HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:00 PM - Monday, June 10, 2019
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Benson Hill Community Advisory Board Appointments
Emory and Heinle
a) AB - 2394 Mayor Law appoints Mr. Chris Emory and Ms. Stacy Heinle to the Benson hill
Community Plan Advisory Board, with terms expiring on August 1, 2022.
2. Civic Core Implementation Update
3. Docket #14, Group A Briefing
a) #D-155: Temporary Wireless Communication Facility Standards
b) #D-157: SEPA Amendments
c) #D-158: Design District for the CO Zone
d) #D-159: Phasing Large Scale Projects
e) #D-160: Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion
4. Emerging Issues in CED
a) Park Ave Design Concept
AB - 2394
City Council Regular Meeting - 03 Jun 2019
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appointments to Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board - Emory
and Heinle
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning & Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Executive Department
STAFF CONTACT: April Alexander, Executive Assistant
EXT.: 6520
FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY:
None
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Mayor Law appoints the following to the Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board:
Mr. Chris Emory for a term expiring 8/1/22
Ms. Stacy Heinle for a term expiring 8/1/22
EXHIBITS:
A. Recommendation memo
B. Applications
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Confirm Mayor Law's appointment of Mr. Emory and Ms. Heinle to the Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory
Board.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Mi2320f9
gTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:May 24,2019
TO:Denis Law,Mayor
FROM:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT:Paul Hintz,Senior Planner,x7436
SUBJECT:Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board
Mr.Chris Emory and Ms.Stacy Heinle each recently applied to serve on the Benson Hill
Community Plan Advisory Board.Both Chris and Stacy have lived in the Benson Hill area
for years and have the desire to be more involved with their community and City efforts
to implement the Benson Hill Community Plan.
Staff believe that both Chris and Stacy will be valuable additions to the Board and
recommend three-year terms for each on the Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory
Board.
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
April Alexander
From:notification@civiclive.com
Sent:Wednesday,May 22,2019 2:59 PM
To:April Alexander
Subject:Application for Boards/Commissions/Committees 201 9-05-22 02:59 PM(PST)
Submission Notification
Application for Boards/Commissions/Committees 2019-05-22 02:59 PM(PST)was submitted by Guest on
5/22/2019 5:59:12 PM (GMT-08:00)Canada/Pacific
Name Value
Airport Advisory Committee*
Civil Service Commission*
Community Plan Advisory Board -Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board -Benson Hill
Community Plan Advisory Board -City Center
Historical/Museum Board*
Housing Authority*
Human Services Advisory Committee*
Municipal Arts Commission*
Parks Commission*
Planning Commission*
Senior Citizens Advisory Committee*
Sister City Committee -Cuautla
Sister City Committee -Nishiwald
Gender Ms.
Name Stacy Heinle
Address:—
“nonUL -,.-p
AltPhone:
Resident Yes
ResidentSince 2004
formerresidence Relmond
EducationBackground Licensed rndependent Social Worker B$W,MSW
I have over 20 years of experience as a social worker
focused on the health and safety of vulnerable citizens.For
the past 15 years I have been working in health care on bothOccupationalBackground.the provider and payeride of business.My work has
required getting to know theommunities I have served arid
live in.
TL A l.I.I----JLJEmployer:
I1t.
1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
•.I am active in Social Work and Case ManagementCommunityActiyitiesprofessionalgroups.
I have lived in the Benson Hill Neighborhood for 15 years
•and love it.I have seen both positive and negativeReasonforapplyrng•.developments and would like to participate in moving the
area to an even better place to live,raise a family,and work.
Day Meetings Day Meetings
Night Meetings Night Meetings
To view this form submission online,please follow the link below:
https://rentonwa.gov/form/one.aspx?obj ectld=156425 87&contextld=92 12 967&retumtosubmissions
2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
April Alexander
From:notification@civiclive.com
Sent:Thursday,May 23,2019 1:05 PM
To:April Alexander
Subject:Application for Boards/Commissions/Committees 2019-05-23 01:04 PM(PST)
Submission Notification
Application for Boards/Commissions/Committees 2019-05-23 01:04 PM(PST)was submitted by Guest on
5/23/2019 4:04:55 PM (GMT-08:00)CanadalPacific
Nam Value
Airport Advisory Committee*
Civil Service Commission*
Community Plan Advisory Board -Benson Hill Community Plan Advisory Board -Benson Hill
Community Plan Advisory Board -City Center
Historical/Museum Board*
Housing Authority*
Human Services Advisory Committee*
Municipal Arts Commission*
Parks Commission*
Planning Commission*
Senior Citizens Advisory Committee*
Sister City Committee -Cuautla
Sister City Committee -Nishiwaki
Gender Mr.
