HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:30 PM - Thursday, August 23, 2018
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Title IV - Docket #13 - Group A
a) #D-143: Submittal Standards
b) #D-144: Street Name Changes
c) #D-145: Short Term Rentals
d) #D-146: Downtown Window Transparency
2. Title IV - Docket #13 - Group B
a) #D-147: Variance Procedures
b) #D-148: Short Plat/Formal Plat Streamline Process
3. Title IV - Docket #13 - Group C
a) #D-149: Mobile Food Vendors
b) #D-150: Townhouse Review
c) #D-151: Parking Standards
d) #D-152: Service and Social Organizations
4. Multi-family Property Tax Exemption
5. Emerging Issues in CED
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\docket group 13\d-145 short term rentals\d-145 short-term rentals - supplemental.docxPage 1 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Short Term Rentals
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: June 6, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: City Council
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
The following information is provided in response to questions or commentary directed to staff during
the May 5, 2018 Planning Commission briefing. The data provided is sourced from AirDNA.co and based
on that website’s determination of Renton’s geographic boundaries related to short-term rentals (STRs)
as shown below, which includes areas outside of City limits.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
Short-Term Rentals Page 2 of 4 June 6, 2018
In the map above, the purple dots represent an entire house or apartment available for rent as an STR
while the blue dots represent a private room within a residence available for rent as an STR.
The number of STRs in Renton is 196, of which 64% are “private rooms” within residences.
Only 26% of all STRs are available without restricted dates; the absence of restricted dates
typically indicates a residence is being used purely as an investment property rather than being
rented when not in use by the owner.
53% of hosts have only a single listing (i.e., they don’t have multiple properties used as STRs).
The average number of bedrooms is 1.9, and the average number of guests in a rental is 4.9.
On a monthly average, STRs have a 70% occupancy rate, an average daily rate of $108 (includes
cleaning fees), and gross revenue of $1,835.
General Description: Short-term rentals are furnished residential units, or in some cases individual
rooms within units, in which the owner rents to guests for less than 30 days at a time. Typically the
owner of the property will rent their space when they are not using it, though some rentals are shared
spaces where owners rent out one or more rooms, or even an entire floor of a home. Short-term rentals
have surged in popularity in recent years for many reasons, in part because they often offer more
privacy and space for a lesser cost than hotels, but most notably due to websites like AirBnB that
facilitate every aspect of renting such as marketing, payment, and owner-guest communications.
Renting a home when it’s not being used by the owner or renting a portion of a home that isn’t utilized
by the owner is a practical way for owners to gain supplemental income without dedicating their home
as a full-fledged rental. Such owners might travel for long durations, have “too much house” for their
needs, or be on fixed incomes and therefore renting for short periods might enable owners to continue
or pursue a lifestyle that would otherwise be unsustainable.
Short-term rentals are not a new concept; they’ve existed in the form of vacation rentals and bed-and-
breakfast establishments for an undeterminable amount of time. Their proliferation is due to online
services (e.g., AirBnB) that easily facilitate this type of lodging in homes not typically seen as desirable
vacation homes (e.g., not lakefront or beach properties) or large historic houses iconic of traditional
bed-and-breakfasts.
Some local governments have decided to regulate short-term rentals due to concerns such as:
1. Lack of lodging and sales tax collection;
2. Increased traffic, parking, and noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood; and/or
3. Non-compliance with life/safety standards that are commonly applied to other types of lodging
establishments (such as hotels, motels, and bed-and-breakfasts).
Background
Sample Jurisdiction Regulations
Kirkland limits short term rentals to no more than 120 days total per year and requires landlords
or an authorized agent live in the property for 245 days of the year. 288 active short term
rentals
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
Short-Term Rentals Page 3 of 4 June 6, 2018
Walla Walla requires that homeowners who rent reside in the residences for at least 275 days of
the year and requires minimum 29 day rentals. 153 active short term rentals
Tacoma requires a business license and if renting rooms or ADU must be owner occupied. If
renting an entire home, does not have to be owner occupied. Rentals of entire homes allowed in
most zones, renting more than 3 rooms is allowed in specified zones with a Conditional Use
Permit. 371 active short term rentals
Westport allows only one unit per parcel (this could limit to one bedroom only), one off street
parking space must be provided, if owner doesn’t live within 50 miles must have local manager,
required to have business license, must be approved by city to have vacation rental. 62 active
rentals
Seattle requires business license, limits number of guests to the number of unrelated tenants
considered to be a household. Short term rentals defined as rented for 30 or fewer nights.
Starting in 2019, owners can only rent one unit for short term rental. If one of the units is the
owner’s primary residence they can rent two units. Also, in 2019 begin taxing $8 per night for
guest rooms and $14 per night for dwelling units. Seattle Metro area. 6,846 active short term
rentals, however, this includes Shoreline, Burien, Tukwila, SeaTac, Normandy Park, and Des
Moines.
o Monies generated by these tax rates are to be distributed as follows: first $5 million
initiated equitable development projects, next $2 million applied to investments in
affordable housing, remainder of funds shall support the aforementioned.
Redmond appears to have no regulations. 156 active short term rentals
Mercer Island appears to have no regulations. 44 active short term rentals
Kent appears to have no regulations. 92 active short term rentals
Bellevue appears to have no regulations. 410 active short term rentals
Issaquah appears to have no regulations. 80 active short term rentals
Bothell appears to have no regulations. 84 active short term rentals, however this includes Mill
Creek
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends adopting the following standards:
1. Business License: Owners of property used as a short-term rental must obtain a City of Renton
Business License if they:
advertise their property for overnight accommodations through online marketplaces,
newspapers, or other publications;
hire a property manager to handle the rental of the property; or
engage in short-term rentals (less than 30 continuous days) three or more times in a
year.
(These are the Department of Revenue’s standards for determining if a short-term rental is a
taxable business.)
2. Owner-Occupancy: The dwelling must be owner-occupied if individual guest rooms are rented
(or anything less than the whole unit).
