HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:00 PM - Thursday, January 12, 2017
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. 4242 EAST VALLEY REZONE
a) AB - 1818 Community & Economic Development Department submits the Hearing
Examiner’s recommendation to approve the 4242 East Valley Road rezone from
Commercial Office (CO) zoning to Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning in conjunction with a
rezone from CO to CA of the parcels specified in staff's recommended Option 3.
2. DOCKET #12
a) #D-128: Pet Daycare
b) #D-129: Renton Municipal Arts Commission
c) #D-130: Light Intensity Commercial
d) #D-131: Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations
e) #D-132: Projection into Setbacks
f) #D-133: Administrative Code Interpretations
3. INCENTIVES FOR ADU BRIEFING
4. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT
Jamian Smith
a) AB - 1831 Mayor Law appoints Jamian Smith to the Planning Commission for a term
expiring on 1/31/2020.
5. QUENDALL TERMINALS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BRIEFING
a) Development Agreement
6. EMERGING ISSUES IN CED
AB - 1818
City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Jan 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: 4242 East Valley Road Rezone
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community & Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner
EXT.: 7436
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
N/A
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts held an open record hearing on November 15, 2016 to consider City staff's
request for approval of a rezone and SEPA Environmental Review for the property located at 4242 East Valley
Road (APN 3123059114).
The applicant’s property is roughly 38,740 square feet (0.89 acres) in area. The rezone is requested to allow
retail uses within the existing two-story commercial building. The site is currently zoned Commercial Office
(CO), which is generally intended to allow professional, administrative and business offices. The applicant has
requested a rezone to Commercial Arterial, which generally provides for a wide-variety of retail sales, services,
and other commercial activities along high-volume traffic corridors.
Staff considered three options in response to the application. Option 1: rezone of the subject site from CO to
CA; Option 2: rezone of the subject site and other parcels within the block from CO to CA; and Option 3:
rezone of the subject site, the other parcels within the block, and the three parcels within the adjacent block
to the west that abut SW 43rd Street.
Hearing Examiner Olbrechts recommends Council approve the rezone from CO to CA for all properties within
Option 3. Further, Hearing Examiner Olbrechts recommends denial of the 4242 East Valley Road Rezone as a
standalone rezone affecting only the subject site.
EXHIBITS:
A. Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
B. Hearing Examiner Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation
C. Rezone Map with Options
D. Draft Ordinance
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the rezone from CO to CA in conjunction with a rezone of the land within Option 3 from CO to CA.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Project Location Map
Hex Report
A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
HEARING DATE:November 14, 2016
Project Name:4242 East Valley Road Rezone
Owner:Kaya Hasanoglu, 2125 1st Ave, #2105, Seattle, WA 98121
Applicant:Owner
Contact:Arne Nelson, 4423 193rd Ave SE, Issaquah, WA 98027
File Number:LUA16-000734, Rezone HE
Project Manager:Paul Hintz, Senior Planner
Project Summary:The applicant is requesting approval of a rezone and SEPA Environmental Review for the
property located at 4242 East Valley Road (APN 3123059114). The applicant’s property is
roughly 38,740 square feet (0.89 acres) in area. The rezone is requested to allow retail
uses within the existing two-story commercial building. The site is currently zoned
Commercial Office (CO), which is generally intended to allow professional, administrative
and business offices. The applicant has requested a rezone to Commercial Arterial, which
generally provides for a wide-variety of retail sales, services, and other commercial
activities along high-volume traffic corridors.
The property is located along the southern City of Renton limits, bounded by a City-
owned lot and by WA State Route 167 to the east, a CO-zoned property with commercial
uses to the north, East Valley Road to the west followed by a block of commercial
properties zoned CO, as well as SW 43rd Street and commercial properties located in the
City of Kent to the south.
Staff considered three options in response to the application (refer to the map below).
Option 1: rezone of the subject site (shown in red) from CO to CA; Option 2: rezone of
the subject site and other parcels within the block (shown in green) from CO to CA; and
Option 3: rezone of the subject site (red), the other parcels within the block (green), and
the three parcels within the adjacent block to the west that abut SW 43rd Street (shown
in yellow).
Project Location:4242 East Valley Road, Renton, WA 98055
Site Area:Option 1: (subject site): 0.89 acre
Option 2: 3.59 acres
Option 3: 8.81 acres
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 2 of 8
HEX Report
N
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 3 of 8
HEX Report
B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1:Rezone Vicinity Map (of subject site)
Exhibit 2:Rezone Vicinity Map (of Options 2 & 3)
Exhibit 3: Rezone Aerial Map
Exhibit 4:Existing Zoning Map
Exhibit 5:Proposed Zoning Map
Exhibit 6:Title Report
Exhibit 7:Environmental Review Committee Report
Exhibit 8:Environmental “SEPA” Determination, ERC Mitigation Measures and Notice
Exhibit 9:Affidavit of posting and mailing
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1.Owner(s) of Record:Kaya Hasanoglu, 2125 1st Ave, #2105, Seattle, WA
98121
2.Zoning Classifications:Commercial Office (CO) to Commercial Arterial (CA)
3.Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation:Employment Area (EA)
4.Existing Site Use:Vacant offices
5.Critical Areas:None
6.Neighborhood Characteristics:
a.North: Commercial Uses; Employment Area (EA) Land Use Designation; Commercial Office
(CO) Zone
b.East:City of Renton property with utility building; WA State Route 167
c.South:City of Kent – General Commercial Zone
d.West:Employment Area (EA) Land Use Designation; Commercial Office (CO) Zone
7.Site Area:0.89 acre
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No.Ordinance No.Date
Pre-app PRE14-000583 N/A 06/2/2014
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 4 of 8
HEX Report
E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1.Existing Utilities
a.Water: Water service is provided by the City of Renton.
b.Sewer: Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton.
c.Surface/Storm Water: Drainage of surface/storm water is provided by an onsite catch basin, which
routes to City of Renton stormwater facilities within the East Valley Road right-of-way.
2.Streets: The site is bounded by two roadways: East Valley Road and SW 43rd Street. East Valley Road is
classified as a Collector roadway. SW 43rd Street is classified as a Principal Arterial.
3.Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1.Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a.Section 4-2-010: Zones and Map Designations Established
b.Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
c.Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning Designations
2.Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations – N/A
3.Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards – N/A
4.Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards – N/A
5.Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations – N/A
6.Chapter 9 Permits – Specific
a.Section 4-9-180: Rezone Process
7.Chapter 10 Legal Nonconforming Structures, Uses and Lots
8.Chapter 11 Definitions
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1.Land Use Element
H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF):
1.The applicant is requesting a rezone and Environmental (SEPA) Review.
2.The 38,740 square foot (0.89 acres) site is located at 4242 East Valley Road, and abuts both East Valley Road
and SW 43rd Street.
3.The subject site is currently developed with a two-story office building with 9,072 sq. ft. of floor area,
which has been vacant for several years. The parcel includes 53 parking spaces and two access points
(one from each abutting roadway).
4.The property is located along the southern City of Renton limits, bounded by a City-owned lot and by
WA State Route 167 to the east, a CO-zoned property with commercial uses to the north, East Valley
Road to the west followed by a block of commercial properties zoned CO, as well as SW 43rd Street and
commercial properties located in the City of Kent to the south.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 5 of 8
HEX Report
5.The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
September 21, 2016 and determined the application complete on September 30, 2016. The project
complies with the 120-day review period.
6.The property is located within the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan land use designation,
which is implemented by the Commercial Office (CO), Commercial Arterial (CA), the Light-, Medium-,
and Heavy-Industrial zones (IL, IM, and IH), and the Resource Conservation Zone (RC).
7.The site is zoned Commercial Office (CO). The applicant has requested a rezone to the Commercial
Arterial (CA) zone to allow retail uses.
8.Surrounding uses include: a restaurant/bar, a home improvement retail store, and two vehicle
service/repair businesses to the north within the same block; East Valley Road immediately to the west
followed by an entire block of CO-zoned properties with a mix offices, restaurants, and retail
businesses; SW 43rd Street immediately to the south followed by the City of Kent and a wide range of
commercial uses; and to the east lies a City of Renton lot with a utility building, followed by the right-of-
way of State Route 167 (see Exhibits 1-2).
9.The purpose of the Commercial Office zone is:
“…to provide areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses,
offering high-quality and amenity work environments. In addition, a mix of limited retail and service
uses may be allowed to primarily support other uses within the zone, subject to special conditions.
Limited light industrial activities, which can effectively blend in with an office environment, are allowed,
as are medical institutions and related uses.”
10.The purpose of the Commercial Arterial zone is:
“…to evolve from “strip commercial” linear business districts to business areas characterized by
enhanced site planning and pedestrian orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design,
coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment with greater densities. The CA Zone provides
for a wide variety of retail sales, services, and other commercial activities along high-volume traffic
corridors. Residential uses may be integrated into the zone through mixed-use buildings. The zone
includes the designated Automall District.”
11.The CO zone is intended to serve professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses; yet
most of the surrounding properties (notably those within staff-proposed Options 2 and 3) are used by
retail and service businesses. Additionally, the subject site and properties within staff-proposed Options
2 and 3 are located along high-volume traffic corridors, and are therefore more suitable within the CA
zone. The subject site, Option 2, and Option 3 are all ineligible sites for multi-family housing in both the
CO and CA zones.
12.Although the proposed rezone of the subject site meets the rezone criteria, the rezone of only the
subject site would be considered “spot zoning,” which is characterized as applying a zone to a specific
parcel or small amount of land thereby granting certain privileges (i.e., allowed uses) that are not
afforded to surrounding properties that share common characteristics (e.g., existing land use, access,
geography, structures, etc.).
13.Staff presented Option 2 and Option 3 (see Exhibits 1-5) as areas to consider for the rezone from CO to
CA in addition to the subject site.
14.Access to the site would be provided via two driveways, one located along each street frontage.
15.The site is mapped with no critical areas.
16.Staff received no public comment letters.
17.No other public or agency comments were received.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 6 of 8
HEX Report
18.Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on October 17, 2016 the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS) for 4242 East Valley Road Rezone as well as Options 2 and 3 (Exhibit 8). A 14-day appeal period
commenced on October 21, 2016 and ended on November 4, 2016. No appeals of the threshold
determination have been filed as of the date of this report.
19.Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed rezone. These comments are contained in the official file, and
the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and
the Recommendation (Section J) at the end of this report.
20.Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The subject site (as well as those properties within Option 2 and
Option 3) is designated Employment Area (EA) by the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of
the EA designation is to allow a mix of commercial and industrial uses. The proposal is compliant with
the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies:
Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Policy L-19: Employment Areas – Place areas primarily used for industrial
development, or a mix of commercial and industrial uses such as office, industrial,
warehousing, and manufacturing, with access to transportation networks and transit,
within the Employment Area (EA) Land Use Designation. Employment Areas provide a
significant economic development and employment base for the City. Maintain a
variety and balance of uses through zoning which promotes the gradual transition
of uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial and
office uses.
21.Consistency with Rezone Criteria: The applicant is requesting a rezone for Commercial Office (CO) to
Commercial Arterial (CA) (Exhibits 1-5). The proposal is compliant with the rezone criteria of RMC 4-9-
180.F.2:
Compliance Rezone Criteria
The rezone is in the public interest: The applicant notes that the existing building
has been vacant for four years, and recently was the target of “squatters,”
vandalism, and theft of plumbing fixtures.
Subject Site: Staff asserts that because the area appears to be a thriving business
environment where no other vacant buildings appear to exist, the allowed uses of the
CO zone are likely not desired by prospective businesses. Staff considers vacant
buildings, and especially those subject to “squatting,” vandalism, or theft to be
deleterious to the public. Additionally, zoning is intended to protect the welfare,
safety, and health of the public and, to that end, aims to allow uses of property that
result in an appropriate and best use of the land; therefore, a rezone of the property
to expand uses would be in the public’s interest as it would likely result in tenancy of
the building, which would also likely deter the aforementioned trespassing,
vandalism, and theft. Moreover, businesses contribute to the City’s tax base and
increase resources for public services and infrastructure, therefore, it’s in the public
interest that the City foster appropriate opportunities for industry.
Option 2 and Option 3: Staff also asserts that a rezone from CO to CA for the
properties within Option 2 and Option 3 (see Exhibits 1-5) is also in the public’s
interest. Many of the uses within Options 2 and 3 are nonconforming within the
existing CO zone; rezoning these areas to CA would render these uses to be
conforming. Businesses that are conforming to zoning can more easily secure
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 7 of 8
HEX Report
financing and insurance, and are able to expand services and structures without the
need to secure approval through Chapter 10 RMC, Legal Nonconforming Structures,
Uses and Lots, or other specialized processes/permits. Stable businesses conforming
to zoning are in the public’s interest.
The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial
property rights of the petitioner: The applicant contends that the area surrounding
the subject site is predominately retail.
Subject Site: Staff notes that although the surrounding properties [within the City of
Renton] are zoned CO, many of their uses would not be permitted under the current
zoning. These uses (restaurants, vehicle service and repair, etc.) likely pre-date the
existing CO zoning and therefore are nonconforming uses, which are permitted to
remain. The existing zoning precludes the property owner from being able to enjoy
the same property rights (i.e., permitted uses) of adjacent CO-zoned properties that
have the similar characteristics.
Option 2 and Option 3: Owners of property within both Option 2 and Option 3 have
rights to continue the nonconforming uses currently in operation on those properties;
therefore, a rezone to the CA zone would further the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of owners of property within Options 2 and 3.
The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the properties of
other persons located in the vicinity thereof: The applicant contends that
businesses in the area are predominately commercial retail.
Subject Site: Staff agrees that many of the surrounding uses are retail and dining
establishments that are typically located in the Commercial Arterial zone. Rezone
approval would enable the subject site to be used and developed in a manner similar
to other properties in the vicinity; therefore, rezone approval would not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare of surrounding properties.
Option 2 and Option 3: These properties are developed and have had the same, if
not similar, businesses operating for years. The existing developments and uses of
these properties have not proven to be materially detrimental to the public welfare
of properties in the vicinity; therefore, staff contends that the rezone of Option 2 or
Option 3 would satisfy this criterion.
The proposed amendment meets the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020; and
a. Is consistent with the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan; and
b. At least one of the following circumstances applies:
i. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered at the time of
the last area land use analysis and area zoning; or
ii. Since the most recent land use analysis or the area zoning of the subject
property, authorized public improvements, permitted private development or
other circumstances affecting the subject property have undergone significant
and material change.
Subject Site: The CO to CA zone implement the same land use designation,
Employment Area, and therefore the rezone would remain consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan (see FOF 19 for the specific policy).
The subject property was not considered in the City’s last area-wide rezone in 2015.
Option 2 and Option 3: The CO zone is currently applied to these properties. Because
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Hearing Examiner Recommendation
4242 EAST VALLEY ROAD REZONE LUA16-000734
November 14, 2016 Page 8 of 8
HEX Report
the CA zone also implements the Employment Area land use designation the rezone
would remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The properties within Option 2 and/or Option 3 were not considered in the City’s last
area-wide rezone in 2015.
22.Zoning Development Standard Compliance: Not applicable
23.Design Standards: Not applicable
24.Critical Areas: None present
25.Site Plan Review: Not Applicable
26.Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: Not applicable
27.Availability and Impact on Public Services: Not applicable
I. CONCLUSIONS:
1.The subject site is located in the Employment Area (EA) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies
with the applicable goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, see FOF 20.
2.The proposal is consistent with the rezone criteria, see FOF 21.
3.There are no Critical Areas located on the site, see FOF 24.
4.The proposed rezone is anticipated to be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses as
permitted in the CA zoning classification, see FOF 8-11 and 21.
5.Although the proposed rezone of the subject site meets the rezone criteria, the rezone of only the
subject site would be considered “spot zoning,” which is characterized as applying a zone to a specific
parcel or small amount of land thereby granting certain privileges (i.e., allowed uses) that are not
afforded to surrounding properties that share common characteristics (e.g., land use, access,
geography, structures, etc.), see FOF 12.
6.Because the requested rezone of the subject site meets the rezone criteria yet would result in spot
zoning, staff recommends considering expansion of the potential rezone to other properties identified
as Option 2 and Option 3 in Exhibits 1-5, which also satisfy the rezone criteria (see FOF 21) and, based
upon the differences between the purpose statements of the CO and CA zones (see FOF 9-11), are
more appropriate sites and uses under CA zoning.
J. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 4242 East Valley Road Rezone from CO to CA in conjunction with a rezone
of the land within either Option 2 or Option 3 (see Exhibits 1-5) from CO to CA. Staff recommends denial of
the 4242 East Valley Road Rezone as a standalone rezone affecting only the subject site.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: 4242 East Valley Road
Rezone
LUA16-000734
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
I. SUMMARY
The applicant has applied for a rezone of 0.89 acres at 4242 East Valley Road from Commercial
Office to Commercial Arterial. It is recommended that the City Council approve the requested
rezone and extend the Commercial Arterial rezone to a surrounding area that totals 8.81 acres and is
all also currently zoned Commercial Office. Extending the rezone to surrounding areas will avoid
approving what could potentially be an illegal spot zone. Extending the rezone will also make the
other properties in the area more conforming, as numerous uses in the recommended rezone area are
currently retail, which is not authorized in the currently applicable Commercial Office zone. The few
office uses in the rezone area would not be rendered nonconforming as a result of the rezone, since
office uses are also permitted in the Commercial Arterial zone.
II. TESTIMONY
Paul Hintz, Renton senior planner, summarized the proposal. Mr. Hintz stated that staff’s primary
recommendation is for adoption of Option 3 in the staff report (extending the requested rezone to
8.81 acres) and its secondary recommendation is for adoption of Option 2 (extending the rezone to
3.59 acres). In response to examiner questions, Mr. Hintz noted that both Options 2 and 3 would not
create any nonconforming uses. Offices are permitted uses in the Commercial Arterial zone. Mr.
Hintz could not comment on traffic impacts by the rezone. He wasn’t aware of any level of service
problems with the transportation facilities in the rezone areas under consideration. In response to
examiner questions about changes in circumstances, Mr. Hintz testified that it’s his understanding
that squatting and vandalism in the vacant building of the applicant’s property is a recent
development occurring over the last few years. He noted that another change in circumstances is a
change in market forces that has made the applicant’s property less desirable for office use. Mr.
Hintz didn’t know when the applicant’s property was last rezoned. Mr. Hintz isn’t aware of any other
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 2
vacant buildings in the vicinity of the applicant’s property. The building has been vacant for four
years.
No one else testified.