Name CHRISTOPHER EMORY
Address:LI1L --[IS
EmaiL
Phon
AltPhone:
Resident Yes
ResidentSince 2013
formerresidenci
Attended Hazen High School c/o 2003,Bellevue College w/EducationBackgronnd .Associates Degree,attended Eastern Washington University.
OccupationalBackground Consultant/contractor in the IT industry for 13 years.
‘
_________________
•.Some local volunteering to help with our Rolling HillsCommunftyActivitiesCommunity.
•I want to become more involved in local government andReasonforapplying.••have a hand in improving my community.
Day Meetings
1
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Night Meetings Night Meetings
To view this form submission online,please follow the link below:
hups ://rentonwa.gov/formlone.aspx?obj ectldl 56565 87&contextld=92 1 2967&retumtosubmissions
bm
2
AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d‐155 temp wireless comm facility stds\d‐155 staff report.docx May 15, 2019
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D‐155 Temporary Wireless Communication Facility Standards
Staff: Alex Morganroth
Date: May 15, 2019
Applicant or Requestor: Planning Division
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Temporary wireless communication facilities (also known as “cell‐on‐wheels”, or
“COW’s”), are mobile cell sites that generally include a tower, transceiver, and other accessory equipment
necessary for cellular signal transmittal. COWs are used by cell providers when there is a need for strong
cell signals on a temporary basis. This may include during emergencies, special events, or to fill a signal
gap during the construction of a permanent wireless facility. This docket item aims to create standards
that will mitigate the impacts of temporary COWs and provide clarity to the various service providers on
the City’s expectations when applying for the Temporary Use Permit.
Background: The Community and Economic Development Department has had an increase in the
number of requests from cell providers for both permanent and temporary wireless facilities. According
to the providers, demand for cellular service in Renton has increased exponentially in the past decade
and has been driven primarily by an increase in traffic volumes on I‐405, Hwy 167, and Hwy 169 (Maple
Valley Hwy). Local population growth and an increase in amount of data usage by the average user has
also accelerated the need for more facilities. In order to quickly and cheaply provide additional capacity
to their cellular networks, providers such as AT&T and Verizon have turned to temporary wireless
facilities like COWs, which have a significantly shorter period between application submittal and
approval than a standard permanent facility. Although generally noncontroversial, previous applications
for COWs proposed in areas near residential or commercial uses have generated a significant public
concern primarily related to the visual or noise impacts of the COW.
Current Code: Current code allows for the installation of COWs in any zoning district with an approved
Tier 1 Temporary Use Permit. The current code regulating wireless communication facilities (RMC 4‐4‐
140) does not contain any language specifically addressing the design, location, or timing requirements
for temporary wireless facilities. Without specific standards, staff has applied the general Temporary Use
Permit criteria when evaluating COW proposals in the past and has added conditions intended to decrease
the impact on neighboring properties.
Staff Recommendations:
Staff is recommending the addition of multiple standards related to the design and location of temporary
wireless communication facilities, or COWs, that are designed to mitigate for potential impacts on nearby
properties. The standards are related to the siting, screening, and noise generation of the facilities, and
will help ensure that equipment does not disrupt other uses or people in the vicinity. Standards
recommended include:
1. COWS shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet from the property line of a property that
is adjacent, abutting, or diagonal to a property with a residential use.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D‐155 Temporary WCF Standards Page 2 of 4 May 15, 2019
2. COWS are permitted on tandem axel utility trailers with a maximum width of ten (10) feet
and length of twenty‐four (24) feet.
