HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
3:00 PM - Thursday, September 22, 2016
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
a) Long Range Planning
2. UNIT-LOT SUBDIVISIONS
a) Staff Report
3. MARIJUANA REGULATIONS
a) Staff Report
4. SAFE AND HEALTHY HOUSING BRIEFING
a) Presentation
b) Project Summary
C:\Users\jmedzegian\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\E1WLUU2G\Long Range Planning.doc DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM updated 09.20.2016 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 ReviewAGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM 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 02.18.16 Email Clustering Provisions Change of clustering provisions to use PUD provision of RMC or establish standards for clustering beyond open space and 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 longer boarding durations. Currently, a doggy daycare may be permitted in the Resource Conservation and all three industrial zones; however, the location of AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 3 of 8 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. Vanessa 09.07.16 Verbal Add Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Zone to a Design District Consider adding the CN zone to a design district to ensure new development has high quality design for pedestrians and environment. Angelea 09.07.16 Email Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations The general review criteria for a tree removal permit (RMC 4‐4‐130H.5) within the Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations do not adequately meet the intent of the code. This code section redundantly requires that the project complies with critical areas related regulations with 4 different criteria. The tree removal criteria do not address other regulations that are critical for tree removal review, such as tree density and landscaping regulations. Angie 09.20.16 Email Refuse and Recycling Consider revisions to standards for refuse and recycling for townhouse developments. Current standards are specified for dumpsters only, not for garbage and recycling cans. Additionally, evaluate current standards for refuse AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 4 of 8 and recycling in design districts to ensure the requirements achieve the intended outcomes. 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 standards easier to understand and administer. P 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 5 of 8 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). 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. Private Party 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 Saffel 09.01.16 Written Low Intensity Commercial in R‐14 Consider allowing commercial uses, such as offices, in the R‐14 zone. Verizon Wireless 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). 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 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 6 of 8 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 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 T AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 7 of 8 (LOMR) maps. Update flood hazard section to align with current FEMA flood area terminology. Update code to reference new DFIRM map, when adopted. 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 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. AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DRAFT LONG RANGE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM Page 8 of 8 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 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 #1. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d‐127 unit‐lot subdivisions\supplemental staff rpt..docx September 7, 2016
D‐127: UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
SUMMARY: Staff proposes the following amendments to the proposed Unit Lot Subdivision
code:
Because the design and open space requirements for attached dwellings
in the RMF zone were generally developed to address apartment style
structures, and the design and open space standards for the R‐10 and R‐
14 zones were generally intended for townhouses, staff proposes that
unit lot subdivisions in the RMF zone be subject to R‐10/R‐14 design and
open space requirements; and
Because the Site Plan Review process enables staff with greater authority
to negotiate aspects of development, and by allowing unit lot
subdivisions many of the land use standards cannot be applied, staff
proposes that all unit lot subdivisions be subject to Site Plan Review.
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
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D‐127 Page 2 of 3 September 7, 2016
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
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.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D‐127 Page 3 of 3 September 7, 2016
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.
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 #2. a)
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: September 6, 2016
TO: Kevin Poole, Planning Commission Chair
Members of the Renton Planning Commission
FROM: Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Marijuana Transporters
ISSUE
Staff recently learned that there is an additional new type of marijuana licenses: Marijuana
Transporter. Should the City allow such businesses to be licensed in Renton?
ISSUE DISCUSSION
The Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB) has made rules that allow a third party to transport
marijuana between various marijuana licensees. For example, transport from producer to
processor or processor to retailer. This new license is a Marijuana Transporter. While these
licensees are not allowed to take legal ownership of the marijuana it is in the traceability
system at all times, they are allowed to possess the marijuana for up to 48 hours. This is
intended to allow a transporter to reach multiple destinations within a reasonable timeframe.
For example, make a pickup in Spokane, another pickup in Yakima, then deliver in Vancouver,
and a final delivery in Bellingham. For this 48 hour period the marijuana must remain in the
transport vehicle or be placed in a designated hub. It is unclear, at this time, what security
measures will be required of these licensees for their vehicles. There is a requirement that live
plants be transported in a fully enclosed van or box truck without windows and processed
products must be in a lock box. However, the regulation and requirements for marijuana
transporters seem minimal and raise concerns. Such as, there are no requirements for how the
vehicle is secured during driver breaks in the 48 hour period or for odor prevention at a
designated hub. The LCB is continuing to work on establishing rules for marijuana transporters
and designated hubs.