III. EXHIBITS
The 9 exhibits identified at page 3 of the November 14, 2016 staff report were admitted into the
record during the hearing. The November 14, 2016 staff report was admitted as Exhibit 10. The staff
power point was admitted as Exhibit 11.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant/Owner. Kaya Hasanoglu is the applicant/owner. The applicant/owner’s
address is 2125 1st Ave, No. 2105, Seattle, WA 98121.
2. Hearing. A hearing on the subject applications was held on November 15, 2016 in the
Renton City Council meeting chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for a rezone of 0.89 acres at 4242 East Valley
Road from Commercial Office (CO) to Commercial Arterial (CA). The rezone is requested to allow
retail uses within an existing 9.072 square foot two-story commercial building that has been vacant
for several years. The CO zoning district is generally intended to allow professional, administrative
and business offices. The requested CA designation generally provides for a wide-variety of retail
sales, services, and other commercial activities along high-volume traffic corridors.
Staff considered three options in response to the application (refer to the map below copied from the
staff report). Option 1: rezone of the subject site (shown in red) from CO to CA; Option 2: rezone of
the subject site and other parcels within the block (shown in green) from CO to CA; and Option 3:
rezone of the subject site (red), the other parcels within the block (green), and the three parcels within
the adjacent block to the west that abut SW 43rd Street (shown in yellow).
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 3
Option 1 is 0.89 acres in size, Option 2 is 3.59 acres and Option 3 is 8.81 acres.
4. Surrounding Uses. The property is located along the southern City of Renton limits, bounded
by a City-owned lot and by WA State Route 167 to the east, a CO-zoned property with commercial
uses to the north, East Valley Road to the west followed by a block of commercial properties zoned
CO, as well as SW 43rd Street and commercial properties located in the City of Kent to the south.
The location of uses within the Options 2 and 3 rezone areas is identified in the vicinity map below,
copied from the staff report.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 4
5. Impacts of Rezone. The proposed rezone is likely to result in significant benefit by reducing
nonconforming uses and enabling reasonable use of developed properties. These benefits increase
with increases in the size of the rezone area. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated from
any of the rezones, except that limiting the rezone to the applicant’s parcel could result in an illegal
spot zone as concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 6. Impacts are more specifically addressed as
follows:
A. Benefits of Rezoning Applicant’s Property. Rezoning the requested parcel to CO
would enable the property owner to use the property in a more economical manner. The property
has remained vacant for several years while surrounding properties zoned CA have thrived. This
difference in occupancy has lead staff to conclude that the CO zone does not authorize uses that are
desired by prospective businesses. Further, as noted in the staff report, vacant buildings are subject
to squatting, vandalism and theft, which are deleterious to the public. Approving the rezone will
also increase tax revenues, which is also in the public interest.
B. Benefits of Option 2 and 3 Rezone. Adopting the Option 2 and 3 rezones would also
be beneficial as it would decrease the number of nonconforming uses in those areas. The Option 2
and 3 areas contain numerous retail uses that are currently nonconforming, likely because they
predate the CO zoning. Amending the zoning designations of Options 2 and 3 would render those
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 5
retail uses conforming, which would enable the businesses to more easily expand, grow and change.
By contrast, the office uses in Options 2 and 3 would not be rendered nonconforming, since they are
authorized uses in the CO zone. According to staff testimony during the hearing, rezoning the
properties in Options 2 and 3 would not render any businesses nonconforming. All of the uses
identified in the vicinity map in Finding of Fact No. 4 are permitted in the CA zone, except for the
City utility building if it’s an office building (in which case it would be authorized as an
administrative conditional use in the CA zone). Even if a business were rendered nonconforming,
it could still continue to operate, but as previously mentioned there would be constraints on
modifications and expansions. In this regard it is also important to note that notice of the public
hearing was mailed to all properties within Options 2 and 3 and no written or verbal testimony was
submitted expressing any concern over the rezones under consideration.
C. Adequacy of Public Infrastructure/Services. There wasn’t much information
presented on the impacts of the proposed upzones to public infrastructure and services. From the
little information in the record it appears more likely than not that the adequate public services and
facilities will be available to accommodate any increased demands created by the modestly sized
rezones. Approving the rezones would presumably increase traffic, as retail use generally generates
more traffic than office use. Staff had not conducted any traffic analysis to assess traffic impacts of
the rezone, but was not aware of any level of service problems within the vicinity of any of the
rezone options. There is also no information on impacts to other public services and infrastructure.
However, the staff report does identify that the City of Renton serves all of the rezone areas under
consideration with water, sewer and storm water facilities. Given the modest size of the proposed
rezones and the service capacity of City utilities, it is determined that more likely than not the
proposed upzones will not exceed public service and infrastructure capacity.
D. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on-site, so any increase in land use
intensity facilitated by the rezone should not pose a threat to any environmentally sensitive areas.
6. Change in Circumstances. There has been a change in circumstances since the last time any
of the rezone areas under consideration have last been zoned/rezoned. As testified by staff, the
marketability of the property in the rezone areas under consideration has likely changed since the
properties were zoned for commercial office use. The applicant’s property has been vacant for
several years since the applicant couldn’t find any commercial office tenants. The surrounding
properties have for the most part developed as retail uses. This all strongly suggests that there is
much less demand for office use in the subject CO areas than was anticipated when the properties
were zoned CO.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies a rezone request as a Type IV application, which
requires the hearing examiner to make a recommendation to the City Council after holding a public
hearing.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 6
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The applicant’s 0.89 acre parcel is designated
Employment Area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Options 2 and 3 are also designated
Employment Area. The applicant’s parcel and all property within Options 2 and 3 are designated
CO. The Employment Area Comprehensive Plan designation is implemented by both the CA and
CO zones, as well as several other zoning designations.
3. Review Criteria. Rezone standards are subject to RMC 4-9-180(F)(2). Applicable standards
are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
REZONE CRITERIA
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(a): The rezone is in the public interest, and
6. The criterion is met for Options 2 and 3. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed
rezone would not create any adverse impacts and would in fact be highly beneficial to the businesses
of the area by rendering numerous nonconforming business conforming and also enable more
economically productive use of the applicant’s property.
Option 1 (limiting the rezone to the applicant’s property) is likely not in the public’s interest because
it would qualify as an illegal “spot zone”. A spot zone is well described in Narrowsview
Preservation Association v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 421 (1974), in which the court ruled:
“We have recently stated that illegal spot zoning is arbitrary and unreasonable zoning
action by which a smaller area is singled out of a larger area or district and specially
zone for use classification totally different from and inconsistent with the classification of
the surrounding land, not in accordance with the comprehensive plan”
If the City Council limited the rezone to the applicant’s property, it would create a small island of CA
zoning completely surrounded by CO zoning ot the east, west and north, with the City of Kent
adjacent to the south. Such a rezone would likely qualify as a spot zone.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(b): The rezone tends to further the preservation and enjoyment of any
substantial property rights of the petitioner, and
7. The criterion is met for all three options for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
Under Option 1, the rezone would enable the applicant to find businesses to occupy his vacant
builidng. For Options 2 and 3, the rezone would render numerous nonconforming businesses
conforming and would also make the properties more marketable for business development.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(c): The rezone is not materially detrimental to the public welfare of the
properties of other persons located in the vicinity thereof, and
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 7
7. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the rezones for all three options
would not create any significant adverse impacts and would in fact be highly beneficial to the
properties within the rezone areas as well as the City as a whole by increasing tax revenues and
promoting economic development.
RMC 4-9-180(F)(2)(d): The rezone meets the review criteria in subsection F1 of this Section.
8. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with all standards imposed by subsection F1.
Subsection F1 requires consistency with the comprehensive plan. For the reasons identified in
Finding of Fact No. 20 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Subsection F1 also requires either that (1) the subject property was not specifically considered in the
last area land use analysis and area zoning or (2) that circumstances have significantly changed since
the most recent zoning of the area. The staff report notes that the rezone of the property was not
considered in the last rezone of the area, which was done in 2015. Finally, Subsection F1 requires
that the rezone “meet the review criteria in RMC 4-9-020”. RMC 4-9-020 sets the review criteria for
comprehensive plan amendments. The comprehensive plan criteria focus upon impacts to growth
and employment rates, adequacy of public infrastructure, consistency with comprehensive plan
objectives and impacts upon environmentally sensitive areas. As previously concluded, all of the
proposed rezones under consideration are consistent with the comprehensive plan. As determined in
Finding of Fact No. 5, there are adequate public services and infrastructure to serve the rezones under
consideration and the rezones would not adversely affect any environmentally sensitive areas. The
proposed rezones should have a beneficial impact upon employment rates, since it will facilitate
business development in the rezone areas.
9. Washington courts have arguably adopted a somewhat different set of rezone standards than
those currently incorporated in the Renton Municipal Code. For rezones, Washington appellate
courts require that the proponents of a rezone must establish that conditions have substantially
changed since the original showing and that the rezone must bear a substantial relationship to the
public health, safety, morals or welfare. See Ahmann-Yamane, LLC v. Tabler, 105 Wn. App. 103,
111 (2001). If a rezone implements the Comprehensive Plan, a showing that a change of
circumstances has occurred is not required. Id. at 112. As to “implementing the Comprehensive
Plan”, it is somewhat debatable whether the courts require that the rezone is necessary to implement
the plan as opposed to being simply consistent with the comprehensive plan. In the application under
review, the requested rezone is not necessary to implement the comprehensive plan since the current
CO designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan land use designations for the property
under review. However, the proposed rezones under review are certainly consistent with
comprehensive plan because the CA designation is also consistent with the comprehensive plan land
use designations for the property under review. In order to remove any doubt, it is best to apply the
change in circumstances standard when a rezone isn’t necessary to implement the comprehensive
plan. In this case, there is the requisite change in circumstances as determined in Finding of Fact No.
6. All rezone options meet the judicial criteria for a rezone (excluding the spot zone issue addressed
in Conclusion of Law No. 6).
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rezone Recommendation - 8
V. RECOMMENDATION
The hearing examiner recommends that the City Council approve the Option C rezone (8.81 acres)
as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3.
DATED this 1st day of December, 2016.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
VALUATION NOTICES
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
3,800
317
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
4242 East Valley Road Rezone
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Notes
Option 1: red
Option 2: red+green
Option 3: red+green+yellow
Legend
215 0 108 215 Feet
Paul Hintz
phintz@Rentonwa.gov
09/27/2016
City and County Boundary
Other
City of Renton
Parcels
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. ________
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2016, the City accepted an application Kaya Hasanoglu to
amend the City of Renton zoning map to change the zoning classification of King County Parcel
No. 3123059114 (“Subject Property”) from Commercial Office (CO) to Commercial Arterial (CA);
and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is 38,740 square feet in size and is located at 4242 East
Valley Road; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 the Environmental Review Committee issued a SEPA
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the zoning map amendment from Commercial
Office (CO) to Commercial Arterial (CA); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located within the Employment Area (EA)
Comprehensive Plan land use designation, which is implemented by zones that include the
Commercial Office (CO) and Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning classifications; and
WHEREAS, this matter was duly referred to the Hearing Examiner for investigation and
study, after notice of public hearing was posted and circulated as required by the Renton
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on November 15, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the matter was duly considered by the Hearing Examiner, who issued
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on December 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Council duly considered all matters relevant thereto, and all parties were
heard appearing in support or opposition;
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.The City Council hereby affirms and adopts the Hearing Examiner
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation, attached hereto as Attachment A.
SECTION II.The official City of Renton Zoning Map is hereby amended as set forth in
Attachment B, attached hereto.
SECTION III.This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
publication of a summary of this ordinance in the City’s official newspaper. The summary shall
consist of this ordnance’s title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this _______ day of ___________________, 2016.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this _______ day of _____________________, 2016.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
3
ATTACHMENT A
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
4
ATTACHMENT B
King County Parcel
Legal Description
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
ORDINANCE NO. ________
5
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
East Valley Rezone
Planning & Development Committee
1/12/2017
The applicant requested
approval of a rezone from
Commercial Office (CO) to
Commercial Arterial (CA) for
the property located at
4242 East Valley Road
(shown in bold outline). The
applicant’s property is
roughly 38,740 square feet
(0.89 acres) in area. The
rezone is requested to allow
retail uses within the
existing two-story
commercial building.
The property is located along the southern City of Renton limits (see above), bounded by a City-owned
lot and by WA State Route 167 to the east, a CO-zoned property with commercial uses to the north, East
Valley Road to the west followed by a block of commercial properties zoned CO, as well as SW 43rd
Street and commercial properties located in the City of Kent to the south.
Approval of the requested rezone would be considered “spot zoning,” which is characterized as applying
a zone to a specific parcel or small amount of land thereby granting certain privileges (i.e., allowed uses)
that are not afforded to surrounding properties that share common characteristics (e.g., existing land
use, access, development). Therefore, staff proposed the Hearing Examiner consider rezoning adjacent
parcels with longstanding retail and service businesses, which would be conforming and more
appropriate under CA zoning, in addition to the applicant’s property. The Hearing Examiner agreed with
staff’s analysis, and issued a recommendation to approve the rezone the as shown below.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-128 pet daycare\d-128 staff report.docx November 16, 2016
#D-128 PET DAYCARE
General Description
Pet daycare facilities are increasingly popular businesses in urban environments. Pet daycares
provide general care of animals during business hours (i.e., no overnight boarding). At these
facilities, canines are generally supervised throughout their stay and given opportunities to
mingle with others. The targeted clientele are typically dog owners who are unable to provide
personal care, exercise, or a private yard for their pet during the day.
A review of existing pet daycare businesses in the region reveals that many daycare facilities
offer other animal related services, such as veterinarian services, overnight boarding, pet retail
products, and grooming. This staff report addresses other animal-related uses in addition to pet
daycare facilities.
Assessment of Existing Code
Pet daycares are currently only allowed where kennels are permitted; these zones include the
Light-, Medium-, and Heavy-Industrial where the uses are allowed outright, as well as the
Resource Conservation zone where kennels may be permitted through an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit. Kennels and pet daycares are subject to the standards of RMC 4-4-010,
Animal Keeping and Beekeeping Standards. These standards were likely prepared with the
intent of only allowing the uses within the industrial zones, which are typically applied to large
lots where the external impacts of these uses would likely have little effect on adjacent
property.
During a review of existing code relevant to pet daycare facilities, staff noted that veterinarian
clinics are only permitted within industrial zoning districts that are located in the Employment
Area land use designation (generally the land within the valley). Meanwhile, veterinarian clinics
are permitted in every commercial zone except Commercial Neighborhood. Staff believes that
because veterinarian clinics are permitted in most commercial zones, they should be allowed in
the industrial zones located throughout the City of Renton.
Staff also observed that Commercial Stables are currently permitted in the Resource
Conservation (RC) and Residential-1 (R-1) zones. Staff was unable to identify any commercial
stables located within the City. Although these two zones have rural characteristics, the City
itself is urban and therefore, in consideration of zones or properties abutting RC or R-1 zoned
land, commercial stables are proposed to be removed from the Use Table. This action would
not preclude the creation of private stables for personal use.
Proposed Amendments to Code
Staff proposes to create a new use, “Pet Daycare,” defined as, “a commercial facility where four
or more dogs or other household pet animals are left by their owners for periods of supervision
during the hours the facility is open to the public (i.e., business hours).” The use would be
distinct from kennels, and allowed outright in all industrial zones, but under an Administrative
Conditional Use Permit in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone and all commercial zones.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-128 Page 2 of 3 November 16, 2016
Although pet daycares and kennels would be distinct uses, they would both be subject to the
following abbreviated standards:
1. General care must be inside and under supervision; outdoor recreation must be
supervised;
2. Businesses operating solely as a pet daycare must limit hours of operation to between
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
3. The maximum number of dogs is limited to fifteen (15) square feet of net floor
dedicated for animal supervision;
4. Outdoor runs/yards may operate only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.;
5. Any outdoor areas used for animal containment or exercise shall be maintained by
removing animal waste on a daily basis for proper disposal as solid waste;
6. Any runoff, wash-down water, or waste from any animal pen, kennel, containment, or
exercise area shall be collected and disposed of in the sanitary sewer after straining of
solids and hair and shall not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage or surface
water disposal system. Strained solids and hair shall be properly disposed of as solid
waste; and
7. If a notice of violation pursuant to Chapter 8-7 RMC is issued for noise, the
Administrator may require the pet daycare to submit a report from an acoustical
consultant that describes potential measures to be taken by the pet daycare center to
prevent or mitigate noise impacts. The Administrator may require measures, including
but not limited to: development or modification of operating procedures; cessation of
the use of outdoor area(s); closure of windows and doors; reduction in hours of
operation; and use of sound attenuating materials such as insulation and noise baffles.
The Administrator may order the pet daycare center to be closed on a temporary or
permanent basis.
Additionally, the following are proposed as amendments to RMC:
• Remove the exemption for animal shelters, commercial kennels, veterinary hospitals,
pet shops, or pet kennels as it applies to RMC’s noise disturbance provisions;
• Allow veterinarian clinics in any industrial zone;
• Redefine “Veterinary Office/Clinic” to restrict boarding facilities at veterinarian clinics to
25% of the net floor area or no more than five (5) days of short-term care incidental to
the hospital use;
• Allow kennels to be located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF), Center Village (CV),
Commercial Arterial (CA), and Center Downtown (CD) zones through an Administrative
Conditional Use permit; and
• Disallow commercial stables within the City.
Because the Seattle-King County Health Department has authority over the construction and
management of shelters, kennels, pet daycares, pet shops, and pet grooming facilities, RMC is
not proposed to be amended to address the health, safety, and welfare of pets at these
facilities. For reference, the applicable regulations of the Seattle-King County Health
Department can be reviewed by following this link:
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-128 Page 3 of 3 November 16, 2016
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/~/media/depts/health/board-of-
health/documents/code/BOH-Code-Title-8.ashx
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as
envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Objectives of the Plan remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There will likely be no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to allow animal related uses in the proposed zones
and subject to the standards proposed.
Implementation Requirements
Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-2-060, Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in Zoning
Designations, and RMC 4-4-010, Animal Keeping and Beekeeping Standards, RMC 4-11-110,
Definitions K, RMC 4-11-160, Definitions P, RMC 4-11-220, Definitions V, and RMC 8-7-3, Public
Noise Disturbances, as described.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-129 RENTON MUNICIPAL ARTS COMMISSION
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\D-129 RMAC\D-129 Staff Report 10.26.2016.docx November 2, 2016
General Description
The Renton Municipal Arts Commission (RMAC) was formed in 1965 for the purpose of advising
the City of Renton Administration on matters relating to the art and culture of the City. Ten
years later, the City adopted a “One Percent for Art” program, with the intention of directing a
portion of capital improvement funds toward the acquisition of public art.