3. A six‐foot (6’) high sight obscuring fence, vegetative screen, or alternative visual buffer
approved by the Administrator shall be constructed around the perimeter of the utility trailer
and/or any other ground equipment associated with the COW.
4. Permitted power sources.
(1) A whisper quiet generator or other utility source shall be used that emits an
average noise level, measured at any property line that is zoned or used for residential
purposes, that does not exceed fifty‐five dB (l dn) when measured on an "a weighted"
sound level meter, according to the procedures of the Environmental Protection
Agency, unless otherwise approved by the Administrator.
(2) Use of on‐site utility services must be approved by the Administrator.
5. No space or spaces needed to meet the required parking standards for a development site
shall be taken by the placement of COWS.
6. WCF installation/repairs—A temporary use permit issued for the use of COWS during the
installation of a new WCF or while repairs are being done on an existing WCF shall comply with
the standards contained above and with the following:
(a) The approval shall not exceed a length of sixty (60) consecutive days (excluding
installation and removal).
(b) There shall be no more than one temporary use permit issued for the use of a
COWs per site each calendar year.
(c) A one‐time extension of the original temporary use permit of up to sixty (60)
consecutive days (excluding installation and removal) may be approved by the
Administrator or his designee upon a showing that the proposed installation or repairs
are actively progressing.
Proposed Text Amendments to Code
Staff recommends revising the Wireless Communications Facility code section to include design and
development standards for temporary wireless communication facilities (or COWs).
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.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
#D‐155 Temporary WCF Standards Page 3 of 4 May 15, 2019
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 #3. a)
#D‐155 Temporary WCF Standards Page 4 of 4 May 15, 2019
Cell‐on‐Wheels (COW) Examples
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\D‐157 SEPA Amendments\D‐157 Staff Report.docx Page 1 of 4
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D‐157 SEPA Amendments
Staff: Matthew Herrera
Date: May 15, 2019
Applicant or Requestor: Planning Division ‐ Current Planning
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Update the City’s environmental review procedures that implement the State
Environmental Policy Act rules. This docket item aims to update the number of members and role of the
City’s Environmental Review Committee, amend the City’s SEPA procedures so they are consistent with
State rules, and add Channel Migration Zone to the list of inapplicable exemptions to environmental
review.
Background
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is a Washington State law enacted in 1971 that requires
government agencies to consider impacts to the environment in their decision making processes. The
City’s Current Planning Staff considers environmental impacts of proposed development when issuing
land use decisions unless a proposal is exempt from SEPA review. Examples of exempt development
include new housing with nine (9) or fewer units, commercial buildings less than 4,000 square feet, and
minor repair or remodeling of existing structures. If a proposal does not meet one of the identified
exemptions in the State’s SEPA Rules or those rules amended by the City, then the City issues an
environmental threshold determination with the permit decision that concludes whether or not the
impacts can be mitigated or whether an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary.
Environmental Review Committee
The government agencies that are charged with implementing SEPA are required to designate a
Responsible Official to issue the environmental threshold determinations. The City of Renton has
designated an Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to act the agency’s Responsible Official instead
of a single staff member. There are currently four (4) members of the ERC, which includes the Public
Works Administrator (who also acts the chair), Community and Economic Development Administrator,
Community Services Administrator, and the Renton Regional Fire Authority Fire Marshall. There is a
conflict in the City’s adopted SEPA Procedures as they identify the ERC as three (3) officials instead of
the current four (4). Suggested text amendments would update the procedures to reflect the current
ERC representation.
Environmental Review Committee and National Environmental Policy Act
Occasionally, the committee is requested to process documents for the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and act as the Responsible Entity. Similar to the State’s environmental rules, NEPA is the
federal environmental law that requires federal agencies to consider impacts to the environment in the
decision making process. NEPA documents that the ERC is requested to process are typically those
related to funding programs for affordable housing. These requests to process NEPA documents are
primarily from the Renton Housing Authority for their federal funding sources to construct affordable
housing developments in the City. As directed by the Mayor, the ERC acts as the Responsible Entity for
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D‐157 SEPA Amendments Page 2 of 4 May 15, 2019
NEPA related processes and therefore suggested text amendments would update the ERCs role as the
City’s Responsible Entity for NEPA procedures.
