HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:00 PM - Thursday, September 8, 2016
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Marijuana Rules
a) Staff Report
2. Low Impact Development
a) Staff Report
3. Unit-lot Subdivisions
a) Staff Report
4. Docket 12 Briefing
a) Long Range Planning Work Program
5. Emerging Issues
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\marijuana\consolidation of rec and med\issue paper - marijuana consolidation.doc
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: August 17, 2016
TO: Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Members of the Renton Planning Commission
FROM: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Marijuana Regulations Revisions
ISSUE
At the July 20, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission was briefed on the staff
recommendations for amendments to the City’s regulations regarding marijuana. The
Commission identified several items they would like more information about. Specifically:
• Does the presence of a retail marijuana store increase the amount of crime in the
area it is located?
• Does the presence of a cluster of retail marijuana stores increase the amount of in
crime in the area it is located?
• More information about the intent of the Legislature in allowing marijuana
cooperatives.
• How might Colorado have need of more parking for retail marijuana stores than
Washington?
• How much more area could potentially have retail marijuana if buffers were
reduced to 100, 250, and 500 feet from daycares, parks, transit centers, and
libraries?
ISSUE DISCUSSION
Legalized Marijuana and Crime
The City of Renton releases its crime statistics to CrimeReports.com which provides incident
crime maps that can be customized. Staff searched the last six months for incidents of crime in
the immediate vicinity of the following: each of Renton’s three retail marijuana stores, a
Downtown restaurant, a grocery store in the Sunset area, and the cluster of four retail
marijuana stores just north of Renton City limits on Rainier Avenue South. This cluster contains
four stores within approximately 800 feet of street frontage. Although this cluster is policed by
a different jurisdiction, it helped provide some information about crime and clusters of
marijuana stores. A summary table is below. It does not appear that the presence of a retail
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Page 2 of 5
August 17, 2016
marijuana store or clusters of marijuana stores incites more criminal activity than other
businesses in the City, over the last six months.
Incidents of Crime
Business
Name
February
2016
March
2016
April
2016
May
2016
June
2016
July
2016
Buddy’s
(Retail
Marijuana Store
on Sunset Blvd)
None
• Property
crime:
malicious
mischief
• Theft: $201
or more
• Recovery
of stolen
vehicle
• Indecent
exposure
• Breaking and
entering
• Sale/
possession of
stolen
property
• Theft: $201 or
more
• Theft: $201
or more
None
Emerald
Haze
(Retail
Marijuana Store
on Sunset Blvd)
• Vehicle theft None
• Stolen
vehicle
recovery
None • Vehicle
theft • Arson
Evergreen
Market
(Retail
Marijuana Store
on Rainier Ave)
• Vehicle theft
• Vehicle theft
• Vehicle theft
• Vehicle theft
• Theft from
vehicle
• Recovery of
stolen vehicle
• Vehicle theft
• Assault
• Theft from
vehicle
• Theft from
vehicle
• Theft from
vehicle
• Theft: $200 or
more
• Robbery • Theft of
vehicle
Naan-N-
Curry
(Downtown
Restaurant)
• Theft: $201
or more
• Theft from
vehicle
• Assault None • Robbery
• Assault None
• Property
crime:
malicious
mischief
• Property
crime: graffiti
• Breaking and
entering
• Theft: $0-$49
Safeway
(Grocery Store
on Sunset Blvd)
• Theft: $201
or more
• Vehicle theft
• Vehicle theft
• Vehicle theft
• Assault
• Theft: $201
or more
• Theft: $201
or more
• Vehicle theft
• Robbery
• Shoplift:
$50-$200
• Shoplift: $0-
$49
• Shoplift: $0-
$49
• Theft from
vehicle
• Indecent
exposure
• Vehicle
recovery
• Theft: $0-
$49
• Theft: $50-
$200 bicycles
• Theft from
vehicle
• Theft: $201
or more
Cluster of 4
Retail
Marijuana
Stores
(in King County
on Rainier Ave)
• Robbery
• Theft
• Breaking and
entering
• Theft of
vehicle theft
• Theft
• Theft from
vehicle
None
• Theft from
vehicle
• Theft of
vehicle
• Breaking
and
entering
• Theft of
vehicle
• Breaking and
entering
• Theft of
vehicle
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Page 3 of 5
August 17, 2016
There have been many studies that have shown that marijuana legalization decreases crime
rates, and many others that show it increases crime rates. It is likely that it is something that
needs more time to be able to demonstrate the true impacts. Additionally, there have been
very few studies of the impacts in the immediate area around stores. More has been
researched on overall crime, such as violent crime and driving under the influence in specific
cities or states.
In regards to concentrations of marijuana stores, the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA)
has a Medical Marijuana Research group that in 2011 studied whether or not concentrations of
medical marijuana dispensaries were associated with increased crime. They examined 95
census tracts in Sacramento, California to see what relation different variables had on property
and violent crime. They found that “higher violent crime rates were associated with
concentrated disadvantage”. Also, there were positive associations with higher property crime
rates and the “percent of the population 15 to 24 years, percent owner occupied households,
and presence of freeway ramps”. However, concentrations of medical marijuana dispensaries
were “not associated with violent or property crime rates”. The information presented in the
table on page two for incidents of crime in the Renton area appear to be consistent with this
study by UCLA. The cluster of four marijuana stores just north of the City in King County had no
more crime in the past six month than the Safeway on Sunset Boulevard. Given this
information, there appears to be no need to require a buffer between retail marijuana stores in
order to reduce criminal activity around the stores. Criminal activity appears to be no different
for retail marijuana stores, either in isolation or in clusters.
Intent in Allowing Medical Marijuana Cooperatives
The most recent legislation regarding marijuana cooperatives attempted to refine preexisting
regulations while also closing loopholes. Allowing patient to grow at home is rooted in the first
initiative in Washington that legalized marijuana for medical use. That initiative in 1998 allowed
patients to grow in their own homes. Previous to the recent adoption of legislation that
brought recreational and medical marijuana together as one system, patients could grow up to
45 plants with up to 10 patients as a collective garden.
Until 2011, there were three means for patients to obtain medical marijuana, grow themselves,
grow with others, or purchase from a designated provider at a dispensary. Changes to the
medical marijuana laws in 2011 effectively terminated dispensaries by requiring a 15 day
waiting period between the provision of service to one patient and the provision of service to a
second patient. The rules tried to shift to patients to only growing for themselves or collectively
in gardens. Medical marijuana providers quickly transitioned to utilizing the allowances for
collective gardens which had no specifications for when 10 patients could be involved in the
garden at one time. And although garden participants were required to participate in the
facilitation of the garden, most dispensaries simply converted to collective gardens and patients
would make a small financial contribution to the garden. Those collective gardens typically
functioned more as retail stores than 10 individuals working together to literally grow and
harvest a garden. The reduction to four patients, but with the increase in total plants is a
compromise to the medical marijuana community and it is linked to the initial legalization of
marijuana in Washington. The requirement that cooperatives be in residence is part of the
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Page 4 of 5
August 17, 2016
attempt to close the loophole and ensure patients grow rather than just dispense as essentially
a commercial enterprise.
However, fears that these new marijuana cooperatives will function more similar to the
collectives and dispensaries before them may not be unfounded. The Seattle Weekly recently
published an article titled “The Beginning of the End of Washington’s Wild MMJ Market“. The
author Casey Jaywork wrote in the article that the medical marijuana market will live on with
the cooperatives and in fact called them “small collectives”.
“While the passage of CaPPA [the legislation consolidating medical and
recreational marijuana] was the death knell of medical marijuana as it has
existed in Washington since 1998, remnants of the MMJ market will remain.
Small collectives are still allowed to operate if they’re at least a mile from an I-
502 store, so that patients won’t have to travel too far for their medicine, and
patients can get a partial tax break if they voluntarily register with the state.”
Although the author is not a legal expert or necessarily involved in the marijuana
industry, this was their interpretation and distillation of the marijuana cooperatives
and it affirms some of the concerns of staff.
An article about home grows in Colorado was published in The Weekly Standard in May 2016
titled “It Wasn’t Supposed to Work This Way: Foreign Drug Cartels Come to Colorado”. It
outlines a problem Colorado is having with its allowances for growing marijuana at home.
Colorado allows designated caregivers to grow up to 99 plants. There is no maximum number
of plants that can be grown at one site. Caregivers can move in with other caregivers and each
can grow 99 plants. So, five caregivers can grow 500 marijuana plants. This has encouraged
people, including drug cartels from Cuba, Mexico, Vietnam, and Russia, to move to Colorado to
buy or lease homes and convert them to drug growing facilities. The residents basically convert
the dwellings into industrial grow operations and Kevin Merrill a DEA Assistant Special Agent
says that the danger of these grows is similar to that of meth labs. However, he said “the
destruction of the homes and neighborhoods is even greater” because of the twofold problem
of the “criminal element and turning a house into a greenhouse invariably destroys the house”.
This article affirms concerns about allowing cooperative growing of marijuana in residential
neighborhoods and highlights some of the unintended consequences such allowances. The
recommendation to not allow marijuana cooperatives in Renton benefits the City with the
ability to wait and see if problems do arise in jurisdictions that allow them; and if they are not
problematic, amend our regulations.
Retail Marijuana Parking Requirements
Staff could not determine if marijuana stores in Colorado have more customers than stores in
Washington. Colorado has approximately 1.7 million fewer residents but has more stores than
Washington. The city of Denver has 210 dispensaries alone and the state of Colorado has 698
dispensaries. Seventy-one percent of Colorado’s jurisdictions have banned medical and
recreational marijuana dispensaries. The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board will issue
556 licenses for retail marijuana stores. However, the actual number of stores that will be
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Page 5 of 5
August 17, 2016
opened is far fewer. Many jurisdictions banned retail marijuana after the initial allotment. For
example, all jurisdictions in Yakima County have banned retail marijuana. So, there are 14
licenses that will likely never result in an open marijuana store in Yakima County. Additionally,
some jurisdictions have adopted an allotment total that is less than the Board allotment.
Everett has been allotted 10, but set their maximum number at 5 and Bellevue has been
allotted 8, but has set a maximum of 6. Only 29% of Washington jurisdictions do not allow retail
marijuana stores.
Although one study found that in Denver retail marijuana stores have 10 times more daily trips
generated than specialty retail and four times more than pharmacies, staff does not
recommend increasing the parking requirements to accommodate this volume of traffic. The
firm that conducted the study in Denver plans on conducting further analysis in other areas of
Colorado and in other states that have legalized recreational marijuana. They theorize that
perhaps the volume is due to the newness of legalized marijuana. They note that Krispy Kreme
stores in Minnesota generated tremendous volume when they first opened, but over time
traffic died down and now Krispy Kreme has no stores in Minnesota. Below is a chart with some
of the required amount of parking required by use in Renton, all are per 1,000 square feet of
building floor area.
Use Minimum Maximum
Banks 2.5 5.0
Mortuaries 10 10
Vehicle service and repair 2.5 2.5
Medical/dental office 5.0 5.0
General office 2.0 4.5
Eating/drinking establishments
and taverns 10 10
Retail sales and big box 2.5 2.5
On site services 3.0 3.0
Post office 3.0 3.0
The use with the most parking required is restaurants and taverns. Most retail marijuana stores
customers don’t stay as long as a person ordering a meal and consuming it onsite. There is
more frequent turnover of customers. The next use with the highest requirement is
medical/dental offices. Similar to restaurants, medical and dental office patrons stay longer.
However, this amount of parking is similar to the standard Redmond adopted for retail
marijuana. Redmond determined retail marijuana stores are most similar to convenience retail
and required a minimum of 4 parking stalls and maximum of 5 per 1,000 feet of floor area.