There have been approximately 20 ordinances and/or resolutions adopted since the initial
formation of the RMAC, each one resulting in revisions to the Renton Municipal Code title
governing the RMAC. The majority of these changes have been minor, and the Municipal Code
was accordingly “tweaked” to accommodate the changes. The result, however, is a code
section, RMAC 2-8, that is not well-organized and therefore is difficult to use.
Therefore, Renton Municipal Code Title 2 Chapter 8 needs to be reviewed and revised.
Issues
The issues listed below as 1 through 7 apply to contents of the current code, RMC 2-8:
1) Organization
As mentioned above, the primary difficulty with the current municipal code section is
lack of organization. For example, regulations pertaining to the One Percent for Art
Program are included in three different sections of the chapter. In order to understand
the Program requirements, a search of the entire chapter is necessary, making it more
likely that a requirement may be missed.
2) Responsibilities
There is ambiguity as to responsibilities as they are assigned in the code. The various
responsibilities of different parties are not clearly stated nor logically grouped together.
3) Procedures and Processes
Currently, many procedures and processes required to follow code requirements have
evolved or have for other reasons, been changed so that what is done is not what the
code states should be done. For clarification and efficiency, a review of procedures and
processes should be completed with revisions proposed as necessary.
4) Stewardship of the City Art Collection
There are approximately 200 pieces of artwork in the City Art Collection. The RMC states
that maintenance of the collection is the responsibility of the City Administration and
that the maintenance work should be done by the Facilities Division of the Community
Services Department. Currently, there is no dedicated fund for maintenance of the
collection in the City Budget. Also, while the Facilities Division is very capable in some
cases, in others, professional art conservators would be more appropriately assigned
the task of maintenance and repair of works in the Collection. These factors are
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#D-129 Page 2 of 4 November 2, 2016
contributing to the deterioration of some of the works, particularly those that are
outdoors. There is a danger that some may deteriorate beyond the point where they
could be restored and also a possibility that the City’s liability increases as they become
less stable.
5) Arts & Culture Master Plan
The Arts & Culture Master Plan (Plan), adopted in 2010, was influenced by the
economics of the time. While many community stakeholders contributed time and ideas
to conceiving the plan, there were no funds available to implement it. Implementation
was actually not even addressed in the Plan when it was adopted. To date, there have
been no funds available to implement the Plan. In 2015, the RMAC set priorities based
on Plan goals and objectives and devised low cost ways of meeting some of them. The
RMC states that the One Percent for Art Fund (see below) should be used for this
purpose, but that is not the purpose of that program. The objectives of the Plan and the
One Percent Program are not the same. This difference needs to be clarified in the RMC.
6) One Percent for Art Program
The One Percent for Art Program (Program) requires public art in capital improvement
projects. As stated in RMC 2-8-3D.1, the applicability of this program includes “any
public building, decorative or commemorative structure, park, street, sidewalk, parking
facility, or any portion thereof, within the City limits, which will be constructed,
renovated or remodeled, and paid for wholly or in part by the City, and the total project
cost of which exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to construct, renovate or
remodel.” The exceptions are water and sewer utility projects. Although this program
has been required for over forty years, the only consistent contributor to the Program
fund has been the Transportation Division. If the code requirements (and exclusions)
were more clearly delineated and then distributed to all applicable departments. there
is greater likelihood the code requirements would be met.
7) Budget
There is insufficient reference in the code to guide the RMAC on matters relating to the
budget derived from the City’s General Fund. Arbitrary determinations are made by the
Finance Division, which results in confusion and inefficiency. Responsibilities and
restrictions need to be clarified.
Items 8 through 12 below are issues that are not now, but should be addressed in the code:
8) Accessioning and Deaccessioning policies
The City does not have policies that provide guidelines to determine whether works of
art should be added to the collection. Also, there is no organizing system to track new
works as they are added to the inventory. Likewise, there are no policies providing
criteria for removing works from the collection.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#D-129 Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2016
9) Insurance
The City has liability coverage, should a work of art cause injury to someone (see
Stewardship, above). There is no insurance at the present time to cover loss or damage
to works in the collection. Apparently, there has been such coverage in the past.
Records indicate stolen art was replaced due to insurance. Several works in the
collection have increased in value significantly since first acquired. A requirement that
the collection be insured should be studied. This may require an assessment of the value
of the individual works in the collection, which is currently not available.
10) Public Art in Private Development
The adoption of a public art in private development program would ameliorate the
impacts of development on the community and help maintain a high quality of life as
the City continues to urbanize and become denser. Similar to the one percent in capital
projects program, a Public Art in Private Development program would require, possibly
by means of a development agreement, that 1% of the cost of design and construction
of a private development project be spent on public art in Renton.
11) RMAC By-laws
The RMAC is governed not only by the RMC, but also by adopted by-laws. There is no
reference in the RMC of these guiding principles. There are conflicts between the RMC
and the by-laws that should be resolved. It is possible the by-laws are not necessary and,
if so, could be rescinded.
12) Glossary
There currently are terms used in RMC 2-8 that should be defined.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan (Plan)
There may be an impact on future development within the City when such development
includes public art. There is no anticipated effect, however, on the rate of growth or the
conversion of land.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities
created by proposed changes.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employement growth created by
the proposed changes.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives as they relate to high quality of life would be met.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#D-129 Page 4 of 4 November 2, 2016
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs created by the
proposed changes.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
There are no inconsistencies with either the Growth Management Act or Countywide Planning
Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
Recommendation
Analyze and propose revisions to RMC 2-8 to clarify, streamline, reorganize, reallocate
responsibilities, and expand as required.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\D-130 Light Intensity Commercial\D-130 Staff Report.docx November 16, 2016
#D-130 LIGHT INTENSITY COMMERCIAL
General Description
This item contains two issues related to low intensity commercial uses. First, the Commercial
Neighborhood (CN) zone does not currently have any design requirements. Although the CN
zone is not widespread in the City, it should be required to develop with standards that are
comparable to other commercial and mixed use zones. Second, the R14 zone allows a very
limited amount of commercial uses, it may be appropriate to allow more uses.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the
conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate
public facilities created by the proposed changes.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employement
growth created by the proposed changes.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The Plan seeks to create opportunities to create pedestrian friendly amenities. Allowing
commercial uses in the R14 zone would provide the potential for new neighborhood scale
businesses to be available to residents.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs
created by the proposed changes.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed is consistent with GMA and Countywide planning policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
Discussion
CN Zone Design District
The City has four design districts with standards that seek to ensure new development
contributes to the betterment of the City’s built environment. The standards are broken into
seven areas:
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#D-130 Page 2 of 4 November 16, 2016
• Site design and building location
• Parking and vehicular access
• Pedestrian environment
• Recreation areas and common open space
• Building architectural design
• Signage
• Lighting
An example of a design standard for parking and vehicular access is that the number of
driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is
minimally impeded. Of all the City’s commercial zones, the CN zone is the only one that is not in
a design district. Currently, commercial zones are assigned to design districts as shown below:
• District ‘A’: All areas zoned Center Downtown (CD)
• District ‘B’: All areas zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
• District ‘C’: All areas zoned Urban Center (UC) or Commercial Office Residential (COR)
• District ‘D’: All areas zoned Center Village (CV) or Commercial Arterial (CA), and mixed
use buildings with attached dwelling units in the Commercial Office (CO) Zone
Staff recommends placing the CN zone in Design District D with the CV, CA, and CO zone. These
zones are the most widely dispersed zones in design districts. The CN zone is dispersed
throughout the City, therefore it is appropriate to place the CN zone in this design district.
Commercial Uses in R14 Zone
The purpose and intent of the R14 zone states that “civic and limited commercial uses may be
allowed when they support the purpose of the designation”. Part of the purpose of the zone is
to create “a quality neighborhood” and to “foster a sense of community”. Limited small scale
commercial uses can work to further both quality neighborhoods and a sense of community.
For example, coffee shops and hair salons/barber shops provide an opportunity for social
interaction and the potential to meet or engage with other area residents or shop owners and
employees. Commercial uses like a medical/dental office can work to provide needed services
to residents.
Currently, the City allows some small scale commercial in the R14 zone in very limited
circumstances. In the Sunset area and along South 7th Street, retail, eating/drinking
establishments, and on-site services are allowed. In the Sunset area they only allowed if they
are accessory to schools, parks, entertainment, or recreational uses. Additionally, they are
limited to 5,000 square feet in size.
There are several jurisdictions that allow some commercial uses in zones that are comparable
to Renton’s R14 zone. A summary table of the jurisdiction, zone, and allowed uses is on the
next page.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#D-130 Page 3 of 4 November 16, 2016
Jurisdiction Zone Allowed Uses
Auburn R16
• Retail, if mixed use
• Professional offices, if mixed use
• Daycare center, if on arterial
• Nursing homes
Issaquah Multifamily Medium
(MFM) – 14.52 du/acre
• Daycare center
• Grocery store, up to 4,000 sq ft
• Office/professional/financial, up
to 4,000 sq ft
• Personal grooming (barber,
nails, tanning)
Everett – limited to a specific
area and only in existing
single family houses on
corner lots
R3 (Multifamily medium
density)
• Offices
• Medical clinics
• Medical related offices
Vancouver – all uses must be
mixed use R18
• Eating and drinking
• Retail sales
• Personal services
• Medical/dental office
• General office
• Dog day care
Staff proposes allowing some uses such as medical/dental offices in the R14 zone, but only
allowing it for corner lots that abut principal or minor arterial streets. The uses would also be
limited to no more than 5,000 square feet in size. The intent of these limitations is to allow for
some commercial uses in areas that are relatively dense and that have higher traffic volumes,
but to not be deleterious to neighborhoods. The allowance for corner lots only, seeks to allow
the uses, but buffer the residential areas from encroachment of commercial uses. Additionally,
staff recommends allowing the uses as Administrative Conditional Uses. This would require site
plan review and would consider issues such as: effect on adjacent properties, compatibility, and
landscaping to buffer adjacent properties from adverse effects could be required. The
following uses are proposed to be allowed in the R14 zone:
• Art and craft studio/school
• Medical/dental offices
• General offices
• Veterinary offices/clinics
• Eating and drinking establishments
• On-site services
In reviewing the definitions for these uses, staff found one definition to be inconsistent and
another to be somewhat dated. The first definition is for Eating and Drinking Establishments.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
#D-130 Page 4 of 4 November 16, 2016
The definition states that it includes restaurants, cafes, microbrew establishments, and
espresso stands. An espresso stand does not provide an opportunity for patrons to sit; it is
essentially a stand-alone drive through operation. Coffee shops are more akin to the other
listed uses than an espresso stand. Drive-through’s are allowed as an accessory use and
espresso stands would continue to be allowed as accessory uses. The definition with the
recommended edit is below.
EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT: A retail establishment selling food and/or
drink for consumption on the premises or for take-out, including accessory on-site food
preparation. This definition includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, cafes, microbrew
establishments, and espresso stands coffee shops. This definition excludes taverns;
mobile food vending; fast food; entertainment clubs; dance clubs; and/or dance halls.
The second definition is for on-site services. It includes photo reproduction and entertainment
media rental both of which have no such stores currently in the City. Stand-alone photo
reproduction stores no longer exist. Photo reproduction is now conducted on-line or as an
accessory use to another use. There are some video rental stores in other cities, but none in
Renton. However, the recommendation is to strike the specificity of media rental. Indoor rental
services is proposed to be retained, so if there was interest in opening a video rental store, it
would be allowed as a rental service.
SERVICES, ON-SITE: Establishments primarily engaged in providing individual or
professional services within the place of business, such as beauty and barber shops,
retail laundry and dry-cleaning including coin-operated, garment alterations and repair,
photo studios, shoe repair, pet grooming, photography and photo reproduction, real
estate offices, personal accountants, entertainment media rental or other indoor rental
services, and repair of personal or household items, except for vehicle repair. This
definition excludes adult retail uses, service and social organizations, and off-site
services.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\D-131 Tree Retention and Land Clearing\D-131 Staff Report.docx November 16, 2016
#D‐131 TREE RETENTION AND LAND CLEARING REGULATIONS
General Description
This docket item proposes to amend decision criteria for Routine Vegetation Management
Permits (RVMP). Staff has observed that the current RVMP decision criteria related to tree
removal and land clearing do not adequately address tree removal and landscaping regulations
that are critical for tree removal review, including tree density, landmark trees, street trees,
protected trees, or landscaping screening.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of growth, development, and the
conversion of land created by the proposed changes.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate
public facilities created by the proposed changes.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment
growth created by the proposed changes
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed changes will remain valid and desirable and will meet the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs
created by the proposed changes.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed changes have no bearing on growth management. They are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The effects of this proposal are anticipated to have no impact on critical areas and natural
resource lands.
Background
Routine Vegetation Management Permits are required for any tree removal and/or routine
vegetation management activities not exempted by RMC 4-4-130C, allowed Tree Removal
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
#D-131 Page 2 of 2 November 16, 2016
Activities. The exempted tree removal activities include, but are not limited to, tree or
vegetation removal for emergency situations, dangerous trees, essential maintenance activities
for public or private utilities, public road expansions, and minor tree removal activities.
Activities that are not exempt by RMC 4-4-130C require review and approval of a Routine
Vegetation Management Permit. An example of tree removal activities that would require an
RVMP would be a property owner proposing tree removal that exceeds that maximum number
of trees permitted to be removed in a calendar year. For example, a home owner requesting to
remove 5 trees on a 9,000 square foot lot would exceed the maximum limit of 2 trees in a
calendar year, per RMC 4-4-130C.9, Minor Tree Removal Activities. Therefore, a Routine
Vegetation Management Permit would be required.
Staff Recommendation
Critical Areas:
Currently, four of the seven review criteria for Routine Vegetation Management Permits are
related to compliance with critical areas regulations. Tree removal within most critical areas
requires approval of a Critical Areas Exemption. Therefore, it is unnecessary to regulate Routine
Vegetation Management Permits with four different criteria, when one criteria would meet the
needs of the critical areas code. Staff recommends combining the four RVMP criteria related to
critical areas into one criterial that requires that tree removal is consistent with the Critical
Areas Regulations, per RMC 4-3-050.
Tree density:
RMC 4-4-130C.9.d. requires that a minimum tree density shall be maintained on each
residentially zoned lot. However, the Routine Vegetation Management Permit criteria do not
require compliance with tree density. Staff recommends including decision criteria that require
compliance with tree density regulations. This code change will ensure that replanting is
required should the lot not comply with tree density regulations following tree removal.
Protected trees:
Currently, the RVMP review criteria do not prohibit the removal of protected trees, or trees
identified to be retained as a condition of approval for a Land Development Permit. Staff
recommends including decision criteria that prohibit the removal of “protected trees” to ensure
consistency with our tree and land development code.
Landscaping:
Tree and vegetation removal does not trigger compliance with landscaping regulations, per
RMC 4-4-070.B, the Applicability section of the Landscaping code. As a result, the existing
criteria does not discourage or remediate the removal of street trees, parking lot landscaping,
or landscaping screening, particularly for developments built prior to revisions of the
Landscaping regulations. Therefore, staff recommends including decision criteria that require
compliance with street tree, parking, and screening landscaping regulations. This code change
would allow planning staff to require replanting for tree removal proposed within planter strips,
parking lots, and between zones/uses of different intensities.
AGENDA ITEM #2. d)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-132 projections into setbacks\d-132 staff report.docx November 16, 2016
#D-132 PROJECTIONS INTO SETBACKS
General Description
Setbacks provide minimum distances from lot lines where structures are not permitted to be
located. However, there are reasonable exceptions. For example, Title IV currently allows eaves
to extend up to two feet into any setback, bay windows and chimneys can extend up to two
feet but are limited to ten feet of width and no more than two per façade, uncovered steps and
decks to more than 18” from grade may extend to any property line (in the front yard the
height is increased to 42”), and porches and stoops may project into front yard setbacks up to
eight feet and up to five feet within side setbacks along a street.
A Renton citizen requested staff consider other exceptions, specifically weather protection for
doors. Staff considered the requested exception as well as other exceptions granted by peer
jurisdictions.
Assessment of Existing Code
Title IV currently provides some exceptions to setbacks. However, there are other structures or
elements that would seem like reasonable exceptions.
Proposed Amendments to Code
Staff proposes to allow:
1. Overhead Weather Protection: Roofs and awnings situated above pedestrian entryways
may extend up to five feet (5’) into a required setback and may be no wider than three
feet (3’) on either side of the entryway.
2. Accessibility Ramps: Ramps required for barrier free access, and meeting all Building
Code requirements including slope and handrails, may intrude into required setbacks.
The exemption will be limited to the extent necessary to meet the Building Code
requirements.
3. Cisterns and Rain Barrels: Rain barrels, cisterns, and other rainwater catchment systems
may intrude into a required setback as follows:
a. Elements are not permitted in the front setback.
b. Elements which are less than fifty-four inches (54”) above finished grade and contain
up to six hundred (600) gallons may intrude into a side or rear setback a distance no
greater than twenty percent (20%) of that setback, keeping at least three (3) feet of
undisturbed setback.
c. Elements which are greater than fifty-four (54) inches above finished grade or
contain over six hundred (600) gallons shall comply with side and rear setbacks.
4. Arbor, Pergola, or Trellis: Allowed in required yard setbacks if they meet the following
provisions:
a. No more than an eighty (80) square-foot footprint, including eaves;
b. A maximum height from finished grade to the top of the structure of ten feet (10’);
c. Both sides and roof shall be at least fifty percent (50%) open, or, if latticework is
used, there shall be a minimum opening of two inches between crosspieces.
AGENDA ITEM #2. e)
#D-132 Page 2 of 2 November 16, 2016
5. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Systems may extend up to three feet
(3’) into a side or rear yard setback.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There will likely be no effect on the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as
envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There will likely be no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There will likely be no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Objectives of the Plan remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There will likely be no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed revisions are consistent with the GMA, the Plan, and the Countywide Planning
Policies.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to allow specified setback exceptions.
Implementation Requirements
Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-2-110.D, Conditions Associated with Development
Standards Table for Residential Zoning Designations.
AGENDA ITEM #2. e)
C:\Users\jsubia\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\219NK6G6\D-133 (CI Int.) Staff
Rpt.docx November 2, 2016
D# 133 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATIONS
General Description
Renton Municipal Code Title IV Development Regulations are proposed to be amended based
on recent administrative interpretations (attached) of unclear or contradictory code. These
administrative decisions have already become effective. This report to the Planning
Commission is part of the process by which the print version of the code is to be amended
based on such decisions. Municipal code section 4-1-080 provides guidance for Administrative
Interpretations as it states:
RMC 4-1-080.A.1.a: The Community and Economic Development Administrator, or
designee, is hereby authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of
unclear or contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the
Renton Title IV Development Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or
purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety
and public health regulations are assumed to prevail over other regulations.
Interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory regulations. Examples
include mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for users, and where
certain situations were not evaluated in updating Title IV. Each decision has a public appeal
period and is supplied with a background, justification, decision, and recommended code
amendment. For more information about the process or each determination, go to:
• Background and decision: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24686
• Process: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24684
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
None
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
None
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
None
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives are being met as specified and remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
None
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
#D-133 Page 2 of 4 November 2, 2016
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
N/A
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
Determinations are based on proposed development standards that have been previously
reviewed in light of these plans and policies. Code Interpretations are consistent with these
plans.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
None
Effect on other considerations
None
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as written within Administrative Code
Interpretations CI-61 through CI-78. These Code Interpretations are abbreviated below.
• CI-79 – Applicable Front and Side Yard Along a Street Setbacks to Detached Accessory
Structures in Residential Zones: CI-79 reinstates a provision that was inadvertently
removed from Title IV. The provision precluded the construction of accessory dwelling
units in the front yard or within the side yard along a street (in the case of corner lots).
• CI-80 – SEPA Exemption for Single Family Residential Construction: CI-80 exempts the
construction of new single family houses or additions to houses (i.e., infill development)
situated on land with critical areas (e.g., protected slopes, very high landslide hazard
areas, wetlands, 100 year floodway, and streams and lakes) from environmental (SEPA)
review. The newly adopted critical areas regulations (ORD. 5757) and shoreline
regulations (ORD. 5633) provide sufficient environmental protections for infill projects.
• CI-81 – Outdoor Retail Vending and Storage Lockers for Package Pick-up: The City
received requests for the installation of on-line retail storage lockers outside of retail
stores in commercial zones, allowing customers a secure place to pick up packages
ordered online (e.g., “Amazon Lockers”). The use would be similar to an outdoor retail
sales use, which is permitted in the CN, CV, CA, CD, and CO zones. Staff propose that no
more than two “retail” units should be permitted outside a store, the maximum
combined width of the two units should be no more than 12 feet, the unit shall not
block any openings (windows and doors), and the unit shall not impede ADA
accessibility.
• CI-82 – Rescinded
• CI-83 – Modification of Procedure to Allow for Model Homes in Subdivisions: CI-83
resolves a conflict: although Tier 1 Temporary Use Permits (TUP) are intended to permit
uses allowed by the base zone, model homes are listed as a Tier 2 TUP even though
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
#D-133 Page 3 of 4 November 2, 2016
single-family homes are permitted by zoning (they’re converted into a home after most
or all houses in a subdivision are purchased). Model Homes are now subject to a Tier 1
TUP.
• CI-84 – Public Notice for Hearing Examiner Hearings: CI-84 clarified that notice of a
Hearing Examiner public hearing should be similar to the notices provided to inform the
public that the Administrator will be rendering a decision by replacing the posting of
notices on site with posting of notice on the City’s webpage.
• CI-85 – Tree Density for the RMF: CI-85 resolved a conflict by not requiring
development in the RMF zone to abide by tree density standards.
• CI-86 – Easements as Substitutions for Tracts: Several recent code amendments have
stipulated that a tract is required to distinguish properties, and to protect specific
features (e.g., shared driveways, trees, critical areas, etc.). If a subdivision is not being
proposed, requiring the creation of a tract would be onerous for the applicant. If Title IV
of Renton Municipal Code requires the creation of a tract when an application for land
development does not propose the division of land, an easement shall suffice for the
tract.
• CI-87 – Legal Descriptions for Lot Line Adjustments: RMC lists the required content of a
Lot Line Adjustment Map; one of which is “a legal description of each existing parcel.”
For the purpose of reviewing a proposed lot line adjustment, the legal descriptions of
proposed lots are necessary. Lot Line Adjustment Maps shall be required to provide the
legal description of each existing and proposed lot.
• CI-88 – Required Alley Access: Alley access is preferred for all new residential
development, except for development within the Low Density Residential land use
designation zones (RC, R-1, and R-4). Interim zoning was enacted in 2015 to establish a
temporary R-6 zone, which was subsequently adopted, in conjunction within the
Comprehensive Plan update, as an official new zone with the Medium-Density
Residential land use designation. Because the standards of the R-6 Zone were not
assessed for suitability of alley access, development in the R-6 Zone should be exempted
from being required to provide alley access.
• CI-89 – Outdoor Storage: CI-89 clarifies that outdoor storage is a permitted primary use
in the Employment Area land use designation (commonly known as “the valley”).
• CI-90 – Critical Area Permit Implementation: Critical Areas Regulations identify a
“critical area permit” for development or alteration of a property containing a critical
area where no other development permit or letter of exemption is required; however,
RMC does not adequately describe the process or criteria for approval, and the permit is
not included in the Fee Schedule. C-90 clarifies the process, criteria, and fee amount for
a Critical Areas Permit.
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
#D-133 Page 4 of 4 November 2, 2016
• CI-91 – Modifications of Residential Building Height Standards: CI-90 adds a definition
of “attic,” allows the maximum wall plate height to be increased in the R-14 zone to 32’
through a Conditional Use Permit, and allows deck railings located above the maximum
wall plate height to be flush with the façade if the railings are at least 50% transparent.
• CI-92 – Residential Zone Lot Configuration Requirements and Dimensional Standards
Averaging: RMC requires newly subdivided residential lots to have varied lot
dimensions. CI-92 clarifies the minimum standards for varying lot width, lot area, front
and rear yard setbacks, and confirms that the requirements only apply to lots in
preliminary plats (subdivisions of ten or more lots).
• CI-93 – Modification of Development Standards in the R-4 zone for Small Lot Cluster
Developments: In exchange for a significant amount of land set aside as open space, R-4
zoned developments can be designed with most of R-6 standards; however, the code
does not include rear yard setbacks and maximum building coverage as R-6 standards
that may be applied. In addition, it is not clear if the provisions listed under RMC 4-2-
110D.34, which permit the reduction of one lot below the minimum lot size permitted
within short plats less than 1 acre in area, would be applicable for cluster development.
CI-82 clarifies that all R-6 standards would be applicable to Small Lot Cluster
Development, but RMC 4-2-110D.34 does not apply.
• CI-94 – Application Fee for Franchises: Franchise fees provide for the payment and
recovery of all direct and indirect costs and expenses of the City related to the
enforcement and administration agreements that allow companies to locate facilities
upon City-owned property. CI-94 establishes a flat fee of $5,000 for all franchise fees.
• CI-95 – On- and Off-site Services in the R-14 Zone: CI-95 reconciles a conflict by
confirming that a Conditional Use Permit is required in order to establish commercial
uses in the R-14 zone within groundfloor levels as part of a residential project fronting
on South 7th Street.
Implementation Requirements
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amendments to Renton Municipal Code as proposed within the cited
Administrative Code Interpretations.
Implementation Requirements
Although these interpretations are already effective, the Planning Division is bringing these
decisions to the Planning Commission as part of a more extensive public process to provide
greater transparency where Title IV Development Regulations have been clarified and/or
amended. Codify Administrative Code Interpretations by adopting an Ordinance amending the
pertinent sections of RMC as prepared within each Administrative Code Interpretation will
codify.
AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
__1DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-79MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-1108DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures)REFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:Applicablefrontandsideyardalongastreetsetbackstodetachedaccessorystructuresinresidentialzones.BACKGROUND:TheDevelopmentStandardsfordetachedaccessorystructureshavedifferentsideandrearsetbackrequirementsforaccessorydwellingunitsthanotherdetachedaccessorystructures.HistoricallytheDevelopmentStandardsfordetachedaccessorystructuresprecludedtheconstructionofalldetachedaccessorystructureswithinfrontandsideyardsalongstreets.Ordinance5726(adopted10/20/2014)revisedthesestandardsandnolongerprecludestheconstructionofdetachedaccessorystructureswithinfrontandsideyardsalongstreets,providedtheaccessorystructurecomplieswiththesetbackrequirementsforprimarystructures:“Unlessexplicitlystatedotherwise,setbacksappliedtotheprimarystructurealsoapplytoaccessorystructures;wherethesetbackislessthan20ft.,anydetachedcarport/garage(orstructurethatincorporatesvehicularparking)shallhaveaminimum20ft.setback.”JUSTIFICATION:Thephrase“Unlessexplicitlystatesotherwise...”isnotadevelopmentstandardandcouldbeuncleartosomeonetryingtodeterminethefrontandsideyardalongastreetsetbackrequirementsforadetachedaccessorystructure.Furthermore,thereisnootherlocationwithinthecodethatwouldstateotherwiseasthecodeiswrittentoday.Therefore,thisphraseshouldberemoved.Inaddition,detachedaccessorystructuresshouldnotbepermittedbetweentheprimarystructureandthepublicstreetwithinfrontyardsandsideyardsalongstreets.Detachedaccessorystructuresaretypicallysheds,carports,andgarages.Thepublicexpectationforthebuiltforminh:\ced\planning\titleiv\docket\administrativepo’icycodeinterpretation\ci-79\codeinterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
DECISION:singlefamilyresidentialneighborhoodsistoseeasinglefamilyhomefaçadefromthestreet.Byprohibitingdetachedaccessorystructuresbetweentheprimarystructureandthepublicright-of-waythecommunityexpectationofthesinglefamilyzonedevelopmentpatterisupheld.Accessorystructuresareintendedtobeaccessorytotheprimaryuseofthezone,singlefamily,andthereforeshouldbesubordinateintheirvisualimpactonthecommunity.AmendRMC4-2-11OB,theCity’sDevelopmentStandardsforResidentialDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures)asspecifiedbelow.ADMINISTRATORAPPROVAL:EFFECTIVEDATE:C.E.“Chip”VincentDecember8,2015APPEALPROCESS:CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA9$057,425-430-6515)nomotethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.MINIMUMSETBACKSFrontYard/SideYardAlongStreetsAC,A-i,A-Unlessexplicitlystatedotherwise,sSetbacksappliedtotheprimarystructurealsoapplyto4,R-6,A-B,accessorystructures.AccessorystructuresshallnotbelocatedbetweentheprimarystructureA-b,A-i4andpublicstreet.;wherethesetbackislessthan20ft.,thevehicleentryforadetachedandRMcarport/garage(orstructurethatincorporatesvehicularparking)shallhaveaminimum20ft.setbackfromthepropertylinewhorevehicleaccessisprovided;allotherfacadesofagarageshallbesubjecttotheapplicablezone’sminimumsetback.STAFFCONTACT:JillDing,x65980-79Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
ITVOF-—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-sOMUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-9-070REFERENCE:RMC4-3-050,RMC4-3-090,andWAC197-11-800SUBJECT:SEPAExemptionforSingleFamilyResidentialConstructionBACKGROUND:RMC4-9-070andWAC197-11outlinetherulesandproceduresapplicabletoprojectswhichrequireEnvironmental(SEPA)Review.RMC4-9-070GandWAC197-11-800providealistofcategoricalexemptionsfromEnvironmental(SEPA)Review.Residentialdevelopmentofnine(9)orfewerdwellingunitsisexemptfromEnvironmental(SEPA)Reviewunlessthesitecontainscriticalareas(i.e.protectedslopes,veryhighlandslidehazardareas,wetlands,100yearfloodway,andstreamsandlakes),thentheexemptiondoesnotapply.ThisrequirementwouldmeanthatSEPAisrequiredfortheconstructionofaneworthealterationofanexistingsinglefamilyresidenceonalegallyestablishedlotifcriticalareasarepresent.JUSTIFICATION:WAC197-11wouldnotrequireSEPAreviewfortheconstructionofaneworthealterationofanexistingsinglefamilyresidenceonalegallyestablishedlotwherecriticalareasarepresent.TheadditionalrequirementforSEPAreviewaddedtotheWACprovisionsforshortplatsandotherlandusepermitseffectivelyextendstosinglefamilyresidences.ItwasnottheintentoftheexpandedSEPAreviewtoincludestandalonesinglefamilyresidencesandoradditions.Furthermore,thenewlyadoptedcriticalareasregulations(ORD5757)andshorelineregulations(ORD5633)providesufficientenvironmentalprotectionsformullprojects.DECISION:AmendRMC4-9-070HtoprovideanexemptionfromSEPAReviewfortheconstructionofaneworthealterationofanexistingsinglefamilyresidenceonalegallyestablishedlotwherecriticalareas(i.e.protectedslopes,veryhighlandslidehazardareas,wetlands,100yearfloodway,andstreamsandlakes)arepresent,providedtheproposeddevelopmentH:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodeInterpretation\CI-80\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
complieswiththeadoptedCriticalAreasRegulations(RMC4-3-050)and/orShorelineMasterProgram(RMC4-3-090).ThisexemptionwouldnotapplytosinglefamilydevelopmentsthatrequireavarianceorreasonableuseexceptiontotheCriticalAreasRegulationsand/orShorelineMasterProgram.ADMINTRATORC.E.“Chip”VinteiitEFFECTIVEDATE:February22,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomotethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:H.CRITICALAREAS/INAPPLICABLEEXEMPTIONS:1.CriticalAreasMaps:Themap(s)inRMC4-3-0500identifycriticalareas.ThemapsinRMC4-3-090identifyregulatedShorelinesoftheState.ThespecificenvironmentallycriticalareaswhereSEPAexemptionsarenotapplicableareidentifiedinsubsectionH2ofthisSection.2.CriticalAreasDesignated:Wetlands,ProtectedSlopes,VeryHighLandslideHazardAreas,Class2to4StreamsandLakes,ShorelinesoftheStatedesignatedasNaturalorConservancy,orShorelinesoftheStatedesignatedUrbanifalsomeetingtherequirementofsubsectionH3aorH3cofthisSection,andtheonehundred(100)yearfloodway,asmappedandidentifiedpursuanttosubsectionHiofthisSection,orwhenpresentaccordingtothecriticalareaclassificationcriteriaofRMC4-3-050,aredesignatedasenvironmentallycriticalareaspursuanttotheStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct,WAC197-11-908.3.InapplicableExemptions:a.Certainexemptionsdonotapplyonlandscoveredbywater,andthisremainstrueregardlessofwhetherornotlandscoveredbywateraremapped.UnidentifiedexemptionsshallcontinuetoapplywithinenvironmentallycriticalareasoftheCity.CI-80Page2of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
b.Foreachcriticalarea,theexemptionswithinWAC197-11-800thatareinapplicableforthatareaare:WAC197-11-800(1),exceptfortheconstructionofone(1)newsinglefamilyresidenceonanexistinglegallot,providedtheproposeddevelopmentcomplieswithRMC4-3-050andRMC4-3-090.ThisexemptionwouldnotapplytoprojectsrequiringavarianceorreasonableuseexceptionfromRMC4-3-050orRMC4-3-090.WAC197-11-800(2)(d,e,1,g)WAC197-11-800(6)(a)WAC197-11-800(13)(c)WAC197-11-800(23)(c,e)WAC197-11-$00(24)(a,b,c,d,f,g)WAC197-11-800(25)c.ThefollowingSEPAcategoricalexemptionsshallnotapplytowetlands:WAC197-11-800(1),exceptfortheconstructionofone(1)newsinglefamilyresidenceonanexistinglegallot,providedtheproposeddevelopmentcomplieswithRMC4-3-050andRMC4-3-090.ThisexemptionwouldnotapplytoprojectsrequiringavarianceorreasonableuseexceptionfromRMC4-3-050orRMC4-3-090.WAC197-11-soot2),exceptfortherepair,remodeling,ormaintenanceofanexistingsinglefamilyresidence,providedtheproposeddevelopmentcomplieswithRMC4-3-050andRMC4-3-090.ThisexemptionwouldnotapplytoprojectsrequiringavarianceorreasonableuseexceptionfromRMC4-3-050orRMC4-3-090.WAC197-11-800(3)WAC197-11-800(4)WAC197-11-800(6)WAC197-11-800(8)WAC197-11-800(25)4.ProposalsLocatedwithinCriticalAreas:TheCityshalltreatproposalslocatedwhollyorpartiallywithinacriticalareanodifferentlythanotherproposalsunderthisSection,makingathresholddeterminationforallsuchproposals.TheCityshallnotautomaticallyrequireanEISforaproposalmerelybecauseitisproposedforlocationinacriticalarea.STAFFCONTACT:JillDing,x6598cI-80Page3of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
