HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:00 PM - Thursday, October 25, 2018
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Docket #13, Groups C & D
a) #D-149: Mobile Food Vendors
b) #D-150: Townhouse Review
c) #D-151: Parking Standards
d) #D-152: Service and Social Organizations
e) #D-153: Administrative Code Interpretations
f) #D-154: Multi-Family Property Tax Exemption & Waived Fees
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
a) Rezone from Residential-14 (R-14) to Center Village (CV)
b) Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
c) Text Amendments
3. Shoreline Master Program Amendments - Update
4. Emerging Issues in CED
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-149 Mobile Food Vendors
Staff: Angelea Weihs
Date: September 14, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
SUMMARY: This Supplemental Staff Report provides responses to issues that were raised at
a Planning Commission meeting regarding amendments to the Renton Municipal
Code Development Regulations (Title IV). It also includes additional information
that staff has identified as being necessary to include in the analysis for
amendments.
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.
Staff Amendment to Proposal: Following further analysis in response to a number of food truck
Temporary Use Permit (TUP) applications for properties in the Commercial Office (CO) Zone,
staff recommends revising the proposed code amendment to allow mobile food vendors as
outright permitted uses (with conditions) in the CO Zone. The purpose of the CO zone, per RMC
4-9-200.O, 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
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
#D-149 Page 2 of 2 September 13, 2018
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.”
Considering the commercial and (limited) light industrial character of the CO Zone, mobile food
vendor uses would not be in conflict with the uses permitted in the CO Zone. In addition,
mobile food vendors would provide property owners the opportunity to provide food services
on office developments where restaurants are not practical.
Planning Commission Issue: Comments were received during the planning commission briefing
regarding the concern of overconcentration of food trucks on one lot, without review and
approval via a Temporary Use Permit.
Staff Response: Staff recommends limiting the number of outright permitted mobile
food vendors to one (1) per lot within the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV, CD and CO Zones, without
the requirement of a Temporary Use Permit. Lots with more than one (1) mobile food
vendor (in the IL, IM, IH, CA, CV, CD and CO Zones) will require approval of a Tier 1
Temporary Use Permit.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\docket group 13\d-150 townhouse review\d-150 townhouse review supplemental staff
rpt..docx
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-150 Townhouse Review
Staff: Paul Hintz
Date: September 13, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
SUPPLEMENTAL:
A proposed standard cited in the staff report dated September 13, 2018 is amended as follows:
In the CD zone outside of the Downtown Business District, and CV zoned properties not abutting NE
Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Avenue NE, any development wherein dwelling units are proposed shall
provide net gross commercial square footage equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the gross ground floor
area of all buildings on site.
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), Residential Multifamily (RMF), Center
Village (CV), Center Downtown (CD) outside of the Downtown Business District,
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), Urban Center (UC), the Commercial Neighborhood (CN), and the
Commercial Arterial (CA) 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 and CD) 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
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 2 of 8 September 13, 2018
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.
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 su bdivided 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 setting the minimum density at 10 dwelling units
per acre, 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, which has standards precluding townhouses) was
addressed by considering two questions: (1) are townhouses compatible with the intended uses,
building forms, and the purpose of each commercial zone?; (2) considering the primary purpose of most
commercial zones is to 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?; and (3) what standards for the commercial area in mixed use
development would most likely result in viable spaces for future businesses?
(1) Are townhouses compatible with the intended uses, building forms, and the purpose of
each commercial 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 citywide 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 or low-density multifamily neighborhoods, staff recommends allowing
townhouses in the CV zone where not abutting Sunset Boulevard east of Harrington Avenue NE in order
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 3 of 8 September 13, 2018
to provide density to support local businesses and create a transition from residential mixed use
development to single-family neighborhoods.
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 will result in underutilization of CD zoned land,
and therefore staff recommends not allowing townhouses in the CD zone.
Commercial-Office-Residential Zone: Because 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, townhouses would be an inappropriate
form of housing which would not further the vision for this zone. Staff recommends not allowing
townhouses in the COR zone.
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.
Therefore, staff recommends allowing townhouses in the CA zone only where: it abuts a residential
zone, a vertically mixed use building with at least two residential stories above commercial is built along
the public right-of-way, developed pursuant to proposed new mixed-use standards discussed later in this
report, and the townhouses are located in the rear closest to the abutting residential zone.
Commercial Neighborhood Zone: Because the CN zone currently does not allow standalone
residential buildings, and townhouses are required to be “ground related,” it seems townhouses were
never envisioned for the zone and there would be significant difficulties complying with existing code
requirements, so therefore staff recommends not allowing townhouses in the CN zone.
Urban Center Zone: Considering 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, and therefore staff recommends not allowing townhouse in the
UC zone.
SUMMARY OF STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TOWNHOUSES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES:
TOWNHOUSES IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
CV CA CD COR UC CN
Yes* Yes** No No No No
*If not abutting Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Ave. NE
**Only allowed on CA zoned property outside of the Benson, Cedar River, Talbot, or Valley Community
Planning Areas if:
• abutting a residential zone;
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 4 of 8 September 13, 2018
• at least one mixed building is constructed along any street frontage with a minimum of two
residential stories above commercial; and
• townhouses are limited to three stories and sited to abut the residential 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. These standards
generally do not 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.
Therefore, staff recommends that except in the CD zone outside of the Downtown Business
District, and CV zoned properties not abutting NE Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Avenue NE, any
development wherein dwelling units are proposed shall provide net gross commercial square footage
equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the gross ground floor area of all buildings on site.
(3) Which aspects of code should be amended or new standards adopted that would help
mixed use development be more viable and further the purpose and vision for each commercial zone?
