K.1, 111.1 Use and occupancy, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
1. 111.1 Use and occupancy. No building or structure shall be used or
occupied, and no change in the existing use or occupancy classification of a
building or structure or portion thereof shall be made, until the building official
has issued a certificate of occupancy as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate
of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a violation of the
provisions of the Construction Codes, the Construction Administrative Code, or
of other ordinances of the jurisdiction.
Exceptions:
a. Work exempt from permits per RMC 4‐5‐060.E.2, 105.2 Work exempt
from permit.
b. For single family dwellings and their accessory structures, the City
issued building permit inspection record may serve as the certificate of
occupancy when the final inspection has been approved by the building official
or the building official’s designee.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
41
SECTION XLIV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.K.2.c of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention
Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as
follows:
c. The name and address of the owner or the owner’s authorized
agent;
SECTION XLV. Subsection 4‐5‐060.K.3, 111.3 Temporary or phased occupancy, of
Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the
Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
3. 111.3 Temporary or phased occupancy. The building official is
authorized to issue a temporary or phased certificate of occupancy before the
completion of the entire work covered by the permit, provided that such portion
or portions shall be occupied safely. The building official is authorized to require
in addition to the completion of life safety building components any or all
accessibility components. The building official shall set a time period during
which the temporary or phased certificate of occupancy is valid. The building
official is authorized to require that a performance bond surety device be posted
with the City in an amount equal to one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the
incomplete work as determined by the design professional. The bond surety
device shall be refundable upon inspection, final approval and a request in
writing for the refund. It shall be the duty of the applicant to request the refund.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
42
SECTION XLVI. Subsection 4‐5‐060.L, Section 112 – Service Utilities, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended to add a new subsection 4‐5‐060.L.4 to read as follows:
4. 112.4 Connection after order to disconnect. A person shall not make
source connections to mechanical, plumbing, or electrical systems regulated by
the construction codes, which have been disconnected or ordered to be
disconnected by the code official, or the use of which has been ordered to be
discontinued by the code official until the code official authorizes the
reconnection and use of such systems. Where a system is maintained in violation
of the construction code, and in violation of a notice issued pursuant to the
provisions of this section, the code official shall institute appropriate action to
prevent, restrain, correct or abate the violation.
SECTION XLVII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.M.3, 113.3 Stop work order issuance, of Chapter
5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
3. 113.3 Stop work order issuance. The stop work order shall be in
writing and shall be given to the owner of the property involved, or to the
owner’s authorized agent, or to the person doing the work. Upon issuance of a
stop work order, the cited work shall immediately cease. The stop work order
shall state the reason for the order, and the conditions under which the cited
work will be permitted to resume.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
43
SECTION XLVIII. Subsection 4‐5‐060.N.1, 113.3 Stop work order issuance, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
1. 114.1 Notice to person responsible. Whenever the code official
determines that there has been a violation of this code or has grounds to believe
that a violation has occurred, notice shall be given in the manner prescribed in
RMC 4‐5‐060.G.2, 107.2 Construction documents, as amended and the
applicable provisions of the RMC 1‐3‐2, Civil Penalties Enforcement of Code.
SECTION XLIX. Subsection 4‐5‐060.O, Section 115 – Unsafe Structures and
Equipment, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended to add a new subsection 4‐5‐060.O.8 to
read as follows:
8. 115.8 Restoration. Where the structure or equipment determined to
be unsafe by the building official is restored to a safe condition, to the extent
that repairs, alterations or additions are made or a change of occupancy occurs
during the restoration of the structure, such repairs, alterations, additions and
change of occupancy shall comply with the requirements of this code and the
International Existing Building Code.
SECTION L. Section 4‐5‐060, Construction Administrative Code, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is amended to add a new subsection 4‐5‐060.S to read as follows:
S. SECTION 119 – APPLICABILITY OF CODES:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
44
For mechanical, electrical or plumbing permit applications submitted after
July 1, 2016, but related to the scope of work identified in a building permit
application that was complete prior to July 1, 2016, all applicable construction
codes adopted and in force at the time of filing of the complete building permit
application will apply.
SECTION LI. Section 4‐5‐090, International Mechanical Code Adopted, of Chapter 5,
Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton
Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
4‐5‐090 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE ADOPTED:
A. ADOPTION BY REFERENCE: The 2012 2015 Edition of the International
Mechanical Code (IMC), as adopted and amended by the State Building Code
Council in chapter 51‐52 WAC, as published by the International Code Council, is
adopted by reference with the following additions, deletions and exceptions:
Provided that Chapter 1, Administration, is not adopted and the Construction
Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be used in place of IMC
Chapter 1, Administration. Provided that the installation of fuel gas distribution
piping and equipment, fuel gas‐fired appliances and fuel gas‐fired appliance
venting systems shall be regulated by the International Fuel Gas Code. Provided
that detached one (1)‐ and two (2)‐family dwellings and multiple single‐family
dwellings (townhouses) not more than three (3) stories high with separate
means of egress and their accessory structures not more than three (3) stories
above grade plane in height shall comply with the International Residential Code.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
45
Provided that the standards for liquefied petroleum gas installations shall be the
2011 2014 Edition of NFPA 58 (Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code) and the 2012
2014 Edition of ANSI Z223.1/NFPA 54 (National Fuel Gas Code).
B. EXCEPTIONS: The provisions of this code do not apply to temporary
growing structures used solely for the commercial production of horticultural
plants including ornamental plants, flowers, vegetables, and fruits. “Temporary
growing structure” means a structure that has the sides and roof covered with
polyethylene, polyvinyl, or similar flexible synthetic material and is used to
provide plants with either frost protection or increased heat retention. A
temporary growing structure is not considered a building for purposes of this
code.
C. CONFLICTS: In the case of conflict between the duct sealing or insulation
requirements of Section 603 or Section 604 of this code and the duct sealing or
insulation requirements of Chapter 51‐11C/R WAC, the Washington State Energy
Code, shall govern.
SECTION LII. Section 4‐5‐100, National Fuel Gas Code Adopted, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is amended as follows:
4‐5‐100 NATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE ADOPTED:
The 2012 2015 Edition of the National Fuel Gas Code (ANSI Z223.1/NFPA 54), as
adopted by the State Building Code Council in chapter 51‐52 WAC, as published
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
46
by NFPA, is adopted by reference. The Construction Administrative Code, as set
forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be applied for the administration of this code.
SECTION LIII. Section 4‐5‐110, Uniform Plumbing Code Adopted, of Chapter 5, Building
and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development Regulations) of the Renton Municipal
Code, is amended as follows:
4‐5‐110 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE ADOPTED:
The 2012 2015 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC), as adopted and
amended by the State Building Code Council in chapter 51‐56 WAC, as published
by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, is adopted
by reference with the following additions, deletions and exceptions: Provided
that Chapter 1, Administration, is not adopted and the Construction
Administrative Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060, shall be used in place of UPC
Chapter 1, Administration. Provided that Chapters 12 and 15 14 of the Uniform
Plumbing Code are not adopted. Provided that those requirements of the
Uniform Plumbing Code relating to venting and combustion air of fuel‐fired
appliances as found in Chapter 5 and those portions of the code addressing
building sewers are not adopted.
The following appendices of the 2012 2015 Edition of the Uniform Plumbing
Code as adopted and amended by the State Building Code Council in chapter 51‐
57 WAC, as published by the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials, are also adopted by reference: Appendix A –
Recommended Rules for Sizing the Water Supply System; Appendix B –
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
47
Explanatory Notes on Combination Waste and Vent Systems; Appendix I –
Installation Standards. In addition, Appendix C – Alternate Plumbing Systems,
excluding Sections C5 through C7 C303.3 and C304.0 through C601.9, is adopted
by reference.
Where a conflict exists between the provisions of Appendix I and the
manufacturer’s installation instructions, the conditions of the listing and the
manufacturer’s installation instructions shall apply.
SECTION LIV. Subsection 4‐5‐130.A, International Property Maintenance Code
Adopted, of Chapter 5, Building and Fire Prevention Standards, of Title IV (Development
Regulations) of the Renton Municipal Code, is amended as follows:
A. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ADOPTED:
The 2012 2015 Edition of the International Property Maintenance Code is
adopted as amended, added to, or excepted in this title, and shall be applicable
within the City, except Chapter 1, Scope and Administration, and Sections 303,
307, 308, and 507, which are not adopted. The Construction Administrative
Code, as set forth in RMC 4‐5‐060 shall be used in place of IPMC Chapter 1,
Scope and Administration.
SECTION LV. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2016. A summary
of this ordinance shall be published in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall consist
of this ordnance’s title.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
48
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2016.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2016.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD:1921:5/25/16:scr
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
AB - 1687
City Council Regular Meeting - 20 Jun 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: 168 Development Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, and Street
Improvement Waivers; LUA-15-000745
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
STAFF CONTACT: Jason Seth, City Clerk
EXT.: 6502
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts held an open record hearing on May 17, 2016 to consider City staff's request
for rezone, preliminary plat, site plan, and street waivers approval of .75 acres located at 16826 108th Ave SE.
The report and recommendation was issued on May 31, 2016 and no appeals or requests for reconsideration
were thereafter filed.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts recommends Council approve the following, with conditions:
Rezone a portion of the site from R-10 to R-14 (the remaining portion of the project site is already
zoned R-14) 4-lot short plat
Site Plan
2 street waivers/modification requests
EXHIBITS:
A. Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation
B. Draft Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the 168 Development Rezone from R-10 to R-14, along with the preliminary plat, Site Plan, and two
street waiver/modification requests, with conditions.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: 168 Development
Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan and
Street Improvement Waivers
LUA15-000745
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
I. SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval of a site specific rezone, 4-lot short plat, site plan review, and two
street waivers/modifications for the construction of three new townhomes with two dwelling units in
each. The City Council has final review authority over these applications because it is required by state
law to make the final decision on rezone requests and the remaining applications have been
consolidated with the rezone request. The project site is 0.75 acres in area and is currently developed
with one single family home located at 16826 108th Ave SE. The requested rezone is from R-10 to R-
14 for the back-end (away from the street frontage) of the project site and only constitutes
approximately 11% of the total project area. The staff report notes that the rezone would not increase
the number of residential units allowed within the development, but would reallocate the residential
density and unit types, thus enabling the applicant to keep the current single-family residence in its
current location. The remaining project site is already zoned R-14. It is recommended that the City
Council approve the rezone and associated project applications subject to conditions.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 2
II. TESTIMONY
Clark Close, Renton planner, summarized the proposal.