ITYOF——-—-Renton€DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-siMUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-060andRMC4-2-080A15REFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:OutdoorRetailVendingandStorageLockersforPackagePick-upBACKGROUND:TheCityhasreceivedrequestsfortheinstallationofon-lineretailstoragelockersoutsideofretailstoresincommercialzones,allowingcustomersasecureplacetopickuppackagesorderedonline.TheCitydoesnotcurrentlyhaveregulationsthataddressthesetypesofunits.TherearecertainrequirementsthattheCitywouldliketoensurethesetypesofunitscomplywith(i.e.nomorethentwo“retail”unitsshouldbepermittedoutsideastore,themaximumwidthofthetwocombinedunitsshouldbe12feet,theunitshallnotblockanyopenings(windowsanddoors),andtheunitshallnotimpedeADAaccessibility).JUSTIFICATION:Theproposaltoinstallnomorethantworetailvending/storageunitsoutsideofexistingretailstores,seemsmostsimilartoanoutdoorretailsalesuse,whichispermittedintheCN,CV,CA,CD,andCOzoningdesignationssubjecttothefollowingcondition:“IntheCDandCOZones,useislimitedtofarmer’smarkets.Inallotherzones,useislimitedtofarmer’smarkets,building,hardwareandgardenretailsales.”ThisconditioncouldbeamendedtoaddressthespecificconditionstheCitywouldliketoseeretailvending/storageunitscomplywith.DECISION:AmendRMC4-2-080Ai5asdescribedbelow.ADMINISTRATOR_
__
_
__APPROVAL:_..\—_—-C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:February29,2016H:\cED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodeInterpretation\CI-81\codelntetpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-2-060ZoningUseTable—UsesAllowedinZoningDesignations:COMMERCIALZONINGINDUSTRIALUSES:DESIGNATIONSILIMIHCNCVCACDCOCORUCI.RETAILRetailsales,outdoorP30P30P30P15P15P15P15P154-2-080CONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHZONINGUSETABLES:15.IntheCDandCOZones,iseoutdoorretailsalesislimitedtofarmer’smarkets.Inallotherzones,iseoutdoorretailsalesislimitedtofarmer’smarkets,building,hardwareandgardenretailsales,andoutdoorretailvendingandstorageunits.Retailvending,storageunitsshallcomplywiththefollowingrequirements:a.Nomorethantwounitsshallbepermittedoutsideastore;b.Themaximumwidthofthecombinedunitsshallbe12feet;c.Theunitsshallnotblockanyopeningsi.e.windowsanddoors;d.TheunitsshallnotimpedeADAaccessibility;ande.Theunitsshallnotbelocatedwithinasurfaceparkingareaorlandscapedareaandshallbesituatedsuchthatitabutsabuildingfacade.4-11-180DEFINITIONSR:RETAILSALES,OUTDOOR:Thedisplayandsaleofproductsandservicesprimarilyoutsideofabuildingorstructure,includingbutnotlimitedtogardensupplies,tiresandmotoroil,farmersmarkets,manufacturedhomes,burialmonuments,buildingandlandscapematerials,4lumberyards,vendingmachines,andon-lineretailstoragelockers.Thisdefinitionexcludesadultretailuses,recyclingcollectionstations,orvehiclesales.STAFFCONTACT:JillDing,x6598Cl-81Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—‘RentoncDepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:CI-83MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-9-240.DREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:ModificationofProceduretoAllowforModelHomesinSubdivisionsBACKGROUND:TemporaryUsePermits(TUP)areauthorizedinRMC4-9-240.Tier1TUPpermitsareforthoseactivitesallowedbythebasezone,certainsalesevents,andmobilefoodvendors.Tier2TUPpermitsareforthoseactivitiesthatarelimitedorprohibitedbythebasezone,somemobilefoodvendors,carnivals/fairs,andthelesseroffive(5)modelhomesor20%ofthetotallotswhenlocatedinasubdivisionorresidentialdevelopmenttowhichtheypertain.Tier3TUPpermitsarefortemporaryhomelessencampments.Tier1TUPsdonotrequitepublicnoticeastheuseisallowedintheunderlyingzone.Tier2TUP5areconsideredaType2permitperRMC4-8-080andTier3TUPsareaType3Permit.BothType2and3permitsrequirepublicnotice.Modelhomesarearesidentialusethatisallowedintheunderlyingzoningdesignation.SinceTier1TUPsareforthoseactivitiesallowedbythebasezone,modelhomesshouldbepermittedviaaTier1TUP.Thesamelimitationsonthenumberofmodelhomesandallothercriteriashouldcontinuetoapply.Interestedpartieswouldbeawareoftheintenttobuildhomesonthelotsuponrecording,asthelanduseprocesswouldhavehadpublicnotice.Therefore,thereislittlevalueaddedbyhavinganadditionalpubliccommentperiodformodelhomes.JUSTIFICATION:AllowingModelHomestobeprocessedasaTier1TemporaryUsePermitwouldbeconsistentwiththeunderlyingzoneandwouldnotimpactsurroundingdevelopment.Processingtimeswouldbereduced,leadingtomorepredictabilityforcustomers.DECISION:AllowModelHomesasaTier1TemporaryUsePermit,providedthattheyequalthelesseroffive(5)homesortwentypercent(20%)ofthetotallots,andwhenlocatedwithinthesubdivisionorresidentialdevelopmentH:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodeInterpretation\CI-83\Codelnterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
towhichtheypertain.Theapplicablecodesectionsshouldbeamendedasspecifiedbelow.ADMIMSTRATORJC..“C1p’VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:May31,2016APPEAl.PROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHeatingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:RMC4-9-240D.1and2D.TEMPORARYUSEPERMITSAREREQUIREDFOROTHERTEMPORARYUSESORSTRUCTURES:ThefollowingusesorstructuresareseparatedintoTierI,TierII,andTierIlltemporaryusecategories.ThoseintheTierIcategoryareprocessedasTypeIlanduseapplications,thoseintheTierIIcategoryareprocessedasTypeIIapplications,andthoseintheTierIIIcategoryareprocessedasTypeIllapplications.ProjectssubjecttoSEPAareprocesseddifferently.1.TierI:Examplesoftemporaryusesinthiscategoryincludeactivitiesallowedbythebasezone,mobilefoodvendorslocatedintheIL,IM,IH,CA,CVandCDzones,vehiclesaleseventsheldonpropertynotcurrentlyusedasanautodealershipandwithintheAutomallAreaand/orEmploymentArea,Christmastreelots,saleseventsnotdeterminedtobeexemptpersubsectionC3ofthisSection,andatemporarymanufacturedhomeformedicalhardship.Alsoincludedaremodelhomes,equalingthelesseroffive(5)homesortwentypercent(20%)ofthetotallots,whenlocatedwithinthesubdivisionorresidentialdevelopmenttowhichtheypertain.TheAdministratormayauthorizeadditionaltemporaryusesnotlistedinthissubsectionwhenitisfoundthattheproposedusesareinkeepingwiththeintentandpurposesofthisSection.(Ord.5759,6-22-2015)2.TierII:Examplesoftemporaryusesinthiscategoryincludeactivitieslimitedorprohibitedbythebasezone,mobilefoodvendorsnotlocatedintheIL,IM,lH,CA,CVandCDzones,andstoragetrailers.OtherCI-83Page2of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
usesinthiscategoryincludecircuses,carnivals,fairs,orsimilartransientamusementorrecreationalactivities..TheAdministratormayauthorizeadditionaltemporaryusesnotlistedinthissubsectionwhenitisfoundthattheproposedusesareinkeepingwiththeintentandpurposesofthisSection.3.TierIII:Temporaryhomelessencampmentsistheuseinthiscategory,andshallhaveanapplicationfeeofonehundreddollars($100.00).(Ord.5676,12-3-2012)STAFFCONTACT:JenniferHenning,x72$6CI-83Page3of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:CI-84MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-8-090.F,NoticeofPublicHearingREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:PublicNoticeforHearingExaminerHearingsBACKGROUND:Ordinance5793affectedchangestopublicnoticerequirements,notablytheeliminationoftherequiredpostingsneartheprojectsite(aka‘pinknotices”)forimpendingAdministrativedecisions.JUSTIFICATION:TherequirementtoprovidenoticeofaHearingExaminerpublichearingshouldbesimilartothenoticesprovidedtoinformthepublicthattheAdministratorwillbetenderingadecision.DECISION:NoticeofHeatingExaminerpublichearingswillbethesameasnoticeprovidedforanimpendingAdministrativedecisionperRMC4-8-090.D.3,asfollows:“Noticeofapublichearingforalldevelopmentapplicationssubjecttonotificationrequirementsandallopenrecordappealsshallbegivenasfollows:1.TimeofNotices:Exceptasotherwisereauired,rublicnotificationofmeetings,hearings,andiendingactions,asdefinedbychapter42.30RCW,shallbemadeby:a.Publicationatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofaQublicmeeting,hearing,oroendingactionintheofficialnewsraoerifonehasbeendesignatedoranewsrarerofgeneralcirculationintheCity.b.Mailingatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofanublicmeeting,hearing,orrjendingactiontoallpartiesofrecord,theprojectproponentandaffectedgovernmentagencies,andH:\cED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicycodelnterpretation\cI-84\codeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
c.PostingontheCity’sweboaefortheCommunityandEconomicDevelormentDeøartment—PlanningDivisionatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofpublicmeeting,hearing,orpendingaction.”ADMINISTRATORCAPPROVAL:_______________________________C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-8-090.F:Noticeofapublichearingforalldevelopmentapplicationssubjecttonotificationrequirementsandallopenrecordappealsshallbegivenasfollows:1.TimeofNotices:Exceitasotherwisereauired,publicnotificationofmeetings,hearings,andrendingactions,asdefinedbychapter42.30RCW,shallbemadeby:a.Publicationatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofapublicmeeting,hearing,oroendingactionintheofficialnewsiaerifonehasbeendesignatedoranewsraierofgeneralcirculationintheCity,b.Mailingatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofarublicmeeting,hearing,orrendingactiontoallrartiesofrecord,theprojectproponentandaffectedgovernmentagencies,andc.PostingontheCity’swebpagefortheCommunityandEconomicDeveloømentDejartment—PlanningDivisionatleastten(10)daysbeforethedateofpublicmeeting,hearing,oroendingaction.Postintofthree(3)noticesatleastten(10)daysbeforethemeeting,hearing,orpendingactionatorneartheprojectsite.STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x7436cI-84Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
TYOF—-------Rëhton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:CI-85MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-4-130,TreeRetentionandLandClearingRegulations;4-2-110.A,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDesignations(PrimaryandAttachedAccessoryStructures)REFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:TreeDensityfortheRMFBACKGROUND:RMC4-4-130,TreeRetentionandLandClearingRegulations,wasamendedin2014byDocket#109toincludeanewstandard,treedensity,whichrequiresacertainnumberoftrees(measuredincaliperinches)perlotarea.AccordingtoRMC4-4-130.C.9.d.i,MinimumTreeDensity,thisstandardappliesto“eachresidentiallyzonedlot.”However,whilethestandardwasreiteratedinRMC4-2-110.A,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDesignations(PrimaryandAttachedAccessoryStructures),itwasnotrestatedinRMC4-2-110.F,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialMulti-FamilyZoningDesignations.Inthesummerof2015theCity’sComprehensivePlanwasadopted,whichspurredmanychangestoTitleIVincludingtheconsolidationofdevelopmentstandardsforallresidentialzones(previously,developmentstandardsoftheRMzonesstoodalone);whenthisconsolidationoccurredtheomissionofatreedensityfortheRM-T,RM-U,andRM-Fzoneswascarriedoverbystatingthatthestandardisnotapplicable(“n/a”).ThiscreatedaconflictwiththestatementwithinRMC4-4-130.C.9.d.i,MinimumTreeDensity:“aminimumtreedensityshallbemaintainedoneachresidentiallyzonedlot...”JUSTIFICATION:ThetreedenistystandardproposedbystaffduringthepublichearingforDocket#109wasclearlyintendedtoonlyapplytoresndentialzonesRCthroughR-14.DECISION:ThetreedensitystandarddoesnotapplytotheRMFZone.H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\Cl-85\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
ADMINISTRATOR/APPROVAL:C-C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:RMC4-4-130.C.9.d.i,MinimumTreeDensityAminimumtreedensityshallbemaintainedoneachresidentiallyzonedlot,asspecifiedinthetablebelow.Thetreedensitymayconsistofexistingtrees,replacementtrees,treesrequiredpursuanttoRMC4-4-070F1,StreetFrontageLandscapingRequired,oracombination.Ifthenumberoftreesrequiredincludesafractionofatree,anyamountequaltoorgreaterthanone-half(1/2)shallberoundedup;andTypeofResidentialMinimumTreeDensityDevelopmentMulti-familyFour(4)significantdevelopment(attachedtreesforeveryfivedwellings)thousand(5,000)sq.ft.SinglefamilyTwo(2)significantdevelopment(detachedtrees1toreveryfivedwellings)2thousand(5,000)sq.ft.10rthegrossequivalentofcaliperinchesprovidedbyoneormoretrees.2LotsdevelopedwithdetacheddwellingsintheR-10andR-14zonesareexempt.3DevelopmentintheRMFZoneisexempt.STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x7436CI-85Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—‘RentonC!.DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-86MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-11-200DefinitionsTREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:EasementsasSubstitutionsforTractsBACKGROUND:Severalrecentcodeamendmentshavestipulatedthatatractisrequiredtodistinguishproperties,andtoprotectspecificfeatures(e.g.,shareddriveways,trees,criticalareas,etc.).JUSTIFICATION:Ifasubdivisionisnotbeingproposed,requiringthecreationofatractwouldbeonerousfortheapplicant.DECISION:IfTitleIVofRentonMunicipalCoderequiresthecreationofatractwhenanapplicationforlanddevelopmentdoesnotproposethedivisionofland,aneasementshallsufficeforthetract.ADMIMSTRATORC.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodeInterpretation\Cl-86\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-11-200DEFINITIONST:TRACT:Anareaoflandthatmeetsoneofthefollowingcircumstances:1.Aphysicallyseparateanddistinctpropertycreatedpursuanttotheprovisionsofthistitle,orpursuanttoanypreviouslawsgoverningthesubdivision,shortsubdivision,orsegregationoflandcreatedexpresslytoprovideacommonbenefitorpublicpurpose,includingbutnotlimitedtolandprovidedfor:stormwatermanagement,criticalareasprotection,utilities,recreation,oropenspace.Suchtractsshallbeunbuildable,exceptforthestructuresandinfrastructurenecessarytofulfillthecommonbenefitorpublicpurposeforwhichthetractwascreated;or2.Aphysicallyseparateanddistinctpropertythatwasnotcreatedpursuanttotheprovisionsofthistitle,norpursuanttoanypreviouslawsgoverningthesubdivision,shortsubdivision,orsegregationofland.Suchtractsshallbeunbuildableunlessconvertedintoalotpursuanttotheprovisionsofthistitle.WhereverinthisTitleatractisrequiredtobecreated,ifanapplicantisnotpursuingasubdivisionthenaneasementshallbeinterpretedtosufficeforatract.STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x7436CI-86Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—------Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:CI-87MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-8-120,SubmittalRequirements—SpecifictoApplicationTypeREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:LegalDescriptionsforLotLineAdjustmentsBACKGROUND:RMC4-8-120.C.12,DefinitionsL,liststherequiredcontentofaLotLineAdjustmentMap.Subsection“d”statesthatalegaldescriptionofeachexistingparcelbeprovided.JUSTIFICATION:Forthepurposeofreviewingaproposedlotlineadjustment,thelegaldescriptionsofproposedlotsisnecessary.DECISION:LotLineAdjustmentMapsshallberequiredtoprovidethelegaldescriptionofeachexistingandproposedlot.ADMIMSTRATORC.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.H:\cED\planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicycodelnterpretation\CI-87\codeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:RMC4-$-120.C.12,DefinitionsL:LotLineAdjustmentMap:Adrawingoftheproposedlotlineadjustmentpreparedonaneighteeninchbytwentyfourinch(18’x24)sheetofmylarbyalicensedlandsurveyorcomplyingwiththeCity’ssurveyingstandards.a.Nameoftheproposedlotlineadjustment(e.g.,Smith/LarsenLotLineAdjustment),b.Spacereservedfor“CityofRentonFileNumber”(largetype)attopoffirstsheet,c.SpacereservedforCityofRenton“landrecordnumber”(smalltype)atbottomleftoffirstsheet,d.Legaldescriptionfoiofeachof-theexistingandproposedlotparoefs.Ifametesandboundsdescriptionisused,itmustbestampedbyalicensedsurveyor,STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x7436CI-87Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-$8MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-7-150.EREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:RequiredAlleyAccessBACKGROUND:RMC4-7-150.EstatesthepreferenceforalleyaccesstoallnewresidentialdevelopmentexceptdevelopmentwithintheLowDensityResidentiallandusedesignationzones(RC,R-1,andR-4).ThesubsectionwaslastamendedbyOrd.5702on12-9-2013.Interimzoningwasenactedin2015toestablishatemporaryR-6zone,whichwassubsequentlyadopted,inconjunjctionwiththeComprehensivePlanupdate,asanofficialnewzonewiththeMedium-DensityResidentiallandusedesignation.JUSTIFICATION:BecausethestandardsoftheR-6Zonewerenotassessedforsuitabilityofalleyaccess,developmentintheR-6Zoneshouldbeexemptedfrombeingrequiredtoprovidealleyaccess.DECISION:NewdevelopmentintheR-6Zoneshallbeanexceptiontothepreferredalley-accessstreetpattern.ADMIMSTRATORC.