Consistency with SEPA Rules and Noticing Requirements
The State Legislature periodically updates the SEPA rules and procedures. Many of those rules are
adopted by reference or may be modified to better fit the agency’s own policies and objectives. The
City’s Environmental Review Procedures contains several cross references that are no longer applicable
as the legislature has amended to state statute or the cross reference is located in another section of
the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Staff suggests reviewing cross references to ensure the
statutes are correct and relevant and provide the necessary text amendments.
The State rules also contain public noticing requirements for environmental threshold determinations.
The State requires agencies to use “reasonable methods” to inform the public and other agencies that
an environmental document has been issued. The City currently posts the property, mails or emails
notice to interested parties of record, uploads the document to the City’s website, and publishes the
notice in the Renton Reporter. Staff suggests removing the published notice from the City’s SEPA
procedures to be consistent with administrative land use permit notice requirements.
Publishing the notice in the Renton Reporter adds costs to the City and the considerable lead time to
request the publication is burdensome to issuing the overarching land use permit for the project. The
paper also requires submission of the publication request on Tuesday for a Friday publishing. This limits
when a permit decision can be issued, as it must coincide the day of publication. So a permit and SEPA
document may be ready for issuance on Tuesday, it must wait until Friday due to publication. Removing
the publication requirement still provides reasonable methods to notice the public as a posting would
occur, interested parties of record would receive a copy, and the document would be uploaded to the
City’s website. This would be in addition to the initial Notice of Application for the project which would
be posted, mailed to neighbors within 300‐feet, and posted on the Land Use Notice page of the City’s
website.
Channel Migration Zone
In April 2015, the King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks issued the Cedar River
Channel Migration Study that delineated a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) and identifies hazard areas
along the river within the City and further upstream into unincorporated King County. Channel migration
is a naturally occurring event where a river moves laterally across the floodplain by gradually eroding
one side of the bank and depositing sediment along the other or the channel can suddenly shift to a new
location. Channel migration can endanger health and safety and cause damage to homes, businesses,
and other improvements within the identified hazard areas, which often extend further than the river’s
100‐year floodplain.
The King County study mapped moderate and severe channel migration zones along the Cedar River
upstream from I‐405, however on private property along the river, the mapping does not account for
any bank armoring that would constrain channel migration. The study finds that channel migration does
occur in armored areas, but at lower rates. Also, channel migration could occur if bank armoring fails or
is removed.
The development regulations do not currently prescribe a method to appropriately mitigate potential
impacts within the CMZ and therefore the authority to require geomorphic studies and apply mitigation
would be via the SEPA review for proposals that are within the CMZ hazard areas. Mitigation through
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D‐157 SEPA Amendments Page 3 of 4 May 15, 2019
SEPA is intended to mitigate site‐specific impacts that cannot otherwise be mitigated in the City’s
development regulations. However not all development is subject to SEPA review as referenced
previously. Single‐family building permits and other minor construction is exempt from SEPA review and
therefore any imposed mitigation related to CMZ hazards could be challenged based on a lack of
authority to condition the permit.
The CMZ along the Cedar River is located within the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) overlay. Updates
to the SMP regulations are typically periodic and require final approval by the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE). The City has nearly completed the periodic update to the SMP, which is
currently undergoing final review with DOE, however CMZ hazards were not included within the scope
of the update. As an interim measure prior to a future minor update to the SMP that would include CMZ
regulations, staff suggests an amendment to the inapplicable exemptions in the City’s adopted SEPA
procedures that would include CMZs.
The City’s adopted SEPA procedures includes a section for inapplicable exemptions. Examples of an
inapplicable exemption includes a permit for minor construction that would ordinarily be exempt from
SEPA review such as a single‐family home, a subdivision of nine (9) lots or less, or small commercial
building, but is located near a critical area such as wetland, steep slope, or stream. If this were to occur,
the proposal would no longer be exempt from SEPA review and an environmental threshold
determination would be required with the permit. By adding the CMZ to the inapplicable exemption list,
the City would have the substantive authority to require studies and identify appropriate mitigation to
the project.