Reduced Buffers from Sensitive Use
A map depicting 100, 250, and 500 foot buffers from recreation centers, day care centers,
parks, the transit center, libraries, and arcades is provided as attachment A. A map of only the
Downtown with these buffers is attachment B. A map depicting all sensitive uses with 1,000
foot buffers is attachment C.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
LakeBoren
Lake YoungsPantherLake
LakeWashington
Commercial ArterialUrbanCenter
UrbanCenter Ur
b
a
n
Ce
n
t
er
Urban Center
UrbanCenter
§¨¦405
ú÷÷900
ú÷÷169
ú÷÷515
ú÷÷181
ú÷÷167
SE 188TH ST
NE12TH ST
SE8THD R
SE 196TH ST
S 194TH ST
NE 6TH ST78TH AVE SE66TH AVE SE VALLEY HWY77THAVESHOQUIAM AVE NEISLAND CREST WAYWMERCERWAYN E PA R K D R
80THPLSSE 59TH ST
SE 61ST ST
CHRI
S
T
E
NSEN
RDSE 161ST ST
157TH
AV
E
S
E132NDPLSESE159THPL
NE 21STST
SE 156TH ST
NE27THST
S208THST ILWACOAVENES 115TH PL
S E W A R D PAR K R D
SE179THST148TH PL SE138THAVESE112TH AVE SE149THAVESE146THAVESELINCOLN AVE NES E 1 49TH STSPRUCEDREMERCERWAY
S 193RDST BURNETTAVESFIR DRS 192ND ST
SE 80TH ST
104THPLSES 184THST
SE 162ND PL
1
5
4
T
H
P
L
S
E81STPLSES 132ND ST
TALBOTRDSMONSTERRDSWS 6TH ST
SE 184THPL
1
3
5
T
HPL
SE64TH AVE SINDUSTRYDRMAIN AVE S136THAVESE120THPL
S
E ROSARIO PL NESPUGETDR
S 15TH ST
S E 1 4 1 S T ST
N 34TH ST
SE 176TH ST
S 3RD ST
126THAVESESE 192ND ST
140TH WAY SE
SE88THPL LAKEMONTBLVDSE127THAVESE
SE 202ND PL
92NDAVESSWLANGSTONRD
NE 9TH ST
SE89THPL
JERICHO AVE NENE 16TH ST
SE 55THST
SHATTUCKAVESSE 72ND ST
BURNETTAVEN142NDAVESESWSUNSETBLVD
SE 56TH ST
S203RDST
S E 7 9TH DR
EDMONDS AVE NEEDMONDSAVESES 188TH ST GRANT AVE SS TOBINST
SE 180TH STLIND AVE SWMONROE AVE NESUNSETBLVDNEN 5TH ST
N 6TH ST
NE 5THST
SE 116TH ST
SE 76TH ST
S 115TH ST
IN
T
E
R
U
R
B
A
N AV
E S
SE 8 2N D S T
PASCOPLNESEFAIRWOODBLVD
NE 6TH PL
SE 60TH ST
164THWAYSESE 64TH ST
SE 213THPL HARRI
NGTON AVE NESLAKERIDG E DRWILLIAMS AVE SNE8TH ST
S116THPL
120TH AVE SES 23RD ST
N 1ST ST
L
A
K
E
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
ON
B
L
V
D
N
RAINIERAVENS 212TH ST 164TH AVE SELAKEAVESBREMERTONAVENE82ND AVE SEHOUSER WAY NSEROYALHILLSDR
SW5 T HPLNE 7TH ST
SERENTONISSAQUAHRD
N 40TH ST
129
THPLSE
72ND AVE SABERDEEN AVE NENEWCASTLEWAY
S 27TH ST
S
E151STST 156TH AVE SESE75THPL
118TH AVE SE133RDA
V
E
SE
NE1STST63RD AVE SS 204TH ST
N E 3 R D S T86THAV
E
SE
137THAVESES 180TH ST 93RD AVE SE84TH AVE SENE4TH CT
S G R A D Y W A Y
S 112TH ST
OAKESDALE AVE SWS 125TH STSE 91ST ST
SE 200TH ST
124TH AVE SES1 2 4 THST
134THAVESESE158THST
S 1 4 T H S T NPARKDR85THPLSE14
5
T
HAVESE 68TH ST
SE PETROVITSKY RD 160THAVESESE 170TH PL85TH AVE SNE 20TH ST
148TH AVE SE128TH AVE SES 19TH ST
SE 172NDPLANACORTES AVE NESE 71STST
78TH AVE SS 122ND ST
SW 43RD ST I-405 FWY123RDAVESELAKEWASHINGTONBLVDSES 117TH ST
SE 183RD DR
S W 1 0 T H S T
NE5THPL 119THAVESESE80THWAY
68TH AVE SNE 4TH ST
FORESTDRSE
S2ND ST
SE 164TH ST 162NDAVESECORN
E
L
L
AVESFIELDAVENEAVAL O NDRAUB
U
R
N
A
V
ESS12 7TH ST
SE 142ND ST
S 128TH ST
144THAVESES120THST
SE 172ND STPARKAVEN MAPLE VALLEY HWY
SE 162ND ST
SE83RDPL
HIGHAVESSECARRR D
S E 4TH S T
NE 22ND ST
BE
N
S
ON
R
D
S
SE145THPL
SE 183RD ST
S 216THST TAYLORAVENWSW 41ST ST
SE 160TH ST DUVALLAVENESE135THST
DIXONDRS
SE 184TH ST 163RDPLSENE 23RD ST
143RDPLSESE 138THPL
80THAVESUNION AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWYSE 204TH PL
SE 208TH ST
NE 22ND PL
NILE AVE NE98TH PL SSE5THST
140TH AVE SEMARTINLKINGJRWAYS REDMONDAVENES 18TH ST
S 200TH ST
N LAN D IN G WAY
WOODSI
DEDRSES38THCT
SE 73RD PL
SW 39TH ST
NE 24THST
S E 1 4 5THST
S /B I-405 RAM P WELLS AVE NSW 7TH ST
125TH AVE SESE MAY VALLEY RD
POWELL AVE SWNE 19TH ST126THP
L
S
E
QUEEN AVE NESE 144TH ST
SE 171ST WAY
SE 65TH ST
ANDOVERPARKE104THAVESES 210THST
BAKER BLVD
102ND AVE SESE 216TH ST
SE 211TH ST 129THAVESES 116TH ST
NEWCASTLEGOLFCLUBRD
S 1 82ND ST 110THAVESEPUGET DR SERENTON AVE S
SE 204TH ST
NE 2ND ST
127TH PL SES196THST 161STAVESES W 1 2 T H S T
132ND AVE SEHA
R
DIE
AV
ESW121STAVESES 31ST ST
SW 16TH ST
S 202ND ST 155THAVESE87THAVESRAINIERAVES
N 1 0 TH S T NE SUNSET BLVDMONTEREYAVENECEDAR AVE SWELLS AVE SS 209TH ST
S 186TH PL
N 4TH ST
SW 34TH ST
SE 168TH ST
N 31ST ST
MINKLER BLVD
106TH AVE SEUNION AVE NEBEACON WAY S
SE6THST
S 130TH ST
SW 3RD PL
SE 212TH ST
SE92NDST
76TH AVE SSE 128TH ST
SE 2ND PL
S 114TH ST
PELLY AVE NWILLIAMSAVENSE 186TH ST
N 38TH ST81ST AVE SE108TH AVE SEGARDEN AVE NN 30TH ST
SE 2ND ST
S 50THST80TH AVE SEJONES AVE NESEJONESRD
AIRPORT WAY
84TH AVE SFIR LN
SE112THST
KIRKLANDAVENES 55TH ST
100TH AVE SES 75TH PL111THAVESE116TH AVE SES E 3R D P L109THAVESE131STAVESENE10THST
SW GR AD Y W A Y STEVENSAVENWBENSONDRSSE 204TH W AYS 32ND ST
S LANGSTONRD
S 3 6 TH PLLOGANAVEN 113TH AVE SES E 63R D ST
80THPLSES 134TH ST
EAST VALLEY RD77THAVESEINDEXAVESE
S 1 90THST
N 8TH ST
BEACONAVES
BEACON WAY SE
FORESTAVES
SW 19TH ST
E
P
E
RIM
E
T
E
R
R
D
N 35TH ST
SW 27TH ST
SE160THPLS 126TH STS 198TH ST
66THLNS
136TH PL SE152ND AVE SE89TH AVE SM
IL
L A
V
E S
7 5 7 THAVENESE8THPL
S E 9 5 TH WAY
SR167RAMPSEAHAWKSWAYRIPLEYLNSES212THWAYNE 31STST
NI
SHI
WA
KI
L
NCOAL CREEK PKWY SES 133RD ST
N/BI-405RAMPS ID N EY AVEN
S 135THST
SR 167W PERI
METER RDGolf Club atGolf Club atNewcastleNewcastle
Maplewood
MaplewoodGolf Course
Golf Course
Renton ParkRenton ParkFort
FortDent
DentPark
Park
RENTONPREPARATORYCHRISTIANSCHOOL
OLIVERM HAZENHIGH
MCKNIGHTMIDDLESCHOOL
HIGHLANDSELEM
TIFFANYPARK ELEM
CASCADEELEM
RENTON PARK ELEM
FRED NELSENMIDDLESCHOOLRENTONACADEMY
SECONDARYLEARNINGCENTER
A.W. DIMMITTMIDDLESCHOOL
SPRINGBROOKELEM
ST ANTHONYPRIVATE
ISLANDERMIDDLEJR HIGH
LIBERTYHIGH
MEEKERMIDDLEHIGH
CARRIAGECREST ELEM
LAKEYOUNGSELEM
LAKERIDGEELEM
CAMPBELLHILL ELEM
HONEYDEW ELEM
BENSON HILLELEMENTARYSCHOOL
MEADOWCREST EARLYLEARNINGCENTER
MAPLEVALLEYELEM
LAKERIDGEELEM
THEEVERGREENMARKET
EMERALD HAZECANNABISEMPORIUM
BUDDY'SGLASS &GOODIES
SIERRA HEIGHTS ELEM
APOLLO ELEM
MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS
CHARLES A LINDBERGH HIGH
TALBOT HILL ELEM
BRYN MAWR ELEM
NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL/NAME TBD
RIDGEWOOD ELEM
KENNYDALE ELEM
FAIRWOOD ELEM
RENTONHIGH
GLENRIDGE ELEM
KENTRIDGEHIGH
HAZELWOOD ELEM
M E R C E RMERCERISLANDISLAND
B E L L E VU EBELLEVUE
N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
K E N TKENT
T U K W I L ATUKWILA
S E A T T L ESEATTLE
K I N G C O U N T YKING C O U N T Y
0 10.5Milesµ
1:40,000
Path: Y:\Files\Planning\Projects\MajorOffice\MarijuanaLaw\Mxds\Marijuana Retail and Production Zones 100-250-500 Ft 11x17 July2016.mxdCity Limits
All Allowed ZoningDesignation
!7 Licensed Marijuana Retail
School Parcels
School 1,000Ft Buffer
DT Transit Center Parcel
DTransit Center 100-250-500Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Daycare Parcels
Daycare 100-250-500 FtBuffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Parks (Developed,Undevelopled and GolfCourse)
Parks 100-250-500 Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Parcels-w-arcade
Arcade100-250-500 Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Library Parcels
Library 100-250-500 FtBuffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Marijuana Retail and ProductionLiquor Control Board (LCB) 100-250-500 Ft Exclusion Buffer from Recreation Centers, Day Cares, Parks, Transit Centers, Libraries, Arcades, and Schools.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Lake Washington
§¨¦405
ú÷÷515
ú÷÷900
ú÷÷169
ú÷÷16784TH AVE SNE 9TH ST
S E 8 T H D R
NE7THST
81ST PL S
NE 10TH ST
SE 21ST ST
S 115TH PL
EAGLERIDGEDRSBURNETT AVE SFACTORY
PL
N
S 6TH ST
N E 3 R D S T82ND AVE SMAIN AVE S116THPLSE
S PUGET DR
S 15TH ST
S 3RD ST
NE 9THPLABERDEENAVENE
S 134TH ST
S 2ND STSW LANGSTON RD BRONSONWAYNENE6THPL
S 16TH STSHATTUCK AVE SEAGLELNSSW SUNSET BLVDN 2ND ST
LIND AVE SWN 5TH ST
S 118TH ST
N 6TH ST
S TOBIN ST
N 3RD ST
GRANT AVE SS 5TH ST
S 4TH ST
S 9TH ST
108THAVESEDAYTONAVENELIND AVE NWWILLIAMS AVE SNW 7TH ST
FACTORY AVE NS23RD ST
N 1ST STRAINIERAVEN
LAKEAVESMAPLE AVE SWHOUSER WAY NSW 5TH PLB R O N S ON WAYN
MORRISAV
E
S
R O L L IN GHILLSAVESES 21ST ST
SE19THST
NE 10TH PL
S E 2 ND CT
HOUSER W AY STALBOT RD SS G R A D Y W AY
S 4 T H P L
S 25TH STLOGANAVES HOUSERWAYBYPASSS 124TH ST
HARDIEAVENWSE 169TH ST106TH AVE SES 1 4 T H S T
SE3RDST
S 19TH ST
NW 4TH ST
ABERDEENAVESEI-405 FWYS 117TH ST
85TH AVE SS W 1 0 T H S T
T
A
Y
L
O
R PL N
W WINDSORWAYNESW 4TH PL
SMITHERS AVE SS 7TH ST
SE 22ND PL
MAPLE VALLEY HWY