III. EXHIBITS
The 29 exhibits identified at page 2 of the May 17, 2016 staff report were admitted into the record
during the hearing. The staff power point was admitted as Exhibit 30. City of Renton GIS maps located
at the City’s website were admitted as Exhibit 31. Google maps for the vicinity were admitted as
Exhibit 32.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant/Owner. Steve Wu is the applicant. Zhao Su & Ying Wei are the owners of the
subject property.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the subject applications was held at noon on May 17, 2016 in the
Renton City Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting approval of a site specific rezone (R10 to
R14), 4-lot short plat, site plan review, and two street waivers for the construction of three new
townhomes to a 0.75-acre site that is currently developed with one single family home located at 16826
108th Ave SE. The existing single-family home would be retained in-place along 108th Ave SE. The
site is located within the Residential-14 (R-14) and Residential-10 (R-10) zoning districts.
The project site is currently composed of two parcels and the smaller of the two (3,751 square feet in
area) is the portion currently zoned R-10 and subject to the rezone request to R-14. The proposed
residential lots range in size from 4,125 SF to 9,269 SF in area with an average lot size of 6,180 SF.
The site would also contain a common area tract and a shared driveway tract. With a maximum of two
dwelling units per townhome, the residential density is 11.7 dwelling units per net acre. Access to the
site would be from a single shared driveway access along the south property line from 108th Ave SE.
The applicant’s street waiver/modification requests are more specifically described as follows:
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 3
A. Street Frontage Waiver. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-
060F.2 “Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets and Alleys” in order to
keep the existing 108th Avenue SE right-of-way improvements including
approximately 22-foot pavement width from the roadway centerline, 0.5-foot curb and
gutter, and 5-foot sidewalk in place rather than installing a new planter strip for trees
between the curb and new sidewalk along the project frontage. In addition, the existing
configuration allows the existing curb line to remain consistent with the surrounding
street configuration.
108th Avenue SE is a Minor Arterial with an existing ROW width of 60 to 61 feet (as
per assessor map). This street classification requires a minimum right-of-way width of
91 feet. To meet the City’s complete street standards for 108th, half street
improvements include 27-foot paved roadway, 8-foot planter strip and 8-foot sidewalk
along with a minimum right of way dedication of 15.5 feet per City Code 4-6-060.
B. Shared Driveway Modification. The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC
4-6-060J.1 “Shared Driveway Standards – When Permitted” in order to extend the
length of the shared driveway more than 200 feet in length. The proposal is compliant
with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250D, if all conditions
of approval are met.
4. Surrounding Area. The subject site is surrounding on all sides by single family residential
development. As shown in the aerial photograph of Page 1 of the staff report, high density single-
family development with no or narrow setbacks is located on adjoining parcels to the north (zoned R-
10) and south (zoned R-14). Detached single family homes are located to the east (zoned R-10) and
west (zoned R-14).
5. Adverse Impacts. The proposed rezone, site plan and preliminary short plat do not create any
significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposal will be served by adequate/appropriate
infrastructure as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. Impacts are more specifically addressed as
follows:
A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas or other natural systems on site.
B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed
upzone is appropriate for its location, as the parcel is a small portion of a larger
subdivision that is predominantly already zoned R-14. The staff report notes that the
rezone would not increase the number of residential units allowed within the
development, but would reallocate the residential density and unit types. The rezone
proposal would allow the applicant to retain the existing single family home along 108th
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 4
Ave SE, which would allow the existing home to serve as visual buffer for the single-
family homes located on the west side of 108th Ave SE.
The overall subdivision adjoins three story high density development with little or no
setbacks to both the south and north. The parcels to the east are less dense detached
dwellings, but the proposed development would be consistent with the higher density
development that is already in view from those single-family homes to the south and
north of the project site.
C. Views. The landscape of the areas is relatively flat with large trees and heavy vegetation
restricting visibility from and through the site. The 3-story apartments to the north and
the 3-story condominiums to the south also restrict views from and through the property.
The proposed structures would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier.
Therefore, the proposed heights of the structures are appropriate for this situation and
will not materially affect the views of surrounding properties.
D. Aesthetics. The proposal does not create any significant adverse aesthetic impacts,
because as conditioned it is consistent with the City’s design and landscaping standards
as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 21 and 22.
E. Lighting. As conditioned, the proposal’s lighting will not adversely affect surrounding
properties. A lighting plan was not provided with the application; therefore, a condition
of approval requires that a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties be submitted at the time of
engineering permit review.
F. Vegetation. The proposed elimination of vegetation is not deemed to be significantly
adverse as the applicant will be complying with the City’s tree retention standards, the
only vegetation retention standards applicable to the project. As outlined in Finding of
Fact No. 21 of the staff report, the City’s tree retention standards require the retention
of three significant trees and the applicant exceeds this standard by retaining five
significant trees.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be
served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 5
C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all
significant drainage impacts. The applicant has submitted a Technical Information Report
(“Drainage Report”, Ex. 21) that evaluates and proposes a preliminary stormwater system
design. The Drainage Report proposes two stormwater facilities. A detention vault (Vault
#1) is proposed between the western two townhomes (Exhibit 15). This vault is intended to
provide the required flow control for the impervious roofs of the townhomes. A combination
detention/wet vault (Vault #2) is proposed under the access roadway south of the existing
house and the westernmost townhome (Exhibit 16). This vault is intended to provide
detention for the remainder of the parcel and Basic Water Quality for the pollution
generating impervious surface. Public works staff will require conformance of the final
stormwater system design to City stormwater standards as a part of final plat review.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. For parks
impacts, the applicant will be paying a park impact fee due at the time of building permit
issuance. No on-site park is required under the city’s park and open space standards because
the development is less than 10 net acres in size. See RMC 4-2-115(E)(2).
As conditioned, the proposal will satisfy applicable open space requirements. As proposed
without the conditions, the proposal fails to meet open space requirements. A 25.94’ by 44’
(1,141 sf) common open space tract, located above one of the stormwater vaults, is proposed
for common open space that is easily accessible within the short plat. The development
includes a total of 7 units, which would require 2,450 square feet of common open space
pursuant to RMC 4-2-115(E)(2), which requires 350 square feet of open space per dwelling
unit. Additional area from Lot 2 and Lot 3 could satisfy this requirement. A condition of
approval requires that the applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance
with the 350 square feet per unit requirement. Beyond the deficit in amount of open space,
the type and design of open space satisfies applicable requirements as outlined at p. 15 of
the staff report.
E. Pedestrian Circulation. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the applicant is requesting a
modification from RMC 4-6-060F.2 “Minimum Design Standards Table for Public Streets
and Alleys” in order to keep the existing 108th Avenue SE right-of-way improvements as
is. Beyond this, the proposal provides for adequate/appropriate pedestrian circulation as
required by the City’s design and open space standards, RMC 4-2-115. Pedestrian entry and
access from 108th Ave SE, to the short plat, would be provided via a 4-foot wide sidewalk
along the shared driveway frontage. The sidewalk would be located across the front of each
lot and would provide a pedestrian connection to each structure. Pedestrian sidewalks, as
well as private pedestrian connections throughout the property, are proposed for safe and
efficient pedestrian access throughout the site. Connections would also be provided between
the proposed structures and the common open space tract. In order to ensure a safe
delineation of the sidewalks, a condition of approval requires that the pedestrian sidewalks
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 6
and private entry sidewalks be constructed using concrete or a different type of material than
the shared driveway.
F. Traffic Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate traffic
infrastructure.
Off-site traffic impacts will be addressed through the payment of traffic impact fees due at
the time of building permit issuance. Public works staff did not find that applicable
regulations required any traffic impact analysis conducted for the levels of traffic generated
by the proposal. Public Works staff has reviewed the preliminary traffic circulation and
proposed street improvements and found them to be consistent with City street standards
subject to approval of the requested street waivers. Staff have also found the proposed
vehicular circulation to be safe and efficient as conditioned.
G. Bicycles. The provision provides for adequate bicycle facilities by complying with
applicable bicycle standards. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required
for residential developments that exceed five (5) residential units. Attached units are required
to provide one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per one dwelling unit. Spaces shall meet the
requirements of 4-4-080F.11.c. The garages to each unit should be able to meet the bicycle
parking requirement. A condition of approval requires the applicant to provide floor plans
that identify adequate bicycle parking of one-half space per dwelling unit.
H. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate school facilities and safe walking
conditions to and from school. The staff report notes that it is anticipated that the Renton
School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the
following schools: Cascade Elementary, Nelsen Middle School and Lindbergh High School
(Exhibit 24). A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family lots, would be required in
order to mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is
payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed
at $1,385.00 per multi-family unit with credit given for the existing residence.
Any new high school students from the proposed development would be bussed to their
schools. The bus stop to the high school is located approximately 0.1 miles from the project
site at 108th Ave SE & SE 170th St. Students would walk south along 108th Ave SE, along
the existing sidewalk to SE 170th St. Students to the elementary and middle schools would
be within walking distance. Safe walking routes exist from the site to Cascade Elementary
by walking on public sidewalks. The route begins by walking north on 108th Ave SE, turning
east on SE 168th St and finally walking north on 116th Ave SE (approximately 1 mile). Safe
walking routes to Nelsen Middle School by walking on public sidewalks and wide shoulders.
The route begins by walking north on 108th Ave SE, east on S 29th St and north again on
108th Ave SE (approx. 0.5 miles).
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 7
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies a rezone request as a Type IV application, which
requires the hearing examiner to make a recommendation to the City Council after holding a public
hearing. The short subdivision application request is classified as a Type II application by RMC 4-8-
080(G) and the modification requests as Type 1 applications. RMC 4-8-080(C) authorizes multiple
permit applications to be consolidated under the highest number review classification, which in this
case would be Type IV review. The staff report doesn’t identify whether the applicant has opted for
consolidated review, but given that the subject permits have all been submitted to the hearing examiner
for review it is presumed that option has been exercised. As a result of consolidation, the rezone
application, short plat and modification requests are all subject to Type IV review.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The entire project site has a comprehensive plan
land use map designation of Residential High Density. The larger of the two parcels of the site is
zoned R-14 and the smaller parcel is zoned R-10.