In order to realize the type of mixed use development envisioned, staff proposes adopting the
changes and standards shown on the following pages:
SUBJECT EXISTING STANDARD PROPOSED STANDARD
Garden style apartments Prohibited in CV Prohibited in all commercial zones, except
CN
Townhouse Design Subject to Urban Design Standards In the CA and CV zones, townhouses and
carriage houses shall adhere to
Residential Design Standards applicable
to the R-14 zone.
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.
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 chart
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 Minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 15' Next chart
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 5 of 8 September 13, 2018
commercial is required
for CA, UC & CN
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 chart
Height increases based
on new ground floor
ceiling height (refer to
next chart)
CN: 35’
CA: 60’
CV: 60’
UC: 6 or 10 stories
CD: 95’
CO: 250’
COR: 10 stories or 125’
CN: no change
CA: 70’
CV: 70’
UC: no change
CD: no change
CO: no change
COR: no change
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 6 of 8 September 13, 2018
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ZONES
Timing of
Development
Any standalone residential buildings shall not be permitted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any required
standalone commercial or vertically mixed use building(s).
Commercial
Area
Calculation
Except in the CD zone outside of the Downtown Business District, and CV zoned properties not abutting NE Sunset Blvd. east of
Harrington Avenue NE, any development wherein dwelling units are proposed shall provide net commercial square footage
equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the gross ground floor area of all buildings on site.
Vertical Mixed
Use Buildings –
Where
Required
1. A vertically mixed use building with at least two (2) residential stories above ground floor commercial is required:
a. along any street frontage in the CA zone;
b. the CD zone within the Downtown Business District; and
c. along NE Sunset Blvd. for properties in the in the CV zone abutting NE Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Avenue NE.
2. A vertically mixed use building with ground floor commercial is required in:
a. the CN zone; and
b. the UC zone along pedestrian-oriented streets.
Standalone
Residential –
Where Allowed
Standalone residential buildings are permitted:
1. in the CD zone outside of the Downtown Business District, provided residential amenity space and/or lobby space is provided
on the ground floor along the street frontage;
2. in the CV zone where not abutting NE Sunset Blvd. east of Harrington Avenue NE;
3. in the CA zone where abutting a residential zone if at least one vertical mixed building is constructed along the street
frontage(s) with a minimum of two residential stories above commercial, the standalone residential building(s) are sited
closest to the abutting residential zone and, if townhouses, limited to three (3) stories;
4. in the UC zone along streets not designated as pedestrian-oriented streets through the Master Site Plan process; and
5. in the COR zone as determined through the Master Site Plan process.
Where standalone residential buildings are not allowed, dwelling units shall be integrated into a vertically mixed use building with
ground floor commercial.
Commercial
Uses - Allowed
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, offices not located on the ground floor, 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, AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 7 of 8 September 13, 2018
and areas/facilities developed for the exclusive use of the building’s residents or their guests is limited to 25% of the overall façade
along any street frontage.
Commercial
Space
Standards
At a minimum, the development shall include ground floor commercial space along any street frontage or, in the absence of street
frontage, along the primary façade of the building in conformance with the following standards:
1. A minimum average depth of thirty feet (30’) and no less than twenty feet (20’) at any given point;
2. A minimum floor-to-ceiling height of eighteen feet (18’);
3. ADA compliant bathrooms (common facilities are acceptable);
4. A central plumbing drain line; and
5. A grease trap and a ventilation shaft for a commercial kitchen hood/exhaust.
USES:
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC
C. RESIDENTIAL
Attached dwellings –
Flats
P P P P* P* P* P* P* P* P*
Attached dwellings –
Garden style apartments
P P*
Attached dwellings –
Townhouses
P P P** P* P*
Attached dwellings –
Carriage houses
P P P** P* P*
*Subject to conditions noted in this staff report or existing conditions of RMC not expressly proposed to be removed.
** Subject to the standards of RMC 4-2-115, Residential Design and Open Space Standards, applicable to the R-14 zone.AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
#D-150 Page 8 of 8 September 13, 2018
NOTE: To implement the proposed Title IV changes staff also recommends adopting or revising
definitions for the following terms: attached dwelling; flat; townhouse; carriage house; penthouse;
attached dwelling unit; ground floor; mixed use, horizontal mixed use; vertical mixed use; site; and site
plan.
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 Comprehensive Plan’s Vision and
Land Use Element policies.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
Requiring more commercial space with residential mixed-use development will likely provide a higher
tax based thereby enabling the City to provide adequate public facilities.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The proposed standards and regulations will likely result in higher density projects, which will help the
City meet adopted residential growth targets and help relieve pent up demand for housing. Requiring
more commercial space with residential mixed-use development will likely help the City meet adopted
employment targets.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives will be furthered by the proposed amendments.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
These changes might an adversely affect commercial land values due to the increased commercial
square footage required and therefore potentially less profit for residential mixed -use projects as
opposed to current code that requires very little commercial space, especially for large and/or deep lots,
and allows low-density yet highly profitable forms of multifamily (i.e., townhouses). The proposed
amendments will likely result in higher density projects, which might help relieve housing costs.