SW VICTORIA ST PARK AVE NSE 166TH ST
SE 162ND ST
SE 160TH STHIGH AVE SS 120TH ST
B
E
N
S
ON
RDS
SE 16TH PLTAYLOR AVE NWNE4THS T
S
E
N
E
C
A
A
V
E
N
WS 2 7 T H STRAYMOND AVE SWMEADOW AVE NSE 164TH ST
S 18TH ST SUNSETBLVDNEN LANDING WAY
S 117TH PL
S 27THPLS26THST
SE 2ND PL EDMONDS AVE NES/B I-405 RAMP WELLS AVE NSW 7TH ST
POWELL AVE SWEDMONDS AVE SES RENTON VILLAGEPL BURNETTAVENN RIVERSIDE DR
S 123RD PL
MAPLE AVE NW87TH AVE S104TH AVE SESE 170TH ST
S 115TH ST
S 116TH ST
NE8THST
S 121ST ST
S 119TH ST
PUGET DR SESE 168TH ST
S W 1 2 T H S T
H
A
R
DIE A
V
E S
W
SW 16TH ST
S 31ST ST
N 10TH ST
S W 1 3 T H S T
S28TH C T
S 130TH ST
N 1 0 T H P L
CEDARAVESWELLS AVE S114TH AVE SEN 4TH ST
SE8THSTNW6THST
BEACON WAY S
SW 3RD PL
BENSON DR SBLAINEAVENEN PARK DR117TH AVE SES28THST
S128TH ST
RENTONAVES PELLY AVE NWILLIAMSAVENSW 29TH ST83RD AVE SS 17TH ST GARDEN AVE NJONES AVE SI
-405 RAMPRAINIER AVE SNW 2ND ST AIRPORT WAYSTILLICUMST
111THAVESE116TH AVE SE109TH AVE SES 133RD PL
S W G R A D Y W A Y STEVENS AVE NWSUNSET BLVD NS32NDST LOGANAVENMONTEREYDRNE113TH AVE SETHOMAS LN
CEDARRIDGEDRSE
N 8TH ST
SW 19TH ST
S 132ND ST
E
PE
RIM
ETE
R
R
D
105TH AVE SESW 27TH ST DAVI
S AVE STALBOTCRESTDRSTHOMAS AVE SWMIL
L AV
E
S
7 5 7 T H A V E N E
SE8THPLGRANDEYWAYNE
SR167RAMP NI
SHI
WAKI LNEAST VALLEY RDN/BI-405RAMPSR 167W PERI
METER RDCommercialArterialCommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CenterDowntown CenterDowntownCenterDowntownCommercialArterial CommercialArterialUrbanCenter
UrbanCenter
UrbanCenter
CommercialArterial
UrbanCenter UrbanCenter
UrbanCenter
CommercialArterialUrbanCenter
CommercialArterialCommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
CommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
UrbanCenter
UrbanCenter
CommercialArterialUrbanCenter
CenterDowntownCommercialArterial
CommercialArterial
ThomasThomasTeasdaleTeasdaleParkPark CedarCedarRiverRiverParkParkPhillipPhillipArnoldArnoldParkParkLiberty ParkLiberty ParkCedar
Ri
ver
Tr
ailCedar
Ri
ver
Tr
ail
RENTONPREPARATORYCHRISTIANSCHOOL
CASCADEELEM
A.W. DIMMITTMIDDLESCHOOL
ST ANTHONYPRIVATE
THEEVERGREENMARKET
BUDDY'SGLASS &GOODIES
FREDNELSENMIDDLESCHOOL
RENTONACADEMY
TALBOTHILLELEM
BRYN MAWR ELEM
RENTONHIGH
K I N G C O U N T YKING C O U N T Y
0 0.250.125Milesµ
1:12,000
Path: Y:\Files\Planning\Projects\MajorOffice\MarijuanaLaw\Mxds\Marijuana Retail and Production Zones 100-250-500 Ft Downtown Zoom In 11x17 Aug2016.mxdCity Limits
All Allowed ZoningDesignation
!7 Licensed Marijuana Retail
School Parcels
School Parcels 1,000Ft Buffer
DT Transit Center Parcel
DTransit Center 100-250-500Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Parcels-w-arcade
Arcade100-250-500 Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Parcels with Daycare
Daycare 100-250-500 FtBuffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Library Parcels
Library 100-250-500 FtBuffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Parks (Developed,Undevelopled and GolfCourse)
Parks 100-250-500 Ft Buffer
BUFF_DIST
100
250
500
Marijuana Retail and Production-Central Area Zoom InLiquor Control Board (LCB) 100-250-500 Ft Exclusion Buffer from Recreation Centers, Day Cares, Parks, Transit Centers, Libraries, Arcades, and Schools.Date: 8/9/2016AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
LakeBoren
Lake YoungsPantherLake
LakeWashington
§¨¦405
ú÷÷169
ú÷÷515
ú÷÷181
ú÷÷900
ú÷÷167 SE 188TH ST
NE 12TH ST
S E 8 TH D R
SE 196TH STSPERRYDRS 194TH ST78TH AVE SE124TH AVE SEEVALLEYHWY77THAVESHOQUIAM AVE NEISLAND CREST WAYN E P A R K DR
80THPLS64TH AVE S84THAVESESE 59THST
S E 2 0 1 S T P L
SE 61ST ST
SE 161ST ST
157TH
A
VE
S
E132NDPLSENE21STST
NE27THST
SE1 66THPL
S208THST ILWACOAVENES 115TH PL
SE179THST148TH PL SE138THAVESE112TH AVE SE149THAVESE146THAVESELINCOLN AVE NESE 149TH STSPRUCE DRS193RDST BURNETTAVESFIR DRS 192ND ST
SE80THST
104THPLSES 184TH ST
SE 162NDPL 154THPLSE81STPLSES 132ND ST
TALBOTRDSMONSTERRDSWS 6TH ST
SE 184THPL
1
35
THPLSEINDUSTRYDR136
T
HA
VESE
120TH PL SESPUGETDR
S 15TH ST
SE 1 4 1S T S T
N 34TH ST
SE176TH ST
WATERS AVE S
S 3RD ST
126THAVESEN 29TH ST
SE 192ND ST
140THWAYSE
SE88THPL
SE 72NDPL
WMERCERWAY 127THAVESESE202NDPL
S 2ND ST
SW LANGSTON RD
NE9THST
SE89THPL
JERICHO AVE NEBRONSON WAY NESHATTUCK AVE S121ST PL SESE 72ND ST
BURNETT AVE N142ND AVE SESWSUNSETBLVD
SE 79TH DR
EDMONDS AVE NEEDMONDSAVESEGRANTAVESS TOBIN ST
SE180THSTLIND AVE SWMONROEAVENESUNSETBLVDNEN 6TH ST
NE5THST
SE 116TH ST
SE 76TH ST
S 115TH ST
INTERURBANAVES PASCOPLNESEFAIRWOODBLVD
66TH AVE SS120THPL
SE 60TH ST
164THWAYSESE 64TH ST
SE 213THPL 158THAVESEHARRINGTON AVE NESLAKERIDGE DRWILLIAMS AVE SS116THPL
S E 8 2 N D S T
S23RDST
N1STST
L
A
K
E
WA
S
HIN
GT
ONBL
VDN
RAI
NI
ERAVENS 212TH ST BREMERTON AVE NESE 202ND ST82ND AVE SESEROYALHILLSD R
SW 5 THPLNE 7TH ST
N 40TH ST
129THPLSE120TH AVE SE72ND AVE SABERDEEN AVE NENEWCASTLEWAY
S
E151STST 156TH AVE SESE75THPL
118TH AVE SELAKEWASHINGTONBLVDSE133RDAV
E
SE
NE1STST
N 27THPL
S 204TH ST
N E 3 R D S T86THAV
ESE
137THAVESES 180TH ST
81STAVESEMERCERWAY93RD AVE SES G R AD Y W AY
S112THST
NE 28TH ST
OAKESDALE AVE SWS 125TH STSE 200TH STS124THST
HO
U
S
E
R
WAYBYPASSLYONSAVENE134THAVESESE158THST
S 1 4 TH ST
NE6THSTNPARKDR
STRANDER BLVD 85THPLSE14
5
T
HAVESE 68TH ST
SE PETROVITSKY RD 160TH AVE SESE 170TH PL85TH AVE SNE 20TH ST
148THAVESE128TH AVE SES 19TH ST OLYMPIA AVE NESE 172ND PLANACORTESAVENESE156THST
SE71STST
78TH AVE SSW 43RD ST
I-405 FWY 123RD AVE SESE183RD
D
R
S W 1 0T H ST
NE 5TH PL
SE 80TH WAY
68TH AVE SNE 4TH STINDEXA
VENE
FOREST DR SE
S 7TH ST
SE 159TH PL
SE 164TH ST 162ND AVE SECORNELL AVE SFIELDAVENEAVAL O N DRAUBU
R
N
A
VESS1 2 7THST
SE 142ND ST
S 128TH ST
144TH AVE SES120THST
SE 113TH ST
SE172NDSTPARK AVE NMAPLE VALLEY HWY
SE 162ND ST
SE83RDPL
HIGHAVESSECARRR D
S E 4 TH S T
NE 22ND ST
BENSONR
D
S
SSUNNYCRESTRD
N E 1STPL
SE 183RDSTTAYLORAVENWSW 41ST ST
SE 160TH ST
SE145THPLDUVALLAVENEDIXONDRS
SE 184TH ST
S196THST 163RDPLSENE 23RD ST
143RD PL SESE138THPL
80TH AVE SCRESTWOODDRSUNION AVE SEWEST VALLEY HWYSE204THPL
SE 208TH ST
SERENTONISSAQUAHRD
NE22NDPL
NILE AVE NEMEADOW AVE N98TH PL SSE5THST
140TH AVE SEREDMONDAVENES 18TH ST
S 200TH ST
N LANDING WAY
S38THCT
S 117TH PL
S E 165THST
SE 73RD PL
SW 39TH ST
NE 24THST
SE1 4 5THST
S/B I-405 RAMP WELLS AVE NSW 7TH ST
SE MAY VALLEY RD
POWELL AVE SW68THPLSNE 19TH ST126THPL
SE
QUEEN AVE NE164TH AVE SESE 144TH ST
SE 171ST WAY
ANDOVER PARK ES210THST 102ND AVE SESE65THST
129THAVESEN 33RD ST
N 36TH ST
S 116TH ST
NEWCASTLEGOLFCLUBRD
BLAINE AVE NES 182ND ST 110THAVESESUNSETBLVDNPUGETDRSERENTON AVE SSE 204TH ST
NE 2ND ST
127THPLSE161STAVESESW 12 T H S T
132NDAVESEHARDIEAVESW121STAVESES 31ST ST
SW 16TH ST
S 202ND ST 155THAVESE
87THAVESNE 1ST CT
R
AINIE
RAVESN 10TH ST NESU N S ETB LVDMONTEREYAVENECEDARAVES65TH AVE SS209THST
N 32ND ST
N 4TH ST
SW 34TH ST
SE 168TH ST
N 31ST ST
106TH AVE SEUNION AVE NEBEACONWAYS
SE6THST
S 130TH ST
SW 3RD PL
SE 212TH ST100TH AVE SESE 92NDST
76TH AVE SSE 128TH ST
S114THST
PELLY AVE NWILLIAMSAVENSE186THST
SE 182ND ST
N 38TH ST
92NDAVESNE26THST81STAVESE
108TH AVE SEGARDEN AVE NN 30TH ST
SE 2ND ST
S50THST80THAVESE JONES AVE NESEJONESRD
84TH AVE SHILLSIDELN
FIRLN
SE112THST
KIRKLANDAVENES 55TH STS 75TH PL147THAVESE111THAVESE116TH AVE SES E 3 R D PL
131STAVESES E 4 T H P L
NE10THST
S W G R A D Y W A YSTEVENSAVENWS E 1 7 9TH P LBENSONDRS
SE 204T H W A YS 32NDST
SLANGSTONRD
S 36TH PLLOGANAVEN 113TH AVE SESE 63RD ST
80THPLSESE91STST
EAST VALLEY RD77TH AVE SEINDEXAVESE
S 190TH ST
N 8TH ST
FORESTAVES NE17THST
SW 19TH ST
E
PE
RIM
E
T
E
R
R
D
75TH
A
VESSE 211TH ST
SE 132ND ST
SW 27TH ST
SE 160TH PL
L
AKE AVE S102NDPLSES 126TH STS 198TH ST
66THLNS LAKEMONT BLVD SE136TH PL SE152NDAVESE89TH AVE SMILL A
V
E S
7 5 7 TH AVENESE8THPL
C
O
A
L
CREEKPKWYSES E 95THWAY
SR167RAMP105TH AVE SERIPLEY LN SES212THWAYNE31STST
NI
SHI
WAKI L
NS 133RD ST
N/BI-405RAMPSIDNEY AVE N
S135THST
SR 167CommercialArterial CommercialArterialCommercialArterialCommercial ArterialCommercial ArterialCommercialArterialCenterVillageCommercialArterialCommercial/Office/ResidentialCo
m
m
ercial
Arterial
Commercial/Office/Residential
Urban Center
CommercialArterial
Golf ClubGolf Clubat Newcastleat Newcastle
Maplewood
MaplewoodGolf Course
Golf Course
Renton ParkRenton ParkFort
Fort
Dent Park
Dent Park
THEEVERGREENMARKET
EMERALD HAZECANNABISEMPORIUM
BUDDY'SGLASS &GOODIES
M E R C E R I S L A N DMERCER I S L A N D B E L L E V U EBELLEVUE