Staff Recommendation
Text amendments the Development Regulations related to the City’s adopted SEPA Procedures to:
1. Reflect the four (4) members currently designated as the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC); and
2. Identify the ERC as the Responsible Entity for processing NEPA documents; and
3. Update adopted SEPA references for accuracy and update noticing requirement; and
4. Add CMZ to the list of inapplicable exemptions.
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.
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D‐157 SEPA Amendments Page 4 of 4 May 15, 2019
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There will likely be no effect in general land values. Housing costs could increase for those structures
located in the CMZ as additional studies and mitigation may be necessary to protect the home(s).
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Not applicable.
Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies
The proposed amendments are consistent with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendments may require mitigation measures for development in CMZs
AGENDA ITEM #3. b)
#D-158 Design District for the CO Zone Page 1 of 4 May 15, 2019
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-158 Design District for the CO Zone
Staff: Katie Buchl-Morales
Date: May 15, 2019
Applicant or Requestor: Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: Assign an urban design district to the Commercial Office (CO) Zone that
applies to all development within the zone. Currently, Urban Design District ‘D’ design regulations
are applied to the CO Zone and are only applicable to mixed-use residential development,
excluding all other permitted uses within the zone. This docket item is intended to implement
the land use policies established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan so that
development is consistent with the purpose of the zone and land use designation.
Background
The City of Renton utilizes urban design districts to support the City’s land use goals of promoting
a safe, healthy, and attractive community through the implementation of policies established in
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposed development and redevelopment
within urban design districts undergo design review during land use application review to ensure
that projects meet the City’s adopted design standards for the design district and zone where
they are located. Development standards for urban design districts exist for the following design
elements: Site design and building location, parking and vehicular access, pedestrian
environment, recreation areas and common open space, building architectural design, signage,
and lighting.
Urban design districts are not assigned to residential zoning designations (Resource
Conservation, R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8, R-10, R-14, Residential Multi-Family, and Residential
Manufactured Homes), although there are applicable design and open space standards for
residential zones. The four urban design districts and their corresponding zones in the City
include:
i. District ‘A’: All areas zoned Center Downtown (CD)
ii. District ‘B’: All areas zoned Residential Multi-Family (RMF)
iii. District ‘C’: All areas zoned Urban Center (UC) or Commercial Office Residential (COR)
iv. District ‘D’: All areas zoned Center Village (CV) or Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial
Neighborhood (CN), and mixed use buildings with attached dwelling units in the
Commercial Office (CO) Zone, except for those properties included in the Automall District
and used for small vehicle sales or a secondary use identified in RMC 4-3-040C1, Uses
Permitted in the Renton Automall District. (Ord. 5572, 11-15-2010; Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012;
Ord. 5743, 1-12-2015; Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015; Ord. 5839, 6-12-2017; Ord. 5867, 12-11-
2017).
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
#D-158 Design District for the CO Zone Page 2 of 4 May 15, 2019
The CO Zone is characterized by large, highly visible parcels from major arterials or highways that
are located along existing or planned transit routes. As shown in Exhibit 1, parcels in the CO Zone
are primarily concentrated around Interstate-405 and State Route 167. Per Renton Municipal
Code 4-2-020, Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts, the CO Zone was established to “provide
areas appropriate for professional, administrative, and business offices and related uses, offering
high-quality and amenity work environments.” As presented above, the development standards
of Urban Design District ‘D’ only applies to mixed use buildings with attached dwelling units in
the CO Zone, excluding all other permitted uses within the zone, which includes various office
uses, assisted living facilities, hotels, recreational facilities, and parking garages. In 2015, Code
was amended to permit residential development within the CO Zone provided that it be located
within one-quarter mile of mass transit facilities (bus stop, dedicated park and ride, or commuter
rail), within a mixed use building of no less than eight stories, and that parking for the dwelling
units be located within an attached parking facility. Urban Design District ‘D’ was applied to
residential mixed-use development to address the need for a compatible transition between new
residential mixed use buildings and the existing commercial and office development, privacy for
individuals in residential uses, and to provide pedestrian oriented development to further
enhance the connectivity between residences and transit facilities. All non-residential mixed use
development was exempt from complying with the development standards of Urban Design
District ‘D’. In the absence of urban design standards for a broader range of uses, the City’s
authority to require design standards that support the high-quality and amenity work
environments is restricted.