Given the uncertainty about marijuana transporters, especially about security measures and
that the LCB is continuing to develop rules for the transporters, staff recommends not allowing
medical transporters in Renton.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
Planning & Development Committee MeetingSeptember 22, 2016DOCKET#118:HEALTHYHOUSING INRENTONINITIATIVE PROPOSAL
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
The Planning Commission emphatically endorsed a strong Safe and Healthy Housing Program for Renton.The Planning and Development Committee also supported the proposed program.A community engagement meeting was held to hear the comments of Renton residents.\A public hearing was held on July 20, 2016.Safe and Healthy Housing in RentonAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Business licensing of property owners who provide residential rentalsRegistration of residential rental unitsHealth and safety inspectionsCertification of compliance with the ProgramAppeal proceduresSafe and Healthy Housing in Renton Program ComponentsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Current code, RMC 5-5-3, shall apply: “General Business License Required: Every business enterprise…shall first obtain, from the City of Renton, a general business license.”Every business operating in, or conducting business within the City of Renton limits, is required to annually register and obtain a general business license.Business licenses are currently required, enforcement in the case of residential landlords will need a policy change.Business licenses are issued by the Finance Division.Business LicensingAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
All property owners who rent residential dwelling units not exempted from the program will be required to register all rental units, with the following exceptions: Units unavailable for rent;Single room rental within a residence also occupied by the property owner;Residences occupied by family members of property owner;Accommodations for transient guests for which lodging tax is applicable (hotels, motels, inns, etc.);Housing units in hospitals, hospice and community-care facilities, retirement or nursing homes, and extended care facilities subject to regulation by state licensing requirements;Rental units that a government agency or authority owns, operates or manages, or that are specifically exempted from municipal regulation by state or federal law or administrative regulation. (Exemption applies until such ownership is discontinued);Units that receive funding or subsidies from the federal, state, or a local government and are inspected at least every three years as a requirement of the funding or subsidy. (A copy of the inspection must be provided to the administrating department); andEmergency or temporary shelters and transitional housing.Residential Rental RegistrationAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Registration information must be updated annually when fees are due. Change of ownership requires reregistration, but not reinspection, of all units.The registration requirement is applicable to residential rental units regardless of the land use zone within which they are located.Registration will be administered by CED, using existing Energov tracking systemResidential Rental RegistrationAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Information about Program will be disseminated throughout the City using several methods of communication. Simultaneously, with voluntary registrations, existing records will be used to identify property owners.The registration requirement is applicable to residential rental units regardless of the land use zone within which they are located.Registration will be administered by CED, using existing Energov tracking system.Identification of Owners and Properties/UnitsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Fee ScheduleBusiness License fee $150/yearRegistration fee1 – 4 dwelling unit(s) $12/each/year5 – 24 dwelling units $10/each/year25 or more dwelling units $8/each/yearCommunal residence $20/each/yearInspection by City feeInitial inspection $50/each First reinspection $90/eachReinspection by City fee Second reinspection $125/eachThird reinspection $200/eachInspection by Contractor Administration Fee to City $40/eachAppealAdministrative appeal $250AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Upon adoption of the Safe and Healthy Housing Program, all residential rental units within the City will be inspected. The inspection element of the program will be phased in over a four-year period. The phasing will be geographically-based with “zones” created according to zip codes, as follows:Initial InspectionsZoneZip CodeYear Initial Inspection RequiredA98056 2017B98057 / 98178 2018C98058 / 98059 2019D98055 / 98031 2020
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Following initial successful inspection of all registered units, reinspections will occur on a rotating schedule so that all units within a given zone that are subject to inspections are reinspected every four years. The determining factors for potential reinspections shall be as follows:oFor properties having 1 to 20 units, no more than 4 units shall be required to be reinspected, as long as the inspected units do not have conditions that endanger or impair the health and safety of a tenant. oFor properties having 21 or more units, no more than twenty percent of the units on the rental property, rounded up to the next whole number, to a maximum of fifty units, may be selected by the City to be reinspected, as long as the inspected units do not have conditions that endanger or impair the health and safety of a tenant. ReinspectionsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
If a property owner is required to provide a Certificate of Compliance for a representative sample of units on the property and a selected unit fails the inspection, the City may require up to one hundred percent of the units on the property to provide a Certificate of Compliance. Following the mandatory initial inspection and issuance of Certificate of Compliance for all units, inspections shall be required no more than every 4 years, with the following exceptions:oAny unit or building with an issued code violation may be inspected within the 4 year timeframe; and oThose units or buildings for which there has been receipt of a verified complaint based on a health or safety issue may be inspected within the 4 year timeframe.ReinspectionsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
If residential rental unit(s) pass the initial inspection, and ownership of the unit(s) does not change, reinspection requirement will be waived, unless there is a code violation citation issued for the unit(s).If owners of multi-family residential units participate in a “Crime-free Multi-family Housing” training program,”offered by the Renton Police Department, the reinspection requirement will be waived, unless there is a code violation citation issued for the units.Annual business license renewal and registration updates are still required. Reinspection ExceptionsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