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-7-070 governs the criteria for short plat review. The street standard
waiver1 is subject to RMC 4-9-250(C) and the street standard modification is subject to RMC 4-9-
250(D). Rezone standards are subject to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2). Site plan review is governed by RMC
4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
REZONE CRITERIA
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a): The rezone is in the public interest, and
4. The criterion is met. The proposal is clearly within the public interest. The proposal facilitates
development of the project site with no significant impacts to adjoining properties. As determined in
1 The staff report processes the street frontage waiver as a modification pursuant to RMC 4-9-250(D). The RMC 4-
9-250(D) process generically authorizes modifications to “standards” without limitation as to scope. RCW 4-9-250
(C) authorizes waivers only to street standards. Since 4-9-250(C) is more specific in scope, it is construed as the
review process that should first be applied to requests to waive street standards. The courts require that a specific
statute will supersede a general statute when both apply. See Kustura v. Washington State Dept. of Labor and
Industries, 169 Wn.2d 81 (2010). If a proposed modification to street standards doesn’t meet the street waiver criteria,
then the more general modification standards of RMC 4-9-250(D) can be applied, as was found necessary for this
project since the requested waiver of shared driveway length standards didn’t qualify or a waiver under RCW 4-9-250
(C).
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 8
Finding of Fact No. 3 and 5, the rezone is for a nominal area and is fully compatible with the
surrounding area and will not result in any increase in dwelling units on the project site.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(b): The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial
property rights of the petitioner, and
5. The criterion is met. As explained in the staff report, the nominally sized parcel that is the
subject of the rezone was the result of an adverse possession action. The result of that adverse
possession action was the likely reason why the lot subject to the rezone request is landlocked with
zoning that is inconsistent with the lot that separates it from its only available access road, 108th Ave
SE. Approval of the rezone will enable the parcel to be zoned the same as the rest of the development
proposal in a logical and efficient manner, thereby furthering the preservation and enjoyment of the
property owner’s ability to develop the property in a reasonable manner.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(c): The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties
of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the rezone request will not create
any significant adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be materially detrimental
to the public welfare of the properties of other persons located in the vicinity.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(d): The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F1 of this Section.
7. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with all standards imposed by subsection F1.
Subsection F1 requires consistency with the comprehensive plan. For the reasons identified Finding
of Fact No. 19 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Subsection
F1 also requires either that (1) the subject property was not specifically considered in the last area land
use analysis and area zoning or (2) that circumstances have significantly changed since the most recent
zoning of the area. The staff report notes that the rezone of the property was not considered in the last
rezone of the area, which was done in 2015. Finally, Subsection F1 requires that the rezone “meet the
review criteria in RMC 4-9-020”. RMC 4-9-020 sets the review criteria for comprehensive plan
amendments. The comprehensive plan criteria focus upon impacts to growth rates, adequacy of public
infrastructure, consistency with comprehensive plan objectives and impacts upon environmentally
sensitive areas. Since the proposed rezone will not result in any increase in the number of dwelling
units, will not adversely affect any environmentally sensitive areas and will not adversely affect
surrounding properties, it should not have any materially adverse impact to any of the factors required
to be addressed during comprehensive plan review and is therefore considered to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan criteria of RMC 4-9-020.
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT CRITERIA
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 9
RMC 4-7-070(B): A short plat shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed short plat may be
denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements
may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final short
plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
8. The criterion is met. The lots proposed by the applicant meet all applicable zoning standards
as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 21 of the staff report if the requested rezone is approved. As shown
in the site plan, Ex. 9, each of the proposed four lots have access to 108th Ave SE via an internal shared
driveway. There are no critical areas or any other physical characteristics of the property that make it
unsuitable for development. The proposal provides for adequate infrastructure as required above as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-7-070(H)(3): If the Administrator finds that the proposed plat makes appropriate provisions
for the public health, safety, and general welfare and for such open spaces, drainage ways, streets,
alleys, other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and
school grounds and all other relevant facts and that the public use and interest will be served by the
proposed short plat, then it shall be approved. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the decision.
9. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate/appropriate infrastructure as required
above as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The proposal makes appropriate provision for public
health, safety and welfare and the public use and interest will be served because it enables reasonable
use of land without any corresponding significant adverse impacts to public infrastructure, surrounding
properties or the environment as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
SITE PLAN
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 10
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
3-100.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies
and zoning regulations as outlined in Findings of Fact No. 19 and 21 of the staff report. The design
guidelines of RMC 4-3-100 do not apply to projects in the RM-14 zone. See RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b).
However, RMC 4-2-115 does impose design standards to residential development in the RM-14 zone.
Since RMC 4-2-115 qualifies as a “land use regulation”, the applicant must establish consistency for
site plan approval. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 22 of the staff report, the proposal
is consistent with the design standards of RMC 4-2-115. The proposal is not subject to a planned action
ordinance or development agreement.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a
particular portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas,
utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views
from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual
accessibility to attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and
surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally
enhance the appearance of the project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
11. The criterion is met. There is not an overconcentration of development on the site. The
surrounding uses have been developed or are zoned to be developed at a similar scale. The applicant
is proposing to retain the existing 2-story single family structure on Lot 1 and construct a total of
three (3) two-story townhome units. The structures would be evenly spaced across the site with
parking provided on each lot. The applicant is not proposing any loading or storage areas. The
applicant is providing for adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation involving desirable transitions
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 11
and linkages as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The proposal will not create adverse view or
lighting impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian
and vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation
and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious
surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide
shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to
enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and
protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or
pedestrian movements.
12. The criterion is met. Privacy and noise reduction will be enhanced by the placing of the
townhomes behind the existing home and surrounding the town home with landscaping and trees as
shown in the landscaping plan, Ex. 19. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the scale of the proposal
is compatible with surrounding development, as properties to the north and south are developed with
three story high density development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the applicant
adequately protects existing vegetation by exceeding applicable vegetation retention requirements.
The project would not impact steep slopes or result in extensive grading. The applicant estimates
earthwork quantities at approximately 2,715 cubic yards of cut material and approximately 1,123
cubic yards of fill material. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal provides for
adequate landscaping since it complies with applicable landscaping standards. The proposal provides
for adequate landscaping as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for
all users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets
rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on
the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system,
including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points,
drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 12
13. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate
access, circulation and bicycle facilities as required by the criterion above. No direct access to an
arterial street is proposed. No loading and delivery areas are proposed. The record does not support
any mitigation for transit or carpool facilities.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal
points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the
site.
14. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate open space as required by the criterion
above as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
15. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no view corridors to shorelines
or Mt. Rainier are adversely affected. No shorelines are in the vicinity for purposes of requiring
public access.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
16. The criterion is met. Natural systems will not be adversely affected by the proposal as
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
17. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
18. The project is not phased.
STREET STANDARD WAIVERS
RMC 4-9-250(C)(2): Authority for Waiver of Street Improvements. The administrator may
grant waiver of street improvements subject to the determination that there is reasonable
justification for such waiver.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 13
RMC 4-9-250(C)(5): Decision Criteria for Waivers of Street Improvements: Reasonable justification
shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Required street improvements will alter an existing wetlands or stream, or have a negative
impact on a shoreline’s area.
b. Existing steep topography would make required street improvements infeasible.
c. Required street improvements would have a negative impact on other properties, such as
restricting available access.
d. There are no similar improvements in the vicinity and there is little likelihood that the
improvements will be needed or required in the next ten (10) years.
e. In no case shall a waiver be granted unless it is shown that there will be no detrimental effect
on the public health, safety or welfare if the improvements are not installed, and that the
improvements are not needed for current or future development.
19. Frontage Improvement Waiver Request. The requested waiver for 108th Street frontage
improvements identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 satisfies all applicable criteria for a street standard
waiver. The waiver is justified under subsection (d) above, since the proposed frontage improvements
are consistent with the connecting frontage to the south and north and there is no indication that the
surrounding frontage will be redeveloped anytime in the next 10 years. In addition, the existing
roadway allows the curb and gutter to remain in the same configuration as the surrounding street
maintaining the functionality and safety of the street. The five-foot-wide sidewalk at this location
meets the needs of the residents relying on this sidewalk for access to the greater neighborhood. A
condition of approval will require that the improvements shall provide a minimum 8-foot wide
planting strip on the backside of the sidewalk. The modified street improvements would meet the
objectives of a safe and functional walkable environment with enhanced aesthetics through the planter
strip and thus should have no detrimental effect on public health, safety or welfare.
STREET MODIFICATION
RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Decision Criteria: Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying
out the provisions of this Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual
cases provided he/she shall first find that a specific reason makes the strict letter of this Code
impractical, that the intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the Comprehensive
Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and
that such modification:
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed
modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives;
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 14
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and
maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment;
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code;
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
20. Shared Driveway Modification Request. Since the shared driveway doesn’t meet all of the
requirements for a street waiver, the more general modification review standards apply. The record
contains no information on whether the requested modification meets criterion (b) above, establishing
whether the modification will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering
judgment. It appears that the staff report erroneously copied the analysis of subsection a into its
analysis of subsection b. Since modifications can be approved administratively, the conditions of
approval require that the modification be processed administratively since there is insufficient
information in the administrative record to assess compliance with all applicable standards.
V. DECISION
The proposed rezone, preliminary short plat, site plan and 108 Ave SE street standard waiver are all
consistent with applicable code criteria as determined in the Conclusions of Law of this decision if
conditioned as recommended. The hearing examiner recommends that the City Council approve the
applications subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall provide a minimum 10-foot rear yard setback between the existing
home and the east property boundary line of Lot 1. A revised short plat plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to construction
permit approval complying with RMC 4-2-110A.
2. The applicant shall provide a minimum of ten feet (10') of on-site landscaping along the
public street frontage of 108th Ave SE. A final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to construction permit
approval complying with RMC 4-4-070.
3. If the adjacent property owners do not grant the applicant permission to remove the off-
site trees, the project shall be redesigned to eliminate impacts on off-site trees. The project
re-design to eliminate impacts on adjacent trees shall be verified by an arborist and
reviewed for approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 15
4. All pedestrian sidewalks and private entry sidewalks be constructed using concrete or a
different type of material than the shared driveway. A revised site plan shall be submitted
to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance a construction
permit.
5. The applicant shall dedicate approximately 15.5 feet (15’-6”) of right-of-way along 108th
Ave SE (subject to a final survey). A final detailed street cross-section must be submitted
and approved by the Plan Review Project Manager prior to issuance a construction permit.