Given the City’s current limitations to enforce urban design standards in the CO Zone, this docket
seeks to answer the following questions:
Is Urban Design District ‘D’ the most appropriate urban design district for the CO Zone?
Specifically, Staff is considering whether Urban Design District ‘C’ or ‘D’ is the most
appropriate design district for the CO Zone.
Are distinct design standards needed for various uses within the zone/urban design
district? Existing design standards may not be applicable to all uses within a zone and
individual design standards may need to be established.
Are there uses within urban design districts that should be exempt from urban design
standards? Design standards may not be needed for all uses.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends extending design standards to additional uses in the CO Zone to ensure
development is held to the same high standards as development in other zones. A comparative
analysis of Urban Design Districts ‘C’ and ‘D’ is needed to determine which design district is the
most appropriate.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
Not applicable. It is a common misconception that more stringent design requirements may
deter private investment and therefore delay or impeded growth and development. However,
the experience in Renton has been the opposite. It is generally recognized that the
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
#D-158 Design District for the CO Zone Page 3 of 4 May 15, 2019
contributions brought forth by design requirements are valuable and contribute to the
attractiveness and livability of the community, which may help the City achieve its allocated
growth targets.
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. 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
Not applicable. It is a common misconception that more stringent design requirements may
deter private investment and therefore delay or impeded growth and development.
Contributions brought forth by design requirements are valuable and contribute to the
attractiveness and livability of the community, which may help the City achieve its allocated
population and employment growth targets.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
The proposed changes further the objectives found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Extending
design standards to additional uses in the CO Zone will help ensure that existing strip
commercial development will transform into vibrant business districts.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
Although the value of a project built with design requirements may be higher and may
subsequently increase the general land values, it is not anticipated that instituting design
requirements for commercial and office use should have a significant impact on land values or
housing costs. Additionally, extending design requirements to commercial and office uses is not
likely to have a significant impact on housing costs.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
The proposed amendment has no effect on the completion of capital improvements or
expenditures.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
The decision to institute design requirements will help fulfill several growth management goals:
Economic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of
the state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention
and expansion of existing economic businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize
regional differences impacting economic development opportunities, and encourage growth in
areas experiencing insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state’s natural
resources, public services, and public facilities.
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
#D-158 Design District for the CO Zone Page 4 of 4 May 15, 2019
Transportation. Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state’s high quality of life, including air
and water quality, and the availability of water.
Open space and recreation. Retain open space, enhance recreational opportunities, conserve
fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural resource lands and water, and develop parks
and recreation facilities.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
The proposed amendment has no effect on critical areas.
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
49,678 4,140
Exhibit 1 - CO Zone
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and
is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be
accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.
None
5/10/2019
Legend
2,81501,408
THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION
Feet
Notes
2,815
WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Information Technology - GIS
kbuchl-morales@rentonwa.gov
City and County Boundary
Zoning
RC-Resource Conservation
R1-Residential 1 du/ac
R4-Residential 4 du/ac
R6-Residential - 6 DU/AC
R8-Residential 8 du/ac
R10-Residential 10 du/ac
R14-Residential 14 du/ac
RMF-Residential Multi-Family
RMH-Residential Manufactured Homes
CN-Commercial Neighborhood
CV-Center Village
CA-Commercial Arterial
UC-Urban Center
CD-Center Downtown
COR-Commercial Office/Residential
CO-Commercial Office
IL-Industrial - Light
IM-Industrial - Medium
IH-Industrial - Heavy
Streets
Waterbodies
Map
Extent2010
Map
AGENDA ITEM #3. c)
h:\ced\planning\title iv\docket\d-159 phasing large scale projects\d-159 staff report.docx Page 1 of 3
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D-159: Phasing Large Scale Projects
Staff: Vanessa Dolbee
Date: May 15, 2019
Applicant or Requestor: City of Renton, Planning Division
______________________________________________________________________________
General Description: This docket item looks to establish code to address phased subdivisions and
phased development projects and established concrete criteria for extension opportunities. This
item would clarify code allowing phased subdivisions and extensions. For large development
projects that are not associated with a subdivision this docket item looks to provide a clear
process and expectations for phasing of larger projects through the master plan review process.