3. Maximum Number of Guests: The number of guests, and owners or related family if the unit is
owner-occupied during rentals, is limited to two per bedroom. The definition of “bedroom” by
the International Building Code requires emergency egress (i.e., a window).
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
Short-Term Rentals Page 4 of 4 June 6, 2018
4. Off-Street Parking: Off-street parking must be provided pursuant to Title IV RMC. One additional
space is required is the unit is owner-occupied.
5. Safety Regulations: Property used as a short-term rental must comply with applicable
International Fire Code and Prevention Regulations (RMC 4-5-070), and have safety sign/map in
each bedroom that shows the location of fire extinguishers, gas shut-off valves, and exits.
6. Property Maintenance: Property used as a short-term rental must comply with International
Property Maintenance Code (RMC 4-5-130).
Additionally, staff recommends removing the standards and zoning restrictions for bed-and-breakfasts
as the code would be antiquated in comparison to the standards proposed for all short-term rentals.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Allowing short-term rentals as proposed might enable some homeowners to maintain ownership as a
result of supplemental income in cases when they might otherwise have been forced to sell for financial
reasons, and therefore properties that are not fully built-out might not be redeveloped to maximize its
capacity. This potential effect is likely inconsequential with regard to the City meeting adopted growth
targets.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There is likely little to no effect.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There is likely little to no effect.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives will likely not be affected by the proposal.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Allowing short-term rentals as proposed might enable some homeowners to maintain ownership as a
result of supplemental income in cases when they might otherwise have been forced to sell or rent for
periods exceeding 30 days for financial reasons. The proliferation of short-term rentals can limit the
inventory of properties for sale or rent and therefore can increase general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
There is likely little to no effect.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposal is not inconsistent with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
There is likely little to no effect.
AGENDA ITEM #1. c)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-147 variance procedures\d-147 staff report.docx Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
D-147 Variance Procedures
Staff: Clark H. Close
Date: June 6, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Planning Division
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Update variance procedures to provide the Community and Economic Development
Administrator with the authority to grant variances from certain development regulations, consistent
between residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. This docket item aims to expand the
Administrator’s authority to grant relief from a number of development standards under Title IV:
specifically, variances for setbacks, lot coverage, lot width, lot depth, allowed projections into setbacks,
and building height for commercial and industrial land uses.
Background
A variance permit may be applied for by someone who believes that the strict application of the Renton
Municipal Code deprives them of rights and privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity
and under the same zoning classification. The variance process is intended to review situations where
uniform requirements would unduly burden one property more than other properties in the vicinity. For
example, a setback variance may be applied for and approved if strict application of the standard setbacks
would render a lot unbuildable. This discretionary permit allows the City to evaluate each request against
a set of four (4) decision criteria (RMC 4-9-250B.5), as well as provide the public an opportunity to
comment on the proposal. After review and evaluation of the public comment, and if the application
meets all four (4) criteria, then granting relief from the code could be approved.
The variance procedures presently do not allow commercial and industrial land uses to apply for an
adjustment to specific development standards of Title IV, whereas residential land uses are allotted the
opportunity to do so. Request for relief from setbacks or other similar development standards should
apply to all land uses alike (residential, industrial or commercial), regardless of designation. Consideration
should be given to increase the variance opportunities for both commercial and industrial land uses, such
that they are more consistent with those found under residential land uses.
Currently, Renton Municipal Code (RMC) limits the authority and applicability for administrative variances
for commercial and industrial land uses to only “screening of surface-mounted equipment and screening
of roof-mounted equipment.” Per RMC 4-9-250B.1.a-b, variances are allowed from the following
development standards for residential land uses: lot width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed projections into
setbacks, building height, and lot coverage.
Proposed Text Amendments to Code
Staff recommends revising the variance procedures regarding development standards for commercial and
industrial land uses to include lot width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed projections into setbacks, building
height, and lot coverage.1
1 Please note additional items may be recommended for inclusion or removal between now and the public hearing,
which staff will clarify with the Planning Commission during the hearing.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
#D-147 Variance Procedures Page 2 of 2 June 6, 2018
Staff Recommendation
Text amendment to the City’s Municipal Code. Adopt an ordinance amending applicable sections of RMC
4-9-250 Variances, Waivers, Modifications, and Alternates – Specific to Variance Procedures by adding lot
width, lot depth, setbacks, allowed projections into setbacks, building height, and lot coverage to the
Subsection B.1.b – Commercial and Industrial Land 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 conversion of
land 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.
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
Objectives of the Plan would remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There will likely be no effect in general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on capital improvements or expenditures created by the
proposed changes.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments are consistent with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-148 short plat formal plat streamline process\d-148 staff report.docx Page 1 of 3
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
Short Plat/Formal Plat Streamline Process
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: June 6, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Streamline procedures for short plats and formal plats, define the number
of additional extensions that may be granted for filing formal plats, and make minor corrections
to punctuation and modify language to create consistency throughout code.
Background
This docket item considers procedural changes for short plats and formal plats and minor
revisions to text. Specifically, amendments to code related to completion requirements and
expiration periods, requests for additional time extensions and basic changes to text that would
correct punctuation and update language to be consistent with other sections of code. The
information below briefly defines subdivisions and summarizes Chapter 4-7 of the Renton
Municipal Code, Subdivision Regulations.
Chapter 4-7 regulates the procedures, submittal requirements, review criteria, and standards for
the subdivision of land in conformance with RCW 58.17. As defined in 4-11 RMC, a subdivision is
“the division or redivision of land into lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale,
lease, or transfer ownership.” Subdivisions are categorized as either short plat or formal plat,
depending on the number of lots proposed/created. Per current code, if 9 or fewer lots are
created the subdivision is categorized as a short subdivision and is represented by a short plat. If
10 or more lots are created the subdivision is categorized as a formal subdivision and is
represented by a formal plat. This distinction is important as regulations and procedures vary
depending on the number of proposed lots.