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\CI-88\codeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-7-150.E.5AlleyAccess:AlleyaccessisthepreferredstreetpatternforallnewresidentialdevelopmentexceptintheResidentialLowDensitylandusedesignation(RC,R1,andR-4zones)andtheR-6zone.Allnewresidentialdevelopmentinanareathathasexistingalleysshallutilizealleyaccess.Newresidentialdevelopmentinareaswithoutexistingalleysshallutilizealleyaccessforinteriorlots.Ifthedeveloperorpropertyownerdemonstratesthatalleyaccessisnotpractical,theuseofalleysmaynotberequired.TheCitywillconsiderthefollowingfactorsindeterminingwhethertheuseofalleysisnotpractical:STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x74360-88Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—“Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-89MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-080ConditionsAssociatedwithZoningUseTablesREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:OutdoorStorageBACKGROUND:OutdoorstorageiscurrentlypermittedwithinIndustrialzoningdesignationsasanaccessoryuseonly.ThisaccessoryuselimitationwasaresultofOrdinance#5675whereanumberofzoningusetableconditionswereconsolidated.PrevioustoOrdinance#5675,outdoorstoragewasapermittedprincipalusewithinIndustrialzonesoftheEmploymentAreaValleylandusedesignationandaccessory-onlyforthoseIndustrialzoningdesignationsoutsideoftheEmploymentValleyArea.NopolicyleveldiscussionofremovingoutdoorstorageasaprincipalusewithintheareaformallyknownasEmploymentValleyAreaoccurredwiththePlanningCommissionorCityCouncil.Asaresultoftheordinance,outdoorstorageasaprincipaluseisnolongerpermittedanywherewithintheCity.JUSTIFICATION:ItisreasonabletoconcludetheaccessoryonlylimitationwasunintentionalastherewasnopolicydiscussiontolimitorremoveoutdoorstorageasaprincipalpermittedusewithintheformerEmploymentValleyArea.DECISION:ReinstateoutdoorstorageasaprincipaluseinIndustrialzonessouthofI405andwestofSR167/RainierAvenueSouthADMIMSTRATORU%Z7C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:June23,2016H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\CI-89\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-2-080CONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHZONINGUSETABLES:A.SUBJECTTOTHEFOLLOWINGCONDITIONS:29.Specifieduse(s)areonlyallowedintheEmploymentAreatEA)landusedesignation,provided:a.Gamblingfacilities,vehicleandequipmentrentalandcommunicationbroadcastandrelaytowersareexcludedwithintheareasouthof1-405andnorthofSW16thStreet.b.Outdoorstorageandllargevehiclesalesareonlyallowedintheareasouthof1-405andwestof5R167/RainierAvenueSouth.c.Outdoorstorageandretailsalesareallowedasanaccessoryuseinallindustrialzones.d.Self-servicestorageisallowedasanadministrativeconditionaluseintheLightIndustrial(IL)Zone.STAFFCONTACT:MatthewHerrera,x6593CI-89Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-90MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-3-050and4-8-120REFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:CriticalAreaPermitImplementationBACKGROUND:SeveralsectionsofRMC4-3-050CriticalAreasRegulationsidentifya“criticalareapermit”fordevelopmentoralterationofapropertycontainingacriticalareawherenootherdevelopmentpermitorletterofexemptionisrequired.Thelandusepermitsubmittalrequirements(RMC4-8-120C)alsoidentifyacriticalareapermitthatincludesthetypeandsubmittalitemsneededforthecriticalareapermitapplication.NootherclassificationorproceduresareprovidedinRMC4-8-080andtheCity’sadoptedDevelopmentFeesscheduledoesnotprovideafeeforthepermit.JUSTIFICATION:ApermitisneededtoadequatelyreviewandmitigateimpactstocriticalareaswithintheCity.Anunderlyinggovernmentalaction(i.e.permit)isalsoneededtoissueanenvironmentalthresholddeterminationundertheStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA).Thereareinstanceswhereadevelopmentpermitisnotrequired,suchasminorimprovements(e.g.retainingwallslessthan4-feetinheightandstructureslessthan200squarefeet)toestablishedsingle-familyresidentialpropertiesinRCthroughR-8zones.SuchproposalswouldbeexemptfromSitePlanReview(RMC4-9-200B2)andabuildingpermit(RMC4-5-055).CriticalareapermitsaretheappropriatemethodtoadequatelyreviewaproposalforcomplianceundertheCriticalAreasRegulationsandSEPAwhennootherpermitwouldberequired.ThepermitisreferredtoinRMC4-3-O5OD5aiwiththespecificpurposeofissuingdecisionsforproposalsthatdonotrequireadevelopmentpermit.Afeeproportionatetothelevelofreviewandconsistentwiththecurrentlandusepermitfeescheduleisalsoneeded.ThefollowingaresimilarCityofRentonadministrativelandusepermitswiththeirassociatedfees:H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicycodeInterpretation\cI-90\Codelnterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
•SitePlanReview-$1,500.00•ConditionalUsePermit-$1,000.00•Variance-$1,200.00Thefollowingchartprovidesalistofnearbycitiesthatissuecriticalareapermitsalongwiththeirassociatedpermitfees.JurisdictionCriticalAreaPermitFeesBellevue$1,296.00Kent$2,174.00Tukwila$1601.25SeaTac$880.00Burien$2,439DesMoines$1,050Kirkland$2,150Average$1655.75Median$1601.25Themedianpermitfeeforthesevenabove-referencedcitiesis$1,601.25,whichisgreaterthantheCity’sSitePlanReviewapplication.ThelevelofreviewforacriticalareapermitwilllikelybelessthanaSitePlanReviewapplicationandcomparabletoaConditionalUsePermitorVariance.SitePlanReviewisaholisticanalysisofnumeroussectionsofthedevelopmentregulationswhereasaConditionalUsePermitorVarianceistypicallylimitedtoseveraldecisionalcriteria.DECISION:ImplementtheCriticalAreaPermitasaTypeIIPermitwhennootherdevelopmentpermitorletterofexemptionisrequired.DecisionalcriterianototherwiseidentifiedintheCriticalAreaRegulationsshalladequatelymitigateallecologicaland/orhazardousareaimpactsandbedeterminedonacase-by-casebasis.ThefeeforaCriticalAreasPermitshallbe$1,200.00plusa3percenttechnologyfee.IADMINISTRATORAPPROVAL:(Z-£.C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:July8,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CI-90Page2of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-8-080PERMITCLASSIFICATION:G.LANDUSEPERMITPROCEDURES:PUBLICNOTICEOPENDEIIN’OPENCLOSEDOFRECOMMENDATIONRECORDCS0RECORDRECORDJUDICIALLANDUSEPERMITSAPPLICATIONHEARING7ADOPTIONAPPEALHEARINGAPPEALTYPEIIAdditionalAnimalsPermitYesNoNoStaffHECCSCAdministrativeVariancesYesNoNoStaffHECCSCBusinessLicensesforHomeYesNoNoStaffHECCSCOccupations(withcustomervisits/deliveries)ConditionalApprovalPermitYesNoNoStaffHECCSC(nonconformingstructures)CriticalAreaPermitYesNoNoStaffHECCSCPlannedUrbanDevelopment,YesNoNoStaffHECCSCfinalTemporaryUsePermits:TierIIYesNoNoStaffHECCSCTemporaryEmergencyYesNoNoStaffHECCSCWetlandPermitVariances,AdministrativeYesNoNoStaffHECCSCBindingSitePlansYesNoNoStaffHECCSCConditionalUsePermitYesNoNoStaffHECCSC(administrative)DevelopmentPermit(specialYesNoNoStaffHECCSCfloodhazard)EnvironmentalReview9YesNoNoStaffHECCSCMasterSitePlanApprovalsYesNoNoStaffHECCSC(individualphases)SitePlanReviewYesNoNoStaffHECCSC(administrative)ShorelinePermitYesNoNoStaffDOECCSCShortPlatsYesNoNoStaffHECCSCSTAFFCONTACT:MatthewHerrerax6593Cl-90Page3of3AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
ITYOF—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-91MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:4-11-010DefinitionsA;4-11-190Definisitons5;4-2-110.ADevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDesignations(PrimaryandAttachedAccessoryStructures);RMC4-2-110.B,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures);and4-2-110.DConditionsAssociatedwithDevelopmentStandardsTableforResidentialZoningDesignations.SUBJECT:ModificationsofResidentialBuildingHeightStandardsBACKGROUND:Ord.5790institutednewstandardsforresidentialbuildingheight,specifically,limitingthenumberofstories,limitingthemaximumheightoftopmostwallplates,andestablishingstandardsforverticalprojectionsfromthetopmostwallplates.Ord.5790utilizedtheexistingdefinitionof“story”toimplementthenewrestrictionofthenumberofallowedstories.Thatdefintionqualifiesthetopmoststoryas“thatportionofabuildingincludedbetweentheuppersurfaceofthetopmostfloorandtheceilingorroofabove.”Thedefinitionwouldqualifyanyfloorcommonlyregardedasanattictobeastory.Theintentoflimitingthenumberofstorieswastoensurethatifalothasagradedifferencethebuildingmaybedesignedsothatthefirstfloorispartiallysubterranian,whichpartiallyobscuresbuildingmass,andtherebyqualifiedasabasement.TheR-14Zonewasdeterminedtobeasuitable“transitionalzone”betweenthegreatermaximumwallplateheight(32’)andnumberofstories(3)allowedintheRMFZone,andtheR-6,R-8,andR-10zoneswheremaximumwallplateheightislimitedto24’andthenumberofstoriesislimitedtotwo.TheR-14Zonewasaffordedonly24’ofmaximumwallplateheight,butallowingthreestorieswasintendedtonotrequireapartiallysubterranianbasementwhereagradedifferenceispresent.H:\CED\Planning\TitIeIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\Cl-91\CodeIntepretation.DocxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Footnote18.bofRMC4-2-110.Dstates“nonexemptverticalprojections(e.g.,roofspitchedlessthan4:12,decks,railings,etc.)mayextenduptosix(6)verticalfeetabovethemaximumwallplateheightiftheprojectionissteppedbackone-and-a-half(1.5)horizontalfeetfromeachminimumbuildingsetbacklineforeachoneverticalfootabovethemaximumwallplateheight.”Theintentofthisprovisionwastonotobscurenaturallightthatwouldotherwiseexistiftheroofwasslopedwithatleasta4:12pitch.Footnote19ofRMC4-2-110.Dstates“ShedRoofs:Wallplatessupportingaprimaryroofsurfacethathasonlyoneslopingplane(e.g.,shedroof)mayexceedthestatedmaximumiftheaverageofwallplateheightsisequaltoorlessthanthemaximumwallplateheightallowed.”ThisprovisionisnotcurrentlyappliedtoRMC4-2-11O.B,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures),whichisinparttoprovidestandardsforsheds.JUSTIFICATION:Becausethedefinitionof“story”unequivocallyqualifieswhatiscommonlyregardedasanattic(whetherhabitableorinhabitable)tobeastory,andthiswasnottheintentoflimitingthenumberofstories,adefinitionof“attic”shouldbeestablishedwithinTitleIV.Rentonhasadoptedthe2012InternationalResidentialCode,whichdefinesahabitableatticasbeingatleast70squarefeetinareaand50%ofwhichhavingafloortoceilingheightofatleastsevenfeet.Becausetherestrictionofthenumberofstoriesservestominimizetheapparentmassofaresidentialstructure,thenewdefinitionof“attic”mustbesomewhatrestrictive,otherwisetherewouldbenocausetomakethefirstfloorsubterranian.Therefore,anatticisproposedtobedefinedas“afinishedorunfinishedarea,notconsideredastory,locatedbetweentheuppersurfaceofthetopmostfloorandtheceilingorroofabove,andhavingaceilingheightoflessthansevenfeet(7’)foranareathatconstitutesatleastfiftypercent(50%)ofthebuildingfootprint.”TheR-14Zoneremainsanappropriatetransitionalzoneforheight,buttheremaybelocationswhereanincreaseofthemaximumwallplateheightmaybeappropriatetofurtherthisintent.Allowinganincreaseofmaximumwallplateheightupto32’throughanAdministrativeConditionalUsePermitwouldprovidegreaterflexibilityandhelptorealizeabetterheighttransitionbetweenzones.Becausearequiredstep-backforfeatureslocatedabovethemaximumwallplateheightwasintendedtoincentivisepitchedroofsandnotlimitnaturallightonabuttingproperties,tailingsofrooftopdecksshouldnotberequiredtobestepped-backiftheyareatleast50%transparent.Footnote19ofRMC4-2-110.DshouldapplytoRMC4-2-110.B,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures)becausetheexceptionisintendedtoprovideroofingstructurescommonlyfoundonsheds.DECISION:Adefitionof“attic”willbeaddedtoTitleIVRMC,andreferencedwithinthedefinitionof“story.”IntheR-14Zone,aprovisiontoincreasethemaximumwallplateheightupto32’throughaAdministrativeCUPwillbeaddedtoRMC4-2-110.A.Footnote18.bofRMC4-2-110.DwillbeCI-91Page2of5AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
amendedtoexemptdeckrailingsfromthestep-backrequirementiftherailingsareatleast50%transparent.Footnote19ofRMC4-2-110.DwillapplytoRMC4-2-110.B,DevelopmentStandardsforResidentialZoningDevelopment(DetachedAccessoryStructures).ADMINISTRATORAPPROVAL:EFFECTIVEDATE:AMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:C.E.“Chip”VincentAugust23,2016Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.4-11-010DEFINITIONSA:ATTIC:Afinishedorunfinishedarea,notconsideredastory,locatedbetweentheuppersurfaceofthetopmostfloorandtheceilingorroofabove,andhavingaceilingheightoflessthansevenfeet(7’)foranareathatconstitutesatleastfiftypercent(50%)ofthebuildingfootprint.STORY:Thatportionofabuildingincludedbetweentheuppersurfaceofanyfloorandtheuppersurfaceofthefloorabove,exceptthatthetopmoststoryshallbethatportionofabuildingincludedbetweentheuppersurfaceofthetopmostfloorandtheceilingorroofabove,unlesssuchareameetsthedefinitionofanattic.lithefinishedfloorleveldirectlyaboveausableorunusedunder-floorspaceismorethansixfeet(6’)abovegradeformorethanfiftypercent(50%)ofthetotalperimeterorismorethantwelvefeet(12’)abovegradeatanypoint,suchusableorunusedunder-floorspaceshallbeconsideredasastory.NOTE:Thegraphicdistinguishingabasementfromastoryisnotshown,butwillremainbelowthedefinitionci“story.”4-2-11OADEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS(PRIMARYANDATTACHEDACCESSORYSTRUCTURES)RCR-1R-4R-6R-8R-R-14RMF10Maximum32ft24ft24ft.,32ft.WallincreaseuptoPlate32ft.possibleHeight8,9,subjectto12,12,19administrativeconditionalusepermitAPPEALPROCESS:CODECI-91Page3ofsAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Iapproval4-2-1OBDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT(DETACHEDACCESSORYBUILDINGS)MAXIMUMWALLPLATEHEIGHT’8’RCAccessorybuilding—12ft.R-1,R-4,Accessorybuilding—12ft.R-6,andAccessorydwellingunitsandanimalhusbandryoragriculturalR-8relatedstructuresaresubjecttothemaximumwallplateheightofsubsectionAofthisSection,andassociatedconditions.Additionally,thestructureshallnotbetallerthantheprimarydwelling.R-1OandAccessorybuilding—12ft.R-14AccessorydwellingunitandagriculturalrelatedstructuresaresubjecttothemaximumwallplateheightofsubsectionAofthisSection,andassociatedconditions,exceptthatthestructureshallnotbetallerthantheprimarydwelling.RMF25ft.20,exceptthatthestructureshallnotbetallerthantheprimarybuilding(s).4-2-hODCONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSTABLEFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS18.VerticalProjectionsfromWallPlates:a.Roofswithapitchequaltoorgreaterthan4:12mayprojectanadditionalsix(6)verticalfeetfromthemaximumwallplateheight.litheheightofwallplatesonabuildingarelessthanthestatedmaximumtheroofmayprojecthighertoaccountforthedifference,yetthecombinedheightofbothfeaturesshallnotexceedthecombinedmaximums(e.g.,ifthemaximumwallplateheightofazoneistwenty-fourfeet(24’)andthewallplatesofastructurearenotallerthantwentyfeet(20’),theroofmayprojectuptotenfeet(10’)insteadofsixfeet(6’)).Commonrooftopfeatures,suchaschimneys,mayprojectanadditionalfour(4)verticalfeetfromaroofsurface.cI-91Page4of5AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
b.Noncxcmptverticalprojections(e.g.,Thetopmostsurfaceofroofspitchedlessthan4:127androoftopdecksshallbebelowthemaximumwallplateheight,railings,etc.)mayextenduptosix(6)verticalfeetabovethemaximumwallplateheightiftheprojectionisunlesssuchsurfacesaresteppedbackone-and-a-half(1.5)horizontalfeetfromeachminimumbuildingsetbacklineforeachoneverticalfootabovethemaximumwallplateheight,inwhichcasetheymayextenduptosix(6)verticalfeetabovethemaximumwallplateheight.Railingslocatedabovethemaximumwallplateheightandnotsteppedbackshallbeatleastfiftypercent(50%)transparent.STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintzx7436cI-91Page5of5AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—RentonE,DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-92MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-11OD.31andRMC4-2-115REFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:ResidentialZoneLotConfigurationRequirementsandDimensionalStandardsAveragingBACKGROUND:RMC4-2-OD.31statesthat:“InordertomeetthevariationrequirementsofRMC4-2-115,lotdimensionsandsetbacksareallowedtobedecreasedand/orincreased;provided,thatwhenaveragedtheapplicablelotstandardsofthezonearemet.”TheLotConfigurlationcriteriaunderRMC4-2-115requiresthat:“Oneofthefollowingisrequired:1.Lotwidthvariationof10feet(10’)minimumofoneperfour(4)abuttingstreet-frontinglots,or2.Minimumoffour(4)lotsizes(minimumoffourhundred(400)grosssquarefeetsizedifference),or3.Afrontyardsetbackvariationofatleastfivefeet(5’)minimumforatleasteveryfour(4)abuttingstreetfrontinglots.”Oneoftheconcernswithimplementingthiscodesectionhasbeenthatthereareno“minimums”specifiedwhenutilizingtheaveragingprovisionforsetbacks,lotwidth,andlotarea.LotdepthisnotreferredtointheLotConfigurationcriteria,thereforeitshouldbeclarifiedthattheaveragingprovisionsdonotapplytolotdepth.Inaddition,ithasbeenunclearwhethertheLotConfigurationcriteriaapplytoshortplats.JUSTIFICATION:Toensurethattheaveragingprovisionsarenotabused,staffrecommendsthattheminimumfrontandrearyardsetbackreductionbenolessthan21/2feetor10percentoftheminimumrequiredsetbackofthezone,whicheverisgreater.Thiswouldallowforthe5-footminimumfrontyardsetbackvariationinallresidentialzones.Inaddition,staffrecommendsthatthelotwidthandlotareavariationbelimitedto10percent.StafffurtherrecommendsthatshortplatsbeexemptfromcompliancewiththeLotConfigurationRequirementsofRMC4-2-115astheserequirementswereoriginallyintendedtoonlyapplytopreliminaryplatswhichhavemorelotsandhavemoreareaavailableforvariation.H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\Cl-92\Codelnterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