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 #1. b)
Multifamily Parking Requirements by Jurisdiction - Prepared 07/25/2018JurisdictionStudio1-bed2-bed3-bedGuest Parking RequirementShoreline.75 per unit.75 per unit1.5 per unit1.5 per unitNoneRenton1 per unit1 per unit1.4 per unit1.6 per unitNoneTacoma 1-1.5 per unit depending on residential density allowed in zoneNoneBellevue1.2 per unit1.2 per unit1.6 per unit1.8 per unitNoneKirkland (in high density res zones)1.2 per unit1.3 per unit1.6 per unit1.8 per unit10% of total number of required stallsBurien1.8 per unit1.8 per unit1.8 per unit1.8 per unitNoneAuburn1.5 per unit1.5 per unit1.5 per unit2 per unitNoneKent1 per unit 2 per unit if under 49 total units, 1.8 if over 49 unitsNoneIssaquah1 per unit2 per unit2 per unit2 per unit1/4 space per unit (built into spaces)Tukwila 2 per unit2 per unit2 per unit2 per unitNoneTukwila (Urban Renewal Overlay)1 per unit1 per unit1.5 per unit2 per unit1 guest or car-share for developments with 50-200 unitsAverage:1.271.401.631.84N/AAGENDA ITEM #1. c)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-153 administrative code interpretations\d-153 supplemental staff report_final.docx October 17, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-153 Administrative Code Interpretations
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: October 17, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
SUMMARY: The following information is provided in response to an internal request for
additional changes to be made to CI-144, Site Plan Review for Medical
Institutions, Assisted Living and Convalescent Care in Low Density Residential
Zones. Planning Commission was briefed on this topic on October 3, 2018, as
part of the 2018 Administrative Code Interpretation briefing.
General Description
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-9-200B.2, Site Plan Review, requires site plan review for all
development in commercial zones and high density residential zones (R-10 – RMF) unless
specifically exempt. A large variety of uses are permitted within these zones, including medical
institutions, assisted living, and convalescent care. However, code does not require Site Plan
Review for the aforementioned types of development in low density residential zones
(Residential Conservation – R-8). The typical development pattern in low density residential
zones is large lot single family residential development with limited opportunities for larger
scale uses within these zones. Medical institutions, assisted living and convalescent care are
one of a few large scale uses permitted in the low density residential zones.
The proposed/adopted code amendments in CI-144 extend site plan review provisions to
require site plan review for medical institutions, assisted living, and convalescent care facilities,
regardless of the zone. Due to the scale and intensity of such uses, staff recommended site plan
review as a requirement for low density residential zones where impacts from large scale
development could be more significant than in high density residential zones or commercial
zones. The drafted code interpretation was posted online to allow for the 14 day comment
period, followed by a 2 week appeal period; Staff did not receive comments or appeals for CI-
144. The proposed changes to code became effective September 18, 2018. Since the Code
changes requiring site plan review for all development became effective in September, staff
received an internal request for additional consideration of site plan review requirements
regarding large scale environmental (SEPA) exempt projects.
Site plan review is required for all development in the IL, CO, CN, CD, CA, CV, COR, UC, R-10,
RMH, RM, and R-14 Zones, all development within the Employment designation, and for the
following types of development, regardless of zone: K-12 educational institutions, parks,
outdoor recreation facilities, rental services with outdoor storage, hazardous waste facilities,
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
#D-153 Page 2 of 2 October 17, 2018
and with the adoption of CI-144, medical institutions, assisted living, and convalescent care
facilities. Development exempt from environmental (SEPA) review is also exempt from site plan
review and would not require a public hearing. Per RMC 4-9-200C, Exemptions, the following
development is exempt from site plan review: planned urban developments, SEPA exempt
development, underground utility projects, and airplane manufacturing and airplane
manufacturing accessory functions.
The following is an example of a SEPA exempt large scale project that is also exempt from site
plan review: An applicant proposes the construction of a four (4) unit residential building with a
height of ninety feet (90’) located downtown, within the Center Downtown (CD) zone. The
described project would not be subject to SEPA review, as any development under ten units is
exempt. Due to this exemption from SEPA the project would also be exempt from Site Plan
Review, per RMC 4-9-200C.2. Per RMC 4-9-200D, a public hearing is required for projects under
Site Plan Review, when the project meets the criteria for large project scale (RMC 4-9-
200D.2.b.). One of these criteria, includes the threshold of four (4) stories or sixty feet (60’) in
height. The above example project exceeds this threshold in height, but because it is exempt
from site plan review, it is also exempt from the public hearing.
If site plan review were required, the project would also require a public hearing. Under normal
circumstances a ninety foot (90’) high development would be subject to SEPA and would
therefore also be subject to site plan review. However in some rare cases, such as the example
above, site plan review is not “triggered” because the project is a SEPA exempt development
due to the small number of units proposed. Given that the described example is SEPA exempt
and exempt from site plan review, the public is not afforded the opportunity to provide
comment. A development of this scale should not be permitted without public comment or site
plan review.
Staff Amendment to Proposal
Add a provision that would require site plan review for SEPA Exempt Development for
proposed projects that exceeds the threshold of Large Project Scale.
Planning Commission Issue: N/A
Staff Response: N/A
AGENDA ITEM #1. e)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 1 of 7 October 12, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Rezone from R-14 to CV
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: October 12, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: City of Renton
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description
Staff proposes a rezone of a site that is zoned Residential-14 (R-14), or 14 dwelling units per net
acre, to Center Village (CV). The R-14 zone is designated Residential High Density on the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the CV zone is designated Commercial and Mixed Use,
thus requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
As outlined in Renton Municipal Code 4-9-180-F, an application for a rezone of one or more
properties shall require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the proposed zone is not
implemented by the underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and shall therefore
be subject to the processes and review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
List of Exhibits/Attachments
Attachment A – Vicinity Map, Black & White
Attachment B – Vicinity Map, Aerial
Attachment C – Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Attachment D – Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Attachment E – Current Zoning
Attachment F – Proposed Zoning
Attachment G –Topography
Background
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-070G and RMC 2-10-3F outline the types of review the
Planning Commission shall conduct. At the direction or referral by City Council, the Planning
Commission shall review staff proposals, hold public hearings, and submit recommendations to
Council and the Mayor for the adoption of and proposed amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. As the recommending body, Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to
Council after reviewing the staff proposal and holding a public hearing. All Comprehensive Plan
amendments shall be adopted by ordinance of the City Council. This process is codified in 4-9-
020, Comprehensive Plan and Amendment Process.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 2 of 7 October 12, 2018
RMC 4-9-180, Rezone Process, asserts that an application for a rezone of one or more properties
shall require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment if the proposed zone is not implemented by the
underlying Comprehensive Plan land use designation, and shall therefore be subject to the
processes and review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments, in addition to the review
criteria used for rezones not requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Review criteria for
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Criteria for Rezones Requiring a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment are provided below under the ‘Review Criteria’ heading.