Completion Requirements and Expiration Periods
Short plats expire and become null and void within two (2) years of the date of approval. The
applicant may request an extension from the Administrator of not more than one year and the
required written request must be received prior to the expiration of the plat. Formal plats differ
from short plats in that the preliminary plat becomes null and void unless a final plat based upon
the preliminary plat is submitted within five (5) years from the date of preliminary plat approval.
Similar to short plats, applicants have the option to request a one-one year extension from the
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#D-148 Formal Plat/Short Plat Streamline Process Page 2 of 3 June 6, 2018
Administrator that may be granted provided that the applicant can demonstrate unusual
circumstances that would prevent filing the formal plat in a timely manner.
Staff has concluded that two years (or maximum of three years, with extension) is not a sufficient
period of time to complete the prerequisites needed to file the short plat or have it recorded.
The following improvements shall be constructed or deferred before a short plat can be filed or
a short subdivision can be recorded: grading and paving of streets and alleys, installation of
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, monuments, sanitary and storm sewers, street lights, water mains and
street name signs.
Given the two year time constraint for recording short plats, applicants frequently request to
defer the construction of required on-and-off site improvements. In the event that the applicant
requests to defer the improvements and the City approves, the City receives a security bond in
the amount of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the total estimated cost of the installation
and required improvements. In addition to deferring improvements, the deferral allows the
applicant to record the short subdivision, which could have an adverse impact on the City if the
applicant begins selling individual lots with incomplete improvements. As a result, the City would
be held accountable for providing the missing improvements with the security bond issued by
the applicant.
To address the issue of the two year short plat approval expiration and potential adverse impacts
caused by deferral of improvements, code should be amended to extend short plat approval from
two to five years to provide the applicant more time to complete the filing prerequisites.
Additional Extensions
To request an additional extension beyond the permitted one-one year extension for
subdivisions, the applicant must submit a written request to the Hearing Examiner and
Department at least thirty (30) days prior to the plat expiration date. Code allows the Hearing
Examiner to grant “additional extensions” beyond the one-one year extension permitted. To that
end, the Hearing Examiner could grant an infinite number of extensions if the applicant continues
to successfully satisfy the Hearing Examiner’s requirements for unusual circumstances that would
prevent filing the formal plat in a timely manner. It is reasonable to restrict the number of times
an applicant can receive additional extensions.
Staff Recommendation
1. Amend code to create consistent use of language and make revisions to punctuation in
Title 4, Chapters 7-9, Subdivision Regulations, where needed;
2. Extend the expiration of short plats from two (2) years to five (5) years; and
3. Define the number of additional extension that can be granted by the Hearing Examiner.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
#D-148 Formal Plat/Short Plat Streamline Process Page 3 of 3 June 6, 2018
Additional amendments to code may be proposed to between now and the public hearing,
which staff will clarify with the Planning Commission at the time of the hearing.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of growth, development, or conversion of
land as envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The proposed amendment improves the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities as
they will protect the City from providing improvements that should be provided by the
developer.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed amendment has no effect on plan objectives.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
The proposed amendment has no effect on capital improvements or expenditures.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendment has no effect on the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendment has no effect on critical areas or natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-149 mobile food vendors\d-149 staff report.docx Page 1 of 5
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-149 Mobile Food Vendors
Staff: Angelea Weihs
Date: July 16, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description:
The proposed ordinance amends Title 4 regarding mobile food vehicles and mobile vending
carts (collectively referred to as food trucks). Staff proposes the following amendments to:
Allow mobile food vehicles and carts as outright permitted uses (with conditions as
shown below) on private property within the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV, and CD Zones, without
the requirement of a Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit.
Permit mobile food vehicles and carts within the CN, CO, COR, and UC Zones with a Tier
1 Temporary Use Permit.
Retain the requirement for mobile food vendors to obtain a Tier 2 Temporary Use
Permit to operate in a residential zone.
Allow mobile food vehicles and carts with the public right-of-way, in the Downtown
Business District, with a ROW Use Permit.
Revise the definition of mobile food vending to clarify that the definition does not
include drive-thru components.
The draft ordinance does not substantially change the intent of the current regulations, rather
staff seeks to provide clarity and ease in the day-to-day administration of the food truck
regulations. The operational requirements in the current code remain largely unchanged. The
discussion below includes more detail regarding changes proposed.
Current Code Requirements:
Existing Regulations for Mobile Food Vendors are included in the following sections of the
Renton Municipal Code:
RMC 4-2-060R and RMC 4-2-080.10; Zoning Use Table and Conditions Associated with
the Zoning Use Table (These sections regulate temporary uses overall)
RMC 4-5-070; International Fire Code and Fire Prevention Regulations
RMC 4-9-240; Temporary Use Permits
RMC 4-11-130; Definitions M
Currently, mobile food vendors require approval of either a Tier 1 or Tier 2 Temporary Use
Permit prior to operation. The type of Temporary Use Permit is determined by the zoning of
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-149 Page 2 of 5 July 16, 2018
the proposed location for the mobile food vendor. Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 Temporary Use
Permits are valid for up to one year from the effective date of the permit. An applicant can
request (in writing) that a permit be valid beyond one year and for up to five (5) years at time of
application or prior to permit expiration.
A Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit (TUP) is required for mobile food vendors within the IL, IM, IH,
CA, CV, and CD zones. The standard turnaround time for a Tier 1 TUP is two weeks from receipt
of application to issuance of permit. The submittal requirements for a Tier 1 TUP include:
Master Application Form (required to be signed by the property owner and notarized)
Description of the proposed use
Site Plan
Seattle and King County Health Department approval
Abatement Agreement Form.