DECISION:AmendcodesectionsRMC4-2-11OD.31andR-2-115asspecifiedbelow.ADMINISTRATORAPPROVAL:______________________________C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:August23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomotethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-2-hODCONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSTABLEFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS31.InordertomeetthevariationrequirementsofRMC4-2-115,lotdimensionsandsetbacksareallowedtobedecreasedand/orincreased;provided,thatwhenaveragedtheapplicablelotstandardsofthezonearemet.Theminimumfrontandrearyardsetbackreductionshallbelimitedto21/2feetor10percent,whicheverisgreater.Theminimumlotwidthandlotareareductionshallbelimitedto10percentofthelotwidthandlotareaofthezone.ThevariationrequirementsofRMC4-2-115donotrequirevariationstothelotdepthrequirements;thereforetheavaragingprovisionisnotapplicabletotheminimumlotdepthrequirements.4-2-115RESIDENTIALDESIGNANDOPENSPACESTANDARDS:LOTCONFIGURATION:Varietyintheconfigurationoflotsenhancestheimageofvarietyofhousingstockandhelpsminimizeperceptionsofmonotony.OneofthefollowingisrequiredinlotscreatedthroughthePreliminaryPlatProcess:1.Lotwidthvariationof10feet(10’)minimumofoneperfour(4)abuttingR-6andR-street-frontinglots,or2.Minimumoffour(4)lotsizes(minimumoffourhundred(400)grosssquarefeetsizedifference)forstreet-frontinglots,or3.Afrontyardsetbackvariationofatleastfivefeet(5’)minimumforatleasteveryfour(4)abuttingstreet-frontinglots.STAFFCONTACT:JillDing,x6598CI-92Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CIIYOF-------——Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:CI-93MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-11OAResidentialDevelopmentStandards,RMC4-2-hODConditionsAssociatedwithResidentialDevelopmentStandardsREFERENCE:N/ASUBJECT:ModificationofDevelopmentStandardsintheR-4zoneforSmallLotClusterDevelopments.BACKGROUND:RMC4-4-11OD.10statesthat“smalllotclustersofuptoamaximumoffifty(50)lotsshallbeallowedwithintheR-4zone,whenatleastthirtypercent(30%)ofthesiteispermanentlysetasideas“openspace”ortwentypercent(20%)inuniquesituations.RMC4-2-1OD.32permitsreductionsinlotsize,lotwidth,lotdepth,frontyardsetbacks,sideyardsetbacks,sideyardalongastreetsetbacks,andimpervioussurfaceareastandardsforR-4zonedpropertiesthatcomplywiththesmalllotclusterrequirementstostandardsoutlinedintheR-6zone.Reductionsintherearyardsetbackandmaximumbuildingcoveragearenotincluded.InadditionitisnotcleariftheprovisionslistedunderRMC4-2-1OD.34,whichpermitthereductionofonelotbelowtheminimumlotsizepermittedwithinshortplatslessthan1acreinarea,wouldbeapplicableforclusterdevelopment.JUSTIFICATION:ThepurposeofthesmalllotclusterregulationsistoallowanopportunityforR-6lotdevelopmentonasitetooccurwithintheR-4zone,whenprovidingasignificantamountofpermanent“openspace.”Inexchangefortheprovisionofopenspace,theapplicantintheR-4zoneisgrantedtheabilitytoadoptcertaindevelopmentstandardsfromthosepermittedintheR-6zone.Thedevelopmentstandardscurrentlyavailableforadoptioninclude:lotsize,lotwidth,lotdepth,frontyardsetbacks,sideyardsetbacks,sideyardalongastreetsetbacks,andimpervioussurfaceareastandards.Reductionsintherearyardsetbackandmaximumbuildingcoveragearenotincluded,whichappearstobeanoversightastheredoesn’tseemtobeanyadvantagetoselectivelyomittingcertaindevelopmentstandardsavailableforreductionforclusterdevelopments.H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\CI-93\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
Inaddition,itdoesnotseemappropriateforclusterdevelopmentstoalsobeabletoutilizeRMC4-2-1OD.34,whichwouldpermitshortplatssmallerthan1acreinareatohaveonelotthatissmallerthantheminimumlotsize.Fordevelopmentssmallerthan1acrewheretheR-6standardsareapplicablethiswouldallowonelottohaveanareaof6,250squarefeet.Developmentsutilizingthesmalllotclusterstandardsarealreadygettingsubstantialreductionsintheminimumlotsizerequirementsforalllotswithinthedevelopment;theyshouldnotbepermittedtohaveadditionalreductionsbelowtheminimumlotsize.DECISION:Theapplicablecodesectionsshouldbeamendedasspecifiedbelow.ADMINISTRATOR!PLANNINGDIRECTORAPPROVAL:________________________________C.E.“Chip”VincentDATE:August23,2016APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:RMC4-2-J1OADEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS(PRIMARILYANDATTACHEDACCESSORYSTRUCTURES)RCR-1R-6R-8R-7OR-14RMFMinimumNetNone3dwelling4dwelling5dwelling7dwellingTownhouseDensity(perNetunitsunitsunits30units3°Development:n/aAcre)115OtherAttachedDwellings:10dwellingunits3°MaximumNet114dwelling6dwelling8dwelling1014dwelling20dwellingunits29Density(perNetdwellingdwellingunitsunitsunitsdwellingunits35rAcre,Exceptperunitunit36units35Net10AcresinCI-93Page2of6AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
RCR-7R-4R-6R-8R-10R-14RMFRC)2’14,15MaximumNumber1dwellingwith1accessorydwellingunit7Detacheddwellings:1PerMaximumNetofDwellings(perdwellingwith1accessoryDensityLegalLot)2dwellingunitAttacheddwellings:n/aMinimumLot101acre3’9,000sq.7,000sq.5,000sq.DetachedDetachedn/aSize28’31acres32ft.4ft.34ft.3dwellings:dwellings:4,000sq.3,000sq.ft.ft.AttachedAttacheddwellings:n/adwellings:n/aMinimumLot150ft.100ft.3270ft.°60ft.50ft.40ft.30ft.TownhouseWidth3’Development:25ft.OtherAttachedDwellings:50ft.MinimumLot175ft.110ft.3280ft.70ft.60ft.50ft.40ft.TownhouseWidth3’(CornerDevelopment:30ft.Lots)OtherAttachedDwellings:60ft.MinimumLot300ft.200ft.3100ft.1°90ft.80ft.70ft.60ft.TownhouseDepth3’32Development:50ft.OtherAttachedDwellings:65ft.MinimumFront30ft.30ft.30ft.40’2’25ft.20ft.20ft.15ft.,exceptTownhouseYard4’5’6’3’33exceptexceptwhenallDevelopment:10whenallwhenallvehicleft.”vehiclevehicleaccessisOtherAttachedaccessisaccessistakenfromanDwellings:20ft.11takentakenfromalley,then10fromananalley,ft.11alley,thenthen15ft.15ft.’’‘‘MinimumRear35ft.3Oft.25ft.325ft.2Oft.39l5ft.21’39lOft.21’39TownhouseYard4’3’Development:10ft.’3OtherAttachedDwellings:15ft.’3CI-93Page3of6AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
RCR-1R-4R-6R-8R-1OR-14RMFMinimumSide25ft.15ft.CombinedCombined5ft.DetachedDetachedNonconformingLotYard43120ft.with15ft.withUnits:4ft.Units:4ft.Width:5ft.3notlessnotlessAttachedAttachedLotWidththan7.5ft.than5ft.onUnits:4ft.Units:4ft.forExceedingoneithereitherside.forunattachedMinimum:setbackside.unattachedside(s),0ft.isincreasedbyoneside(s),0forthefoot(1)(nottoft.fortheattachedexceed12)forattachedside(s).23every10oflotside(s).23widthbeyond5013MinimumSide30ft.30ft.30ft.°225ft.15ft.15ft.15ft.NonconforminglotYard4531(alongawidth:loft.1113Street)Conforminglotwidth:20ft.Maximum10%20%35%40%50%55%65%TownhouseBuildingCoverageDevelopment:70%(includingPrimaryOtherAttachedandAccessory)Dwellings:35%Amaximumcoverageof45%maybeallowedthroughtheHearingExaminersitedevelopmentplanreviewprocess.Maximum15%25%50%55%65%70%80%75%ImperviousSurfaceAreaMaximumNumber32ofStoriesMaximumWall32ft.24ft.24ft.,32ft.PlateHeight8912increaseup1819to32ft.possiblesubjecttoadministrativeconditionalCI-93Page4of6AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
RCIR-1R-4’-R-6IR-8IR-lOR-14RMFusepermitapprovalMaximumNumbern/aNomoreNomorethann/aofUnitsperthan46unitsperBuildingunitsperbuilding.building.MinimumTree2significanttreesper5,000sq.ft.Attachedunits:4n/aDensitySeeRMC4-4-130.significanttreesper5,000sq.ft.SeeRMC4-4-130.MinimumFreeway10ft.landscapedsetbackfromthestreetpropertyline.FrontageSetbackMaximumSeeRMC4-4-140,WirelessCommunicationFacilities.AmateurradioantennasareallowedamaximumWirelessheightof6feetwithoutaConditionalUsePermit.LargerstructureswillhaveamaximumheightCommunicationdeterminedbytheConditionalUsePermitprocess,RMC4-9-030,ConditionalUsePermits.FacilitiesHeight(includingAmateurRadioAntennas)DesignStandardsSeeRMC4-2-115,ResidentialDesignandOpenSpaceStandards.LandscapingSeeRMC4-4-070,Landscaping.ExteriorLightingSeeRMC4-4-075,Lighting,ExteriorOn-Site.ScreeningSeeRMC4-4-095,ScreeningandStorageHeight/LocationLimitations.ExceptionforPre-SeeRMC4-10-010,NonconformingLots.ExistingLegalLots4-2-ifODCONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHDEVELOPMENTSTANDARDSTABLEFORRESIDENTIALZONINGDESIGNATIONS10.Clusterdevelopment,withamaximumoffifty(50)lots,shallbeallowedwithintheR-4zonewhenatleastthirtypercent(30%)ofthesiteispermanentlysetasideas“openspace,”asdefinedinRMC4-11-150.Suchopenspaceshallbesituatedtoactasavisualbufferbetweenlotclustersandotherdevelopmentinthezone.Thepercentageofrequiredopenspacemaybereducedtotwentypercent(20%)ofthesitewhen:a.Publicaccessisprovidedtoopenspace;andb.IfsoftsurfacetrailsareprovidedwithincriticalareasorcriticalareabufferspursuanttoRMC4-3-050;andCI-93Page5of6AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
c.Allportionsofasitethatarenotdedicatedtoplattedsinglefamilylots,adedicatedright-of-way,orutilityimprovementsshallbesetinaseparatetractand/ortractstopreserveexistingviablestandsoftreesorothernativevegetation.ThetractmayalsobeusedasareceivingareafortreereplacementrequirementsinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130H.Suchtractsshallbeshownandrecordedonthefaceoftheplattobepreservedinperpetuity.Suchtractsmaybeincludedincontiguousopenspaceforthepurposesofqualifyingforclusterdevelopment.Wheretreesareremoved,theyshallbereplacedinaccordancewithRMC4-4-130H.32.Whenclusterdevelopmentisallowed,specifieddevelopmentstandardsareallowedtobereduced,asindicatedbelow:a.R-1Zone:Tenthousand(10,000)squarefeetminimumlotsize.MinimumlotwidthandminimumlotdepthshallapplythestandardsoftheR-4zone.b.R-4Zone:Minimumlotsize,minimumlotwidth,minimumlotdepth,minimumfrontyard,minimumsideyard,minimumsideyardalongastrcet,andimpervioussurtacearea&ShallapplyadheretothedevelopmentstandardsoftheR-6zone.34.Forshortplatsofparcelssmallerthanoneacre,oneparcelmaybeallowedtobesmallerthantherequiredminimumlotsizeindicatedinsubsectionAofthisSection,ResidentialDevelopmentStandards.Ifallotherparcelsmeettherequiredminimumlotsizestandardofthezone,oneparcelmaybeallowedtomeetthefollowingreducedminimumlotsize(notapplicableforclusterdevelopment):a.R-4:Eightthousand(8,000)squarefeet.b.R-6:Sixthousandtwohundredfifty(6,250)squarefeet.c.R-8:Fourthousandfivehundred(4,500)squarefeet.CI-93Page6of6AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
CITYOF—Renton0DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-94MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:2015-2016CityofRentonFeeScheduleREFERENCE:RMC5-1-2,5-19-7Aand5-19-7BSUBJECT:ApplicationfeeforfranchisesBACKGROUND:RMC5-19-7Aprovides“forthepaymentandrecoveryofalldirectandindirectcostsandexpensesoftheCityrelatedtotheenforcementandadministrationofthisChapter”.RMC5-19-7.B.1requiresthatanyapplicantpayafranchisefeepertheFeeScheduleRMC5-1-2.However,theCityofRentonFeeScheduledoesnotlistafeefortelecommunicationfranchisefees.JUSTIFICATION:InseekingtorecoverthecostsforenforcementandadministrationofRMC5-19,theCityofRentonneedstosetafixedfeeforfranchiseapplications.TheCityofRentonissettingthefranchisefeeatfive-thousanddollars($5,000.00)inordertorecovertheminimalstaffcoststoprocessthefranchise.Atalaterdate,adetailedstudywillbeperformedthatwillmoreclearlydocumentallcostsdirectlyorindirectlyassociatedwithapplicationfeesforfranchise.DECISION:AmendCityofRentonFeeScheduletoimplementarequiredFranchiseApplicationFeeoffive-thousanddollars($5,000.00)asspecifiedbelow.ADMINISTRATOR(APPROVAL:.jC.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:August23,2016H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodeInterpretation\CI-94\CodeInterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
APPEALPROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:2015-2016CityofRentonFeeScheduleSectionXII.DevelopmentFees2.LandUseReviewFeesa.GeneralLandUseReview(xxxi)FranchiseApplicationFee201420152016--$5,000.00STAFFCONTACT:StephenBrowningCI-94Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
ADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATION#:Cl-95MUNICIPALCODESECTIONS:RMC4-2-060,ZoningUseTable-UsesAllowedinZoningDesginations;RMC4-2-080,ConditionsAssociatedwithZoningUseTablesDuringrezonesandassociatedcodeamendmentseffectedinconjunctionwithadoptionofthemostrecentComprehensivePlantheSouthRentonareawasrezonedfromRM-UtoR-14.On-andoff-siteserviceswere“permittedonlyontheground-floorlevelaspartofaresidentialprojectonRM-UzonedpropertiesfrontingonSouth7thStreet,”pursuanttofootnote#42ofRMC4-2-080,ConditionsAssociatedwithZoningUseTables.TherezonepromptedthatfootnotetobeamendedtoreferencetheR-14zone,whichwasadopted.However,whilefootnote#42wasamendedandthenumericalreferencestrickenfromthecorrespondingcellsunderthecosolidatedRMEzone,the“P”wasnotstrickenfromthosecellstherebyrenderingon-andoff-siteservicespermittedoutrightintheRMzone.itwasnotappliedtothecorrespindingcellsundertheR14zone.Additionally,thenumericalreferencetothefootnotewasnotappliedtothecorrespindingcellsundertheR-14zone,renderingthefootnoteinapplicabletoanyzoneoruse.Becauseon-andoff-siteservicesintheRM-Uzonewereallowedonlyundertheconditionsoffootnote#42,noon-oroff-siteservicesshouldbealowedintheRMFzonewithoutlegislativeapproval.Becauseon-andoff-siteserviceswereintendedtobeallowedintheR-14zoneperfootnote#42,thatfootnoteshouldbeappliedtothatzoneforthosetwouses.However,becausetheR-14zonecurrentlyallowson-siteservicesthroughanAdministrativeCUPpursuanttofootnote#33,footnote#42and#33shouldbemergedandthemorerestrictiveprovisionapplied.DepartmentofCommunityandEconomicDevelopmentPlanningDivisionADMINISTRATIVEPOLICY/CODEINTERPRETATIONREFERENCE:ORD5759SUBJECT:On-andOff-siteServicesintheR-14ZoneBACKGROUND:JUSTIFICATION:H:\CED\Planning\TitleIV\Docket\AdministrativePolicyCodelnterpretation\CI-95\Codelnterpretation.docxAGENDA ITEM #2. f)
DECISION:Withoutintentionallegislativeaction,on-andoff-siteservicesshallbeprohibitedintheRMFzone.ADMIMSTRATORc’J___C.E.“Chip”VincentEFFECTIVEDATE:October11,2016APPEAl.PROCESS:Toappealthisdetermination,awrittenappeal--accompaniedbytherequiredfilingfee--mustbefiledwiththeCity’sHearingExaminer(1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA92057,425-430-6515)nomorethan14daysfromthedateofthisdecision.Yoursubmittalshouldexplainthebasisfortheappeal.Section4-8-110oftheRentonMunicipalCodeprovidesfurtherinformationontheappealprocess.CODEAMENDMENTSNEEDEDTOIMPLEMENTDETERMINATIONS:4-2-080CONDITIONSASSOCIATEDWITHZONINGUSETABLES:A.SUBJECTTOTHEFOLLOWINGCONDITIONS:33.a.ForlotszonedR-14withintheSunsetArea,asdefinedbyOrdinance5610establishingaPlannedActionfortheSunsetArea,retailuses,eating/drinkingestablishments,andon-siteserviceusesareprohibitedunlesstheyareaccessorytoaschool,park,orentertainmentandrecreationaluseasallowedinRMC4-2-060E,FandJ.Commercialusesshallnotbegreaterthanfivethousand(5,000)squarefeetofgrossfloorarea.b.Permittedonlyontheground-floorlevelaspartofaresidentialprojectonR-14zonedpropertiesfrontingonSouth7thStreet.42.ReservedPermittedonlyonthegroundfloorlevelaspartofaresidentialprojectonft14zonedpropertiesfrontingonSouth7thStreet.STAFFCONTACT:PaulHintz,x7436CI-95Page2of2AGENDA ITEM #2. f)
AB - 1831
City Council Regular Meeting - 09 Jan 2017
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appointment to Planning Commission
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Executive
STAFF CONTACT: April Alexander, Executive Assistant
EXT.: 6520
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
None.
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Mayor Law appoints Ms. Jamian Smith to the Planning Commission for a term that expires 1/31/20.
EXHIBITS:
A. Recommendation memo to Mayor Law
B. Jamian Smith application
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm Mayor Law's appointment of Ms. Jamian Smith to the Planning Commission.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
r p niRSMEMORANDUM‘““
DATE:December 22,2016
TO:Denis Law,Mayor
FROM:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED Administrator
SUBJECT:Appointment of Jamian Smith to the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission currently has one vacancy requiring appointment.Michael
Chen resigned before the end of his term which expired on January 31,2016.
Commission Chair Kevin Poole,Long Range Planning Manager Angie Mathias,and I met
with Jamian Smith.Ms.Smith is a resident of the Highlands and has shown a broad
interest in the future of the Renton community.She has participated in many efforts to
further the City of Renton,including serving on the Inclusion Task Force.Ms.Smith is
supportive of the City’s Business Plan Goals and is interested in becoming more involved
in citizen activities to further those goals.Her application is attached.
Staff recommends appointment of Jamian Smith to the seat vacated by Michael Chen.
h:\ced\planning\planning commission\appointments\2016\smith appointment.doc
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Hannah I Miller
From:April Alexander
Sent:Tuesday,November 29,2016 10:13 AM
To:Hannah L Miller
Subject:FW:Application for boards,commissions,or committees.
From:jaymeejade@gmail.com [mailto:jaymeejade@gmaiLcom]
Sent:Tuesday,November 29,2016 10:04 AM
To:April Alexander <analexander@Rentonwa.gov>
Cc:jaymeejade@gmait.com
Subject:Application for boards,commissions,or committees.
The following registration was submitted via the City of Renton website:
Data from form “Application for Boards,commissions,or committees”was received on Tuesday,November
29,2016 10:04:26 AM.
Boards,commissions,committees
[Field Value —
Civil Service Commission*
BoardsCommissionsCommittees Human Services Advisory Committee*
Planning Commission*
Ms.
t Jamian Smith
[address 107 NW 6th St
[City,State,Zip Renton
1 Applicant’s email jaymeejade@gmail.com
[Applicant’s phone 6155946655
tApplicantis alternate phone 6155946655
Renton Resident?true
[If so,since when 2012
Former Residence Woodinville,WA
Bachelor of Science,Interdisciplinary Studies (Double Major
Computer Science and Mass Communication)1999
Tennessee State University,Nashville,TN
Educational Background Master of Business Administration,2005
Emphasis:Marketing and Operations
Vanderbilt University Owen Graduate School of Business,
Nashville,TN
1
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
[field Value
Certificate in International Business,WHU Koblenz,Germany
2004
Certified Six Sigma Black Belt,Six Sigma Academy,Tempe,AZ
2007
Certified Lean Kaizen Master,Six Sigma Academy,Tempe,AZ
2007
Senior Manager,Corporate Services
Paul Allen Institute,Seattle,WA
June 2016-Present
Occupation Oer and Managing Director
Arcana Solutions LLC,Renton,WA
January 2014-Present
r Senior Global Program Manager
Microsoft Corporation,Redmond,WA
July 2008-October 2014
Senior Product Manager
Amazon,Inc.,Seattle,WA
.August 2007-July 2008OccupattonBackground
Six Sigma Black Belt!Product Manager
Expedia,Inc.,Bellevue,WA
August 2005-August 2007
Lead Product Design Engineer
Eastman Kodak Company,Rochester,NY
Paul Allen Institute,Seattle,WAEmployerArcanaSolutionsLLC,Renton,WA
Community Activities Zeta Phi Beta Sorority,Inc.(Mental Health!Adult Education)
F I love Renton,and I am interested in taking more
responsibility and a bigger part in supporting its growth and
Reasons development in any way that I can.I believe that my
background,experience,and talents can contribute to the
community and its leadership in a positive way.