N E W C A S T L ENEWCASTLE
K E N TKENT
TU K WI L ATUKWILA
S E ATT L ESEATTLE
K I N G C O U NT YKING C O U NT YRENTONPREPARATORYCHRISTIAN SC HOOLSIERRAHEIGHTSELEM
OLIVER MHAZEN HIGHAPOLLOELEMMCKNIGHTMIDDLE SCHOOLHIGHLANDS ELEMMAPLEWOODHEIGHTSTIFFANYPARK ELEM
CASCADEELEM
CHARLES ALINDBERGHHIGH
RENTONPARK ELEM
FRED NELSENMIDDLESCHOOLRENTON ACADEMYTALBOTHILL ELEMSECONDARYLEARNINGCENTER
BRYNMAWR ELEM
A.W. DIMMITTMIDDLE SCHOOL
SPRINGBROOKELEMST ANTHONYPRIVATENEW MIDDLESCHOOL/NAMETBDISLANDERMIDDLE JR HIGHLIBERTY HIGHRIDGEWOODELEMMEEKERMIDDLE HIGHKENNYDALEELEM
FAIRWOODELEM
CARRIAGECREST ELEM
LAKEYOUNGSELEMLAKERIDGEELEMCAMPBELLHILL ELEMRENTONHIGH
HONEYDEWELEM
BENSON HILLELEMENTARYSCHOOL
GLENRIDGEELEMKENTRIDGEHIGH
HAZELWOODELEM
MEADOWCREST EARLYLEARNING CENTERLAKERIDGE ELEM
0 10.5Miles
µ
1:40,000
Path: Y:\Files\Planning\Projects\MajorOffice\MarijuanaLaw\Mxds\Marijuana Retail and Production Zones 1000Ft 11x17 July2016.mxdCity Limits
1 Mile Radii from Licensed Marijuana Retail July 2016
DT Transit Center
Parcels-w-arcade
School Parcels
Parcels with Daycare
Library Parcels
Parks (Developed, Undevelopled and Golf Course)
Arcade 1,000Ft Buffer
Library 1,000Ft Buffer
Transit Center 1,000Ft Buffer
Daycare 1,000Ft Buffer
Parks 1,000Ft Buffer
School Parcels 1,000Ft Buffer
All Allowed Zoning Designation
Marijuana Retail and ProductionLiquor Control Board (LCB) 1,000 Ft Exclusion Buffer from Recreation Centers, Day Cares, Parks, Transit Centers, Libraries, Arcades, and Schools.1 Mile Radii from Current Licensed Business.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 1
SUMMARY REPORT
City of Renton Low Impact Development Code Evaluation and Update
1. INTRODUCTION
The new Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES II) permits require new practices and
regulation of stormwater management through land use and
design. This has implications for the public sector, as the
regulating and enforcing body, as well as for the private sector,
as the designer and developer of sites. The City of Renton
Municipal code was reviewed for existing strengths and
weaknesses related to low impact development (LID) practices.
Through the evaluation, gaps in the policies and code were
identified and opportunities for improvement are being
proposed as draft policy and code amendments.
This document is organized in the following sections:
1. Introduction.
2. Policy and Code Amendment Evaluation: Summary of the
proposed policy and code changes in relation to the review
criteria for policy and code amendments in Title IV of the
Renton Municipal Code.
3. LID Barriers and Opportunities Evaluation Method:
Describing LID policy and code evaluation method.
4. Section-by-Section Policy and Code Amendment Summary: An overview of the proposed policy and
code changes designed to remove barriers to LID practices and identify potential incentives to its
implementation, and a summary table.
5. Example Development and Implications: An example development implementing LID practices in
Renton, and discussion of how the proposed code changes could affect development.
6. Next Steps.
2. POLICY AND CODE AMENDMENT EVALUATION
Comprehensive Plan policy amendments are evaluated according to review criteria in RMC 4-9-020.F:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The proposed policy and code amendments are intended to remove barriers to
implementing LID BMPs and to promote their use through some incentives (e.g. allowing
greater parking or allowing such facilities to count towards other open space
requirements). LID BMPs will be required of all jurisdictions subject to NPDES Phase II
requirements, and Renton will not be at a competitive disadvantage to attract desired
What is Low Impact
Development (LID)?
As a result of human disturbance and
the development of land, management
of stormwater has become a critical
need in urbanized areas where the
hydrologic process has been disturbed.
LID is a strategy used to manage surface
and stormwater through a variety of
best management practices (BMPs) that
are integrated into project and site
designs. Examples of LID BMPs include
bioretention, rain gardens, permeable
surfaces, reduced impervious surfaces,
vegetated roofs, rainwater harvesting,
and other innovative practices that help
increase infiltrations, storage,
evaporation, and other natural
processes.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 2
growth relative to other communities in the Central Puget Sound. The LID requirements
are not expected to affect overall growth rates or land conversion, but may alter the
manner in which growth occurs by promoting development patterns that emphasize soil
and vegetation conservation, use of on-site natural features, and distributed stormwater
management practices that are integrated into a project design.
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide
adequate public facilities.
Response: LID BMPs will promote an effective
stormwater management utility and program
and reduce public costs for constructed
stormwater drainage facilities.
c. The effect upon the rate of population and
employment growth.
Response: See “a” above.
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being
met as specified or remain valid and desirable.
Response: Comprehensive Plan objectives
promote sustainable development patterns.
Proposed policy changes would further reinforce
current objectives and provide greater
specificity regarding permeable pavement,
reduction of impervious areas, etc.
e. The effect upon general land values and housing
costs.
Response: While some costs to evaluate LID
practices for sites may increase, for those sites
with infiltration capacity, overall costs to
implement LID approaches could be less. See
Section 5.
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures,
including transportation, are being made or completed
as expected.
Response: The LID practices will need to be
integrated into public capital improvements as
well as private. The City has already
demonstrated its feasibility with the Harrington
Greenway in the Renton Sunset Area.
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is internally consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide Planning Policies for King County.
Response: Policy amendments are consistent with NPDES requirements that apply to
King County and cities, and would promote GMA goals for environmental protection of
water quality and with county-wide planning policies address environmental protection
and sustainable growth patterns.
Current Comprehensive Plan Policies supporting LID Practices
Policy L-29: Minimize erosion and
sedimentation in and near sensitive areas
by requiring appropriate construction
techniques and resource practices, such as
low impact development.
Policy L-30: Protect the integrity of natural
drainage systems, existing land forms, and
maintain wildlife habitat values by
preserving and enhancing existing
vegetation and tree canopy coverage to the
maximum extent possible and by restoring
hydrological flows and improving the
condition of shorelines.
Policy L-33: Emphasize the use of open
ponding and detention, vegetated swales,
rain gardens, clean roof run-off, right-of-
way landscape strips, open space, and
stormwater management techniques that
mimic natural systems, maximize water
quality and infiltration where appropriate,
and which will not endanger groundwater
quality.
Policy U-33: Provide incentives and
regulations appropriate to an urban
environment that reduce impervious
surfaces, promote natural and distributed
stormwater techniques, and incorporate
native and naturalized vegetation.
Policy U-34: Maintain, protect, and enhance
natural drainage systems and natural
surface water storage sites to protect water
quality, reduce public costs, and prevent
environmental degradation.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 3
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands.
Response: The policy amendments are consistent with the protection of critical areas by
promoting soil conservation, native vegetation protection, and improved water quality.
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application requirements
established in this section.
Response: Not applicable.
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of Community and
Economic Development.
Response: Not applicable.