Tier 2 Temporary Use Permit is required for mobile food vendors outside of the IL, IM, IH, CA,
CV, and CD zones. The typical turnaround time for a Tier 2 TUP is six weeks from receipt of
application to issuance of permit. The Tier 2 TUP requires a notice of application and a two
week public comment period. The submittal requirements for a Tier 2 TUP include:
Pre-Application Meeting Summary
Waiver Form
Master Application Form
Project Narrative
Environmental Checklist
Abatement Agreement Form
Construction Mitigation Description
Neighborhood Detail Map
Site Plan
Architectural Elevations
Floor Plans
Tree Retention/land Clearing Plan
Tree Retention Worksheet
Arborist Report
Wetland Assessment
Standard Stream/Lake Study
Flood Hazard Data
Habitat Data Report
Geotechnical Report
Utilities Plan
Drainage Control Plan
Drainage Report
Assessment of Current Code:
Customer Service and Staff Time – Unlike other land use permit applications, such as
subdivisions, modifications, and variances, Temporary Use Permit applications for mobile food
vendors do not typically require development/construction. Applicants are typically small
business owners, rather than the developers or consultants that typically apply for other land
use permits. The lack of permit process familiarity typically results in city staff completing the
application for the applicant, including creating site plans, drafting project
descriptions/narratives, and completing master application forms. In addition, many TUP
applicants for mobile food trucks use English as a second language. As a result, the TUP process
and terminology can be overwhelming to non-native speaking customers, and it can add further
complexity and time to the staff intake process. In addition to the staff time necessary to assist
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-149 Page 3 of 5 July 16, 2018
the public, the processing of the Temporary Use Permit (Both Tier 1 and Tier 2) can take a
considerable amount of staff time and cost to the City. Most of the staff time necessary for TUP
processing is related to data entry, supervisory review, acquiring management signature, and
mailing.
Existing Safety Measures – Currently, safety measures are already in place to ensure that all
mobile food vendors operate in a manner that is not detrimental for the public health, safety,
and welfare, outside of the Temporary Use Permit process. The Renton Regional Fire Authority
requires an operational permit in order for vendors to operate a mobile food facility. The fire
regulations for mobile food facilities, per RMC 4-5-070, include specific requirements for
kitchen hoods, fire extinguishers, liquefied petroleum gas containment and storage, and
location for the mobile food facility in relation to nearby structures. In addition to fire
regulations, The Seattle & King County Health Department requires that mobile food vendors
submit plans for review and approval prior to opening and operating the mobile food unit. A
copy of the King County Health Certificate, or a copy of the King County Health Certificate
Application with a copy of the receipt, is required with the City of Renton business license
application. The mobile food vendor is required to obtain and maintain a business license while
operating in Renton. In addition to Renton Fire Authority approval, King County Health
Department approval, and City of Renton Business Licensing approval, a mobile food vendor
would also need approval of a ROW Use permit to be located in the public right-of-way. With all
the existing measures in place to ensure public health and safety, eliminating the requirement
for a Temporary Use Permit for mobile food vendors in the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV, and CD zones will
help simplify the process for the applicants, eliminate superfluous permitting, and save staff
time and cost to the City.
Conditions of Approval and Code Enforcement – Typically the same conditions of approval are
applied at each Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit issuance. The typical conditions of approval
require that: the vendor obtain a City of Renton business license prior to operation; that all
requirements of the Seattle – King County Public Health Department be met prior to operation;
that the site occupied by the mobile vendor be restored to the original condition upon removal
of the vending unit; and that the mobile food vendor remove the unit from the permitted
location between 12:00 a.m. (midnight) and 5:00 a.m. on a daily basis. The goal of the TUP
process was designed to result in better compliance with the code. The Temporary Use Permit
process does not automatically result in vendor compliance without the often necessary
intervention from Code Enforcement. For example, several code case violations have been
issued over the years for mobile food vendors that were not complying with the requirement to
remove the unit from the site between the hours of midnight to 5:00 a.m. In these cases, this
requirement was listed as a condition of approval for the Temporary Use Permit. The Code
Enforcement process, in addition to Planner/applicant verbal communication, has been more
effective at encouraging compliance with code regulations, rather than the TUP process itself.
In fact, eliminating the requirement for a Temporary Use Permit within the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV,
and CD zones will allow Code Enforcement to effectively review and process violations without
the added step of verifying the status of a valid TUP.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-149 Page 4 of 5 July 16, 2018
Tier 2 TUP and Public Notice Requirements – As stated above, unlike Tier 1 applications, Tier 2
Temporary Use Permits require a notice of application and a two week public comment period.
The public notice provides neighbors within 300 feet of the property the opportunity to voice
their concerns, which would be taken into consideration with the administrative decision. This
can be especially important in the residential zones, where mobile food vendors may conflict
more with the permitted uses of the zone and community character. However, unlike the
residential zones, which benefit from public notice and the public comment period required by
the Tier 2 TUP, the CN, CO, COR, and UC Zones do not specifically benefit from these public
notice requirements. Currently, mobile food vendors require a Tier 2 TUP to operate in the CN,
CO, COR, and UC Zones; however, these zones encourage small scale retail or mixed use
development, therefore, the temporary and small scale nature of mobile food vendors would
not be in conflict with the uses and character of these zones. A Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit,
which requires no public notice and fewer submittal requirements, would be more appropriate
for these zones.
Proposed Amendments to Code
Staff proposes the following amendments to RMC:
Allow mobile food vehicles and carts as outright permitted uses, with conditions, on
private property within the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV, and CD Zones, without the requirement of
a Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit. The conditions of approval may include the following:
o The mobile food vendors shall keep the Renton Fire Authority permit approval
and King County Health Department approval on the mobile vending facility at all
times, and copies of these approvals shall be made available to the City upon the
City’s request.
o The site occupied by the mobile vendor shall be restored to the original
condition upon removal of the vending unit
o The mobile food vendor shall remove the unit from the permitted location
between 12:00 a.m. (midnight) and 5:00 a.m. on a daily basis.
o The mobile food vendor shall maintain a distance of 50 feet from any lot zoned
residential.
o The mobile food vendor shall not obstruct any drive aisles or ingress/egress
within the site.
Permit mobile food vehicles and carts within the CN, CO, COR, and UC zones with a Tier
1 Temporary Use Permit, rather than the current requirement of a Tier 2 Temporary
User Permit. Mobile food vendors would still need a Tier 2 Temporary Use Permit to
operate in a residential zone.