6. The applicant shall extend the shared driveway tract from 108th Ave SE to the west
property line of eastern most parcel (Lot 4) to serve each proposed residential lot. An
updated plat plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager
prior to issuance a construction permit.
7. The applicant shall remove the existing impervious driveway located at the northwest
corner of the site and replace it with landscaping. Access to the existing single family home
shall take access from the shared driveway tract. The new driveway cut shall be identified
on the construction permit application, for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager.
8. Each new multi-family lot shall be limited to one joint use driveway with a single curb cut.
A final detailed site plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the City of Renton Project
Manager prior to issuance of a construction permit.
9. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the common
open space standard of at least three hundred fifty (350) square feet per unit. The revised
site plan and short plat shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to issuance a construction permit.
10. The applicant shall provide floor plans that identify adequate bicycle parking of one-half
space per dwelling unit. A detailed floor plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
City of Renton Project Manager prior to issuance a construction permit.
11. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit
review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe
pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been
approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in
RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. The lighting plan shall be submitted at the time
of construction permit review for review and approval by the City’s Plan Reviewer.
12. The applicant shall submit building elevations that are consistent with the R-14 zoning
designation and are compatible in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site
amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs. The building
elevations shall be submitted at the time of construction permit review for review and
approval by the City’s Current Planning Project Manager.
13. The applicant shall create a Home Owners Association (“HOA”) that maintains all
improvements in the shared driveway tract, landscaping in the open space tract and any
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone, Preliminary Plat and Street Waivers - 16
and all other common improvements. A draft of the HOA documents shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the City of Renton Project Manager and the City Attorney prior to Final
Plat recording. Such documents shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Plat.
14. The applicant shall be required to obtain a temporary construction easement for all work
conducted outside of the applicant’s property. The temporary construction easement shall
be submitted to the City prior to any permits being issued.
15. The modification request to shared driveway length identified in Finding of Fact No. 3
shall be processed and decided upon administratively for the reasons identified in
Conclusion of Law No. 20.
DATED this 31st day of May, 2016.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
VALUATION NOTICES
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
CITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.___
_
_
_
_ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,CHANGINGTHEZONINGCLASSIFICATIONOFCERTAINPROPERTYWITHINTHECITYOFRENTON(KINGCOUNTYPARCELNO.$63710-0440;TRACTFOFTHRESHOLD1)FROMRESIDENTIAL-TENUNITSPERNETACREfR-b),TORESIDENTIAL-FOURTEENUNITSPERNETACRE(R-14)(FILENO.LU-A15-000745,ECF,SHPL-A,SA-A,R,MOD,MOD).WHEREAS,onMarch15,2015,theCityacceptedanapplicationfromZhaoZhangSuandYingHanWeitoamendtheCityofRentonzoningmaptochangethezoningclassificationofKingCountyParcelNo.863710-0440(“SubjectProperty”)fromResidential-TenfR-b)unitspernetacretoResidential-Fourteen(R-14)unitspernetacre;andWHEREAS,theSubjectPropertyis3,571squarefeetinsizeandislocatedatapproximately450feetnortheastoftheintersectionof108thAvenueSEandSE170thStreet;andWHEREAS,onApril18,2016theEnvironmentalReviewCommitteeissuedaSEPADeterminationofNon-Significance(DNS)forthezoningmapamendmentfromResidential-TenfR-b)unitspernetacretoResidential-FourteenfR-14)unitspernetacre;andWHEREAS,theSubjectPropertyislocatedwithintheResidentialHighDensity(RHD)ComprehensivePlanlandusedesignation,whichincludestheResidential-Ten(R-b0)andResidential-FourteenfR-14)zoningclassifications;andWHEREAS,thismatterwasdulyreferredtotheHearingExaminerforinvestigationandstudy,afternoticeofpublichearingwaspostedandcirculatedasrequiredbytheRentonMunicipalCode;andWHEREAS,theHearingExaminerheldapublichearingonMay17,2016;and1AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.WHEREAS,thematterwasdulyconsideredbytheHearingExaminer,whoissuedFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLawandRecommendationonMay31,2016;andWHEREAS,theCouncildulyconsideredallmattersrelevantthereto,andallpartieswereheardappearinginsupportoropposition;NOW,THEREFORE,THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.TheCityCouncilherebyaffirmsandadoptstheHearingExaminerFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLawandRecommendation,attachedheretoasAttachmentA.SECTIONII.TheofficialCityofRentonZoningMapisherebyamendedassetforthinAttachmentB,attachedhereto.SECTIONIII.Thisordinanceshallbeinfullforceandeffectfive(5)daysafterpublicationofasummaryofthisordinanceintheCity’sofficialnewspaper.Thesummaryshallconsistofthisordnance’stitle.PASSEDBYTHECITYCOUNCILthis_
_
_
_
_
_
_dayof__
_
_
_
_
_
____
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
,2016.JasonA.Seth,CityClerkAPPROVEDBYTHEMAYORthis_
_
_
_
___dayof______________________,2016.DenisLaw,Mayor2AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.___
_
_
__Approvedastoform:Lawrencei.Warren,CityAttorneyDateofPublication:_
_
__
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
__
_ORD:1924:5/23/16:scr3AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.AUACHMENTA123467SBEFORETHEHEARINGEXAMINERFORTHEUWOFRENTON10H)12RE:168Development)FINDINGSOFFACT.CONCLUSIONSOF13LAWANDRECOMMENDATION14Rezone.PreliminaryPlat.SitePlanand)StreetTmprovenntWaivers)15)LUA15-000745)16________________________________________17LSflBLARVTheapplicantisrequestingapprovalofasitespecificrezone.4-lotshortplat,siteplanreview.two19streetwaivers/modificatioasfortheconstructionofthreenewtownhomeswithtwodwellingunitsineach.TheCityCouncilhasfinalreviewauthorityovertheseapplicationsbecauseitisrequiredbystate20lawtomakethefinaldecisiononrezonerequestsandthereniainingapplicationshavebeenconsolidatedwiththerezonerequest.Theprojectsiteis0.75acresinareaandiscurrentlydeveloped21withonesinglefamilyhomelocatedat16826l08thAveSE.ThereqiwstedrezoneisfromR-10toR14fortheback-end(awayfromthestreetfrontage)oftheprojectsiteandonlyconstitutesapproximately11%ofthetotalprojectarea.Thestaffreportnotesthattherezonewouldnotincrease23thenumberofresidentialunitsallowedwithinthedevelopment,butwouldreallocatetheresidentialdensityandunittype&thusenablingtheapplicanttokeepthecurrentsingle-familyresidenceinits24currentlocation.TheremainingprojectsiteisalreadyzonedR-14.ItisrecommendedthattheCity-Councilapprovetherezoneandassociatedprojectapplicationssubjecttoconditions.26Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-14AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1II.TESTIMONY2ClarkClose.Rentonplanner.summarizedtheproposal.3LU.EXHIBITSThe29exhibitsidentifiedatpage2oftheMay17,2016sTaffreportwereadmittedintotherecord6duringthehearing.ThestaffpowerpointwasadmittedasExhibit30.CityofRentonGISmapslocatedattheCitVswebsitewereadmittedasExhibit31.Googjemapsforthevicinitywereadmittedas7Thcbibit32.89IV.FINDINGSOFFACT10Procedural:1..4licant/Owner.SteveWuistheapplicant.ThaoSn&YrngWeiaretheownersofthe12stibiectproperty.132.Hearina.AhearingonthesubjectapplicationswasheldatnoononMay17.2016inthe14RentonCityCouncilmeetingcbambers.15Substantive:163.ProjectDescription.Theapplicantisrequestingapprovalofasitespecificrezone(RiOto17R14).4-lotshort$at,siteplanreview,andtwostreetwaiversfortheconstructionofthreenewtowthomestoa0.75-acresitethatiscunentlydevelopedwithonesinglefamilyhomelocatedat16826108thAveSE.Theexistingsingle-familyhomewouldberetainedin-placealong108thAveSE.The19siteislocatedwithintheResidential-lA(R-14)andResidential-lO(R-10)zoningdistricts.Theprojectsiteiscunentlycomposedoftwoparcelsandthesmallerofthetwo(1751squarefeetin20area)istheportioncurrentlyzonedK-bandsubjecttotherezonerequesttoR-14.Theproposed21residentiallotsrangeinsizefrom4.125SFto9.269SFinareawithanavengelotsizeof6,180SF.Thesitewouldalsocontainacommonareatractandashareddrivewaytract.Withamaxinnunoftwo22dwellingunitspertownhome.theresidentialdensityis11.7dwellingunitspernetacre.Accesstothe23sitewouldbefromasingleshareddrivewayaccessalongthesouthpropertylinefrom108thAveSE.24Theapplicant’sstreetwaiver/modificationrequestsaremorespecificallydescribedasfollows:2526Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-25AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1A.StreetFrontageWaiver.TheapplicantisrequestingamodificationfromRMC4-6-060E