Staff proposes a rezone of four (4) parcels from Residential-14 (R-14) to Center Village (CV), the
current and proposed zones are implemented by Comprehensive Plan land use designation’s
Residential High Density (RHD) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU), respectively. The proposed
rezone to CV will consequently result in a higher intensity land use designation on the City’s
Comprehensive Land Use Map. Given that the current zoning and proposed zoning are
implemented by distinct Comprehensive Plan land use designations, the rezone requires a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The rezone is needed to advance the City’s and Renton Housing Authority’s (RHA) long-term plans
for the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace. RHA has developed a concept and strategy for a $24
million project for a 62-unit new construction multi-family affordable housing project on the
“Node” in the Sunset area. The housing will serve a range of low incomes, including those as low
as 40% of the Area Median Income (AMI). In addition, the project will serve extremely low income
families through twenty-two Project Based Section 8 housing vouchers, which will provide deeply
subsidized housing for a minimum of 20 years.
RHA has identified a partnership and $5 million match funding opportunity with the King County
Council for “shovel ready” affordable housing projects. While RHA does not have a “shovel ready”
project per se, RHA has identified a site in the Sunset neighborhood and presented an expedited
development process that would have the project under construction in twelve months.
A rezone from R-14 to CV is needed in order to realize the Sunset Terrace replacement housing
vision. The proposed multi-family housing development exceeds the maximum density permitted
in the zone where the project is located. In order to be eligible for the funding opportunity with
the County, the proposed use must be permitted in the zone. In addition, RHA has received notice
from the County of their willingness to make a decision and release funds earlier than anticipated,
making this rezone request all the more urgent.
The site of the proposed rezone for the multi-family development comprises three (3) parcels
totaling 1.1 acre. Additionally, staff proposes a rezone of a parcel (.17 acre) immediately south
of the subject site and across the right-of-way, to eliminate incongruent zoning. The fourth parcel
is considered parkland of the Renton Highlands Library campus. As shown in Attachment A, the
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 3 of 7 October 12, 2018
boundaries of the four parcels is as follows: Glennwood Avenue NE to the West, Harrington
Avenue NE to the East, Glenwood Avenue NE to the North, and Sunset Lane NE to the South.
As mentioned above, rezones requiring a Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be subject to
the processes and review criteria for change of zone classifications, in addition to processes and
review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Criteria for rezones and Comprehensive
Plan Amendments are provided below.
Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
lists review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the
following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in
the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected;
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-
wide Planning Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 4 of 7 October 12, 2018
3. Criteria for Rezone Classifications:
Proposals that include a concurrent rezone proposal shall also comply with the decision
criteria for a change of zone classification in RMC 4-9-180.
The City may deny a rezone if the following criteria are not met. The City may approve or
approve with conditions an application for a rezone if:
1. The rezone has merit and value for the community, and will not adversely affect public
health, safety, and welfare.
2. The rezone will not be materially detrimental to the uses or properties located in the
immediate vicinity thereof.
3. Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property; conditions
affecting the subject property have substantially changed as a result of, but not limited to,
public improvements or permitted private development.
4. The property subject to rezone was not specifically considered a rezone at the time of the
last area land use analysis and area zoning.
5. The characteristics of development upon the land subject to the rezone application are
compatible with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone as well as the zone-specific
policy of the proposed zone, as providing by the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The rezone does not conflict with the governing Community Plan, if one was adopted for
the Community Planning Area in which the property subject to the rezone is located. (Ord.
5676, 12-3-2012; Ord. 5853, 8-7-17). There is not currently a governing Community Plan
for Sunset / Renton Highlands Community Planning Area.
Analysis
Review Criteria 1 – Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Criteria 1 of the Comprehensive Plan Review Criteria has been met. Items a-h are addressed
in the impact analysis below. The Department of Community and Economic Development has not
identified any additional considerations as noted in item j.
Review Criteria 2 – Comprehensive Plan Amendments
The rezone proposal fulfills criteria ‘A’, supporting the vision of the Renton Comprehensive
Plan (“The center of opportunity in the Puget Sound Region where businesses and families
thrive”). Renton aims to achieve this vision through efficient land use planning that
addresses demands of growth. This proposal meets the following Land Use Goals:
Goal L-H: Plan for high quality residential growth that supports transit by providing urban
densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good health and physical activity,
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 5 of 7 October 12, 2018
builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating both built
amenities and natural features.
Goal L-I: Utilize multiple strategies to accommodate residential growth; Development of
new multifamily and mixed-use in the City Center and in the Residential High Density and
Commercial Mixed Use designations and infill development on vacant and underutilized
land in established neighborhoods and multifamily areas.
Review Criteria – Rezone Classification
The proposed rezone has significant merit and value for the community. Upon completion
the multi-family affordable housing development would accommodate residential growth
and work toward filling the void of affordable housing in Renton; the conceptual plan
currently assumes a mix of incomes at 40%, 60% and 80% AMI. Given the concentration of
CV zoned parcels surrounding the subject site, the rezone from R-14 to CV would not be
considered materially detrimental to the properties located in the immediate vicinity.