Allow mobile food vehicles and carts within the public right-of-way in the Downtown
Business District, without the requirement for a temporary use permit. A ROW Use
Permit would still be required.
Revise the definition of mobile food vending to clarify that the definition does not
include drive-thru components.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D-149 Page 5 of 5 July 16, 2018
Staff Recommendation
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to allow mobile food vendors in the proposed zones
and subject to the standards proposed.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
It is anticipated that eliminating the requirement for a Temporary Use Permit in the IL, IM, IH,
CA, CV, and CD will encourage mobile food vendor growth, particularly in the CA and CD Zones.
Currently, most TUP vendor applications are in the CA zone. Allowing mobile food vendors
within the public ROW in the Downtown Business District will likely encourage more mobile
food vendor activity, which may result in more pedestrian activity. It is not anticipated that the
proposed changes will have a negative impact 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
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\docket group 13\d-150 townhouse review\d-150 townhouse review staff rpt..docx
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-150 Townhouse Review
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: July 16, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
General Description: This Docket Item reviews townhouse development with regard to where it is
currently allowed, what standards should apply, and whether amendments to Title IV are
recommended.
Currently, townhouses are defined as being a form of multifamily housing and are allowed in the
following zones: Residential-10 (R-10), Residential-14 (R-14), and Residential Multifamily (RMF); as well
as the Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Center Village (CV), Commercial Arterial (CA), Center Downtown
(CD), Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), and the Urban Center (UC) Zone where not located in the
Benson, Cedar River, Talbot, or Valley Community Planning Areas.
To better frame the question of where townhouses should be permitted, this staff report
examines residential zones (R-1 through RMF) separately from commercial (CA, CD, CN) or
commercially-oriented zones (CV, COR, and UC).
Background:
Residential Zones:
To consider whether or not townhouses should be permitted in residential zones less dense
than the R-10 zone (R-1 through R-8), staff looked specifically at the R-8 zone to inform a
recommendation. Generally, only detached single-family houses (SFHs) are permitted in the R-8 zone. If
anything other than a SFH (e.g., a duplex or attached townhouses) were to be allowed in the R-8 zone,
not only would there be no justification to change the zone’s bulk standards (e.g., setbacks, lot
coverage, density, etc.), there would be good reason to not change bulk standards in order to ensure
compatibility with the built environment of the R-8 zone (i.e., detached single family houses).
Staff applied the R-8 standards to a lot that could either be subdivided into two lots and
developed as SFHs or potentially developed as a duplex (i.e., two attached townhouse units). Because
the R-8 bulk standards were intended to only apply to SFHs, when two dwellings share a common wall
instead of being located on separate lots with two side yard setbacks (each 5’) separating the units, the
maximum allowed lot coverage is quickly exceeded; in order to not exceed lot coverage, greater
setbacks would be needed and even then there would be little to no allowance left for driveways or
detached structures (e.g., sheds).
Staff then considered why a developer or property owner, given the apparent disadvantage
explained above, might want to propose a duplex rather than two SFHs, which would likely sell for a
higher price than two units with a common wall. One purpose might be for living arrangements where
the residents are unrelated by blood or marriage and operate as a household under management from a
provider (e.g., adult family homes or group homes), in which case management might prefer a duplex.
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-150 Page 2 of 6 July 16, 2018
Another reason for building a duplex (if they were allowed in the R-8) would be for the creation of rental
housing due to the construction cost savings realized by having a common wall.
Because allowing duplexes in the R-8 would likely create compatibility issues with respect to
existing single-family housing, there would be difficulty applying the R-8 bulk standards without facing
clear disadvantages, and duplexes would likely be desired by a small segment of property owners, staff
does not recommend allowing duplexes or townhouses in the R-8 or other less dense residential zones.
However, staff does recommend changes to the RMF zone to better facilitate townhouse
development. Staff recommends requiring townhouse development in the RMF zone to be subdivided in
order to provide more home-ownership opportunities as opposed to the creation of condos, and to
ensure the creation of vehicular and pedestrian access to greater and more appropriate standards than
general parking lot standards. Staff also recommends a density increase from 20 dwelling units per acre
to 30 based on the reasoning that townhouses provide entry-level home ownership opportunities that
are needed in the both the City and region, and requiring townhouse development to be designed to the
R-14 design standards, which are more appropriate than the apartment-oriented design standards of
the RMF zone.
Commercial & Commercially-Oriented Zones:
The question of whether or not townhouses should continue to be allowed in the City’s
commercial zones (with the exception of the CO zone that has standards precluding townhouse
development) was addressed by considering two questions: (1) are townhouses compatible with the
intended uses, building forms, and the purpose of each commercial zone?; and (2) considering the
purpose of most commercial zones is to primarily provide opportunities for new, relocating, or
expanding businesses, as well as retail, services, entertainment, etc. for the community, do existing
standards result in meaningful commercial space or is too much commercial land being developed with
a significantly high ratio of residential to commercial square footage?
(1) Are townhouses compatible with the intended uses, building forms, and the purpose of each
commercial zone?
Commercial Neighborhood Zone: The CN zone is the smallest and least intensive of the City’s
commercial zones, providing small-scale convenience retail/commercial areas offering incidental retail
and service needs for the surrounding area. Because these zones are usually nodes within single-family
neighborhoods, staff believes townhouses with ground floor commercial are appropriate for the zone.
Center Village Zone: The CV zone is exclusive to a small area generally located along NE Sunset
Boulevard and intended to provide suitable environments for district-scaled retail and commercial
development serving more than one neighborhood, but not providing City-wide services. Historically,
commercial development has only been required along NE Sunset Blvd east of Harrington Ave. NE.,
thereby allowing standalone residential elsewhere. Given the area surrounding the CV zone is mostly
comprised of single-family neighborhoods, townhouses seem appropriate when not abutting Sunset
Blvd. in order to provide density to support local businesses and create a transition from residential
mixed use development to single-family neighborhoods.