Background
Subdivision:
Phased subdivisions are allowed in both RCW 58-17 and Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter
7 Subdivision Regulations. Neither the current state regulations nor Chapter 7 of RMC provide
a clear explanation of phased subdivisions. However, RMC Chapter 11, Definitions, provides a
definition of Phased subdivision as follows: "A subdivision which is developed in increments
over a period of time. Preliminary plat approval must be granted for the entire subdivision and
must delineate the separate divisions which are to be developed in increments. The preliminary
plat approval shall be conditioned upon completion of the proposed phases in a particular
sequence and may specify a completion date for each phase. Final plat approval shall be
required for each separate phase of the preliminary plat" This definition includes code
standards that could be relocated to Chapter 7 and stricken from the definition. Furthermore,
clarity could be added to the code identifying requirements for a phased subdivision included a
phasing plan and permitted time frames for recording of a phased subdivision.
Chapter 7 provides extensions for subdivision applications. For both plats and short plats an
one year extension request can be granted based on a “good faith effort” to record the plat.
This standard does not provide a concrete mile stone to show progress towards plat
completion. In practice, staff requires that a developer be actively constructing the required
improvements (utilities lines, roads, stormwater ponds, etc.) to be eligible for an extension.
Amending the criteria for an extension from “a good faith effort” to specific criteria that
requires an issued construction permit to qualify for the initial one year extension could be
considered.
To ensure consistency between RMC and RCW the plat extension section should be amended to
accurately reflect RCW 58.17.140(3)as it relates to plat permitted time frames.
AGENDA ITEM #3. d)
#D-159 Phasing Large Scale Projects Page 2 of 3 May 15, 2019
Large Scale Projects:
Curranty a Master Plan review process is required for all development in the Urban Center (UC)
and Commercial Office, Residential (COR) zones. The Master Plan review process is also
required for mixed use developments in the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone for sites that are 2.5
acres in size. If a master plan review process is not required a developer could elect to apply for
master plan review to extend their entitlement expiration period from 2 years for Site Plan
Review to 5 years with a master plan.
By way of background, the UC and COR zones were historically large vacant and/or under
developed portions of the City. As such, it was expected that all development in these zones
would be large scale phased developments. Over the past two decades many of these historic
sites have been developed, such as The Landing, South Port, Barbee Mill, Seahawks
Headquarters, among others. Today there are very few remaining large parcels in either the UC
and COR zone. Considering these changes eliminating the requirement for all development in
the UC and COR zone to require master plan review but instead require master plan review for
any phased development regardless of zone could be considered.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amending Chapter 7 Subdivision regulations to provide specific criteria for a
phased subdivision and associated time lines, amending the plat extension criteria to require an
issued construction permit, and updating this section to be consistent with adopted RCWs.
Furthermore, staff recommends amending the master plan review process to require master
plan review for all phased developments regardless of zone.
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 amendments may improve the City's ability to require infrastructure such as new
roads and utilities in a timely manner for large scale projects. This could improve by providing
clear regulations identifying when infrastructure should be constructed and when associated
with a phased project.
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.
AGENDA ITEM #3. d)
#D-159 Phasing Large Scale Projects Page 3 of 3 May 15, 2019
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 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)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\D‐160 Construction & Demolition Waste Diversion\D‐160 Staff Report.docx Page 1 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
Community and Economic Development Department
#D‐160: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion
Staff: Paul Hintz, Senior Planner
Date: May 15, 2019
Applicant or Requestor: King County staff and City of Renton staff
General Description
King County staff requested the City of Renton to adopt code that would require personnel managing
active construction and demolition sites to divert recyclable materials to recycling facilities. Additionally,
Current Planning staff requested amendments related to allowed fill material out of concern that
existing code might allow construction and demolition waste to be used as fill, especially within our
aquifer recharge critical areas.