For residential rental units without previous documented code violations, property owners shall have the option of having rental units inspected by either a City Inspector or a private inspection contractor. If units have had previous documented code compliance violations or life-safety damage (i.e. flood damage, building fires) inspections must be by a City Inspector. All inspectors must be certified. Certification may be as an architect, home inspector, structural pest inspector, or building inspector.Private inspection contractors must be selected from a list provided by the City of Renton. InspectorsAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Minimum StandardsHousing standards are based on the National Center for Healthy Housing guidelines, modified for applicability in Renton.New standards for building interiors are added to existing RMC regulations for maintenance of structure exteriors and land.AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Establish administrative procedures for the program, including:Intake of property owner registration informationAdministrative data entry into tracking systemScheduling of inspectionsFee collectionTracking system entry of inspection resultsIssuance of certificates and permitsReinspection notification and schedulingProcessing of appeals and determinationsAdministrative ProceduresAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Develop a public outreach and education plan for the program, including:Number to call for informationGraphic standardsNotices to residential rental property ownersInformation for residential rentersWebsite page with FAQ and for downloading formsMulti-language options for all forms of communicationPublic OutreachAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Adapt Renton’s current permit tracking system, Energov, to meet program needs, including:Data storage for residential rentals, i.e. landlord contact information and property location;Inspection schedules based on zip codes;Inspector assignments and unit inspection tracking;Payment of fees;Issuance of Certificates of Inspection and Occupancy Permits;Reinspection and code compliance requirements Tracking SystemAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Use existing sources, including the Office of the King County Tax Assessor and the City of Renton Utility Billing Division to identify owners of residential rental units. Mail information about the program and prepare to receive registration information.Using the City website, social media, and other outlets, announce registration requirements and deadlines for registration. Data CollectionAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Initiate a pilot program for inspections in zip code area 98056Track issues and evaluate proceduresProvide quarterly reports on program resultsMake recommendations for program revisionsPilot Program and AssessmentAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Currently in Environmental Determination appeal period (closes September 30th)Determination of Non-significance sent to Washington State Department of Ecology for commentsProgram StatusAGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Project
Summary
Intent
The Safe and Healthy Housing in Renton program was first proposed in 2015. The current
recommended program is the result of comments received by the Planning and Development
Committee (two meetings), the Planning Commission (several meetings), City of Renton staff,
landlords and other members of the community.
A ten year study of housing in the Sunset Area of the Renton Highlands indicates that
conditions, particularly in the case of rental units, continue to deteriorate. This is also the case
in other areas of the City. Renton is not unique in this regard. Several cities in Washington have
adopted programs in an attempt to rectify this situation. The State of Washington has adopted
RCW 59.18.125, a supplement to the Landlord Tenant Act (Title 59 RCW) that addresses such
programs. “Inspections by local municipalities” regulates the frequency of inspections, number
of rental properties to be inspected, notice of inspection, appeals, and penalties.
Renton’s code enforcement officers monitor conditions that may have an impact on health, but
generally only as they relate to the exterior of a building. An example would be broken
windows or doors. If a resident invites the code enforcement officer into the building and
requests an inspection, interior issues may be addressed. When the resident is a tenant with a
landlord who has refused to correct a perceived problem, however, they may fear reprisals in
the form of rent increase or eviction.
In an effort to improve housing conditions in Renton, the Community and Economic
Development Department (CED) has shifted its work from “complaint‐based code
enforcement” to “proactive code compliance.”
As an extension of this program, the Code Compliance Division proposed adoption of new
standards for residential health and safety. Based on recommendations from the Seattle‐King
County Department of Public Health, the standard principles are:
Moisture free,
Adequately ventilated,
Contaminant free,
Free of pests,
Clean,
Well‐maintained,
Free of injury hazards, and
Thermally controlled.
AGENDA ITEM #4. b)
August 30, 2016
Page 2 of 2
Safety standards include safe and secure access and presence of functioning smoke and carbon
monoxide detectors.
Based on the comments received, as mentioned above, staff recommends new procedures to
register landlords and their properties; establish cyclical, area wide inspections; and issue
Certificates of Occupancy when units pass inspection. If adopted, the “Safe and Healthy
Housing in Renton” program will require the following:
Revisions to Title IV of the Renton Municipal Code adopting residential housing
standards based on those recommended by the National Center for Healthy Housing.
Activation of the feature in the City’s Energov tracking system that will store landlord
registration data.
Collection of data from the King County Tax Assessor and City of Renton Utility Billing
Division related to property owners who own residential rental units in Renton.
Revise policy to require landlords to obtain business licenses.
Establish an inspection cycle based on zip code areas.
Adoption of a schedule of registration and inspection fees.
Solicit contact information for qualified inspectors.
Provide training to City of Renton code compliance officers.
Develop administrative procedures for issuance of certificates of inspection and
occupation.
Adopt a vacant/foreclosed property registration system to identify and contact
people/entities responsible for the upkeep of properties in Renton.
Produce website with online registration form, instructions, FAQ, and education
features in multiple languages.
Scope and Timing
The Safe and Healthy Housing Program would be applicable citywide. Business licenses and unit
registration would be required upon adoption of Renton Municipal Code regulations.
Inspections and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy would be phased in based on City of
Renton zip codes, as follows:
Zip Code Year Inspection Required
98056 2017
98057/98178 2018
98058/98059 2019
98055/98031 2020
AGENDA ITEM #4. b)