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-150 Page 3 of 6 July 16, 2018
Center Downtown Zone: The purpose of the CD zone is to provide a mixed-use urban
commercial center serving a regional market as well as high-density residential development, and
because of this staff believes townhouse development, even with ground floor commercial, will result in
underutilization of CD zoned land. However, staff proposes an exception for affordable housing projects
wherein 100% of the units will be affordable to households earning <60% of the Area Median Income.
The Commercial-Office-Residential Zone: The COR zone is intended to provide for a mix of
intensive office, hotel, convention center, and residential activity in a high-quality, master-planned
development that is integrated with the natural environment. There are only two areas of COR zoned
land in the City and both are within the Shoreline Master Program jurisdiction, which greatly reduces
allowed height (35’ within 200’ of water). Townhouses in the COR zone are a practical way to meet the
density envisioned and an appropriate building form given the shoreline height restriction.
Commercial Arterial Zone: The CA zone provides for a wide variety of retail sales, services, and
other commercial activities along high-volume traffic corridors where residential uses may be integrated
into the zone through mixed-use buildings. The CA zone is the most common and widely applied
commercial zone. Where CA zoned property abuts major roadways the vision of mixed use buildings
with ground floor commercial and pedestrian amenities remains desirable, however, many CA zoned
properties are large, which makes it difficult to have viable commercial space where it’s not visible from
the public realm; additionally, some of the large CA zoned lots abut single family residential zones. Staff
believes that if residential mixed use developments provide a mixed use building with a minimum
density along the public right-of-way, developed pursuant to proposed new mixed-use standards
discussed later in this report, then townhouses would be appropriate in the rear if the land buts a single
family residential zone.
Urban Center Zone: Considering that the UC zone was established to provide an area for
pedestrian-oriented urban mixed-use development, and the overall mix and intensity of uses is intended
to create an urban rather than suburban character, staff concluded that townhouses are not an
appropriate form of residential development for the zone.
(2) Considering the purpose of most commercial zones is to primarily provide opportunities for
new, relocating, or expanding businesses, as well as retail, services, entertainment, etc. for the
community, do existing standards result in meaningful commercial space or is too much commercial
land being developed with a significantly high ratio of residential to commercial square footage?
Mixed use development standards vary among zones, but for the CA, UC and CN zone, ground
floor commercial space is required along any street frontage at a depth of 30’ and a minimum floor-to-
ceiling height of 15’. In the CV zone, ground floor commercial at a minimum of 75% of the frontage of
the building is required along NE Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE. None of these
standards result in meaningful, useful or viable commercial space, especially for lots with significant
depth because the standards aren’t relative to lot size or building square footage.
In order to realize the type of mixed use development envisioned, staff proposes the changes
and standards shown on the following pages:
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-150 Page 4 of 6 July 16, 2018
SUBJECT EXISTING STANDARD PROPOSED STANDARD
Garden style apartments Prohibited in CV Prohibited in all commercial zones, except
CN
Townhouses Permitted in any zone where attached
dwellings are permitted (except the CO)
Prohibited in the UC, CO, & CA except
where CA zoned property abuts a
residential zone in the Highlands,
Kennydale, or East Plateau Community
Planning Areas and at least one mixed
building is constructed along the street
frontage with a minimum of two residential
stories above commercial.
Where allowed, townhouse development
in any commercial zone shall adhere to R-
14 design standards.
CA Min. Density Currently 10 du/ac 20 du/ac
Master Site Plan – When
Required
UC and COR zoned parcels UC and COR zoned parcels, and CA
zoned parcels >2.5 acres or greater where
residential mixed use development is
proposed
Ground floor commercial
in CD
Required within the Downtown Business
District
Required everywhere in the CD unless the
project is for affordable housing (100%
units affordable for rent/purchase for
households earning <60% AMI)
Mixed Use Standard for
CV zoned parcels
abutting NE Sunset
Boulevard east of
Harrington Avenue NE
Ground floor commercial development at a
minimum of 75% of the frontage of the
building
Next page
Mixed Use Standard:
CA, UC & CN
Commercial space shall be provided on the
ground floor at 30' in depth along any street
frontage.
Where ground floor
commercial is required
for CA, UC & CN
Minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 15' Next page
Mixed Use Standards:
CO
Where within ¼ mile of mass transit:
1. 8 stories min.
2. Structured parking required.
3. Commercial space at 30' in depth
along any street frontage.
4. Min. 15’ floor-to-ceiling height.
5. Min. two commercial uses: retail
sales, on-site services, eating and
drinking establishments, and similar
uses.
Where within ¼ mile of mass transit:
1. 8 stories min.
2. Structured parking required.
3. Next page
Height increases based
on new ground floor
ceiling height (refer to
next page)
CN: 35’
CA: 60’
CV: 60’
UC: 6 or 10 stories
CD: 95’
CO: 250’
COR: 10 stories or 125’
CN: 40’
CA: 70’
CV: 70’
UC: no change
CD: 100’
CO: 255’
COR: 10 stories or 130’
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-150 Page 5 of 6 July 16, 2018
CD CA CV CN COR CO UC
Restriction
(EXISTING) Residential use(s) are not allowed within one thousand feet (1,000') of the centerline of Renton Municipal Airport runway.
Restriction
(EXISTING) Mixed-use residential development is not permitted in the Benson, Cedar River, Talbot, or Valley Community Planning Areas.
Restriction
(NEW) Garden style apartments are prohibited, except the CN zone.
Timing of
Development
(NEW)
Dwelling units shall only be developed concurrent with or subsequent to the development and construction of the nonresidential components of the
building. Where dwelling units are not required to be within a mixed use building, any standalone residential buildings cannot be permitted or
occupied prior to the (permitting and/or occupancy of) the commercial component.