[Can attend day meetings false
Can attend night meetings true
Email “Application for boards,commissions,or committees.”originally sent to analexander@rentonwa ov from
jaymeeiade@amail.com on Tuesday,November 29,2016 10:04:26 AM.The following were also sent a copy:
2
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 1
When Recorded, Return to:
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR QUENDALL TERMINALS
Grantors: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Grantees: The City of Renton and Quendall Terminals
Abbreviated Legal Description: TO BE INSERTED
Additional Legal Description on Page 15 of Document (Exhibit A)
Assessor’s Property Tax Parcel/Account Number: 2924059002 OR □ NOT YET ASSIGNED
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF
RENTON, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Washington (“City”), and QUENDALL TERMINALS, a Washington joint venture, its
successors and assigns (“Developer”), is made and entered into this ____ day of
________ , 2016 (the “Effective Date”) pursuant to the authority of RCW 36.70B.170 et
seq. The City and Developer are the Parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of that certain real property comprising 20.3
acres more or less located between Lake Washington and Lake Washington Boulevard,
and that certain real property comprising 1.2 acres more or less across the railroad right
of way to the east, both within the municipal boundaries of the City of Renton in King
County, Washington, and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and depicted on
Exhibit A-1 (the “Quendall Property” or “Property”)).
B. Developer intends to develop the Quendall Property as a mixed-use
multi-family residential development (the “Project”), as more particularly described in
land use applications, LUA09-151, on file with the City of Renton and, subject to this
Agreement, including the Enhanced Alternative described herein. Project development
may be phased, subject to the conditions of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 2
C. The Quendall Property has received a Superfund designation from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Developer is currently working on a
remediation plan with the EPA. This Agreement pertains to redevelopment of the
remediated Property. The Parties intend that this Agreement be construed to enable
development authorized by the Hearing Examiner’s Decision on the Master Plan and
subsequent necessary and/or appealed land use decisions. Such development shall
contain at minimum the attributes identified as Project Elements in Section 3 and
comply with all conditions and amenities identified in the approved Master Plan.
Development would occur in a manner consistent with post-remediation site conditions
and such controls as are imposed by or agreed to with the EPA. For instance, if
remediation is undertaken in phases, then Project phasing may be coordinated to occur
first on remediated areas of the Property, pending a City approved final phasing plan
that is consistent with the phasing conditions of the Master Plan Decision or any
subsequent land use actions.
D. Developer submitted Project applications for a Master Plan approval,
Binding Site Plan approval and Shoreline Substantial Development permit, which
applications were deemed complete by the City on February 10, 2010 (together, the
“Initial Project Applications”).
E. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW (“SEPA”),
the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (the “DEIS”) on December 10,
2010, on the Initial Project Applications and alternatives. In response to comments on
the DEIS, Developer developed a Preferred Alternative that was downsized from the
DEIS, and office space was removed from the proposal. Key Project specifications of the
Preferred Alternative are set forth in the Master Plan application materials, LUA09-151
and attached to the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner as Exhibits. The City issued an
addendum to the DEIS on October 19, 2012, which addressed the Preferred Alternative
(the “Addendum”). A Final Environmental Impact Statement (the “FEIS”) and Mitigation
Document were issued on August 31, 2015.
F. In January 2016, at the City’s request, Developer updated the Initial
Project Applications plan sets to reflect the Preferred Alternative and incorporate plan
set level components of the specified SEPA mitigation measures.
G. Pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington Chapter 36.70B.170 et seq.
(“the Development Agreement Statute”), the City may enter into a development
agreement with an entity having ownership or control of real property within its
jurisdiction.
H. A development agreement can provide for an extended duration of
approvals. The Developer is willing to incorporate more public benefits into the Project,
as specified in the Enhanced Alternative set forth herein, in exchange for extended
permit duration.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 3
I. It is the intent of this Development Agreement to provide for
development of the Project using the Enhanced Alternative addressed herein, together
with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided, however, that the
Parties acknowledge that Project applications for the Enhanced Alternative are subject
to hearing and decision by the Renton Hearing Examiner as provided under Renton
Municipal Code Sections 4-9-200(D)(1) and 4-8-070(J).
J. The City’s Responsible SEPA Official has reviewed the Project changes
proposed under the Enhanced Alternative and this Development Agreement in
accordance with SEPA, and has issued a [determination of consistency with the existing
SEPA review] (or) [a FEIS Addendum to address new information and Project changes
associated with the Enhanced Alternative]. The DEIS, Addendum, FEIS, and
[Determination of Consistency or FEIS Addendum] together constitute the “Project-level
SEPA Review.”
K. The City Council held a public hearing on this Development Agreement on
____________, 2016.
L. The City has found that development of the Enhanced Alternative of all or
portions of the Quendall Property consistent with this Agreement and the associated
land use decisions will benefit the community at large including the Quendall Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements of the Parties set
forth herein, as well as other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:
AGREEMENTS
1. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
Development Regulations mean those regulations encompassed in Title IV of
the Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) in effect on the Vesting Date.
Enhanced Alternative means the Project substantially as described in the Project
Elements at Section 3 and on the Master Plan and associated conditions of approval as
approved by the Hearing Examiner.
Land Use Policies and Regulations mean Renton Comprehensive Plan land use
designations and policies, and the Development Regulations, in effect on the Vesting
Date.
Master Plan Decision means the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the Master
Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and Binding Site Plan applications
under LUA09-151.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 4
RMC means the Renton Municipal Code.
The Vesting Date is February 10, 2010, the date that the City determined that
Developer’s applications for a Master Plan approval, Binding Site Plan approval and
Shoreline Substantial Development permit were complete.
2. BASIS OF AGREEMENT.
2.1 Intent. This Agreement establishes certain roles and
responsibilities for the potential redevelopment of all or a portion of the Quendall
Property under the Enhanced Alternative described in Section 3 herein, including but
not limited to Developer commitments that development of the Master Plan shall be
consistent with the vested Land Use Policies and Regulations and the terms and
conditions of this Agreement and any associated land use decisions for the project. It is
the intent of this Agreement that redevelopment may be phased according to the
principles set out in this Agreement, subject to City of Renton approval and the
conditions set forth in the Master Plan Decision.
3. PROJECT ELEMENTS. The Project Enhanced Alternative shall include the
Project Elements which includes the following:
3.1 Enhanced Alternative. The Parties agree that the following
enhancements to the Preferred Alternative are in the public interest and support Project
objectives. The Parties agree that the Project with the Enhanced Alternatives should be
taken through the Hearing Examiner process in accordance with RMC 4-9-200(D)(1) and
4-8-070(J).
3.1.1 1.3 acres of the southwest corner of the Project shall be a
public park constructed by the Developer and maintained by the Homeowners’
Association, open for public use between the hours of dawn to dusk;
3.1.2 Retail/restaurant/office space and street activation
(fountains, artwork, etc.) shall be required at street level along Street B and along the
lakeside frontage of residential buildings and other street frontage as necessary to
qualify for a minimum of 50 percent of the building street frontage at a minimum depth
of 20 feet of the project site;
3.1.3 The developer and the City will collaborate in the
development of a public dock/pier associated with the public park. The Developer and
City shall jointly develop a future dock proposal for permitting and environmental
review that addresses public and Project interests to the parties’ mutual satisfaction
(“Future Dock Proposal”). The City will be responsible for obtaining all required permits.
The Developer shall fund permitting costs for the Future Dock Proposal and construct
the dock and any required mitigation, provided that both the City and Developer
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 5
approve of the final dock design, budget, and all dock permit conditions. Should the EPA
or either party not approve the dock location and design the City and the developer will
work together to develop an alternative proposal to allow for access to Lake
Washington while meeting the requirements of the EPA. The Future Dock Proposal,
design and permitting shall be completed within the first five (5) years of the term if this
agreement. The Future Dock Proposal shall be constructed and completed for public
access within this first ten (10) years of the term of this agreement. All work related to
the Future Dock Proposal shall be permitted, constructed, and final inspection
completed prior to final occupancy of the last building in the Master Plan.
3.1.4 The Parties agree that the City shall have the right and the
Developer is required, following year five of the Initial Term of this Agreement as
defined in Section 4, to conduct an updated transportation analysis in compliance with
SEPA (the “SEPA Transportation Update”), which shall be subject to City review. In
order to impose requirements of the SEPA Transportation Update, the property owner
shall be required to provide written notice to the City, after the foregoing time trigger
has occurred, that the SEPA Transportation Update (the “Update Notice”) will be
performed. The Transportation Update shall result in written findings and conclusions,
and may result in a recommendation for reasonable new future permit conditions and
mitigations for the Project, if required based on changed conditions and associated
Project impacts. If the SEPA Transportation Update identifies significant adverse
transportation impacts of the Project that are not mitigated in the original SEPA
transportation analysis, then the City may impose additional mitigation to address such
unmitigated Project impacts.
3.2 Mitigation Plan. The Mitigation Plan consists of the mitigation
document issued on August 31, 2015 and any mitigation conditions added by the
Hearing Examiner in the Master Plan Decision. In addition the mitigation plan will
include any new transportation permit conditions and transportation mitigation
requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation Update following year
five. The Mitigation Plan also will include any new transportation permit conditions and
transportation mitigation requirements for the Project as a result of the Transportation
Update following year 10 of the Initial Term of this Agreement, if a permit extension
under Section 4 of this Agreement is requested and permitted.
3.3 Project Phasing. Development of the Project may be phased
consistent with the approved Master Plan and SEPA Mitigation Document and any
subsequent land use approvals such as site plan review, both during remediation and for
purposes of Developer’s development program, including in response to market
conditions. The City and the Developer acknowledge that, generally, site remediation
under EPA’s oversight will occur before Project development, provided, however, that
during remediation the Developer may install certain Project infrastructure
components. The Parties further agree to allow phasing according to the following
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 6
phasing principles, provided, however, that the Parties may determine that a more
detailed Project Phasing Plan will be prepared to govern Project Phasing:
3.3.1 A Project Phase may include one or more Project Lots.
Alternatively, a Project Phase may include one or more Project Buildings, as such
Buildings are defined and depicted in the Quendall Terminals Master Plan, LUA09-151.
3.3.2 Each Project Phase shall have all required infrastructure
and mitigation for the phase in place at the time of certificate of occupancy, or final
inspection if the phase or use does not require a certificate of occupancy, sufficient to
provide pedestrian and vehicular access, utilities and public facilities including parking
areas for bicycles and vehicles, site amenities identified for the phase and semi-private
open space.
3.3.3 Development of Lots or Buildings abutting Street B may be
prioritized to be the first Project Phase(s) of development, provided, however, that the
Parties agree to consider alternative Project Phasing priorities if needed in response to
sequenced remediation.
3.4 Duration of Project Permits. Provided that Project permits are
approved by the Hearing Examiner, all City land use permits and approvals issued for the
Project shall enjoy a duration through the term of this Agreement, including any
extensions under Section 4.
4. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and
continue for ten years from the earlier of (i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of
Decision, or (ii) the Hearing Examiners Decision and/or any subsequent appeal decision
dates (“Initial Term”). This Agreement shall remain in effect during its term unless and
until Developer (owning at least 51 percent of the Quendall Property by assessed value
((excluding any City-owned land)) gives notice of termination. If 51 percent of the
residential and commercial space has been constructed and received a Certificate of
Occupancy (CO) then the City may extend this Agreement, following a second SEPA
Transportation Update, upon Developer’s request 30 days in advance of the sunset
date, for one additional five-year period of time.
5. VESTING.
5.1 Project Elements, Development Standards and Implementing
Approvals. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, Developer is
vested to the Development Regulations in effect on the Vesting Date, which extends to
City of Renton ordnance number 5523.
5.2 Vesting Exceptions. During the term of this Agreement, the City
shall not impose on the Project any modified or new or additional Development
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 7
Regulations, except any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative
interpretations or court decisions that add regulatory requirements on the City that it
must enforce that are not subject to a “grandfather” or “safe harbor” clause that would
delay the City’s enforcement responsibility beyond the life of this Agreement.
5.3 City’s Reserved Authority. In accordance with the Development
Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.170(4), the City reserves the authority to impose new
or different Development Regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to
public health and safety.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
6.1 Authority; Severability. The City and Developer each represent
and warrant it has the respective power and authority, and is duly authorized to
execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement. The Parties intend
this Agreement to be interpreted to the full extent authorized by law as an exercise of
the City’s authority to enter into such agreements, and this Agreement shall be
construed to reserve to the City only that police power authority which is prohibited by
law from being subject to a mutual agreement with consideration. This Agreement shall
be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of Developer and
the City. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable or invalid
by a court of law, then (i) this Agreement shall thereafter be modified to implement the
intent of the Parties to the maximum extent allowable under law, (ii) the Parties agree
to seek diligently to modify the Agreement consistent with the court decision, and (iii)
neither party shall undertake any actions inconsistent with the intent of this Agreement
until the modification to this Agreement has been completed.
6.2 Amendment; Minor Modifications. Any amendment to this
Agreement must be approved by the City and Developer so long as it owns any portion
of the Quendall Property or retains any responsibility for off-site mitigation, other
obligations under this Agreement, or obligations pursuant to any Record of Decision or
any NRD settlement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon request of Developer, a
designated City official may approve administrative minor modifications to the
Development Standards, which administrative modifications shall not be deemed
amendments to this Agreement. Administrative minor modifications mean those
changes to the Development Standards that do not materially increase impacts on
transportation or utility systems or the environment, taking into account agreed upon
mitigation, and those modifications which do not materially reduce buffers or open
space. Any modifications of Development Standards shall require the written consent of
Developer and the City, including administrative minor modifications under this section.
6.3 Recording; No Third Party Beneficiary. Pursuant to the
Development Agreement Statute, RCW 36.70B.190, this Agreement or a memorandum
thereof shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement is
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 8
made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties, their
successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any
provision of this Agreement.
6.4 Notices. All communications, notices and demands of any kind
which a party under this Agreement requires or desires to give to any other party shall
be in writing and either (i) delivered personally (including delivery by professional
courier services), (ii) sent by facsimile transmission with an additional copy mailed first
class, or (iii) deposited in the U.S. mail, certified mail postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, to the addresses set forth with each signature. Notice by hand delivery or
facsimile shall be effective upon receipt. If deposited in the mail, notice shall be
deemed delivered 48 hours after deposited. Any party at any time by notice to the
other party may designate a different address or person to which such notice or
communication shall be given.
If to the City of Renton:
Renton City Hall
Attn: Mayor
Attn: Development Services Director
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
If to Quendall Terminals:
Quendall Terminals
Attn: Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
and to
J.H. Baxter & Co.
Attn: Georgia Baxter
P.O. Box 5902
San Mateo, CA 94402-0902
With a copy to:
Campbell Mathewson
CenturyPacific, LLLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680
Seattle, WA 98101-3029
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 9
Davis Wright Tremaine
Attn: Lynn Manolopolous
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 2300
Bellevue, Washington 98004-5149
Cable Huston LLP
Attn: James E. Benedict
1001 SW Fifth Avenue
Suite 2000
Portland, Oregon 97204-1136
T. Ryan Durkan
Hillis, Clark, Martin & Peterson P.S.
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4600
Seattle, WA 98101
6.5 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Any action with
respect to this Agreement shall be brought in King County Superior Court, Washington.
6.6 Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or
more facsimile or .pdf counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one instrument.
6.7 Headings; Recitals and Attachments. The headings in this
Agreement are inserted for reference only and shall not be construed to expand, limit or
otherwise modify the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The recitals to this
Agreement and Exhibits A are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference as if fully
set forth.
6.8 Dispute Resolution.
6.8.1 If any dispute arises out of any aspect of this Agreement,
the Parties must first try in good faith to settle the dispute through mediation. This
mediation must commence within 60 days after any party to the Agreement notifies the
other party requesting mediation to resolve a dispute.
6.8.2 If the Parties are not able to resolve their dispute through
mediation, they agree to submit the matter for resolution through binding arbitration.
The arbitrator shall be mutually chosen by both Parties. In no case may a mediator who
has mediated a claim serve as the arbitrator on the same claim. If the Parties cannot
agree on an arbitrator, either party or the Parties jointly may apply to the presiding
judge of the King County Superior Court to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator will
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 10
consult with the Parties and establish the rules and procedures for the arbitration that,
in light of the nature of the matter under dispute, will provide an efficient and fair
means for each of the Parties to present its case. Among other things, the arbitrator will
establish a schedule for completing the arbitration and issuing a decision. The decision
of the arbitrator will be final and may be enforced by an action brought in King County
Superior Court. In such an action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover all costs and
expenses, including all legal fees, incurred in that action.
6.8.3 The Parties will bear the costs of retaining a mediator or
an arbitrator equally.
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by the City and
Developer effective on the last date of signature below.
DATED this _____ day of ____________________, 2016
Joint Venture known as QUENDALL TERMINALS
By: Altino Properties, Inc.
Its: Authorized Representative
By:__________________________
Robert Cugini
Its: Vice President
Date: ________________________
CITY OF RENTON
By:
Denis Law
Mayor
Date: ________________________
ATTEST:
By:___________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 12
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of _______, County of ________, personally appeared ________________,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his/her
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
QUENDALL TERMINALS, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for
the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 13
STATE OF ___________ )
) ss:
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On this _____ day of _______, 2016, before me, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Washington, County of King, personally appeared Denis Law, Mayor,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person who executed this instrument, who has produced sufficient proof of his
power and authority to execute and sign the instrument in the name of and on behalf of
CITY OF RENTON, to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said association for the
uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and
year first above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of
______________________.
Notary (print):______________________
My appointment expires: _____________
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
Draft Quendall Terminals Development Agreement Page 14
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit A-1-Map
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
AGENDA ITEM #5. a)
98102-3513BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.2009 MINOR AVE. EASTSEATTLE, WashingtonLAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS(206) 323-4144SW 1/4 SECTION 29, T24N, R5E, W.M.LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBITCENTURY PACIFIC, LLLP.CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTONDATE: 11/11/16JOB NO.:2009050.03AGENDA ITEM #5. a)