Since the original zoning or most recent rezone of the subject property, some conditions
affecting the subject property have changed as a result of public improvements. In May 2016
the City commenced the Sunset Lane Project, a city initiated traffic improvement project
designed to support the redevelopment of the Sunset Area Community in the Highlands Area,
by improving all forms of mobility. The traffic improvements included raised intersections,
new curb and gutter, upgraded pedestrian ramps and crosswalks, street lighting, and
streetscape elements such as street trees. The characteristics of development at the site of
the proposed rezone are compatible with the zone-specific policy of the proposed rezone.
Conceptual site planning for the proposed project is based upon development standards for
the CV zone, including the number of units, maximum building height, parking requirements,
etc. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, CV zoned lands are suitable for redevelopment
into compact urban development with a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use center, and a
community focal point. The zone is intended to revitalize an area, creating a vibrant, urban
center. At the conceptual stage, the proposed project captures the vision and intent of the
CV zone.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
The change of zoning from R-14 to CV Zone helps the City support planned growth and meet
growth targets by providing opportunities for new housing at a higher density, thus increasing
the City’s capacity to for housing.
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 6 of 7 October 12, 2018
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
All land use applications will be reviewed and analyzed for potential impacts to public services
at the time of application. If appropriate, project specific impacts will be addressed at the time
of plan review.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
The rezone of the subject site will not have any effect on the rate of population but rather will
accommodate for the projected population increase in the region. The current zoning of R-14
has the capacity to accommodate 11 dwelling units and if the proposed rezone is approved, the
site will have the capacity to accommodate a total of 62 dwelling units, increasing the housing
capacity by 464% for a gain of 51 units. Given that the current zoning of R-14 does not produce
employment opportunities, under R-14 zoning the subject property is not expected to yield
employment opportunity. If the subject site were to be rezoned, it has a potential gain of 40
jobs.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed rezone is aligned with Comprehensive Plan objectives as it supports planned
growth and influences decisions that impact the city, such as the proposed “replacement
housing” for the former Sunset Terrace public housing site, that will only be possible at the
proposed scale/capacity if the rezone is approved.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
In general, this project should not have a significant effect on land values or housing costs as
the area surrounding the subject site is predominantly zoned CV.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
The impact is not applicable.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The rezone proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning
Policies. Both documents encourage the development of affordable housing. If granted, the
rezone will allow multi-family residential development at a greater scale than the current
zoning will allow.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
Apart from steep slopes, there are no critical areas within the area of interest (waterbodies,
streams, wetlands, and floodplain).
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 7 of 7 October 12, 2018
Staff Recommendation
1. Rezone four (4) parcels from R-14 to CV, which will result in a change of land use
designation on the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Map, from Residential High Density
(RHD) to Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
^
UV900
¥405
NE7thStEdmonds Ave NEN ESunsetBlvdSunset Blvd NEMonroe Ave NENorth
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Park
Honey Creek
Greenway
Sunset
Neighborhood
Park
Study Area
^Community Center
Library
School
°0 375 750Feet
Attachment A
Vicnity
Black & White
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
^
UV900
¥405
NE7thStEdmonds Ave NENESunset Blvd
Sunset Blvd NEMonroe Ave NENorth
Highlands
Park
Highlands
Park
Honey Creek
Greenway
Sunset
Neighborhood
Park
Study Area
^Community Center
Library
School
°0 375 750Feet
Attachment B
Vicinity
Aerial
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RHD
RHD
RHD CMU
RMD
RHD
RMD RHDRMD
NE
1
0
t
h
S
t
NE 12th St
KirklandAveNEEdmonds Ave NENE 9th StBlaine Ave NENE 10th Pl
NESunsetBlvd
Sunset BlvdNE
Dayton Ave NEHarringtonAveNENE 10th Pl
NE 13th St
NE11thCt
NE 13th Pl
Ferndale
Ci
rNEHarrington Ave NENE 9th StCamas Ave NEJefferson Ave NEHarrington Pl
NE
AccessRd NE14thSt
NE13th St
Sunset
LnNEDayton Ave NEEdmonds Pl NEGlennwoodAveNEPrivateRd
NE 9th Pl
NE 9th Aly
NE9thPl
Harrington Aly NEJeffersonA veN EPrivateRdNE 10th Aly
NE 10th St Sunset Ln NEGlennwoodAveNE
Access R
d
Study Area
Land Use Designations
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
°0 175 350Feet
Attachment C
Current Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Service Layer Credits:
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
RHD
RHD
RHD CMU
RMD
RHD
RMD RHDRMD
CMU
NE
1
0
t
h
S
t
NE 12th St
KirklandAveNEEdmonds Ave NENE 9th StBlaine Ave NENE 10th Pl
NESunsetBlvd
Sunset BlvdNE
Dayton Ave NEHarringtonAveNENE 10th Pl
NE 13th St
NE11thCt
NE 13th Pl
Ferndale
Ci
rNEHarrington Ave NENE 9th StCamas Ave NEJefferson Ave NEHarrington Pl
NE
AccessRd NE14thSt
NE13th St
Sunset
LnNEDayton Ave NEEdmonds Pl NEGlennwoodAveNEPrivateRd
NE 9th Pl
NE 9th Aly
NE9thPl
Harrington Aly NEJeffersonA veN EPrivateRdNE 10th Aly
NE 10th St Sunset Ln NEGlennwoodAveNE
Access R
d
Study Area
Land Use Designations
Residential Medium Density
Residential High Density
Commercial Mixed Use
°0 175 350Feet
Attachment D
Proposed Land Use
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Service Layer Credits:
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
R-8
R-8
R-8
RM-FRM-F
CN
CV
R-8 R-10
RM-FR-14R-8
CV
CV
R-14CV
RM-F
NE
1
0
t
h
S
t
NE 12th St
KirklandAveNEEdmonds Ave NENE 9th StBlaine Ave NENE 10th Pl
NESunsetBlvd
Sunset BlvdNE
Dayton Ave NEHarringtonAveNENE 10th Pl
NE 13th St