Ground Floor
Residential –
Where Allowed
(NEW)
Dwelling units shall not be located on the ground floor along any street frontage, except: (1) in the CD zone for projects that provide 100% of the
units to households earning <60% AMI; (2) in the CV zone along any street other than NE Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Avenue NE; (3) in the UC
zone along non-pedestrian-oriented streets; and (4) in the CA zone where CA zoned property abuts a residential zone in the Highlands, Kennydale,
or East Plateau Community Planning Areas and at least one mixed building is constructed along the street frontage(s) with a minimum of two
residential stories above commercial.
Commercial
Area
Calculation
(NEW)
Except for the CN zone, commercial square footage equivalent to at least 50% of the parcel’s land area shall be designed and constructed pursuant
to the standards of this table; in the CN zone the ground floor shall be commercial.
Commercial
Uses - Allowed
(NEW)
Commercial uses in residential mixed-use developments are limited to retail sales, on-site services, eating and drinking establishments, taverns,
daycares, preschools, indoor recreational facilities, pet daycares, craft distilleries / small wineries / micro-breweries with tasting rooms and similar
uses as determined by the Administrator. Uses normal and incidental to the building including, but not limited to, interior entrance areas, elevators,
waiting/lobby areas, mechanical rooms, mail areas, garbage/recycling/compost storage areas, vehicle parking areas, and areas/facilities developed
for the exclusive use of the building’s residents are not considered commercial uses; the façade necessary for interior entrances, lobbies, and
areas/facilities developed for the exclusive use of the building’s residents is limited to 25% of the overall façade along any street frontage where
ground floor commercial is required.
Commercial
Space
Standards
Commercial space is required along any street frontage and shall have:
1. A minimum average depth of 30’, no less than 20’ at any given point;
2. On the ground floor, a minimum floor-to-finished-ceiling height of 20 ft.;
3. ADA compliant bathrooms (common facilities are acceptable);
4. A central plumbing drain line; and
5. A “restaurant-ready space” – one “unit” required to have a grease trap and a ventilation shaft for a commercial kitchen hood/exhaust. AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-150 Page 6 of 6 July 16, 2018
Staff Recommendation:
Amend Renton Municipal Code as described.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Proposed changes will likely better align development code with the Comp. Plan’s vision.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There will likely be little to no effect.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There will likely be little to no effect.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
No change
Effect on general land values or housing costs
These changes might have an effect on commercial land values due to the increased commercial square
footage required.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
No change
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed changes are consistent with the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
No effect
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-151 parking standards\d-151 staff report.docx August 1, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
D-151 Parking Standards
Staff: Alex Morganroth
Date: July 25, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Planning Division
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Analysis of parking complaints documented by the City of Renton Public Works
Department, primarily as related to parking within or near existing multifamily developments in the R-10,
R-14, and RMF zoning districts. This docket item aims to evaluate potential patterns with regards to the
parking complaints, the impact of parking issues on both residents of multifamily developments and
surrounding property owners, and potential solutions to address these concerns.
Background: The City of Renton Public Works Departments documents all parking complaints submitted
via email, over the phone, or in-person. Records indicate an increase in the number of complaints over
the past few years, specifically complaints from property owners and residents within close proximity to
recently constructed multi-family developments. A variety of factors may have contributed to the
increase in parking complaints including an increase in housing prices, parking mismanagement, and an
increase in multifamily development.
To isolate complaints related to multifamily development, records between 2015 and present day were
filtered to only include those located in or near the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones. Complaints submitted
were found to be geographically concentrated in a few specific areas in the City where higher density,
residential projects have been developed near existing single-family neighborhoods (see attached map).
Areas with a higher concentration of complaints include in the Benson Hill neighborhood near the
intersection of SE 172nd St and Benson Road and in the Renton Highlands near the Sunset area between
Harrington Ave NE and Duvall Ave NE. In addition to the official Public Works complaint records, staff
utilized tenant reviews on various websites that aggregate apartments-for-rent in order to gain additional
insights on parking availability from past and current residents of multi-family developments in these
areas.
The parking-related complaints collected by Public Works and comments from multifamily tenants
collected by staff can generally be divided into two distinct categories. The first category includes
complaints from past or current tenants of multifamily developments. Common themes found in the
complaints from tenants included a lack of parking availability for guests and a lack of enforcement for
parking permits issued by the property managers. Tenants expressed concerns over the high-cost of on-
site parking and inability for those households with two cars to afford both on-site parking spaces. The
second category and more frequent type of complaint in the public works records include complaints from
single-family property owners that live in-close proximity to the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones. Complaints
from these property owners primarily focused on the decrease in street parking availability due to
overflow from tenants and guests of multifamily developments. Staff has also heard single-family property
owners express concern that the high cost of on-site parking may be causing tenants to forgo purchasing
an assigned space and to instead utilize free street parking within neighborhoods with close proximity to
the developments.
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
Parking Standards Page 2 of 5 August 1, 2018
Parking Complaint Factors: After evaluating recorded parking complaints, parking requirements in Renton
and surrounding communities, and anecdotal evidence gathered through conversations between staff,
residents, and apartment managers, staff came to the conclusion that multiple factors may be leading to
either real or perceived parking problems for residents in the target neighborhoods.
Management: Poor management of resident parking at large multi-unit developments was an
underlying theme in staff conversations with residents of various complexes as well as with the
apartment reviews posted online by residents. A frequent complaint of tenants was that a lack of
enforcement in the on-site parking lots was leading to unauthorized vehicles utilizing the available
spaces and forcing residents to park off-site on nearby streets.
Housing Affordability: Large cities across the U.S. are struggling with a housing affordability crisis
and the Seattle-area has been hit especially hard due to the massive influx of people that have
moved to the region in the past decade. An increase in parking demand for residential uses is
likely an effect of the increasing costs related to housing for both renters and owners. As the price
to rent or buy continues to increase in the area, more people are choosing to co-locate as a way
to decrease their individual housing costs. In the past, studios may have been considered primarily
single-occupancy due to their small size and lack of private space. However, as costs have
increased, tenants are doubling up in order to pay rents that can easily exceed $1,500 per month
for a studio or 1-bedroom apartment. Although alternative transportation options in the area are
improving, two-person households may still need two cars in order to get to work or school.