Title IV code amendments are also subject to the following review criteria in RMC 4-9-025:
1. Consistency and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The code amendments support policies in the Land Use, Transportation,
Utilities, and other elements that promote LID practices and other vegetation
conservation and sustainability principles.
2. All revisions must meet with at least one of the following criteria:
a. The revision eliminates conflicts within the code or between the code and the Comprehensive
Plan; or
b. The revision changes code language to provide clarity, consistency, or ease of administration; or
c. The revision directly implements policies of the Comprehensive Plan or City Business Plan; or
d. The revision accommodates new policy directives of the City Council or Administration.
Response: The code revisions implement policies that promote LID practices, sustainable
development practices, and critical area protection. They remove barriers to
implementing LID practices and offer some incentives.
3. LID BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES EVALUATION METHOD
The Renton Policy and Code review was accomplished using the Low Impact Development Code Update
and Integration Toolkit from the Washington State Department of Ecology, which provides the
worksheet template that was used during the review. Each code was evaluated according to the
following subtopics:
• Site Planning and Assessment - building location, parking location, stormwater treatment facility
location
• Healthy Soils - protecting and restoring soil, compost, compaction
• Landscaping, Native Vegetation, and Street Landscaping - tree preservation, screening, landscaping
requirements for street frontages and parking lots
• Hard and Impervious Surfaces – maximum impervious surface allowances, shared driveways,
minimum driveway width, use of permeable pavement for driveways, two-track driveway design
• Bulk and Dimensional Considerations - building setback, height limits, maximum square footage,
clustering
• Clearing and Grading - protecting infiltration, conserving soils and vegetation, construction
sequencing
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 4
• Street and Roads - lane widths, ROW widths, permeable pavement, utility placement, sidewalk
widths, sidewalk slopes, cul-de-sacs
• Parking - parking ratios, permeable pavement, stall dimensions, off-street parking regulations
• Design Guidelines and Standards - trees and bioretention, continuous curbs, curb radii
• Stormwater Management and Maintenance - maintenance provisions, access, enforcement
• Subdivision and Planned Unit Development - open space requirements, performance-based design
• Critical Areas and Shoreline Management - allowing LID BMPs in critical areas and shorelines
The code sections summarized below were all evaluated by the topics named, which helped identify
gaps in Renton’s existing regulations and areas where these gaps could be filled. The results led to
proposed policy and code amendments that will increase Renton’s stormwater management
regulations.
4. SECTION-BY-SECTION POLICY AND CODE AMENDMENT SUMMARY
The following sections provide a summary of the findings from each worksheet that was completed for
the different regulatory categories. The categories and their identified gaps are outlined below. A
summary table describing the changes follows the text.
A. Comprehensive Plan
The Renton Comprehensive Plan policies were reviewed for their support of LID practices. Overall, the
Comprehensive Plan was found to be supportive of LID. A few areas were identified as gaps or
opportunities to improve policy support for LID, including, but not limited to, preferable parking location
and design, conservation of native vegetation, encouraging the use of permeable pavement, and the
placement of utilities.
Docket: While there are some identified policy amendments, these are not essential to implementing
the code amendments. Policy changes are docketed for the next amendment cycle.
B. Shoreline Master Program and Critical Areas Regulations
The code sections reviewed in this worksheet include the Shoreline Master Program Regulations (RMC
4-3-090), Critical Areas Regulations (RMC 4-3-050), and Shoreline Permits (RMC 4-9-190). Areas
identified as gaps include greater regulation of trail construction in critical areas and their associated
buffers; encouraging the use of permeable pavement for streets, roads, and sidewalks within shoreline
or critical areas; the use of LID within the outer 25% of critical area buffers; and, regulating untreated
discharge from dispersion in wetland buffers.
Docket: Minor edits to the Shoreline Master Program are proposed and would be addressed at the next
opportunity the City pursues to amend its recent program. No changes are essential to implement
immediately.
C. Design
Residential Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115) and Urban Design Regulations (RMC 4-3-
100) were reviewed in the Design Standards Review worksheet. Some of the changes proposed include
greater guidance on the location of buildings and parking areas, identified tree preferences, encouraging
vegetative screening, and implementation of LID BMPs in sidewalk right-of-ways, open space, and
plazas, among others.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 5
Policy Issue: The code edits allow vegetated LID facilities to be located in open space and plaza areas. A
policy choice is whether such facilities should count towards required open space or plaza standards as a
means to encourage such facilities. The proposal allows vegetated LID facilities to count up to 50
percent of the required open space for larger residential developments rather than counting a full 100
percent. Similarly vegetated LID facilities could count up to 50 percent towards the plaza standard
rather than counting a full 100 percent.
D. Subdivision and PUD Regulations
Review included the Subdivision Regulations (4-7) and the Planned Urban Development Regulations (4-
9-150) sections of the Renton Municipal Code. Minor edits are made to cross reference to relevant
grading and street standards. In terms of PUD regulations the code would be amended to address the
public benefit criteria related to LID techniques to exceed that which would already be required.
E. Site Planning
Code review of site planning issues included the Master Plan and Site Plan Review regulations (RMC 4-9-
200). Opportunities to improve the use of LID practices in site planning include minimizing impervious
surfaces in parking areas, references to landscape regulations for tree preservation, preferences for
native vegetation, and preference for the placement of utilities under paved areas in the ROW.
F. Clearing and Grading
Code review included the Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations (RMC 4-4-060) and Grading,
Excavation and Mining Permits and Licenses (RMC 4-9-080). Clearing and grading regulations could
implement more LID practices through referencing tree protection standards, addressing soil
compaction, and the preservation of native vegetation.
G. Impervious Surfaces
Code review of impervious surface issues included Drainage Surface Water Standards (RMC 4-6-030),
Shoreline Master Program Regulations (4-3-090), and Shoreline Master Program Non-Conforming Uses,
Activities, Structures, and Sites regulations (RMC 4-10-095). There were no gaps identified in the
Impervious Surfaces review.
H. Parking
Code review included Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations (RMC 4-4-080). Opportunities to
improve the use of LID practices in the regulation of parking, loading, and driveways include more
direction on joint use agreements, conditions for non-motorized improvements, specifically allowing
permeable pavement in more areas, increasing infiltration opportunities, and allowing two-track
driveway designs.
Policy Issue: A change is recommended to allow parking in excess of maximum standards where an
applicant implements low impact development techniques that reduce stormwater runoff and manages
stormwater on-site in a way that exceeds the requirements of surface water management design
manual. The cap on the parking above maximum would be 10 percent.
I. Bulk
Code review of bulk issues included Residential Development Standards (RMC 4-2-110), Residential
Design and Open Space Standards (RMC 4-2-115), Commercial Development Standards (RMC 4-2-120),
Industrial Development Standards (RMC 4-2-130), and Storage Facilities, Bulk regulations (RMC 4-4-110).
LID practices could be integrated into bulk standards through discussion of building location, referencing
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 6
tree densities and types, landscape requirements for native vegetation on street frontages and for
screening, and allowing the use of permeable pavements, among others.
J. Landscaping and Streets
Code review of landscaping and streets issues included Development Guidelines and Regulations (RMC
4-4-030), Fences, Hedges, and Retaining Walls (RMC 4-4-040), Landscaping regulations (RMC 4-4-070);
Storage Lots – Outside (RMC 4-4-120), and Street Standards (RMC 4-6-060). Opportunities to
incorporate LID practices in landscaping and streets include clarifying the protection of significant trees
as a LID BMP, updating parking lot landscaping requirements, specifically allowing two-track driveways
and permeable pavement for driveways, adding performance standards for streets, and others.
Policy Issues:
A. Within the Auto mall area, most of the area is developed with large impervious sales lots. It is
unlikely that the areas would redevelop to the point of requiring compliance with the surface water
design manual. Therefore, an incentive is proposed to reduce the landscape percentage by a half a
percent if bioretention, permeable paving, or other low impact development techniques consistent
with the Stormwater Management Manual in RMC 4-6-030 are integrated.
B. Regarding complete streets, an exemption would be allowed from complete street standards to
reduce impervious area, protect soils, or protect critical areas, subject to Administrator approval.
For example, a sidewalk may be allowed on one side of the street instead of both if there was
already a parallel pedestrian path open to the public, or where there are critical areas, etc.
K. Storm and Surface Water
Code review of storm and surface water issues included Storm and Surface Water Drainage (RMC 8-2)
and Drainage (Surface Water) Standards (RMC 4-6-030). Storm and surface water standards could be
improved through ensuring adherence to the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual or 2016
King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual. Current references are to the 2009 Design
Manual. Also addressed are updated definitions in RMC 4-6-030 and RMC 4-11.
L. Public Ways and Property
Code review of public ways and property issues included Public Ways and Properties Regulations (RMC
9). Opportunities to reduce impacts of storm and surface water within public ways and on public
properties include adding an exception for encroachment when an owner is implementing vegetated LID
facilities and allowing repair and restoration of LID stormwater facilities as a maintenance provision.
Policy Issue: It is recommended that patching with non-pervious material be allowed on pervious
pavement where the extent is small due to the expense and feasibility.
M. Standard Details
Review of standard detail issues included Water Standard Details, Waste Water Standard Details,
Surface Water Standard Details, and Transportation Standard Details. Opportunities to include LID
practices in standard details include allowing permeable pavement sidewalks, avoiding soil compaction
and controlling construction activities, adding patching protocols for permeable pavement, allowing
alternatives to curb and gutter systems, and developing standard details specifically for LID BMPs,
among others.
See Attachment A for a Table that summarizes the changes by Title IV code section.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 7
5. EXAMPLE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLICATIONS
Example Renton Development Implementing LID Practices
The Renton Housing Authority designed and built the Kirkland Avenue Townhomes with LID facilities in
2014. The Renton Housing Authority used the project to employ the following LID approaches to meet
stormwater management requirements: Bioretention facilities with native vegetation, and pervious
concrete site walkways and parking lot. The bioretention facilities were located along the sidewalk in the
planter strip; bioretention facilities, in conjunction with the pervious concrete facilities onsite, were
designed to infiltrate 100% of the required stormwater mitigation.
Figure 1. Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Pervious Sidewalks and Bioretention Facilities
Source: SvR, undated
Figure 2. Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Site Plan
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 8
Source: Schemata, 2013
Implications of Standards
The Association of Washington Cities noted the following cost implications for LID implementation:1
• Costs for design and planning may be greater in order to evaluate the feasibility of LID for project
sites.
• LID can be less expensive for controlling stormwater on a site compared to standard design
approaches. This is due in part to the reduced need for piping and large storage facilities. In
addition, LID can reduce the long-term management and maintenance costs for local governments
and homeowners.
o Adding roadside bioretention facilities, making roads narrower, and designing smaller or
permeable pavement parking lots with on-site bioretention to retain runoff saves money by
reducing the amount of pavement, curbs, and gutters needed.
o Installing bioretention, disconnecting roof downspouts from impervious surfaces (driveways or
streets), and retaining vegetated areas saves money by eliminating the need for costly runoff
detention basins and pipe delivery systems.
o Designing more compact residential lots saves money by reducing site grading and building
preparation costs, and can increase the value of the development for amenities such as
vegetated open space.
On behalf of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), Herrera Environmental Consultants
evaluated stormwater management costs for new development under Washington State Department of
Ecology Manuals transitioning from 2005 to 2012 standards, when LID approaches became required.