NE11thCt
NE 13th Pl
Ferndale
Ci
rNEHarrington Ave NENE 9th StCamas Ave NEJefferson Ave NEHarrington Pl
NE
AccessRd NE14thSt
NE13th St
Sunset
LnNEDayton Ave NEEdmonds Pl NEGlennwoodAveNEPrivateRd
NE 9th Aly
NE9thPl
Harrington Aly NEJeffersonA veN EPrivateRdNE 10th Aly
NE 10th St Sunset Ln NEGlennwood Ave NEAccess Rd
Study Area
Zoning Designations
Center Village
Commercial Neighborhood
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
°0 175 350Feet
Attachment E
Current Zoning
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Service Layer Credits:
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
R-8
R-8
R-8
RM-FRM-F
CN
CV
R-8 R-10
RM-FR-14R-8
CV
CV
R-14CV
RM-F CV
NE
1
0
t
h
S
t
NE 12th St
KirklandAveNEEdmonds Ave NENE 9th StBlaine Ave NENE 10th Pl
NESunsetBlvd
Sunset BlvdNE
Dayton Ave NEHarringtonAveNENE 10th Pl
NE 13th St
NE11thCt
NE 13th Pl
Ferndale
Ci
rNEHarrington Ave NENE 9th StCamas Ave NEJefferson Ave NEHarrington Pl
NE
AccessRd NE14thSt
NE13th St
Sunset
LnNEDayton Ave NEEdmonds Pl NEGlennwoodAveNEPrivateRd
NE 9th Aly
NE9thPl
Harrington Aly NEJeffersonA veN EPrivateRdNE 10th Aly
NE 10th St Sunset Ln NEGlennwood Ave NEAccess Rd
Study Area
Zoning Designations
Center Village
Commercial Neighborhood
Residential - 8 DU/AC
Residential - 10 DU/AC
Residential - 14 DU/AC
Residential Multi-Family
°0 175 350Feet
Attachment F
Proposed Zoning
Designation
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Service Layer Credits:
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
NE
1
0
t
h
S
t
NE 12th St
KirklandAveNEEdmonds Ave NENE 9th StBlaine Ave NENE 10th Pl
NESunsetBlvd
Sunset BlvdNE
Dayton Ave NEHarringtonAveNENE 10th Pl
NE 13th St
NE11thCt
NE 13th Pl
Ferndale
Ci
rNEHarrington Ave NENE 9th StCamas Ave NEJefferson Ave NEHarrington Pl
NE
AccessRd NE14thSt
NE13th St
Sunset
LnNEDayton Ave NEEdmonds Pl NEGlennwoodAveNEPrivateRd
NE 9th Pl
NE 9th Aly
NE9thPl
Harrington Aly NESunsetHeightsCondominiumsAcRd
JeffersonA veN EPrivateRdNE 10th Aly
NE 10th St Sunset Ln NEGlennwood Ave NEAccess Rd
250
250
300
300
300
350
350
350
350
Study Area
Contour Line (50 Ft)
Contour Line (10 Ft)
Steep Slopes
15% - 25%
25% - 40%
40% - 90%
>90%
°0 175 350Feet
Attachment G
Topography and
Steep Slopes
Source: City of Renton, 2018
Service Layer Credits:
Comprehensive
Plan Amendment
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 1 of 3 October 12, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Correction to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: October 12, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Long Range Planning Staff
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Correction to a discrepancy printed on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map, which incorrectly shows the land use for Commercial Neighborhood zoned parcels as
Commercial Mixed Use.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Current
Exhibit B – Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, Proposed
Background
Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-070G and RMC 2-10-3F outline the types of review the
Planning Commission shall conduct. At the direction or referral by the City Council, the Planning
Commission shall review staff proposals, hold public hearings, and submit recommendations to
the City Council and the Mayor for the adoption of and proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. The process is codified in 4-9-020, Comprehensive Plan and Amendment
Process. As the recommending body, Planning Commission shall forward a recommendation to
Council after reviewing the staff proposal and holding a public hearing. All Comprehensive Plan
amendments shall be adopted by ordinance of the City Council.
Code and text of the Comprehensive Plan indicate that the Commercial Neighborhood Zone
(CN) implements the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. Staff identified a
discrepancy on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map that incorrectly shows the land use
designation for CN Zoned parcels as Commercial Mixed Use.
Review Criteria
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
lists review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The criteria are:
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 2 of 3 October 12, 2018
1. All Comprehensive Plan amendments will be evaluated on their merits based upon the
following:
a. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned
in the Comprehensive Plan;
b. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities;
c. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth;
d. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable;
e. The effect upon general land values and housing costs;
f. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected;
g. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-wide
Planning Policies for King County;
h. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands;
i. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section;
j. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development.
2. All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
b. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
c. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
d. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
Analysis
Criteria 1
Items a-h are addressed in the impact analysis below. Item ‘I’ is not applicable. The Department
of Community and Economic Development has not identified any additional considerations as
noted in item ‘j’.
Criteria 2
The proposal meets criteria 2-c, eliminating conflicts with existing elements or policies. The
Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation discrepancy creates a conflict between the
Comprehensive Plan, an adopted policy document, and the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Correction to Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Page 3 of 3 October 12, 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, and conversion of
land.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The proposed amendment has no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public
facilities.
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 the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on 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 and natural resource lands.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Revise the discrepancy on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to indicate that parcels
zoned Commercial Neighborhood are implemented by the Residential High Density land use
designation.