2“MinimumDesignStandardsTableforPublicStreetsandAlleys”inordertokeeptheexisting108thAvenueSEright-of-wayimprovementsincluding3approximately22-footpavementwidthfromtheroadwaycenterline,0.5-footcurband4gutter.and5-footsidewalkinplaceratherthaninstallinganewplanterstripfortreesbetweenthecurbandnewsidewalkalongtheprojectfrontage.Inaddition,theexistingconfigurationallowstheexistingcurblinetoremainconsistentwiththesurrounding6streetconfiguration.7108thAvenueSEisaMinorArterialwithanexistingROWwidthof60to61feet(as8paassessormap).Thisstreetclassificationrequiresaminimumright-of-waywidthof91feet.TomeettheCity’scompletestreetstandardsfor108th.halfstreet9Unprovenientsinclude27-footpavedroadway.8-footplanterstripand8-footsidewalk10alongwithaminimumrightofwaydedicationof15.5feetperCityCode4-6-060.iiB.SharedDrivewayModification.TheapplicantisrequestingamodificationfromRMC4-6-06011“SharedDrivewayStandards—WhenPermitted”inordertoextendthe12lengthoftheshareddrivewaymorethan200feetinlength.Theproposaliscompliant13withthefollowingmodificationcriteria,pursuanttoRMC4-9-2501),ifallconditionsofapprovalaremet.144.SurroundingArea.Thesubjectsiteissurroundingonallsidesbysinglefamilyresidential15development.AsshownintheaerialphotographofPage1ofthestaffreport,highdensitysingle-16familydevelopmentwithnoornarrowsetbacksislocatedonadjoiningparcelstothenorth(zonedR10)andsouth(zonedR-14)Detachedsinglefamilyhomesarelocatedtotheeast(zonedR-10)and17west(zonedR-14).185.AdverseImpacts.Theproposedrezone.siteplanandprelirniniyshortplatdonotcreateany19significantadverseenvironmentalimpacts.Theproposalwillbeservedbyadequate/appropriateinfrastructureasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6.Impactsaremorespecificallyaddressedas20follows:21A.Criticalfleas.Therearenocriticalareasorothernaturalsystemsonsite.‘flB.Compatibth%Theproposaliscompatiblewithsurroundinguses.Theproposed23upzoneisappropriateforitslocation,astheparcelisasmallportionofalargersubdivisionthatispredornitnotlyalreadyzonedK-14.Thestaffreportnotesthattherezonewouldnotincreasethenumberofresidentialunitsallowedwithinthedevelopment,butwouldreallocatetheresidentialdensityandunittyrs.Therezone-proposalwouldallowtheapplicanttoretaintheexistingsinglefamilyhomealong108th26Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-36AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1AveSE.whichwouldallowtheexistinghometoserveasvisualbufferforthesinglefamilyhomeslocatedonthewestsideof108thAveSE.I3Theoverallsubdivisionadjoinsthreestoryhighdensitydevelopmentwithlittleornosetbackstoboththesouthandnorth.Theparcelstotheeastarelessdensedetached4dwellings.buttheproposeddevelopmentwouldbeconsistentwiththehigherdensitydevelopmentthatisalreadyinviewfromthosesingle-familyhomestothesouthand5northoftheprojectsite.6c•Views.Thelandscapeoftheareasisrelativelyflatwithlargetreesandheavyvegetation7restrictingvisibilityfromandthroughthesite.The3-storyapartmentstothenorthandthe3-storycondominilmistothesouthalsorestrictviewsfromandthroughtheproperty.gTheproposedstructureswouldnotblockviewcorridorstoshorelinesorMt.Rainier.Therefore.theproposedheightsofthestructuresareappropriateforthissituationand9willnotmateriallyaffecttheviewsofsurroundingproperties.10D.Aesthetics.Theproposaldoesnotcreateanysignificantadverseaestheticimpacts.11becauseasconditioneditisconsistentwiththeCity’sdesignandlandscapingstandardsasoutlinedinFindingofFactNo.21and22.12E.Lighting.Asconditioned.theproposal’slightingwillnotadverselyaffectsurrounding13properties.Alightingplanwasnotprovidedwiththeapplicatioatherefore.acondition4ofapprovalrequiresthatalightingplanthatadequatelyprovidesforpublicsafety1withoutcastingexcessiveglareonadjacentpropertiesbesubmittedatthetimeof15engineeringpennitreview.16F.VegetafioaTheproposedeliminationofvegetationisnotdeemedtobesignificantlyadverseastheapplicantwillbecomplyingwiththeCity’streeretentionstandards.the17onlyvegetationretentionstandardsapplicabletotheproject.AsoutlinedinFindingof18FactNo.21ofthestaffreport.theCity’streeretentionstandardsrequiretheretentionofthreesignificanttreesandtheapplicantexceedsthisstandardbyretainingfive19significanttrees.206.AdequacyofInfrastructure.AdeguacvofInflastrudun/PublicServices.Theprojectwillbe21servedbyadequateinfiasmictureandpublicservicesasfollows:1)A.WaterandSewerService.Waterandsanitarysewerserviceforthedevelopmentwouldbe23providedbytheSoosCreekWaterandSewerDistrict.24B.FireProtecfioaFireprotectionwouldbeprovidedbytheCityofRentonFireDepartment.2526Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-47AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO._
___
_
__1C.Drainage.InconjunctionwiththeCitvsstoanwaterregulations.theproposalmitigatesallsignificantdrainageimpacts.TheapplicanthassubmittedaTechnicalInformationReport(“DrainageReport”,Lx.21)thatevaluatesandproposesapreitmunrystormwatersystem3desigaTheDrainageReportproposestwostormwaterfacilities.Adetentionvault(Vault#1)isproposedbetweenthewesterntwotownhomes(Exhibit15).Thisvaultisintendedtoprovidetherequiredflowcontrolfortheimperviousroofsofthetownhomes.Acombinationdetentionwetvault(Vault#2)isproposedundertheaccessroadwaysouthoftheexisting6houseandthewesternmosttowthome(Exhibit16).ThisvaultisintendedtoprovidedetentionfortheremainderoftheparcelandBasicWaterQualityforthepollution7generatingimpervioussurface.PublicworksstaffwillrequireconformanceofthefinalstonnwatersystemdesigntoCitystormwaterstandardsasapartoffinalplatreview.9D.Parks/OpenSpace.Theprojectprovidesforadequateparksandopenspace.Forparksimpacts.theapplicantwillbepayingaparkimpactfeedueatthetimeofbuildingpermit10issuance.Noon-siteparkisrequiredunderthecity’sparkandopenspacestandardsbecausethedevelopmentislessthan10netacresinsize.SeeRMC4-2-115(E)(2).12Asconditioned.theproposalwillsatisfyapplicableopenspacerequirements.Asproposedwithouttheconditions.theproposalfailstomeetopenspacerequirements.A25.94’by44’13(1.141sOcoimnonopenspacetract,locatedaboveoneofthestormwatervaults,isproposedforconusronopenspacethatiseasilyaccessiblewithintheshortplat.Thedevelopment14includesatotalof7units.whichwouldrequire2.450squarefeetofcommonopenspace1pursuanttoRMC4-2-lls(E)(2).whichrequires350squarefeetofopenspaceperdwellingunit.AdditionalareafromLot2andLot3couldsatisfythisrequirementAconditionof16approvalrequiresthattheapplicantprovidearevisedsiteplandemonstratingcompliancewiththe350squarefeetperunitrequirement.Beyondthedeficitinamountofopenspace,17thetypeanddesignofopenspacesatisfiesapplicablerequirementsasoutlinedatp.15ofthestaffreport.19E.PedestrianCirculation.AsnotedinFindingofFactNo.3.theapplicantisrequestinga20modificationfromRMC46-060F.2.‘MniinDesignStandardsTableforPublicStreetsandAlleys”inordertokeeptheexisting108thAvenueSEright-of-wayimprovementsas21is.Beyondthis.theproposalprovidesforadequate/appropriatepedestriancirculationasrequiredbytheCitysdesignandopenspacestandards.RMC4-2-115.Pedestrianentryand22accessfrom108thAveSE,totheshortplat.wouldbeprovidedviaa4-footwidesidewalk13alongtheshareddrivewayfrontage.Thesidewalkwouldbelocatedacrossthefrontofeach-lotandwouldprovideapedestrianconnectiontoeachstructure.Pedestriansidewalks.as24wellasprivatepedestrianconnectionsthroughouttheproperty.areproposedforsafeandefficientpedestrianaccessthroughoutthesite.Connectionswouldalsobeprovidedbetween25theproposedstructuresandthecommonopenspacetract.Inordertoensureasafe6delineationofthesidewalks.aconditionofapprovalrequiresthatthepedestriansidewalksRezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-58AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.___
_
___1andprivateentrysidewalksbeconstructedusingconcreteoradifferenttypeofmaterialthantheshareddriveway.F.TrafficImprovements.Theproposalisservedbyadequateandappropriatetrafficthfrasflctre.4Off-sitetrafficimpactswillbeaddressedthroughthepaymentoftrafficimpactfeesdueatSthetimeofbuildingpermitissuance.Publicworksstaffdidnotfindthatapplicableregulationsrequiredanytrafficimpactanalysisconductedforthelevelsoftrafficgeneratedbytheproposal.PublicWorksstaffhasreviewedthepreliminary’trafficcirculationand7proposedstreetimprovementsandfoundthemtobeconsistentwithCitystreetstandardssubjecttoapprovaloftherequestedstreetwaivers.Staffhavealsofoundtheproposed8vehicularcirculationtobesafeandefficientasconditioned.9G.Bicycles.Theprovisionprovidesforadequatebicyclefacilitiesbycomplyingwithapplicablebicyclestandards.PerKMC4-4-080F.11.abicycleparkingspacesarerequiredIVforresidentialdevelopmentsthatexceedfive(5)residentialunits.Attachedunitsarerequired11toprovideone-half(Oi)bicycleparkingspaceperonedwellingunit.Spacesshallmeettherequirementsof44-080E1l.c.Thegaragestoeachunitshouldbeabletomeetthebicycle12parkingrequirement.Aconditionofapprovalrequirestheapplicanttoprovidefloorplans13thatidentifyadequatebicycleparkingofone-halfspaceperdwellingunit.14H.Schools.Theproposalprovidesforadequate/appropriateschoolfacilitiesandsafewalkingconditionstoandfromschool..ThestaffreportnotesthatitisanticipatedthattheKenton15SchoolDistrictcanacconmiodateanyadditionalstudentsgeneratedbythisproposalatthefollowingschools:CascadeElementaty.NelsenMiddleSchoolandLindberghHighSchool16(Exhibit24).ASchoolImpactFee.basedonnewmulti-familylots,wouldberequiredinordertomitigatetheproposal’spotentialimpactstotheKentonSchoolDistrict.Thefeeis17payabletotheCityasspecifiedbytheKentonMunicipalCode.Currentlythefeeisassessed18at$1385.00permulli-fhniilyunitwithcreditgivenfortheexistingresidence.19Anynewhighschoolstudentsfromtheproposeddevelopmentwouldbebussedtotheirschools.ThebusstoptothehighschoolislocatedapproximatelyCAmilesfromtheproject20siteat108thAveSE&SE170thSt.Studentswouldwalksouthalong108thAveSE.alongtheexistingsidewalktoSE170thSt.Studentstotheelementaryandmiddleschoolswould21bewithinwalkingdistance.SafewalkingroutesexistfromthesitetoCascadeElementary’bywalkingonpublicsidewalks.Theroutebeginsbywalkingnorthon108thAveSE,turningeastonSE168thStandfinallywalkingnorthon116thAveSE(approximately1mile).Safe23walkingroutestoNelsenMiddleSchoolbywailtingonpublicsidewalksandwideshoulders.Theroutebeginsbywalkingnorthon108thAveSE,eastonS29thStandnorthagainon24108thAveSE(approL0.5miles).2526Rezone.PreliminawPlatandStreetWaivers-69AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1CONCLUSIONSOFLAW1.Authority.RMC4-8-080(G)classifiesarezonerequestasaType1Vapplication,which4requirestheheatingexaminertomakearecommendationtotheCityCouncilafterholdingapublichearing.TheshortsubdivisionapplicationrequestisclassifiedasaTypeIIapplicationbyRMC4-8-080(G)andthemodificationrequestsasType1applications.RMC4-8-080(C)authorizesmultiple6permitapplicationstobeconsolidatedunderthehighestnumberreviewclassification,whichinthiscasewouldbeTypeIVreview.Thestaffreportdoesn’tidentifywhethertheapplicanthasoptedforconsolidatedreview,butgiventhatthesubjectpermitshaveallbeensubmittedtothehearingexaminer8forreviewitispresumedthatoptionhasbeenexercised.Asaresultofconsolidation,therezoneapplicatiomshortplatandmodificationrequestsareallsubjecttoTypeIVreview102.ZoningConçrehensivePlanDesignations.TheentireprojectsitehasacomprehensiveplanlandusemapdesignationofResidentialHighDensity.Thelargerofthetwoparcelsofthesiteis11zonedR-14andthesmallerparceliszonedK-b.1’...3.ReviewCntena.RMC4-7-070governsthecritenaforshortplatreview.Thestreetstandard13waiver1issubjecttoRMC4-9-250(C)andthestreetstandardmodificationissubjecttoRMC4-9-14250(D).RezonestandardsaresubjecttoRMC4-9-180(fl(2).SiteplanreviewisgovernedbyRMC4-9-200(E)(3).Applicablestandardsarequotedbelowinitalicsandappliedthroughconesponding15conclusionsoflaw.16REZONECEIURL417ElK4-9-180(fl2)(a):There:oneisinthepublicinterest,and184.Thecriterionismet.Theproposalisclearlywithinthepublicinterest.Theproposalfacilitates19developmentoftheprojectsitewithnosignificantimpactstoadjoiningproperties.Asdeterminedin2021‘Thestaffzeportprocessesthestreet&oatagewaiverasamodificationpursuanttoRMC4-9-250(D).TheRJJC4-9-250(D)processgeneticallyauthorizesmodificationsto‘srandards”withoutlimitationastoscope.RCW4-9-250,(C)aurhoxizeswait-er;onlytostreetstandards.Since4-9-250(C)ismorespecificinscope,itisconstruedasthereviewprocessthatshouldfirstbeappliedtorequesttowaivestreetstandards.Thecournrequirethataspecificstatutewillsupersedeageneralstaturewhenbothapply.SeeDntnrov.WashingtonStateDeptqfLaborandindusnie:,169Wa2d81(2010).Ifaproposedmodificationtostreetstandardsdoesn’tmeetthestreetwaiveraitena.thenthemoregeneralmodificationstandardsofRMC4-9-250(D)canbeapplied,aswasfoundnecessarforthis‘-projectsincethereqistedwaiverofshareddrivewaylengthstandardsthdntqualifyorawaiverunderRCW4-9-25026Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-710AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1FindingofFactNo.3and5.therezoneisforanominalareaandisMlycompatiblewiththe2omdmgareaandwillnotresultinanyincreaseindwellingunitsontheprojectsite.EMC1-9-180(fl{2)(b):Therezonerendstoflinherrhepresen’arionandenj03Wentofanysubstantialproperiyrighrsofthepetirioner,and45.Thecriterionismet.Asexplainedinthestaffreport.thenominallysizedparcelthatisthesubjectoftherezonewastheresultofanadversepossessionaction.Theresultofthatadversepossessionactionwasthelikelyreasonwhythelotsubjecttotherezonerequestislandlockedwith6zoningthatisinconsistentwiththelotthatseparatesitfromitsonlyavailableaccessroad.I08thAveSE.Approvaloftherezonewillenabletheparceltobezonedthesameastherestofthedevelopmentproposalinalogicalandefficientnmimettherebyftutheringthepreservationandeqjoymentofthe3propertyowner’sabilitytodevelopthepropertyinareasonablemanner.9R3IC4-9480(T)(2)(c):Therezoneisnormareriaflydetrimentaltothepublicwelfareoftheproperfies10ofotherpersonslocatedinthevicinityrhereofand6.Thecriterionismet.AsdetemiinedinFindingofFactNo.5.therezonerequestwillnotcreateanysignificantadverseimpacts.Therefore.theproposalisnotconsideredtobemateriallydetrimental12tothepublicwelfareofthepropertiesofotherpersonslocatedinthevicinity.1314LMC4-9-180(F(2)d):TherezonemeetsthereviewcriteriainsubsectionF]ofthisSection.157.Thecriterionismet.TheproposalisconsistentwithallstandardsimposedbysubsectionFl.SubsectionFtrequiresconsistencywiththecomprehensiveplaitForthereasonsidentifiedFinding16ofFactNo.19ofthestaffreport.theproposalisconsistentwiththecomprehensiveplan.Subsection17Flalsorequireseitherthat(1)thesubjectpropertywasnotspecificallyconsideredinthelastarealanduseanalysisandareazoningor(2)thatcircumstanceshavesignificantlychangedsincethemostrecentiszoningofthearea.Thestaffreportnotesthattherezoneofthepropertywasnotconsideredinthelastrezoneofthearea.whichwasdonein2015.Finally.SubsectionFlrequiresthattherezone“meetthe19reviewcrireriainRAIC4-9-020”.RMC4-9-020setsthereviewcriteriaforcomprehensiveplanamenthents.Thecomprehensiveplancriteriafocusuponimpactstogrowthrates,adequacyofpublic20infrasmicnre.consistencywithcomprehensiveplanobjectivesandimpactsuponenvironmentallysensitiveareas.Sincetheproposedrezonewillnotresultinanyincreaseinthenumberofdwelling—units.willnotadverselyaffectanyenvironmentallysensitiveareasandwillnotadverselyaffect22surroundingproperties,itshouldnothaveanymateriallyadverseimpacttoanyofthefactorsrequiredtobeaddressedduringcomprehensiveplanreviewandisthereforeconsideredtobeconsistentwiththe23comprehensiveplancriteriaofRMC4-9-020.24PRELLMflARYSHORTPLATCRIURL42526Rezone.PrehminaiyPlatandStreetWaivers-811AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.___
_
_
_
_1R3IC4-7-070(B):Ashortpiatshallbeconsistentwiththefollowingprinciplesofacceptability:1.LegaiLots:CYeatelegalbuildingsiteswhichcomplywithallprovisionsoftheCityZoningCode.2.Access:EstablishaccesstoapublicroadforeachsegregatedparceL3.PhysicalCharacteristics:Havesuitablephysicalcharacteristics.Aproposedshortplatmybedeniedbecauseofflood,inundation,orwetlandconditions.Constructionofprotecttveimprovements4mayberequiredasaconditionofapproval,andsuchimprovementsshallbenotedonthefinalshortplat.4.Drainage:Makeadequateprovisionfordrainageways,streets,alleys,otherpublicways,water6suppliesandsanitazywastes.8.Thecriterionismet.ThelotsproposedbytheapplicantmeetaMapplicablezoningstandardsasoutlinedinFindingofFactNo.21ofthestaffreportiftherequestedrezoneisapproved.AsshownginthesiteplaitFx.9.eachoftheproposedfourlotshaveaccessto103thAveSEviaaninternalshareddrivewayTherearenocriticalareasoranyotherphysicalcharacteristicsofthepropertythatmakeit9unsuitablefordevelopment.Theproposalprovidesforadequateinfrastructureasrequiredaboveas10determinedinFindingofFactNo.6.RMC4-7-070(ll)(3):fftheAdminiswatorfindsthattheproposedp1atmakesappropriateprovisionsforthepublichealth,safetyandgeneralwelfareandforsuchopenspaces,drainagewan,streets,12alies,otherpublicwan,watersupplies,sanitaiywastes,parks,playgrounds,sitesforschoolsandschoolgroundsandallotherrelevantfactsandthatthepublicuseandinterestwillbesen’edbythe13proposedshortplat,thenitshallbeapproved.Theapplicantshallbenotifiedinwritingofthedecision.1415ibecriterionismet.Theproposalprovidesforadequate/appropriateinfrastructureasrequiredaboveasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6.Theproposalmakesappropriateprovisionforpublic16health.safetyandwelfareandthepublicuseandinterestwillbeservedbecauseitenablesreasonable17useoflandwithoutanycotrespondingsignificantadvemeimpactstopublicinfrastructure.sunoundingpropertiesortheenvironmentasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.1819SHTPLAN20RMC4-9-260(E)(3):Criteria:TheAdministratorordesigneemustfindaproposedprojecttobeincompliancewiththefollowing:a.ComplianceandConsistency:Confonnancewithplans,policies,regulationsandapprovals,22including:23I.Cthnprehensn’ePlan:ThecomprehensivePlan,itselements,goals,objectives,and24policies,especiallythoseoftheapplicablelandusedesignation;theCommunityDesignElemernandanyapplicableadoptedNeighborhoodPlan;26ii.Applicablelanduseregulations;Rezone.Preliminan’PlatandStreetWaivers-912AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.___
_