That analysis tested 14 development scenarios, and indicates that stormwater analysis costs would
increase (e.g. additional geotechnical evaluation), implementation costs may be more or less depending
on the ability to install LID facilities and practices, and maintenance costs would be less with LID
principles incorporated. The summary below shows the overall findings. More details on scenarios and
findings can be found in the report and presentation.2
Summary – Single Family Residential: Elements making 2012 scenarios more expensive
• Additional geotechnical evaluation
• Protection of LID BMPs during construction
• Onsite stormwater costs (LID BMPs)
• Operation and maintenance of bioretention and sidewalks
• Smaller lot sizes and ROW width reduce BMP size (LID principles)
Summary – Small Commercial: Elements Making 2012 Scenarios Less Expensive
• Bioretention
• Lower construction, design, and operation and maintenance cost
1 Association of Washington Cities. 2015. E-NEWSLETTER ARTICLE #2: Barrier Busters. http://www.awcnet.org/portals/0/documents/lid/Article2BarrierBusters.pdf.
2 http://www.wastormwatercenter.org/lid-cost-analysis-report
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 9
Summary – Large Commercial: Elements Making 2012 Scenarios Less Expensive
• Permeable pavement
• No design for centralized facilities
• No operation and maintenance for centralized facilities
It should be noted that the LID code evaluation is designed to remove barriers to LID implementation to
reduce permit review inefficiencies; some code changes would add some incentives or allow some
overlapping requirements to be considered together (e.g. count partially as open space, allow in buffers
or setbacks from critical areas etc.) to minimize the costs to implement LID.
6. NEXT STEPS
A stakeholder workshop will be held on August 16, 2016. A Planning Commission public hearing will be
held on August 17, 2016 The Planning Commission will provide recommendations. The City Council will
then review the Planning Commission recommendation and consider adoption in fall 2016. The code
amendments as approved are required to be implemented by the end of 2016.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 10
ATTACHMENT A: AMENDMENT SUMMARY MATRIX
The following table lists the code changes by the code evaluation groupings described above and the specific code sections changing.
Plan/Code Section Changes under Consideration
A. Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element: Add policies on sustainability, native plants, permeable surfaces, and shared parking.
Transportation Element: Add policies on permeable paving and LID practices.
Utilities: Minor policy amendment regarding underground utilities.
B-1. Critical Area Regulations
4-3-050.C.3 Exemptions - Critical Areas and Buffers Add LID facilities that establish or restore natural processes as exempt in habitats, streams and lakes, and wetlands and their buffers. Require permeable materials for the construction or expansion of rails, streets, roads, rights-of-way to the extent feasible.
4-3-050.C.4. Exemptions in Buffers Only Reference consistency with the Surface Water Design Manual regarding trails in buffers. For stormwater facilities already allowed in buffers, reference that LID practices can be implemented in the outer 25 percent of the buffer.
4-3-050.G.2 Critical Area Buffers and Structure Setbacks from Buffers Within setbacks beyond buffers, allow permeable areas as not subject to maximum impervious surface limitations.
4-3-050.G.8.k CARA Zones 1 and 1 Modified Prohibit infiltration facilities given sensitivity of the aquifer.
B-2. Shoreline Master Program Regulations
4-3-090.D.2.d.xi Development Standards Near Wetlands Where stormwater is routed to wetlands, require upstream treatment whenever possible.
4-3-090.D.2.d.xii Vegetation Management Plan Required Identify mix of vegetation allowed at perimeter of buffer that meets screening criteria.
4-3-090.D.5.b.iii Minimization of Site Alteration Requiring permeable surfaces where feasible and limiting impervious surfacing.
4-3-090.D.2.d.ix.e Stormwater Facilities Where stormwater facilities are located within wetland buffers, require water discharge to be treated.
C. Development Design Standards
4-2-115 Residential Design and Open Space Standards
E. Requirements, 1. Site Design
Add performance standard to configure lots in a manner that optimizes locations for stormwater LID facilities, and that protects soils with good infiltration potential to the extent practicable.
4-2-115 Residential Design and Open Space Standards
E. Requirements, 2. Open Space
Promote native vegetation in guidelines.
In R-10 and R-14 standards, require permeable sidewalks where feasible.
4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations
E. Requirements, 1. Site Design and Building Location
Service Element Location and Design, Guidelines: Service areas encouraged to have vegetative screening.
4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations
E. Requirements, 2. Parking and Vehicular Access
Clarify that the standard to minimize curb cuts applies to those needed for vehicular access, not LID facilities which may need curb cuts for its design.
4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations
E. Requirements, 3. Pedestrian Environment
Require permeable pedestrian circulation features where feasible.
4-3-100 Urban Design Regulations
E. Requirements, 4. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space
Allow projects with more than 100 dwelling units and using vegetated LID facilities to count the facility towards the open space requirement up to a maximum of 50 percent.
Where public plazas are required in the CA Zone, vegetated LID facilities may count towards the requirement by no more than 50 percent.
4-4-090 Refuse and Recyclables Standards Require containment if the site infiltrates to a Zone 1 Wellhead Protection Area.
D. Subdivision & PUD Code Amendments
4-7-200 B. Storm Drainage Reference to LID requirements in Surface Water Design Manual.
4-7-220 C. Standards Cross-reference to grading regulations.
4-7-220 E. Street Pattern Cross-reference to cul-de-sac standards.
4-9-150 D. Decision Criteria Cross-reference to Surface Water Design Manual.
E. Site Planning
4-9-200 E. Decision Criteria Add performance standard regarding reducing parking impervious area.
Add performance standard about optimal location of infiltrating LID facilities and protecting soils with infiltration capability.
Cross-reference to landscaping and utility undergrounding requirements.
F. Clearing and Grading Review
4-4-060 H. Engineering Grading Requirements Contractors are to protect flow control BMPs.
4-4-060 J. Work in Progress Allow exceptions to clearing requirements at top of slopes where trees and brush help maintain slope stability.
Require permeability of soils to be reestablished in locations where stormwater management and infiltration.
4-4-060 N. Fills Fill areas required to have vegetation removed, except where native vegetation or significant trees are protected by Tree Cutting or Land Clearing Regulations.
Allow exceptions to the fill compaction requirements for soils below areas set aside for LID practices.
G. Hard and Impervious Surfaces (non-zoning standards)
No changes identified in regards to impervious surfaces for RMC 4-6-030 Drainage Surface Water Standards, RMC 4-3-090 Shoreline Master Program Regulations, and RMC 4-10-095 Shoreline Master Program Non-Conforming Uses, Activities, Structures, and Sites.
H. Parking Code Amendments
4-4-080 E. Location Of Required Parking Cross reference the joint use parking agreement, and need to provide parking if the agreement is terminated.
4-4-080 F. Parking Lot Design Standards Code allows authority to establish nonmotorized and transit linkages; description of potential conditions added.
Parking in excess of maximum ratios allowed if LID techniques installed; limited to 10 percent above standard.
4-4-080 G. Parking Lot Construction Requirements Permeable pavement required where feasible and to the extent required by the Surface Water Design Manual.
4-4-080 I. Driveway Design Standards Permeable pavement required where feasible and to the extent required by the Surface Water Design Manual.
Two-track driveways allowed on single family lots.
I. Bulk and Dimensional Considerations
4-2 Zoning Districts – Uses And Standards, 4-2-110A Development Standards For Residential Zoning Designations
Cross reference tree retention and tree type standards.
Cross reference critical area regulations.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 11
Plan/Code Section Changes under Consideration
4-2 Zoning Districts – Uses And Standards, 4-2-110C Development Standards For Residential Manufactured Home Park Zoning Designation
Require permeable sidewalks to extent required by Surface Water Design Manual.
4-3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts, E. Urban Separator Overlay Regulations Clarify natural surface trails means soft-surface trails, and require adjacent area to infiltrate runoff consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual.
4-4 City-Wide Property Development Standards, 4-4-110 Storage Facilities, Bulk Cross reference Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.
Add design criteria that bulk storage facilities minimize the size of impervious areas, protect soils with infiltration capability, and reduce soil compaction to the extent feasible.
Allow curb cuts for stormwater management purposes.
J. Landscaping and Streets
4-3-040 Automall District, D. Development Standards For Uses Located Within the Renton Automall – Areas A and B
Reference to other tree types on City’s approved tree list. Cross reference to landscape maintenance and tree topping prohibition standards.
Allowance to reduce landscaping by 0.5% where bioretention, permeable paving or other LID techniques are provided per the Surface Water Design Manual.
4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations – General:
C. Construction Standards
Regarding hydroseeding and alternatives, allowance for plastic covering where soils are to be reused but limited to 14 days.
4-4-040 C. General Fence, Hedge, and Retaining Wall Standards Hedges designed as part of LID facilities must meet Surface Water Design Manual.
Modifications of terrace width.
4-4-070 Landscaping:
F. Areas Required to be Landscaped
Standard added for planter size dimensions in parking lots.
LID facilities located to avoid clearing and grading and to incorporate plant species per Surface Water Design Manual.
4-4-070 Landscaping:
G. General Landscape Requirements
Native trees and shrubs called out for preservation where possible.
Vegetation in setbacks retained or planned with plant species priorities: 1) native coniferous trees; 2) native deciduous trees; 3) other native vegetation. Vegetated LID facilities allowed in landscaped setbacks or as part of screening requirements.
4-4-070 Landscaping:
H. Description of Required Landscaping Types
Tree caliper of 1.5 inches specified for LID facilities.
4-4-070 Landscaping:
L. Plant Materials
Plugs or bareroot plants allowed. Supplementary seeding may be required. Administrator may limit extent of turf. Smaller shrubs may be allowed if coverage standards can be attained within 3 years of planting.
References to specific State and County noxious weeds lists (such are prohibited plants).
4-6-060 Street Standards
F. Public Street Right-Of-Way Design Standards
Regarding sidewalks, permeable pavement may be allowed to accomplish LID BMPs.
Sidewalks may be allowed on one side of the street on Residential Access or Limited Residential Access streets subject to exception criteria under Complete Streets provisions.
Sidewalks may be designed to be reverse sloped away from the street, provided that the sidewalks have a maximum long slope of 2% and are designed to drain towards a publicly-owned LID facility along the roadway.
Reference to permeable pavement thickness standards in Surface Water Design Manual.
4-6-060 Street Standards
G. Complete Streets
Exception to Complete Streets standard where Administrator finds that trails in common areas are provided in lieu of sidewalks, or when vegetated BMPs such as bioretention is proposed, or soil conservation or critical area protection is necessary.
4-6-060 Street Standards
H. Dead End Streets
LID BMPs required in center island of cul-de-sac where feasible.
4-6-060 Street Standards
Q. Variations From Standards
Administrator may modify cul-de-sac design to achieve LID facility installation and reduce impervious area provided that turn-around design modifications allow safe access and emergency response.
K. Storm and Surface Water Drainage Review
4-6-030 Drainage (Surface Water) Standards Reference adoption of 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual instead of 2009 Manual.
Chapter 4-11 Definitions Add or amend definitions based on Surface Water Design Manual:
• Feasible
• Impervious Surface
• Low Impact Development (LID)
• LID BMPs
• Pervious Surfaces
• Stormwater Facility
L. Public Ways and Property Review
Chapter 9-10 Street Excavations
9-10-2 Condition of Permit
Allow drainage facilities that are moved or disconnected or disturbed to be repaired as well as replaced.
Chapter 9-10 Street Excavations
9-10-11 Trench Restoration and Street Overlay Requirements
Patching of pervious concrete with non-pervious material allowed to a maximum of 10 percent of the total facility area provided facility function is not affected.
Trench backfill to be firm and unyielding and compacted to no more than 92 percent of maximum density in permeable pavement areas.
Joints to be sealed except those associated with permeable pavement.
Chapter 9-10 Street Excavations
9-15-1 Weeds or Vegetative Encroachments
Planter strips and islands in ROW allowed subject to City landscaping and street standards. Vegetated LID facilities to be designed consistent with Surface Water Design Manual.
M. Standard Details
Standard Plan 200.0 General Note and
RMC 4-6-090.F
Trench backfill to be firm and unyielding and compacted to no more than 92 percent of maximum density in permeable pavement areas.
Trench or perpendicular utility crossings can cross bioretention and other vegetated LID BMPs if code conditions (RMC 4-6-090.F) are met.
RMC 4-6-090.F conditions include:
a. New water meters shall be located outside of bioretention footprint when possible.
b. Fire Hydrants shall be located at least 6 feet outside of bioretention footprint.
c. New side sewers and service drains may be located within facility footprints. Maintain required clearances
between sewers, service drains, and underdrains.
d. New infiltration facilities are allowed over existing PVC or ductile iron side sewer crossings.
e. Franchise utilities (power, gas, communication) are allowed with approval from the Public Works
Administrator or designee.
Sanitary Sewer Notes and Specifications
(pg. 21 of 22)
All trench backfill to be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density in roadways, roadway shoulders, roadway prism and driveways, and 85 percent of maximum density in unpaved areas.
All trench backfill to be firm and unyielding but in no case compacted to more than 92 percent of maximum density in permeable pavement areas.
The trench may cross bioretention and other vegetated LID BMPs perpendicularly provided that the conditions in RMC 4-6-090.F are met.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
LID REVIEW SUMMARY
August 10, 2016 Prepared by BERK Consulting and Herrera Environmental Consultants 12
Plan/Code Section Changes under Consideration
Surface Water Drainage Notes and Specifications
(pg. 92 of 95)
Trench backfill to be firm and unyielding and compacted to no more than 92 percent of maximum density in permeable pavement areas.
Trench or perpendicular utility crossings can cross bioretention and other vegetated LID BMPs if code conditions (RMC 4-6-090.F) are met.
Surface Water Utility Specifications, Erosion Control Notes
(pg. 94 of 95)
Limits of vegetation and tree retention areas to be both flagged and protected.
LID best management practice areas to be clearly fenced and protected to avoid sedimentation and compaction during construction.
Surface Water Utility Specifications, Surface Water Drainage Notes and Specifications
(pg. 92 of 95)
LID best management practice areas to be protected from sedimentation, and to be restored to fully functioning condition if sediment accumulates during construction.
Standard Plan H032, Typical Longitudinal Patch and Overlay for Flexible Pavement
(pg. 70 of 77)
Porous asphalt to be specified on a project-by-project basis by the engineer. Permeable materials should be replaced in-kind. Patching porous asphalt with conventional asphalt is acceptable if it is no more than 10 percent of the total facility area or does not impact the overall facility function.
Standard Plan H032, Typical Traverse Patch for Flexible Pavement
(pg. 71 of 77)
Same as above.
Standard Plan H033, Typical Traverse Patch for Rigid Pavement Patching and Restoration Detail
(pg. 72 of 77)
Pervious concrete shall follow ACI 522.1-13. Replace in kind where possible. Use of conventional concrete for patching is allowed if no more than 10 percent of the total facility area or does not impact the overall facility function.
Standard Plan H015, Traffic Circles
(pg. 53 of 77)
Vegetated LID BMPs and tree planting – allow 1 tree center per traffic circle rather than 3 to allow for proper tree growth. Bioretention and other vegetated LID allowed where feasible and approved by the City.
Standard Plans 104, 104.1, 104.2, 104.3, 104.4, Cement Concrete Driveway Entrances
(pgs. 6-10 of 77)
Revise Note 3. To reference the adopted Surface Water Design Manual for design of bioretention and other vegetated LID BMPs.
Revise Std. Plan 101 to include permeable pavement sidewalk.
Utility Specifications, Surface Water Drainage Notes and Specifications
(pg. 93 of 95)
Building downspouts and footing drains to be directed to a stormwater best management practice designed per the adopted Surface Water Design Manual.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-127 unit-lot subdivisions\#127 unit lot subdivisions - staff rpt..docx August 17, 2016
D-127: UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS
General Description
The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, as well as other members of
the development community, have requested the City consider new code that would allow the
subdivision of land underlying townhouses in order to create fee-simple lots, as opposed to
creating condominiums through the process provided by the state’s Condominium Act. The
proposed concept would allow the creation of “unit lots” in the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones that
deliberately do not adhere to the standards normally applied to other residential lots (e.g., lot
area, lot depth, lot width, coverage limitations, etc.) so that a unit lot may only encompass the
land underneath an individual townhouse dwelling unit and any private yard. The proposed
code would not result in any visible differences or increased density between previously
developed townhouses and those developed under the new code; therefore, previously
developed townhouses will be able to subdivide into unit lots.
Assessment of Existing Code
The Condominium Act, RCW 64.34, imposes restrictions on some attached and detached single
family homes, such as townhomes, which make it difficult for builders and home buyers to
obtain financing. For example, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage requirements require
the following: more than 50% of the condo units must be owner occupied, a minimum of 50%
of the units in the project must be sold, and buyers with a down payment of less than 25% must
pay an additional .75% of the loan amount at closing or pay a higher interest rate. Fee-simple
ownership enables the home owner to own the land, not just the air rights, while allowing
development standards to apply to the “parent site.” By allowing townhouses to be placed on
fee-simple lots, the mortgage financing issues are eliminated, as the development, sale, and
purchase of the unit will not fall under the condominium financing guidelines.
Currently, a townhouse development subdivided into unit lots is only possible through a
Planned Urban Development (PUD). PUDs are permitted to develop under modified standards if
they result in superior development with public benefits. Public benefits include: greater
protection for critical areas, preservation or enhancement of natural features, sustainable
development techniques, and similar provisions that require additional investment by the
developer (the expense of which most likely passed on to future homebuyers).
The purpose of the proposed code is to offer an alternative to condominium procedures and
facilitate the development of for-sale housing that will likely be more affordable than a typical
newly-built single family house. Although a Unit Lot Subdivision would not be required to
impose income limits for potential buyers (e.g., no more than 80% of the Area Median Income),
townhouses typically have less floor area, and unit lots will cover significantly less land area
than an average single-family house in the R-10 and R-14 zones (single family houses are
prohibited in the RMF Zone). Because potential homebuyers would not be subject to financing
requirements of the Condominium Act, and would be paying for less livable floor area and less
land area than the alternative to home ownership (i.e., a single family house), Unit Lot
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-127 Page 2 of 3 August 17, 2016
Subdivisions would create more opportunities for home ownership for a greater number of
people.
The illustration below depicts how a Unit Lot Subdivision might be developed. Residential
Development Standards (e.g., building coverage, setbacks, landscaping standards, etc.) would
apply to the whole “parent site” (the original lot). Lot sizes range from 824 SF to 1,358 SF, with
1,100 SF being the average, compared to the minimum lot sizes for single family houses in the
R-10 and R-14 zones of 4,000 and 3,000 square feet respectively.
Proposed Amendments to Code
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Because the proposed code would offer an alternative to the Condominium Act, there will likely
be some increase on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in
the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Because there might be more townhouse developments that may commence without securing
financing in conformance with the State’s Condominium Act, there might be a slight increase on
the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan goals are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Goals of the Plan are being met, specifically Goal B of the Housing and Human Services Element:
Ensure a variety of housing types are available within the City that meet the needs of the
present without compromising the needs of future generations.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed code might offer reduced housing costs for townhouses because it would provide
an alternative to the condominium process.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-127 Page 3 of 3 August 17, 2016
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to Unit Lot Subdivisions.
Implementation Requirements
Adopt an ordinance enacting RMC 4-7-090, Unit Lot Subdivisions.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\Long Range Planning.doc
LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM updated 09.02.2016
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TITLE IV DOCKET REQUESTS
Initiated by/
Assigned to Date Form Amendment
Request
Technical
/Policy
Assigned to:
Angie
Impact Fees: Bicycle Pedestrian
Establish SEPA mitigation policy and procedures for development, subject to
mitigation fees to be used for non-motorized improvements, such as sidewalks
and bicycle lanes
Elizabeth
Assigned to:
Elizabeth
08.13.15 Verbal Maintaining Health Standards for Housing
Consider implementing a proactive rental housing inspection program by
requiring landlords to maintain a City business license. Such a requirement
would work to ensure that rental housing in Renton meets the eight principles of
healthy housing: moisture free, adequately ventilated, contaminant free, free of
pests, clean, well-maintained, free of injury hazards, and thermally controlled.
P
Jennifer
Assigned to:
Paul
06.13.14 Email Unit Lot Subdivisions
This was requested by the Master Builders: Consider adoption of a proposed
ordinance to facilitate the creation of fee simple lots within multi-family
residential zones for detached condominiums as owners in other cities indicate
that they were having difficulty re-financing their homes. These owners stated
that banks were often reluctant to loan on a condominium and further appraised
their homes no differently from conventional attached condominium
developments, resulting in lower appraised values for, from all appearances,
detached single family homes.
Assigned to:
Angie
Marijuana
Amend regulations consistent with legislative amendments and to establish a cap
of number of stores and revised parking requirements.
Assigned to:
Angie
Low Impact Development (LID)
Review and amend code to eliminate barriers to implementation of low impact
development.
Phil Olbrects
Rocale
05.01.12
03.31.14
Email
Email
Hearing Examiner Evidence
Conflict between the “limited new evidence” rule of Reg Reform and the
reconsideration provision of the RMC. See Seelig HEX decision, 05.01.2012.
Notice Requirements
Allow for parties of record (including applicants, owners, etc,) to receive
electronic correspondence instead of snail mail correspondence for a project.
Ongoing/Already Initiated Staff Recommendation for Docket #12 Review AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 2 of 8
Rocale
Larry
Paul
07.10.14
03.20.15
07.16.15
Email
Email
Verbal
This would significantly reduce our paper, ink, and postage costs.
Reconsideration Procedures
The code does not limit the number of reconsiderations a single person can apply
for. Additionally, there is no allowing for parties of record to comment when a
reconsideration/appeal is being considered. Additionally there appears to be
duplication of the option to request a reconsideration unless the one of the
citations is moved under a sub-header or they can be consolidated into one.
Revise the RMC 4-8-110.E.2 and RMC 4-8-110E.13 to better define the
reconsideration process
Appeal Process
PH edits: Larry clarified that once the appeal process is commenced, only the
appellants should be able to provide testimony. During Tiffany Park appeal,
“interested parties” were able to provide testimony even though they did not
contribute to the appeal request.
Review why a party of record who is not an appellant or develop be permitted to
argue the case by letter, when they can’t do it orally. See Tiffany Park Appeal
Parties of Record
Redefine “Party of Record” in order to determine what constitutes “testimony”
and “timely.” Staff is unable to determine when parties of record are no longer
able to be established, and what is considered testimony.
Vanessa
Vanessa
11.17.14
02.18.16
Email
Email
Clustering Provisions
Change of clustering provisions to use PUD provision of RMC or establish
standards for clustering beyond open space.
Cluster Development
Clustering should be limited to circumstances where minimum density cannot be
achieved.
Vanessa 08.12.15 Email Street and Road Modification
Pursuant to Hearing Examiner decision, clarify which modification criteria should
be used when evaluating street modifications and waivers. Add clarity to the
code as to which should be used.
Paul 08.25.16 Email Doggy Daycare
“Doggy daycare” facilities are intended for temporary boarding, recreation, and
care of canines during normal business hours (no overnight boarding). Because
these facilities offer an alternative to keeping canines within the owner’s domicile
during normal business hours, doggy daycares are growing in popularity within
urban areas where residents often lack a private outdoor yard. Under Title IV
such facilities are considered to be kennels, which are typically intended for
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 3 of 8
longer boarding durations. Currently, a doggy daycare may be permitted in the
Resource Conservation and all three industrial zones; however, the location of
these zones are likely inconvenient for the targeted customer base to drop-off a
dog before the workday begins and pick-up afterwards. Staff recommends
consideration of this use in commercial areas with specific mitigation.