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
SPRINGBR
O
O
KCREEK LAKEWASHINGTONBLVDSEHOQUIAMAVENEE VALLEY HWYNEPA R K D R
SW 7TH ST
SOUTHCENTERBLVD
KLICKI
TATDR
SE 192ND ST
S ORCAS ST
LINDAVESWS E MAYVALLEYRD
SE 128TH ST
S 132ND ST
TALBO
T
RDSRAI
NIERAVESTUKWILAPKWY
NE 4TH ST
SE 208TH ST68THAVESSW 16TH ST
S129THST
116THAVESEN 4TH STISLAND CREST WAYINTERURBAN
A
V
E
S
SEPETROVITSKYRD
124THAVESES 7TH STRAINIERAVEN NEWCASTLEWAY
SW 41ST ST
S 2 12THWAYHAR
DIE
AVE
SW140THAVESERENTO
N
A
VES87THAVES128THAVESESW 43RD ST SECAR R RD
SE168THST
BEACONAVES
LOGANAVENFORESTDRSE
S212THST
S G R A D Y W AYSE 216TH ST
132NDAVESE156THAVESESE 183RDST
116THAVESES 180TH ST UNIONAVENE164THAVESEAIRPORT WAY
PUGET DR SESE 204TH W
AY
S178THST
SW 34TH STMON
STERRDSW
SE JONES RD
SEMAYVALLEYRD
NEWCASTLEGOLFCLUBRD
S 133RD ST
84THAVESBENS
ONR
DS 154THPLSESEWARDPA
R
KAVESLAKEMONTBLVDSEMONROEAVENEDUVALLAVENEEDMONDSAVENESOUTHCENTERPKWYWILLIAMSAVESC
O
A
L
CREE
K
P
KWYSEEMERCERWAYOAKESDALEAVESWWELLSAVES148THAVESEPARKAVENWMERCERWAY140THWAYSE
EAST VALLEY RD§¨¦405
§¨¦5
T900
T515
T169
T181
T167
Employment Area
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
Com mercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea
Employment Area
Residential HighDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
CommercialMixed Use
Residential HighDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
Residential MediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
Residential MediumDensity
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
CommercialMixed Use
EmploymentArea
ResidentialLow Density
EmploymentArea
ResidentialMediumDensity ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialHigh Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
Com mercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity ResidentialHigh Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMedium Density
CommercialMixed Use ResidentialHigh DensityResidential HighDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialLow Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh DensityCommercialMixed Use
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialLow Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
Employment Area
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialLow Density
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
LAKEBOREN
LAKEDESIREGREENRIVER
CEDARRIVERBLAC
KRI
VERLAKEYOUNGS
SHADY LAKE
PANTHER LAKE
LAKEWASHINGTON
Is s a q u a hIs s a q u a h
M e r c e rM e r c e rIs l a n dIs l a n d
Se a TacSe a Tac
B e l l e v u eB e l l e v u e
Ne w ca s tl eNe w ca s tl e
K e n tK e n t
Tu kw i laTu kw i la
S e a tt l eS e a tt l e
K in gK in gCo u n t yCo u n t y
´
Renton City Limits
Land Use DesignationCMU-Commercial Mixed Use
COR-Commercial-Office-Residential
EA-Employment Area
RLD-Residential Low Density
RMD-Residential Medium Density
RHD-Residential High Density
Comprehensive PlanningLand Use Map
0 1 20.5
Miles
Updated by Ordinance
# 5758, #5759, #5760 and #5761
Effective as of July 1, 2015
City Boundary Effective as of September 24, 2014
Path: Y:\Files\Planning\Projects\LandUseMap\Mxds\2015\LandUseMap 11X17 Effective July 1 2015.mxdPrinted Date: 8/11/2015
Reference Scale: 1:42,000
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
SPRIN GBROOKCREEKSPRINGBR
O
O
KCREEK
I s s aqu a hIssaquah
Se a Ta cSeaTac LAKEWASHINGTONBLVDSEHOQUIAMAVENEEVALLEYHWY84THAVESWILLIAMSAVESSW 7TH ST
SOUTHCENTERB LVD WELLSAVESWIL
S
ONAVESKLICKIT
ATDR
S ORCAS ST
BEN
SONRDS
LINDAVESW154THPLSES 132ND ST
TALBO
T
RDSRAINIER AVE S
SE M A Y VALLEYRDSEWARDPARKAVES
TUKWILA PKWY
SE 128TH ST
SP
UGETDR
NE 4TH ST
SE 192ND ST
SE 208TH ST LAKEMONTBLVDSE68THAVESMONROEAVENEDUVALLAVENESW 16TH ST
S129THST N 4TH STISLAND CREST WAYINTERU
R
B
A
N
A
V
E
S
S
E
P
E
T
R
OVIT
S
K
Y
R
D
NE7TH S TEDMONDSAVENESOUTHCENTERPKWY124THAVESERAI
NI
ERAVENNEWCASTLEWAY COALCRE
E
K
P
K
WYSESW 41ST ST
S 2 12THWAYHAR
DIE
AVE
SWEMERCERWAY140THAVESEOAKESDALEAVESW116THAVESERENTO
NAVE
S
87THAVESNSOUTHPORT DR
128THAVESE148THAVESESW 43RD ST
SE168THST
BEACONAVES
LOGANAVENFORESTDRSE
S 212TH ST
S G R A D Y W AYPARKAVENSE 216TH ST
132NDAVESE156THAVESESE 183RDST
116THAVESES 180TH ST UNIONAVENE164THAVESEAIRPORT WAY
S W G R AD Y W AY
PUGET DR SESE 204TH W AYS178THST
SW 34TH STWMERCERWAYMO
N
S
T
ER
RD SW
SEJONES RD
SEMAYVALLEYRD
N E 3 R D ST140THWAYSE
EAST VALLEY RDSW27THST
NEWCASTLEGOLFCLUBRD
S 133RD ST
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
T515
T900
T169
T181
T167
ResidentialHigh Density
CommercialMixed Use
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
CommercialMixedUse
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialLow Density
EmploymentArea
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHighDensity
Residential HighDensity
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
CommercialMixedUse
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMedium Density
ResidentialLowDensity
ResidentialLow Density ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea
EmploymentArea
Residential HighDensity
ResidentialLowDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialLow Density
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialMediumDensity
EmploymentArea
ResidentialMediumDensity
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHighDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialLow Density
CommercialMixedUse
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMediumDensity
ResidentialHigh Density
ResidentialHighDensity
Residential HighDensity
ResidentialHighDensity
CommercialMixed Use
ResidentialMedium Density
CEDARRIVER
BL
ACKRI
VERGREENRIVER
LAKEDESIRE
LAKEYOUNGS
SHADYLAKE
LAKEBOREN
PANTHERLAKE
LAKEWASHINGTON
M e r c er I s l a ndMercer I s l a nd
B e l l e v u eBellevue
N e w c a s t l eNewcastle
K e n tKent
T u k w i l aTukwila
S e a t t l eSeattle
Ki n g C o u n t yKing C o u n t y
´
Renton City Limits
Land Use DesignationCMU-Commercial Mixed Use
COR-Commercial-Office-Residential
EA-Employment Area
RLD-Residential Low Density
RMD-Residential Medium Density