In a review of five large multifamily developments in Renton, only one included a single parking
space with the standard unit rental price. By decoupling the base unit rental price from the parking
space rental price, tenants of multifamily developments may choose to not pay an additional fee
for an on-site parking space when free street parking is available within walking distance of their
building. In addition, some residents simply may not be able afford paying for on-site spaces that
can easily exceed $100 a month per parking space.
Current Parking Code: Under current code, RMC 4-4-080 “Parking, Loading, and Driveway
Regulations, a minimum/maximum number of parking spaces is required for attached dwellings
units in the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones. The current parking requirements for attached units are
as follows:
Studio: 1 space per unit
1-Bedroom 1 space per unit
2-Bedroom 1.4 spaces per unit
3+-Bedroom 1.6 spaces per unit
Renton does not require projects to include guest parking.
Parking for townhomes is currently calculated using the standards for attached dwelling units. A
concurrent docket item recommending the creation of separate use and development standards
for townhomes is currently in progress. Townhome developments, regardless of ownership
structure (condo vs. fee simple), are likely to have residents that share characteristics similar to
single-family detached units. Due to the similarities they share with traditional, single-family
homes, residents of townhomes are more likely to expect free, off-street parking. After
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
Parking Standards Page 3 of 5 August 1, 2018
townhomes are classified as a separate use under code, parking standards could be changed in
order to bring those more in line with the standards for single-family detached units.
Current code allows tandem parking (two spaces) to
be utilized for attached units. An unforeseen
consequence of allowing this type of parking to count
as two spaces is that a lack of storage availability in the
area has pushed some tenants to utilize only one of
the tandem spaces for a vehicle while utilizing the
other space for storage. If a tenant has two vehicles,
one of the vehicles will now need to be parked off-site,
potentially leading to a decrease in the availability of
on-street parking nearby.
Staff Recommendations:
The majority of complaints were related to a few developments in Renton that may not be representative
of parking issues city-wide. At this time, staff is not recommending an increase in parking ratios for
attached units. However, staff is recommending four specific code amendments related to parking that
are designed to both increase parking availability in multifamily developments and decrease the number
of vehicles utilizing street parking in the neighborhoods surrounding the developments.
1. Require guest parking for projects with attached units in the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones. Specifically,
staff recommends revising the parking standards to require projects to provide a guest spaces equal to
10% of the total number of required spaces for the residential portion of the development.
2. Remove the language allowing tandem parking for attached dwellings
3. Require that parking spaces for attached dwellings in the R-10, R-14, and RMF zones are assigned for
the exclusive use of specific dwellings.
4. Require that townhomes have two parking spaces per unit.
Proposed Text Amendments to Code
Staff recommends revising the parking code sections relating to parking standards for guest parking,
townhomes, and tandem parking. In addition, staff recommends adding a section to the code requiring
the assignment of one stall per unit.
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 conversion of
land 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.
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
Parking Standards Page 4 of 5 August 1, 2018
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
Objectives of the Plan would remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There will likely be no effect in general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on capital improvements or expenditures created by the
proposed changes.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments are consistent with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
Parking Standards Page 5 of 5 August 1, 2018
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-152 service and social organizations\d152 staff report.docx Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
D-152 Social and Service Organizations
Staff: Angie Mathias
Date: August 1, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Renton Planning Division
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: City Code groups Service and Social Organizations together for both its definition
and land use. These uses should be defined as two different uses. The social service organizations should
be allowed in commercial areas.
Background
Service and Social Organizations are permitted as a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use in all zones except
Resource Conservation (RC). In some commercial zones Service and Social Organizations must be part of
a mixed use project. Staff has identified a need to make a distinction between service and social
organizations and evaluate which zones each should be allowed in.
Examples of service and social organizations include: community meeting halls, philanthropic
institutions, private clubs, fraternal or nonprofit organizations, and social service organizations. A
community meeting hall functions very differently than some nonprofit or philanthropic organizations.
Many nonprofit or philanthropic organizations function more like an office, with employees who work
during business hours of the work week. For example the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a
philanthropic organization. This seems incompatible with single family dwellings.
Additionally some social service organizations provide a variety of services including counseling, case
management, and immediate crisis intervention. These types of services are more akin to services
provided at Diversion Interim Service Facilities and Diversion Facilities. These uses are also incompatible
with single family dwellings. The definition of Service and Social Organizations should be amended to
better clarify the distinction between these uses. Also, the zones in which they are allowed needs to be
reviewed.
Staff Recommendation: Define Service Organizations and Social Organizations separately. The first
definition should be for Social Service Organizations it should specify that social services are provided to
people including counseling, therapy, or other social or human services. However, they do not provide
case management or crisis intervention. Examples include: job skills centers, mental health agencies,
and food banks. The Social Organization definition should be retitled as Private Club, Fraternal
Organization and specify that they are associations of people organized for some common purpose,
including fraternal organizations. Social Service Organizations should continue to be allowed as a
Hearing Examiner Conditional Use, but only in high density residential, commercial, and industrial zones.
Private Club, Fraternal Organizations should continue to be allowed as a Hearing Examiner Conditional
Use in all zones except RC.
AGENDA ITEM #3. d)
Service and Social Organizations Page 2 of 2 August 1, 2018
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of growth, development, or conversion of land as
envisioned in the Plan. In fact, it may incentivize growth as envisioned in the Plan.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The collection of impact fees helps to ensure the City has the capacity to provide adequate public
facilities needed by new residents and businesses.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed amendment has no effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The amendments would work to further the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on general land values or housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
There are no capital improvements or expenditures being made or completed in association with the
proposed amendment.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments and collection of the requested fire impact fee work to further the goals of
the Growth Management Act and the CPP’s.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendment has no effect on critical areas or natural resource lands.
AGENDA ITEM #3. d)