Paul 09.01.16 Email Living Building Challenge
King County Parks Department has requested the City adopt a “Living Building
Challenge” demonstration ordinance to facilitate a planned County Parks facility
that will seek to achieve some of the goals of a the International Living Future
Institute’s certification program. To be certified under the Challenge, projects
must meet a series of ambitious performance requirements over a minimum of
12 months of continuous occupancy. The docket request is to allow deviations
from standards that are obstacles to meeting the Challenge (e.g., allowing self-
composting toilets, re-use of rainwater, etc.).
Angie 09.01.16 Verbal Downtown Streetscape Standards
Adopt standards for public realm, specific to Downtown, including benches,
lighting, trash receptacles, street furniture, and landscaping.
Jennifer 09.01.16 Verbal Undergrounding
Review regulations and provisions related to undergrounding of franchise
utilities.
Elizabeth 09.01.16 Verbal Renton Municipal Arts Commission
Review and clarify roles and responsibilities related to RMAC. Also evaluate
requirement for private developers to include art in their projects.
Angie 09.01.16 Verbal Live Work Units
Clarify what commercial uses should be allowed in the R-14, CN, and CA zones.
Paul 09.01.16 Email Small Cell and Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS)
Verizon Wireless has requested the City adopt code amendments to allow small
cell and DAS technology on utility poles and street lights. Small cell and DAS
equipment are significantly smaller than other common technology (i.e., cell
phone towers with large antenna), yet they would be located in the public right-
of-way in a dense pattern (the individual units create a network).
Staff N/A Design standards for development based on the type of use
Currently, the design standards based on locational criteria, by zone or overlay.
This item would explore applying design standards based on use, for example a
retail business or office building. The manner in which the standards are
currently applied gives the benefit of design standards to some areas, while other
areas do not receive this benefit. Additionally, this would make the design
P AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 4 of 8
standards easier to understand and administer.
Chip 08.05.10 Email Outdoor storage
The code is ambiguous regarding what is considered outside storage and where it
is or is not appropriate. Additionally, regulations for “Bulk Storage Facilities”
constitute a large portion of our code, yet have not been needed in 2 decades.
Should we consider streamlining if not eliminating these storage-related
regulations?
P
Jennifer/Chip 01.06.11 Email Public Facilities Permit
A new Public Facilities Permit would allow greater flexibility to authorize City
facilities in proximity to where services from the facility are delivered to the
public. The current system allows certain types of City facilities in certain zone
classifications. A new Public Facilities Permit could be permitted outright,
administratively, or through a public hearing process depending on the public
facility’s location, zone and impact to surrounding land uses irrespective of
zoning classification.
P
Jan Conklin 06.19.14 Email Address Changes Upon Annexation
The City can notify the post office, King County and Puget Sound Energy, but we
have no way of notifying Google Maps to update their records with the new
addresses. It would be safer for our citizens if we did not require them to change
unless there is a life safety issue. Life safety issues would include house
addressed off of the wrong street. Numbers out of sequence or not in the correct
grid sequence. Another issue would be an isolated island of homes surrounded
by City addresses.
Rocale 12.10.14 Email Refine the Definitions of: Lot Types, Lot Measurements, Lot Lines, and Yards
The code does not accurately define common lot types, lot width and lot depth,
individual lot lines, and the definitions of each type of yard.
Angie 01.30.15 Email Channel Migration Zones
Adopt the work that King County is doing with Cedar River Channel Migration
Zones
Chip 09.14.15 Verbal Sign Code
Review/update the sign code and its consistency with the new Supreme Court
decision regarding content
Paul 04.19.16 Email Landscaping, Trees and Shrubbery
Community Services has requested new and revised standards pertaining to trees
located with public right-of-ways and other public land (e.g., spacing standards,
approved species, maintenance techniques, processes for planting, trimming, and
removing trees, etc).
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 5 of 8
Jennifer 09.01.16 Verbal Landscape Modifications
RMC4-4-070.R requires a variance to deviate from the provisions of the
Landscaping Regulations. A modification process should also be available for
minor departures from Code.
Citizen Initiated Requests
Angie, per David
Nives
02.10.15 Email Beekeeping in Commercial and Industrial Zones
Request from citizen to allow beekeeping in commercial and industrial zones
Laureen, per Jose
Fernandez
09.01.16 Written Projections into Setbacks
Allow porches to extend into rear yards to protect back door from rain and sun.
Angie, per Chris S. 09.01.16 Written Low Intensity Commercial in R-14
Consider allowing commercial uses, such as offices, in the R-14 zone.
Plan/Policy Development
Chip and Rocale 04.10.15 Email Automall: Update the Improvement Plan
Consider expanding the boundaries for the Automall area to include East Valley
Road given the location of Harley, Honda, and potentially CarMax. Also, address
dealer’s needs in regards to promotional flags and other signage for consistency
with new laws.
Angie 09.01.16 Verbal Comprehensive Plan Policy Review
Review the Comprehensive Plan for policies that have measureable outcomes.
Elizabeth 09.01.16 Verbal Affordable Housing Strategy
Create an Affordable Housing Strategy and identify opportunities to incentivize
the creation of affordable housing.
Administrative Code Interpretations (to be created)
Laureen and Rocale 04.18.12
04.09.14
Email Modifications Subsection
Amend RMC 4-2-115 by adding a new subsection “Modifications” that references
RMC 4-9-250D and clarifies that the appropriate means for modifying the
Residential Design and Open Space Standards is a “modification”.
P
Angelea 05.26.16 Email Residential Design and Open Space Standards
Currently, RMC 4-2-115, Residential Design and Open Space Standards, provides
ambiguous and vague language (RMC4-2-115A.2) on how applicants can
potentially meet the city’s residential design and open space standards.
Technically, this code section does not require that the applicant obtain approval
of a residential design modification, nor does it identify criteria by which
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 6 of 8
modifications from these design standards can be evaluated.
Kris
Rocale/Vanessa
07.10.15
01.27.15
Email
Email
Stream Reclassification
Stream reclassification for Maplewood Creek Subarea stream based on biological
assessments.
Copperwood Preliminary Plat resulted in a reclassification of a stream that needs
to be adopted as a part of the Stream Classification Map.
Elizabeth 05.02.13 Email Remapping of contiguous open space corridor T
Jerry 10.18.13 Email Reclass a stream from Class 4 to Class 3 for the Roman Short Plat T
Jennifer 06.10.10 Email Definitions for construction waste and demolition waste that was deleted from
the code
Critical Area Regulations prohibit landfills with certain types of construction/
demolition waste in Aquifer Protection Areas. However, the definitions of
construction and demolition waste were previously deleted from the Code. This
item seeks to reinstate those definitions.
T
Laureen 11.29.10 Email Delete Chapter 2 illustrations, which no longer contain useful numerical data
and incorrectly depict existing standards T
Erika
Vanessa
Vanessa
09.17.12
12.19.13
07.28.14
Email
Email
Email
Shorelines
Update code to reflect “substantial development” threshold increase to $6,416
Update titles for Shoreline Environments in RMC 4-9-070H per new SMP names
Correct WAC citation typo in the SMP regarding Hazardous Substance
Remediation.
T
Chip 07.01.15 Verbal Map PUDs
Laureen 12.27.12 Email Update code to reference FEMA approved Cedar River Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) maps. Update flood hazard section to align with current FEMA flood
area terminology. Update code to reference new DFIRM map, when adopted.
T
Rocale 07.24.14 Email Relocate Arterial Street Plan map (and potentially other street standards) to the
complete street section of the code.
Chip 09.14.15 Verbal Vesting
Review vesting ordinance based on Potala Village vs. the City of Kirkland
Supreme Court decision, specifically shoreline permits.
Paul 10.22.15 Email Zoning Map Interpretation Provisions
RMC 4-2-030, Zoning Map Interpretation, provides the means to determine
boundaries of zones where the delineation is unclear. The Section is in need of
edits due to unclear language, and references to practices that are not followed
(e.g., relying on the legal description of a rezone ordinance, even though legal
descriptions are no longer provided in most rezone ordinances).
Jennifer 09.01.16 Verbal Noise Variance Process AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 7 of 8
Housekeeping Code Interpretations (to be created)
Rocale 10.20.15 Email Eliminate reference to Comprehensive Plan’s Community Design Element in RMC
4-9-250D. Modification Procedures
Paul 11.10.15 Email Correct reference to rezones not requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in
4-9-180.F
Laureen 06.21.16 Email Footnote #4 misapplied to “recreational facilities, indoor new” in the CN zone
Stacy 08.31.16 Email Correct reference to effective date of final plan in PUD Regulations extensions.
Vanessa 08.22.12 Email RMC 4-8-080 refers to subsection H, which has been repealed. Possible
housekeeping item T
Paul 09.01.16 Email RMC 4-10-050.A.4, Limits on Enlargement (for nonconforming structures) states
that only one provision needs to be met instead of all provisions.
Submittal Standards Code Interpretations (to be created)
Rocale 01.20.10 Email Add Design Checklist to the Submittal Requirements if located in a design district T
Chip 02.11.10 Email Remove submittal standards from code and establish as a handout and post on
the web in order to keep current and provide reasonable public access. T
Laureen 10.01.09 Email Overall plan sheet set for short/full plats. Move to Submittal Standards. T
Laureen 04.02.10 Email Add text to submittal requirements due to adoption of new Storm Drainage
Regulations T
Rocale 05.25.11 Email Submittal Checklists reference the older manual for the Drainage Report
requirements. It should be changed from 1990 to 2009.
Stacy 07.22.11 Email Remove the requirements from home occupations that the applicant is
responsible for providing current mailing labels.
Laureen 07.24.13 Email Add tree retention worksheet
Laureen 03.04.14 Email Mylar Requirements
Change the regulations to only require paper plan set submittals for recording for
short plats, plats, lot line adjustments, and construction plans, instead of mylars
Administrative Code Interpretations (from December 2015 to Current)
CI-79, Applicable front and side yard along a street setbacks to detached accessory structures in residential zones.
CI-80, SEPA Exemption for Single Family Residential Construction
CI-81, Outdoor Retail Vending and Storage Lockers for Package Pick-up
CI-82, Modification of Development Standards in the R-4 zone for Small Lot Cluster Developments
CI-83, Modification of Procedure to Allow for Model Homes in Subdivisions
CI-84, Public Notice for Hearing Examiner Hearings
CI-85, Tree Density for the RMF
CI-86, Easements as Substitutions for Tracts AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 8 of 8
CI-87, Legal Descriptions for Lot Line Adjustments
CI-88, Required Alley Access
CI-89, Outdoor Storage
CI-90, Critical Area Permit Implementation
CI-91, Modifications of Residential Building Height Standards
CI-92, Residential Zone Lot Configuration Requirements and Dimensional Standards Averaging
CI-93, Modification of Development Standards in the R-4 Zone for Small Lot Cluster Developments
CI-94, Franchise Application Fee
CITY CENTER COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1.1.1 Update existing design standards for the City Center to ensure new development will fulfill the vision.
1.1.2 Create cohesive urban design standards for the public realm that include standards for gateways, wayfinding, street trees, street lighting,
pedestrian-scaled lighting, landscaping, street furniture, utilities, and public art.
3.1.1 Complete a conceptual plan for the civic node
6.11.1 Establish priority bicycle improvements consistent with the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan within City Center subarea.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)