Background
Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion: King County, the City of Seattle, and many other
cities in the County have adopted recycling requirements for active construction and demolition sites; by
adopting the same requirements as these other jurisdictions, Renton will support the concerted effort to
minimize construction and demolition waste. The proposed amendments would require that:
A. As of January 1, 2020, all construction and demolition projects must separate out readily
recyclable:
1. concrete, bricks and asphalt paving;
2. metal (ferrous and non‐ferrous), cardboard, carpet, plastic film wrap and new
construction gypsum scrap; and
3. unpainted and untreated wood and tear‐off asphalt roofing shingles;
for reuse on or off site, recycling and/or beneficial use, and these materials must not be
deposited in construction and demolition site garbage containers for disposal at a public or
private transfer station after that date.
B. As of January 1, 2020, the Administrator will begin a program of educational outreach
regarding these recycling requirements.
C. As of January 1, 2021, civil infractions will apply to any violation.
D. The recycling requirements will not apply where construction and demolition wastes are
painted, have hazardous or asbestos containing constituents, are difficult to separate from
other materials, are present only in very small quantities, or are generated during disaster
emergency situations where disaster debris needs to be removed quickly and recycling options
are not available.
E. As of January 1, 2021, construction and demolition projects shall be required to submit waste
diversion reports of the quantities, types and delivery destinations of materials generated at
construction and demolition projects within 60 days of final inspection approval. The
Administrator shall promulgate administrative rules governing the submission of waste
AGENDA ITEM #3. e)
#D‐160 Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion Page 2 of 2 May 15, 2019
diversion reports, which must include, at minimum, the quantities and destinations of
construction and demolition materials delivered to qualified receiving and recycling facilities.
The proposed staggered timeline for implementation mimics the City of Seattle’s strategy of
disseminating program requirements and requiring compliance yet not issuing penalties or requiring
reporting until construction companies have had a year of experience instituting the new practices,
which staff believe is a fair and reasonable approach.
Allowed Fill Material: The City’s standards for fill material (RMC 4‐4‐060.N.4) are generally
adequate and most of the proposed changes are considered by staff to be “housecleaning”
amendments; however, staff proposes adding some additional language to be explicit that no solid
waste, hazardous waste, hazardous material, or materials categorized as dangerous waste under Title
173 WAC may be used as fill, and that the Administrator may specify other characteristics of the fill
material used, such as the degree of compaction, the moisture content, and the method of placement.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends amendments to Renton Municipal Code as described above.
Impact Analysis
Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan
There are no anticipated effects.
Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities
There are no anticipated effects.
Effect on the rate of population and employment growth
There are no anticipated effects.
Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable
Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable.
Effect on general land values or housing costs
There are no anticipated effects.
Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected
Capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected.
Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies
Proposed amendments are consistent with the GMA and Countywide Planning Policies.
Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands
There are no anticipated effects.
AGENDA ITEM #3. e)
Park Avenue
Design Concept AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
City Center Community Plan
Goal 6: Provide better connections between areas within the City Center.
•6.1 Improve Park Avenue N as a key pedestrian connection between
Coulon Park, The Landing, North Renton, Downtown, and South Renton
with sidewalks, landscaping, wayfinding, public art, and other amenities.
In addition to ensuring the zoning and development standards along Park
Avenue N encourages pedestrian-oriented retail along Park Avenue N
(discussed in 2.3.1), improve the streetscape of Park Avenue N to create a
pedestrian-friendly environment that will provide a key pedestrian connection
between Downtown and Lake Washington. The City should develop a
streetscape design for Park Avenue N that will be consistent from Bronson
Way N all the way to Lake Washington. The streetscape design should
include wide sidewalks, consistent pedestrian-scaled lighting, street trees,
wayfinding signs, and a variety of other pedestrian amenities. These specific
streetscape standards should be coordinated with the public realm standards
(discussed in 1.1.2).AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Bronson Intersection
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave: Bronson to N 2nd AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave: N 2nd to N 3rd AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Raised Intersection: Park Ave at N 3rd AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave: N 3rd St to N 4th AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave: N 4th to N 5th AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave: N 5th to N 6th AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Flex Space Opportunities
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Park Ave Extension
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)