___1iii.RelevantPlannedActionOrdinanceandDevelopmentAgreements;and2itDesignRegulations:IntentandguidelinesofthedesignregulationslocatedinK1C4-33-100.410.Thecriterionismet.TheproposalisconsistentwithapplicablecomprehensiveplanpoliciesandzoningregulationsasoutlinedinFindingsofFactNo.19and21ofthestaffreport.ThedesignguidelinesofRMC4-3-100donotapplytoprojectsintheRM-14zone.SeeLMC4-3-lOO(B)(1)(b).6However.RMC4-2-115doesimposedesignstandardstoresidentialdevelopmentintheRM-14zone.SinceRMC4-2-115qualifiesasa“landuseregulation”.theapplicantmustestablishconsistencyforsiteplanapproval.ForthereasonsidentifiedinFindingofFactNo.22ofthestaffreport,theproposalisconsistentwiththedesignstandardsofLMC4-2-115.Theproposalisnotsubjecttoaplannedaction8ordinanceordevelopmentagreement.RMC4-9-200E)3)(b):0ffSileImpacts:Mitigationofimpactstoswroundingpropefliesand10USQS,including:111.Strucmres:Resnicringoverscalestructuresandoverconcentrationofdevelopmentona12wIIz’parizonofthesite,13ii.Circulation:Providingdesirabletransitionsandlinkagesbetweenuses,streets,walkwaysandadjacentpropenies;14-iii.LoadingandStorageAreas:Locating,designingandscreeningstorageareas,Butilities,rooftopequipment,loadingareas,andrefuseandrecyclablestominimi:eviews16fromsun’ozmdingproperties;17iv.IYews:Recogntingthepublicbenefitanddesirabilityofmaintainingvisual18accessibilitytoattractivenarnralfeamres;itLandscaping:Usinglandscapingtoprovidetransitionsbetweendevelopmentandswroundingpropefliertoreducenoiseandglare,maintainprivacy,andgenerahv20enhancetheappearanceofthepivject;and21vi.Lighting:Designingcmd/orplacingexteriorlightingandglazinginordertoavoid22excessivebrightnessorglaretoadjacentpropeniesandstreets.2311.Thecriterionismet.Thereisnotanoverconcentrationofdevelopmentonthesite.Thesurroundinguseshavebeendevelopedorarezonedtobedevelopedatasimilarscale.Theapplicant24isproposingtoretaintheexisting2-stowsinglefamilystructureonLot1andconstructatotalofthree(3)two-storytownhomeunits.Thestructreswouldbeevenlyspacedacrossthesitewith-parkingprovidedoneachlot.Theapplicantisnotproposinganyloadingorstorageareas.The26applicantisprovidingforadequatepedestrianandvehicularcirculationinvolvingdesirabletransitionsRezone.PrelinihurvPlatandStreetWaivers-1013AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO._
___
_
_
_1andlinkagesasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6.Theproposalwillnotcreateadverseviewor2liPlthnQimpactsasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.RMC4-9-2OOE)(3)(c):On-SiteImpacts:Mitigationofimpactstothesite,including:41.LintcturePlacement:Provisionsforprivacyandnoisereductionbybuildingplacemeat,spacingandorientation;ii.StructureScale:considerationqfthescaleofproposedsnwcrvresinrelationtonahiratcharacteristics,viewsandvistas,siteamenities,sunlight,prevailingwinds,andpedestrian6andvehicleneeds;7iv.NaturalFeatures:Protectionofthenaturallandscapebyretainingexistingvegetationandsoils,usingtopography’toreduceundueaidingandfilling,andlimitinghnperviousSswfaces;andiv.Landscaping:Useoflandscapingtosoftentheappearanceofparkingareas,toprovide9shadeandprivacywhereneeded,todefineandenhanceopenspaces,andgenerallytoenhancetheappearanceoftheproject.Landscapingalsoincludesthedesignand1%)protectionofplandngareassothattheyarelesssusceptibletodamagefromvehiclesor11pedestrianmovements.1212.Thecriterionismet.Privacyandnoisereductionwillbeenhancedbytheplacingofthetohoniesbehindtheexistinghomeandsurroundingthetownhomewithlandscapingandtreesas13showninthelandscapingplaabc19.AsnotedinFindingofFactNo.5.thescaleoftheproposal14iscompatiblewithsurroundingdevelopment,aspropertiestothenorthandsoutharedevelopedwiththreestoryhighdensitydevelopment.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5,theapplicant15adequatelyprotectsexistingvegetationbyexceedingapplicablevegetationretentionrequirements.Theprojectwouldnotimpactsteepslopesorresultinextensivegrading.Theapplicantestimates16earthworkquantitiesatapproximately2.715cubicyardsofcutmaterialandapproximately1,123cubicyardsoffillmaterial.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.theproposalprovidesfor17adequatelandscapingsinceitcomplieswithapplicablelandscapingstandards.TheproposalprovidesforadequatelandscapingasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.194-9-200(E)(3){d):AccessandCirculation:Safeandefficientaccessandcirculationforallusers,including:20i.LocationandConsolidation:Providingaccesspointsonsidestreetsorfrontagestreetsratherthandirecth’ontoarterialstreetsandconsolidationofingressandegresspointson21thesiteand,whenfeasible,withadjacentproperties;ii.InternalCirculation:Promotingsqfety’andefficiencyoftheinternalcfradationsystem,includingthelocation,designanddimensionsofvehicularandpedestrianaccesspoints,23drives,parking,mrnarounds,walbvay,bikeways,andemergency’accessways;iii.LoadingandDelii’en’:Separatingloadinganddelivetyareasfromparkingand24pedestrianareas;-iv.TransitandBicycles:Providingtransit,capoolsandbicyclefacilitiesandaccess;and2ii’Pedestrians:Providingsafeandatiractivepedestrianconnectionsbetweenparking26areas,buildings,publicsidewalksandadjacentproperties.Rezone,PrthtniiuryNatandStreetWaivers-1114AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO._
_
_
_
___113.ThecriterionismetAsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6,theproposalprovidesforadequate2access:circulationandbicyclefacilitiesasrequiredbythecriterionabove.Nodirectaccesstoanarterialstreetisproposed.Noloadinganddeliveryareasareproposed.Therecorddoesnotsupport3anymitigationfortransitorcarpoolfacilities.4RMC4-9-200(E)(3)(e):OpenSpace:Incoiporatingopenspacestoserveasdistinctiveprojectfocalpointsandtoprovideodequoteareasforpassiveandactiverecreationbytheoccupants/usersofthesite.614.Thecriterionismet.Theproposalprovidesforadequateopenspaceasrequiredbythecriterion7aboveasdeterminedciFindingofFactNo.6.R3IC4-9-200(EX3)(fl:JinnandPublicAccess:JThenpossible,providingviewcorridorstoshorelinesandMt.Rainie,;andincorporatingpublicaccesstoshorelines.1015.Thecriterionismet.AsdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.5.noviewcorridorstoshorelinesorMt.Rainierareadverselyaffected.Noshorelinesareinthevicinityforpurposesofrequiringpublicaccess.12R31C1-9-200(E)(3)(g):Naturalysiems:Arrangingprojectelementstoprotectexistingnatural13systemswhereapplicable.14Thecriterionismet.Naturalsystemswillnotbeadverselyaffectedbytheproposalas15determinedinFindingofFactNo.5.16LMC4-9-200(E)(3)(h):Sen-icesandInfrastructure:Makingavailablepublicservicesand17facilitiestoaccommodatetheproposeduse.17.Thecriterionismet.TheprojectisservedbyadequateservicesandfacilitiesasdeterminedinFindingofFactNo.6.19RMC4-9-200(E)(3)(i):Phasing:Includingadetailedsequencingplanwithdevelopmentphases20andestimatedtimeframes,forphasedprojects.21Theprojectisnotpliased.-STREETSTAISDARDWAEIRS23j3f(.4-9-250(C)(2):Anrh&tvforJIah’erofSireetImprovements.Theadministratormay24grantwaiverofstreetimprovementssubjecttothedetenninallonthatthereisreasonablejustflcationforsuchwaiver.26Rezone.Preliinim’iyPlatandStreetWaivers-1215AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1RMC4-9-250(C)(5):DecisionCriteriaJotIThh’ersofStreetImprovements:Reasonablejustificationshallincludebutnorbelimitedtothefollowing:a.Requiredmeethnpivvementswillalteranexistingwetlandsorstrewn,orhaveanegativehipactonashoreline’sarea.4b.Existingsteeptopography31vuldmakerequiredstreetimpivvementsinfeasible.c.Requiredstreetimprovementswouldhaveanegativeimpactonotherproperties,suchas5restrictingavailableaccess.6Therearenosimilarimprovementsinthevicinityandthereislittlelikelihoodthatthe6improvementswillbeneededorrequiredinthenextten(10)years.e.Innocaseshallawaiverberantedunlessitisshownthattherewillbenodenhnentaleffectonthepublichealth,safetyorwefweVtheimprovementsarenotinstalled;andthattheSimprovementsarenotneededforain’entorflihtrednelopment91019.FrontageImprovementWaiverRequest.Therequestedwaiverfor103thStreetfrontageimprovementsidentifiedinFindingofFactNo.3satisfiesallapplicablecriteriaforastreetstandard11waiver.Thewaiverisjustifiedundersubsection(d)above,sincetheproposedfrontageimprovementsareconsistentwiththeconnectingfrontagetothesouthandnorthandthereisnoindicationthatthesurroundingfrontagewillberedevelopedanytimeinthenext10years.Inadditioatheexisting13roadwayallowsthecurbandguttertoremaininthesameconfigurationastheswroundingstreet14maintiiningthefimctionalityandsafetyofthestreet.Thefive-foot-widesidewalkatthislocationmeetstheneedsoftheresidentsrelyingonthissidewalkforaccesstothegreaterneighborhood.A15conditionofapprovalwillrequirethattheinçrovenrntsshallprovideaminimum8-footwideplantingstriponthebacksideofthesidewalk.Themodifiedstreetimprovementswouldmeetthe16objectivesofasafeandfunctionalwailcableenvironmentwithenhancedaestheticsthroughtheplanter17stripandthusshouldhavenodetrimentaleffectonpublichealth,safetyorWelfare.18STREETMODWIC4UON19RMC4-9-250(D)(2):DecisionOiteiia:Whenevertherearepracticaldfflasltiesinvolvedincanying20outtheprovisionsofthisTitle,theDepartmentAdministratormaygrantmodificationsforindividual1casesprovided)zeiSheshallfirstfindthataspecificreasonmakesthestrictletterofthisCode•impractical,thattheintentandpuiposeofthegoverninglandusedesignationoftheComprehensive22PlanismetandthatthemodificationisinconfonnizywiththeintentandpurposeofthisCode,andthatsuchmodification:2374a.Substantiallyimplementsthepolicydirectionofthepoliciesandobjectivesofthe—ConprehensivePlanLandUseElementandtheCommunityDesignElementandtheproposed25modificationistheminimumadjustmentnecesswytoimplementthesepoliciesandobjectives;26Rezone.PreliminaryPlatandStreetWaivers-1316AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO._
_
_
__
_