RHD-Residential High Density
Comprehensive PlanningLand Use Map
0 1 20.5
Miles
Updated by Ordinance
# 5758, #5759, #5760 and #5761
Effective as of July 1, 2015
City Boundary Effective as of September 24, 2014
Path: Y:\Files\Planning\Projects\LandUseMap\Mxds\2018\LandUseMap 11X17 July 10 2018.mxdPrinted Date: 7/10/2018
Reference Scale: 1:42,000
TEXT TO BE UPDATED
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 1 of 3 October 12, 2018
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Text Amendments
Staff: Angie Mathias
Date: October 11, 2018
Applicant or Requestor: Renton Regional Fire Authority
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Text amendments to the Capital Facilities Element to reflect the Renton
Regional Fire Authority’s adoption of Standards of Cover.
Background
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2015, prior to the formation of the Renton Regional
Fire Authority (RRFA) in 2016. In 2017, the Plan was amended to recognize RRFA. However, in
early 2018 the RRFA adopted their Standards of Cover (SOC) document and have requested
that the City amend the Capital Facilities Element regarding their level of service that is
identified in the SOC.
The SOC document is defined as those written policies and procedures that establish the
distribution and concentration of fixed and mobile resources of the RRFA. The elements
included in the RRFA’s SOC were taken directly from the Center for Public Safety Excellence
Commission on Fire Accreditation International Standards of Cover, 5th Edition. Their SOC is
directly responsive to Washington House Bill 1756 that mandated all fire departments in
Washington establish response objectives, measure its outcomes against its adopted response
standards on an annual basis, and report the results to the applicable elected officials, as well
as, the communities served. The adoption of their SOC document set the benchmark and
reference for their ability to analyze community need and effective response to emergencies.
Review Criteria & Analysis
RMC 4-9-020F Review Criteria for the Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Amendment Process
lists review criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The criteria are below with staff
analysis following.
A. The effect upon the rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments do not have an effect on the
rate of growth, development, or the conversion of land envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 2 of 3 October 12, 2018
B. The effect upon the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities. The proposed
text amendments do not have an effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate
public facilities. The RRFA has adopted their own Capital Facilities Plan that details how
they will be able to continue to provide adequate fire and emergency services to their
service area.
C. The effect upon the rate of population and employment growth. The proposed text
amendments do not have an effect on the rate of population and employment growth.
D. Whether Comprehensive Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and
desirable. Comprehensive Plan objectives are not affected by the proposed text
amendments.
E. The effect upon general land values and housing costs. The proposed text amendments
do not have an effect on general land values or housing costs.
F. Whether capital improvements or expenditures, including transportation, are being
made or completed as expected. The proposed text amendments do not have an effect
on capital improvements or expenditures.
G. Whether the initiated amendment conforms to the requirements of the GMA, is
internally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the County-
wide Planning Policies for King County. The proposed text amendments are not relevant
to the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies for King County.
H. The effect upon critical areas and natural resource lands. The proposed text
amendments do not have an effect on critical areas or natural resource lands.
I. Consistency with locational criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and application
requirements established in this section. There are no locational criteria that are
relevant to the proposed text amendments.
J. The effect upon other considerations as deemed necessary by the Department of
Community and Economic Development. There are no other considerations that the
Department of Community and Economic Development recommend be considered
regarding the proposed text amendments.
All applications must meet at least one of the following criteria:
A. The request supports the vision embodied in the Comprehensive Plan; or
B. The request supports the adopted business plan goals established by the City Council; or
C. The request eliminates conflicts with existing elements or policies; or
D. The request amends the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate new policy directives of
the City Council.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Page 3 of 3 October 12, 2018
The request made by the RRFA meets Criteria C because it will eliminate the potential for
conflict with the removal of specified response times that may be in conflict with the
Authority’s adopted Standards of Cover document.
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, and conversion of
land.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
The proposed amendment has no effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public
facilities.
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 the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
The proposed amendment has no effect on 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 and natural resource lands.
Effect on other considerations
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Revise the Capital Facilities element level of service listed for Fire and Emergency Services to state
that the level of service is identified in the RRFA’s SOC.
AGENDA ITEM #2. c)