_1b.11711meettheobjectivesandsafeA4flmction,appearance,environmentalprotectionand2maintainabilityintendedbytheCoderequirements,baseduponsornWengineefingjudpnent;3C.11711notbeinjioloustootherproperty(ies}inthevicinity;4ci.ConformstotheintentandpurposeoftheCode;e.Conbeshowntobejustifiedandrequiredfortheuseandsituationintended;and61f211notcreateadverseimpactstootherpropertyfies)inthevicinity.720.SharedDrivewayModificationRequest.Sincetheshareddrivewaydoesn’tmeetallofthe8requirementsforastreetwaiver,themoregeneralmodificationreviewstandardsapply.Therecordgcontainsnoinformationonwhethertherequestedmodificationmeetscriterion(b)above,establishingwhetherthemodificationwillmeettheobjectivesandsafety,ftmctioaappearance.environmental10protectionandmaintainabilityintendedbytheCoderequirements.baseduponsoundengjneeringjudgment.Itappearsthatthestaffreporterroneouslycopiedtheanalysisofsubsectionaintoitsanalysisofsubsectionb.Sincemodificationscanbeapprovedadministratively,theconditionsof12approvalrequirethatthemodificationbeprocessedadministrativelysincethereisinsufficient13informationinthecbninistrafiverecordtoassesscompliancewithallapplicablestandards.14‘4.DECISION15Theproposedrezone,prelirnin.ryshortplat.siteplanand108AveSEstreetstandardwaiverareallconsistentwithapplicablecodecriteriaasdeterminedintheConclusionsofLawofthisdecisionif16conditionedasrecommended.ThehearingexaminerrecommendsthattheCityCouncilapprovethe17applicationssubjecttothefollowingconditionsofapproval:181.Theapplicantshallprovidearnirnnuun10-footrearyardsetbackbetweentheexistinghomeandtheeastpropertyboundarylineofLot1.Arevisedshortplatplanshallbe19submittedtoandapprovedbytheCityofRentonProjectManagerpriortoconstruction20permitapprovalcomplyingwithLMC4-2-1bA.2.Theapplicantshallprovideaminimumoftenfeet(10ofon-sitelandscapingalongthepublicstreetfrontageof108thAveSE.Afinaldetailedlandscapeplanshallbesubmitted‘2toandapprovedbytheCityofKentonProjectManagerpriortoconstructionpermit—approvalcomplyingwithRYC44-070.233.litheadjacentpropertyownersdonotgranttheapplicantpermissiontoremovetheoff-sitetrees.theprojectshallberedesignedtoeliminateimpactsonoff-sitetrees.Theproject-re-designtoeliminateimpactsonadjacenttreesshallbeverifiedbyanarbotistand25reviewedforapprovalbytheCurrentPunningProjectManager.26Rezone.PrehminanrPlatandStreetWaivers-1417AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.___
_
_
__14.Allpedestriansidewalksandprivateentrysidewalksbeconstructedusingconcreteoradifferenttypeofmaterialthantheshareddriveway.Arevisedsiteplanshallbesubmitted2to,andapprovedby.theCurrentPlanningProjectManagerpriortoissuanceaconstructionpermit.5.Theapplicantshalldedicateapproximately15.5feet(15-6’)ofright-of-wayalong108th4AveSE(subjecttoafinalsurvey).Afinaldetailedstreetcross-sectionmustbesubmittedandapprovedbythePlanReviewProjectManagerpriortoissuanceaconstructionpermit.6.Theapplicantshallextendtheshareddrivewaytractfrom108thAveSEtothewest6propertylineofeasternmostparcel(Lot4)toserveeachproposedresidentiallotAn7updatedplatplanshallbesubmittedtoandapprovedbytheCityofRentonProjectManagerpriortoissuanceaconstructionpermit.87.Theapplicantshallremovetheexistingimperviousdrivewaylocatedatthenorthwestcornerofthesiteandreplaceitwithlandscaping.AccesstotheexistingsingleThmilyhomeshalltakeaccessfromtheshareddrivewaytact.Thenewdrivewaycutshallbeidentified10ontheconstructionpermitapplication,forreviewandapprovalbytheCurrentPlanningProjectManager.118.Eachnewmulti-familylotshallbelimitedtoonejointusedrivewaywithasinglecurbcut12Afinaldetailedsiteplanmustbesubmittedto,andapprovedby,theCityofRentonProjectManagerpriortoissuanceofaconstructionpermit130.Theapplicantshallprovidearevisedsiteplandemonstratingcompliancewiththecommon14openspacestandardofatleastthreehundredfifly(350)squarefeetperunit.Therevisedsiteplanandshodplatshallbesubmittedto.andapprovedby.theCurrentPlanningProject15Managerpriortoissuanceaconstructionpermit.1610.Theapplicantshallprovidefloorplansthatidentifyadequatebicycleparkingofone-halfspaceperdwellingunit.Adetailedfloorplanshallbesubmittedtoandapprovedbythe17CityofRentonProjectManagerpriortoissuanceaconstructionpermit.11.Theapplicantshallprovidealightingplanthatadequatelyprovidesforpublicsafetywithoutcastingexcessiveglareonadjacentproperties;atthetimeofengineeringpermit19review.Pedestrianscaleanddownlightingshallbeusedinallcasestoassuresafepedestrianandvehicularmovement,unlessalternativepedestrianscalelightinghasbeen20approvedadministrativelyorisspecificallylistedasexemptfromprovisionslocatedinRMC4-4-075Lighting.ExteriorOn-Site.Thelightingplanshallbesubmittedatthetime21ofconstructionpermitreviewforreviewandapprovalbytheCity’sPlanReviewer.2212.TheapplicantshallsubmitbuildingelevationsthatareconsistentwiththeR-14zoningdesignationandarecompatibleinrelationtonaturalcharacteristics,viewsandvistas,site23amenities,sunlight.prevailingwinds.andpedestrianandvehicleneeds.Thebuilding‘4elevationsshallbesubmittedatthetimeofconstructionpermitreviewforreviewand-approvalbytheCity’sCurrentPThnningProjectManager.2513.TheapplicantshallcreateaHomeOwnersAssociation(‘EOA”)thatmaintainsallimprovementsintheshareddrivewaytract,landscapingintheopenspacetractandanyRezone.PrelhninarvPlatandStreetWaivers-1518AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.1andallothercommonimprovements.AdraftoftheHOAdoctunentsshahbesubmitedto,andapprovedby,theCityofRentonProjectManagerandtheCityAttorneypnortoFinal2NatrecordingSuchdocumentsshallberecordedconnmentlywiththeFinalPlat.314.Theapplicantshallberequiredtoobtainatemporaryconstructioneasementforallworkconductedoutsideoftheapplicant’sproperty.ThetemporaiyconstructioneasenntshallbesubmittedtotheCitypriortoanypeimitsbdngissued.15.ThemodificationrequesttoshareddrivewaylengthidentifiedinFindingofFactNo.3shallbeprocessedanddecideduponadministrativelyforthereasonsidentifiedin6ConclusionofLawNo.20.7DATEDthis31stthyofMay,2016.9PinA.Oifrcctt$s11CityofRntonHearingExamther1213VALUATIONNOflCLS1415Affectedpropertyownasmayrequestachangeinvaluationforpropertytaxpuiposes16notwithstandinganyprogramofrevaluation.17181920212223242526Rezone,PrelirnmaiyNatandStreetWaivers-1619AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO.ATTACHMENTBKingCountyParcel863710-0440LegalDescriptionTRACTFOFTHRESHOLD1,ASPERPLATRECORDINGINVOLUME164OFPLATS,PAGES$THROUGH12,INCLUSIVE,RECORDSOFKINGCOUNTYAUDITOR;SITUATEINTHECITYOFRENTON,COUNTYOFKING,STATEOFWASHINGTON.20AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
ORDINANCENO._______0150300SE168thStDevelopment-LUA15-000745Feel1:2,000Dale5/5ZoningChangefromRiOtoR1412016NC.C‘5inntA1,Ama4ch41,q,,lsr,Wa,z’LSiteZoningDesignationResidential-14DU/AC-—-———————‘‘R,enton0ParcelsResidential8dulacE1CommercialNeighborhoodCnmututv&Fonoo,Residential10du/acProposedzoningchangefromRiOtoR1421AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AB - 1702
City Council Regular Meeting - 27 Jun 2016
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appointments to Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Executive
STAFF CONTACT: April Alexander, Executive Assistant
EXT.: 6520
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
None.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Mayor Law appoints the following to the Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board:
Tracy Zelenka for a term expiring 8/1/2021
Keith Hoag for a term expiring 8/1/2021
Charles Seil for a term expiring 8/1/2021
Lila Wheatley for a term expiring 8/1/2019
Carol Whitson for a term expiring 8/1/2019
George Houston for a term expiring 8/1/2017
Virginia Brokx for a term expiring 8/1/2017
Andy Pierce for a term expiring 8/1/2017
Alan Brittenham for a term expiring 8/1/2017
Joel Osborn for a term expiring 8/1/2017
Cynthia Burns for a term expiring 8/1/2017
EXHIBITS:
A. Memo to Mayor Law regarding appointments to Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm Mayor Law's appointments of the above-named applicants to the Benson Hill Community Advisory
Plan Board.
AGENDA ITEM #5.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ——“Renton C
M E M OR A N D U M
DATE:May 17,2016
TO:Denis Law,Mayor
FROM:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Paul Hintz,Associate Planner,x7436
SUBJECT:Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board
In October 2013,the City Council adopted the Benson Hill Community Plan.Formal
implementation of the Plan was postponed in order to allocate sufficient resources to the
development of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,which was adopted in June 2015.In
anticipation of available resources,staff began advertising positions in April 2015 in order to
form an Advisory Board,which will help guide implementation of the Benson Hill Community
Plan.To be eligible for appointment to a Community Planning Advisory Board,prospective
members must live,own property,or represent a business or non-profit organization within the
planning area.Additionally,the Board will be supplemented by one member of the Parks
Commission,and one member of the Planning Commission who will serve as Chair of the Board.
Staff believes that the nine applicants (Lila Wheatley,Tracy Zelenka,George Houston,Keith
Hoag,Virginia Brokx,Andy Pierce,Alan Brittenham,Carol Whitson,and Joel Osborn)are
representative of the Benson Community,and will be stewards of the Benson Hill Community
Plan.Additionally,staff recommends appointment of Parks Commissioner Cynthia Burns,and
Charles Seil of the Planning Commission to serve as the Chair.
Staff further recommends the following term lengths for each applicant:
Lila Wheatley:3 years
Tracy Zelenka:5 years
George Houston:1 year
Keith Hoag:5 years
Virginia Brokx:1 year
Andy Pierce:1 year
Alan Brittenham:1 year
Carol Whitson:3 years
Joel Osborn:1 year
Cynthia Burns:1 year
Charles Seil:5 years
cc:Kelly Beymer,Community Services Administrator
AGENDA ITEM #5.